The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-04 00:00:00

'Ca '4 1" '0 1:111 It I,‘ li I N' ', (THIS EVENING.) OF COMMONS. . . The SPEAKEtt took L 1 chair 111;2 u'u.il hour. CLARENCE ( DURHAM) RAILWAY, TI. e Sherai of the City of n;.oeared at the Bar to preF ait a petition ng,inst the Cl.m.nee lailtray Bill. The 141s<, - presented a petition on the sohjeet (as ;ve understood) of the Dover finiltyJy. DURHAM SC UTH-WEST RAILWAY. Alderman'WOOD roored that the Members for Viddlesex, Surrey, Essex, Kent, and Sussex, be added to the Durham South-west Railway Committee. _ Air. LAM.IiTCeN prot, , tefl against the proposition - ,Z Hen. :'lctutocr, tvo Colomittees ‘vcrt - , in course of. kAjtidi_ Ca'.l3o. Mr. R. \VASON had though: that arttligementi had been made to prevent the time of t',e tio - Jsc from being taken up in tLese discessions. When 'ate Committee had left any point contested, the proper tviv vict.ld be to send the question back to that Corrmitte,. Mr. A. TREVOIZ, r.encurred fully in the observations of the }lop. Member for south Durban,. The present was one of the most barefa—A and mor,strou3 propositions he had ever heard of.—( Mn , .:h laughter.) After a few %cords from Mr. PEASE, Mr. 11. I-i OGIIES could not agree in the motion, but he should sa!, there was a strong feeling out of cloor4 on the subject, Mr. BA R.NA RD said he was airrady so engv,ed on other Corlmittees. that as far as he was concerned he should decline serving on the Durham Railway. Alderman WOOD assured Hon. Members be wouhr always do his duty to his constituents, and they tad requer..ed him to mike the inntion before the House. He should - .lot,.however, press it against the opinions he saw were entertained by Gen tlemen a-ound him. LAMBETH IMPROVEY L ENT, Mr. HAWES presented a petition, its favour of the Lam beth Improvement Bill. LEEDS AND MANC T IiESTER RAILWAY. Mr. M. PHIL LIPS pres'nted a petition from the bankers, merchants, traders, and 'Jthers, of Manchester, in favour of the Leeds and Manchest er Rails ay. Mr. GLADSTONE brought up the report on the Small Debts Bill. After some few ol;e.,ervations from Mr. H. HUGHES, the further considerati' J ri was postponed. SOU I :li DURHAM RAILWAY BILL. An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from Durham in favour of 'the Durham ( South-West) Railway Bill.- . AYLESBURY the motion of Sir T. FREMANTLE, the Aylesbury IVAway Bill was read a third time and passed. POOLE ROADS BILL. Lord ASHLEY brought up the report of the Poole Roads Bill. Mr. POTTER brought n? tint.! Report on this Bill. Mr. ROBERT PA L'AtER presented a petition against the Midland Counties ilaikray Bill. Mr. G ISBORNE protested against the petition being re ferred to the Counul.ttee, and moved that it be an instruction to the Comm:ltt‘:,e, on the recommitment of the Midland Counties P.Allway Bill, to confine themselves to an inquiry into the rur,rits of the Northampton line in comparison with the line rmoposed by the Bill. Mr. r . I ARKER did not like to oppose the insiruction which the Itan. Member was abcut to move, but he would feel it his duty to protest against the extension of the proposed railway. After a few words from Mr. STRUTT, Mr. E. DENISON felt it his duty to concur in the obser vations of the lion. Member for Sheffield. He thought the proposed restriction would be very injudicious. After a few words from Lord Lincoln which were inaudible in the gallery, Sir S. WH OI LEY said that he dared say it would the re collected that s' J rne time since the House had come to some thing like a decision to the effect, that no Member ought to vote on 4. question on which he was pecuniarily interested. No man in the House abhored mere than he did any thing approaching to personality, and he trusted he would be the last man t',l give rise to such a practice, and he trusted be might expect Ike forbearance. He merely wished to say that he (Sir Samuel Whalley) was not the only Member who hsd made a practice of voting on questions in which be was pecuniarily and personally interested.—( Hear.) Previous to the discussion to which he had alluded to on the coal mo nopoly, an Hon. Member of that House, who was pecu niarly interested in it, and in this particular question now under discussion. —( Hear.) And he thought it proper that the House and the public should know it. That Hon. Member whose name he would not allude to, did decide an important question respecting the Kingston branch: and oppo site that Illnourable Gentleman's name he found subscribed the sum of 15,0001. for shares. Mr. GISBORNE—It was decided the other way. Sir S. WHALLEY knew that, but it was decided the other way by the casting vote of the ',3liairman, which the Chairman would not have been obl;.ged to give, if it had not been for the vote of the Hon. Me ,nber to whom he had alluded. If he had voted on a former night it was because the practice prevailed, and he stated valat he had just mentioned to show that he (Sir S. Whalley) did not stand as an iso lated instance, and without wi"'oing to cast the slightest im putation on his character or I '.onour. The HON. BARONET ne.:xt presented a petition from the parish of St. Pancras against the present system of making appointments in Yes*.ries according to a plurality of votes. Alto a petition fr - Ji n Marylebone against certain parts of a Parochial Regi?'.ry Bill, which he understood would not be submitted in it.s origins! objectionable shape. Also, a petition for the renal of the Window Tax. Also a petition praying for the rr duction of the Stamp duties on Newspapers. FISHERIES. Captain BARCLAY presented a petition from the fsher me:, on the coast of Sussex against the Fisheries Bill, parti cularly against the third clause. He gave notice of his inten tion to more its omission in the Committee. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Lambeth, praying for the total repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers• Also: a similar petition from Bermondsey. Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition for the reduction of the duty on cotton. The HON. Mmunittt then presented a petition from Man-. chester, for the total abolition of the duty on Newspapers. BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM. Mr. A. THE VOR presented a petition from Durham against the Bill introduced by Ministers for the regulation of the Bishopric of Durham. DUTY ON NEWSPAPERS. Mr. B ROTHE RTON presented a petition from Salford, praying fur the t o t a l re p ea l o f t h e d uty on newspapers . Mr. - HURST presented a petition from Horsham to the same effect. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from Wolverhampton, praying for a repeal of the stamp duty on newsrapers. POOR LAWS BILL. Sir G. FIE AT/ICOTE presented a petition from some place in :Lincolnshire, praying for an extensien of the time for bnildin7 poor-houses from 10 to 20 years. II ISII TITHES, I.lr. F. SHAW begged to know when the Irish Tithe Bill would be brought forward. Lord NIOIthETII knew as little as any other Lion. Mem ber %%hen it would be brought forward. POOR RATES. The NOBLE Lent) then moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Poor Rate Bill. (I.ErT SITTING.) DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE. (THIS DAY.) The CommtTTEr. met this morning at the usual hour. Mr. JOY resumed his argument in reply to Mr. THESSIGEIt on the bribery cases, contending that the discrepancies in the evidence, if any, were so trifling that they could not warrant the Committee in rejecting, it altogether. The Learned Gen tleman in an able argument, maintained that there was good proof of bribery against the petitioners. The CemmiTTLE, after an hour's deliberation, resolved, •' That it is not proved in evidence that the vote of John 'Keating, was given under any promise of payment direct or implied, and that his name must therefore'remain on the poll." " That the votes of Matthew Madden and Gei,ge Osborne vre.re given under a corrupt expectation, h^ll out by John Knagzi, ar'l that their names he therefore struck off the poll." " That although Patrick Fi nucane attr i sutes corrupt ir ducementi to Knaggs, \Vhitty, and Citnsellor Oulton, his evidence contains so much prevaricatic;& end contradiction that the Committee can place little relip lx , on it, but that as it is sufficiently proved that he voted under a corrupt expectation, and afterward.; accepted of ent his vote must be struck cif the poll." The evi,li , cce relatio to the' vote of Neilson ag then read, and the room cleared for a decision porter left. our rc. IY:PERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MA I- 3, MARINE INSURANCES. An HON. MEMBER presented a petition, praying for the re duction, of the duty on Marine Insurances. Ye. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition frcrn John Carrigan, of Drogheda. stating grievances he has suffered by distresses for the levy of tithe, and praying for the total extinction of all assessment for the Established Church levied off those who dissent from it; a petition from James Tlnrney, of Kilmoon, in the county of Meath, praying that all duty imposed on foreign corn shall be given as a bounty to the home grower, in proportion to the quantity of corn grown and sold by him ; and a petition from the bankers and mer chants °I . Belfast, praying for certain alterations in the Bank ruptcy Act, and that the law of Ireland may be assimilated to that of England. . _ FACTORIES CHILDREN. • Mr. BROTIIE RT ON presented a petition from the Cotton Spinners of Preston, prayin g the House to pass a measure pre venting children under 13 years of age working more than ten hours each day. On the motion cst BOWRINC, the Crediton Improve ment ro:!d ft third tine an :I passed. Mr. 0S WA 1,1) brought up the report of the Committee on the Toil-erns.; Gas and Water Bill. Mr. HODGES airported the po i . Lr of the woavers of a place in Lanarkshire co‘elaining of distress., and priying re!ief. Colouel THOM iSON presented a petition from Ow mer chews of Hull in favour of the Manchester and Leeds RAway. Mr. CLAY presented a petition from 500 seamen of Now castic-upon-Tyne, praying for an inquiry into the cause of so m;:ny shipwrecks ; and one from a place in the county of Mid dlesex, pra:,ing foe the total repeal of the duty upon News papers, and the release of all those now in prison for s'Aling unstamped publications. A Message front the House of Lords brought up several Bllls agreed to by their Lorilshios. MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. .1 certain 4.ne conduct of I.llls ~nty, them to go into t 1::; merits ...oway Bill. Ile complained of this part of the Committee, which, at the time of 1 1 ; 5511 '7; t . .e resolution, consisted only of nine Members. After ft .fetir words from Mr. GISDOUNE, the rtition watt tall On the table. STAMP DUTIES UPON NBWBPAPERS. Mr. CART WRI G lIT presented a petition fry-• inhabitants of Northampton, complaining ‘st Railway Committee in not allow;- -;f the North Midland P col - ,111 , 2t ou thp Mr. GOULI3 LT RN rose to pre.atall it petition from certain individuals, the printers and Walishers of some of the Daily Newspapers, having the largest circulation, upon the subitaq the Stamp Duti e s urn Newspapers. If any credit. , ;\M . (lue to the statements that had gone forth to the puctiN he to what was likely to take place on this subject, tlst entlemen were en titled to credit for the statement" ialltained in the petition which 10 hal the honour to Ill'esent to that House.---( lt!ar, hear.) If there way any one class of the er!taihunity who was less deserting of being called motterttsts than another, it was those who were engacTi tit the conduct of the Daily Press. To other clasea , a pit authors there was an exOtn. ;,tie privilege for a limited time, vested in them I.iy the Acts which regulate copyright. To individuals e-,llneeted with the Daily Press there was no protection; atet However great might be the expen;:iture of their 9.01%11 in the purchase of infer matie'n--ltowever exteniire, their labours might be, they acre not protected from hating the results of their labour and talent pirated lay others. If this argument were not enough, to relieve thorn from the charge of being monopolist., he thought he might fairly say those individuals were no more liable to the charge than were those who, having employed their capital and their talents in a particular branch of busi ness, had succeeded by their superiority and industry in sur passing all their Contemporaries. The object of the peti. tion was to represent to the House the injurious effect of a clause which the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor Of the Exchetiner) proposed to introduce Into the Bill for regulating the Stamp Duties. By that Bill, if a Newspaper exceeded a certain dimension it would be subjected to double duty—and of this the parties 'complained. They complained of it because, as they stated in their petition, it was partial in its opertttion. They complained of it further because it would tit them with great less, a.d because It would be detrimental to them in a financial point of view, and injurious to the general interests of those connected with Newspapers. It was necessary, in order to understand the prayer of the petition, that the House should know the state of the law on this particular subject. Many years ago it was the law that a Newspaper should pay duty according to the size of the paper, and by a statute passed in the year 1804 the size of a Newspaper was limited to 32 inches by 22. But as the taste for information gained ground, and as the state of society gave persons an in terest in a greater variety of subjects, it was found to be exceedingly difficult for the Newspaper proprietors to satisfy their customers, by confining themselves within the limits of the law prescribed ; and experiments were made, first, by allowing a second edition to be published at half the price of the original paper ; and afterwards Mr. Huskisson, in the year 1825, brought in a Bill, which met with the concurrence of the House, to take off all restrictions on the size of the papers, and to leave it to the discretion of every individual to print on what sized paper he pleased.--( Hear.) In consequence of that, and the increased demand for literary productions, the proprietors of Newspapers embarked their capital in the adaptation of machinery, and each, according to his fancy, or the taste of his readers, adapted his paper to what he considered the most desirable size. The Herald, the Standard, and the Morning Post, adopted the plan of publishing a double sheet. The Chronicle took another line, and instead of tile double sheet, extended the width of its sheet very considerably. Now, it so happened, that on the clause introduced into the present Bill, the size adopted was that of the Chronicle, The House would not suppose that he meant to insinuate that his Right Hon. Friend intended to favour the views of that paper; but the accidental circumstance of his havin g framed the clause so as to suit the size of that paper, had given the petitioners just ground of com plaint. They could not now conform to the altered size without making a change in their machinery, which would be attended with a very considerable expense.—( Hear, hear.) He believed his Right Hon. Friend had since determined to alter the size of the paper, and to estimate it by its superficial contents in inches-1,530 inches to form the Newspaper. Many of the parties who were aggrieved, would by that plan be relieved ; but as there were others who would not,he trusted the House would take their case into consideration, for their case was in no degree remedied, although the number of com plainants might be diminished. He should be prepared—(Loud cries of " Chair, chair.") The SPEAKER said that so long as the Right Hon. Gen tleman was stating the substance of the petition for the pur pose of explaining the grievance complained of, he was per fectly in order, but that he could not enter into a discussion of the matter in detail.—(llear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entreated the House to permit the Right Hon. Gentleman to give the fullest explanation relative to the petition,_ as the allega tions involved an imputation on the character of a public officer. The Right Hon. Gentleman should have the fullest power of stating all the facts, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) claimed the full power of replying, so as not to allow statements of that description to continue uncontradicted. He hoped he should be able to satisfy even his Right Hon. Friend himself that the inferences he had drawn were totally at variance with the whole of his conduct. The SPEAKER said his object in interrupting the Hon. Gentleman was to call his attention to the rule which had been laid down. Redid not intend to prevent him from explaining any portion of the petition which he conceived might require ex planation, Mr. GOULBURN was only about to shew that the regu lation complained of by the petitioners was partial in its ope ration, and that it would be highly inexpedient to put any limi tation on the size of Newspapers. The petitioners stated that the double duty would operate on them as a penalty, and pre vent the circulation of these papers. He had merely stated the leading features of .the petitioners' complaint, and abstained from offering any comment, seeing the feeling of the House was opposed to it. He hoped, however, they would not suppose, because he had not entered into the discussion, that, he had no arguments to cffer. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would take the liberty of drawing the attention of the House to the facts stated in the petition, and to the inferences which had been drawn from the facts so stated. Personally he had nothing to complain of i n a n y o b servat i on o f hi s Ri g h t H on. Friend but he would take it upon himself to satisfy the House that the charges which had been made were the most foul and scandalous misrepresentations that had ever been. uttered against the character of a public man.