The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-28 00:00:00

PERI AMEN T. Lord ASHBURTON wished to his Noble Friend (Lord Clanricarde) whether it was his intention to -proceed with the Stafford to-morrow. also take the opp or t un i t - • He would y of asking him whether in his opinion the evid",:nce already taken was such as would induce hir a t o press on the Bill in its present shape for 'the total d:sfranchiscment of the borough r would it not br, better to adjourn all further proceedings an the Bill till, next session, not for the purpose of defeating the Bill, because in his opinion, it was necessary for that House to do something to put an end to stieh scenes as was it evidence before them ? The ensuing registration might afford them materials for an improved Bill, and nothing would be lost if the matter was taken up quite early in the next session. The Marquis of CL A.NRICARDE had observed that there was mi.PAI important business before the House to morvow. There were two of the most important Bills of the Session, the Irish Church Bill and the Marriages Bill vomio on then. He would therefore, with the leave of the Hov.se, defer the further proceedings from to-morrow #.;11 Fr:alay. On that occasion, when the House was better attended, he would have no objection to discuss or consider - whether the Bill ought to be put off or not for another year. His own wish was to proceed with the Bill, for the question had been so long open that it was almost necessary that it should be settled. He thought the evidence quite sufficient for pas - sing- the Bill in its present shape ; but if it was adjourned, he hoped that there would be some evi dence of the participation by the House in the feelings ex pressed by the Noble Lord, that something ought to be done in r respect of Stafford elections. With such an un derstanding he would not much object to the postpone meat of the Bill. The Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, and the Newspaper Postage Bill, were read a second time. Mr. HARVEY and others hrought up the London Ceme tery Bill.—Adjourned. HOUSE 1)F COMMONS, JULY 27. The SPEAKER kook the Chair at four o'clock. EDINBURZIH, LEITH, AND NEWHAVEN RAILWAY. The LORD ADVOCATE brought in the Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Railway Bill, which Was read a first time. CHADWICK'S _ESTATE. Mr. BROTHERTON brrught up the Rep or t o f th e Committee on Chadwick's Estate Bill, which was read a third time and passed. BISHOPUIC OF DUBLIN BILL. Mr. A. TREVOR presented two petitions from pa rishes in Durham, against the appropriation of the reve nues of the see of Durham. The Hon. Member stated that tLese petitions were signed by the laity only, and that he considered they justified him in the opposition he had given to the Bishopric of Durham Bill. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from literary and scientific gentlemen, members of a Natural History Society in "Worcester, praying that in any sale or appropriation of the surplus or duplicate coins and other curiosities of the British Museum, they might be allowed to purchase them. A sum of .5,000/. had been expended by the gentlemen of Worces ter in the formation of this institution, and from the evi dence of the Librarian of the British Museum before the Committee of the House, it appeared that these coins and other works of art, were entirely useless to the public. Sir JOHN BECKETT presented petitions from agri cultural parishes in favour of the Bill for Enclosing Com mons and Improving Waste Lands. As the Agricultural Committee had not favoured the House with any report, he (Sir J. Beckett) hoped this Bill, which the petitioners con sidered a very valuable one, would be allowed to pass. Mr. WILK'S supported the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. GRATTAN moved for some returns relative to the Poor Law Commission (Ireland), the exact purport of which we did not catch. SCOTTISH COURTS. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Henry Jones, Esq., of Upper Canada, late a purser in the navy, praying that the House would take steps to facilitate the proceedings in the Scotch Courts of Law. He stated that he had had a case in litigation in the Supreme Court in Scotland for two years, and that it had now only arrived at that stage in which it could be submitted to a jury. Had it been in any of the Courts of Westminster Hall it would have been brought to the same stage in less than two months. He stated that formerly he had the misfortune to be concerned in a Chancery suit, which was bad enough, but the Scotch Courts were much more dilatory—i n fact he could not compare it with anything in this world, but seemed to realize that which would trle place in the next. A sum of 5,0001. was impounded, and he was kept from his family for two years, and he saw nothing but ruin for them unless the House interfered in o'rder to quicken the proceed ings of these Courts. The petitioner further complained of the conduct of the Hon. Member for Chichester, who was the other litigating party, in having taken a copy of the petition, and sent it down to his agent in Scotland, he having been furnished with it merely out of courtesy. In that charge he (Mr. Wallace) did not concur, as the docu ment was now public property, and the delay of a few days could not be material. He perfectly joined in the prayer of the petition. The petitioner trusted that the House would take this subject into its serious consideration, for although it might be law, he would take upon himself to say it was not jus tice. He agreed very much in all the assertions of the petition, though he must confess that he brought the sub ject forward with some degree of diffidence, considering that the Lord Advocate of Scotland had brought forward so many measures for the amelioration of the legal condi tion of Scotland ; but among those he must be allowed to say the subject of the petition had escaped him. Mr. A. SMITH could not conceive why the peti tiouer should have marked him out by name as the object of attack.—(Hear.) In reference to the particular :accusation against himself—that of making an improper use of the petition he had presented, he would say a few words. The Hon. Member for Derbyshire had told him of his intention of presenting a petition on the subject ; and at that time he had told him fairly that he was una ware of the statements of the petition. He had taken a copy of it, and sent it to Edinburgh ; and the answer he had received he had given to the Hon. Member for Der bythire, and the result was, that that Honourable Member had refused to present the petition. Since then several Members had been applied to, and they had also refused to present the petition. In the course he had pursued he had done nothing but what he had been sanctioned in by the Hon. Member for Derbyshire. He had nothing further to say, than to express his surprise that the petitioner had taken the present means of making at tacks upon Hon. Members. Mr. HUME would take this opportunity of asking the Lord Advocate what had been become of the suit instituted by the Crown against Lord Dundas ? That House had checked the law officers of the Crown to institute proceedings against Lord Dundas, but instead of stopping the 3001. of which he was in the receipt, they had allowed him to re ef Ave it up to the present time, and he wanted to know, after three years, what was the issue, or what was likely to be the issue of this suit? The LORD AD VOCA.T . E hoped, in reply to the alle gations contained in the petition presented by the Hon, Member for Greenock, to be allowed to make one obser vation. It u sually happened th a t i n every case one party was right, aid th e ot h er was wrong, ; and th e p ar ty w h o found hit , in the wrong, was likely to come to that (HHouse and to say that justice was not done him.