The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

Cbtrb Mtittion SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE RAILWAYS BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) Mr. EN TWISLE said there was now sought in this Bill a power to regulate railway companies in their pro ceedings, even before coming to that House for their Act. This was a power which might be exercised in a very dangerous manner, and which, therefore, he should strongly warn the House to be careful of conceding. The Bill gave the power to receive the deposits of share holders—a thing unheard of before. Again, it was pro posed to invest in the Board of Trade a power to pur chaee hereafter such railways as might now or at any future period be contemplated and formed. These things, he must really suggest, were eminently worthy of the reconsideration of the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade. Mr. BROTHER TON said he really could not see why there should be so much hesitation in going into Committee on this Bill. For his own part, he thought there had been a good many railway schemes brought forward in connexion with which there had been more fraud and felony than ever he had heard of before in connexion with public matters.—(Hear, hear.) Many persons were extremely anxious to have railway matters excluded from the operation of this Bill; but, though he was aware it was an unpopular opinion, he felt bound to say they ought not to be excluded.—(Hear, hear.) There were constantly bubble schemes going forward to derange the market, and injure the honest bona fide speculator, that, under the provisions of this Bill, would never see the light at all.—(Hear, hear.) Let them go into Committee, and then they might be able to correct the defects of the Bill, and send it forth to the world a useful and valuable measure for the protection of the community. Sir 3. GUEST explained. Mr. WALTER JAMES thought the Bill a most use ful measure, encouraging, as it did, the trade of the country on the one hand, and discouraging bubble com panies on the other. He approved of the preliminary investigation which had been objected to by the Member for Sheffield.' A preliminary investigation was insisted on in all cases in which companies came to Parliament for a Bill, and he thought such an investigation ought to take place in all cases. Mr. M. PHILLIPS had come down to the House entertaining considerable prejudice against the Bill, but the course which the debate had taken had convinced him of the propriety of going into Committee. He cer tainly, with regard to railways, thought considerable caution ought to be exercised to prevent companies making an improper use of names. He himself had been asked some time ago by an Hon. Member to put his name on the back of the Carlisle and Glasgow Railway Bill, and, considering that a direct communication be tween Manchester and Glasgow would be advantageous, be had consented to do so. To his surprise, a few days afterwards he had seen his name in the newspapers as a member of a provisional committee of a railroad in embryo. He of course took measures immediately to rectify the mistake. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY hoped that, while excluding railroad companies from the operations of the Bill, they would exclude sham railroad companies. One of the grossest frauds ever perpetrated had been called a railroad company. He thought the clause making those who lent the guarantee of their names liable it most wholesome enactment. He had no pity for those persons who thus lent their names and induced others to risk their property in undertakings of this nature. He thought the word " promoter" ought to be more clearly defined. He had himself, before he had the honour of a seat in that House, been a promoter of a Railway Bill before a Committee: He thought the words of the clause ought to be so defined as not to in - elude those who were professionally employed in promoting Bills before Committees.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Lambeth had agreed to the whole of the resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill was founded with one exception, a point on which he divided the Committee. If the resolutions were com pared with the Bill, they would be found closely to re semble each other. Mr. HA WES explained. He contended that the Bill went much further than the resolutions, conferring powers which the resolutions never contemplated. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to part of the principle of the Bill, and stated also that within a very few hours a most important clause had been introduced into the Bill. He did not see any objection to including joint-stock companies and the for mation of railways in the Bill. If it was to prevent fraud, it was as proper to prevent frauds in railway companies as in any other. He com plained that the Solicitor-General was not present on an occasion of discussing a Bill so important as the pre sent one, and objected to the power under the Act given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was no less than that of preventing parties from coming before Parliament for Bills. This was a distinct principle, and as it had not been discussed sufficiently, he hoped the Committee would not be pressed. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but Mr. HAWES having stated that after the discussion he would not divide the House, his amendment was withdrawn, and the House went into Committee, PRINGLE in the Chair. Clause 1 was then agreed to. On clause 2 being proposed, Mr. HAWES asked how this Bill was to apply to incorporated companies? Mr. GLADSTONE said the Bill would certainly apply t , ) future incorporated companies, as, in some points, it applied to those already formed. The Act did not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, but to England only. Mr. HAWES said the Bill applied to all Scotch and Irish companies having agencies in England. Unless it reached all companies, this would have an unjust and partial operation. Mr. GLADSTONE said he applied the Act to these companies simply because they were not exclusively Scotch or Irish companies, but carried on their opera tions in England. After some discussion, the Right lion. Gentle man suggested that the clause should be p,'lssecl as it stood, reserving the point, whether it should extend to Scotland, for further consideration. Mr, HAWES said he thought the clause ought to be postponed. After a few words from Capt. LAYARD and Mr. J. S. W ORTLEY, Mr. G ILL moved that the Chairman do report progress. After some discussion the CHAIRMAN reported pro gress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Bir mingham, praying for inquiry into railway charges for goods and passengers ; also, a petition, agreed to at a public meeting in Covent-garden, praying for the libera tion of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., and his fellow prisoners. Mr. WARD presented a petition from certain settlers in New Zealand, praying that the titles to their property might be established on a sure foundation. Mr. BECKET presented a petition from Leeds against thogoint-Stock Companies Registration and Regulation Bill. Lord SANDON wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen tleman the President of the Board of Trade at what time there would be parties in Java and Manilla who would be authorised to issue certificates of origin of sugar, and alto whether in cases where certificates could not be ob tained sugar would be admitted without a certificate ? Mr. GLADSTONE said that the advices which would go out by the July mail from this country to Java and Manilla, would find persons there qualified to issue cer tificates as to the produce of those islands. In answer to the other part of the Noble Lord's question,. he said that a discretionary power of course would be vested in the Board of Customs as to the admission of sugar with out certificate. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, Mr. GLADSTONE said, that as the matter was not in his department, he could not distinctly say what the Post-office arrangements were in respect to communica tion with the East India Islands. But he understood that Manilla was the port chosen for the Philippine Islands, and that the Dutch Government would not allow intercourse with any other than three ports in the island of Java ; tho e were Samarang, Batavia, and another place. SMOKE PREVENTION BILL. On the reading of the Order of the Day for the Com. mittee on this Bill, Mr. MACKINNON wished to know from her Ma jesty's Government whether be should proceed with this Bill or not ? Mi;. MANNERS SUTTON said, that since the Bill waa introduced it had been his business to make some inquiries on the subject of the parties interested in the Bill, and the result was eo very unsatisfactory that he felt the greatest difficulty in pronouncing any decided opinion upon it ; and as he did not think the House was then in a condition to come to a decision upon that im portant measure, he hoped the further consideration of it would be adjourned. Mr. AIACKIPION moved that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Mr. WARD moved as an amendment that the Sp ea k er should leave the Chair that day three months. After a brief conversation, in which Mr. Brothert on Lord F. Egerton, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. M. Philips, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ricardo, Sir John Easthop e Mr. Protheroe, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Muntz took part , Mr. Mackinnon withdrew his motion for going into Colvi n Wee, and also withdrew his Bill, with the intention of b:inging it forward again at an early period of the next session. The Courts of Common Law Process Bill, and the Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill severally went through Committee, and were ordered to be reported to- morrow. The Linen Manufacturers (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. ' BRITISH CUSTOM-HOUSE IN CHINA. Dr.)BOWRING, according to notice, begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern ment, whether the Government had given its sanction to the introduction of oaths in Custom-house matters in China, as directed by tile British Consul at Ningpo. Sir R. PEEL said that the administration of oaths was without the sanction of the Government, and he had taken measures to introduce the English practice in China. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved that this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the Act 17 and 18 Car. 2, c. 7, intituled " An Act for provision of Ministers in Cities and corporate Towns, and making the Church of St. Andrew s, in the suburbs of the City of Dublin, presen tative for ever," with a view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the payment of Ministers in corpo rate towns in Ireland. He said that the Act was passed for the purpose of providing religious instruction for Pro testant immigrants from this country and the Continent into Ireland. It was no longer necessary; and although it produced no more than 15,0001. a year, it was at once oppressive and offensive to the Roman Catholic population. He knew many Protestant clergymen who derived a portion of their stipend from this peculiar source, who would feel grateful to the Government if it would devise means for relieving them from getting their revenues in such an unpleasant manner. He had read a statement from a Protestant clergyman in Cork on this subject. It was stated that the late Dr. Warren had distrained on a portion of his parishioners for ministers' money. A deputation waited on him and requested him to give back the goods which he had distrained. His reply was, that he wished to God some other mode of re munerating him could be devised by the Government, but that he owed it as a duty to his successor to maintain his rights, and he was justified in saying so. —(Hear, hear.) They had replied to him that he had many rich Protestants among his parishioners, and that he. should look to them. He replied that those who made the observation knew little of Protestants, for they were the worst paymasters he had. He trusted the Ilinise would do him the justice to believe that he was actuated by no sectarian motives in bringing fora arc] this subject, as all he wanted was to induce the Government to provide a revenue for the clergy, with. out having recourse to these charges. The Act had established a valuation of all existing house, but it had fixed certain limits, by enacting that no house should be valued as being worth more than 601. a year. The con sequence was, that the houses of the rich, which were perhaps worth 2001., were assessed to the ministers' money only at 601. a year, while the houses of the poor were assessed at their lull rental, and if the assessmen was not paid the goods were at once distrained, and there was no appeal against the distraint. Tho Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by formally proposing his motion. Lord ELIOT had certainly promised last session to take the subject into consideration. The Attorney- General for Ireland had maturely considered the subject, but he regretted to state that the Government had been unable to devise any plan which would be satisfactory to the persons subject to the payment of the tax, without de priving the clergy of that to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself admitted they were fairly entitled. Similar charges ekisted in the capitals of England and Scotland, and it should be remembered that at the time this Act passed Roman Catholics were incapacitated by law • from holding houses ; therefore it was a tax im posed upon Protestant property exclusively, and Roman Catholics who had since become possessed of that pro perty, had acquired it subject to this tax, and, there fore, had purchased it for less than they would other wise have giren for it. He could not accede to the mo and be hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman world not press it. __. . . _ Air. BELLEW hoped that before another session the Government would prepare a measure to get rid of the grievance. Lord STANLEY hoped, that before the end of the next session, something would be done upon this sub • ject. Mr. JOHN O'BRIEN, in supporting • the motion, re ferred to the anomalous position of the Established Church in Ireland, which he contended ought to be sup ported outtAf the general funds of the country, without pressing directly upon a dissentient and reluctant people. Strangers were suddenly ordered to withdraw, and the House was counted, but there being more than forty Members present, the gallery was again opened, and Mr. O'BRIEN proceeded to argue in favour of the motion. He was desirous to incorporate Great Britain and Ireland most closely, but the Protestant Church— the greatest anarchy in the history of nation°, prevented the amalgamation. The Irish Pretestant Members were compelled, however painfully, to legislate against the temporalities of them. He wished to rescue the Protestants from their ascendancy, and the Catholics from their humiliation.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CURTEIS complained of the want of courtesy shown by a supporter of the Government in counting out the House in the middle of the eloquent and im portant speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the House did not divide, and the motion was agreed to vtith out a division, but amidst great laughter and cheering. Mr. PUSSY then obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend an Act passed in the fourth year of her present Majesty. intituled "An Act to enable the owners of settled estates to defray the expense of draining the same by way of mortgage." The House then adjourned. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of this day.) There continues to be a good healthy demand for yarns for all numbers up to 40's, but more particularly for the low numbers, which obtain a trifling advance in price. For goods generally there is also a steady demand ; iths printing cloths commanding a little higher :prices. For 40-inch shirtings the market was heavy, and not much business done ; parties waiting the daily expected arrival of the Overland Mail. The ac count of its arrival in the London Times reached here later in the day, and the commercial intelligence there contained was considered to be rather unfavourable as respects manufactured goods. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, JULY The demand fur flannels continues brisk ; but there is no change in prices. The wool trade has undergone little variqtion since last Monday. There is a fair busi ness doing, and prices have advanced a shade. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was among the measures which, :to lighten the Ministerial ship, were cast overboard on Monday night by Sir Robert Peel, in his state ment as to the course proposed to be taken by the Govern ment with reference to the pending business of the session. The history and fate of this unfortunate Bill is fraught with instruction and warning to the present, and to all future Cabinets. It exhibits the folly and danger of sacrificing principle to expediency—of committing the preparation and conduct of a legislative measnre to the individual whose per sonal and pecuniary interests are involved in the changes it proposes to effect, and who must be more or less than man if he do not avail himself of the opportunity to improve his own position, personal or relative, by its means. To this fatuity—for it is nothing less—do we attribute the successive defeats, involring diminished influence and damaged fame, the Government has sustained in connec tion with theßill which they have now consigned to its fate; and its equally bad precursor, which was withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Commons, by the consent of both sides of the House, in the course of the last session. The history of modern legislation affords no instance of the kind so disgraceful to a Ministry. The cumbrous and expensive proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts had been long and loudly complained of, as injurious to the suitors and disgraceful to the jurisprudence of the coun try. A Commission, issued by the Crown, had inquired into the state of these Courts; and, in a clear and well-digested report, had:recommended certain changes by which the ad ministration of the laws, with reference to the matters over which these Courts had jurisdiction, should be assimilated to the changed circumstances of society in this country. The ma terials for legislation were thus provided to their hands. An opportunity for effecting a valuable alteration in the law, by removing an acknowledged nuisance—and thus earning for themselves the gratituoe of the public—was supplied. It was lost. The evil spirit of patronage—the desire to render the opportunity, thus offered, subservient to party objects, deprived the country of the advantages it would have derived from an honest government. The Bill introduced by Dr. Nicholl in the last session was " too bad" to be entertained by the House of Commons. However well disposed a majority of that House was, al that time, to gratify the Government in anything reason able, that experiment upon its compliance with Ministerial wishes was too bold to be admitted. Its manifest design to aggrandise one individual—and he the concoctor of the mea sure—at the expense of the public interests, was demon strated by the Opposition. After struggling hard to overcome the objections, Dr. Nichol' withdrew the Bill in its original shape, and introduced many alterations and modifications. It was changed, but not mended. The House still showed so determined a dislike to the measure, that it was with drawn. The Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill of the pre sent session. It was to have been expected that experience would have imparted wisdom. The new measure, it might be safely predicted, would be, if not perfect, at least free from great errors and defects. A third failure would, at any rate, be guarded against by a Ministry not wholly indifferent to cha racter, nor insensible to the necessity ofpreserving appearances, in order to maintain themselves in office. This, we say, was to be expected ; but this expectation was far from being rea lised. Even in the House of Lords, although introduced by the Lord Chancellor, the manifest errors and defects of the Bill were so forcibly exposed by Lord Cottenham ' Lord Campbell, and other Noble and Learned Lords on the Oppo sition benches, that the Lord Chancellor, and the Peers who are his echoes in that House, were unable to screen it from merited reproach: they merely apologised for its imperfec tions. The Bill came down to the House of Commons with a character by no means recommendatory; and the debate which arose, and the diiisiou on its second reading, followed by the Opposition in Committeeto passing its first clause, in dicated too plainly to the Premier the hopelessness of endea vowing to preserve it from the fate of its predecessor. The solemn asseveration of Sir Robert Peel, with reference to the former Bill, "So help me, God, I have no personal interest in the measure:" was abortive for the purpose for which it was employed on the former occasion ; to have repeated the oath would have been an act of prodigality in svrearinz which would have looked like profligacy. There remained, then, no alternative but to throw the measure over board. And this has been done ; and in a way signi ficant of the chagrin which Sir Robert Peel has expe rienced by the necessity laid upon him to free himself from the incumbrance. The history of this signal miscarriage in legislation is a sad comment on the promise of law reform with which the present Ministers entered'upon office. What they would do in this respect was trumpeted forth in the speech from the throne ; and public expectations wereraised high as to the measures which were to follow the announce ment. What they have done has been seen. Their only matured measure is their Bankruptcy Act ; and of that, and their appointments under it, there are scarcely two opinions. STANDARD.