The Sun. — London, England, 1839-05-02 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION SECOND EDITION. SUN . OFFICE, Stv-n o' Clock. CARLOW ELECTION COMMITTEE (THIS DAY.) Committee met met at eleven o'clock. Mr. GROTE in the Chair. Mr. AUSTIN (with whom was Mr. COCKBURN) 01)01:1ed the eve for the pe•itioner, Mr. 'Gisborne, alleging that numbers of his voters had been bribed, or abduced by the agents of Mr. Bruen. The petitioner's Counsel having next proposed to put 11 the poll-books, The evidence was objected to by Messrs. THESIGEI: , 11:1 WRANGUAII, Counsel for the Sitting Member ; ane aft. -r a long and uninteresting argument, the Committee de ci t..d that the poll-books should be received in evidence. The petitioners then proposed to object to the vute o' Matthew Jenkinson. - To this the Counsel for the sitting Member objected on the ground that there was another Matthew Jenkinson or. tile poll, and there was nothing to specify on the list of ob j,tctions delivered in, which of the two was the party ob jected to. Mr. COCKBURN alleged that as both were objected to, and as one had received notice himself, to produce his cer tificate of registry, the notice was sufficiently explicit. Mr. WRANGUAIf, in reply, contended that there being two Matthew Jenkinsous, in ditierent classes of objections there was no description by which the Counsel for th( sitting Member would know in which class either of then was. The Committee decided that the vote was insufficient. Mr. COCKBURN wished to give evidence of the notice to one of the parties, but the Committee held this to be a re epeoing of the point they had decided. The petitioner's Counsel then objected to the vote of a person named Moorhead, for change of qualification. The discussion on the first vote into which the Com mittee entered was not concluded when it was announced that Mr. Speaker had taken the Chair. METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUMMARY. The Courier of this evening comments as follows on Mr. Werburton's conduct last night in the House of Com mons, with respect to Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's Copy right Bill: —" This was sufficiently declaratory of the feeling of the House ; yet Mr. Warburton, backed by Wakley, immediately moved the adjournment of the I t , erse. Now commenced a scene of contest which was a, novel as it was revolting to every principle of courtesy a.td of justice. The amendment was supported by nine Members; it was rejected by a majority of a hurl ered and thirty-one ! This minority of nine, resolved to exhibit not the smallest sympathy with the Muses, except in number, repeated the same experiment to various forms of motion and amendment, not less in all elan twenty-four, and occupied by these factious divi sions some six or seven hours of the evening, protract tug the proceedings until half-past twelve o'clock. At no time did their number, in a division for a break up, ex ceed nine ; it was seldom more than seven, and sometimes as lew as five. Such an example of factious perseverance —of a mischievous and intolerable perversion of the privi lege which resides in a minority—has no parallel in the modern usages of the House." The Globe thus speaks of Mr. Warburton's divisions last night in the Commons:—" The course which was taken last night by Mr. Warburton could only be justified on the supposition of surprise, or unfair practice on the opposite aide. But no such justification is so much as pretended ; it remains, therefore, unjustifiable on any principles of can• dour or courtesy. And certainly a stroll.. * presumption must be created in favour of a measure which can only be com bated by such weapons as Mr. \Vakley's very memorable Tegg oration, and Messrs. Warburton and Wakley's no less memorable feats of last night. Sergeant Talfeurd might well wish, with a view to the success of his cause, "with those Honourable Members who supported him, that every part of the conduct of the Honourable Member for Bridoort and hie friends should be made public." The Standard denounces Mr. Warburton's conduct last night on the Copyright question, in the following terms : —" Nothing of much interest occurred in the House of Commons, until Mr. Sergeant Talfourd moved for the Committee upon his Bill for the protection of CopyriAhts, when Mr. Warburton, aided by seven or eight " philoso phical Radicals," opposed the motion in a manner which they did not deny to be vexatious, and which the public will certainly think: not only ' vexatious,' but disgrace ful, when it is known that these Utilitarian' gentlemen actually divided the House no less than eleven tunes, avowedly with the purpose of consuming the time of Parliament. The pretext for this proceeding was, that Mr. Talfourd had fixed upon a'Wednesday for the Committee, an encroachment upon the indolent self indnlgence of Members not to be endured. We should like to hear the opinions of practical ' . Utilitarians,' who, without making any profession of extraordinary usefulness or zeal for it, work six days in the week the whole year round, to main tain their families, on this new doctrine that five days in the seven are an intolerable demand upon the toil of utili tarian legislators during half the year, the other moiety being absolutely idleness." DEATH OF THE BISHOP OF PETERBO- ItOUGH.