The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

We d sht— olfb 11 Jos a.- i 4 , Jch -reed • Is Wht ed olrg, os t 4 a.- , Jch 111° reed ht tr, mission' to ire; d that to the Ited the :unlined ind that in Brit ,ees bst uch 0(4 o in • 'eendtlei lot bare or were nseereli ras that nandl4 ,ives et was ill further nducted )rtun.": f d be re" Ld been 1801, West- To (Mr. Bishops ,se Pre c build- Lora a bet, ,ence or edifice ter 0"," ;resting )ing 50, fiber for for the own in .Wyse) not • public tbe F be re' he con tnessed ausends it single es were Y short ay who a.v to Twi o netures quilltty 1, there ing the er be : clis I of 01: xtunPr" is were useless Le same minds alt the stantli, history acerev • )1e ea: Frooo ted the notiet nee" d the kat this hero pono posS are;ye • , be tient," o so woo. ,a a ell d t heir till atiotw nc • ha re tc 101 , Dy , Ls Pre the' aa, • as If tAll at 4 eP Oa' Dr the tij ,t 5 a of £11" ocs' t/0 irrA he d, "1 h; ,1 • WO ll° Of gat, inttply in the 111 e Get' r4siol e (Sit r to ionlo it a, all cat ig of bat tl tb4 aisiq in I° tho#, nivey ntie' to r 5 as ai tb iosei glac :le tba ser bl t ttliCh 5 re' the Pr ;ge' ire! 05' LOPII 1° ode ug 1 de her One toe, oar tel re 10 Nal ba .0 310 ,o ;01 ug to 11)1 trt jo tb , IP to 01 ri ti 11 it 1 ( 1 t"rtain feelings might be excited, which he was sure the :',47,ht Hon. Baronet would be the last person to treat "di/ disrespect ?—(Hear, hear.) If these buildings Were thrown open free of charge, and the Govern -Inel:it would take steps to preserve the necessary order and decorum, he firmly believed that the people Would soon become their own police.—(Hear, hear.) He knew from his own experience of continental churches, that those great evils which were anticipated from the not fre. reunou participation of such advantages occurred much ess often when the admission was free than when it was e•—(Hear, hear.) They had every reason to be ,e that the people of England were as fit to go and eillieY theeiselves—and, he would add, to improve them- Theies'ves,---in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's, as a French ---31 in Notre Dime, or an Italian in St. Peter's.—(Hear, hear •) --ss'With respoct to the character of these monu ments, he believed the chapter of St. Paul's had lately come to a decision not to admit any more monuments which had heathen subjects, and he believed they had enlY acted in accordance with public opinion. The question of removal was a very difficult one, and required tgrave consideration. If they decided hastily for re oval 'they might take away from these buildings aneir national character as Pantheons, if he. might 4. ,epress himself, or representatives of the tastes erected.tile different ages in which the monuments were There were, in fact, evils on both sides. titre hoy.ed the Right Honourablei .Baronet would with an' nis opposition to the resolution. He had all pos aibhe respect for the religious services performed in these lifiees, but he thought that every effort ought to be h made to open them to the present generation, and he seeped that they would not suffer the stionsa to remain "It the to s, English were the only people who were unable °.tain free admission to their national cathedrals. 1. PEEL said he had had opportunities of witness monuments the result of free admission to works of art and 1110orluinents of antiquity, and he saw no reason whatever . retract the opinion he had expressed on former occa 11)es' --(Cheers.) He thought every facility which could be given for admission to the cathedrals of this country, ekonsistent with the preservation of the works of art and mod effect, which they inclosed, could have none but a ;'2ll9,ffeete-s-(Hear.) He thought that the moral effect will: he good. Admission to these ancient buildings, the f 0 were recommended by their Venerable appearance, th aeOrded proofs of a pious disposition on the part of tikl'n founders, and instances of the devotion of great to " arid great science to religious purposes, must tend 1) eeite emotions which could produce none but the 1 „esit results. His Hon. Friend, the Member for the ' tuhn.vrsity of Oxford, had said, and said truly, that chili had been periods in which great refinement and. tae'',lsation had existed, concurrently with great profit sn• 21is Hon. Fried also said that there had been Ith --'8 of persons of great intellectual acquirements, pe„° avere not deeply impressed with the importance of s'.'acsios!, All that was perfectly true ; but it seemed to (711 (Sir It. Peel) to be entirely beside the question.— ' l'ar, hear•) The question was, whether or no the ..senaetions which would probably be excited by free ad -eissio doe is to edifices of this description were likely to pro itthrise aadgeondta;offl(et on the minds of those who enjoyed Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend's elle Teta had any foundation, it would go much further to'stlnenhe carried it ; it would go to show that admission tion Places must have a tendency to check civilise ev *--(Rear, hear, and laughter.) He thought, how .• tine!! that the emotions likely to be excited were emo dor talc the to wean from vulgar habits, and from Re ass.lng. pursuit; and to refine and iniprove the mind. caseuld not contend that they would necessarily, in all edifis' imPress the parties who contemplated these possiebeise with the great truths of religion ; but was it than that the emotion produced could have other. lie a good- effect? Could they do otherwise than mi.- I,elei and efie?—(Hear, hear.) If they did not create a Bst°illlorgli eefsns character—if that must be derived from other the good were not complete and perfect, e' them derive as much benefit as they could from e.i refinement and civilization. So far as public and politi tbo,,re,sults were likely to arise from them, he: certainly ee,",g, nt, that by leading the working classes of this te etry, those who derived tbeir existence from daily ~,o'l, to these buildings, they would be teaching them to bot'd with veneration what came to them associated sofa with religion and with a long existence. Therefore, likely yeausidpusbeleic and political considerat ions were concerned, nothing but good for the Constitution as tionly to arise from encouraging feelings of this descrip he , So far as moral and social results were concerned, suould this eliarais contemplate, with great satisfaction, the free ealtdtitssion of the humblest classes of society to the of the country. It was his opinion also, that iihs,seicrsa-l'prnrois' sriis°inon might be granted without incurring the which were sometimes apprehended. At present, was made in Westminster Abbey for eye'..adinission of the public, not only on Sundays, but on vice,r37 day of the week during the performance of divine ser ethbut they said that if the public wished to enter at any 'Sieber thne they should pay a certain sum for admission. cone was this but encouraging those who might have devotee from religious feelings to attend Divine service, to ,s,ftr the time to the contemplation of works of art?— if ':-Lear, hear.) He had the strongest impression .that ti ht certain days of the week, they gave an unrestricted ortht ef admission, the public would not avail themselves on at right to an inconvenient extenS, but would act Ivhoa PerineiPle which very much governed themselves, v 4,:hen'ing that they had the opportunity of seeing ceetiite"'nanY curious and distant countries, were very well Public tied to stay at home.—(Laughter.) He thought .the Nell would use the advantage, but not in pre, a manner as to interfere with the safe Ile teirlvati,nn of anything that was valuable tea te thou that nine-tenths of those who were admit -4 h 3, _. view public exhibitions of works of art were led 4 teal desire for knowledge and improvement. The PaPhehr:Tnenext exhibitions hadofbeen made of the admission of the works of art had been highly fa 'lguraille• Thertlealassad been certainly one case of a per- Belit `rklhring the pictures in the National Gallery. to Lthat was done by a person who was proved might " of obscured intellect ; and the same thing been have occurred if the price of admission had Is.offp (Hear, hear.) He was in .°l„rour the fullest freedom of access to all exhibitions 'n public monuments that could be afforded with due re gard to the preservation of monuments. He believed who had the charge of preserving the cathedral monuments were !billing to public access. A resolution of the House of C regulations. om to give every facility those personsto depart from their own was by far the best course to leave it to an attempt made There was, a few nights ago, re_ en to put down duelling by an Act of Par- It themselves,ethern 2i_ull_ t. Re amongst others was opposed-- to legislation 1,! tehe übject; and he considered that this also was one 1.. etjtutions of the country thehad in h had best be left to parsons in whose hands the laced it.A resolution effect as the Ron. Gentleman proposed would have the /sect rather of raising• opposition . • of Promotin them. to his views than Sir itgi entirely .NG LIS said that his Right Hon. Friend had there . misapprehended him. He had not denied that the fi_weas a moral tendency in exhibitions of works of tnentn•. arts. if sae had only protested against the state- Q,_thist such exhibitions were alone sufficient to bon,':attanise the people. The fees must be paid some jeet and by somebod •and he hadabsolutelyb ed to the y , not o pence. e reduction of the fees from a shilling to six es IVI.r• p, w A y, glere] ssitT said that the object of the motion was sepoe 4 to express an opinion of the House, and not to Ported the the ecclesiastical establishments. He sup ahswere'n,,e motion. The Right Hon.: Baronet had not appoint a the question whether or not he was willing to nineentsa, commission for the conservation of public mo- Sir it: p , tO sa, , ELL said that he was by no means prepared }nibje4. that he would appoint a commission on the Sir Th• bews:v ALTER JAMES said that he had seen in the wart sailers a statement that, on Easter Monday, 41,000 l‘iati4unalnitted to the British Museum, and 25,000 to the Were as Gallery, whereas only 200, on the same day, Plesed‘tlitted to St. Paul's. As a religious man, he de- Rieti to freer access to the great churches was not kuch e the Public, andlhe regretted that the Church so doer neglected own interest as to shut the 1. s et, v _ its , eie she the cathedrals against the people.