— ear, hear.) The complaint o f d e l ay aga i nst t h e Court of S ess i on , was unjust. This silk had continued for two yenrs, but the fact was that in the Court of Chancery there Isere amicable suits of thirteen years standing. If such charges as these were rashly made in that House, without sufficient grounds, they would deprive the Courts of that . weight to which they were justly entitled from the charac ter of the Judges, and they would be inflicting a serious injury oe. the distribution o f j ustice. With regard to the particr;lar case me:Atoned by the Hon. Member for Mid dlesc.:x, there was in it a question of very great difficulty. Tl-, 0 Hon. Member thought that the Crown ought at once v., withhold these revenues. Now, it was not in the 'powe r of the Crotvn to take possession of these revenues. And, under all the circumstances of the case, it was one that was attended with great delay. Sir G. CLERK said, that his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Lord -....,A (I:vocate, was - mistaken in supposing that Lord Dundas ~ a d interposed any delay. Whatever delay had arisen 'was created solely by the parties prosecuting the suit. The LORD-ADVOCATE said, that his Hon. Friend (Sir G. Clerk) was not sufficiently informed of the facts, or he would have been aware that that was not tie case. Mr. HUME was glad he had asked the question, as it had enabled him to make this statement, that the answer of the Lord-Advocate confirmed the statement of the pe titioner. POORI. Mr. WALTER rose to present petition from the ma gistrates, clergymen, and guardians of,the poor and rate payers in the parish of Petworth, and,the neighbouring parishes, in the county of Sussex. ...,Tfie \Hon. Member statet.tha . ievance the petitioners complained of was thaVinfiraer: ha' d been recently issued by t h e Commis siontyl,farbiddinganYput-door relief whatever to the families 101 A-bodied labourers. § a ** lie SPEAKEK.said that he must requ es t th e H on. :- ituber to limit himseif to the statements i n th e P et i t i on. . ' r. WALTE,Oid not wish to tran sgress th e ru l es of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think the Bill would be proceeded with this Session. Of course, Hon. Members would have full notice of any changes that were contemplated. The SPEAKER then put the question that the Orders of the Day should be read, when Mr. HUME rose, for the purpose of putting a question to the Members of his Majesty's Government. In the course of the last Session returns had been laid before the House relative to the income of the Colonies ; those re turns were imperfect, and, as they were now approaching the end of the Session, he considered it most important that perfect returns should be laid on the table of the House. Mr. BARING would take care that returns, such as could be procured, should be laid on the table of the House before the end of the present Session. PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. On the motion for proceeding with the Order of the Day for the House taking into consideration the Lords' amendments to this Bill, Mr. EWA RT rose—He conceived that the most im portant part of the Bill had been cut out of it by the amend ments made by the Lords ; he alluded to that portion which established the principle that persons charged with treason, suspicion of treason, and felony, should have the last word. That he considered the very basis of the Bill, and without it the ends of justice and the dictates of reason were put an end to. The Noble personage who seemed to have had the conduct of this Bill in the other House of Parliament shut out the principle laid down by the Commissioners ; viz., that the accused party should have the last word. The words in the Commissioners' Report were, "it appears to us, as a i. , ' °gal --- --.....—..---....___.---......._ the House, but probably ti'o tilifillt be allowed to allude to a decision which had beer; come ; 0. riOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 27. The SPEA•EIL'it if,, , .ain interrupted the Hon. T Member, Earl . SHAFESBUR W Y took the Woolsack as Deputy reT , estin - d ibe would confine him se lf t o th e p rayer o f t h e Spca l scr at five o'clock. Pet....,:t on . T , ,lr. BROTHERTON and other s f rom t h e C ommons brouvb . ' . i up Chadwick's Estate Bill, which had been agreed t o with out amendment. Mr. WALTER observed that the petition was one of very great importance. The petitioners had applied for some relaxation of the order of the Boards of Guardians, but without obtaining any relief, and to whom then were they to apply lint to that House • Mr. PARKER rose to order, Major REAtICLERK really hoped thii . t, rule 'would he 4.ltiopted•. Sometimes an CIPt!. Member was allowed to s'peak for an hour or. the presentation of a pe tition., .and at other time!! lie was immediately put down. The SPEAKER, observed, that in cases of individual grievance having no relation to matters before the Heuto it was the pleasure of the House to hear the staWlttaltt of Hon. Members. No one was more itrikioes than hid 4 !s'4 to consult the convenience of All sorties. , -t4l-ie.M , .) Mr. WALTER wou ld ttot occoiiiv thO time of the Home more than five minutels‘ , ...olear, hear, hear.) This petition was signed k- tale most respectable gentle men, and was one of kik‘ach importance. It was signed by two magistrates, a. , :,ven clergymen, ten guardians of the poor, and three ll'andred rate-payers. No petition had ever been presented more worthy of the attention of Parliament, both From the hardships it denounced, and the respectability of the parties who denounced them. Major BEAUCLERCK supported the prayer of the petition. The case was one of extreme hardship, and wits well worthy of the best attention of the House. He had himself sent up a similar petition from Leicester to Lord Melbourne—the parties there would not petition that House, because the petitions of the poor were not attended to. There was great need of reform in thq orders relative to the medical attendance. Lord G. LENNOX, tho'lin representative of that part of the county, knew nothing of the case. The Hon. Member ought to 'cave shown him, or given him notice of the petition; so that he might have been prepared either to confirm or deny its statements. Mr. WAKLEY felt bound to condemn in the strongest terms the manifestations of impatience which was shown in the House when the poor came before them as petitioners. That was called a Reformed Parliament and a Liberal Ministry, but it that conduct were to be continued he would wish to get rid of both as soon as possible. When a petition had been presented from several officers of the East India Company an hour and forty minutes had been occupied in its discussion, but yet, when the petition of the poor man came before the House the greatest impa tience had been manifested. He had been informed that at Stowmarket a case had occurred in which there were only two persons in the Workhouse, a husband and wife ; the husband was blind, and the wife decrepid, and yet it was considered necessary that an order should be procured from the Poor Law Commissioners, before the wife could attend upon her husband. Another instance he could men tion was that of a female afflicted with a most excruciating bodily disease ; she expressed a wish that the medical man who had been in the habit of attending her should attend her still, but that was refused.