—(hear, hear, hear.) lie would not addrosa himself for a verdict to those gentlemen Who agreed with him in politics—he would for. that time, and for that time only, place himself ill the hands of the Hon. Gen tleman opposite( Mr. Goulhurn), and abide by the verdict which he should pronounce, after hearing the facts of the case. The House would allow him to say that be was not responsible for any statement which appeared of inter views which took place in his office—( Cheers)--that was a mattrx which was in the discretion of Gentlemen. He did' not complain of the practice which had grown up, but he con sidered it to be a most dangerous practice, and one very de trimental to the public service. (Cheers.) These reports were now put forth to the world by Gentlemen who did not even take a note of the proceedings; they were not inspected by the parties interested ; but were put firth in such a man. ner as left it impossible to contradict the statements, or to explain -them.—(Cheers.) He 'made no complaint of the matter. He said that every class of persons had a right of access to a Government office on fitting occasions 1 but those interviews ought to be carried on with confidence between bath parties, and if the opinion of the head of an office were wanted, it ought to be • demands bf him in writing.— ( Cheers.) Let him be brand by his own writinn', but do not chain him dawn to those vinauthorked and very frequent reports. He (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) did not complain except upon principle, At the same time he disclaimed all participation in thou` reports ; lie avowed—for he intended to have i u tetilit ,l .t<illments—he avowed that at one of those intervicktt sAZited that one of his ob jections—his s sheets was, th a t i t , w 4h i, cO'fOttion—to allowing those double continue a monopoly. He did not care where rt mullOply him he would de- i- 1 When he fixed the. small" d,44, oppose a Monopoly anywhere. N "Isted—whether it was for or against tirS apostage duty u on Newsaers, he did not F0...1 tilt when he p had to ccnvey a p double sheet of NgtTlpaper, be should not look at it in the same light as a titible sheet of a letter. Mr. GOUL BURN—If the Hon. Gentleman went into the question of the Post-office charges, he (Mr. C.) must have an opportunity of replying. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Right Hon. Gentleman would have that "full opportunity. He had been charged with acts of the most gross and criminal nature. It had been imputed to him, that while framing a public mca . sure, he had been actuated by political views, and had made his public duties subservient to his party animosities. There fore he was ,bound - to say, not arguing the question bat the principle be adopted, with reference to the double stamp, that the double sheet, or the charge rather upon it, was; what he had stated. He now came to the next step. It was stated that he had drawn a fine most ingeniously which profited the Morning Chronicle, and most ungenerously injured the interests of the other papers which his Rt. Hon. Friend had adverted to. Now, he would tell the House distinctly, and upon his honour, that before he had: stated what he had done . with respect to the intentions of the Government, as to the duty On a single sheet, he had told the officers of the Stamp-office to measure the largest single sheet —and why should he take the largest single sheet ? Why, because it would comprehend the less; and he could assure the House, upon his honour, that at the time he stated that, he did not know what paper it would affect, or what it would n o t. W e l l, but that was not all ; hc would go a step further in order to show the principle on which he had acted. The next communication be received ainu Iron the Proprietors of Newspapers themselves ; he had . been in communication with those who represented the peti *ioners, awl also in constant commtuication with t h e Committee of the Proprietors of Newspapers, and he never was more astonished in his life—all the arrangements having been made at their own suggestions—(Great cheer ing)—they knowing every step that had, been taken, than at ~ --yam ," 1 1 1 1 111. SUN, LONDoN, WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, the presentation of a petition invel.vinn- him hi Vasonal charges—(Cheers)—Prom the very tYlthlAd step that had been taken, and had gMt: ii their sane tion.—(Great cheering,) It *at represented tii him by the very parties that there Were some paper'Sof crib, fmmo and some of another ; antl it *as said, Pu 11k certain di. mansion you will create great grid jou will compel several establishment% to altei the t i t o • Such bving the case, he prop o g e d td iik% t ttlh 61tesL Newspaper, with which t 1 111 i "satisfied. It was almost, in point of f^ at the very suggestion of the petitioners mselves that the arrangement kith respect to ..,ze was come to, and that wn.s mad ; ne ground o f s t r o n g ~,,n . —(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear.) This was not all. animadversion noon L was informed that the largest News pnp,,r published in the metropolis was that proposed to be followed by the Bill ; but that there were. others in the country much larger: He then asked what was the largest, and he vests told that it Was a " V3rk Paper," the name and poEtics of which he (the Chancellor of the Exche quer) could assure the House ho d id not know even at the present bour.-.--(ole*. , .ting)—he, however, told the par. ties that trey should have the benefit of the largest. Vicar, and cheers.) When the matter came forward as a matter of finance, he was sure that his [light Hon. Friend would enter into the discussion of the subject with that attention it demanded; and he also felt confident that he would feel that the simple relation he had given would tallish from his mind all feeling of bad faith on the part of him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).—( Hear. ) He had but one word mute to say before he sat down. This might be a vary bad financial measure—it might be a bad mea aum legislation—Mr. Huskisson deserted it in 1825--it Was introduced in 1804. But there was one authority bearing on the subject which was material. His Right Hon. Friend ( Mr. Goulburn) proposed a Bill in 1830, and his Right lion. Friend who had presented this petition was the very person who introduced this very clause. He held the clause in his hand—his Right Hon. Friend should have it —he should hare it in his possession. The only difference between that clause and his (Mr. Rice's) was, that whilst that clause re stricted the maximum size of the sheet at 33 inches by 23 his (Mr. Rice's) gave a maximum at 45 inches by 34. There was this difference between them, that the maximum of the Right Honourable Gentleman gave a superficies of 874 inches ; his ( Mr. Rice's) gave a superficies of 1,530 inches. , The Times newspaper at that time supported the Govern ment of which the Right Hon. Gentleman was a member.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Rice) would he the last man to attri bute to his Right Hon. Friend any disposition to injure any newspaper, but the effect of the measure would have been to affect the interests of that paper. But these were statements which might hereafter be discussed as a matter of finance, and he put it to the House in the mean time whether he had not cleared himself from the imputations that had been made against him— (Loud cheers)—made against him where he had no opportunity of replying to them, and no opportunity of justifying himself from a charge, for which, if he were guilty, he would be utterly unworthy of the station which he held in that House, or of any intercourse with gentlemen in civilised society—if he had been guilty of so base and un worthy an act as framing a general measure for the purpose of destroying the property represented by the petitioners, and of advancing the interests of those papers which supported the opinions of the Government, and affording them an undue ad vantage over Newspapers of an opposite description. He also put it to the House whether he had not, in the records of his office, and the documents pointed at by the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn)—( Hear, bear) — to which he alluded on a former occasion—whether he had not from these, and from the Right Hon. Gentleman's own mouth, a full justification of the propriety of this proceeding. He was sorry to take up so much of the time of the House; but he did not think that there ought to be any mistake upon a subject of this description. It was of some importance to know whether in dealing with the Minister of Finance they were dealing with. one who could be guilty of so gross an act of oppression and of violation of justice as he had been charged with.—( Loud cheers.) He was sure his Right Hon. Friend would not have made any imputations without believing them true ; he was sure that he did not believe them to he true in the present instance—still the facts contained in this petition referred to the names of particular Newspapers, He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been put upon his trial ; he had made his defence, and he had now only to ask the House whether he was guilty or not guilty ?