—(Cheers.) the always wishthat the character of edifice svie should be we impressed u on the rather thatthose the k d suould be admitted to these cathedrals on a rvitshitiai, because he thought that there would be great admitted and crowding on the Sunday if the public were lead uldiserimin tel • observations had been e aston a 3 ' Some. eathen. le propriety of removing what were called Sneed teish Monuments from the cathedrals. He ad tes that some of the monuments which had been what the days of Anne and the Georges exhibited erer, 00t of a heathenish character. He did not, how keno object to the emblems of war being placed on the aihl inelltss ofsoldiers, because e that he thought it very pos • Air ~, a soldier might be a good Christian. the es. 1 soldier I3OTHWICK concurred in the object of 4d• '.otion and • issent ' was glad to find that there was scarcely Wished sleht voice in the House on the subject. They all dill 'ult' , hat the cathedrals should be opened, but the 1101; Y was how the • should wishes of the Wiliesl: to the Church.) T, .sw ac so novneey (t) ifi e the difficulties eente la fro th • This lal 01 he m their not permitting the Church to eel, r own affairs.—(A. laugh.) They threw Pre ell the e vente Church for not doing that which they 4 'lurch, sneer from doing ; they tied the hands of the agged 1 Said, Why''' do you not act ? They lau her and said Wh do not speak ? *ere 01.) The nso ' y. you ofcathedrals ? in s racist in_on monuments in some the „ t, pes„te gruous. The monnment of Dr. Johnson t'iaere afte7h, looked like an overgrown Hercules, placed s'e'e Nonster e had rested from his labours, to grow to •cie 4,„„, a, which he was there represented to be. 13°411 the'.; also censure the placing of guns and bayonets 11113tim numents of warriors. What we in our pre riora eh calle e th A• , but end ~_ e dark ages," had also their war- Peourt We re tombs of the heroes of Cressy and, th_la was a. eats eadthe words " Non nobis Domino. " °£ oleo oer inscription • memory the inscriptions on w tit, umerect d ''f h tb... e Pres_, e to tne o t e heroes says there 7_l" clay, would lead the reader to forget ei,Led their ~w_a_h_.ar God who directed their valour, and et*: niestane'eusun_t __Y: It was monstrous, that under anyd th Med For __; n, al any time, a fee shouldbe e 6 °sight that the to our cathedrals. Not that he Iles . ie"..`t they ought to be made mere sculpture gal _ eateZlireeeci"epl the taste of the public would not be roved .DY looking on the monuments in our stieti 3 1 but und bt dl they ought to be t, 0 se to ou e y 4 „,, sunset ever he "Lri vote fur y day. If the House divided he ~,„.ear,,is, the motion, but he believed it could not 7.! the 074 out without the assistance of the Convocation ‘ll tergY, and )3%1 sr therefore he hoped that that day week h PPort of this motion would vote with him in er k... L the address he intended moving,beseeching e 'Jests, to 4w olonei ~.. restore the Convocation of the Clergy. 14e half past said the debate had now lasted lie past six o'clock 11'50411' , and they were all agreed that k of that Ought. to have access to the cathedrals. He -(9111„ .i. opinion, but as Of 0044- • he did not think that the thone had any right to interfere with the privileges of the Church, he should not vote for the motion.—(Laughter.) It appeared that the Hon. Member for Hull was afraid there :might be a crush on Sundays. Now if any of the gentlemen who had spoken to-night would stand up in the cathedral on a Sunday and deliver his oration there, there would be no crush at all, for the people would be too happy to escape. Mr. HUME in reply said that he was happy to find that every one in the House agreed with him in opinion except the Hon. Member for Oxford, who ought to have been born 300 years ago, in order to have had an oppor tunity of carrying out the opinions which he advocated. He was gratified by hearing the opinions which had been expressed by the Right lion. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and was glad to find that he would lend his assistance to the good work. Even the Hon, Member for Sussex, who had never agreed with anything since he entered the House, participated in the general feeling, although he would not vote in favour of the motion. lie hoped this general expression of opinion would produce a beneficial effect, and that next year they would find that their great object was attained. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to appre hend some technical difficulty in the way of the motion, and in deference to the Right Hon. Baronet's opinion, he should withdraw it. The motion was then withdrwn. HONOURS TO THE PENINSULAR ARMY. Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY then rose to move an address to the Crown, that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to confer an honorary distinction on the surviv ing officers of the Peninsular army. Previous to the Easter recess he had given notice of a motion to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the services of the officers of the Peninsular army, leaving it to the House and to the Government to determine what line it would be best for them to adopt; but not finding that it was the intention of the Government to agree to his view of the case, he had determined to take a diffe rent ground, and to move for an address to her Ma jesty, praying her to bestow some honorary dis tinction upon the officers of the Peninsular army. It might be urged that this was not a re spectful course to adopt. He did not wish to dictate to the Government, but considering the circumstances under which the British army had served in these never to-be-forgotten campaigns, he felt it to be his duty as an humble individual to recal to the recollection of the House what were their services, and to advocate their cause before the Government, the House, and the coun try, and to leave it to them to determine what were the rewards which these services merited.—(Hear, hear.) He might be met with the objection that too great a length of time had elapsed since the performance of their services to authorise him in bringing forward such a motion as the present. He would briefly recal to the recollection of the House the circumstances attending these campaigns which they seemed to have forgotten. It might also be said, that if any person ought to take up the case, it was that great and illustrious man who had conducted these campaigns in a manner so credit able to himself and so glorious to his country.— (Cheers.) The Duke of Wellington, however, he be lieved had had no opportunity of bringing the matter forward. He had not taken the place of the Duke of York in the command of the army until the year 1828, and he believed it was an invariable rule with the Duke of Wellington never to ask for any rewards for his offi cers or for himself. In all promotions the only part the Duke of Wellington had taken had been when requested by the Government to recommend officers for promo tion to recommend such officers in accordance with the desire of the Government. Another thing also should be remembered that at that time medals and honorary dis tinctions were not so general as they had been of late years. He thought at that time the Duke of Wellington was not called upon to interfere. At another period, he alluded to 1840, applications were made to the Noble Duke by the officers of the Peninsula, but he had at that time relinquished the office of Commander-in-Chief, and therefore had no power to interfere. He believed that, as far as the interference or non• interference of the Duke of Wellington went, he was justified in the course he had pursued. But at the present time the circumstances were different, the Duke of Wellington was now Com mander-in-Chief and a member of the Cabinet, and, therefore, he might now properly interfere. He was sure of this, that the case of the officers he was about to bring before the House was most deserving of its atten tion.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Member then went at same length into the details of the services of the officers of the Peninsular army, and expressed his surprise that they had not been rewarded as they de served. What, he would ask, would have become of the Duke of Wellington and his forces had it not been for the Peninsular army ; and yet this being the case there were many men, whose names he could mention, who had received no distinction. Among them were Colonels Cavendish, Chatham, Vandeleur, Townshend, Lovell, Grant, Scott, and several others; they had received no medals for their services, while there was not a drum boy who had heard the sound of cannons at Waterloo who had not received distinction.—(Hear, hear.) Why, his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) had received no medal for the Peninsular war, although, he would venture to say, he would consider it the highest honour he could have.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that all the greatness of the British army arose from the Peninsular war. The Hon. and Gallant Mem ber then referred to the gallant conduct of several officers, all of whom had received no distinctions for the heroic course they had pursued.—(Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to recal to the memory of the House some of the circumstances connected with the Peninsular war; and he should now state what was his intention with regard to the motion he had brought forward. That motion was for an address to the Crown, praying that her Majesty would be pleased to bestow some dis tinction on the surviving officers of the Peninsular army. In making this motion he did not wish to interfere with any course her Majesty's Government might think Proper to take, and if his Right Honourable and Gallant Friend would state that the Government would take up the matter and do justice to these officers, he for one should be too happy to leave the question in their hands. It would be stated, perhaps, that the time had gone by—that it was impossible, even if they wished it, to confer these dis tinctions now. But nothing was easier, in reality, to effect. What he proposed to do was this, that medals should be granted to every officer now surviving who was in the Peninsula, and who served in any of the great actions of that war. He should propose also that, according to the last paragraph of the order by which these honours were formerly granted, in the cases of those officers who had died, the medals should be sent to their families.