The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

PMNP"' - ' r ‘ll - ,NT , Jule ,1 o'clock this ec :ram tt..c CAT E. iri•;TiCr ordered to be ) tb i j i , ANGTao , ' -inted. et' • ~4ented two t r i i s tering the r moved for t oi of fifteen frPoo 1 orphan. e rs C ° ommiss,oo, the poor - 110 9 ed to. AILW A Y ' Ai° or titions In 'RALIA , s tole ill for ree l lies. b e O.' dered to LL. cund USE. 001 'erred wit. ne e nent with ,tior4ce, ed to introutY could not b e h alf pec t to the h alf of leaseg• 7 0 , o the Bills e j (0: 1 m.payme nt ory y e Grand o ttf 01114 Ai sion, re en lin e d zess, an d" A 0! ob!e Lc.- be to measure/ ~d O l I for 1061° 7 ° I sen t dog e Pr A durincPbei; Irish 51 0 ht the Iriti l ei o ect. H e b / d 11 habits cted. ,ogle of both tfo se i; , big k i a tnat f ,uld pith" . ; r est ' 0 mqve et o l o merely I t with ;V !en her ,pig 1e i s of 0 o perm eying ble. 01# 1 red JO j, e prole° . k f do telir ru - r u broug9 TL Yes, John He before the ige usPc l ,f Lords. any thiolfr i f 4 j 11 only ss„ siness, 'r wh et ' ware the nduct,ii rd. ot I 4.01 11 1' 11 A s of ths 4 s b was I d b° fr seeking 0 0 ° the 6tl • l A es I beg 04 ith the stei ent prep ~d prep s mtt, Y L ord. that rote • my the L lt s ' bar, 0411' the 0411' rin ages you ; 1 • Ad -- - _ - ---- had done en act of rl3 0. - d:nary n tore. They had gone the length , o ask him to disclose ,ills,. the case in l a w wee then from the statement of the opposite party it must appear that he ada different cause ef act - eel to I , 14 tte', in the dcareee. it " ts an alien. for ',tor is spekee by S a b o itness, in gerene e••;s re!, .ce: !leer would any elf their Lordships, wile hoe brought Zel action, like to state in the eresentte et an adversary why he brought his action, what evidenee he meant to adduce, *hat I e meant to do, what to rove ? 1111 °111,1 say p They tad dent all this; but 1 e no more then oh that point. He protesti d r ter allYs reserving to himself the argument when ileZ:, e proper time should arrive. —( Hear, hear.) Now said this was a hreaeh of privilege. Go on with the action Wit t l" liked, and toe (+Milt he knew he intended to go on zia it, but thet they should send them both prisolers to Iw g V e• This was what they were about to do. This was °be of the instances in which they stood in a different position dighe other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House I ,neortyexamine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial Chars ter at all, whilst they were judges in the highes' Court— Court before which this action :might be brought by a rliWrit of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the es to proceed with the action at their peril, laying the b u ° ton on which they as a Court of Error, might be called -o ° ll to decide. A; th e _ your peril go on—we are seaurt of last resort. But there was another most matPria' i:krticular in which that House differed from the other, which "Uld well believe ; but he could well imagine hat a person Ch est consistently saying in the other House of Parliament— be ' I n cite are our privileges and, we will net allow an action to ''lntight, that we twill stop it main forts, by main force, be. :V a se that action was breught to trial—to judgment— tese—,,thltt, Judgment is carried by an appeal in the last th em ; en all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to Riven' . If evidence was rejected, if a sentence was improperly vast ' if a judge charged a jury in violation of the taw, then a but of error lay with the aggrieved parties, and they could :L i g i t for trial before that House. They were tooudges in stub see Whether they would or no. They were act ex mecca -II:re- But it was said that unless witnesses were protected, 4110e.seeseerilei; knew they were to have protection, there could be of their evidence being obtained. Why, they were li;tnteeted• The y were protected in their coming to the House, ;their retrain there and in their leaving. For all purposes e s : cu ring evidence there was no illegal interference whaterer. th lt „7 was no cause for apprehension. It was their bounden e , to was the witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it -et at ep er t all necessary to exempt witnesses from the ordinary a toes of the law after they had given their evidence. To no sue the th e e" conclusions did he come. But it was said. what was I' ei es e of bringino witnesses before them, if they were 4,. , be calleeto account before a court sf justice l ' e ' e t itat prevent them from speaking the truth. If they e t I "" er ed they were liable to damages, hut if they spoke the see th law would afford them its protection. But let them II: t h eefallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur . z,l!tka witness had been examined respecting a line of railway. on telf ars i le ri d g t c o ottld be more false than the testimony of that witness, to t ug that witnesses were present that would be brought confront him, admitted that he had given evidence sub. 'inner occasion that he could not sub-tantiate there. That 1.01,77, however, would eome, in all probability, before their IsittlniPa t omorrow. But this perjured witness, whom . it was th e ' ti bete) necessary to protect, was liable to be punished for • deetevidence he had given : and if so there was an end to the aho tt rin e e of protection. The Clerk of the Committee, the ineeLuand writer, or even the door-keepers, might indict that • fi l eV', and the House had no power to stop the proceedings. ls r e , of such proceedings would depend upon the truth or Pres se °e d of what he had sworn. What was there different in the th e , lt ease to the one he had referred to? They were both ( h. w a rt Whether the case was a civil or a criminal action, e s th eosoever originated it. Nothing was so plaits Ile i odic person person giving false evidence was liable . to !aid!aid th e lef ed at the suit of any one. .But it was ,cates were different, that the one suit had been e ti ll b4S:" I ,°Y a private party, and the other would be instituted "lovh se ":' of the Crown, though a private individual was Ptivil e ". in the ease. If so, then, it came to this, they had . no 1410" against an action from the Crown, but . only . against they• 3 ct• He had been led to think that their privileges were th e 10 their hands to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of t,ileir Pe :ele: nut according to this doctrine, it now seemed Fepos e r e Tileges were omnipotent only against the people, and os theagainst the Crown. But let them look to what must !Ia ,ogr necessary results. He meant the logical results of such let th e In the first place, the advocates for privilege said %tete ellinishment for perjury was sufficient to protect the latotheren individual ; but the law sa'd that there should f be the o u r Illode nf proceeding. '1 he Lev said the punishment was or tltt t , ti !ection of the üblic and the action was to give the slan % Individual repa P ratio . n. But the advocates of privilege said 14 ? -rt 84 ° 111 d boW h e eno separation, there should only be punishment. Of tle s ,Priyed them to consider what must be the consequence tliestioe'segally —judicially. He entreated an answer to his id ti les -. I he committed the plaintiff and his atto-ney. ktio e Put an end to the action ? No such thing. The . %nee etnained—the action went on. The plaintiff and his theta 0 his counsel might be committed, and he _found had 4 —Vectable gentleman. whose name was not mentioned, b II Y he has • p nion '. which the action had been 4iten "° i . whichplaced him in great jeopardy. given an °lemon on ._ ~ ...t iZ t g t .h t : He had given a sound opinion —a lawyer-like opine n hi s h _nth opinion as he was bound to give to those who sought eri4eiessional advice. But according to the advocates for ops e i s ege s he was liable to be brought to the bar for that co nsia n n. ,._, Now suppose all these three several persons to be Path.itseu, would that stay the action ? No, not an hour. Who es-rnent would be up, and another attorney would be found eaeaoould carry Purpose on, unless Parliament met in the th e s l e l . l, for the of incarcerating those who continue 400,_"n--but even if they imprisoned them all, one after o _ s eisea'ar, until there was not an attorney left—whenehe eo ir o g o a se l l, Would the filled with refractory atto-neys and bee n . action cease ? No ;it would still go on. and I t ha d 14 tcuggested that the defendant should not lea a d s , those if it were the life Other House who had defended privilege sh e of Parliament, Parliament had expressed their regret tod io re e pe r n er t : tal,„' c" course he "nein , in their votes, for having . .. cos course lead. Now, in his opi eieu e allowed one of their offi..ers to_ b p ordering the Attor tiey., , they had shown their wisdom h ed „"eneral to plead to the action .b t y it appeared that they time the them of what they had done; u and that . another ke th,, the ~CY would commit all the parties concerned in bringing 34r a ' n ut Of course they would commit the judges and the ee 3 ' who tried it They would commit the Chief-Justice, ti;e l i t lis s e jullees ; and the Chief-Justice, being a member of ta.., Lordships' House, and not being very likely to go volun ,inY to prison they would be at onee - committed in a conflict ttlth their Lord:hips. But, to pose there was no plea. The plain t would sig n an interlocutory judgment, as a matter of course; 111 writ of inquiry would issue ; the Sheriff would execute the tWor executeit,ad, on the e application of the plaintiff, he would be bound out ; and, even then,iadg judgment tress a writ of error were sued if they refused to plead. themaiegtbi gment, and the case J o . t u n cl e gna wv eo nteiltndtuaglwerer on bn e astayed.nbdio brought ripengSoht jud fore them judicially by writ of error. y mews hie sermo." thatb intoe These were not hi ; 4 o N pin u i Ille ons only, they were the opinions of sett-Justice Patteson and of the Chief-Justice of the Court of 4 een's Bench, the hiehest legal authorities in all other places eteept n Houses ''of Parliament. Now, he called . upon „ Ih il elti not to be powerful by halves—not to have their pre rg,,es piecemeal. If they were determined to stand up for V e r r iiege, let them carry it to its fullest extent, and not stop li atr ; aY: Let them cammit judges and juries, and . set Pat!.. s ee ...eot In irr econcilable conflict with the courts of justice —in V e -r t ' s i cnflict, at least as far as Parliament was concerned. so : 11 41 i t he midst of that tempest, so bootlessly, so recklessly, dere: le i cs alY excited —amongst the midst .of that terrible sseeld'ess there would shine a light, to which all good men . rest e d Ppmnt, to whi c h t h e eyes o f all wise men would be d - ter a " C omfort and safety — no t th at lurid light which the lio,test Might extinguish, but that bright, pure, unsullied • tr ete .Zhieh the law, in the administration of justice, derived troehrte untarnished sources from which justice flowed. He Who i e r entied their Lordships of the perils which attended those coetest'inrinualy brought on a contest—a hopeless, helpless Vita e w ee - titb the law. They would by this course hf th . 