—Ou last evening, May Ist, at the Palace, died Herbert Marsh, D.D. Bishop of Peterborough, Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Rector of Terrington St. Cie mcnts, Norfolk, aged 82 years. He was consecrated Bishop of Llandaff, 1816 ; and was translated to the Dio cese of Peterborough 1819. DEATH OF THE BISHOP OF BATH AND Will.ns.—lt appeared in the Bath Herald last week fiat Bishop of Bath and Wells, and his nephew, Mr. Har ness, were dangerously ill ; Mr. Harness's demise has been already announced, but it was hoped that from the Bishop having passed through this town on Monday, on his way to Weymouth, his health had improved ; we have, however, just heard, from undoubted authority, that he expired at Weymouth yesterday.—Sherborne Journal, HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY l~! , eithout l'avirg assigned any reason, then that would lave presented a different sort of case. It would save made the case a great deal more difficult, and :aused the argument and decision to tern upon an ither point. But a general refusal, without assigning ‘ny reason would not hare been legal on the part of the kisembly any more titan it would be legal on the p art .f the Bishops to say non ionius—they must point out a reason. The Presbytery had not here sheltered them selves under any such generality. They had said they lad refused a perfectly well qualified person because a ,nejority of the male heads of families in the parish dis wined without any reason, and that they were bound by that dissent. The Act of the General Assembly speci fied the majority of the male heads of families. Why the 'ale heads ? Was there nothing to he said in reference to any other branches of families except the male heads upon a matter of salvation ? Why we were living under a Chris tian, not under a Nlahomedan law. Supposing there xere three or four single women, or three or four widows in the parish, was this appointment to be considered as a matter of perfect indifference to them. Were they to ee regarded as having no interest in the question ? The General Assembly said those persons should have just sheever the male heads chose to impose upon them. Heads of families ! But why not a respectable and well informed journeyman? Why not a well-informed and learned scholar, being a young man—perhaps with more learning than all the rest of the parish together? No ; it was only to be the male heads of families. That might be right or it might be wrong. It certainly was not self -evidently right. It did not follow as leces sery from the nature of Church discipline ; it did not fol low as necessary from the call, and it might be a capri cious decision come to by the Assembly; and that led him to the next inquiry, that if the General Assembly had the rower to impose this, had they not the power to make a totally different appointment altogether ? Could any one suppose there was anything in the existing law to justify i totally different scheme ? Supposing . it had been provided that the person presented should be acceptable to the Synod, which was a very important body; or sup posing it had been provided he should be acceptable to and chosen by, or not rejected by, a Commissioner whom the Assembly had appointed to make the choice, as in for mer times there had been an instance of. They might also have goat on to say—and for anything he (the Noble and Learned Lord) knew it would be the next thing the Assembly did, if their Lordships allowed them to do this— provided he should be agreeable to the Presbytery of the boimds. Now, was it possible for them to do that ? Why, it was so far from being impossible, that they had d ine it alit ady. There was the Act of 1596, of the Legislature in which it was said that " none seek prefer ment without the advice of the Presbytery ;" and that was for a very short time:the law of the land in Scotland. That law had been abrogated long ago. The Legislature might make it a law again if it thought fit ; but bad the Presby tery or the Church Judicature any right which, by the common law of the land and by statutary enactments, was not given to them—on the contrary which was taken away from them I By all the laws and enactments which might be referred to it was the province of the General Assembly and the . lmperial Church Courts