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME wished to know whether his friend knew the facts he had stated of his own knowledge. He was as anxious as any man to alleviate the distresses of the poorer classes ; but he would appeal to the House whether they were not liable to be led away by party statements, which, when enquired into, turned out to be without foun dation. Mr. G. F. YOUNG trusted that the Hon. Member for Berkshire would adopt the advice that had been given to him, and gave notice upon the subject. Mr. WAKLEY would not have stated facts that he had not heard from the best authority ; and he was per fectly ready to furnish the Secretary of State for the Home Department with the name of the practitioner who had furnished him with the information. The Marquis of CHANDOS wished to ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in the orders that had been given by the Poor Law Commissioners, with regard to the windows in work houses, they were directed to be so constructed that the inmates should not be enabled to see out of them ? Lord J. RUSSELL was not aware of any such order. If there had been a general rule to any such effect, it would have been brought specially under his notice. Mr. BONHAM hoped that the Hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) would fix an early day for the dis cussion of his petition ; and he hoped also that the Go vernment would give that Hon. Member the power to bring on the discussion. As his Majesty's Ministers had in their hands the means of preventing any discussion, he hoped they would see the necessity of allowing a discussion on this petition. After a few words from Mr. A. TREVOR, Mr. WILKS expressed a hope that the Hon. Member for Berkshire would not allow this subject to drop. The petition presented by that Hon. Member was well worthy the attention of the House. Mr. WALTER would not fail to adopt the advice given him by Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and would take the earliest opportunity of bringing forward the subject in another shape. The Hon. Gentleman then moved that the petition be printed, and gave notice that on Monday next he would present another petition upon the same subject. Mr. WAKLEY was afraid there would be very little chance of any conclusion being come to upon the subject this Session. The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order. There was no question before the House. Mr. WAKLEY was going to put a question. He wished to know from the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he would object to the appointment of a Committee to enquire into the operations of the Poor Law Bill early next Session ? If the Noble Lord would give an affirmative, answer to that question, he was sure it would give the greatest satisfaction thoughout the country. —( Hear, hear.) The SPEAKER did not think the course pursued by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was a correct mode of pro ceeding. There was a vast difference between speaking to a proposition before the House, and putting a question to a Minister of the Crown. Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the question could be satisfactorily discussed on Monday. SOUTH LONDON CEMETERY. On the motion of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, the South Metropolitan Cemetery Bill was read a third time, and passed. THE EUPHRATES EXPEDITION. In answer to a question from an Hon. MEMBER, Sir J. C. HO OUSE said it was perfectly true that he had received information of the loss of the Tigris frigate, which was upset in a hurricane. He regretted to add that twenty lives had been thereby lost, but neither Colonel Chesney, Lieut. Lynch, nor any of the officers in command of the expedition had been lost. He should also state that Colonel Chesney was, on the 28th of May, going down the river in the larger steamer, with every hope of being able to accomplish the objects of the expedition. REMOVAL OF THE BISHOPS FROM THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Mr. LUSHINGTON gave notice that early next Ses sion he should move resolutions to the effect that it is the opinion of the House that the sitting of the Bishops in the House of Lords is unfavourable to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tends to alienate the affections of the people from the Established Church. Sir J. Y. BULLER gave notice that early next Session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to controverted elections. Mr. A. TREVOR begged to know whether two im portant bills, the Registration of Votes Bill, and the Plu ralities Bill, would be proceeded with. Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Registration of Voters Bill would be proceeded with to-morrow evening ; and, if possible, the Pluralities Bill would be proceeded with on Friday evening. STAMP DUTIES. Mr. ROBINSON begged to know whether the Stamp Duties Bill would be proceeded with this Session, and whether it was intended to make any alteration in the duties on marine insurances ? iON, THURSDA Y, JULY 28, ft• 36. general position, that the right of ratty Actuketi. t'd 6 heard is founded en prirreikAet laf keen; iil IninianitY; atiif justice, as recogttlt , ..ed lay the lA*s of tngland ; and also that the prkorrs in all 'coifs glionld he entitled to Oki This fill left the last Word in the Hands, not of the prisoner', bet a the iikhsel for the ptoscetitidn gave the pr(Aekiikt`,ll . • tiro Speches 1 6ile i f6r an t 1 tbAls plaOed )titit t 'Af 1t81;64C position. He 6o1.11( . 1 refer 'tothe c'slAerVe.thins of a disti n g u i s h e d j u d ge — t h e 'resent bi . r4 Lyndhurst—whn when Attorney-General, and ni - in a Bill was introduced which proposed to give to prisoners defence by Counsel, objected to it en the groond,libatit. gaki3 two spee c h es t o t h e prosecut i on C oiknte i ; as this Bill did; Mid also because it left the 6-4 ids in the litikfet the Prn secntot,. That watt th'e PribleiPle tlVe bill hitiothiced id that if UOttnsel Were allot `ed atrff o , AtiA to tall 140.;i1a of ute consequence would be that the VOLINei for the prosecutor would be 401 ftitiOrt it speech in reply ; and on this ground the At iorney-General of that day, the present Lord Lyndhurst, offered his opposition to the Bill. He confessed his asto nishment that such an able advocate should send down this Bill in its present form. He could cite the opinions of the present Lord Chief Justice Tyndal to the same effect. If this Bill passed into a law as it stood, it would have one of two effects—either the prisoner would stand at a disad vantage, or the Jury seeing the disadvantage he was placed in, would be inclined to return a verdict in his favour. The principle introduced by the Lords was opposed to reason and common justice, and he would move the rejec tion of the measure altogether, rather than consent to a principle so totally at variance with the original principle of the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the amendments introduced by the Lords. Mr. C. BULLER was sorry to hear the Hon. Gentle man talk of rejecting the measure altogether, because lie thought the amendments of the Lords might be so altered as to make very little difference between the two Houses. The Hon. Member proposed that the House should agree to the Lords' amendments, that the second clause be re jected, and that, at the end of the first clause, there should be inserted the following words : " provided always that Counsel for the person or persons accused shall be heard in reply to any speech made by the Counsel for the prosecution, whether before or after the evidence has been given?' Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE wished to know whether the Hon. Member intended to reinstate the Bill as it was before it went to the House of Lords? Mr. EWART said that he proposed to strike out several amendments, which had been made by the House of Lords. Mr. HUME trusted his Hon. Friend (Mr. Buller) would not persevere in his amendment. Mr. BULLER wished to adopt the amendments of the Lords, and also to add another amendment. Mr. GOULBURN said that unless the Hon. Member adopted the amendment of the Lords upon the first clause, he could not add another amendment. Sir F. POLLOCK thought prisoners had better be left in the situation in which they now were, than deprive them of that commiseration which they now had. He re collected an instance of an indictment for perjury, in which he had most important evidence to produce for the de fendant ; but knowinc , that an emi nen t a d vocate , w h o was vsfy successful in such cases, would have the last word, he had been obliged to weigh the value of each in his mind, and had withheld the evidence, the consequence of which was, that his client was convicted. That re sponsibility no advocate should be called upon to exercise. In civil cases there was not so much danger in giving the last word to the plaintiff, although even in that arrangement there had been muc h i n j ust i ce perpetrate d . By th Bill as it was agreed to in the other House, the prisoner's Counsel was to have the last word ; and if he called witnesses, and the testimony was not of great im portance, the prosecuting Counsel would not take up the time of the Court with a reply, knowing that the prisoner's counsel would be entitled to the last word ; whereas, if they adopted the amendment of the House of Lords, the prosecutor would always reply. If they gave the counsel for the accused the right to the last word, he would undertake to say that the right of the prosecutor's Counsel would in very few instances be exercised. He believed that in many instances this Bill would be utterly unimportant. The use of the Bill was not in the ordinary cases that came before Quarter Sessions, where the prisoner was taken with the stolen property upon him. The object of the Bill was to secure that justice should be done in all cases by the means of addressing the Jury —means which would not in many instances be used. He con sidered the amendment made by the House of Lords in this particular an unjust one. He did not know whether there should be time for further consideration, or what steps should be taken, in order to get a fair settlement of the question. He must protest against their adoption of the Bill in its present shape, as it would place the I prisoners in greater jeopardy than they were now. Mr. POULTER always had, and was now willing to agree with the sentiments, on this question, of the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock). He entirely agreed that the prisoner ought to have the last word, if he was to be allowed to have a speech at all. Mr. O'CONNELL concurred in all that had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon, and should not have troubled the House but for what had fallen from the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down. It was strange how gentlemen with the fairest intentions would delude themselves. The Hon. Gentleman imagined it was better to let a man have favour than justice. Although the Bill contained much useful matter, yet, if the amendments of the Lords were to stand part of the Bill, he would rather reject the Bill altogether. Was any thing more absurd than to allow the Counsel for the prosecution to state circumstances, and draw inferences, while the Counsel for the prisoner was not allowed to say a single word ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) His decided conviction of th e l aw as a l tere d b y the House of Lords was, that it would be worse than the present bad system ; for unless the last word was given to the prisoner, it would be better for him to give him no opportunity of speaking at all. Mr. MACLEAN had voted against the Bill on a former occasion, because he considered it a great innovation in the criminal law of the country, and therefore that it was well deserving of the greatest consideration of that House. He concurred in many of the observations of the,Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny, because he felt that if the Counsel for the prisoner were allowed to address the jury in reply, it would be of inestimable advantage to him. If any alteration were to be made in the present system, let it be a complete one, and not such a contracted one as was contemplated by the amendments of the other House. What was there to prevent an alteration of the law to this effect :—That the indictment having been read, evidence in support of it should be given, and subsequently the evi dence of the prisoner's witnesses to rebut it ; then that the prosecutor's counsel should be heard, and after him the prisoner's counsel, and then that the case should be left in the hands of the Judge and the Jury. Mr. PARKER thought the Bill, as it came down from the House of Lords well worthy the attention of the House. Mr. HARDY admitted that the Bill as it came down from the Lords was anomalous, but he did not wish to see it got rid of on that account. He could not understand why the cases of capital offences and misdemeanors should not be dealt with in the same way. Mr. STRUTT said that his objection to the clause as amended was, that it would have the effect of excluding material evidence, which might be essential to the ends of truth and justice. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL expressed his determination to oppose the amendments. Sir: T. FREMANTLE was convinced that. the pri soner would be rather injured than served by allowing his Counsel the right to reply. However, as there 'seemed to be a feeling that such a measure was called for, he, for one, though entertaining a strong opinion against it, should support the Bill as amended by the ether branch of the Legislature. Lord JOHN RUSSELL differed with the Right Baronet who had just spoken, and thought it would be the best course to send the Bill to a Select Committee, to re consider the clauses. He had no doubt they would they would reconcile the discordant opinions which existed be tween the two Houses, and considerably amend the Bill. He confessed that, for his part, he would like to see one speech only made by the prosecutor and one by the de fendant, but he thought the prudent course would be to submit it to a Select Committee. Mr. EWA RT thought that any further reference to a a Committee was quite was unnecessary, with any view to any agreement of opinion resulting from the slight differ ences of opinion existing between that House and the other. The Bill had been quite sufficiently considered In Committees of that House. Mr. C. BULLER withdrew his amendment, to make way for that of the Noble Lord, and the Bill was unanani mously referred to a Select