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more simple than this. This was a large field to go over. It was a large field to examine to get at the records of so large a number of regiments ; but it was not so difficult to get at the details of that smaller portion of the British army engaged in the Peninsula. The cause he was ad vocating was that of fifteen regiments of cavalry and sixty regiments of infantry, which all bore on their standards the noble distinction of the names of the battles in which they had served during that war. There was also another class of men, who ought not to be excluded from sharing in these honours. Those were the officers who had served in the Peninsular war, who were still living, but who had retired from the service. He did put it to the Right Hon. and Gallant Gentleman whether he would not support him in obtaining for these old officers these honorary distinctions. It might be considered folly at this time of day to talk about this question, but it was a fact that there was not an officer who had served in the Peninsula who did not consider himself degraded when he saw on others the decorations that had been lately bestowed. He did not talk of it as a matter of jealousy. Let the Governor-General of India distribute decorations to the whole Indian army. In his opinion the more that were given the better. In all services the more of these rewards that were given, the more likely that good services would be performed. Would any one tell him that any officer of Napoleon, wearing the Cross of the Legion of Honour on his breast, would ever allow an un decorated officer to pass him in the race of glory ? (Hear, hear.) He believed that spirit of emulation was one of the great engines of Napoleon's military power. The enthusiasm of that army could not be described. He would mention one other fact connected with this subject. When the Russian army, under General Suvaroff, took the city of Prague by assault, he'found in the arsenal a stock of 20,000 musket-balls. These balls he had struck into medals, with the word " Prague" inscribed on them, and these were dis tributed among his soldiers. When the,Russian army entered Paris in 1814 many of the veteran soldiers in its ranks wore and exhibited this markof honour with pride and exultation. It had often been asked why should the House of Commons interfere in matters of this kind. It was said that it was by the Crown alone that honours and distinctions ought to be bestowed. But this was not the first time that this question had been discussed in the House of Commons. He found that after the battle of Waterloo, on the 29th of June, 1815, Mr. Charles Wynn, an authority he believed as high as any in that House on subjects connected with its privileges and rights, and the proper conduct of its business,—Mr. Wynn, on that occasion, proposed that medals should be given to all the survivors of the battle of Waterloo, and of the same materials both to officers and men. This proposal was made daring a discussion on the propriety of erecting a national monument, the proposition of the medals being a substitute for that plan. With regard, then, to the form of his motion, he had an authority to which he was sure the House would listen ; only two hours ago lie had heard the Prime Minister of the Crown say, " Do not legislate on resolutions, why not ask for an address to the Crown." He (Sir A. L. Hay) did ask for an address to the Crown, and he would ask his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend, who bore on his breast the blazon of nine victories, to let his own good feeling guide him in assisting to carry this motion. He had not brought it forward with any purpose of making a display or to secure an opportunity of talking in that House, for he did not often trespass on their attention. But feeling strongly for a large portion of as meritorious officers as ever shed their blood in the service of any country, who were aggrieved at not having granted to them what they asked, he had ventured to make this proposition. As he saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister of the Crown, present, he would state in his presence that invariably since he had been at the head of the Go vernment, when he had seen him rise in his place to move the thanks of that House to officers for their dis tinguished services, he had seen him do it in a truly feeling manner. He had not done it in that cold and official manner which was often exhibited on such occa sions. lie showed that he not only thought of himself while he spoko of those men—but that he thought of his country at the same time. He therefore called on her Majesty's Government in the same manner to consider not only what the effect of this motion would be on the officers of the Peninsular army, but the effect it would produce on tke country at large. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman concluded by making the motion of which he had given notice. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX said he had been re quested to second the motion of his Hon. and Gallant Friend, and he now rose to do so with great pleasure. If anything could induce him to suppose that' a vote in favour of this motion would be in the slightest degree opposed to the opinion of his Grace the Commander-in- Chief, he should regret giving his support to it, for in common with every officer in her Majesty's service, he felt how important it was to coincide with the Duke of Wellington in all points connected with the government of the army.. After the speech of the Hon. and Gallant Officer, it would be needless for him to trespass at any length on the patience of the House ; but he should take that opportunity of assuring the Secretary at War, that he was perfectly convinced a feeling of the most intense interest prevailed among all ranks of the army, on the subject before the House. He did not speak of those who had the good fortune to be already decorated, but of those who were not sufficiently high in command during the Peninsular war, and who were still undeco rated. He would mention one circumstance with respect to the decorations awarded to the troops in India. During the last campaign Lord Ellenborough granted medals to all the officers who served in that campaign. He could not conceive why the officers of the Peninsular war should be the only ones undecorated. He would mention one case, that of Major Grant of the 71st regiment, who had been engaged thirty-three times with the enemy, had served throughout the whole of the war, and who had been three times wounded. He thought it was a hard case that this officer should be presented at the levee of her Majestyat St. James's undecorated, while one had been given to Lieutenant Joyce for his services in the auxiliary force in Spain. Many foreigners could not distinguish between those who had served their country, and those who had served in the auxiliary force. He had great pleasure in seconding the motion. Sir H. lIARDINGE would assure the House that he would concur with the general opinion that must exis as to the able manner in which the Hon. and Gallan Member had brought forward his motion. The claims of the officers of the Peninsula had lost nothing by the manner in which they had been advocated. There could be no difference between himself and the House as to the merits of that army, which certainly did perform services of a character never to be forgotten by the country. And he must say, at once, that he did not consider it any proof of insensibility or ingratitude on the part of the country, that a great number of the officers should remain undecorated. It must be recollected that thirty-four or thirty-five years had elapsed since that period of their exertions, and many of these officers were then servingin lower stations than could, according to the regulations of the time, receive the distinctions they were so much entitled to. Many of the remarks of the Hon. Gentleman did not go to this essential point. They did not show that the regulations of that period would allow those distinctions to be conferred. The motion raised a very important question, whether the Govern ment, forty-four years after an event, could go back to the acts of its predecessor of a distant day, and endea vour to do what the Hon. Gentleman called jus tice to the army, by granting rewards for services per formed when these officers held an inferior rank. It must be remembered that many portions of the army were engaged in other portions of the world besides the Peninsula. How were those officers who had served in Egypt to be satisfied ? Why were they to be excluded ? Certainly, that army had per formed very distinguished services, as they were the first who directly encountered the veteran troops of Napoleon, the conquerors of Italy. Then let them go to India. How could they pass over those who served under Lord Lake, in Peshawur, and under Lord Harris, at Se ringapatam? If the motion were conceded, these officers must be excluded, and this formed the great difficulty of dealing with the question. It should be remarked that honours were conferred to a considerable extent among the officers of the Peninsula. In 1812 medals were dis.. tributed for services in Spain to the number of 1,300, which were 'given to 776 officers of all ranks. They were granted according to the regulations of the army of that day. In 1813 an order was issued giving a cross and a clasp to such officers as had a certain number of medals. Sortie having as many as nine or ten, and the wearing of so many being incon venient, a cross was given instead of four medals. The Order of the Bath was also enlarged, and 300 Knights Commanders were nominated, making a third class of the order. These arrangements gave great satisfaction to the army at the time. The Duke of Wellington was applied to on this subject in 1840. He was not then Commander-in-Chief, and could not give any other an swer than that he did give. He stated very con cisely, as he always did, that he had faithfully reported the services of the army in the Peninsula, as well as those of individuals, and any or what rewards ought to be given was wholly for the Government to consider; and that it was no part of his duty to inter fere with such discussions, above all, when the ques tion had been considered and decided twenty-five or thirty years ago. He thought the time that had passed made it almost a matter of insurmountable diffi culty to confer these honours now, as it would be unjust to confine the honours conferred by the country to the Peninsular officers alone. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible the House could interpose with re gard to the officers engaged in the Peninsular war, with out going further back to those who fought at Seringa patam, Malwa, Gwalior, and in America. There would, therefore, be great inconvenience in granting the mo tion of his Gallant Friend upon this ground. His Gal lant Friend proposed that medals should be granted to those only who fought in the great actions of the Peninsula, and that, where the officers themselves were not living, they should be sent to their relatives. Now he thought, that if the medals were to be confined to those who fought only in general actions in the Penin sula, it would operate very unjustly. One of the most extraordinary actions of the Peninsular war was the affair of El Budina, at which Sir Charles Colville com manded, and in which a very small number of infantry and cavalry checked fifteen thousand French cavalry, with a considerable force of horse artillery. The force under Sir Charles Colville distinguished itself in a manner unparalleled throughout the campaign —(Hear, hear)—and yet he would not be entitled to a medal by the motion of his Gallant Friend. Captain Jackson, Aide-de-Camp of Sir Charles Colville, distinguished himself very much in this affair, and how unjust it would be to deprive him of the honour of a medal, because he happened not to be engaged in a general action. This action of El Budina was a small one, but the officer who commanded had behaved with the greatestbravery, but according to the terms of the motion of his Gallant Friend he would not be entitled to a medal. This was one great difficulty against granting the motion. Hi s G a ll ant F r i en d s t a t e d also that this honour was rarely obtained by the junior officers of the army. Yet it was obtained by 180 majors, 87 captains, and seven lieutenants. One instance occurred in the regi ment which he himself commanded at Albuera. That regiment, the 85th, went into action with 25 officers, twenty-three of whom were killed. The Major and Cap tain were killed, and the Lieutenant who survived got the medal, and every officer who could be proved to have commanded in the action obtained it. Whenever an officer, however young, succeeded to the command he was entitled to the medal. The principle on which it was granted was a very intelligible one—it was this, tkat the officer who had the responsibility of command upon him was to have the medal. The same principle was adopted in the navy. Captains of vessels obtained the medal, but the inferior officers did not. Medals were so granted for the battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, for Lord Howe's and Lord St. Vincent's victories, and for several spirited single actions, as that between the Shan• non and the Chesapeake. These were not granted to the bravest men. but to the person highest in command, thereby reflecting honour on those whom he commanded. (Hear.) This principle was observed in the army during the whole six years of the Peninsular war, and afterwards with regard to several actions in 1817, which followed after the Penin sular war. The principle was adopted in the Nepaulese war, in the action at Bhurtpore, where the present Lord Combermere commanded, and in the war in which Lord Hastings and Sir T. Meslop distinguished themselves. Till the war of the Peninsula no mdals were granted. Medals were granted to those who were engaged in the battle of Waterloo, but they were not in that instance confined to the officers, but to the whole army.—(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that they ought not to get it, but if that was so, they must grant it indiscrimi nately to all those who were engaged in the Penin sular war. He would not now discuss the question whether it would be right to grant medals indiscri minately—he believed that it was never done until the battle of Waterloo, but he believed the usual practice was departed from in that instance because that was the last battle of the war; it was attended with great politi cal consequences, and the medals were granted as a spe cial mark of the favour of the sovereign of the country; but certainly the practice of the service had been not to grant medals in the manner contended for by his Gallant Friend. If such had been the mode in which this Honour was conferred would they now, by a vote of the House, force the Administration to rectify what might have been an omission on the part of the Govern ment of 1813 or 1814, in not granting medals indiscri minately to the army in the Peninsula? He had now come to the last instance in which medals had been granted, viz., to those who fought in the East Indies. lion. Gentlemen would recollect that these medals were granted after a great disaster had befallen their arms in Caubul. It became of importance to raise the spirits of the army, and nothing seemed better for this purpose than to grant medals to Sir It. Sale and his troops who marched to Jellalabad, and to General Nott, who marched from Candahar, and to General Pollock, who advanced upon Caubul. Sir C. Napier had nobly earned the medal he had obtained by the battles of Meanee and Hyderabad. His Gallant Friend would confine the granting of these medals to the of ficers of the Peninsular army, or to the relatives of those who were dead. He did not see how they could stop there. He thought they must go to the survivors and relatives of the officers who fought in Egypt, and even to those who fought at Queen's-town, Lancennes, Java, and the Mauritius. There would be no end to the details they would have to enter upon if the motion were granted. He doubted whether the motion of his Gallant Friend was pleasing - to the army. He had received a letter on the subject, expressing the greatest dissatisfaction at the motion. He stated in his letter that it would not only be offensive and unjust to other officers of the army who had served in other parts of the world with great zeal, but that it would be unjust to the men, who were exposed to the same danger and the same hardships with the officers. He asked why the common soldier should be excluded, see inn- that the Waterloo medal had been grant ed' indiscriminately, and that the Field-Marshal and the drum-boy received the same honour. He had re ceived this letter from an officer in the army, and he had also seen in military publications that the motion was not satisfactory to the army. It had been said that the Duke of Wellington was indebted to his men for the ducal coronet which he wore upon his brow. The Duke of Wellington did not deny it. Not only did the Duke of Wellington owe a debt of gra titude to his men, but the men owed a debt to the Noble Duke, who, by his great ability as a General, led them through every difficulty. He thought the proposition of the Gallant Commodore more just than that of the Gallant Officer who brought forward the present motion, The Gallant Commodore would include the men as well as the officers who took part in great battles, among the parties to receive decorations ; but let them see to what inconvenience that system, if carried out to its full ex tent, would lead. The custom of the service was, that the relations of an officer who had been killed should get the medal which would have been awarded to him. Now, if they were to carry out the Hon. and Gallant Commodore's plan, they would have to give decorations to the relations of every soldier who died in the Penin sular war. There would be thus not less than 50,000 claimants, at least, for those medals; and if they pro ceeded to decorate, as in that case they would be bound to do, the survivors of the war in Egypt, America, and India, there would be not less than 250,000 claimants. Thus, by following out the Gallant Commodore's prin ciple, which was the only just one, they would become involved in a labyrinth of difficulties. In resisting the present motion the Government did not mean to depre ciate the merits of the gallant army of the Peninsula— an army of which it was said, either by Colonel Napier in his History or by Colonel Jones, that they never oc cupied any position which they did not defend, nor attacked any position of the enemy which they did not carry. But it would be almost impossible to explain the great inconvenience that would result from acceding to the motion of the Gallant Officer. Sir C. NAPIER could not agree with the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, that because four and thirty years had elapsed justice ought not to be done to the officers and men :of the Peninsular war. After the battle of Waterloo the Government thought fit to give medals to all the officers and men who were engaged in it. He thought at the time that the Government ought also to give medals to all that were present at the great battles in the Peninsula. The Eight Hon. Gentleman said that in that case they ought to go back to Egypt and America. He (Sir C. Napier) thought that they ought. It was never too late to do a good action. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that if medals were to be awarded to the relatives of soldiers there would be not less than 250,000 claimants. Why, it would be impossible to find out the widows and rela tives of soldiers who had died 30 years ago, and it would be therefore unnecessary to create any inconvenience in that respect, but they might do that which could be easily accomplished, namely, give decorations to the surviving officers and men of the great military and naval battles. He thought that there ought to be a medal to commemorate every great battle, and that the order of the Bath should be given to every officer who distinguished himself in battle. They read in the dispatches of the Duke of Wellington that when he was raised to the Order of the Garter, he was directed to give up the Order of the Bath with which he had been previously decorated, and he wrote to retain it, as the officers who, for services under him, had been de corated with the same order, were desirous to see their General wearing it as well as themselves, but his request was not granted, nor did the Noble Duke get back the decoration of the Bath until that Order was re-modelled some years afterwards. Those decorations and honours were of great value ; and it was related of Sir Thomas Picton, when he was refused a peerage at the close of the Peninsular war, that he said " if a coronet were placed upon a fort I would have taken it." With respect to giving medals to relatives, he (Sir C. Napier) was of opinion that if an officer was awarded the Order of the Bath, and that he was killed in battle, his widow should be allowed to wear it. But they had now let down the Order of the Bath very much, by giving it for absolute trifles. If they gave medals to the men and officers who merited them, the country would be satisfied, and justice would be done to all parties. He would give his vote in favour of his Gallant Friend's motion. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the case of a widow of an officer, having four daughters of that officer by another wife, to maintain, and to whom a pension had been denied, because her husband had not held his com mission for ten years. This gallant man had served twenty-eight years in the army, chiefly as a private ; for his good conduct a commission had been presented to him, but dying before he had held it for ten years, the only subsistence his widow and children had to look to had been denied, on the stringent rule laid down by the Horse Guards, that no pension should be allowed to an officer of less than ten years standing, Sir H. HARDINGE said this rule was originally laid down to prevent too early and improvident marriages amongst officers. Cases had, however, come officially before him, in which much injustice was caused by a too strict adherence to it. The case now mentioned was one of that class.