to take cognizance of Church matters, and of Ecclesiastical mat ters only, and they were precluded from taking any cog nizance whatever of civil patronical rights. Upon civil 1 and patronical rights, directly or indirectly, they could not per indirectum do what they could not do dir.ctum. They had a right to make rules by which they might judge of qualifications, but they had no right to make rules as to who should be chosen, or who should be rejected, when the patron presented. They had no right to trans fer either the whole, or the half—and, in this case, they had transferred the far greater half —of the right of presentation from the patron to the congregation. One thing was certain, that no power in the Assembly to make the Act of 1534, giving the veto to the congregation, could be conceived to exist, which would not give them as complete a power and as tenable a right to give the veto 1 to the Presbytery ; that was to repeal the Act of Anne and other Acts, and to revive the Act of 1796, which, for ' the first time and alone, gave the c hoice to the Presbytery. It was said that there was a great difference between location or the admission of a Minister in Scotland and the admission of a Clerk in England, inasmuch as that the person who had the advowson here presents directly to the living, but that the person who is ordained by the Presbytery has to be in ducted, and that the two were so mixed up together that they could not be separated. But the answer to that was, that in the present case the severance was already complete. They did not refuse to ordain ; but they said though we don't abject to ordain, we don't like to induct into the parish of Auchterarder, because the parishioners don't like the individual. The Presbytery could not say in the present instance that they would not ordain, be cause the party had been already ordained, and the ques tion merely was, whether he should be inducted ; and that was sufficient to repel the argument that had been raised on this point. Then again it [was asked, was a call of no value ? Did this mean nothing ? Nothing indeed could be considered more obscure and involving more doubt and difficulty than the history of calls in Scotland. There was a time when the law was different to what it was now, when a presentation took place a call was net given, but the pa rishioners could not refuse the call without assigning a rea son. But was there ever a time when the majority was to call, and if they did not call nothing was to be done in favour of the party? It would be seen what the law was in that respect by referring to the first and second Books of Discipline of 1750 and 1758. But whatever was at any time the form or validity of a call the statute of the 10th of Ann, did away with that altogether, unless to the very modified and mere ceremonial extent, to which it was left by that statute, and had existed ever since. The best proof of that was this very Act of 1834 making the appointment to rest with the majority of heads of a parish ; and, secondly, in saying that a call might be made by two persons in a parish that might, perhaps, contain 2,000 persons; because that was the effect, and if the Assembly thought proper they might hold such a call to be just as valid as if it had been a una. nimous call from the whole of the parish. Did that not demonstrate the fact ? For his own part be should suppose that the mere presentation made the call ? Why should not the patron rake the call ? He knew there was no authority or dictum by any text writer against hint in what he was saying. But what authority was there in favour of a call ? No doubt there was ' .lI'DGMENT.—THE EARL Or KINNOUL V. TIIR PRESBYTERY the Act of 1782, to which reference had been made, of the OF ACCUTERARDER. Assembly, and the decision of the Assembly in 1790, in Lord BROUGHAM, in continuation from our First Edition which they highly disapproved of the settlement of a man —The ease b e was putting did not interfere with a patron's who had had no call. The Noble and Learned Lord would right of choice at all. It was a much as to say the can- admit that that might be a great informality; but they did gregation had no right of choice whatever. If that were not repe al the settlement. If the man had got in, however, admitted then it would be as much as to say, the whole is without the presentation, or without the induction , would tested i n y ou , the patron, but only upon this little one t he y have allowed him to continue? No such thing ; condition—that you, the patron, shall choose the exact they would have ousted him, and put in another person we would have chosen. If so, who was the chooser? man. And when they talked of the call being ne- Why, for his own part, he would much rather be the con eessary upon the authority of the Stirlingshirc