—(Cheers.) . Mr. GOULBURN thought it only just to repeat what he had said before—that he did not throw any imputation on his Right Hon. Friend. He did not believe the charges that had been made—he would not believe them of any gentleman holding the situation of his Right lion. Friend, and he had expressed himself to this effect when he made this statement to the House. What he stated was this, that, however, this selection might have happened—the acci dental circumstance of it was, that this certain size would injure the property of the petitioners. Respecting what had been said about the schedules by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, the provisions referred to respecting the dimensions of double sheets were not in the Stamp Act, and had never been contemplated. Dr. BOWRING hoped he might be allowed to say one word--( Loud and continued cries of " Oh, oh I") After a few observations from Mr. GOULBURN, which the noise in the body of the House prevented our hearing distinctly, The petition was laid on the table. THE BUDGET. Sir E. KNATCHBULL begged to know what course the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, meant to pursue on Friday night relative to his financial statement ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was most anxious to make such arrangements as would meet the convenience of the House. He would suggest that any propositions which were to be brought forward would be most convenient in the Committee on Ways and Means. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) vote of Friday night would have no reference to the reduction of the Stamp Duties. He was most ready to give every facility to Hon. Members who had propositions to bring forward at such times as might be most convenient. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he meant to bring on his- proposition relative to the Stamp Duties on Friday or not, for neither he nor the Hon. Members near him heard what the proposition was? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER meant to open on Friday the whole view of taxation, which he should leave to the consideration of Parliament. The vote he should take on Friday would have no reference whatever to the Stamp Duties. seen listening te; anir.iibleetiOn lici n m made, 4iis - Velo; booia,fea P arliament **4f6 much mitre tete iirPbOtilfigs of Parliament tit other Rn thein Wore desirous of bearing the debates, Why should .64 be . pteVerited ? It was well known and acknowledged by all that 603 posS'eSsed irery great , A,f, was,,surely: of ar i npOrtanc that they should t‘e arid, Ve, tei•e;er ciSii 14- 431 k. r i ' t t "1 1:1 4i alliAl4 Vtl4 • - 1 —.. ; • Ai/ a e•Vx , tuous and enlightened mother OYU lie" $9ll generally continwd through life, and why should she (if her son were in Parlia . tie preventeo trom nearing the manner which he dis charged his duty ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why should the wife of Member lie prevented from hearing the debate ? During the Session of 1833 and 1834, lid li to ftipdtltedl,Y served Honourable Members take their wive§ add dadeitCit into the ventilator, particularly when subjects if irtiportdnce were under distdssibn, ant! he felt donVideed they would not have done go had thdy§tippo§eti the ida§t inprlods ecinsequenees to have followed. In the Chamber Of Depiltica ;it Paris, the front scats of the galleries were appropriated for had repeatedly seen them there, and they appeared to take an equal interest in the proceedings—and lie had never seen the least appearance of levity in their behaviour. In Congress Hall, at Washington, they were admitted, and he understood, also, at other legislative assemblies. Surely in this country there were not going to act on exclusive and oriental principles towards the female sex. . . Mr. KE A RS L E Y said he hoped and trusted that every lion. Member who was blessed nith daughters would negative this idle and ridiculous proposition. Dr. BO WRING had supported the former motion on the subject, and would support the present. No evil had resulted in other countries from allowing females to hear the debates of their legislative assemblies. In the German States they were admitted ; and their presence had not been found in any re spect to hinder the progress of public. business. On the con trary, their influence, as on all othc;r occasions, had been found friendly to decorum, and friendly to the bridling of the manly passions: —( A loud laugh.) The character of females in this country stood so high, that he was persuaded nn im proper language would be used in their presence, and there. fore that they would exercise salutary control. He had never known anything but good result from the presence of females, and he was therefor? at a loss to understand why they should be refused admission into that House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that in the Irish Parliament ladies were allowed to be present. The cause of their original ad mission was this. In former days a hospitality of a particular kind was exercised in Ireland to such an extent, that Mem bers of tha Irish House of Commons used to come drunk to the House. The remedy proposed and adopted was to ad mit ladies into the gallery, and from that moment not a single drunken man ever presumed to make his appearance.—( Hear.) Mr. VILLIERS observed, that as he was neither " blest with daughters," nor felt any necessity to " bridle his manly passions," he might be considered an impartial judge on the present occasion. They had had friends of all classes in that House—friends of the Church, friends of the farmers, friends of the manufacturers, friends of the people, and now they had friends of the ladies. The change which it was proposed to make might be considered an organic change.—( A laugh.) In the first place, however, he was not aware that it was called for. He was not aware that any excitement existed among ladies on the subject ; he was not aware that any petitions had been presented from them respecting it.—(A laugh.) He certainly did not see that any harm could result from the ad mission of ladies into the gallery. But would the thing end there ?—(A laugh.) Were there no ulterior views ?—( A laugh.) The ladies might wish to be admitted into the library or other apartments ; they might wish to push matters farther —( A laugh, and cries of " Order")—and how was the admis sion of ladies to be regulated ? It would be impossible to ad mit as many ladies as there were Members of the House. Was the right of selection to be vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department ?—( A laugh.) If so, that Right Hon. Gentleman might subject himself to the charge of giving an undue preference to ladies of a peculiar description—( A laugh)—he might be accused of being influencedin his choice by corrupt motives.—( A laugh.) He hoped that if the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire really intended to introduce a Bill on the subject, he would not do so in the present Session : he hoped the Hon. Member would give an opportunity of letting the matter be canvassed in all the populous towns of the king dom. To him it appeared to be so difficult to understand all the bearings of the subject—( A laugh)—that he did not think that in fewer than three Sessions it would be possible to com prehend them all.—(A laugh.) . Captain PECHELL had last year supported the motion, and would support it on the present occasion. He hoped that the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire would be more for tunate with respect to his fair clients than he (Captain Pechell) had been with respect to the client whose case he had brought under the consideration of the House. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY shortly replied, assuring the Hon. Member who had addressed the House last but one, that he bad no ulterior views whatever. The House then divided— Aves Kies Majority . in favour of the Motion During the exclusion of strangers a discussion took place as to whether (we believe) the resolution should be applicable to the present or to the new Houses of Parliament. Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice of a further motion upon the subject to-morrow (this) evening. LORD BRUDENELL. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH—The object of the motion of which I have given notice, is to call in question an an appointment in the army. I do this upon the principle that some officer of the Crown ought to be directly responsible to this House for the administration of the niilitary department of the State. I contend that the Commons of England have a distinct right to demand an explanation with reference to any appointment in the army which may seem to them ob jectionable. That right is founded upon the same basis as all the other rights possessed by the Commons. It will be said that this is an attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the Monarch ; by no means, I make use of a perfectly constitu tional doctrine, when I affirm that the prerogative of the Mo narch can never be injurious to his people ; consequently, if I prove that the appointment is an improper one, I prove, by the very terms of the proposition, that the appointment in question could not result from the exercise of the royal prerogative, but from the power of some one who ought to be made responsible for his conduct. But the people have to pay for these appoint ments ; therefore, it is the duty of the representatives-of the people not to pay for any appointment which is not a fit ting one, and, if this be their duty, it is clear that they are bound to examine into the fitness of every appointment with reference to which there may be any reasonable grounds of suspicion. The Commons have the power of controlling all the departments of the State, and have ex ercised that power ; over some departments that power is exercised more frequently, over others less. The mode in which that power is generally exercised is, first, by asking an official explanation with re(erence to an appoint ment ; if that explanation be not satisfactory to the House, and the appointment be persevered in, the next step is to move some resolution condemnatory of the appointment ; if this be carried, and without effect, the next step is an address to the Crown to cancel the appointment, or to dismiss the person who made the appointment, or an impeachment of the person responsible for the appointment ; if all this be vain, then the next step is to stop the supplies—(Hear, hear, and a laugh) —and if this be likewise ineffectual, the last and ultimate appeal is to those who sent us here to be their faithful representatives. ' Such is the constitutional chain by which the representatives of the people have asserted their right, and proved their power to control all the departments in the State. The first step, viz., that of demanding an official explanation, is generally sufficient, for then the arguments for and against the appoint ment are stated, and from the tone of the House it appears whether the appointment can be persevered in or must be can celled. Thus, a few weeks ago, the Hon. Baronet the Mem ber for Tamworth asked certain questions with reference to the appointment of magistrates—the answer of the Noble Lord who is responsible for those appointments was satisfactory-- (Oh, oh, and hear)—to the majority of the House, and then the question dropped. Thus, last year, Noble Lord was ap pointed to an embassy to a Northern Court ; that appointment was deemed an objectionable one by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud, who put a question with regard to it. The subject was subsequently brought under the consideration of the House by my Hon. Friend the Member for Tip perary, who was seconded by the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Kirkcudbright, and supported by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Nottingham. These Right Hon. Gentlemen very properly disregarded the asser tions of the opposite party—that they intended to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. They, by their acts, dis tinctly asserted - the right of the Commons to control all de partments of the State ; they demanded an official explana tion, the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite did not appear satisfactory ; the appointment was given up—in other words, it was cancelled—and my Right Hon. Friends had the extreme satisfaction of vindicating the power of the Commons, in defiance of those who endeavoured to shield : themselves from responsibility behind that which they were pleased incorrectly to term the prerogative of the Monarch. Indeed, whenever we hear that term " prerogative" made use of within the walls of this House, we may feel convinced that ' some abuse is about to be defended—some attempt is about to be made to escape inquiry—to shrink from responsibility. In times past, the prerogative of the Monarch was said to extend over every department of the State. Laud would have been the outcry, and imminent the danger of being sent to the Tower, if any Honourable Member had then presumed to question the fitness of an ambassador, or the appoint ment of a magistrate. Those times are passed ; and now the heads of each department in the State, except one, arc responsible to' the Commons either by themselves or delegates, and may be called upon to answer for their conduct by any Member of this House. From this responsibility they never shrink. Thus, in matters concerning the Home De"- partment the Noble Lord is responsible for each individual act. In matters concerning the Colonial Office, my Hon. Friend the Member for Devonport is responsible in the name of Lord Glenelc, whose conduct he invariably explains in the most ample manner. In the Navy, the First Lord of the Ad. miralty is a Member of the other House ; but some of the junior Lords are in this House to answer for his conduct ; si milarly, in all other departments of the State except one in the Army. I have shown that the Commons have the same right to demand an explanation with regard to the appointments in the army, as they have to demand an explanation with refe rence to the appointment of ambassadors, magistrates, &c. ; consequently, there ought to be some person connected with the Government in this House' who should be held responsi ble for the administration of the arr 4—( Hear, hear, hear) — but there is no one. I asked a question some time ago with reference to an appointment. in the army, the proptiety of which seemed to me questionable. I demanded an ' official answer. The Secretary at War told me that he was not responsible ; the leader of the House of Commons informed es that the MitriSters of the rdvitr stem not responsible for t.Efc in' ivi.dual,acts, 1J only responsibl4l t&'t the general con dEt Fit if-le boriS'Ain4er-in-Chief. Now I with elt•stly to be understodd !lel id id4 , ,i4e;n l , ieneral conduct of the Gum ' • ' • • • a -nit ie. niarieer-ie-,,hiei—not to cai „st,en av ? genc.a. a-i - tration of the army, whiet adininistratidn# believe, is satis factory and deserving of high praise—but I derlititi4 official with reference to a particular act of the e?m -treil;l,,r,-TCiPf,' hy intend to impugn. My Right lieu. an . ti 1.:al'aloi!. Ter tianuceston was :he only person who seemed deaoild if/ aka i'cieVensibility for dais act of the Commander-in-Chief upon I hardly supi;2`;C that his Majesty's Ministers would consent dies he should be consideret; the official organ of the Commander le-Chief hi this House, how eminently soever my Ri g ht Hon. Prided rtiity he qiiatified 10! that talk. Thus it appears there It rid dile iiithin the Wailg of Viii House connected with his Majesty's (ijdrnisliedt who is directly ferrneibie to the Com mons for the adinltiltifaiimi of 'fie,' *my, This, Sir, is a great evil ; for' the only retiptiel4fAiity; in the first instance, it that of the Ministers of the *dohs' fa,' this It4_tricinsibility is founded upon 'thd 14k4ef which the House pesse:. ef withholding its support House, and dig to those Ministers ; if, theretdfei the head of one of .! I w,Fir t e st departments of the State ve fodt a Minister of Crown, the control of the House ot‘Cf 'conduct would ltU Very sliMlit ; in other words, he would ! irrespon sible. But it le the acknowledged principle of the; Fee,u stitution that every" tA,tor el the State, except the Mo-' nareb, is responsible. fiecitilld the Monarch is not responsi ble, every one of his acts must be peffoittied with the concur renee of same perion who is responsible. Id IS4 army this person 11 the Commander-in-chief. This responsibili/;s being admitted in principle, what is the provision made fpr entufeity it in practice ? The old illOds tif enforcing responsibility was by punishments, but this mode has tscre.toe obsolete and nuga tory ; moreover, by its very nature it is itivplicable, except in eases of definable crime. The days of impe.itchment are passed ; moreover, it would be absurd to impeach the chief of a department for merely one objectionable appointment; and it would be equally ueelege to move an address to the Crown to remove the functionary. Thus it is evident, if these were the only means of enforcing responsibility, an immense number of objectionable acts would be performed ; for it is the nature of all Ministers—the past, the present, and the future, to do objectionable acts, if they can do them with impunity.— ( Hear, and a laugh.) I affirm not this in reproach of any in dividual Administration, but I affirm it universally of all men vested with power, whatsoever their political sentiments may be ; if they possess power and can abuse' it with safety, they will abuse it ; and the means by which they ought to be pre vented from doing objectionable acts arc riot to deprive them of power, but to make them truly responsible to those who alone have a permanent interest in good government—viz., to the people through their Representatives.