Committee. HACKNEY CARRIAGES. Alderman WOOD then moved the Order of the Day, that the House go into Committee on the Hackney Car riages Bill. Dr. BOWRING opposed the motion, -and, as an amendment, moved the postponement of the Committee to that day six months. The House then divided, when there appeared, Ayes Noes Majority for going into Committee Ou our return to the gallery the House was in Com mittee. After some desultory conversation on a clause of the Bill, (we believe the 21st clause) an amendment was proposed, that it be omitted. The Committee divided, when there appeared -32 Ayes Noes Majority for the clause —2B „ On dstils6 24; lir?,l3(i*lil NO proposed a verbal amend ttleni; tv icn 'the cleared di6sion. ridrirl'ff Out; d i dgetinii we unnerstdod that the tiOtis a' is 'cldunted; and forty Mei - fibers edt being pretient; ihe Ilduse, eight d'cloCk; stood adiOurtied until td-dally; tiafAiTchte (AJAR. The Duchess of Kent entertained a largo and distinguished party at dinner yesterday. The Duke of Curnbtirlarid *tint yeit6rclay td his residence Stew . Mr. C. Tulk; M. P.; and a depOatiOn frnm St., ,Paul's C:ciVent-g;ircien; .Wnlket. ; DaWs,rin,. EMS, Gratitt And Phillips, had an interview icttllncird John fussed and the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, in Downing-street. The Portuguese M inister, the Swedi s h Mi n i s t er , an d Count Wedel - Jarlsberg, transacted business yesterday at the Foreign Office. Mr. Goring, M. P., had an interview yesterday with Viscount Melbourne, in Downing-street. Mr. Hutt, M.P., Mr. Oswald, M.P., Mr. Baines, M.P., and a deputation, had an interview yesterday with Mr. Poulett Thomson, at the office of the Board of Trade. Dr. Chambers and Dr. Holland had an interview yester day with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Marquis of Lansdowne had a dinner party last evening ; in Berkeley-square. FASHIONABE INTELLIGENCE ARRIVALS. Edward Cranston, Esq , Mrs., and Miss Cranston, at the Berners Hotel, Berners-street, from East Court, East Grin stead ; Rev. Mr. Harvey, Mrs. Harvey, and family, at ditto, from Cawden Rectory, Sussex ; Dr. Robinson and Mrs. Ro binson, at ditto, from Great Worley, Brentwood ; Rev. Mr. Clay and Mrs. Clay, at ditto, from Great Worley, Brent wood; Miss Spinder and Miss Bonham, at ditto, from ditto; D. Croft, Esq., and Mrs. Croft, at ditto ; Mrs. Bosanquet and Miss Byron, at ditto; -- Edwards, Esq., at ditto, from Brighton ; Mr. and Mrs. Mason, at ditto, from Stratford-on- Avon ; -- West, Esq., Mrs. and Miss West, at ditto, from Tonbridge Wells ; Earl and Countess Grey, from the Priory at Stanmore ; Sir Henry Meredith, Bart., at the Green Park Hotel, Piccadilly, from Ireland ; Captain Bayntum, at ditto, from Brighton; the Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Bligh, at Coxon's Hotel, Grafton -street, Hay-hill, from Cobham Hall ; the Hon. and Rev. E. Brownlow and Lady Elizabeth Brownlow, at ditto, from ditto. DEPARTURES. General Sir Hugh Halkett, Lady Halkett, and family, from the Berners Hotel, Berners-street, on a tour ; Rev. G. Os borne and Mrs. Osborne, from ditto ; Rev. B. Addersley and Mrs. Addersley, from ditto, for Dover; J. Ferguson and Mrs. Ferguson, from ditto, for America ; C. Crewe, Esq., from ditto, for Repton Park, Stafford ; E. M. Green, Esq., from ditto, for Biggleswade, Bedfordshire ; R. Linsell, Esq., from ditto, for ditto ; J. Bateman, Esq., from ditto, for Liverpool; Rev. W. Mansfield, from ditto, for Milton Briant, Woburn; Mrs. Market, from ditto, for Gravesend ; Rev. Mr. Por teous, from ditto ; Barnard, Esq., from ditto ; Earl and Countess of Lichfield, for Goodwood, Sussex ; Lady Wigram and Mr. Wigram, for Wexford; Sir Clifford and Lady Con stable, from Bryanstone-square, for Slindon, the seat of the Countess of Newburgh; Sir Charles Seudamorc, M.D., from Wimpole-street, for Buxton, Derbyshire. UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE OxFoal), JULY 26.—This day William Robertson, M. A., Thomas Harris, M.A., the Rev. John Louse Bloxam, M.A., John Montague Cholmeley, M.A., and Charles Reade, B. A., Probationer Fellows of Magdalen College, were admitted Actual Fellows of that Society. At the same time the fol lowing gentlemen were admitted Probationary Fellows and Demies PROBATIONARY FELLOWS.—The Rev. W. Wheeler, M.A., Rev. Edward Greene, M. A., Edward Meyrick, M. A., Ber nard Smith, 8.A., John Edward Chaplin, 8.A., late Demies of Magdalen; John Fisher, 8.A., of Brasermose College (Bucks); Frederick Pindar Lowe, 8.A., of University Col lege (Nottinghamshire.l DimiEs.-=Francis Minden Knollis, county of Berks ; Dawson William Turner, diocese of Norwich ; Thomas Pearse, county of Oxford; Henry Cadwallader Adams, London; William George Henderson, diocese of Winchester; Arthur Alcock Barker, diocese of Norwich ; John Earle Welby, county of Lincoln. THE ARMY. The situation of Military Secretary on the Staff of the Army in Ireland has fallen vacant, by the appointment of Lieut.- Col. Cuyler to be Senior Superintending Commissioner of the Dublin City New Police Force. Lieut. Ready, of the 71st Light Infantry, has left Dublin for Sandhurst, having obtained permission to become a student at the senior department of the Royal Military College. Lieut. Kennedy, of the 11th Foot, has been appointed Acting-Paymaster to the depot companies of that corps, in the room of Lieut. Benson, who has been appointed Paymaster to the 28th Regiment. Lieut. Bell, of the 48th Regiment, has been appointed to the recruiting service at Ipswich, in the room of Lieut. New house, of the 95th, who has been recalled from that duty, and ordered to join his regiment at Birr. The General Court-Martial which re-assembled at Mullin gar, on the 21st inst., and of which Major-General Mac Don nell, C. 8., is President, has closed its proceedings on the trial of Capt. Raines, of the 77th Regiment, and the officers composing the Court have returned to their former stations. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. VESSELS ENTERED INWARDS AT THE CUS. TOM-HOUSE, JULY 27. The Dart, ' Block, from Ostend ; Adrianople, Carsten, Archangel ; Henriette, Rieper, Kiel ; Harmony, Smith, Guernsey ; Ann, Stoar, St. Petersburgh • Batavier, Dunl o p, Rotterdam ; William and Mary, C o l e , duernsey ; Emanuel, Clausen, Sausend; Concord, Rickinson, Riga; Daphne, Sprague, Aviero. CLEAED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO, JULY 27. _. _ The Tourist, Whitcomb, for Antwerp; Neptune, Haacks, Ostend; Union, Caadere, Calais ; Charlotte, Wills, Calais ; Liberty, Pain, Boulogne; Jane, Chudley, Odessa; Marys, Manger, Jersey and Guernsey ; Sir Edward Banks, Norwood, Rotterdam. ENTERED OUTWARDS IN CARGO, JULY 27. The Charlotte, Wills, for Calais ; Neptune, Haacks, Ostend; Liverpool, Goodridge, Lisbon ; Fairy Queen, Douthwaite, Ceylon ; Robert Small, Fulcher, Calcutta ; Lord Hungerford, Farquharson, Calcutta; Windsor, Hem ming, Calcutta ; Transit, Wrightson, Lisbon, Cadiz, and Gibraltar ; Rebel, Spriggs, Bayonne. CLEARED OUTWARDS IN BALLAST, JULY 27. The Emanuel, Horsman, for Elsineur; Maria, Harnack, Elsineur; Ferdinand, Hoff, Elsineur: Woodlark, Hardie, South Sea Whale Fishery; Diana, Trail, Quebec; David, Tyfe, Riga. ARRIVALS AT LIVERPOOL, JULY 26. The Eliza, Paelow, from Rostock ; Cornelia, Mobile ; Roseland, Galipoli ; Leslie, Alexander Morris, Narva ; Arno, Trieste; Robert Pulsford, Trieste ; Woodman, Wright, St. John's, N.B. ENTERED FOR LOADING, JULY 26 The Algius, Fee, for