—The debates" in the two houses of Parlia ment, last night, were long and interesting. In the House of Lords the Sugar Bill was discussed pretty fully. The argu ments upon this measure are already familiar, but the genius of Lord Brougham gave to the discussion an attraction of almost as much force as the charm of novelty. His Lordship disposed of the suggestion, that in Java, the Manillas, and Chi na , there may linger a system of qualified slavery, greater or less, but in all of small amount, by making the broad distinction between these countries and countries like Cuba and the Brazils. In the former, if there is (which is doubtful) slavery, there is certainly no slave trade ; consequently the taking or refusing of their produce cannot to diminish the amount go to augment or tion is decisive. Slavery ° in f. B S l ll a b v S e t ry a I e T ex h i i s s ts d e is v t e i r n y c - - where—for everywhere the very poor are the slaves of the very rich, to say nothing of the slaves whom superstition en thrals, as in the more ignorant populations domineered over by the Church of Rome. As long as poverty and ignorance are inseparable from the condition of humanity, th e sub stance of slavery must afflict most countries in one shape or another ; but in well-governed countries this slavery will be in a constant course of diminution. In co uu _ tries, on the other hand, in whiai a slave trade is practised, / slavery must, from the nature of things, grow . with their growth and strengthen with their strength ; d whoever : adds to the resources of such countries, either b: y enlarging their commerce, or otherwise, is in effect as much. a slave trader as he who exchanges muskets and gi mj awder for human beings on the African coast. 11( re is one passage of Lord Brougham's speech reflecting:l tonour upon his Lordship, because, it says, far better than w e could say it, what we have a thousand times laboured to if iculeate, not only with reference to the slave trade, but to It e new poor law and the factory question, namely, that ev. y system of political economy. which does not take for its b af. is the moral law and the spirit of Christianity, is unsound, a) id must lead to disappointnient. TIIE OLD BAILEY B.& R. (From the Sunday In the course of the allusions - which iCse . 33 ade a short time since to the case of the wills forgerisv we stated that our object was not so much to tree; s that case through its circumstances, which was the pro , since of the jury, as to make it the foundation of a gene rs 1 call upon the public to consider, and, if possible, to corro 'lt, through these representations, the evils which have grown out of the the license indulged in by counsel in :the defence 'of guilty men. It would scarcely be possibl 3 to select a better case to illustrate these evils than the t of Barber. defended as it was in the full tone of the Old : Bailey ver nacular, by Mr. Wilkins. His client was th, a most in jured man in the'world ; nothing could surpass; his wrongs evcept his virtues. The purity required by t msar in his wife, was a moderate qualification compare I with the purity ascribed by Mr. Wilkins to his elk nt. Cesar, indeed, was guilty of a moral cowardice w! is n he could think of repudiating his wife merely beta so she, was slandered. But Mr. Wilkins betrayed no , such pusil lanimity. On the contrary, he seemed to. consider it a feather in his client's cap to be tried for fr and by the justice of his country. It was an honour to b employed by him—quite a moral distinction to touch. a fee from such a hand. Neither the verdict of a jury .n or the sen tence of the judge could disturb the impliciz confidence of the advocate in the rectitude of his die a t's conduct. Juries were fallible, judges were fallible—in- s !sort, every thing on earth was fallible but Mr. Wii3 :ins's pene tration and Mr. Barber's virtue. As for prosecutors and witnesses, they were not only : ,flible, but congregated and combined, like evil s p irits in a league for the overthrow of innocence. Btr t, to speak seriously upon a matter which is, after all,• of very se rious importance, it is, as we have said, in • vain to look to the judges for the protection of proseciet ors or wit nesses ; they seldom or never interfere. E hey did not interfere with the case of which we have lr •cen speak ing, when Mr. Wilkins thought it not I s eneath him to attack the character of such a mat I as Mr. Freshfield, the Bank solicitor, in the ho; se that sonic ignorant person on the jury might be lie rsuaded to consider his conduct oppressive rued unjust . It is net for Mr. Freshfield's sake that we regret ti e indiffer ence manifested by the judge on this oceA axon. His character stood too high to be affected by a a ything that Mr. Wilkins could say or do ; but if judo s will not sympathise with such men as Mr. Freshfieli I, how can they be expected to sympathise in more dm ibtful cases with men who are not so well known, and eso nsequently not so well protected from misrepresentatio a ? It is, therefore, a delusion not to supeose that: prosecutor —or witnesses, and especially the latter , - -find pro tection from the judge, and, there fc re, it is the more necessary that something shou Id be done, now that the evil is on the increase, to • protect the public by other means. The gentlemen of t) se bar call such a case as that of the will forgers, in the, Old Bailey slang, " a good sporting case," that is, a c s se in which prosecutors and witnesses are to be run down and every ' thing, and, amongst the rest, that ills fat at l personage Truth, sacrificed to the worthy character lie the dock. According to this interpretation of the wor 3. sport, Mr. Wilkins is certainly a keen sportsman ; lIR cares no thing for himself, he rides, as beggars are 8 lid to ride, straight onward to a certain destination. Thee re is no dif ficulty, however formidable, that can ars ei it his pro gress, or turn him from the one great object of sacrificing everything to the interest of his client. So confident were the conductors of the pro: a ecution that brow-beating would be resorted to in the ca s e of Barber, that they felt it necessary to subpoena the Ks ord Mayor, arid Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk at the Mr al .sion-house, and to keep them in attendance day after day, as a check upon the imaginative faculty of Mr. Wil Islas. Even after all the precautions that could be adopt oil, the Bank, the Bank solicitor, the magistrate, the p.eisss, the wit nesses for the prosecution, nay, the very judge him self, were, all of them, in one shape • other, ex posed to the animadversions or insinuati ons of the prisoner's counsel. But this out-and—out -mode of defence, although it is certainly calculate( 1 to attract the notice and admiration of the great rnres s of indivi duals charged with offences, has never failed to obtain for him who uses it the scorn of those who think that society is likely to be endergered by the escape of an ingenious villain, defended by a dextrous lawyer, whose sense of right and wrong, however perfect: in itself, is never permitted to interfere with what he , ealls his duty to his client. One would think, from thus exaggerated language of lawyers respecting this duty, tlemt there was something in the connection of counsel and client which exempts parties from the ordinary obligations of truth and justice. No barrister will pretend that he would be justified in imputing falsehood directly or indirectly to a person who, he knew in his heart, had told the truth. No man of common honesty would dare to make such an assertion. Wherein, then, consists the magic of that extraordinary and mysterious compact iarplied in the phrase " duty to his clic nt," which justifies. or is sup posed to justify, him in doing for another what he dares not do fur himself—to obtain the acquittal of a guilty person, and the ill-treatment of one or mire innocent persons by the misrepresentation of their motives, their characters, and their conduct ? What is there, then, we would ask, in the connexion between counsel and client —what is there in the sense of duty arising out of such a connexion, that should exonerate either of them from the universal obligations of morality, and the ordinary rules of right and wrong ? Is it in virtue of any mystic influence communicated from palm to palm by the transmission of a fee, that the lawyer becomes not merely invested with the privilege, but charged with the duty, of sacrificing every principle to the one paramount object of vindicating his client, re fax aut nefas, at the expense of every consi deration, human and divine ? If so, we should like to hear some account of the process from those who are familiar with the operation. It was stated some time ago by the Attorney-General, in the House of Commons, on contending in favour of this extravagant privilege, that he supported it for the sake of the suit o rs themselves. Now, what we want to know is wherein the advantage to suitors consists ? We think it will be readily granted that it is no advantage to prosecutors to be vilified and traduced,nor to witnesses to be treated in the same manner. The accused party, whether he be a swin dler, a robber, or a murderer, may certainly derive an ad vantage from the obloquy which he is permitted to cast, through his counsel, on those who..are endeavouring to bring him to justice. In fact, the only person to whom this monstrous privilege can be of use is the guilty person, who can only be saved from merited punishment by the adoption of such execrable means. What then, let us ask is the real effect of this privilege, or license, or whatever it may be called, upon the administration of justice itself ? We will not mince matters. The effect is not to benefit suitors, but to drive them out of Court by the mere force of the Old Bailey philosophy. We would appeal to Mr. Clark, the clerk of the arraigns, and to Mr. Goodman, whose experience in the same