4. own ale 4 c‘the country which was itself to determine in its own dle onl y ionlething reminded him that this, however, was not siseifsn'Y branch of the constitution which stood precisely under the err eirenmstances. He meant the Crown ; and he supposed ,If th e Z IT ' was as an c i ent a branch of the Constitution as either eeeh t Wouses of Parliament. He knew that there was great t e "s ettibiV' t itg in the minds of many that there was i a popular 'Lie, i s J uamed the Wittenagemot existing in Saxon t mes, an 4 iter t i' e w that CO assembly from the boroughs was collected !her e : Norman conquest. But then it was maintained by e q e r wer‘ -; r a s° ll 3 s that thin could not be considered as a distinct likee'lsthCharter 1 7as tb only it some years after the passing of the that theylad really anything 44:::eg , a e te a r r . l n ia t m i e ri nt. y Thee,:reotnsall events, a Crown existed, at *as in s long as a Parliament, and the executive of the count at . iitnet_ln did the first of these. Yet the Crown never id Is t't :t° itself the privileges that *hat House did. If . the era ' and w r ought hint g th; the subject petitioned against te ached to tee court of law. If the subject en- I," Ns" P° ,l the Crown, the Crown appealed to the law, and m law eet was brought before it. The Crown prosecuted by 11 11 3 , th - e . Zifficers, and the merits of the case would be decided on e tre e "es of the country. Then why. he ask . ed, should j: r e s Pee.t ui Z e s s e r e e k i to. usurp a power which the Crown itself never Fa eG ' is t'tute s d in - the beginning of time ? The Crown ha d ee g since . before whom witnesses were elett:estTßeadt'ioa...tid t heir eo w n it tu n l e s s s s i e u rr ' cieuired to be protected. The ....Prot ee . i. cOuld not be proceeded with without some degree witnesunt, but if the Commissioners of the Crown called a ittre4 lieftore the whoslandered his neighbour, or who I er -48 his "11141 self, Was m litat nei g hbour not to claim equal protection toss f slander ' and if he brought an action against that wit likis t tit the e "+ ei ss , i o k ssev, slander, aid he ( Lord Brougham) should Prot, j4 Sti ce if, even at the time, when Jeffreys was sh e etee 1 , it would be said the witness must be ri Pritij must not be harassed.. We stand upon li n ceee ~e g es of this House—we advise your majesty to t"is en a a - e'e °n ee on a principle which is inalienable in this se ,'" Cl e r ' oe — ,," Which has been exercised from all time. If, teen,. J i qa t ," never resorted to this extreme measure, even if a, w-re eftraittedt on it, why should they, sheltering th.em invite u nder t h e . shield ) of their Parliamentary prerogative!, Pri,ils4 Conflict with the owers of the law ? How had this 4 vtr Z ariginated ? Wa ll s it not first in the commission of 4 7t t ' ; ~,atid secnndl in the assumption of a privilege to pro "le e • rte could po y int out atnone the illustrious patriots of th.. A u , e"'"" h -rY ' "long the most distinguished of those who h . ad - aer l '9er to the bench and to that House, a band which tet viie its e l f as , adversary to the principle of privilege, the h., S nets a.. c laimed by that House. Accidentally the pasha rt 'Il e; P l aced against the Crown gave rise to their sup ilei ° y r 'gh Par liamentary - He mast remind 1 -P , or , i . privileges. Nes, "'nps of the excess to which they carried their prim. orshll4 Suffice it to say, that year afterwards, he found these drawer mores oft H ouse ' which a had thus entered itself into the clap whir it hsd thus used under the name of privilege to hem sit wished, and to act as it thought fit. The very el an. Yee e r e by an oscl• • dby the House of Corn tail, 'ulut the co . rs la t nee f that House, the Crown was to r im , me l e e. li. es; 0, bands, and.o another oa ordinance ' was for the t i l inerit a ' nc to tro,rooptsertof its e orse r r t i o le defend the Per i ges, and to give egtleesslleed,fol protection to their "' witnesses against the Rai tr,', the l'ishops, and the Lords, and the third ordinance end te e 'ell money for the slice of protecting their privileges lAN. Pay the Bills issued by th • Commons' House of Pasha aad its,. f. There were many other cases in their journals 11:4,n-•".?g orders showing the laws made by the House of bew refer,lls i n support of its own privileges, to which he would Fe d o ra , After the Revolution of 168 S and 1689 they had tesealitwnich were still standing, orders communicating to the Prime ants of Mernbsrs of Parliament of both Houses the same Whisijillec_a,of exemption from actions and arrests as those kee l their m ster." enjoyed. Another standing ordi r never sh etlici ed, th ee e , , is esin f late years not practised, wae that no pers , n , n l te e ? i r eellme to take the goods and chattels of any Member ' ii tlgte, L " of Lords and Commons in execution upon any 1 b 't' Another order of the reign of George I. declared We s ( ' e a high breach of the pi iviitores of that House if any h• Pr, surn . '. is win _ .en to write the life of any deceased Peer or publish the 5 ,. 1 .,' a nti orders were posted on the outside of the House, to le e . o that all persons sh :uld have knowledge of the same. l' te re 4rit re so inesnsistent and capricious as to tsoi sse all publicatio n of any debate within the *it h b of C°°l 'nons. Whether the order was strictly complied shi ns ,e the press of this country, he would leave their Lord aQ; .Jo consider. There was just as much a breach of privi tetaktuinoPousbolishing the speeches of any Member of the House . of th 3 ° Meer -r of ords. as there was inc bringing actions against eir c s the Houses or any witnesses examined be:ore fore theiunmittees. He would only have them to consider, be titt*ss Y finallyresolved, that privileges were originally thought eroweerY Wproteet the Houses of Parliament against the " The friends of liberty paid that privilege is absolutely ~~ THE St N, LONOON, TUESDAY MORNING, .JULY 15, 1845. Patlilment. In 1625, in the reign of Charles the First, a progenitor of a Noble Lnrd in that House (the Earl of St. Germ ins), along with Se!den, Stroud, and Pym, requested to pail a teu , ain qui-stint, to the Horse. Orders came from the King that th qu 6t,ou should not be put, ar4 P rliament was dissolved. These paHe, were arr• d vrol the Attorney- General instiluted proceedings against them in the Queen's Bench. The proceedings were carried on, the question was fully argued before the judges, and they convicted these five illustrious men, on the ground that, though they had spoken in Parliament, they had spoken in an unparliamentary way, and were, therefore, amenable for the words spoken. They were severally fined. He would refer to another case, in whica a Member of the House of Commons, Sir William Will:arils, for putting his name to minutes of the House, by order, was prose cuted, and fined in the sum of 10,0001., 8,0001. of which he paid. The Noble Lord, having given several other instances of the practice of the several courts of law, the Common Pleas, the Exchequer, and the Queen's Bench, proceeded to say that there had been as yet no instances in which parties had been proceeded against fir evidence given before a Committee. It was only in these speculative times that such a course could be conceived of; and he was of opinion that unless they in stantly put a stop to such proceedings, and vindicated their privileges, actions of this kind would be multiplied to an in definite extent. There was no confidence to be placed in the courts of law, as far as their privileges were concerned. For the good of the people, as well as for the independence of the House, they were bound to take steps to put an end to those proceedings. Unless they did so, their dignity would be assai'ed, and their usefulness destroyed. —( Cheers. ) The Earl of WICKLOW said, if their Lordships intended to proceed in the way they had specified, it could not fail to lead to serious consequences. He had no doubt that a breach of privilege had been committed, but it had grown out of a dis regard of the privileges which they possessed. It was a breach of privilege to report their proceedings ; it was a breach of privilege to publish evidence taken before a Select Committee. They had winked at the breach of privilege committed in pub lishing the debates; they went further, and authorized the sale of printed papers. Such a course was most objectionable, in many cases, to individuals who had given evidence. These re. ports should only lave been circulated amongst their Lord ships. The case before them arose out of the publicity which had been given to evidence given by a witness before a Com mittee of that House. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack. Not fine of the cases brought forward by that Noble Lord or by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) could fairly be applied to the ease before them. The majority of the cases which had been cited were materially different from that which then engaged their attention. He looked upon it as one of expediency—of discretion. Would they enforce their privilege? No. Because they were not popular with the country. There' was a deep rooted antipathy to the privileges of that House. If they were about to establish a precedent they should take care of its nature. He hoped that the indi vidual would be able to get out of the dilemma in which their Lordships were about to place him. Lord CAMPBELL strongly advised their Lordships to put a stop to the action. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion that Mr. Hallow be committed to the custody' of the Usher of the Black Rod until the further order of the House.—Agreed to. Their Lordships then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Hardwin, should be also committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod. Lord BiIOUGHAM said, what, might be considered con tempt in lAIO would now have a different construction upon it. The Duke of WELLINGTON said the question was now about the attorney. The case was a very extraordinary one, and mignt be specially attributed to the attorney. It was this, that the declaration concealed the fact that the evidence was given to a Committee of the House of Lords. It stated that it was given in a room before their Lordships. This was a very important fact, and should have appeared on the face of the declaration. Lord BROUGHAM—That is the special cleadm-'s fault—not that of , he attorney. Lord CA NIPBELL considered that they would do wrong to commit the plaintiff, and not his attorney, who was much morn to blame than him. Pettifovgirte action, were brought by pettifogging attorneys, who in duced some party to become the plaintiff. He must protest against the doctrine that it was the duty of a solicitor to bting every action which he was instructed to bring. It was the duty of an attorney to examine the cause of action— that there was some reasonable cause for laying it. If they committed one, they ought to commit the other. Lord BROUGHAM said, I have a communication to make. before you order the committal of this person, who has been grievously injured. He has instructed his attorney to dis continue the action. I therefore think that you should proceed no further. The Earl of WICKLOW said, the plaintiff had stated that when he brought the action he was not aware it was a breach of privilege, The LORD CHANCELLOR said in the present ease, as far as it appeared to him, the attorney was the most guilty party.—(Hear.) The plaintiff might know nothing of the privileges of Parliament, but the attorney could not be ignorant of them, and he wished to draw particular attention to the de claration. It stated that certain words were spoken in a certain Committee, from thereports of which they were taken. It dropped the word " Lords," and the mere dropping of that word showed it had been loft out intentionally; because any one doing so would have been guilty of a breach of pri. vilege, so that the attorney was the most guilty party. After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, The LORD CHANCELLOR put the motion that Mr. Hardwin, having been guilty of a breach of privilege, should be committed to the eu.tody of the Usher of the B;ack Rod, which was agreed to, and the parties, who were in attendance at the bar of the House, were then taken into custod-- Sir R. FERGUSON said that he considered this the most important clause in the Bill The Government had taken to t! ernselves every possible power in this case. They had taken the power of building as many asylums as they thought fit, and of making what rules they hail thought fit. But hey had left the important subject of inspection altogether nnprovided rer. The inspectors of prisons ',ere so placed that they courd not discharge efficiently, and with due protection to the lunatics, the office of inspecting the asylums as well as prisons. He would, therefore, press upon the Government the necessity of making an ample provision for frequent and careful inspection. Lord CLENIENTS concurred in what had fallen from his lion. Fnend, and hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir T. Fremantle) w ou ld g i ve some d e fi n i te statemen t upon thi s sub ject before the clause was finally determined on. Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE was sorry that he could not at present lay down any distinct proposition on the subject, but he had no doubt that it would be necessary to make here after some larger provision for frequent and adequate inspection. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, that if the inspectors of pri sons were to have the inspection of all the lunatic asylums, the days of their visits would be regularly anticipated, and the ap pearance of the patients prepared for the examination in the manner most creditable to the managers. Lord C. HAMILTON took the same view as the Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville), and hoped that the Government would take measures to secure an efficient system of in struction. Colonel RAWOON said that the evidence contained in the reports before the ' , louse showed how little the present system of instruction availed for the protection of the inmates. After some further desultory conversation, the clause was agreed to. _ Clause 24, being the interpretation clause, was agreed to without discussion. Clause 25, which limits the operation of the Bill to Ireland, was agreed to, as was also the 26th clause, which provides that the Act may be amended. The preamble was then agreed to, the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. SECOND READINGS. The Turnpike Acts Continuation Bill, the Loan Societies Bill, the Highway Rates Bill, and the Militia Ballets Bill, were severally read a second time, without discussion, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. The House then adjourned till Five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'Clock. LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY. On the motion of illy. BROTHERTON, the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill was postponed till to-morrow. MONMOUTH AND IfEtiEFORD RAILWAY. Tne Monmouth and Hereford Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. BRIGHTON AND LEWES RAILWAY. Mr. LASCELLES brought up the report on the Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford Extension) Bill. The South-Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lords' amendments to the Keyingham Drainage Bill were agreed to. The report on the Yoker Road Bill was brought up. White's Charity Estate Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. The South Wales Railway Bill was read a third time, and pas , ed. Ellison's Estate Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be commuted. GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. The Lords' amendments to the Great North of Enr,land Clarence and Hartlep3ol Jupation) Railyßill were agreed to. and if that magistrate were respected, this loss of life would not have taken place, Sir T. VIIEMANTLg, in answer to the question, said ho would feel it to be his duty to abstain from giving any opinion which might affect the proceedings before a competent tribunal. He might s however, that there had been mote then one magist rate present at liallinhassy during the day on which the un fortunate occurrence took place. It was nine o'cloc•k at night when it to , tk place, and there were then no magistrates present. With reference to the orders alluded to, he would decline at present giving any opinion regarding the issue of such a di rection. neees , ary, and asked what they would do if the Crown weo-e mains? them. His ( Lord Brougham's) answer was, so much tile' better for them. For, if the Crown was against them, he d ri.• .n carry a tiioh hand with , h-ir privileges: ... . ,i-rE(si f, and In ;jiairatCs, an till otht.f 5, to 0.9 i heti: ion sugget• tO I ilt in, ill the sdppres-iloci of riots arid in keeping the streets clear. But, suppo-ing, there were no; sufficient justices, magistrates, or con stables, in Westminsier to suppress the riot, he should like to know what was meant by all ethers. He only stated these things to show the inconsistencies of their privileges. He ( Lord Brougham) was most sure that they had nothing to fear from the justices of the land • and that they ought of a ll men,and of all bodies of men, to ;how the most willing obedi ence to that law, and they ought to be the very last to shrink from protecting their rights, the rights of their witnesses and the rights of their servants and officers. Their Lordships ought to keep in mind the great maxim that the very belt whi:Th bound together the great social pyramid of England was not the apex of the Crown—not the middle region—not the lower ree,ion of the people—but that middle region, in which justice was administered according to law, by lawyers, and, above all, by lawyers who were no political partisan s . t was because they were secured from politics—it was because politics never crossed the threshold of their houses of justice to impede their course, or to tarnish their renown, or interrupt the calm and equable tenour of their way ; it was for that rea son that they were to be safely relied upon by all men ; and it was for that reason that he ought, and they ought, to rely infi nitely more securely upon the protection they were sure to afford, than in any assumption of power under the name of privilege which they might possess. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he considered this a question of the greatest importance, and before he would enter into it, or would say a word with respect to the question itself, he wished to point out to their Lordships the situation in which he stood with respect to it. The Noble Duke presented a petition from a party complaining that an action had been brought,against him in consequence of evidence which he gave before a Committee of that House. It was their Lordships' pleasure that the question of the gaming-laws should be investi gated, and a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the subject. He (the Lord Chan cellor) felt it to be his duty, in consequence of that preliminary step, to bring forward the motion which had given rise to this discussion. He wished, then. in the posi tion in which he was placed, and in the character with which he was clothed, to lay before them, plainly and clearly, the real position of this question, what was the nature of it, and what was the authority on which it rested, in order to enable their Lordships to come to that decision which, after consider ing this important question, they should pronounce. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had quoted and referred to several precedents, which he (the Lord Chancel lor) admitted to be very absurd and very extraordinary. No doubt this House and the other House had, under the name of principle, conducted themselves upon one occasion in an arbi trary and tyrannical manner. The sovereigns of this country at different periods had also abu-ed their power and authority, and he would beg leave to add that when the people them selves had by accident become clothed with power they had, in more than one instance, used a tyrannical, a despotic, and arbitrary power. —( Hear, hear.) The question new was whether, under the circumstances of this case, they ought to interpose their authority in stopping proceedings against a person who had preferred his complaint at their Lord-hips' bar. The first thing was to consider what were the circumstances and facts of the case. This witness was examined before a Select Committee of Inquiry into the laws of gaming. He answered the question- put to him, and there was no pretence to say that these answers were not fairly and honestly given. It was a Select Committee, not open to the public, but, in consequence of the evidence having, in some way or other, been made public, this action had been ' instituted. His Noble and Learned Friend, in the course of his speech, seemed to doubt whether they had sufficient evi dence. independent of what was stated at their Lordships' bar, to show that the action had been brought to recover damages in consequence of evidence which had been brought before their Lordships' Committee. That question was investigated before a Committee of their Lordships, and every member of the Committee was satisfied that the action bad been brought to recover dam - iges for evidence so given, and for that, evidence only. They had the declaration before them com pared with evidence before the Select Committee, and it cor responded in every word. It was a lung succession of testi mony, consisting of questions and answers, so as to render it impossible for any man to doubt that the action was brought in consequence of evidence used before a Committee of their Lordships. It was not necessary to bring the parties bringing the action before the bar, but for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of explaining to their Lordships what were their motives, and to set themselves right if they thought proper. They did not do so, and in consequence he (the Lord Chancellor) made a motion to the effect that they were guilty of a breach of their Lordships' privileges, in order that, after having evidence advanced on the subject, they might come to a decision on that point. It had been said by his Noble and Learned Friend, and very correctly said, and he thought said on iormer occasions, that no action of this kind could be main tained in the Courts of Westminster-hall. Therefore he (Lord Brougham) suggested that they should allow the action to go on and the law to take its course. His (the Lord Chan cellor's) answer to that was very short and simple. Here was a person'called before a Committee and compelled to give evidence; an action was brought against him, and it entirely failed; nut anybody who had any acquaintance with the admi nistration of justice would see that notwithstanding the verdict in his favour the consequence would be that consider able costs would come out of his own pocket.—( Hear, hear.) Everybody knew that the defendant was entitled only to taxed costs, and these fell very far short indeed of the real costs which the party had to pay. So that the in dividual who was compelled to come before their Committee and to give honest evidence, was to be dragged into a court of justice and go through all this ordeal. and ultimately , , in the event of his success, to be taxed with these costs. That was only a part of the ease. Everybody who knew anything of the administration of justice knew how many accidents there were which occurred in a cause. Slips might be made, owing to the fault. perhaps, of the couns-1, the consequence of which would be that the defendant would have a judgment against him, and would have to pay the whole costs out of his own pocket. These were the risks to which they would expose their wit nesses. Was it not of importance that they should proteet their own witnesses ? And what was of more importance than the appointment of select committees for the purpose of discovering the truth of important matters t If a witness who was to be examined before any of these Committees knew the risks to which he was exposed, and that he was running the chance of being, dragged before a court of justice for the evidence which he would give, it would lead to a suppression of the entire truth, and would induce him to withhold everything that he felt a 'raid to disclose. His Noble and Learned Friend thought it extraordinary that a man should be interfered with in his appeal to a court of justice. It was strange, considering the high position that Noble Lord once occupied, as head of the Court of Chancery, and considering his great eruditien, that he should have propounded such a proposition. Why it was an every-day practice in Chancery ; if any officer in the execution of his duty had an action brought against him, he prayed for an injunction to stop the suit, and it was immediately accorded, while the man who brought the action was committed to prison, and kept there till he obeyed the orders of the Court. But the Noble Lord had said, that even if the House went to ulterior steps, it would be inutile, for others would conduct the suit. But the action could not be carried on without agents, and if any man dared to carry on the action, while its originator was in custody, ha would be committed for contempt, and also punished. This was perfectly analogous to the present question • and the prin ciple was not only applicable to office's, but all persons con nected with the Court. If a receiver, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, was harassed by an action, he could claim and re ceive the protection of the Court ; so also was it in the case of a commission of rebellion. The Noble Lord had asked what would be their next step if the present were adopted, and a'- serted that the House would never be able to carry itself through triumphantly. Only let the infringers of their privi leges try, and they would soon see if they could be put down or not.