—( Hear, hear.) I have shown that the old mode of enforcing responsibility by punish ments is become obsolete unless, therefore, its place had been supplied by a new mode of responsibility, there would be .no responsibility at all, and the recognised first principle of this and every other representative government would remain a dead letter. This has been prevented by the growth of a less severe, but far more effectual, responsibility, which consists in the liability of being called to account by this House, with the consequent chance, not of punishment, but of losing o ffice. Such, Sir, is the real responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown to the nation. It consists, in the first instance, in their being obliged to answer the questions of the representatives of the people—in their being compelled to give satisfactory ex planations of their conduct. I call for the extension of this species of responsibility to the chief of the arinj',—(Hear.) He is acknowledged to come as much as any Minister of the Crown within the constitutional principle of responsibility': He is in consequence liable along with them to the severe, but for that very reason practically obsolete and ineffectual respon sibility. He wears, like them, the badge of responsibility, but they have happily become liable to the reality of it—so ought he. How eminent, how illustrious, soever he may be ; how irreproachable soever his general conduct may have been —and none of these positions do I intend in any way to con trovert—nevertheless I contend that he ought not to escape from responsibility. For these reasons I consider that one of his Majesty's Ministers ought to be at the head of the army— ought to be held responsible to this House for the admistra tion of the army, and be present by himself or delegate in his place in the House of Commons to answer the questions and complaints of the representatives of the people, with reference to his conduct in the administration of military affairs. The consequence of there not being any one within the walls of this House who is authorised to explain the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief is this, that I am most reluctantly obliged to bring a specific charge against him, and to call upon the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into his conduct. In order to justify the House in acceding to this motion, I must state reasonable and apparent grounds of suspicion with refe rence to the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. I charge the Commander-in-Chief with having made an improper ap pointment. My grounds for suspecting that appointment are founded upon the fact, that the officer appointed was censured in terms so strong, that if that censure be a just one, he is in every way unfit to command a regiment. On the other hand, if that censure be an improper one, it cannot fail to be highly injurious to the army to place in a station of im portant trust an officer against whom that censure stands recorded and uncancelled in the order books of the army. I wish distinctly to be understood to pronounce no opinion what soever with regard to the justice or injustice of that censure, not that I should (if I feel it necessary) in any way shrink from avowing my opinion, but because ,this subject is beside the question, as I do not intend to impugn the past conduct of the officer in question, but the present conduct of the Commander in-chief in assenting to this appointment, after having assented to the general order which I will now read to the House. This general order is dated Feb. 1. 1834, and contains the deci sion of a Court-martial with reference to certain charges brought by Lord Brudenell against Captain Wathen. I will read the decision to the House : " The Court having taken into its serious consideration the evidence produced in support of the charges against the pri soner, Captain Augustus Wathen, of the 15th or King's Hus sars, his defence, and the evidence he has adduced, is of opi nion that he is not guilty of any of the charges preferred against him. The Court, therefore honourably acquits him of each and of all the charges. " Bearing in mind the whole process and tendency of this trial, the Court cannot refrain from animadverting on the pe culiar and extraordinary measures which have been restored to by the prosecutor. " Whatever may have been his motive for instituting charges of so serious a nature against Captain Wathen (and they can not ascribe them solely to a wish to uphold the honour and in terests of the army), his conduct has been reprehensible in ad vancing such various and weighty assertiqns to be submitted before a public tribunal, without some sure grounds of esta blishing the facts. " It appears in the recorded minutes of these proceedings that a junior officer was listened to, and non-commissioned officers and soldiers examined, with a view of finding out from them how in particular instances the officers bad executed their respective duties—a practice in every respect most dangerous to the discipline and subordination of the corps, and highly de trimental to that harmony and good feeling which ought to exist betss een officers. " Another practice has been introduced into the 15th Hussars which calls imperatively for the notice and animadversion of the Court—the system of having the conversations of officers taken down in the orderly-room without their knowledge—a practice which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion, and to be most injurious to his Majesty's service. " His Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the Court. " Although it would appear upon an attentive perusal of the whole of the proceedings that some parts of the evidence might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the prosecutor than that which the Court have thought it their duty to place upon them, yet upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, his Majesty has been pleased to crder that Lieut. -Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars. " The General commanding the chief directs that the fore going charges preferred against Captain Augustus Wathen, of the 15th or King's Hussars, together with the finding of the Court and his Majesty's commands thereon, shall lte entered in the general order-book, and read at the head of every regi ment in his Majesty's service. " By command of the Right Honourable the General Com manding-in-Chief. " JOHN MACDONALD, " Adjutant- General." Either 'the decision of the Court-martial is correct or incor rect. Either the order of the Horse Guards founded on that decision is proper or improper. I wish to argue this question in the manner which may be leaSt painful to the feelings of individuals: I wish to call in question as little as possible the past conduct of the Noble Lord. I am grieved that it is necessary for me even to allude to that conduct; for he, I think, has been most severely and most painfully punished, in the manner most agonizing to the feelings of an honour able gentleman ; nothing could justify the dragging of this question again before the public, except the circumstance of the Noble Lord being appointed to a situation of high trust. Ido not seek .to censure again that Noble Lord ; but I seek to censure him who has appointed the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) I ask how the confidential adviser of his Majesty in military affairs has dared to make this appointment, after having sanctioned the general order which I have read to the House, after having directed that general order to be pro claimed at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service ? Perhaps it may be said that the Commander-in-chief considers the decision of the Court martial to be incorrect. If there be in this House any member authorised to speak in that func tionary's name, I call upon him hereafter in reply to me to an swer that question distinctly in the affirmative or negative.— ( Hear, hear.) Perhaps it may be said the Commander-in- Chief means this appointment as a sort of underhand atone ment to the Noble Lord, as a species of underhand acknow ledgement of the injustice with which he considers the. Noble Lord has been treated ; if this be the case, then, Sir, I affirm the Noble Lord is one of the most deeply injured individuals — one of the most cruelly treated persons in this country ; deeply injured and cruelly treated in not having been permitted to exculpate himself by means of a general Cc tvt-mart:al Hear, hear)—for this appointment in no way or manner effaces the decision of the Court. The decision still remains, and can only be blotted out in the same manner as it was made known, viz., by a general order to be issued from the Horse-Guards, to be read at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service, proving that the decision in question is unjust, false, and ca lumnious, Will the C om mander-in-Chief dare to take this step ? But it may be contended that the Noble Lord is satis fied ; this, unfortunately, is not the question. The question is, will the public be satisfied ?