office renders his testimony invaluable—we would appeal to these gentlemen, whose characters, as private indivi duals and as public officers, give the highest authority to their statements, whether it is not a common case to hear prosecutors express their regret at having prosecuted, and not only express their regret but declare that they would rather submit to the loss of their property, and allow the thief to escape, than expose themselves or any mem bers of their families to the observations with which they had been unjustly assailed by the prisoner's counsel. The effect of this privilege, therefore, is tq obstruct the administration of justice in limbic', by driving people away from the Court, and inducing them rather to submit to their losses than apply for redress, or even accept of redress, with its invariable accompaniment of abuse and detraction. Lord Brougham was as suredly carried aw ay by professional enthusiasm, or by that love of wrangling which is, perhaps, in separab'e from a great advocate and debater, when lie could think of referring to the progress of a trial as affording a favourable instance of the display of human talent. However interesting such proceedings as are daily exhibited in our courts may be to the Noble Lord, and to those who think with him, we can conceive nething more re pulsive to a benevolent mind than that scene of noisy decla mation and gross humbug, and virulent invective and brutal demeanour, which combine to make up what is called an important trial, or a good sporting case, at the Old Bailey. His Lordship's own description of the process, though evidently coloured so as to favour his views, will scarcely inspire such a man as we have described with any violent inclination to he present at the performance. " The jury," observes his Lorship, " see the witness ; they have the opportunity of watching his demeanour while giving his evidence, and then they see him submitted to a cross-examination ; after which comes his counsel, comforting and restoring, as it were, the poor man, after the flagellation he has under gone, and setting up the broken credit of the witness, damaged by the cross examination. Af ter the cross-examination of the adverse counsel, which has impaired the credit of the witness for a mo ment, then comes the skilful counsel, who restores and comforts the poor man, and gives a better opportunity of explaining the case and setting himself right with the jury, until at last the conflict being over on both sides, the evidence of the witness is fairly before the Court." But how often does it happen that the evidence of the witness is never fairly before the Court ? Suppose the case of a poor nervous man, or of a delicate and timid woman, how difficult would it be to restore and com fort either of them after flagellation, so as to enable them to become collected and appear in their proper characters of truth and honesty ! But let any one who suspects us of exaggeration go to the Old Bailey and judge for himself—let him observe the conduct of coun sel to female witnesses on the opposite side, and if he do not feel his heart throb with indignation and shame, we can only say that he is fit for the place to which we have sent him. But, as it is possible that we may revert to this subject again, we shall say no more for the pre sent than express an ardent hope that something will be done to correct an evil which, so far from showing any disposition to cure itself, is evidently on the increase, and the effect of which is most injurious to the ends of justice and the reputation of a great country. THE ENGLISH SPY SYSTEM. The people of this country have been accustomed, for many years, to boast loudly of the open and straight forward character of all authoritative proceedings, and to look down with contempt on the continental nations, for their tame submission to the abominable system of espionage in which their governments so generally in dulge. It would appear, however, that we have less THE SUN, LOJ DON, WEDNESDAY EVEN EN(4, JULY 3, 1844. reason to plume ourselves on our superiority in this re spect than we had fondly imagined. The recent trials int Ireland show that substantial justice may be made to yield to the necessities of a State prosecution ; and the public have just been made aware, through the medium of proceedings in the House of Commons, that the race of official spies is not yet extinct in England. There is nothing more abhorrent to the minds of our countrymen than any invasion of the sacredness of private correspondence. The law punishes the opening of a letter as a gross misdemeanour, and the person who should be discovered taking advantage of the opportunity to read any private paper, inadvert ently left within his reach, would feel himself degraded, and would justly be regarded as a dishonourable, if not a:dishonest, man. The general prevalence of this feeling, and the stringency of the regulations that have been adopted in regard to the transmission of letters, have naturally led to an unbounded confidence in the honour and integrity of our Post-office department. No one has doubted that his communications; from the moment they were put into the Post-office slip till they were de livered at their destination, were as We from the prying eyes of curiosity, as if the)• bad been inclos'ed in a case which no one could open but the party to whom it was addressed. Such, however, is not the case. The whole na tion has been startled from its propriety by being told, what was formerly known only to a few, that Go vernment has tho power of granting warrants for the opening of any letters passing through the Post office, and that this power has recently been exercised to a considerable extent by that most honourable and con sistent of all Home Secretaries, Sir J. Graham. There is, it seems, a separate department at the General Post office for examining correspondence, furnished with all the necessary means and appliances for o p en i ng l e tt ers and closing them again in such a way that the gross breach of trust can, with difficulty, be discovered. Think of the confidential officers of the British Govern ment gravely employed in steaming wafers, procuring duplicates cf stamps, and taking impressions of seals, in order to conceal a disgraceful attempt to get at the substance of letters passing through their hands We are yet ignorant of all the purposes that Sir J. Graham has had in view in invading th e f anc i e d sacred ness of private correspondence ; for, when questioned on the point, he answers nothing, but falls back with silly iteration on his responSibility as a Minister. The cases that have been exposed, however, show that to the meanness of making himself a spy, he has added the degradation of tracing out secrets for the use of foreign despots, at the expense of national honour and national hospitality. What a precious employment for a British Secretary of State ! The last debate on this snbject in the House of Com mons was one of the most damaging for Ministers that has occurred during the session ; and even the division must have taught Sir James Graham that his conduct is indeensible. The Times sarcastically wishes him joy of his majority of only 44. .. On the whole, we are pleased with the tone taken by, the Whigs in the course of the debate ; but we should have liked that they had insisted a little more strenuously on the necessity of putting an end, at once and for ever, to the obnoxious powers by virtue of which Sir James Graham has acted. The plea of State necessity we hold to ba utterly untenable ; for all the disadvantage of allowing the Post-office to be made the means of convey ing treasonable suggestions must be more than counter balanced by the feeling of security which the suppression of so disgraceful a system of inquisition would inspire. Moreover, of what avail are their powers likely to be now? So long as their existence was unknown, a Home Secretary might be able, justly or unjustly, to put him self in the possession of the secrets of political opponents or traitors ; but now, who is there that has any design against the Government that would trust his communi cation to the Post-office ? The exposure of the spy system has fairly defeated its object, and the sooner it is abandoned with a good grace the better.—Aberdeen Herald. MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF DALMAS.—Yesterday afternoon Dr. Sutherland, accompanied by Dr. Munro, pro ceeded to the county gaol at Horsemonger-lane, by the au thority of the Home Secretary, - to examine into the state of mind of the convict Dalmas, the friends of the convict having repeatedly urged upon the attention of Sir James Graham, that during the last twu years Dalmas has been subject to fits of mental aberration, brought on by incessant and severe study,, in conjunction with his chemical experiments. The result, of course, is, as yet, unknown. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, July 2. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, at the Gui!dhall, before Lord DENMAN, and a London Special Jury.) CONSPIRACY.-THE QUEEN V. LORD ASHBURTON AND OTHERS. This was an indictment against Lord Ashburton, Mr. F. Baring, and Mr. Mildmay, members of the house of Baring and Co., for a conspiracy to ruin and destroy the credit and property of Mr. Kinder, by procuring an Act of the Legislature of Mexico to nullify a contract in which he was engaged. Mr. Erie and Mr. Bodkin conducted the ease for the prosecution; and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Clarkson appeared for the deft ndants. ' This case, which occupied the attention of the Court during the whole of yesterday, was resumed this morn-. ing, when the case for the prosecution closed. The fol lowing are the facts of the case, as we gathered them from the evidence of Mr. Kinder, and from the very vo luminous documentary evidence which was put in and read, consisting of all the proceedings in a Chancery suit instituted by Mr. Kinder against Baring and Co. In the year 182.5 Mr. Francis Baring, who was at that time travelling in Mexico, agreed, in conjunction with the representative of the house of Mr: Kinder, in Mexico, to take a very large tract of land, extending from ocean to ocean in that country. Information was sent to the members of tho house of Baring in London, and to Mr. Kinder, by their resyective agents, and it appeared that both parties were d eesatisfied at the purchase. At that time the house of Baring held dishonoured bills of Kinder's to a large amount, and granted him indulgence, to which Mr. Erie contended he was well entitled, inas much as his resources had been stopped by Mr. Francis Baring in Mexico. Mr.. Kinder, it !ippeared, had sug gested to Lord