Bombay; Perdonnett, Ingersoll, Boston; Postboy, Ferrian, Gibraltar; Adelaide, Milman, Gibraltar; Ann Paley, Neale, Lisbon ; Adonia, Lewis, New foundland; Emma, Robertson, Rio Janeiro; Agatha, Rotter dam ; George the Fourth, Wakeham, St. John's, N.B. CLEARED OUTWARDS, JULY 26. The Anna Johanna, Baing, for Bremen ; Ceres, Blundell, Rostland; Ocean Queen, Carnie, Pugwash ; Bee, Allen, Quebec; Susannah Cumming, Portsmouth, A.S. ; Sally, Dantzic. Grouse shooting commences on Monday next, which will cause the departure of many sportsmen from town to those parts of the country the most favourable to the sport. The birds are not so numerous as they were last summer, in consequence of the season being unfavourable to their breeding. We have long regarded the sitting member for the St. Andrew's burghs as a natural phenomenon, that is to say, a being exhibiting a curious divergence from the ordinary gauge of humanity. This opinion is certainly not shaken by by late occurrences. To call Mr. Johnston's conduct, with regard to the St. Andrew's constituency, extraordinary, would be a perfect abuse of terms—it is absolutely miraculous ; or, if explicable at all, the clue must be found in some yet un heard of conformation of the bumps. —Fife Herald. Considerable sensation has been occasioned in the neigltbourhood of Airdrie on account of a murder alleged to have been committed by several combined ironstone miners on one of their number, who, it is said, was working at lower wages than the combination allowed. It appears from the information obtained that the miners, in consequence of the advance on the price of iron, struck work about six weeks ago, for an ad vance o f Is. a-day on their wages. When the strike commenced the Union had a fund of 3001., and were able for some time to afford the men who stood out 6s. a-week, but being disappointed of a considerable loan from the cotton spinners, they were unable to continue the weekly allowance, and a number of the men were reduced almost to a state of starvation. The unhappy man, whose death has been caused by violence, which he received on Wednesday in a brawl at or near Arbuckle mines, was in this condition. He had gone to work for 4s. a-day, after having suffered under the severest privations ; but whether he had been attacked by the men for not standing out longer, or whether the quarrel had arisen from other circumstances, has not been ascertained. The Sheriff of Hamilton has caused inquiry to be made, and two men have been apprehended for being the chief actors in the murder.-- Glasgow Chronicle. The clergy of the Established Church, resident in the town of Liverpool, have given it as their deliberate and solemn opinion, that it is sinful to compile selections from the Bible for common use. " The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible" must, according to these high authori ties, be circulated. Now, as the Bible consists of the Old and New Testament, it follows, that he who circulates the one without the other is, in the opinion of the reverend the clergy of Liverpool, guilty of sin in the sight of God. The clergy of the Established Church, resident in Liverpool, in denounc ing the making and the using of selections from the Scrip tures as a sin in the sight of God, forget, what is notorious to every body else, that the beautiful Liturgy of their own church is mainly made up of selections from the Bible, including parts of the Apocrypha. —Liverpool Albion. SPIRIT OF Tall: JOURNALS. A Correspondent asks what i s th e us e 6f t'ericling the Mutilated itisi) Tithe Bill a third time to-night in the Itorise Of torils ? earmot answer the ques tidn t for; iii ddr dpiiiidti, there is lid d further wasting time With d iileAstire vbhich the Tory tofch have taken care shall never become law. iitit perhaps Baton Lyndhurst, or some of his friends at the tdi'v side of the Press, nidy be able to give a sati s f ac t or y answer to ddr Correspondent's quety? At all events we ii, L etild feedtririlerid fili dlililictitidri td that honest quarter for, though truth is thiL 16 lie idoketi rd!. there, there can be no harm in knowing even the fell tiz dulent pretexts or hypocritical purposes for which the Lordly Destructives intend to go through the last scene of their cruel and disgusting mockery this evening. Of this, however, the public may be perfectly assured, the Bill as emasculated by the mischief-makers in the Hereditary Chamber, never will receive the approba tion of the House of Commons or the assent of the King. In its original form it was a barely tolerable measure. The approbation clause alone gave it vitality and worth. Stript of that clause it has become a nuisance. In the Bill, as it now stands, there is not one principle or one clause which the country cares about, or which could, by any possibility, soothe the irritated feelings of the Dissenters and Catholics of Ireland, and avert the public odium from that gigantic abuse, that monstrous anomaly —unpa ralleled, as Lord Holland declared, and Lord Mahon was forced to admit, in any country in Europe, either in ancient or in modern times—the overgrown, un christian establishment attached to the Protestant Church in Ireland. The Tory journals are busily employed, we perceive, in defending the course pur sued, factiously pursued—as we have more than once demonstrated—by the Tory Lords, in reference to the appropriation clause. One of these prints—the Times —in the teeth of its own former opinions, as expressed in an article which we extracted from that journal into the Chronicle of Monday, and in contempt of decency and of public opinion, spoke yesterday in the following terms of the 77th clause : " Lord Lyndhurst, retracing the history of this Church question, referred to the time at which the fatal resolution for plundering the Irish Clergy had first been passed by the House of Commons, and drew from the different cir cumstances of that period, and of the present, a conclu sive argument why Lord Melbourne should now feel him self bound, as an upright Statesman, to abandon that ill omened resolution." This reference to Lord Lyndhurst's sophistical speech by his flatterer reminds us of a grossly un founded assertion attributed to his Lordship, which ought to be noticed. The Ex-Chan ce ll or c h ar g e d Mi nisters with introducing the appropriation principle into their Bill with the sole view to keep the Tories out of office. Never was so foully false a charge ad vanced against an Administration ! Lord Lyndhurst, by " retracing the history of this Church question," must have discovered the utter falsity of the accusation. For when was the appropriation clause first inserted in a Tithe Bill ? Was it not during Lord Grey's Ad ministration, when the Tories were denounced by the Times, because there did not then appear a distant prospect of their ever again regaining power ? The 147th clause of the Irish Church Bill, introduced by Lord Althorp on the 12th of February, 1833, distinctly recognised the principle of surplus appropriation. That clause was subsequently struck out to please Lord Stanley, then a Cabinet Minister. Mr. Ward brought forward a motion for the purpose of re-asserting sub stantially the clause. That motion was opposed by the Whig Ministry of the day : and the circumstances under which Lord John Russell then consented to the tem porary postponement of appropriation were recently stated at length by the Noble Lord in the pre sence of Lord Stanley, and in reply to a charge--simi lar in terms to that which