—(Hear, hear.) So very unjustly did the rule work in some instances, that the Horse Guards had altered its course of conduct in respect of them. Col. SIBTHORP said that, while according all praise to the offiz.: - .:rs whose services had been brought before the House, he considered that the motion, if agreed when intentionh e of v down ting f o t o r thethe to, would create a great deal of dissati s f act i on, and there fore he must, thou g h reluctantly, gi ve hi s opposition to it. HoCuasPet.heßEdlitdKEsoLEwYithsaitdh,e motion of the Gallant Officer (Sir A. L. Hay); but after what he had heard from the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary at War, and when he r e fl ecte d that the great man now at the head of the British army was equally anxious for the honour of that army, he felt himself forced to ask his Hon. and Gallant Friend not to divide the House upon the subject. If any honour or decora tion had been given spontaneously at the time when gallant service had been performed, he (Capt. Berkeley) should, had he been lucky enough to be party to such gallantry, have rejoiced to receive such honour ; but after this lapse of time he should look upon it as a mere empty bauble. Lord C. FITZROY said he quite agreed with the ob servations of the Gallant Officer who had last addressed he House, and trusted the motion would be withdrawn. Sir G. COCKBURN had had the good fortune to witness some of the most gallant achievements of the British army in every quarter of the globe, and be felt himself called upon to say that to award honours to the officers of the Peninsular army, and not to those whose gallantry he had referred to, would be most unjust. He quite agreed with the Gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) that it would have been an excellent principle to have awarded decorations at the time of good service and gallant affairs, but as this had not been done, in his opinion it would be injudicious to com mence it now. Had the question been urged at the end of the war, he (Sir George Cockburn) would certainly have given his hearty support to it ; but now, at the end of half a century, since many of the most gallant affairs had come off, he could not give his sanc tion to the principle. The question having lain dormant so long, he thought it was unwise to agitate it now. He considered it was encircled with very great difficulty, and that no substantial advantage could accrue from agreeing to the motion before the House. Sir HENRY HkRDINGE explained, as did Sir CHARLES NAPIER. Sir A. L. HAY said his object had be&n to do justice to the o ffi cers of th e P en i ns ular army ; but, as ho felt the House was not disposed to accede to his motion, he would withdraw it. The motion was then withdrawn. STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES. Lord EBRINGTON moved for a return, showing I the dates of the appointments of stipendiary in;.:gis trate% from the 2d day of March to the 15thl day of April, both inclusive, specifying the names of thtfsepial magistrates, the stations to which they were ;*lfsially appointed by each warrant, and the cause assigned in each warrant respectively for the appointment. He felt great diffidence in intruding on the House, particularly as the matter was parely of a p e rsonal nature. Nothing but the absen ce of the Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman who made these charges could have withheld him from repelling many of them on a former occasion, particularly as most of them referred altogether to his father. Ile felt greatly embarrassed, and hoped the House would extend to him that indulgence which they generally extended to Members when charges of a personal nature were preferred against them. He felt particularly uneasy, lest the character of his noble relative should remain unvindicated, and never __regretted more deeply the absence of Lord Morpeth than on the present occasion. Instead of apolog ising for th e appointment of stip en di ary magistrates , that Noble Lord would have, in the most unquestionable and satisfactory manner, justified their appointment. There was no fact more notorious than that from the days of Arthur Young to Captain O'Driscoll (who, by-the-bye, still remained in offiee) the Irish people had little or no confidence in the unpaid magistracy. It therefore became necessary to appoint a paid magistracy. (The Noble Lord then quoted from the speech of Sir James Graham, in which. the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that for four years pre vious to 1840, there were only 59 stipendiary magis trates in Ireland, and in this year and 1840, the late Irish Administration had appointed seven—viz., two in June, two on the sth of July, two on the 6th of August, and one on the very day that Lord Melbourne resigned the seals of office, and long after the Honse had lost the confidence of the country,—in short, said theßight Hon. Gentleman, on the last gasp of an expiring Government. The first fact stated by the Right Hon. Baronet was the number of magistrates in the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841. The Right Hon. Baronet put them down at 59 in each year. Now, from returns which he held in his hand, he (Lord Ebrington) found that in June, 1839, the number instead of 59 was 56 ; in June, 1840, the number was 58 instead of 59; and in 1841, instead of 59, the number was 62. It would be seen, therefore, that this statement of the Right Hon. Baronet was inaccurate. During the whole time of his (Lord Ebrington's) noble relative's Government in Ireland, he was continually add ing to the number of magistrates. (The Noble Lord then read from various documents which related to the ap pointment of the seven stipendiary mag i strates w hi ch had been alluded to by Sir James Graham, from which it appeared that the appointments had been made after many memorials had been received by the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland on the subject.) He felt sure that the Right Hon. Baronet had been misinformed when he made these statements : but at the same time he thought it would have been better if, after the lapse of three years, the appointments had been suffered to remain in obscurity. • The Noble Lord then proceeded to refer to the case of Mr. Alcock. Mr. Alcock was one of the leading gentlemen in the county of Waterford. He had been a strong Liberal, but no re pealer, and was much respected by all parties. Mr. Alcock had written to him to request that he would in quire why he was the only magistrate who had not been re-appointed, and he begged to put that question to the Noble Lord. He hoped that he had vindicated the late Lord Lieutenant from th e charges w hi c h h a d b een brought. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for the returns. The question having been put, Sir J. GRAHAM said that, as a general rule, he thought it desirable strictly to adhere to the rules of the House ; but, considering the circumstances of this case, I he would not call upon the Speaker to enforce them in this instance. He admitted that he was inaccurate is his original statement ; and the mistake occurred in this way. He had to follow the Noble 1 Lord, the Member for the City of London, who addressed the House for three hour's in a powerful speech, abounding with various topics, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 17, 18, which were enforced with his usual ability. In one part of his speech, the Noble Lord, censuring her Ma jesty's Government, said that, as a matter of policy, he would recommend an addition to the stipendiary magis trates, but at all events he thought it was highly im politic to diminish that number. He (Sir James Graham) was sitting near the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, who handed to him a return which appeared to him to afford a triumphant answer to the Noble Lord's statement ; and when he replied to the Noble Lord he quoted that return. Now, what was the substance of his statement? It was that the maximum number of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, under Lord Normanby and Lord For • tescue, was fifty-nine up to the 13th of June. What was the fact, as admitted by the Noble Lord ? It was that until the 13th of February, 1841, 59 was the maximum number. He had stated that between the 13th of June and the 28th of August, seven new magistrates were appointed. Lord EBRINGTON—Seven additional ones. Sir J. GRAHAM—Seven additional ones. What was the fact? Between the 13th of February and the 28th of August there only four new stations appointed, but there were eleven new magistrates. There having been only four new stations, it followed that there must have been seven additional magistrates. He had now said all that he had thought it necessary to say in explanation of what had fallen from him in the hurry of debate. Mr. BARING said that whilst he had been in (Age he had not been influenced in his appointments by party considerations. The Right Hon. Gentleman then re ferred to various dates in order to show that he had made appointments of persons adverse to the Government of which he was a member, and that he was entirely governed by the consideration of the fitness of the person appointed. He (Mr. Baring) did not complain of the Government, in 1833, for the appointments they had made after their resignations had been announced ; but he referred to them merely to show what the rule was. He alluded to them to show the strictness with which all acts connected with the pnblic service were performed, and on this account he was the more more surprised to find the Right Honour able Baronet (Sir J. Graham) descending to the clap• trap which he had done.—(Hear, hear.) It was no matter whether it was the last hour or the first hour of official existence that vacancies took place, they must be filled up as they so became vacant. He did think it was a ♦ery unworthy thing to keep a charge back for the space of two years, then to be brought for ward in such a shape and in such a spirit; and he should, therefore, suggest to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) to be more careful for the future before he ventured to attack even his old friends.