Ashbiu r ton the propriety o f trans f err i ng th a e ri p n i g i r , chwahsich hadetoa joint-stockkept itself c company, from all joint-stock y, but th e firm of B companies, refused to accede to such a proposition. Baring and Company sent out to their agents i n Mex i co, warning them as to Kinder ' s credit, an d stat i ng t h at they held dishonoured bills of his to a large amount, and desiring their agents to adopt every means in their power to put an end .to the contract. In accordance with these instructions, the agents exerted themselves to procure the passing of an Act through the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract. Thi s A ct was passe d on the ground that fore igners could not hold land in Mexico, and it appeared from cert a i n l etters from t h e Mexican agents of Baring and Co., that one of them, a foreigner, named Noulti, had bribed certain mem bers if the Legislature to support the Bill. These transactions took place in 182'3. In 1830 Mr. Kinder went to Mexico. He returned to E ng l an d about a s n h d bur in ton lB a 3 n B d h hls fi p iKl artner s . They put in a th g e ai e n , e s a t r Lo lB r 3 d 7 A , a bill in Chancery their answer, which gave Kinder a ccess to a ll the papers. In 1840, and just as Lord Ashburton was on the point of sailing for Mexico, Mr. Kind er wen t b e fore the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, and pre ferred this indictment, on which Lord Ashburton was arrested, and gave bail at the Judg e ' s Chambers four days before he sailed to the United States on a diplee made mission relative to the Boundary Question. Mr. KELLY, for the defence, commented on the con duct of Mr. Kinder, waiting sixteen years before he brought forward this indictment, and i n b r i ng i ng it for ward in the manner and at the time he did, just as Lord Ashburton was about to leave Engl an d as the represen tative of his Sovereign. With regard to the facts of the case, he contended that if the House of Baring had been desirous of ruining Mr. Kin der,they might have done so most effectually by securing him on Ins dishonoured bills, instead of holding them even as they had done. Kinder It appeared that at first had expressed himself dissatisfied with the purchase, and there was nothing to show that he had even expressed hi s sat i sfaction at i t, so that the house of Baring night well believe that he like themselves would require to . get rid of it, their interests in the purchase being identical, and as t h ey k new that Kinder was not possessed of fund s su f f i cient to carry on the undertaking, it was not surprisi ng t h at t h ey s h ou ld desire to get rid of the connexion with him. There was nothing illegal in supporting a Bill before the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract ; but then it was said hat Mr. Noulti, the agent, had bribed. True, in his accounts there was a sum entered for bribes, but those bribes had been paid without any com munication with the Barings, wh o k new not hi n g of Noulti's acts until after th e transact i on had b een con , eluded, and with regard t o t h ose b r ib es it shoul d b e re collected, that in many foreign countries it was im possible to get any great public business, even of a judi cial character, transacted without giving what were ended gratifications to every officer, from the judge down to the crier. Now, all that had been done had been to allow these sums in Noulti's account, and no doubt, if they had not been so allowed, Mr. Kinder would have called the attention of the Court to. it, as a most unfair and most unjust transaction. Then. with regard to the communication to the agents on the subject of Kinder's solvency, that was certainly a confidential com munication. No action of slander would lie on sitth a communication. If it had been brought. Messrs. Barings might have justified, and have put in the dis honoured bills in evidence, and, therefore, this could not be given as evidence of a criminal conspiracy to ruin the prosecutor. Lord DENMAN summed up. He said that this indict ment charged the defendants, in seven counts, with a conspiracy to bribe the legislature of Mexico to pre vent the prosecutor from holding lands there ; in five other counts with a conspiracy to turn him out of pos session of lands which rightfully belonged to him ; and in two others to injure hi s cre di t. Th e case to h e pre sented to the jurors would m a i n ly depend on the lett ers which had been put in evidence, and on the mowing which they should put on tho s e letters. This w as a charge of conspiring to inj ure th e p rosecu t or ; an d cer tainly. at the very outset Et* the case they must be struck with the strong observation s which had been made on the conduct of men wh o , though now c h arge d w i t h such a conspiracy, had for so many years allowed the prosecutor to owe them so many thousand pounds, and had forborne to put in force against him the legal rights which they possessed, and which they could not have enforced without instantly, and by law, effecting the very purpose which they were now charged with endea vouring to effect by co ns pi rac y. It certainly did i .secm strange that such a co urse s hould havebeen . puisiTd towards the prosecutor, h a d the desire to injure him existed in the way supposed. At the same time, it could not but be regretted th a t th er e had not been from the first a more free and unreserve d communication between since arisen if he had f ree ly certainly hav e avoided' all that suspicion whi.:ll. had these parties. Th e d e f en d an t, Mr. A. Baring, would c ommunicated with the prosecutor with respect to this purchase. Both Mr. . A. Baring and Mr. Kinder objected to the purchase when it was first made ; both at that moment desired to cancel it, and both might well have acted together in the pursuit of that object, and it really was impossible to under stand why it had been deemed desiralA to keep the prosecutor in ignorance of what was going on in the mind of Mr. Baring, and what were his resolves on the subject. Yet the letters showed a feeling of that sort, and the desire expressed to the agent in one of them not to be restrained by over scrupulousness was cer tainly liable to an equivocal interpretation. Still that was not sufficient to justify a conviction. To justify that, the jurors must be satisfied that the ,defendants acted in a common scheme to get rid of the contract against the wi!l of the prosecutor, either with the desire to injure him, or with the resolution so to act, though by so acting they knew that they must inevitably bring injury upon him. But suppose that they should think that the evidence made out a case against Mr. Alexander Batirg,, and showed that what he had done was to be attributed to the motives imputed in the indictment., still they could not find a verdict against all the defend ants on this charge of conspiracy, without thinking them all to have been actuated by the same motive, and to have concurred in one scheme to injure the prosecutor. Many strong observations had been made on the nature 3f this prosecution, and it was represented that the jurors must not form their opinions of the offence of bribery abroad upon the abhorrence in which it was said to be held in this country. But, happily for the jury, the question of the enormity of the offence of. bribery was not one which was to occupy at tention to-day. The queStion now was, whether the defendants had conspired to adopt the means alleged, and fraudulently to deprive the prose cutor of his 'property in Mexico, and to injure him in that country and in this. The transactions to which this prosecution related extended over many years, but it seemed that most of these depended on the terms of the letters which had been put in evidence. These letters had been obtained from the defendant's house by means of a bill in Chancery, and the fact that there were so many letters spreaeling over a great extent of time, ren dered it very difficult for the defendants to give a full explanation of everything. As to the charge itself, the jurors must he informed that it was not necessary to show in positive terms the existence of a malicious feel ing towards the prosecutor; it would be sufficient to support the indictment, if it was shown that the defen dants had taken their course wholly without regard to the question, whether what they did might not be inju rious to the prosecutor for ary such feeling or disregard to the interests of others, and still more the resolution to do that which was most likely to produce injury to an other, was that to which the law would give the name of malice. This brought them to the letters, and the question for the jury would be whether these letters showed the existence of malice in that qualified form, and whether there was evidence of these defendants conspiring together for the purpose of injuring the prosecutor, or of doing that which they must have known would inevitably produce injury to him. If the jurors should be of that opinion, they must find the defendants guilty • if of a different opinion, they must acquit the defendants. His Lord ship here went at great length through all the letters, and then referred to the bill and answer in Chancery, remarking that in his mind the answer was not, as it ought to have been, a clear, distinct, and direct answer to the allegations in the bill. Tho question be must put to the jurors was this, whether, before the Act of the Legislature of Mexico was passed, and with the view of procuring it to be passed, the defendants had directed their agent to employ bribes. If their agent had, in employing these bribes, acted on his own suggestions, the mere adoption of his acts afterwards would not ren der the defendants liable upon this indictment. But suppose one of them to be guilty of that part of the charge (and the other parts of the charge ought, in his opinion, to be dismissed by the jury as wholly unsup ported by evidence), then the question arose, how far these defendants were all guilty of a conspiracy, even as to the charge of trying, by any means and at any cost to themselves or others, to get rid of this contract. To make them guilty, a common purpose and a common mode of action, with regard to it must be .proved—com munication must be shown to have existed between these parties. Now, what was the proof of concert or combination ? The letters' appeared to have been written by Lord Ashburton himself, and the only proof against the other two defendants was, that each of them had copied some of these letters. That was the amount of the proof of combination. The jurors would consider these facts, and say :whether they were satisfied that there was a conspiracy to do this injury to the prosecutor, or whether, without any regard to his interests, the defendants had determined to pursue a course of their own, and to get rid of the contract in a way that must be, or that might be, injurious to him. If the jurors believed this to be the case, then, though no personal malice was proved, the verdict must be guilty. If the jurors were not satisfied of this, they must acquit the defendants. The jury retired at half-past six o'clock, and in an hour and twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of Not THE ORIENTAL AND PENINSULAR STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY V. HERAPATH. The jurors summoned in this case were sworn, and Mr. Boy'', stated that this was an action brought by the Directors of the Oriental Navigation Company, to recover damages for a series of libels inserted in Hera path's Railway Journal. These libels had been at first justified, but the defendant being now fully aware that he had been imposed upon by the persons who had fur nished him with the information on which these libels were founded, was desirous of making amends to the plaintiffs by submitting to a verdict. Mr. BODKIN said that he appeared on behalf of the defendant, who had inserted in his paper statements which he then and afterwards believed to be true, but which, on further inquiry, •he discovered to be un founded. He was, therefore, willing to express his re gret that he had been so imposed on, and had been led in that manner to publish matters injurious to the plaintiffs. A verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 405., was then taken. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2. The Duke of BEAUFORT presented petitions against any alteration in the corn-laws. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that he should, on Thursday, put a question to the Govern ment on the subject of the removal of Mr. C. O'Brien from the magistracy of Ireland. Earl St. VINCENT presented several petitions from Bristol and other places against the Sugar Duties Bill. _ LIBEL BILL. Lord CAMPBELL postponed this Bill, in conse quence of the absence of Lord Denman. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the Bill should be taken on Thursday. Lord CAMPBELL said a very important notice was on the paper respecting the Post-office, which might occupy a considerable time. The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, I have a Bill on Friday, but, however, take it before my Marriage Bill on Friday.—(Laughter.) The Bill was then postponed till Friday. THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL. The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose to move the third reading of this Bill. He thought it was absolutely ne cessary that they should have an abundant supply of sugar at as cheap a rate as possible, seeing that this article had now become, Rot an article of luxury, but of necessity. It was to accomplish this object that the pre sent Bill had been introduced. The Noble Earl then read several statements to show that, of late years, the supply of sugar to this coantry had not been equal to the demand. He also read a comparative statement of prices within the last seven years. He then entered into an explanation of the general alterations which were in tended to be effected by the proposed measure, as they were lately explained in the debates on this Bill in the other House of Parliament. He contended that the coun tries producing sugar by means of slave-labour ought not to be placed on the same footing as those countries producing sugar in which slave-labour was not employed; and in support of this view he re ferred to the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, as given be fore the Import Duties Committee ou this subject. To admit slave-grown sugar on the seine footing as free labour sugar would be to offer a bribe for the continua tion of slavery and the slave trade. He thought that the protection of lOs. per cwt., proposed by this Bill, in favour of the West India producers, was sufficient, and he, therefore, confidently recommended it to the adop tion of their Lordships. e s a w t e aci d the ryas unjust uetjiuosn c t o b i n r o s at e hs t o tao f t ett the n i4 g E l e d f e t this t p h r i u G n oL c v e oe r rr t dn a i m n t t i y n 7 t Ni H Tn thoughte EhAa vGi consumer at home and to the producer in the West In dian colonies. He objected to this Bill becauSe it would cause fluctuation in price, as it made the supply to this country dependent upon the laws of other countries. He had no hesitation in saying that he should vote against an equalisation of the duty be tween all foreign sugar • and West India sugar, as he believed that an equalisation of the duty at present would be an injustice to the West Indian produce. He ridiculed the system of certificates of origin, and contended that it would be useless. He also ridiculed the idea that this Bill would have the effect of curbing the slavery system, for he believed that it would have just a contrary effect. In proportion as they consumed free-labour sugar in this country would a vacuum be created in foreign countries, and that vacuum would have to be filled up with a supply of slave-labour produce. This Bill would indirectly encourage the slave trade, and he could, therefore, but de signate the Bill as a hypocritical farce. The principle of this Bill, he contended, was bad, and the measure would, therefore, produce no beneficial results. Lord BROUGHAM differed entirely from his Noble Friend in supposing that this Bill would give encourage ment to slavery and the slave trade. He contended that such a measure as this was only carrying further into practice the principles upon which slavery and the slave trade were abolished. He did not deprecate the use of cotton on account of its being the produce of slaves, nor did he deprecate the use of coffee on the same ground; but the reason he deprecated the use of sugar, tkte pro duce of slave labour, was that the labour required for the production of sugar amounted to torment in the persons performing the labour. This, however, was not the case with respect to the production of cotton and coffee. He would always support any measure which would have the effect of checking the extension of the horrors of slavery as it existed in Cuba and Brazil, and he therefore gave this measure his fu'lest and most earnest support. , Earl St. VINCENT complained of the West India planter having been placed in the position of being un able to command that labour which his trade and his wants required. This had placed the West Indies in a most disadvantageous situation. If they had had a full supply' of labour the necessity for this Bill would never have existed. The Earl of RADNOR denied that the distress which existed amongst the West India interest had arisen out of the emancipation of the •slaves. Equal distress to that which .existed now hid frequently occurred long prior to the time of emancipation. He said the distress which the West India interest suffered arose out of the monopoly which they possessed. He thtught it was a great hard ship on the West India proprietors that they should not be allowed to refine their sugar before they sent it to this country. He would remind their Lordships that the West Indies could - not supply sugar sufficient for the consumption of this country. In 1801 the importation of sugar was upwards of four millions of pounds, while in 1844 the amount was nut larger. Lord BROUGHAM—HaIf of that was for exporta tion in 1801. The Earl of RADNOR—No, it was for home con sumption: the Earl of DALHOUSIE—In 1815 four millions of pounds were imported, and of that two millions were taken for exportation, and two millions of pounds more were consumed last year than in 1815. The Earl of RADNOR coritined. He maintanied that the existence of the monopoly in favour of the West. Ipdies had the cffeet of retarding cultivation and im provement. That monopoly took away the incentii•e to produce to the fullest extent, because in the years when the most. was produced the value obtained for the sugar was the least, but in years when little was produced, a very large value was obtained. This, he contended, was the mischievous effect of monopoly. To the Bill before their Lordships he could have no objection, because it was a step taken in the right direction. It was a step towards the abolition of differential duties, which were moat injurious in their effects. He had no objection to give the West. India interest protection, provided they could prove that they were entitled to it ; but he would never give it them by means of difirential duties. He would rather pay two millions annually than maintain differential duties in their favour—for differential duties were only taxes on the pockets of the consumers in this country. Earl. ST. VINCENT explained. Lord ASHBURTON said the home consumption of sugar had doubled 'since the year 1801, and it was there fore necessary that such a Bill as this should pass, both ts) secure cheapness of price and a proper return to the revenue. The supply at present, though large, was not sufficient for the demand, and it was their duty there fore to adopt such measures as would increase the supply of sugar to the people of this.country, to whom sugar had become an article of necessity. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought this mea sure partook of many good and sound principles, and he only regretted that it was not carried further. The prin ciple upon which the Bill proceeded was the interest of the consumer in this country—he whose interests had too long been neglected. Ile deprecated the system of certificates of origin, as he considered it to be useless. The most powerful Government in the world—that of Napoleon—had found it so. He calculated that it was impossible by such means as these to put down slavery, because those very countries possessing the greatest fa cilities for the production of sugar were the countries where slaves were employed. Ile hoped, therefore, that this Bill was only a step towards further legislation on the subject. Lord BROUGHAM explained. The Earl of DALHOUSIE briefly replied. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Pais ley against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 2. Upon our re-admission to the gallery after tho divi sion, we found Sir IL PEEL upon his legs, suggesting that Hon. Members who had motions upon the paper for to-night, and who had precedence of the Hon. Member for Fins bury, should give way, in order to give that Hon. Member an opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the subject of the Post-office. Unless the Hon. Gentleman who had precedence gave way, it would be impossible for the Honourable Member to bring on his motion until a late hour, when it would be impossible to discuss it fully. Considering the notice which had been given, and the attention the subject had attracted, he considered it of great importance that it should be decided this evening, and he hoped that other Hon. Members who had notices on the paper would give way. - Mr. MACKINNON said, that after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet he should have no objec tion to comply with the wishes of her Majesty's Govern ment, and postpone his motion until another oppor tunity. Lord INGESTRE said ho had a motion which stood next on the paper, and he would follow the example of the Hon. Member for Lymington, on two conditions, one of which was, that other gentlemen who had mo tions on the paper should do the same, and the next, that there should be an understanding that they were to have precedence on another day in the same order that they stood at present. Captain PECHELL hoped that the Noble Lord would not give up his motion. The claims of the Gallant Officer (Captain Dickenson) had been before the House for some years.—(Loud cries of " Order, order.") Mr. TRELAWNY had a motion on the paper on the civil disabilities of the Jews; ho should consider himself quite in the hands of Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House.—(Cries of " G o on, go on.") The SPEAKER said, if other Members who had motions on the paper did not give way, and it was determined that the orders should be proceeded with, the Hon. Member for Lyxuington would, of course, have precedence.—(Cries of " Go on, go on.") Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the Hon. Member would persist in his motion.—(Cries of " Order, order.") Mr. MACKINNON, after some hesitation, said he would withdraw his motion. Mr. MONKTON MILNES said he had a motion on the paper which he considered of great importance, with respect to the;trial of a Maltese at Tunis for murder, but he had too much experience of that House not to know that it would be useless to press it against the general wish. Her Majesty's Government had also ex pressed a desire for the Hon. Member for Finsbuty to proceed. He should not press his motion ; at the same time, he could not see why Government were so anxious for it to come on to-night ; but, an anxiety to that effect having been expressed, he should, of course, give way. Sir C. NAPIER hcped the Noble Lord (Ingestre) would persist in the motion which ho had on the paper. Lord INGESTRE was willing to give way, but hoped he would have some assurance as to the time. when • he could bring his motion on again. Sir R. PEEL said he was sure Hon. Gentlemen • would see the impossibility of his assigning a. Go vern • ment day for these motions. H e begge to state that her Majesty's Government were most anxious to meet the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and he was surprised that impediments seemed to be thrown in the way by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who seemed to wish to force the other motions forward; but he hoped, without insisting on any conditions, the Hon. Gentlemen would postpone them. He hoped that consi derations of justice—considerations of the nature of the imputation made against the Government, and the im pressions produced on the public mind, would induce Hon. Gentlemen, without making conditions, to allow the mot ion o f th e H on , M em b er for Finsbury to be brought forward. Lord INGESTRE said . the Right Hon. Baronet had somewhat misunderstood him. Ile did not wish to make any conditions with the Government—all he wanted was for :these motions to be considered as dropped orders from to-night. Mr. TR,ELAWNY, after some short discussion, also postponed his motion with respect to the laws imposing -civil disabilities on persons professing the Jewish religion. POST-OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS. • Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee . to inquire into the Secret Department of the Post-office. In bringing the subject forward, he begged to thank the Hon. Members who had postponed their motions in order that he might bring his on.—(Hear, hear.) He begged leave, however, to ob serve, that when the House met at four o'clock, he was totally unable to discover any anxiety on the part of the Government, or its officials, to, make a House in order to allow him to bring the question . forward. At that hour there was not a single member of the Government in their places, and it was the Speaker alone that made the House.—(Hear, hear.) He was glad to learn that the Right Hon. Baronet was anxious upon this question, and he hoped that, being so, he would grant the inquiry which he asked. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that the public ought to be satisfied. If he was sincere in that., he (Mr.Duncombe) would tell him that the only way to satisfy it was to grant his motion. The matter had come on him rather by surprise, and many Members had left the House under the supposition that the motion would not come on before • ten o'clock. He (Mr. Duncombe) knew not how this question was to be treated, whether as a vote of confidence, or whether the representative system was to be set aside, and, instead of the question being treated on its merits, it was to be looked upon as a vote of confidence. Now, if it was to be looked at in the latter . point of view, he must confess that that was a most unconstitutional way of treating .it. Gentlemen might vote for it as a Vote of confidence, but if they did so, he had no hesitation in saying that many Members would vote a confidence they did not feel. lie wished this question to be treated on its own merits. He did not know whether the parties who complained of the opening of their letters were to be told that they mi g ht go into a court of law. The answer that had been given by the Right Honourable Baronet on the subject had been considered most unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. How were the public to go to law, he would ask, with a Minister of the Crown ? It was not Mr. Mazzini's letters alone that had been opened. He could show that hundreds of letters had been so dealt with. Who, he would ask, were to be the wit nesses when the parties went to law? Not the Right Hon. Baronet, or the Postmaster-General, but their subordinates, and what chalice he would ask was there for the public with such witnesses as those ?—(Hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) appealed to the representatives of the people on this question.—(Hear, hear.) He wassle , termined that it should be tried at the bar of public opinion—(Hear, hear)—and not in a pettifogging lawyer's office.—(Great cheering.) A breach of confi dence had been perpetrated at the Post-office, under the authority of the Uovernment. The inquiry he now asked was into the general system. Tlpy had already gone into the cases of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolz mann, and he wished now to inquire into the whole subject, and for that purpose he intended to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into a department of her Majesty's General Post-office, commonly called the Stcret or Inner office, the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office are discharged. He meant to add these general words to the motion, and with which he had concluded a former motion on this subject—" that it be a diaection to the Committee to report to the House, whether it is expedient to mitke any alteration in the law by which the secret opening, detaining, and delaying of letters is conducted.' Al' though the motion Was of a general nature, he was pre' pared to substantiate it, and to make out the most com plete case for inquiry. He stated before that an infrac tion of the law had been committed—he repeated that assertion—the privilege, of whatever nature it might be, was vested in the Government. lie would not fix upon the Home Secretary of State the whole odium of this proceeding ; the Government must equally share the blame and the responsibility—(Hear, hear, from • Sir Peel and Lord" Stanley)—he repeated what he had already stated—he would not retract a single charge he had made. He fearlessly asserted, that for the last tee years, a most unscrupulous use was made of the power which the Act of Parliament wasasaid to vest in the Go vernment by opening the letters of different parties. He would state that it was done to a very great extent, and he believed that if inquiry were instituted, so far from its appearing that the Right Hon. Gentleman op' posite had done what every Secretary of State had done since the time of Queen Anne, i t would be • proved to the satisfaction of every one that more letters had been opened in this manner during the last two years than during the ten or twenty years preceding, and that they had been opened, too, contrary to law. In the first place, he wished to inquire into that office in the General Post-office commonly known to the subordinates of the establishment, as well as by the superiors of the establishment, as the secret or inner. office. In this office those deeds of darkness took place. —(Laughter.) Here was the Post-office inquisition held.—(A laugh.) Sometimes the letters of individuals were carried there, and from there sent to the Home' office, where copies were taken of these letters accord ing to their contents. Sometimes, as he understood , whole bags of letters were taken down to this office. The messenger from the Home-office came in just ashen the mail arrived, and called for the bag from Cork, or the bag from Dublin. The letters were selected, and gives to this individual, and having been examined, t h ey were distributed, re-sealed to th e so rt ers ; those men, of course, did not know what had taken place in the secret letter office, nor how many letters had been detained : Sometimes the letters were delayed an hour, and some' times an hour and a half. He had not of course ole tained a copy of the warrant, but he understood that et this moment the letters of Foreign Ministers wer ° opened and there examined and read. He believed that the letters to foreign Ministers were at this momen t read and opened by the Right Hon. Baronet. IVer ° foreign Ministers themselves aware of this ? He (Mr' Duncombe) must apologise for having spoken in the pre . vious discussion on this subject disrespectfully of F r ance. He had said that this inquisitorial system might suit the air of France or Austria, but it did not agree with the free air of Britain. The Hon. Member then read ea extract from Galignani's Messenger, in which his Words were quoted, also the words of Monsieur Guizot is the French Chambers, in which that distinguished statesma n expressly denied that the secrecy of the Post-office had been violated in France. He (Mr. Duncombe) therefor e ° in an ample man ner b egge d t o apo l og i se t o t h e French people for the insult he had so unknowingly, but yet 5 , ° 01 grievously, cast upon them.