case of 1790, gregation in that case than the patron. It wa s a n en tire they only proved the reverse by the quotat'on of that case, mistake to say that this would interfere with the because that case showed that there was no pretence fur tights of the patron, and upon this he could saying the necessity of a call existed at all. The man in riot hogs looking back to the ancient times of the Scottish that case who had had no call was held to have as good a Church, and picturing to his own mind the degree of con- right to the living as anybody who had ever been presented, tempt with which a most venerable relative of his own, although they said a form had been omitted. The omis who led the General Assembly of •ticotland, one of the sion of that form was quite immaterial; it was as irnma greatest statesmen and one of the most accomplished terial to the settlement of a minister in Scotland orators that this or any other country had ever seen—he as it was immaterial to the validity of a marriage meant Dr. Roberts—if such an argument as that had been here, that the party should have resided so many offered to him on the part of the Presbytery, in the face of c'Aiye in the place where the marriage was their own error, he could not help supposing what his celebrated before that celebration L too rd k p i_ l i a a c r e d ,/ , 3 l, V7 , o3 A r c e t s . manly and practical understanding would have induced euired by the d i e r, cto t ey as p t a h r e Noble o and Learned Lord .him to eey to the doctrine, that we don't mean to in- This threw great li p la terf e r e w al l th e patron or with the people, but we only conceived upon his argument,' because it showed that the say that if an y p ers on is chosen whom the congregation call was held, and might be held to be rather a convenient will nut accep t, th a t c h o i ce shall go for nothing What thing, than any thing clic. It ought to be looked upon also would his venerable colleague, De. Erskine, have as tile remnant of an old law, which had lae:n repealed. said to a proposition so extravagantly wild, that was di- Whether it descended from the Rev elution, or frum the redly calculated to se t aside the rights of the patron? Books of Discipline, of the sixteenth century', was ye, or even his venerable friend, the late Sir Harry Mon- immaterial ; it is as quite clear it was not a pre c;:def—a man of as honest a mind, and of as sound cedent condition, necessary for an induction. It might iiv . ed sagacious an understanding as any man who ever he very convenient, and it might be very use h the been ventured to have been offered in his time. the affection, and of the learning of the individual, as well If they had they would have been blown away out of any as of his ed:fying powers, it might indeed be very conve- Court, Session, Assembly, or any dirk aisle of any nient that they should have the opportunity of coming for- Church into which they might have been ir.troduced, by ward after a trial, with any objection they might have to him in less than a fraction of time, for if ever ther e was a raise against him. But this could not g ive them the ti g ht Man who despised subtiltics it was Sir Harry Moncrief. He of veto without certain reasons. As an illustration of this would not have hesitated to say—never try to do indirectly it was considered decent, and was a very proper form, to what you dare not do openly arid avowedly, or never seek present the Sovereign to his people upon the day of his Coro te escape or to shelter yourselves from the natural and I nation ; but if every person present were to object to that jest consequences of your own proceeding upon mysterious, I Sovereign, and the Coronation took place, that Coronation vague, and general expressions, subtilties, and sophistries, I would be just as valid and effectual, as if no objection what which, as they never for a moment can benefit yourselves, ever had been made. He night also refer to the instance never can deceive others. lie was morally certain these of marriage. Both in Scotland and England, a regular would have been the expressions used by those venerable marriage required the publication of banns (except in the (leads of the Church against any such arguments. Th en , ease of a licence), end whoever solemnised a marriage again, to make the thing still more absurd, it was without publication, was liable to Church censure. The said the congregation had a right to say, We don't object was to ascertain that there was no lawful impediment, like this man ; we don't like him worse than any such as pre-contract, consanguinity, or the want of consent other man, but we would prefer any other man to on the pert of the parents of an infant. If those impedi him. Well, but would they even be benefited by any such ments were raised, the ceremony would be