—will the British army be satis fied ?—will the officers of the gallant regiment which the Noble Lord is appointed to command—will they be satisfied? No : I . _ --- _._______ ----..00C they will not consider this appointment as tantamount t2.laoP.',‘iii that the decision of the Court-martial was incorrect. li - r . eo. nal which passed this sentence —they will read over thel,toil reneon in the following mariner :—They will refer to the .s yu, gAlttnt and honourable names—they will say those ine t% the their mats, came to this decision. , They will then ref circumstences of the trial—they will find that the'or.,Sr°ch_l,e. Lord brought charges against one of the officers of hicr gad le'oret, for condoct unbecoming the character of an offi? _ „ a ",':_. a grerittereo•n--that they will find that the Court-ial l a n; • and holloosurety acquitted the proeeeuted tatter of t ael fi n d fied all the charge; brought against him. They vvill the=m . 0.5 I that the Court deemed the charges so weighty and so se c r ft ' i l .. '' Cour t and 44'W1 evidence adduced in support of them so weak, volous, tool so unsatisfactory—they will find that the re _ thought that the measures adopted to obtain evidence we improper and so i'epeeheneible, and the defence so conlP iet 7 and so ample —they will leavo that the Court were convtn,... that the Noble Lord had beds induced to bring these welen2l charges by other motives than those solely of upholdiligeo7 honour and interests of the army. They will find th Roosting sequence of all this, the Court fe:!: it its duty (~ thereby the daily example of the judges on the bench) to ~i.i.a madvert on the conduct of the prosecute; s, and to reprim and the Noble Lord in the harsh and reproachlol terms " Court went out of the line prescribed to it in coming have read to the douse. Though it may be asoerted that th e to tin' decision , t loos ti on which the British army will canvass is tills• will that question is one of no imporo . Th e is thd o oc i s i oo , correct or incorrect ? To this theyvisoo reply by referi7nig' the Court-martist ;to the names of the officers by 't" tr „ sees composed, and then pronounce, re°,.... tunately enmstances w hich e o ljo r od this decision, they will -fin 1 veto i n the o tri rooo :ive. They will then consider t 1 1 . 2 h i e Noble Lord petitioned for' a oew trial ; they will not, howe the decision ; for they will observe . that every person, how i'' , l , o •nuld call for a new trial a t, consider this fact as the slcZlitest proof of the injustice o f t soever condemned, would wish, much might be gained—nothing coi. Sir, the refusal to grtent a Court-marts."l, will to th er ?'fied , overwhelming proof that the Commander-' .till couldhcoe,, -ld be lost thereby. ~ecno nothing in the proceedings of that Court-mai' tial "hicf the 11 : justify a new trial, though he palliated the hard. i t r a ea . cision by stating that some portions of the e vidence' 'n i t , 'er,ble sonably bear a construction less unfavourable to IV, 00 . Lord. Thus, Sir, the officers of the British army wit ,i s a douhledly, consider that the decision of the Court-mar:, ' ar y correct one, and will persevere in this belief till th be proved. I again ask what is the opinion of the Conlorec7o der-in-chief with reference to that decision ? Why , rf , it : n eve an incorrect one, was it not cancelled at the tiri`e , a,"'„;,oan trial granted ? If the contrary be the case—if th c ‘-',_°,—,.-, be der-in-chief consider the decision a correct one, I Lis in g - been dares to make such an appointment ? An attempt, -" oiat made to throw a portion of the responsibility for this LT! aus e e cestr _... merit upon my Hon. Friend the Member for Coventry , 6 ‘• l e er in .1833, he stated to the Commander-in-chief that no el re ought ought to be put upon half - pay who was not entitled tone,be .lit employed. This principle is perh a p s a very correct ?t. th e of the question is not with refere n c e to the principle, but whetliy the Commander-in - Chief ought , after the decision ? Court-martial, to have put the Noble Lord upon balf-Pler For this act my Hon. Friend cou ld net be respon s ible- - w this act the Commander-in - Chief is responsible. And nos the Commander-in-Chief is agai n res p onsible for apPereA the officer in question as the fitte st p erson to command a r d e f e i, ment. It may, perhaps, be conten ded, that though the l as sine of the Court - martial is corre ct, y et the Noble Ler d o g been sufficiently punished ; this Ido not deny --t hose st r° o A and reproachful terms must ha v e been almost maddening Abe person of the Noble Lord's honour able feelin g s. But he ' der , discusses this question as one of pun ishment utterly ells°ere t ies :tends the whole subject. The question is not with refdiii, to poraishment, but with reference to the fitness of anu s tioS dual for on important ',oust. This is the view of the eh is which will be taken by the officers d" the regiment which u n i. tiered as nothing by the Comt' about to command. Is, they. will ask, our honour to be co A years ago directed us to proclaitel place at our head a person whe' ander-in-Chief, that lie sh°; o m he himself has eng e rs, three times on parade to make knows: to our brother 0 o g to our men, as h a so ot introduced into his regiment " a peaottice which c 5 0 be considered otherwise than revolting to honourable feeling of a gentleman ?" Out' Conuna ll hot officer, they will say, must not only be witiornzt , 11. 11 :0ebr, without reproach. These, Sir, if I mistake me no",,,itoen' will be the terms in which the officers of this gallant : es o An t i every propeco, will express themselves. A more gallant regiment de- -ve° exist in his Majesty's service, nor one t hat has better se' its country—in Egypt, in the Peninsula, at Waterloe, ago the army of occupation in France, thence, seventeen yea rs ,„A ate - to India, at Bhurtpore, and elsewhere, it has distingtlisuvro it , self; some of its officers have been nearly as many Ye rt. " l 46. the army as the Noble Lord has lived years in this Al The two majors have served with this regiment since , n . ' o r and 1811. With what feelings will they view the 0" - ot ment over their heads of this young officer, who has P p heard the sound of a musket, except in the mimic cortihf t e l d T er review ; who entered the army in 1824, with unexamf" o je pidity obtained an unattached lieut.-coloneiry in .1 83 1 e se , 1832 the command of a regiment, in 1834, tw: Years scot' wards, was removed from that command for alleged 2 11 100 duct—and now in 1836, two years mo r e , is deemed tue or, person to command their regiment ? The will rou''-will and most justly—loud will be their indignation--thef ho se say that which is said in every part of t his town et t hen this question is discussed—they will say , tha t courtlY ' fluence, courtly favour, and courtly intrigue, have , bia nt , the otherwise sound judgment of the Commander-in-CPl;b; and compelled that distinguished and otherwi s e irrep4-0. able officer to make this seemingly most reprehensible Ile pointment—an appointment which cannot fail to produeeflti• painful belief in the minds of all connected wi th then Iv, tish army, that provided an officer possess wealth an"o,„,.it fluence, it matters not what his past conduct may have bee Poof matters not what the solemn decision o f a Court-marti al i s ioll have been against him ; neither that co nduct nor that dee t 0 will be a bar to his future promotion , nor an impediintietl his advancement, over the heads of veterans, to the el 1; he' of those whose conduct his ever been irreproachable. ".",;obli lief, if it were to become general (in my opinion), i s one peli injurious to the honour, to the discip:ine, and to the 0 ., de' nation of the British army, and this fully justifies ir e : I to tl O l mending from the House a Committee to inquire t i l i sr oor conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. The Hon. P o itte e concluded by moving—" That it be referred to a Cie". to inquire into the conduct of the Commander ofth e k . 0 ' in appointing Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell '- Lieutenant- Colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons.' '; Mr. HUME seconded the motion. fde 11' Lord BRUDENEL L. vas aware that he had a ve, r, o plP - a , cote task to perform, on account of the very litnitc'b e feP which he found open to him. For on the one bo a cour t :, bound carefully to avoid impugning the decision of th e t o f s' martial, which was held to inquire into the conduebe Os officer of the 15th Hussars ; while on the other hand equally bound to avoid saying anything which mig ht Plig: l 4 disrcpectful with reference to that exere.'se of th e nio roa o- 1 prerogative which had again appointed him to the e t . - hear„,l of a regiment in his Majesty's service.