—(Hear, hear.) Lord ELIOT said, that for any inaccuracy which had occured he alone, and not his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), was to blame. He did not much like the argumentum ad hominem, and always abstained as care fully as possible from personal observations; but he would venture to say that there had not been a news paper in that country, nor a periodical—not even the great Whig organ the Edinburgh Review—which had not denounced the late Government upon this point.—(Hear, hear.) And after all that had fallen, apparently with such triumph, from his Right Hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Ex chequer (Mr. Baring), he challenged any one to show any material inaccuracy in the return. There were three new stations created, and, in his lessly so. For when the House recollected that for the last three years sixty stipendiary magistrates had been found sufficient, and this during a period when there had been famine riots in Ireland and poor-law distur bances, and all the agitation connected with repeal, he thought most' certainly that new appointments, were most uncalled-for and extravagant. With respect to the return of the appointments of magis trates that had been referred to, and which had been asserted not to exist, he felt no hesitation in saying that such returns did exist. He maintained that the state ments that had been made by his Right Hon. Friend were substantially correct, that the late Government had made an addition of seven new magistrates, and that on the last day of their holding office they appointed one magistrate.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE considered the question now before the House was, whether the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had prostituted the patronage that he had in his power. The charge that had been made against Lord Fortescue had entirely broken down, and he was astonished at the language that had been employed that night.—(Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Hon. Member whether there was anything before the House to justify the Right Hon. Gentleman in saying that Lord Fortescue was actuated by unworthy motives in ap pointing the magistrates he had done. He was asto nished at the observations that had been made with re spect to the return, and he felt that nothing but the high character of Lord Fortescue had shielded him from the attack that had been directed against him. With regard to the appointments themselves they had not heard that any one of the appointments had been improperly filled up., His Noble Friend had, even at the distance of two years, been enabled to state the grounds of each appointment—(Cheers)—and the House had heard the statement which he had made.—(Cheers.) Lord Fortescue had received applications from persons of respectable character, and of all shades of politics, beseeching the Government to make these appointments; and if Lord Fortescue had not added to the magistracy, these applications would have been produced, and he would have been charged with having failed in his duty, and with having left the country in an unprotected state. —Hear, hear.) He congratulated his Noble Friend on the result of this debate.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had by this debate secured the only object which he cared about relating to it, which was, to relieve his Noble Relative from the accusation which had been brought against him, that he had improperly used his patronage while he held the office of Lerd Lieutenant of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) Lord STANLEY would not have taken any part in the discussion had it not been for the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Any one listening to that speech would have supposed that his Right Hon. Friend had brought this forward as a charge against the Government of Ireland. Now, the fact was, that his Right Hon. Friend was replying, on the spur of the moment, to a charge which had been made by the Noble Lord the Member for London, who said, " You have unduly diminished the stipendiary ma gistracy of Ireland, when you ought to have increased it ;" the answer to which had been, " so far from di minishing the number of stipendiary magistrates, we have now, and have had, throughout our Government, a number equal to the number which either Lord Nor manby or Lord Ebrington ever maintained in Ireland, except during the last six months' of Lord Ebrington's administration; and his Right Honourable Friend, availing himself of a paper that had been put into his hand by his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, said, "If you dispute the fact, this paper will show it." That paper proved that in 1838, 1839, and 1840, the number of stipendiary magistrates had varied from 57 to 59, at no time had they been higher than 59 or less than 57; and it was only during the last six months of Lord Ebrington's administration, that seven additional magistrates had been added to the stipendiary force in Ireland,. —and in fact, they had done so. There might be causes for it or there might not, but while they were boasting of the increased tranquillity in Ireland un doubtedly they had made seven new appointments. Mr. LABOUCHERE—Not new appointments. Lord STANLEY—Seven new magistrates.—(Hear, hear.) But if those three, were new appointments, those three appointments had been made not only after the month of June, but after the 28th of July. On that day Nicholas Kelly had been appointed, vice an old ma gistrate appointed to a new station. On the 6th of August Edward Savage was appointed to Ballyshannon, a new station; and on the 28th of August Henry Al cock was appointed, vice another old magistrate 'ap pointed to a new s t a ti on . H e did no t sa y th a t th e Lord' Lieutenant had not good reason for appointing these magistrates. Mr. LABOUCITERE—That is the whole case. Lord STANLEY—That was not the whole case; the case must be considered in ccnnection with the whole course of the debate. While boasting that Ireland was in a state of extraordinary tranquillity, they had made seven new appointments, and three new stations. That had been brought forward by his Right Hon. Friend as an answer to the charge made by the Noble Lord the Member for London, and had been mentioned as a proof that the present dovernment had kept up a force of stipendiary magistrates equal to that which was kept up by the late Government. Mr. VILLIERS STUART felt it his duty to state that applications had been made from some of the most respectable inhabitants of the part of the country with which he was connected, to the Lord Lieutenant for the appointment of new stipendiary magistrates, as the number of those at that time appointed:was not suffi cient for the due administration of justice. Lord ELIOT explained. Some magistrates had been removed from one part of the country to another, and lately there had been no demand for magistrates to be permanently appointed. Mr. WYSE bore testimony to the high character of Mr. Alcock, who had been put to great inconvenience by being dismissed. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said the only object of his Noble Friend in bringing forward the motion, was to rescue Earl Fortescue from an imputation of an improper exercise of his patronage. If the Right Hon. Baronet had said that he did not intend any such imputation, the debate would have terminated with his Noble Friend's speech. But he had not done so ; on the contrary, he had justified the imputation, and attempted to re-assert the truth of the statement. It was this of which the Noble Lord had reason to complain. No person could say, who was acquainted with the ad ministration of Ireland, when it might be necessary to to make an appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. As an instance of this, he would mention that there were two magistrates in the commission of the peac e in Tal low, who gave up their commissions because a Whig Government was in office. A stipendiary magistrate had of course to be appointed. It might happen that every appointment was not for the benefit of those who were in office, but it might be also for those who would succeed. Sir R. PEEL said that it was the invariable practice for a Government to fill up all existing vacancies before they were formally superseded, and though they had announced their intention to resign ; . nay, more, there was nothing unusual in one Government filling up appoint ments which had been made by a preceding Government. He could give an instance in which an appointinert was made to two peerages, and upon the intentions of the Government being conclusively proved, *hen the plea sure of the Crown was known, althou2ll no formal in strument passed, the succeeding GoVernment repected the appointments; they consequently took - place, and there was nothing peculiar. in the case-which had been. re ferred to. The question arose, I!,s to :new. appointments, . and not with regard to the filling up of vacancies. The Case was put upon its right footing by his Noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kildare, said that if his Right Hon. • - Friend had only come forward before and adwitted his error as he had done now, the present discussion would not have continued. His Right Hon. Friend admitted every error of which he was convinced, but his Right Hon. Friend did not admit, and would not admit, that of which he was not convinced. But the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth said that if his Right Hon. Friend had made, in the first i ns t ance , t h e speech which he made to-night, there would have been no necessity for the motion. Mr. BARING—No no. Sir R. PEEL so understood the Right lion. Gentle man. This was no original attack made by his Right Honourable Friend upon Lord Fortescue. The Govern ment had been accused of reducing the number of stipendiary magistrates, for the purpose of reviving the ancient authority of the old magistrates. His Right Hon. Friend met that accusation by stating that there was no reduction in the number of the stipendiary ma gistrates, if they took the present number and compared it with the three years preceding the Ist of January, 1841. But in the interval from the Ist of January, 1841, seven new appointments had been made, so that his Right Hon. Friend was justified in making that statement. There were seven new stations. It was not that seven vacancies were filled up, which would be only a legitimate use of authority by the Government who were going out, but that was not the question.