suspended. doctrine? The moment they said they preferred any men But supposing the party objecting to the marriage, said to A, if 13 was presented they would have still the same Ile bedw higive lf no reason, o lr for B; lady's an tied so they might run through the whole alpha- why then such an objection would not be at bet, until they arrived at Z. The patron had a tended to_ at all ; tho marriage would go on, and be ielit to appoint A. The Presbytery sustained the just as valid as if the dead silence prevailed which gene le esentation, and the Patron was not called upon to say rally prevailed on those interesting occasions. Well, then, es. ny he chose that person, he being a perfectly qualified would s au ha advocate for the pub d isplication of with ; t ie !Ise people must be allowed to say whether they liked him convenient and useful, and to make a marriage regular it er not. Toe two things could not co-exist unless it were was necessary, but it was not an absolutely necessary part a 'd they had a joint choice ; and that had been said fur of the marriage. Precisely so was it in reference to the the first time by the Act of the General Assembly, in call, either before or after the statute of Anne. He could i 534, and by their acting upon that Act in the present not find that the call was a necessary part of the induction, day, in the present case. Then it was said, they would or that it was a necessary condition precedent. And if the not exercise this veto, or as it was construed, right ofdissent, force and effect to be given to it was to be to make it neces capriciously but conscientiously. Well, but then of the pa- sary and a condition precedent ; and if the Assembly were so tren the same thing was to be said. The law did not protect to carry into execution that supposed effect of it, so as to him in a capricious or unconscientious exercise of the make it a specific condition precedent, and that an induc trust which he held for the Church. Ile was quite sure tion could never take place without the consent of the male that no parties would be found to present a clerk to the heads, he would say that by so dealing with it the statute Bishop here, or a person to the Presbytery of Scotland, of Anne was abrogated, and the rights of the patron and say that his reason for presen tin g that man was be- utterl y destroyed. The only' remaining q uestion was at cause he was his pot companton—because he was his of the jurisdiction, and upon which he had no doubt what brother in the chase, or because he was the brother of a ever. Upon this there could not be a single doubt cast. 1 mistress. Those were all bad motives, and no man could Then it was said there were no means of carrying be allowed in policy to act u p on them. No more was it into effect their Lordships' decree ; and that the Su . VI be expected that the people who dissented upon the preme Court of Session, supported by the House of Lords, occasion of a presentation would avow that the in- which was the decision of Parliament by one of its dividual was too strict in his doctrines—of a high Chambers—although they said the Presbytery had acted tctoral character—that he preached t he word of God erroneously—although they said the reason of the Prcsby rigtueously, in season, and out of s eason, as his Great tery was no reason at all—although they said, let the Pres - Master h a d or d ere d him—that he refused access to the sa- bytery indict immediately, for there were no grounds for craments to those whom he thought unworthy of admission refusing, the Presbytery would still refuse. The Noble du. because he would catechise the people as to their and Learned Lord must sa y that he did not think it de not I., "s l iind congregations would give those r easons for cent to su pp ose such a state of things. They might as ig a ma n , but still they might exist. And t his well su pp ose that Doctors' Commons would refute Act allowed the greatest scope for anything of that descrip- to attend to a prohibition issued from the Queen's lion—because b Things were therefore in that te:oect to what Yreitfono reasons were required to be given. Bench, without appealing against it. There were, t p t l h ac e e on a eery different footing indeed, cases of conflict between the two countries. ay . were by the Act of 169—that There was one case of conflict upon a question of mar- Act Led 'vane consistency am objection to the party It said if any man had range, which had lasted for twenty years or more, but lapriets.ented, let him state that when a case had come up here upon a question of law, and objection to the Church, and le t the Church decide up on when the House of Lords had come to a decision upon rca- it. The Act of 1834 did awa y with all necessit forhat law, had t he Court of Session ever maintained their eo ns