—( Hear, hear ) A collision between the Howe and the cones of law was impossible. If the injured sought redress in inferior courts the courts would refuse to interfere. Why, Lord Chief-Justice Denman, in the last judgment which he deli vered, asserted that his Court. was bound to protect the privi leges of Parliamen' ; and had it not been for an informality in the warrant the question could not have been entertained by them ; and in the recent case in the other House, the Com- mons had asserted and maintained their prerogative. He had thus briefly stated what appeared to him to b the fact and merits of the ease in its present position and subsequent effect, and he had, he hoped, enabled their Losdships to perceive the exact state of the quest;on, and to come to a right decision. Lord BROUGHAM wished to explain that he had not de nied that precedent gave the power now sought, but he doubted the expediency of the House exercising it. As to the case of Chancery, he was astonished to hear his Noble Friend adducing such an inapplicable principle as that of injunction to the pre sent question. The cases were wholly dissimilar. In one they could apply to a court of justice ; in the s other, to the legisla tive tribunal only. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. Lord CAMPBELL said, that as no other Noble Lord seemed willing to address the House, be wished to offer a few remarks upon a question 33 important to their privileges and respect. The Learned Lord near him (Lord Brougham) had said that the course they were taking would but render them- selves obnoxious to popularity. He however would willingly incur that ri-k as he believed that they best consulted the liberty of the subject in userting their own rights. The Learnrd Lord had unwisely referred to precedent, and had triumphantly appealed to Floyd's ca..e, but that was not an in stance of privilege, but impeachment. Some of their privi leges had doubtless been found unnecessary, and therefore voluntarily given up. In the time of the Plantagenets. Par liament met three times a ear ; but at Easter, Christ mas, or Pentecost, the Houses frequently did not sit more than three or four days, therefore that and the privilege of giving protection to the goods of 'Members and their s-r -was was abandoned, the latter by an Act of 10 Geo. 111. Hii Noble Friend had urged that it was only when their pri vileges were obstructed that they ought to be summarily vin dicated ; but, suppose a charge were made against the Lord Chancellor in his Court of bribery and sub;rnation of wit nesses, would not that be an obstruction of the administratisn of justice ? And the case was exactly analogous t that now propounded. But. Lord Eilenborough had distinctly laid down a con•rary principle, and asserted that the privileges of Parlia ment were inherent, and should be defended, even when n• obstruction was threatened. And it had actually been held of late, that the same principle held good in all the legis lative asomblies of the colonies, and the privileges had been recently declared as belonging to the Government of Jamaica. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the judges. For the judges he had the greatest respect, and he much regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, was absent on this occasion. He respected the wisdom of the judges, but he had a greater respect for the aggregate wisdom of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But, admitting the doctrine that had been laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord ( Lord Brougham), not only could parties for giving evidence be brought before the judges, but also they could be taken into the borough or county courts. They could be taken into the county courts where they would be adjudicated upon by parties who had never been educated in a knowlege of the law. But a true knowledge of this question was not to be found even in Westminster-hall. What could many of the judges there know of the privileges of that House ? Many of them never had been members of it, and could not be expected to understand its usages and modes of proceeding. The privileges of that House did not exist in any written m ,, morials, but were contained in certain usages and cu!toms. There ~..-... - was likewise a danger of judges being influenced by popular clamour to act in opposition to the due interests of the country and the privileges of the House. Lord flacon says, " A popular judge is a deformed thing ; plaudits are fitter for players than magistrates." There had been times in which that flkis9 had been highly unpopular, and when it would have b-tin impo-sable t:i get a jury to sot imparlially en any question affecting that House. The other House had been in the same position, and would have had an equal difficulty in getting a verdict. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the c.aze of Sir Francis Burdett, who had been allowed to appear by counsel, but in that case it should be recollected, and no doubt their Lordships would recollect, that the Crown gave Sir Francis Burdett liberty to proceed. Under the peculiar circumstances, this was thought to be the most advisable course. He would now give a few instances to show that judges ought not to be trusted in matters involving the privileges of that House. The Noble and Learned Lori then referred to several instances in which the courts of law had interfered with the privileges of the House. In the reign of kin g Richard the Second, the judges on two occasions decided in favour of the prerogatives of the Crown interfering with the privileges of NEW ZEALAND. Mr. C. BULLER poqi oned his motion regarding New Zealand. In answer to a question from Lord HOWICK, Sir 11. PEEL declined to give any other documents re specting New Zealand except extracts. It would not be thought advantageous to the public service to furnish copies of instructions to Captain Gray, the new Governor, which in structions had not yet reached the colony. He could only give the extracts promised. Lord HO WICK said he wished to know whether the ex tracts would enable the House to form an opinion as to the policy pursued by the Government in New Zealand.—( Hear.) Before Parliament separated it would be absolutely necessary that it should know whether or not the Government meant to pursue a different line of policy towards New Zealand than that which had hitherto so unfortunately regulated the affairs of that colony. Sir R. PEEL said he could not say, but he thought the extracts which he would give would hardly answer the purpose of the Noble Lord. But if they did not, the Noble Lord would be at full liberty to make any fu.ther motion on the sub ject. He wished to know what had taken place in New Zea• land, and whether any difficulty was felt in giving the papers to the House. Lord HO WICK wished to know when the discussion would take place, and on what night the Right Hon. Baronet pro posed to take the vote on New Zealand. Sir R. PEEL saw no reason why the papers should not be laid on the table of the House to-morrow or the next day. The discussion on New Zealand might be taken on Friday or Monday next. It was intended to go into Committee of Sup ply to-morrow, and the matter might then be introduced in cidentally. Lord HOWICK thought that it was not necessary to press the vote, and that it might be gone into after the debate. Mr. C. BILLER wished the debate to be positively fixed for Monday. Sir R. PEEL assented to the proposition. BRAZILIAN TARIFF. Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to ask the Right Honourable Baronet when the returns could he laid on the table of the differential duties imposed on British commerce by the Bra zilian Chamber of Deputies. Sir R. PEEL said, that he thought he should be able to place them before the House to-morrow. COAL DUTY—PORT OF LONDON. On the motion that the Haute go into Committee on this Bill, Air. HUME wished to c ask whether it was competent for the Noble Lord to go into Committee on this Bill, as it had the character of neither a public or a private Bill? The SPEAKER replied that the Noble Lord was perfectly entitled to go into Committee ; for though the title expressly referred to the port of London, it in reality affected the whole country. Mr. HUME said that it was certainly stated in the Bill that it referred to the port of London alone, and he could not, therefore, understand how, under this title, the amendments could be proposed. The SPEAKER said, that as the amendments of course partook of the customary character of the Bill, there could be no objection to the consideration of them. Sir. HUTT said, that as the Government had no objection, he would then move the amendment of which he had given notice:—" That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have pow, r to provide that all duties now levied or to be levied, by virtue of this Bill, on coals brought within the liberties of the City of London, coastwise, or by inland navi gation, shall likewise be levied on coals brought within the same district by railway or by any other mode of conveyance." The aTrendment was agreed to. The Howe then went into Committee, and after the first class had been agreed to, The Earl of LINCOLN moved a series of amendments, the first of which proposed to provide a fund for opening of poor an , l densely populated districts of the metropolis, or for keeping; :paces in its immediate vicinity. Others were for imposing the duty on other tracts of conveyance than the Thames. The clause for providing for the improvements was as follows:—" And be it enacted, that from and e'er the said 31st day of December, 1845, the said duty of one penny per tin on coals, cinders, and culm so imposed and extended as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be laid out or invested in the purchase of stock in some of the public stocks or funds, or upon Government or real securities, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, to an account to be entituled, The Metropolis Improvement Fund Account ;' and the said Com missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly dividends or interest of the stocks, fends, and securities, so to be purchased in their names on the account aforesaid, in like manner for the purpose of accumulation in the meantime, and until the said fund shall be required for and appropriated by Parliament to the execution of improvements in the metropolis." A Committee had been appointed in 1826, and the evidence before that Committee, in conjunction with the results of the Committee of 1826, would be now of admirable service in the decisions of this Bill. The object of this clause was to secure to the community a participation in the general benefits which would result from the employment of the accumulated fund in improving the different parts of the metropolis. He thought the amendments he proposed would answer all the purposes Honourable Members opposite had in view, and that they would meet the objections which Honourable Members had raised against the Bill. To meet the objections of which he had heard, he had prepared a clause which he believed would be sufficient to satisfy the Honourable Gentlemen who were opposed to this measure on the grounds which had been alleged. Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the continuance of a tax upon the poorest population of the metropolis, and upon all the in habitants of the Vale of Thames, for improvements which would add to the value of all the household property in London. Hear, hear.) The tax was one as oppressive upon the working &asses as a tax upon bread. Mr. BRIGHT—We have all that to pay.—( A laugh.) Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the tax upon coals was one pressing upon a most important necessary of life, and that it ought not to be imposed upon those who were the least able to bear it, and that too to give an increased value to the pro perty of the wealthy.—( Hear.) He was by no means opposed to the improvements, hut he thought they ought to be effected at the expense of those who would be the greatest gainers by them.—( Hear, hear.) Why was not a tax laid upon houses for the purpose ?—( Hear, hear.) The city of London had sufficient resources to effect all the improvement that were needed. But within the last two years upwards of 'a million of money had been raised for the benefit of the city by means of this oppressive tax upon the poor.—( Hear.) He would offer all the opposition in his power to the continuance of the tax. Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests had rested his case upon the reports of the sana tory commission, and upon the admitted facts detailed in those reports, as to the want of ventilation and cleanliness in the habitations of the poor in the metropolis, and the imperfect drainage of the districts which were chiefly inhabited by the poor. But, surely, it was not the best means of relieving the poor from those acknowledged sufferings and privations, to in crease the price of an article of necessity almost equal to the necessity of food, and quite equal to that of clothin g .—( Hear. ) The proprietors of the d i s t r i c t s w hi c h wou ld be benefited by the improvements ought to be taxed for the expense of making those improvements.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, he did not like to leave a "nest egg " of 12,00 W. in the bands of the Board of Woods and Forests to be made use of when they thought proper to find an occasion.—( Hear, and laughter. ) Air. MASI ERNIAN, who wss very indistinctly heard, would give every opposition in his power to the continuance of the tax. Lord LINCOLN was surprised at the opposition of the Hon. Member for London. Fur he himself had been assured by an Hon. Member connected with the City—( A laugh)—that if the tax were taken off, no one would he benefited but the coal dealers—( Hear, and a laugh )—and that it would be a pity that so much money shruld be tort to the public, whilst there re mained so great a necessity for improvement in the streets of the metropolis—( Hear, hear)—and especially in the dwellings of the pt.or, who would be the very last to be nefit by any small reduction in the tax upon coals. The Noble Lord continued by saying he had heard his Hon. Friend say that he'could not see of what use th.s penny duty on coals would be; yet he (Lord Lincoln) had before him a document, by which it appeared that his Hon. Friend had advocated a duty upon the same article to the amount of 18d.—( Hear, hear)—and for what ? Why, for the sole purposes and benefits of the city of London.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, he ( Lord Lincoln) next found that his Honourable Friend and another Honour able Member of that House, who was an Alderman of the of the Corporation of London, had said at a public meeting, that this tax would be of ne benefit to the city of London, yet, when it came to a vote it was found that there were four to three against the motion of the Hon. Member.—( Hear, hear. ) Then, a short time before the question came to he discussed before that How e, his ( Lord Lincoln's) Hoi. Friend asked him what proportion of this tax would be devoted to benefiting the city of London, am' he (Lord Lincoln) told him the City would ben , fit by it to nearly the amount of a million and a half sterling pet annum, and that heretofore very material benefits had been conferred, from the same tax, upon Whitechapel and Lambeth, and other districts; and, therefore, on those grounds alone, and without having any recourse to what might be called a subterfuge, he would support this measure. After a few words, in explanation, from Mr. BIAS TERMAN. Lord 1-10 WICK said it appeared to him that the cnly ques tion for the House to consider in reference to this tax was, whether it was one which a rrajority of the Pouse would deem beneficial, or the contrary, to the purposes for which it had been hitherto applied.—( Hear hear.) And here he would beg leave to say that it did appear to him that there never was a tax which he conceived was more opposed to justice or com mon sense than this, as a tax levied for purposes of finance.—(Hear, hear.) Now, what was the real question they had to consider ? It was this : they were going to con sider whether it was necessary to continue the levy of a tax upon the valley of the Thames for the transit of coals along its banks, which coals were intended for the use, in a great part, for the consumption of the poorer classes of the community.— ( Hear, hear.) Now, he knew something of the part of the country over which these coals were carried for consumption. aid he begged to tell the Right Hon. Baronet oppnsite, and the Noble Lord also, that this tax on what he migiA one of the first necessaries of life, had hitherto been felt as one of ihe greatest grievances under which the labouring classes could be oppressed, because it tended to increase to a still higher amount the present very high price of fuel.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard the Noble Lord opposite defend this proposition upon the ground that it was a very law tax ; but that was an argument which cut two ways ; for it argued either in favour of the tax, inasmuch as that another additional peony would not be felt ; or that, because it was so small and trifling, it should be at , o.. fished altogether, which be (Lord Howick ) conceived Wes not the ►eal argument against it.—(Hear,•hear. ) • Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure the Noble Lord opposite and the House. that the sole object of this tax was to improve the condition of certain classes in par's of the' City, and the fund propo•ted to be raised in this way could not be op plied without the sanction , f Parliament, and, therefore, no ap prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund wou•d be applied Hear, hsar.) Last year this subject was brought. before Parliament, and it was then fully diseased. lie did not propose now wearying the House with a detail of what was said then ; but, notwithstanding the objections he had heard urged against the impost this evening, he would just call the attention of the Mouse to a tew specific remarks illustrative of the uti lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex _ tract from the VI ork of Mr. Seaford Smith, in which was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of Whitechapel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some means of preventing the recurrence of fever and other diseases, arising from such causes as a pestiferous atmosphere; and having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and alleys re moved, and wider' and healdhy and open streets built instead of them ?—( Hear, hear.) A tax for an indefinite period was proposed on coals. Thirteen-pence was the original tax. to last till 186:1, one penny of which was about to expire. It was intended that the penny should be continued for the same period as the twelve pence, for the purpose of constituting a ' fund to build infirmaries for those parts of London called the fever districts. Loo'ol4g to the purposes of the Bill--namely, the alleviation of the distresses of the poor—and the good which would result from the expendituri of 11,0001. per annum for the mitigation of their ills, he was of opinion that an actual amount of positive good would preponderate. Those were the general principles on which he would give his cordial support to the motion of his Noble Friend, which would be the means of lessening, in some degree, the distresses of the poor in the fever districts. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said the improvements now going on in London.were a great benefit to the working classes, but he did not think that the putting a duty on coal could add to their comforts. He was rather desirous that the duty should be taken off altogether. The poor would not derive any benefit from relieving them from a tax of only one penny, for there was not a single poor family in London that consumed more than one ton annually. Mr. HAWES wanted to know whether it: was.possible or not for the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter, to find out a substitute for the proposed tax. What was there at present in' the tax that recommended it? A little more in. vestigation would have shown that it was a tax on the poor, and not on the rich. The benefit from the tax woald result to the rich, whose property it was intented to improve. After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON, Mr. EWART said he bad considerable reluctance in opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always conducted himself with unusual fairness. • He complained of the manner in which the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House. Neither the Noble Lord, nor the Rii,ht Hon. Gentleman near him, had undertaken to defend the principles of the tax. It was a proposition to levy a tax in opposition to every measure of sound policy. He was apposed to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city of London the amount of tax was twenty-five per cent. on the first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places, and the country looked rather that all these taxes should be taken off than increased. He trusted that the House would act on sound principles, and refuse the Bill proposed by the Government. After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman HUMYHERY, who explained, The House divided, when there appeared, For the amendment Against it 42 Majority —27 On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN COLN moving the following amendment :—That from and after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny per ton on coals , cinders, and culm, so impowd and extended as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be , laid out ( r invested in the purchase of Stock in some of the public Stocks or Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi ties, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, to an account to be intitnled, " The Metropolis Imerovement Fund Account ;" and the said Com- ' missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly dividends or interest of the Stocks, Funds, and Securities so to he purchased in their names on the amount aforesaid. in like manner for the purpose of accumulation in the mean time. and until the said Fund shall be required for and appropriated by Parliament to the execution of Improvements in the Metro polis.. . A desultory conversation then ensued, after which, Mr. HUME wished to know how the tax was to be ga thered? The Earl of LINCOLN—in the same manner as formerly. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses 3,4, 5,6, 7, and 8, were then agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to. Mr. HUME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro. . _ ..... doted this session to carry out sanatory improvements in the metropolis ? He was well aware there were great difficulties, but the evil in London was a crying one, and required an imme diate remedy. Lord LINCOLN said that no such Bill would be introduced during the present session. _ _ The Bill was then ordered to be reported to•morrow. POOR LAW (SC' I TLAND) BILL, On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House went into Committee on this Bill. Clause 56 was agreed to, as was clause 57, and all the clause. II PP? 641. Mr. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap plication of this clause on Scotland. If any Gentleman hail read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to throw the inhabitants of many districts, especially in the High lands, into a state of positive idleness. He would, therefore, caution Hon. Members that it would have the effect of changing the habits of the whole population. Mr. HASTIE explained that the able-bodied poor in Scot land had now the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take away this power he should introduce a clause for that purpose. Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know whether the object of the Bill was to take away the principle, for he thought that if a working.than were to be thrown into distress he ought to be kept from starving without going into a work house. Till within the last few years, at Maxwell Town, there had been no assessment whatever, and the poor had only been relieved by a voluntary subscription of the heritors. In the county of Kirkcudbright certainly there had been no poor law whatever, and therefore he thought that it would be better for the Learned Lord to settle the point. Mr. P. BORTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re gret that there was any necessity for a poor. law at all, and he trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to the habits and independence of the people. But he thought that it was cer tainly desirable that the heritors of Scotland and the poor should know whether there was any right whatever to relief in cases of distress. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, stated that the relief was for the poor, and unless they intro duced an express definition as to what was meant by poverty, the able-bodied poor man out of em ployment was entitled to relief. The statute of Elizabeth provided for three things—either that a poor man ahould be provided with sustenance, or removed to his native parish, or to the parish of his settlement; and if the Hon. Member did not move for the exclusion of the section, he would. Mr. EWART said that it mattered but little what was the opinion of this or that Government respecting the law of Scot land ; for he understood the Learned Lord-Advocate to say, that the able-bodied poor man was not entitled to relief, and be agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth ( Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no otl er Member did so, he should move that the p rov i so b e ex p unge d. Mr. P. M. STEWART said there was much doubt at pre sent as to whether able-bodied paupers were entitled to relief, and the effect of this clause would be to increase that doubt. Lord DUNCAN believed that no able-bodied person had ever received relief under the present system. He should s-pport the clause, as it would still have the effect of preventing able-bodied paupers from obtaining relief. Mr. P. BORTHWICK objected to the proviso in the clause, and moved that it be omitted. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment For the m0ti0n........ . Majority. On the re-admission of strangers, we found Mr. lIASTIE moving, according to notice, an addition to clause 64, to the effect that it shell he lawful for the parochial board of every parish, or combilation of parishes, to allow out of the funds, raised by assessment or otherwise, for the relief of the poor there(); ' such relief to able-bodi e d p ersons w ithi n suc h parishes, or combination of parishes, as the board may deem necessary, during the existence of temporary distress, arising from the inability of such person to obtain employment, pro vided always that such relief to the able-bodied has the appro bation of the Board of Supervision. He hoped the Lord- Advocate would not oppose this addition to the clause. The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the proposed addition. He thought it would lead to false expectations on the part of the able-bodied, and it would place the Board of Supervision in an invidious position. -52 Mr. A GLiONBY said that there was no evil found in this country from an excessive provision for the relief of the able bodied in the time of great distress. Some such means of relief as existed in England ought to exist also in Scotland. It would be a stain upon the Le g islature c,f the country, if the cas e of a man willing to work, and unable to get work, was not pro. vided for in a Bill of this nature.—(Bear. ) Mr. ROSS said that in Ireland the able-bodied pauper had no right to demand relief; yet the parochial authorities had the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He could not fee any reason wt,y the parochial authorities in Scotland should not have the same discretionary power. After a few words from Mr. BAINE. The Committee divided, when there appeared, For the amendment 3l Against it Majority agenst the amendment —36 The clause was then agreed to, a. was also clause 65. Clause 66 was agreed tO, with a few verbal amendments. Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70, were then agreed to, without a discussion. On the proposal of clause 71, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso at the end of the clause be expunged. Mr. P. M. STEW ART did not think that the working of the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would be prevented by it from obtaining that amount of relief, or that period of relief to which he would be entitled, or to which he ought to be. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would explain this clause upon constitutional grounds. The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the clause, on the ground tbat it would have the effect of affording more real means of defence to the poor man than he ever could have hoped to have had within his means. because it gave him the power of sueing in forma pauperis, which he never had before by any previously existing law. In fact, he had now the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry into his case, because the Act compelled the Board of Inquiry to enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each poor man who al plied for relief, and if they did not do se, the Bill gave the power to the poor man to enforce an inquiry into his case without any expense, because he still sued in forma pauperis.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. AGLIONBY could not but regard the speech of the Lord-Advocate as that of an interested advocate. (Cries of " Oh, oh !") He was very glad to find such provisions as enabled the poor man to appeal against the rule of the Board of Supervision in forma pauperis, hut then he ( Mr. Agli , mby) would still contend that the latter part of the clause contained a clause which was against the poor man, and there fore, that part of the clause should be struck out. The poor man was the one virtually shut out from redress by this clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while he was allowed 'to sue in forma pauperis, or that any attorney would undertake' a suit for a man without money wherewith to fee him ? For these reasons, believing that the practical effect of the clause in connexion with the proviso was to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a shadow of relief, he trusted some explanation would be given by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or modified. Lord DALAIENY thought the quarter sessions were not sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor, and believed that the court (,f supervision would obviate this anomaly, and quoted Dr. Alhon t 9 confirm that opinion. Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the clause as that of legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor. Jr.N WAKLEY said that he had hitherto supported the Bill, because he conceived it framed in a spirit of conferring relief on the distresses which he understood existed in Scot land, and because he had been led to believe that no poor.law at present existed to remedy the distress of the labouring elastics of that country. But he now believed that the Government were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op- presl the poor; and as to the clause in quest , on, it was cruel and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its suh.erinent stages. w hen there appeared— -45 The Hou.e then divided, For the amendment . Apinst it 1 Ai ß j or ity !unjust the amendment —34 The clause ,ca., then passed. On the next clause being proposed, Lord ASHLEY recommended that the term " five years" should be substituted for seven years. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For she amendment ..,,,„ , .. 8 Against it ... . : ................................. 108 Majority lOO The gallery was :imm e di a t e l y after cleared for a division on an amendment propsed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it 88 25 Majority —(33 Mr. AGLIONBY then made a few observations disap proving of the 72d clause, which was then proposed. The LORD-ADVOCATE explained that the operation of the Bill would be such as to enable the poor man to receive relief on easier conditions than formerly. Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill did not place the Irish and Scotch paupers on the same equality as Scotch men in Ireland who, if destitute, received relief and permanent relief,: and he thought that the same liberality should exist in Scotland by the operation of the present Bill. After a few words from Lord DUNCAN, Lord CLEMENTS said that Englishmen and Scotchmen were employed in great numbers in Ireland. A good feeling was promoted between them and the natives. He was asto nished that. the Noble Lord was desirous of stirring up ill-will between Irishmen and Scotchmen. The poor-law, after all, - was merely a public fund, out of which the public should de rive assistance when they ,stood in need of it. Many Scotch farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland could not get in their crops if Irish labourers did not come over from Ireland to aid them. And if they encouraged Irishmen to come over it was their duty to support them. Mr. LOCKHART said he would give the Bill all the oppo sition in his power, as it had not undergone any alteration from the state in which it had previously beets presented to the House. The Hon. Member said something about the number of Irish paupers, and the difficulty of relieving them, but he was not clearly audible in the gallery. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that if the Government passed the Bill in the form which the Hon. Gentlems's seemed to wish, it would be no credit to him or the hospitality of the country which be represented.--( Hear, hear.) He thought the Government deserved the warm thanks of every Irish Member for placing the Irish on the same level with the Scotch paupers. He must remark that the Scotch felt no scruple in settling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe rience he felt bound to express his belief that if an Irishman and a Scotchman presented themselves before an Irish board of guardians, such was the generous feeling of hospitality by which they were actuated, that they would relieve the Scotehman in preference to the Irishman. He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in troduce religions differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law. Lord DUNCAN said that if he had made any allusion to religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from bis being unaccustomed to Parliamentary speaking. Sir W. SOMERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the disavowal, and would withd-aw any expression of censure upon the words which the Noble Lord had, he now believed, inad vertently used.—( Cheers.) After a few words from the Lord Advocate, Mr. Ross, Lord Duncan, Mr. P. M. Stew ar t, M r . B ouv erie, and Sir G. Grey, the House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority for the clause —79 The clause was then agreed to. Mr. BROTHERTON then moved that the Chairman re port progress. The galleries were cleared, but no division took place, the Lord-Advocate having acceded to the motion. The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again this day BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX. CHEQUER tbat this Bill be read a third time, Mr. WILLIAMS said if the motion was urged at that late hour he shouid move that the standing orders of the day be postponed until this day. After some conversation the third reading was postponed until Thursday. FORTH AIND CLYDE NAVIGATION. The Lords' amendments to the Forth and Clyde Navigation and Union Canal Junction Bill were agreed to. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented petitions from Devon against certain clauses in the Justices' C erks The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented petitions from the attorneys and solicitors practising in England and Wales, and also in Ireland, praying that they might not be required to take out an annual certificate. Air. ELLICE presented a petition from Glasgow against the Scotch Poor-law Bill. Mr. REDHEAD YORKE said that he had to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the order of liberation was sent to Norfolk Island in behalf of Joseph Aason, who was transported upon a conviction for burglary at the York Spring Assizes, 1843, which conviction turned out to have been altogether and entirely unjust ; and he had also to ask when the said Juseph Mason might be expected in England ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that notice having been given of the question by the Hon. Member, he (Sir James Graham) had made the necessary inquiries, and was enabled to say that the order for his liberation had been sent out on the Ist of January last. To the second question he could not give a de cided answer, but no doubt existed that he would be sent home on the first opportunity. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. HAWES put a question, the substance of which was, as far as we can collect, whether any official information had been received concerning recent outrages, which had taken place in New Zealand. Mr. G. 0. HOPE said, that since the Hon. Member put the question before, he had received information which would enable him to reply to the question of the Honourable Gentleman. A dispatch was received at the Colonial office yes-erday from Captain Fitzroy. The dispatch was dated the 26th of March. The accounts therein given agreed with those published in the Times and other newspapers five or six days ago.