—( Hear, h e ,":' boo" - „, Of course the House would readily believe, it 1 7 e ferec,, with submission to that decision, and suffered with "s by r", 7 that severe punishment which had been sanctioned Chico King, upon the recommendation of the Commander-i% 11;',,t that he should be little disposed to depart fr e 'ioie ' respect . ful course now, after having been restored by til ii r efe k ' authority to active service.—( Hear, hear, herr.) Y N '," l ., “ lj''',„ rence to the Court-martial held upon the of f icer o f - ;:orai ry t i Hussars, in consequence of that officer having been 11 , ° ;; (li ef „,, acquitted of all the charges brought against hire , "" d ' P I Brudenell) had been much blamed for having instil share 0 proceedings. He was quite willing to take his fel l but h 6 whatever blame might attach to that transaction 00 0 lni' b'egged leave to state to the House that upon that oec e, and acted under the guidance and, more or less, the ad: 1 . 0 1(. 501 certainly with the full sanction, of the General ce r '',,, o f r", the district.—Hear, hear.) By the general ordcr,io th army . he was bound to consult the General comrnantbe'eoltli; district. The report made by a Court of inquiry rind broegto duct of the Commanding officer of a regiment .vho tdpi . o ve he a party to a Court-martial about four years ago, sf ° " i f t o, if a the House the danger he should have exposed hinaso .00501 tea had not followed the course he had done, an d t ' . r eferf e the General commanding the district. The Cour_sooodle to stated—" That --:-- acted injudiciously in n°'oirltot all proceedings again St— in relation to the mili tary ci i reo era' be wherewith he was charged, and laying before the o n of the the distroct a full statement of the case oi" ------' the Gen e w opinions so expressed b 3. him, in order to obtain >r to t he 00 0 . commanding the district instructions applicable t° s in c ell- e cl sion." The officer instituting those proccedingg s va ., o iss ° , 4 , quenee reprimanded ; and in 1832 a general o rder r. ty 's s v o r , and read at the head of every regiment in his Mai e ' ob leer dg , vice, condemning the conduct of the commending an d .1' he the regiment lor a deficiency in care, discretio;ol,nsulted r , .. t i f ment. In recollection of this reprimand, he c neer ' bi d General of the district; and so entirely did hc c° oo d e ct 00 him ( Lord Brudenell) in opinion relative to the i r re port 0 the officer in question, that he transmitted a 'lr ecia countl, so the subject to the Commander-in-Chief in thi' • ao elf t 1 „, , d h' o ' e die o , Hussa rs ', o rivar ds bss which he stated that that officer had coo' --"" • l ic%r. - v improperly in his presence that he considered it 1 , ,00 ' l v for him to remain any longer in the 15111 the groundwork of the Court-martial ; and when e i l t , oist the ( Lord Brudenell) was ordered to prefer charg es ii ';',. l :l of ; c l. officer, he previously submitted them to the Ge be 5 ,10r, 0 0 district, who approved of and advised them t o r ecs. ~vas Well, that officer was brought to trial upon those co 3 l ' o il, -,.., General of the district, who still remained© coo n t b ot i e , the principal evidence on that occasion. Court 0' 31. ' 5 ot ably acquitted the officer of all and every en° of t sh.ooldor,,lla• and upon that part of the subject, therefore, ill': ohs; ti oi tons. Bat if any Hon. Member really th think it consistent with his duty to make any ill' : he ha° t he been treated with sufficient severity, he would state been House that there were numerous cases where offiee be n o v a ought obe to _ rt brought to trial and honourably acquitted, and ),pl,O bad that aware of any instance of a commanding officer i ce On jo as prosecutor ever having been dismissed se s.h o ery d ur oo t account. His conduct having been very strong terms, he must now take the liberty. 1 , -) ‘ie„ibtie, of was stated in the official letters laid before r eve ..,. . bo ' re e o .. t der , animdre±rerepeat woo that House, that those animadversions were n°' ener al °` 00 justified by evidence, nor sanctioned by the h i c o frer e „ Al nor even by the general order which r emove d r sa ide-o t he though it Would appears upon an Wenn% e i . , . iie C o to command of his regiment. The general 1• r ° , .e ti r ei ,eo whole of the proceedings, that some partsnfa 1 ' vourahle t°toeif might reasonably bear a construction less u ,_,,,,,.1 i it c oo prosecutor than that which the Court halr.ev!eu'"cof theierset, duty to place upon them ; yet," &t'. Thai., tiirwo .. soused to was corroborated by the letter of Lord i, ous ?; plea lo oef dated Feb. 22, 1834 " The King is f;i:ac.'_oieious 'n, iot o signify his satisfaction at the temperate 'it'd J 1.7,, enters o in which your Lordship has, in that memo i :1. AYLESBURY RAILWAY BILL. Sir THOMAS FRENIANTLE moved the further cons! deration of the Report on the Aylesbury Railway Agreed to. MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. Mr. GISBORNE moved the further consideration of this Bill. Sir RONALD FERGUSON moved that the Bill should be re-committed. Mr. STRUTT. seconded the motion. He did so, because the -parties had acted against good faith with the people, and they were trifling with the House by an evasion, saying that one Company had no intention of prosecuting the line, which was immediately taken up by themselves under the evasion of another Company. Mr. C. ROSS supported the original motion. Lord LINCOLN supported the Bill. Mr. WILLIAM PEEL also supported the Bill, amidst loud cries of " Divide." Mr. FINCH thought that it would be a great hardship if this Bill were stopped in its present stage. The parties who applied for the re-commitment of the Bill, were labouring under great hardships, and he should vote for the motion. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but a prolonged con versation took place, and, on our re-admission, it appeared that a division had taken place on the question, " That this report be now considered"— Ayes 25 Noes l7B ' Majority 153 The Bill was then ordered to be committed . THE LADIES. On the motion of Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY the report of the Select Committee appointed last session with respect to the admission of ladies into a part of the strangers' gallery, was read by the clerk. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY said that in rising in pursuance of his notice to move that the recommendation of the Committee be adopted, he felt great regret at the circum stance that, owing to his motion not having come on in the ordinary course of time, many friends of that motion were not present. He was at a loss, however, to understand what ob jection could be made to the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee. That Committee had been fairly chosen, and their report was impartial and unprejudiced. He had never heard a single sound reason advanced why ladies should not be admitted into that House for the purpose of hearing the debates, provided they were placed in such a situation that they could not interfere with the business of the House.—( A laugh.) He did not know what might be the case with other Members, but he was sure that their presence would make no difference in his thoughts. —( A laugh.) There might certainly be Hon. Gentlemen of a more inflammable nature--_(A laugh)—but he did not think that was an objection which would be seriously urged. For his part he was persuaded that if ladies were once admit ted into the Gallery much good would be the result ; and especially that, that in many cases, debates would n o t b e so pro longed as they were at present. It had indeed been alleged, that if ladies were present, many Hon. Members who were not now in the habit of speaking, would hold forth, and at considerable length ; but be did not think that such would Le the case. On the contrary, in his opinion many Hon. Mem bers who spoke much better in the Newspapers than they did in that House would abstain from speaking, if ladies were present to judge of the comparative merits of their spoken and their reported speeches.—( A laugh.) Knowing, how ever, that almost every Hon. Member who was listening to him wished to dine—( A laugh)—and anticipating no objection to his immediate proposition, he would detain the House no longer, but would at once move, " That it is the opinion of this House. that the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed in the session of 1835, with respect to the admission of ladies into a portion of the Strangers' Gallery be adopted, together with the plan for the purpose of Sir Robert Smirke ; and that directions be given to that architect to proceed as speedily as possible in the execution of his plan, at such hours as may not interfere with the business of the House." Mr. POTTER hoped the House would agree to the mo tion of the Hon. Gentleman ; for he really could not see any objection to ladies hearing the debates of the House. The plan had been already tried in both Houses of Parliament—in that House when the Lords occupied it, and no objections were urged against it, that be ever heard of. In the ventilator of the old House of Commons, every evening ladies had been