k,cing assigned. I f t he p res e n t return of the y General - law against that decision ? The Court of ses. Asaernbly bad been that they had refused this man sion had never refused to obey their Lordships orders upon a matter of law (feeling it might be that the weaker must go to the wall) whereupon they entertained the most conflicting opinion. For this reason he had no apprehension is hwever that the Presb} tery, when the Judgment of their Lordships' House was given, declaring them to be wrong and the pao on's light to be violated. would hesitate, even upon the declara tory part of the Judgment, to do that which was right. Then it was said that the congregation might dissent, but he would have no hesitation in making an order on the Presbytery to induct A.B. upon the presentation of the patron in disregard of the congregation. He would refer in support of that only to the case of Lord Dundaa and the Shetland parishioners. There the Presbytery admitted a gentleman of the name of Gray. A Mr. Nicholson was the competing man with Gray. The Court of Session said—Refuse Gray and admit Nicholson. Why was it not said then on behalf of the Presbytery that the Court of Session had no such power, and that the Presbytery might continue to put in Gray, and then where would the Court be? If that had been said on that occasion there would have arisen every one of the arguments which had been made use of on the present occasion, to scare their Lordships from doing their duty—namely, could they proceed against a whole body of clergymen—the Presbytery of Scotland—could they bring actions against every, one of :these iudividuals;? That was the argument by which their Lordships bad been threatened at their bar, if they proceeded to confirm the judgment of the Court below. Upon the whole, he held this argument to be utterly and absolutely untenable, and such as presented no one impediment to their Lord. ships taking the right path. These were the grounds upon which he held that it was expedient and just, and therefore necessary, for their Lordships to affirm the judgment of the Court below. He had gone at much greater length in point of time into the case than perhaps bad been desirable, but when he looked to the importance of the question he did not regret the course he had pursued. My Lords (continued the Noble and Learned Lord), no person would regret more deeply than I should if the judgment I am now pronouncing should give offence to that most Venerable Assembly as representing the Church of Scotland. I have the deepest reason for feeling the highest venera tion for that Assembly. I have every reason for it. I am myself sprung from some of the most venerable and learned of that Body, and 11 cannot therefore be deaf to its interests—deaf to its claims amounting to the highest veneration—or in the slightest degree pre pared to treat it other than with the most profound respect. lam not the only person engaged in this discus sion connected with that Church, and entertaining the feelings I cherish. The Learned Attorney-General has himself descended from a most venerable part of that body, and nothing is more clear from the whole of his argu ments than that he is most scrupulously and delicately averse to any thing that can betoken the slighest want of respect for the Assembly. I say this the rather because I have been rather astonished from some correspondence I have had from Scotland, to find that something be was supposed to have said—because I was a witness of all he said—was put down most grossly erroneous. Nothing could be more respectful and correct to that body than the whole of the Learned At torney-General's arguments. 1 shall join with him, as I am sure he will join with me, in the deepest sorrow, if it shall be considered that any thing he has said in his argu ments, or that anything I am now saying, is to have the effect of perpetuating those conflicts which have been going on, which must have been a matter of great affliction to many, and which, if continued, must be much more so. But, my Lords, any want of respect I could show to that Assembly —Any irreverence, any mockery, any slander, any attempt to revile them or to bold them up to any thing that was disrespectful and irreverent, would be a mere joke compared to the attempts made by some who take the opposite view of this case to what I do, and who, God knows, without meaning any more than I do any thing disrespectful to that body, think they are taking the wisest course to establish their principles by holding out indi cations that the Assembly will pursue its own course— that the:Assembly will disregard;the authority of the Law— that that Assembly of Christian ministers will be parties to the fomenting of discords—that the last thing they will think of, will be the peace of the Church committed