— (Hear, hear.) It was that there were seven new stations made. He did not say that they were improperly made. He would now state the particular circumstances of those cases. A justification had been made out for each appointment, but that did not touch the defence of his Right Hon. Friend. lie would say that the mere circumstance of an application being made was no con clusive proof of its being necessary. (Laughter.) He apprehended that stipendiary magistrates were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. If the mere application of a person fur an office worth 5001. or 6001. a year was a complete proof of the necessity of appoint ing the applicant. Nothing could be more easy than to produce, not only a moral conviction, but even a mathematical proof, of its necessity. He would not say that the appointment of Mr. Walker was not justified by the necessity .of the case ; all he would say was, that if an application constituted a conclusive proof of the propriety of the appointment, there would hardly be any limit to the number of appointments which might not to be vindicated upon that ground. The circumstances of the country might justify the ap pointment of those magistrates, yet his Right Honour able Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was, he thought, justified in vindicating the present Government. Mr. HAVES said that the impression made on his mind was, that there had been jobbing on the part of the late Government, and now it appeared that there was no ground for such a charge. Sir R. PEEL—We did not say that Lord Fortescue committed any such job. Mr. HAWES—No, but it was insinuated. The effect of the present discussion was to remove any impression from his mind unfavourable to the late Government in the matter. Lord EBRINGTON replied. The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to—two votes having been reserved, one regarding Irish poor-laws, and the other relating to the expenses of the House of Lords. The House then adjourned, at a Quarter-past One. THE WILLS FORGERIES, CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. THE SLACK CASE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. W. Page was then examined by Mr. BODKIN—I occupied the house, No. 8, South-place, from September, 1842, to October, 1843. During that time no person of the name of Slack lived in that house. Martha Ann Neville, examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I live with my father, at No. 7, Francis-street, Tottenham court-road. In March of last year the prisoner Dorey came to our house to take lodgings for a lady who was coming out of the country, about law business, and she added that she could not give a reference, but she offered instead to give a week's rent in advance. She said she would come again in about two hours, but I did not see her again on that occasion. In the evening I found that a female had taken possession of the lodgings, but I did not see her till the next morning. This per son was the female prisoner, Saunders. She passed by the name of Miss Slack, and remained in the lodgings three weeks or a month, when she went away with Geor giana Dorey, who came for her in a cab, and they went away together. While the second lady lodged in our house, the prisoner Dorey used frequently to come and visit her. At this time the prisoner Saunders wore light flaxen-coloured ringlets, but on my going into he 'room, I observed that there was dark -coloured hair in halt comb. She always wore a bonnet when in the house When Mrs. Dorey came, she used always to ask for Miss Slack. The prisoner Saunders used to tell me that if any one came to see her but her lawyer, I was to say she did not live there. A dark gentleman, whom she described as her lawyer, used to come and see her once or twice a week, b u t I do not recollect his person. By Mr. STONE—I am sure it was on the 9th of March that she came to our house, and I did not see her for twelve months afterwards, when she was in custody. I had seen Mrs. Dorey before that, in Oxford-street, but I did not know Mrs. Saunders was her sister until I went to the Mansion-house. I am sure they were false ringlets that Mrs. Saunders wore. They hung like false ringlets, and there was also dark hair in her comb, which satisfied me they were false. I told this to For rester, the officer. I don't know that the officer made a search for false ringlets at Mrs. Dorey's house. Mrs. Dorey used to come and visit her sister. She had dark hair, but I don't know that she had any opportunity of using her sister's hair-brush. I have always told the the same story about this transaction. By Mr. WiLlasis—She did not tell me what the name of her lawyer was. I never heard her say his Larne was Jones. The prisoner Fletcher is very much like the person whom-she called her lawyer, but I cannot speak positively to him. By Mr. CLARKSON—The moment I saw the prisoner, Lydia Saunders, I was sure she was the same person, and before I had seen her I had spoken about the light ringlets. By Mr. Justice WILLIAms—I pointed out the prisoner, Lydia Saunders, the moment I saw her. As she was walking past me at the Mansion-house, I said to Mr. Weare, " That is the person ; I am quite sure she is the person." By Mr. CLARKSON—WhiIe she was in our house, I used to wait upon her every day, both at her meals and in her bedroom. Martha Neville, the mother of the last witness, con firmed her testimony relative to the circumstances under which her lodgings were taken by the prisoner, Lydia Saunders. She spoke positively to the fact of that pri soner having lived in her house under the name of Miss Slack. _ _ By Mr. STONE—There is nothing at all unsual in pay ing a week's rent in advance. Did not see the prisoner any more from the time she left her lodging until she was in custody at the Mansion-house. She after wards went to Mrs. Dorey's house, in Oxford-street, ac companied by Mr. Weare, and she recognised her directly as the person who had first engaged the lodging. By the COURT—The woman who lodged in my house wore light flaxen ringlets, and her appearance now is very much changed, but I am quite sure she is the same person. Mr. Justice ThLrAms—This is a very serious mat ter, you know Mrs. Neville. Have you the slightest doubt as to this being the person who came to your house in the name, of Miss Slack ? Witness—l have no doubt whatever she is the person. Mr. Wills, examined by Mr. ERLE—I am a proctor in Doctors' Commons. The prisoner Barber came to my office on the 16th March, 1843, accompanied by a female who was represented as Emma Slack, and who was in troduced to me by that name. I have very little recol lection upon the subject; but from what I do remember I I..hould say the prisoner Lydia Saunders resembles her. The will was produced, and I obtained probate upon it, and the female who accompanied Barber signed the affi davit as executrix. The value which the effects were sworn was under 5,0001. and I received a cheque from Mr. Barber for 801. for payment of the stamp duty. I obtained the probate on the 22d March, and sent it to the office of Messrs Barber and Bi rc h am . _ _ By Mr. STONE—The parties were not in my office more than five minutes, and a great many people came to me under similar circumstances. I do not recollect hearing the females speak one word during the transac tion. By Mr. WILLIAMS Mr. Barber's conduct, so far as I witnessed it, was that of a perfectly honourable and honest attorney. When the lady was introduced to me as Miss Slack, I implicitly believed it, and merely asked the usual questions that were necessary to enable me to fill up the forms. I had done business with Messrs. Barber and Bircham before, and always looked upon. Barber as an honest and honourable man. By Mr. ERLE—I took all for granted that wasstated by Mr. Barber. All th a t Mr. Barber did in thistran saction is one of most to ordinary employ mteratonsaoebtitoanins in nromby office. Mr. which Mr. John Weldon examined by am clerk in the will taking in office n C t i lle ßffi ß li a sci n il k of l aEtngthlaenldiankAo probate 7 o the w t h f ofma i r l l e h o A 18 7 3 e . Slack a was as a p p l e l i f t . re-transfer the stock cation was also madek from to the theG o c v o e r in n ln o s o smm f i oa t en h sse e srlrassc ß . kfaß.onrakrlt Thee the executrix stock, p ß r e o d h u a c te ti o w n a s o of ft t e h r e w N a r a d ti s o d n e a l l i r D er e e b d t o t u o t Emma and Bircham. The letter applying a f s or th t e he so r le es l t e o g r a a t t e io e n a o n f d o si l g t n h e e d b dL Emma easedA S n i n ac e k glack, was then put in and read. Mr. William Smee proved that, by order of the Go vernor of the Bank of England, he re-transferred the stock to the name of Emma Slack, of Frances-street, Tottenham-court-road, and that an order for the pay ment of the unclaimed dividends upon the stock was made at the same time. The amount of the principal was 3,5001., and the unclaimed dividends amounted to 1,1511. 18s. 10d. By Mr. Waxtris—Mr. Philpot, a stockbroker, identi fied the parties. Mr. Noble, a clerk in the Accountant's-office of the Bank of England, proved that, on the 7th of April, the prisoner Barber, accompanied by a woman, whom he represented as Emma Slack, came to the Accountant's office. To the best of his knowledge and belief the pri soner, Lydia Saunders, was that person. Mr. Barber said he came to receive the dividends upon the stock that had been transferred from the Commissioners to the name of Emma Slack. Finding that the stock had been transferred, he told the prisoner that it would be neces sary Emma Slack should be identified before the money could be paid. Mr. Barber then went away, and came back _accompanied by Mr. Philpot, a stockbroker, who identified• Emma Slack, and witness then gave. Mr. Barbera document, which, being signed by Emma Slack, would entitle her to receive the sum of 1,1511. 