Lord Lyndhurst had the boldness to repeat—made by the chief of the Dilly against his former colleagues . _ The manly an d crush ing statement of the Home Secretary was heard in silence by Lord Stanley, who did not dare to contradict the truth, but who lacked the candour and the moral courage to withdraw his calumnious and spiteful accusa tion. Hence it is palpable that Lord Lyndhurst re peated a convicted calumny—a refuted slander, when, on Monday night, he accused the present Govern ment of adopting the resolution to appropriate the sur plus ecclesiastical revenue of Ireland to the purposes of national education, with a view to oust the Peel Administration. The 147th clause of Lord Stanley's Temporalities Bill corresponds in prin ciple (that of appropriation) with the 77th clause of Lord Morpeth's—the present Tithe Bill. When the former was inserted in a Church of Ireland Bill, Lord Grey was Premier. Its authors and friends, who are now in power could not, it is evident, have introduced it for the purpose of embarrassing the Tory party, or of ousting the Peel Cabinet—a ricketty banding, that did not ex ist for upwards of a year and a half after. But does not Lord Lyndhurst inflict a serious wound upon his friends while levelling a charge against his political opponents ? If the appropriation clause—the " fatal resolution " fatal certainly to the ex-Chancellor—if this clause turned the usurpers out of place, it must have derived its force and efficacy from the sanction of the country as represented in the House of Commons. The Whigs could not have ousted their adversaries by means of this appropriation clause, had not the principle of surplus appropriation carried with it the approbation of the people. Lord Lyndhurst, by declaring the " fatal" effect of the " resolution" of the Commons upon him self and his friends, admits the popularity of the ap propriation clause. Yet, in defiance of the people, he and the other Tory Lords have expunged that clause from the Irish Church Bill. To return to the Tory journals. The Times, it has been seen, characterises the appropriation clause as one " for plundering the Irish clergy." So speaks the Times of July 27, 1836 ! What said the same honest Times on the 17th January, 1833 ? Behold ", Of all the staple grievances of Ireland, since Ireland ceased to be a subject province, one only has yet been re dressed. Catholic emancipation has removed the political distinction between the sectaries of the two communions. The Protestant Established Church remains behind, in form a temple, but in truth a fortress, built from the ruins of the old national hierarchy, drawing supplies for its ample garrison from the conquered and impoverished territory over which it frowns, but yielding no succour nor protec tion to its vassals. The Church has been fed by forced contributions upon industry, progressive with the produce of the soil. It has wrung them front a people whom it could not, as a religious establishment, indemnify for the tax which it extorted. It has flung back - the natural teachers of the Catholic community upon the spontaneous bounty of their half-starved flocks, thereby imposing on them a second, and no inconsiderable burden. The Churn of Ireland is, finally, one which has for centuries, in every measure of severity, of exaction, of oppression, signalised itself by more than concurrence with the tyrannical spirit of the civil government. It is felt at once to be a weight upon the country, and a degradation. " Now, a simple Reform' of the Church of Ireland, in the same sense in which the term is applied to that of England, will fall short of its intended purpose. It is not merely that there are abuses in the Irish Church, such as pluralities, exorbitant livings, ill-bestowed bishoprics, with every shape and character of perverted patronage ; nor is it altogether, though it is greatly, the incorrigible nature of the tithe system, but the mischief is one of bulk as well as kind. There is in Ireland too much Church for any legitimate object which a Church can there contemplate. The whole mass is too high and ponderous for its narrow groundwork. The number of bishops ought to be reduced by two-thirds. Half a dozen diocesans, with one archbi shop, would be staff in abundance for the small Protestant army. The number, likewise, of parochial ministers may, in many instances, be diminished, and the 15,0001. per an num bishoprics ought no longer to disgrace the professed Christianity of the realm." So, then, in January, 1833, there was " too much Church in Ireland," according to the Times, which also maintained then, that six bishops and one arch bishop would form " staff in abundance for the small Protestant army" in that quarter of the empire. On the 18th of July of the same year, the Times advo cated the appropriation principle, which it yesterday assailed as spoliatory ; and denounced Lord 'Grey and his Colleagues for not acquiescing in Mr. Ward's motion already referred to. The article of the Times on that day we copied on Monday last ; and the pub lic have seen in it a defence of the appropriation clause upon its own merits, and without any reference or regard to the supposed income of the Irish Church. So that the miserable attempt of that journal to shelter its infamous tergiversation behind the plea of ignorance, ~.. as to the actual revenue of the Church of Ireland, is dead failure. The Times has recorded its 'opinion, the there " is too much Church in Ireland," and it has e% i"-s meaning in the use of that terM, by saYi n . that the ts - Vel'id zi.rebbisliops and bishops which 'Tina' ;Li Ireland, ought to he reduced to seven, and tin " the number, likewioey of parochial ministel hi many instances, be diminished." The 0 111 difference between the ,Ministerial Bill -which tl T'i'mes assails as one " for plundering the e and the proposition of the Times itself, CO' silts this—that Ministers leave the }lumber bishops untouched, while the Times would-16p off mitres. :Another Tory organ, the Mornn! Post, fiat ttiiiAcqi A considerable portion of its e ditou! notice to the artiele i thi,9 Irish Church question ► the Chronicle of Monday. Considering the time et Contemporary took to concoct his reply, we must sa he has performed his task most hobblingly. To are : t against an adversary by suppressing some and mis e : presenting inure of his argument, is, it must be or" remarkably convenient, whatever opinion ma) formed as to the fairness or the independence of so' a plan of contr o v e rsy. This is precisely the case Wil l the Post. It may, possibly, be recollected, that or fixed the Tories on the horns of a dilemma thus There will be a surplus or there will not. If, there ° a surplus, it must be appropriated to some , pp r pose . " and what so useful, or, let us add, so ecclesiastical' purpose can it be appropriated to, as " the moral a nd re ligious instruction of all classes of the peasantry of Ire land without distinction of creed !"