—( Hear, hear.) The dispatch set forth that the attack had been made by the same chief,:for the same purpose, but that it was of an insurrectionary character. It had been suspected for some days that an outbreak would take place, but it was not expected that it would occur for some days subsequent to the period at which it actually did occur. They met in collision. The advance of the natives was re pelled, and in the conflict Capt. Robertson fell. The settlers, however, held their ground, and repulsed the natives. From the effect of the shots the powder magazine blew up. The loss altogether, taking troops, settlers, and seamen into ac count, was 13 killed and 23 wounded. The loss of the natives had not been ascertained, but it was very considerable. In justice to the naives he must say that after the settlers retired, they forwarded a woman and child which they found in a block-house under a flag of truce to the settlement. Troops were requested after this melancholy event, but they did not arrive till the 23rd. The effects of this conflict were looked upon with great alarm. He did not think that it had arisen from accidental circumstances. It proceeded from a disposition on the part of the native chiefs to deny the sovereignty of the Qupen. Such was the true state of the case as tar as he had been able to ascertain it. • Mr. J. A. SMITH wished to know whether these papers could be laid on the table of the House. Mr. HOPE had no objection to present them, and would take the earliest opportunity of laying them on the table of the House. Mr. HUME presented several petitions from Scotland against the 135th and 16th clauses of the Scottish poor law, praying that they may be expunged from the Bill, and stating that unless a compulsory assessment were made it would be utterly impossible to obtain that amount of assistance which the poor needed. GAME -LAWS. Mr. HUNIE also presented a petition from Mr. Charles Henry Russell, against the 12th clause of the game-law. He stated that, since the statute of 1799, there had been the utmost uncertainty respecting the laws for the protection of game. In c )nsequence of an informality he had been subject to taxed costs of a heavy amou nt , and he prayed to be relieved from the heavy exp ense to which he had been subject. THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH. Mr. HUME b egged to withdraw the notice respecting the Earl of Ellenboro ug h and Indian affairs. GAME LAWS. Jr. G. BERKELEY had heard that a person convicted of poaching had had his Punishment remitted, and he wished to know if hat was true, and what were the grounds for the re mission? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that in answer to the Hon. Member's question, in reference to the case he had mentioned. he (Sir J. Graham) begged to say that the conviction before the Court in that in•tance was sent to the Home-office, and owing to the representation there made, the order for the liberation of the party had been issued, but not until a subsequent inves tigation by him (Sir James Graham) ; and it was upon a mis taken view of the law by him, owing to a clerical error, that he had been liberated. NE AND. Lord HOWICK sh-uld W lik e A to L know from the Secretary to the Colonies whether he had altered his intentions in reference to New Zealard, in consequence of the information that had arrived from that colony within a few days. Sir J. GRAHAM begg e d t h at the Nor Lord would post pone his question, seeing that his Hon. Friend the Secretary to the Colonies w as a b sent. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. Mr. HOPE, in answer to a question from Mr. Hindley, said that no report of an official character had been received from the Governor; but from what he had seen in the publie papers, he should say that a wrong impression had gone abroad as to the actual state of the facts. He believed the fact was, that the collision that had taken place occurred beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the British Government, and in an independent colony, established by missionaries. The collision, mo reover, seemed' to be connected with occur rences which took place at a distance of two hundred miles from the British territory,, The Boors who had emigrated were those who were opposed to the abolition of slavery, and th e y were not at all connected with those at Port Natal. There was at present a considerable force at the Cape. and five hundred cavalry had been added, who would be sufficient for the protection of the Boors. The Gricquas were pnrotect ot subjects of her Maj esty, b ut the troops would nevertheless m. In answer to a question from Mr. HINDLEY, M r . HOPE said that th e B oors who had emigrated had always been C ro rega wn rded by her Maj es t y ' s Government as subjects of the Br itish . Mr. BUTLER, seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Ireland in his place, wished to know whether it was or not the intention of her Majesty's Govern ment to restore to office the noblemen and gentlemen lately dismissed from the magistracy in that country ? Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said he was not able to give any assurance that those gentlemen would be restored to office. Mr. BUTLER then said that on Friday next he should move that a humble address be presented to her Majesty, re questing her to restore to office those gentlemen, whom he believed had been most unjustly and un constitutionally deprived of their office. Sir ROBERT FERGUSON asked the Secretary for Ireland whether the Government proposed t o ta k e advantage of the present vacancy in the office of Chai rman of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to unite that Board with the Shannon Commission ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the appointment of Sir John Burgoyne to the Board had only very recently taken place, and the Treasury had not had time to make any arrangement. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether General Rom, of Buenos Ayres, had the right to shut np the navigation of the River Plate and Paraguay, and whether he had the right to close those waters to foreign ships? Sir ROBERT PEEL said he was aware that General Rosas exercised that right, and the Government were at ono time inclined to recognise his right to blockade, but the French Government had refused to re cognise it unless their vessels were admitted. In that case they could not admit the againsthe right BorfitGishensehriapls.RO3Taghetno close the navigation of the river the Hon. Member for Manchester asked if General Rosas had a right to shut up the other branch of the river, better known as the Paraguay. His ( Sir Robert Peel's) answer would be similar in both cases. The Buenos Ayrean Government claim the right which they (the British Govern ment) equally disputed. He should, however, ascertain from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the exact position in which they stood, and communicate the same to the House if desired. RIOTS IN IRELAND. Mr E. R. ROCHE said that although he had not given notice of his question, yet, with the sanction of the Go vernment, he would put it, as it related to an unfortunate transaction which had occurred in his own country, he meant the loss of life which had occurred at Ballinhassy, and he wished to know if a gene-al order had been issued by the Irish Govern ment that the police should not interfere in eases of fairs, or larger parties collected, without express instructions ; and that when these instructions were fulfilled, they should again r emove from the place where such fairly/as held. He (Mr. Rocite)'had no hesitation in saying, that if a single magistrate had been there, COST OF OPPOSING RAILWA'9 - ' BILLS Lord RROUGHAM intimated that he had abandoned his resolution relating to the cost of opposing railway bills, and had embodied the object of the resolution in a declaratory Act, which provided that the promoters of railway bills should enter into r.cogniaanceo, b miing themselves to pay the taxed cots of an opposing indholder, should the Heine think fit to make an order to that effect. The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a se cond time on Thursday. DOG-STEALING BILL This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. Messengers from the House of Commons brought up the South Wales Railway Bill, the South-Eastern Railway Bill ( Tunbridge-wells Branch), the General North of England and Hartlepool Railway, and several other Railway Bills. Several measures lying on the table were then advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE oF coitmoNs..7o,/ 14. The SrIAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve o'Clock. Leave was givt n to the Committees to sit notwithstanding the sitting of the House. LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL. The Lunatic Asylum and Pauper Lunatics Bill was reported. Several clauses were brought up and added to the Bill, among which was the following proposed by Mr. Wilson Patten :—" And be it further enacted, that in case any super. intendent, matron, or other officer or servant of any county lunatic asylum, shall, from confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity, become incapable of executing the office in person, it shall be law ful for the justices assembled at the generalor quarter sessions, and they are hereby empowered to grant to such superintendent, matron, or other officer or servant, such annuity as they in their discretion shall think proportionate to the merits and time of services of such superintendent, matron, or other officer or servant, and may order the payment out of the rates lawfully applicable to the building or repairing such County Lunatic. Asylum ; provided always, that the annual amount paid by way of superannuation or allowance to any retired superinten dent, matron, or other officer or any servant of any asylum, shall not exceed the amount of two-thirds of the salary payable at the time of his or her retirement. Several amendments were alto made in some of the clauses, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed, and to be read a third ime on Wednc , ..da% rporitittg at twelve o'clock. LUNATICS ASYLUM ('RELAND) BILL. The House then went into Com s mittee nn this Bill. Lord CLENIENTS had many objections to the measure, believing that it was not only bad in principle but in detail. If the Bill had been confined to criminal lunatics alone, he should have had no objection to it. There were no less than six Bills in existence for the protection of lunatics in lieland, and this measure would make the seventh. He thought the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had already too much jurtsdicion over lunatics in Ireland already, without having that juris diction increased by the present Bill. He was sure that, as long as Sir Edward Sugden remained Lord Chancellor of Ireland, lunatics there would be properly and most efficiently protected, but, after he had retired from the Chancellorship, he had no guarantee that future Chancellors or future Lord Lieutenants would continue that protection.—( Hear, hear.) He objected to the present Bill altogether, but he was most anxious that there should be established better regu lated asylums for the reception of those poor lunatics, as had been already recommended by the Chairman of the Commissioners. He protested against this additional attempt to carry out the principle of centraliza tion, and animadverted in strong terms on the constant inter ference of the Government with the local authorities in Ireland. The machinery of this Bill was so bad that he felt bound to pro test against the measure being passed during this session. Sir T. FRE ‘IANTLE felt obliged to the Noble Lord for not detaining the Speaker in the chair by pressing the motion of which he had given notice. There was nothing new in the principle of the Bill; it merely, in certain instances, enlarged the powers which the Lord Lieutenant already possessed. He could at present do all that the Noble Lord complained that he would have the power of doing by this B 11, and having listened attentively to all that had fallen from the Noble Lord, he really was of opinion that the Noble Lord had made out no case whatever against the measure. Then, with regaid to the argument that this measure was a carrying out of the principle of centralisation, be thought that Hon. Gentlemen opposite were much more likely to attack and expose any mismanagement in these insti tutions if they were under the control of the Executive Govern ment than if they were left to the care of the local magistrates. He hoped the House would permit them to proceed with the Bill. The Bill was then ordered to be read paragraph by paragraph. Clauses up to 8 were agreed to without discussion. On clause 8 hcing proposed Colonel RA WDON urged upon the Government the ne cessity of providing superannuation allowances for the retired officers of these asylums. Sir T. FREMANTLE could not object to the principle advocated by the Gallant Officer. The proposition, however, could not be con veriently discussed upon this clause; but he would be happy to enter into a discussion on the subject at the proper time. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed to after a few words from Sir W. Somerville, Lord Ctewents, and Lord Claud Hamilton. Clauses 11, 12, and 13 were agreed to without discussion. Upon the reading of the 14th clause, which empowers the Lord Lieutenant, under certain circumstances, to direct the enlargement of asylums, Sir W. SOMERVILLE complained that there was a great deficiency of accommodation tor pauper lunatics in the Rich mond Asylum at Dubin. There were, at present, 41 appli cations for admi•sion from the county of Meath alone, which could not be attended to, in consequence of the want of room. Sir T. FREMANTLE would give his attention to the subject, and endeavour to apply a remedy to the evil com plained of. After a few words from Lord CLEMENTS and Sir R. Fan- Gusonthe clause a as agreed to. On the reading of the next clause, Sir T. FREM ANTLE, in reply to a question from Sir R. Ferguson, said that he did not think it would be advisable to act upon the suggestion of the Member for Waterford (Mr. V. Stuart), and to admit into the asylums persons who could afford to pay. Ile- thought if that suggestion were adopted the paying patients would be preferred to the paupers, for whose relief the institutions were designed. Clause 15, 16, 17, IS, 19. 20, and 21 were agreed to. On the reading of clause 22 Colonel RA WDON said, that ahhough he thought the delivering of clinical lectures was calculated to retard the cure of lunatic patients, he would withdraw his notice of amend ment in the hope that a sound discretion would be exercised in the application of the clause. Sir T. FREM ANTLE said that the clause was drawn up with a view to sufficient caution with respect to what the Hon. Baronet opposile aliud'd. After aiew words•froro Lord ASHLEY in support of the clause, it was agreed to. Oa the readii'lg of clause 23, SUPPLY. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERTmOved that the House go into a Committee of Supply. in order to vote the rum of 146,2941. to defray the expenses of the militia. The House then went into Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the grant, on the ground that the service was an incomplete one. The grant was agreed to, and the House resumed. The Valuation (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. The Geographical Survey Bill passed through Committee. STAMPS ACT. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER. the House went into Committee pro forma on the above Bill, and it was ordered to be reported this day. TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Sir THOMAS FREMANTLEA this Bill was ordered to be read a second time this day week. TURNPIKES ( SCOTLAND) BILL. This Bill was ordered to be read a second time. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS BILL. The several clauses of this Bill were agreed to. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL. The report on this Bill was received. The Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland) Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported this day. ART UNIONS BILLL (No. 2). The report was ordered to be received this day. The second reading of the Games and Wagers Bill was post poned to Friday next. Several other orders were also postponed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring is a Bill to amend the Act of the 3d and 4th Victoria. c. 109. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the Howe adjourned at Two o'clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S.—YESTEnDAY. LIVERPOOL CUP. 3 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's Winesour—taken 11 to 2 agst Mr. Mostyn's Milton—taken 8 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Trueboy 8 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 10 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario—taken 14 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning 20 to 1 agst Mr. Jaques's Extravaganza—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Godfrey—taken 33 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Ironmaster Of the nine horses priced, four only were in any real de mand, namely, Winesour, Milton, Rowena, and Lothario. Lightning's figure was nominal ; Extravaganza's and Godfrey's parties were select, and the Ironmaster was sent to the right. about—he is more like;y to run at Goodwood than Liverpool. GOODWOOD STAKES. 12 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Pythia 12 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel 15 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen Mab 18 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Venus—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Parr's Europa 20 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's iEgis—taken 20 to 1 agst Sir C. Menck's Glossy 20 to l agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o'Gaunt 25 to 1 agst Lord Howth's Warp —taken 25 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario 25 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 25 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wee Pet 30 to 1 agst Mr. Herbert's Ajax 50 to 1 agst Rowena winning this race and the Liverpool Cup. Very little doing ; Queen Mab and (with a small party Warp alone in request. 5 to 2 agst Iqr. Irwin's Faugh-a-ballagh—no backers 11 to 2 agst Mr. A: W. Hill's Ironmaster—taken 10 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Arundo—taken 12 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Stomacher—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr Vane's Valerian—taken Very little done. ST. LEGER. 5 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Weatherhit 13 to 2 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Merry Monarch—taken 10 to l agst Mr. Gulley's Old England—taken 20 to I agst Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa 25 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger 30 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's the Baron 33 to l agst Col. Anson's Kedger 1000 to 30 agst Lord Chesterfield's Pam—taken 35 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Ould Ireland The Irish horses and Kedger were friendless. DERBY. 1,000 to 30 agst Mr. Bowes's Brocardo—taken 2,000 to 50 agst Duke of Richmond's Tug Net—taken 2,000 to 50 agst Mr. Ramsey's Malcolm—taken 15,000 to 225 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's King Charles—ditto. LIVERPOOL RACES. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY A FTER NOON, }OUR o'Cr.ncx.— The following is a list of the entries which closed this after noon on the race course at two o'clock ; WEDNESDAY. The Croxteth Stakes—Vaudeville, 3 yrs—Corranna, 6 yrs, Erebus, 4 yrs,—Semireria, 5 yre—Cinizelli, 2 yrs—Shadow, aged—A-la-mode, 4 yrs—Trueboy, yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs— Mid Lothian, 3 yrs—and Lancashire Witch, 3 yrs. The Maiden Plate. Ada. 3 yrs—Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Trimnoir, 3 yrs—Br c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs —Jack Palmer, 4 yrs —Steam, 3 yrs. THURSDAY. The Queen's Plate. Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs—B c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—The Shadow, aged—Poussin, 5 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs—Sir Abstrupus, 5 yrs—Pug, 3 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs —Jack Palmer, 4 yrs. FRIDAY. The Stanley Stakes, for two yrs and 3 yrs olds. Pug, 3 yrs—Pluto, 3 yrs—Birthday, 2 yrs—Lanca shire Witch, 3 yrs—Hope, 3 yrs—lsabella, 2 yrs—Bur lesque. 2 yrs—Andrew Brandy, 2 yrs—Dean Swift, 3 yrs— Lord Harry. 2 yrs—B c by Phoenix, out of L'Hirondalle. 2 yrs —B f by Jereed, dam by Bustard, 3 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs. The Selling Stakes. Triumvir, 3 yrs—Erebus, 4 vrs—Juvenal, 4 yrs—Ambiti on , 4 yrs—Br cby Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Sir Henry, 3 yrs— Poussin, 5 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs. Mr. DavPrport, late lessee of the Olympic, sails with an English company for Hamburgh on the leth inst. DEATH AND THE BAR.—Death, within a period scarcely more than twelve months, has carried off several eminent members of the bar, including the following Lord Abinger (Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer), Sir William Follett (A tterney-General), Mr. Baron Gurney, Mr. Sergeant Andrews, Mr. Sergeant Bompas, Mr. Sergeant Teddy (Queen's Sergeant), Mr. Ludlow Holt, Q.C. (Vice -Chan cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), Mr. Sergeant Atcherley (Attor ney-General for the Palatine cf Lancaster and Durham). The latter gentleman was known in early life as Sergeant Jones, but took the name of Atcherley agreeably to...the will of a maternal uncle, by whom he was left considerable landed property in Shrop. shire. ELDERLY ACTRESSES.—Miss Tidsweli, Mrs. Cole man (Mrs. Gibbs theatrically), Mrs. Costes, Mrs. Kendall, Mrs. Harlowe, Mrs. Ivers (mother of Mrs. Orger), Mrs. Bannister (widow of the Immortal Jack), Mrs. Wallack (mother of the Bd. gand), are all living. Their united ages exceed 660 years. REMARKABLE CURE OF STAatatERING.—The boy, John Sweeney, who was so severely injured in the brow by a kick from a horse, on Saturday night last, was, before the accident, one of the greatest stammerers in his speech. He now speaks fluently, a nd with the greatest ease.—Caledonian Mercu r y. THE tly, C RO YDON AND EPSOM ATMOSPHERIC RAIL.. u WAY.—The works on the atmospheric line of railway are progress ing rapidly between the Dartmouth Arms and Croydon, a distance of five miles. The engine and boiler houses are nearly completed, a o n n d t i h h e e l b i n o e l e f r r s o a m r e t a h l e re s a e d v y e i e t L y of So t in he e d w e io la t y er h , a:t h tec id e , ssa ha r d ily in o t c e c r u fe r r r od ed with the execution of the cuttings and general earth.work, oral from the novelty of the machinery. It is the intention of the Directors to open the line gratuitously to all persons who wish to observe the working of the new principle of atmospheric propulsion, and that before the regular passenger traffic is commenced, an op portunity should be aftirded of testing, by practical experiments, the several objectionable points named before the Committees in Parliament. It is now confidently anticipated that the five miles fit= the Dartmouth Arms to Croydon will be opened for the above purposes before the close of the present month. THE LATE MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT AT WAL SALL.—Up to Saturday night every effort to raise the body of the late Mr. Harvey and that of poor Mr. Oakley, has been unavailing. drags having been used for two days without in the slightest degree indicating the places where either of the bodies rest. It was determined upon that a diver and bell should be sent for to London, A messenger was accordingly dispatched on Friday, and he returned the same evening with an expert diver, who COM melaced his labours the following morning, but without success. He descended twice cr thrice in the day, and resumed the next morning. The excitement still continues unabated; indeed it would rather seem to increa , e in proportion to the difficulty of procuring the bodies. The place is visited by thousands daily and it is feared that the raising of the remains of the two much. lamented gentlemen will be a work of great difficulty. only to be erected by the inUnenn labour 0: pumpias off the water. FPPIM.-m f oie.