18s., the amount of the unclaimed dividends upon the stock in question., _ _ By Mr. STONE—This took place on the 7th of April last year. There was nothing out of the ordinary course of business in the transaction. He should say - that the woman was in the office for a quarter of an hour, but he did not hear her speak at all. He did not see the pri soner any more until she was at the Mansion-house, and he went there for the purpose of seeing her. He re ; marked that while she was in his office the woman stooped, and appeared suffering under some infirmity. She had a black veil on. By Mr. ERLE—He had an opportunity of seeing her features. By the COURT—I entertain no doubt in my own mind that Lydia Saunders is the person who on that occasion represented herself to be Emma Slack. Other clerks in the Bank of England were then called, to prove the payment of the amount of the unclaimed dividends. It appeared to have been paid with 6001. in gold, and the rest in notes. • The several documents connected with the transfer of the stock, on the payment of the dividends, were then put in, and read by Mr. Straight. At this stage of the case, the Court adjourned until ten o'clock the next morning. Griffin, one of the accused parties, but who was ad mitted a witness for the Crown, was discharged from custody yesterday evening. [All the prisoners were accommodated with chairs. Bar w, to appeared time to i h n e a r k , e h o c w o 'e p v i o e u r, s s i t i o o o t e d s , ; an t d he co o n a t i i e n r u s e s d at fr d o o m wn r a e n greatly dejected.] .NEW COURT. (Before Mr. Justice MAULE.) At two o'clock the Learned Judge entered the Court, when Mary Furley, a married woman, thirty-six years of age,lwae indicted for the wilful murder of George Furley, her male child, in the month of March last, by carrying and casting him into a certain navigable canal. The case for the prosecution was stated by Mr. Prender • gast ; the prisoner was undefended, but the presiding Judge adopted the good old-fashioned plan of being her counsel, by objecting to the evidence where it appeared either illegal or irrelevant. Several witnesses were examined, and the purport of their testimony has already been before the public. It appeared by the evidence to-day, that some time before she committed the dreadful crime, she and her two children were inmates of Bethnal-green workhouse, which place she left voluntarily on the 20th of March, when she was paid a small sum of money by the master. After she left she complained to her friends that the children had not been kindly treated in the union, and evinced great distress of mind ; and she told one of them (Mary Butler) that that day would end her trouble, for both her and her children would meet with a watery grave. On that evening about half-past eight she took away her youngest child, and shortly after she was seen by Mr. Gard ner, a bargemaster, at the Regent's Canal, near the Mile-end road bridge. He hearing a moaning went to the place from whence the sound proceeded, when he saw something float ing nearly fifteen feet from the bank. lie put out his boat hook and caught hold of the prisoner, who exclaimed, " Oh, my child I" He asked her where it was, and she said "In the water," and he saw it drop from under her arm while she was speaking. The witness conveyed them to the Globe Tavern, and Mr. New, a surgeon, was sent for, who pro nounced the child dead, but by means used the prisoner was resuscitated. After she recovered she attempted to make away with herself and child, on account of the ill-treatment she had met with in the workhouse. Several female paupers who have infant children there were called by the Judge, and strictly examined as to the diet allowed to infant paupers. They all declared that the food and nutrition was good in quality and sufficient in quantity. Mr. New having deposed th a t th e d ecease d i n f an t was a fine healthy child, and that death arose from drowning, The prisoner was called on for her defence. The unfortu nate woman, who is a well-favoured person, and fluent of speech, arose and addressed the jury for nearly a quarter of an hour, and detailed some facts relative to the barber to the workhouse, when half drunk, operated upon the head of her elder child, and cut pieces of flesh or skin therefrom as big as 'farthing pieces. In addition to six shillings she had when she left the workhouse, her friends made some small contributions to enable her to get employment at shirt-mak ing, but she could with hard labour finish three in a day, for which she received seven farthings each. The day before she went to the water she determined on laying out her little stock of money in muslin and ribbon, and making up some dress caps, but when she got to the shop to make the pur chase, she found that some person had'stolen her green silk purse and money. After a short pause and considerable fal tering, she added, " My Lord, I had no prospect before me but to go to the workhouse, to which I had such an aversion, that I preferred death to myself and child." She concluded by saying, " I did not go into the water, but slipped off the plank at the wharf." Mr. Justice MatTLE summed up the evidence, and left it for the jury to say whether they thought; after the declare • tions she had made, she had wilfully cast herself and child into the water, or whether she had slipped in by accident, as she had just said. The jury consulted ten minutes, and then declared her Guilty. I'roclamation having been made by Mr. Miller, the officer of the Court, - - The Learned JUDGE addressed the prisoner with great earnestness and solemnity, and concluded by passing the awful sentence of death, after the usual form. The prisoner clasped her hands together, and exclaimed, " What shall Ido ?" She was removed from the bar in au agony of grief. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) BOW-STREEI. _ _ Mr. Edward Lacey was summoned before Mr. Jardine for having opened his house, the Garrick's Head, Bow street, for the sale of wines and liquors at five minutes before one o'clock on Good Friday morning. Inspector Mullins stated that he was on duty at fire minutes to one o'clock on Good Friday morning, at which time he was passing the Garrick's Head Hotel its Bow-street. He went into the coffee-room, and he saw seren gentlemen there. Liquors and water were on the table. Mr. Nicholson was present, - and he said that the gentlemen present were members of his establishment, and belonged to the Judge and Jury Society. Witness was not in the room more than three or four minutes. Mr. Wire said that the parties who were in the house were only gentlemen who bad been invited to sup with Mr. Nicholson on the occasion of his birth-day. He then called Mr. Renton Nicholson, who stated that he was the manager of Mr. Lacey's establishment. He was in the house when the inspector came in. All the gentlemen who were in the room were friends, who had been invited to supper. No liquor whatever was sold after twelve o'clock. Mr. JARDINE—I think this is an answer, and I shall therefore dismiss the case. The summons was dismissed accordingly. Mr. Rhodes, the landlord of the Coal Hole, in the Strand, was summoned for a similar offence, alleged to have been committed on the same day, at the same hour. The case was precisely similar to the last. The inspector heard yoices in the house, and he knocked at the door. It was immediately opened, and on going into the house he discovered three or four gentlemen sitting in the bar. Mr. Rhodes, in his defence to-day, called one of these gentlemen, who stated that the persons who were at the bar were gentlemen who lodged in the house. Summons dismissed. Mr. Rhodes, brother of the last defendant, the landlord of the Cider Cellars, in Maiden-lane, was summoned to answer a similar charge. The case was precisely similar to the last, as was also the defence. Mr. JARDINE at once dismissed the summons. CLERKEN TVELL. John Robinson was charged with having in his pos session a quantity of stolen property, and with attempt ing to cut the throat of a young woman named M'Evoy. Police -constable Baker, 108 E, deposed, that being on duty in Bu c k er id ge - street , S t. Giles s,-that morning, he heard cries of "murder!" and the violent screaming of a woman proceed from a house there ; he hastened to the place whence they proceede4, a back room in an upper story. When he entered the apartment he saw two women and the prisoner there. The prisoner, on seeing witness immediately attempted to conceal a lump of pewter beneath his dres s , an d t o remove a p an which had been on the fire, an d i n w hi c h were p ar ti c les e f pewter pots, some of them in a li qu id an d part in solidk state. The prosecutrix was scream i ng , and showed wit ness two cuts on her throat, an d pointed which lay on the floor, an d w ith which she declared prisoner had attempted to c ut it. The prisoner imme diately rushed upon her, and, before witness the could secure breast and him, struck her two violent blows on out ; ar a e knife the kicked her. Mary Anne M'Evoy, aged eighteen , deposed that she resided in the same house wi th the prisoner. O n th a t th e woman with whom he cohabited in a very brutal morning he was beaticg butnntehre. prisoner e he i r nt k e n r ee fer h e ed her down, kicked her on side, interfered, fearing he would murder her, Ina the which was quits k and so sore that she could not touch it. He th en fastened his teeth in Pack, her head, and inflicted a sev e r e wound upon it. (The girl exposed the woun d) . She arose from the ground, and cried out " murder!" up on w hi c h ke seized a knife that lay on the tabl e , an d , throwing one of his arms round her ne c k, so as to pull back her head, drew the knife (which was produced) twice across her throat—the knife being very blunt did not cut deep, and she was endeavouring to withdraw herself from his grasp when the constable arrived. The prisoner refused to give any account of how he came by the pewter. The girl, he said, had attempted to cut her throat, and he prevented her. Mr. COMBE said he would send him for two months to the House of Correction and hard labour, for the possession of the stolen property. At the termination of his imprisonment, the prosecutrix must again come forward, and the prisoner would then be dealt with for the attack upon her. The prosecutrix, crying, declared she was in danger of her life from the prisoner's associates, who had threat ened to murder her. Mr. COMBE ordered warrants to be issued against the parties. [ADVERTISEMENT HOLLOWAY'S PILLS AND OINTMENT.—Dreadful swellings of the whole body ac companied with a loathsome skin disease, and their won derful cure!—A child, aged five years, named Jones (whose parents live at No. 4, Horseshoe -alley, Wiliotr street, Finsbury, London), was from the age of sixteen months fearfully swollen in body, and covered with large sores. The face was frequently quite black, like that of a black child's. She had been taken to all the hospitals, and most of the surgeons of eminence, but met with n• relief. She has, however, just been radically cured by means of the above invaluable medicines, which are sold at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand (where advice may be had gratis); also, by most re spectable Chemists throughout the civilized world. THE GUANO TRADE.—A sailor coming from Liver pool to Preston, who has been with a vessel for guano, states it to be a most lucrative speculation-. Ilesaid that the vas sel was ten weeks on its passage to Afrita, - nine yeeksrettra ing, and seven lading—alto(reth.g .a few w.eeks.mr. half a year. The article itself, he states, • tests - not' n• farthing. The vessel carried 500 tons, which at St- a tdri4iould 'make 4,000/. The expenses, he thought, would not exceed 5001. but if we call them .1,0001., the Importation ocguamis,neD p 1)44 ,speculation,—.l,ancasfer Guarditzi • • ~~~~~ M S