—(H ear , h ear .) It would ' appear that this was a peculiarly English practice ; for in foreign countries, such as Austria or Italy, where they opened a letter, they always re-sealed it with the G o ' vernment stamp, and there was no attempt whatever 11t concealment ; it was reserved for an-English Post -ogle' to combine the basene s s and meanness o f t reac h er y wi t 'S ,l e the meanness of violation of secrecy. This mod was peculiarly English, ho weve r un E ng li s h it migh t seem in principle. The Honourable Member the t read the extracts from foreign newsp a p e rs, sh ow ing tha t when the Austrian Government 'had opened letters they had boldly avowed it by affi x i ng on th em th e s eal 0 " the double-headed eagle," and the words " opened 1)Y authority" on them. The Right lion. Baronet had 1W admitted that he had di rec t e d M azzin i' s l e tt ers to b „ ),, opened. He admitted th a t h e h a d i ssue d th e warr ant f°' one of the three mentioned, but, with scrupulous catalog, refused to declare; which. However, the Right Bole Baronet had said so much that he must needs say InO re i The public would not be satisfied with his mere evew a of responsibility. .(The Hon. Gentleman then read ee extract from a letter of a correspondent of the Morntl Chronicle, and whi c h a pp eare d i n thi s morning's ilnPres sion of that pap er , stating, i e. that although the Dulte a Wellington had decl are d th a t t h e l e t ters o f M azz ini had not been opened at the instance of the Sardinian Gover n ; ment, he would bring forward proofs to show t ll5 letters had been detained, o p ene d, an d co pi e d, an d give, o to the Sardinian embassy, at the request of persons 0 0° nected with the Sardinian G overn m en t ; an d the sa ns , , correspondent asked if the British Government did ;a for one Government why not do so f or ano ther, what signified whether it was one letter or one hundre' i f He added that he had several letters opened, and tha t ia he had anything important to communicate ho w 01. 1, 11 transmit his letters through other channels than three it the spy office. lie (Mr. Duncombe) h a d st a ted, an c i l o i t had been admitted, that one letter had b ee n o p e ned, _ eo he could prove that fifty or s i x ty l e tt ers h a d be .o opened, and that this system had been go ing on for a years in the most unscrupulous manner. He underst e i , that during th e di s t ur b ance i n t h e manu f actin i n g de tricts in 7842, sco u t s h a d b een di spatc h e d f ro m t' t , General Post-office by the Home Secretary to the 10, offices throughout thos e di s t r i c t s , w h o opened all s petted letters, and t ransm i tte d their conterts to .t l ie - Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) . It was impose' b that they could have a warrant for each opening—tl) must have had a general order.—(H e ar, 110 r e He believed there was a wholesale opening e o letters on that occasion, and he would furnish er°; ll of it. H e s t ate d t hi s b roa d ly i n his place ", Parliament. He had be en f urt h er in f orme d t h at sotn ° times the messeng ers f rom t h e P ost - o ffi ce deman d e d ti ,!:r letters of a particula r s t ree t, or pl ace — t h e Alb an y, i a instance; where the Right Hon. Gentleman the genii; r for Edinb urg h an d th e N o bl e L or d t h e M em ber 1 ., Newark resided.—(Laught er .), He had found great c i for l ticulty in obtaining any informati o n on thi s subject, it appeared that since lie had last addressed the lite the messengers and officials about the Post-office " 0 been warned at their peril to keep their lips setitediv that they would not utter a word with reference to it. other charge was—that the letters of the foreign Ain . `4l ters had been opened—that the letters of foreigners been opened at the instance of foreign Government h a letters of Austrians, P o l es , an d It a li ans . He wanted to know what was the reason of this? What had ore do with the unfortunate misunderstandings in Italy the present moment? How little was it known foreign countries that s uc h t reac h ery h a d b een res ort to in England ? M r . M azz i n i h a d rece i ve d a lette r en that day from one of hi s ex p a t r i ate d countreht the son of Admiral Bandieri. He supposed the B i g ) Hon. Baronet had se e n a n d rea d thi s l etter .—(L au ghte r. .. The writer, in it, had congratulated his fell ow co untry , men on his residence in Great Britai n , an d a dded , unlike his own country, he might now rely on the 1 , 0 11 ,1 tegrity of the Briti s h post.—(Laughter.) Poor delu de man.—(Renewed laughter.) M r . M azz i n i h a d b e en c ° . e ,, gratulated on his arrival i n B r i t i s h so il by the dividual who had assisted his escape, and the r i l. that individual might entert a in no h os tile l e jj 'i s ings towards the Austrian Government, letters having been copied and transmitted by the A7 st trian Ambassador to the Austrian Government, be ° l t o , be now thrown into a prison. lie .(Mr. Duncornbe). i f lieved that, at that moment, there were fifty or sic'. individuals immured in the Austrian prisons in ce ° % - a quence of the information communicated to the Atlet h ri e - ,0 Ambassador by the British Government. The baud corpets, it was known, did not eeist in Austria, e je hence those unfortunate creatures must remain e , confinement, or, perhaps, be subjected to the tortur si , in order to extract a confession from th em . The 1 1° 0 - tion in which the question now stood was neither ea,, , factory to the public, credit a bl e to th e H ouse , nor 0 , nourable to the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The U o , vernment, when they went so far as to say that a Woe rant had been issued, ought to have told th e trutlieo whole truth, and nothing but the truth e and the 1 3.11 av Honourable Gentleman should not have epe e t 'toured to mystify the subject by saying "s he had issued a w a rrant , b ut not sta ir t l V, against whose letters th e warrant h a d b een i ssue d. warrant, it appeared, no longer existed ; but with gard to Mazzini, there appeared to be just as re ti f" e r reason now for op en i ng M azzin i' s l etters, as there Qiiri had been. H e did not b e li eve that the letters of MO's(' to these individ ua l s h a d b een opene d , b ut he heliet'o that there could b e no d ou b t t h at t h e l etters ofthese t hr e c ji persons to Mazzini, whose petitions he held, bad b e e eo opened. The letters of L ove tt t o Mazzini had b' opened. He could prove that Mr. Lovett's letter o t a Mazzini had been opened just as certainly as that 4 ,,) Right Hon. Gentleman had his hat on .—(A One of these letters contained a p aragrap h stating t ti e the Emperor Nicholas w a s ex p ec t e d to arr i ve in, I,,et country in a few d a y s , an d t h at t h e wr i ter did a y think that the reception of this distinguished , s t dividual cou ld b e very fl atter i ng. The very tt'lji morning there app eare d i n t h e two Governet, prints a denial that the Emperor was e ° " - t e ing here ; y e t i n fi ve d ays after the announceln,eaj to the surprise of every one, t h e Emperor arrived. •L‘f-„e he did not say th at t hi s was a conclusive eir°°;es (Laughter from the Opposition) —but yet it was en traordinary coincidence. He knew the Right Hon• ronet opened and read this letter, and although he ee,'" , not prove it in a court ' of law he would establiseo, moral conviction on t hi s po i nt. The Right Hon- °c o l a tleman could no longer shroud himself unier As mere delaration of responsibility.—(flear, hear.) t ee the Minist er o f th e C rown, as ' the paid servant of public, as respo ns ibl e to t h at House and to the cont r i.! he was bound to give further explanation. The lu; e , office enjoyed a monopoly in the transmission of let te er in fact, parties w ere pun i shable for transmitting tbroir letters through a n y ot h er channel ; and it was onlY „.00 that the power ,which it wa s sa id th e l aw con f err ed I.l „ree the Secretary of St ate to violate secrecy should n°' further acted up on , unless it was absolutely n ee t , - " s t sary. If they inten d ed to open letters, they 11!nd ri proclaim th e i r i n t ent i on to the public, but he could b, no part of th e A ct of Parliament which j us tified re fraud that had b een comm i tted by h re-scaling the let te d with a count er fei t sea l . The Right Hon. Baronet ha attempted to shield hi mse lf b eh i nd the statute-book!, his he (Mr. D.) would that night hear from the Pl l i 4 eitor-General a f u ll s t atement what the law on matter really was—what was the nature of these I r y rants—to what extent the system could be ear ec t. '„ e a r) what was lawful, and what was unlawful.—( l1 — He maintained that this was a question that coulelilla rest where it was.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped he oa made out a good prima facie case for inquiry. D w° , l - Or not do to entrench themselves behind official silence, red would it do to be supported by a majority that alV ei l l eieli ready to carry them through an act of this kind, W was most odious to the peoplLoud cheers.) L eo Mr. ROEBUCK rose to second the motion, but gaga way to Sir James Graham, who roso also. The question was then put, when nget i. Sir JAMES GRAHAAI rose, and said he felt 01 "ipf; to the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath for g r a ss way way on this occasion; and he felt confident the 1- "i ri ge would feel that h e was, -in justice, entitled to a he° after t 11( arid, it to assut Go% l erir; on their Posed, n anti if on the It most gig them,_ this was wish to the mati Louse his stric before tl Eire ans from, he s-ort ho was and wt licit; he bound t casio n party in though it ajuit il'egal i. did not tor epm On the vas a q . 9-overn! it assun or k invorta was br, Re said interest that no Primar that h e SIS 8, q, G ov(11 1 that wi cular'p more g Govern Mr. " on a f Sir j gravity to proci was sun was abn _ . W as gre, Du th e n itprated tittl e fro Gentiert that as Dublin ters dirc believed on t h e lh e this /)0 'that he fl ee of he cool ‘vitho n 9ang,T I ndUlg( good, , . 41 Pst sE ' ) E the earliesl he was I vns 1)r, "the n - state c heers` W ould . ; ktutir e Place. insure ;Pnfin, a-aorcl i vould of th at that if fo rmic , flot Plrtj et the _ _ TIC) Pointe( that temp al I le wa, reatio s a 3 sati Il e i n .3f t i form er tion Shook b gc e Arr. / alaies