—the exact purr s provided for by the 77th clause in the Ministerial 13111 If there be not a surplus, there can be no approPr i3 tion ; and without appropriation there cart be,no crilegious plunder" of the over-paid parsons. Coo se quentiy the clamour about " s p o li a ti on " i s a kilos° l and hypocritical cry, raised for the basest of faction' ends. But it may be said th a t th e a b s t rac t princiP i io of appropriation is i n se so a t roc i ous , th a t th e Pil of Wellington and hi s T ory a lli es cannot . sanct ion 't, If so, how has it happened that the Noble Duke an c his Tory confederat es h ave ac t ua ll y sanct i one d it 3i; ready, by appropriating as far as their votes could hat ( such an effect, a large slice of the rev enues of th Church to the uses of the lay, rack-r en ti ng landlor d' of Ireland ? This wa s our argument aga i nst the faf li tious Tory Peers ; we re p ea t it now an d d e fy " 1 the casuists of the party to controvert it f°l ,l reasoning. The writer in the Post has nibble at the dilemma, but p ru d en tly passe d by tha t part of our remarks which anticipated his e r d ; gument about the abstract principle, and alrea d y disposed of that dishonest pretence of the la c ; tion. In truth, the Tories have no •fair ground stand upon, in their opposition to the approprial, clause. The party who agreed to abolish Chloe & rates, and consented to appropriate to the worst 10, lands—we cannot too often repeat the fact—in Europ e one fourth of the revenues of the parochial Protestant clergy of Ireland—the party who agreed to this act il , "appropriation" of ecclesiastical revenues to purely i s c purposes—cannot be influenced by religious. zeal ° 5O conscientious scruples in their opposition to that 0 0 , 0 in the Irish Church Bill, which merely recognised " Ito benevolent, salutary principle, that whatever surP might remain, after amply providing for the cfergYf io of the ecclesiastical revenues, ought to be iniployeu. 0 diffusing th e li g h t o f mora l an d re li g i ous instrue re tl ° , among the Irish p easantry . Th e h ost ili ty o f t h e )(1 , ries to that pri nci pl e h as sprung exc l us i ve l y f rom a' r ; tious feelings—from a spiteful determination to thril ls a liberal Governm en t, an d to p erpetuate f eu d s in sister country.—Morning Chronicle. 11 3 Our Irish corresp on d ence conta i ns not hi ng w°r recital ; for an addition to the catalogue of merce- s o t murders is unquestion a bly no t so i n th at "civilized religious" country. We are edified from day to u al with accounts of th e " t ranqu il an d sa ti s f ac t or y st at e of Ireland since the access i on o f th a t s t age - s t ru ck l°; of shreds and pat c h es , th e f r i vo l ous novelist--the ; e , vile revol u ti on i s t—th e se lf-d egra d e d messmate o f t o. `, Daniel O'Conn e ll—C ons t an t ine , Earl of Mulgra, sc i ; What an incentive to th e p rogress an d propagatle°o of Irish liberalism b....what a glorification of the 'le n il:P ( l of rampant Pop er y —d oes eac h post f rom t h e westvfrine of the Irish Channel present to us l The Pe e r , - are quiet—yea, a p or ti on o f th em qu i et enoug h , AO not a week passes that some of the p eo pl e . 0- a h reach the tranquillity of an untimely grave, thr°"%f the avenue of suborned assassination. The lette r ri d this day exhibits a s a spec i men o f t h e or d er ly to well-governed s t a t e o f I re l an d t h ree conv i ct i ons in t'iie one county of whi c h M r . Sh e il i s representa tive, to vi e which th ree wort hi es o f t h e same name o f Brien we' sentenced to die fo r th e se p ara t e b u t c h er i e s of t tbe innocent men . Th ree b rot h ers ( v i rtue runs in , blood) a n d one aux ili ary v ill a i n h ave j ust b een aPP re t o hended near Roscrea, and identified as the murdeq of a m an name d E gan . I n one o f t h e western coon at we read last w ee k th a t 25 p r i soners were confineti ce , once for capital felonies. Here b e yo ur t ru e pet' the makers ; none so noiseless, none so sub m i ss i v e, as 4 , dead. And who are the teachers o f thi s bl es sed !J o tem ? Under whose pious, pure, humane instrueb e es t has it grown up and flourish e d ? Th e "fic h e pisantry" are pupils of the devoutest priesthood M‘liales preside over that vast university of ine r so in which the murderers of poor Egan have taker' to eminent a degree. And what was the provocatio u this atrocious massacre ? 'What angry passion 11 : 6 , their victim excited ? What wrong had they s tamed ? What inducement prompted them ? 18TbP they were bribed—their honesty was ovcrpowe re giii the voice of mercy was choked within them. A g a t he of beer a-piece •to these " fine pisants l" wa s o ll temptation to knock th e i r f e ll ow - creature ' s b ra ins We had heard, indeed, some considerable time l/ Oof that four or five shillings would buy the life is 0 i n " ( any man in M unster , except a pr i est, who .-- to haunt his enemies afterwards. But a gall 6n t i o n beer, valu e I s . 6d., b eto k ens a miserable redttoro in the p r i ce o f bl oo d, w hi c h use d to b e a 7,itie costly beverage. A Venetian br avo , o f th e ger a t stiletto breed, would stab himself in despiq es e the hopeless degeneracy of his calling. Now, t" are the men of whom a cons id era bl e por ti on of Ir e " people" consists, on whose eagerness for apprl, oo , tion clauses, and whose preference of Whigs to h ig servatives, Lord Melbourne is not ashamed to rest t c ) , measures of hostility to th e Iri s h Ch urc h, or to ju s eo s by the support of their representatives in Parb 9rn s o his own tenacity of place. The Noble Lord,-- 31 e t, Administration has all a l ong b een h e ld i n eont!r o pet not by the enlightened arist ocrac y o f E ng land: 'm o o but by 99 out of every 100 o f th ose w h o have ,01 5001. a year to live upon—Lord Melbourne, why policy (which is no o th er th an th a t o f i nsur ing tb bi • h self and his congenial f o ll owers a t enure o f o ffice vyl i b i tt e t, shall survive th e C ons tit u ti on ), i s a bh orre d by het ever deserves to be called " mind" in England" ef l o t the Prime Minister, has the reckless folly to de c 0 0 that so long as he is supported by a measuring oe majority, composed of the outlyers and least rell t° l llo 1 portion of the House of Commons, he will brav e de opinion of King, Lords, and gentlemen, and ti l f r il o' Downing-stre e t into a house of ca ll f or th e viles t litical rabble. Such a scheme, my Lord Melb?. th e will not prosper long. There is no consisteneY 'hies parts of it. There are no solid he a lthful spoll ci t to' to cement them. The heterogeneous mass is beoes, gether by a transient whirl of jealousies, antiP f s its' and reciprocal counteractions. Th e fi rs t hour ° w ith pended activity, the principle of life deserts it , c o' that of motion, and each di sengage d a t om falls il e . e verably to the ground.--Times. l i t tle We are afraid that the public have given &atoll it s attention to a Bill which has already gone throne d t he several stages o f th e H ouse o f C ommons , can e , t his " Polling at El ec ti ons Bill." Th e o bj e ct of anti measure is to limit the duration of polling at C ii ° o o , l Elections to one day. Two days are to be 3 el l from the nomination of the candidates to the comni _orie rnent of the poll ; it is to commence on the thirdls to ing at eight o'clock, and at five in the evening 16 0 0 conclude. All votes, which from any cause m_lll be happen to be tendered within those nine hours, w ill t he for that turn totally lost. We are very sensibl e a the, great advantages of despatch in such matters, . 9 a n - fool, evil, particularly as regards expense, which flowe d ti t er' the old system of polling for many days but we have serious doubts whether the limit. W tre ure day of nine hours is not to run into the other e b x (i the h as J6ll‘ extreme more pernicious, inasmuch as tedious process the loss of time and money to in succ ess one ;~~.'.