to their care, and that the only thing they will think of, will be the victory of the Churchman over the supreme Judges of the land—over the Judges, and over the Law itself, by setting up acts of their own which they have no title to pass ' against Acts of Kirg, Lords, and Commons—the statute law of the country. My Lords, %defend the Assembly against the arguments of their advocates. I protest on the part of the Assembly as a body of Christian men, of whom the bulk are Christian Ministers, against the imputations thrown out upon them by the course of defending them that has been adopted in this House: and I say that my hopes of them, my confident expectations of what; will be their conduct, are wholly the reverse of those that have been expressed at the bar—that it was an injudicious line of argument to take on their behalf, and an act which I am morally certain would be rejected and spurned by the Assembly itself. My Lords the Assembly will do its duty—the Assembly will show its veneration for the esta blished authority of the law—the Assembly will rest satis fied with having entered its protest, and indicated upon its own records its own opinions, but will, with its inferior judicature, the Presbytery, render is willing, a respectful obedience to the law of the lund, as pronounced by the Court of Session, and as confirmed by your Lord ship's House. With this view the Noble and Learned Lord moved the confirmation of the order of tie Court below, and then sat down, having spoken as nearly as pos -1 Bible three hours. The Lor) CHANCELLOR said that he should state what he had to say on the question to-morrow morning. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLER took hii scat on th:3 woolsack at five o'clock. Messengers from the House of Commons brought up several Bills to which the co►icurrence of their Lordships wss desired. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented petitions from Durham in favour of a system of penny-postage. Petitions to the same effcctwere presented by Lord Bather ton, from Hereford and Norfolk ; by Earl Fitz william, from Hythe, and a Parish in Yorkshire ; by Lord Auck land, from Melton Regis; and by Lord Brougham, from Birmingham, Liverpool, Gutter-lane, Chcapside, Car rington, Chesterfield, Mile -end Mechanics Institute, Linlithgow, Sandwich, Parishes in Nottingham, Ilford, in Essex, Bromley, in Essex, Bradford, Gloucester, Hud dersfield, Norwich Mechanics Institute, West Riding of Yorkshire, from Newinston, in Surrey, Ottenden, in Devon, and se eral other places. AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1839. slavery. He agreed on this subject very greatly with Mr. Buxton. He thought a very good encouragement might be given to the abolition of the trade by admitting first into the Colonies and next into this country all sugars made by free labourers, and excluding alt that was made by slaves. There had been no English Slave Trade since his MI of 1811, making it a felony, and it 'was more than 20 years efier that, before their Lordships abolished Slavery in the Colonies. He would just say, that be by no means agreed in the doc trine that it was not right to send armed cruizers, to take into custody Pirates, and persons who were carrying on this horrible crime ( Hear. ) Having stated on a former occasion his great admiration of the conduct of the Assembly of Antigua in abolishing slavery before they were even compelled , it was now his painful duty to say that he found the present House of Assembly had taken a great deal away from the credit of their predecessors, who had acted so admirably, and whose conduct he had had occasion so much to approve of. They had done all in their power to take away from the negro his political rights. They had raised the qualification from '2O/. cur rency to 501., the effect of which was to disfranchise every negro in the island of Antigua. This tended in no way to give confidence in Colonial Legislation. In his opi nion, steps ought to be taken to repeal the law, and if the Legislature of that country refused to repeal that law, their Lordships ought to interfere, and repeal it for them. The Noble and Learned Lord concluded by mov ing for the production of the Act of Antigua in reference to raising the qualification, as he had no information at present upon the subject. The Marquis of NORM ANBY thought it would be better that the Noble Lord should give notice of that mo tion, as then he should be enabled to state what course he would pursue. Lord BROUGHAM said teat he would give notice of that motion. The Noble and Learned Lord then pre sented a Petition from the Jamaica Merchants in Lon don against the Bill introduced into the House of Commons for suspending the Constitution of that country. Thereason why by had been entrusted with this petition, was in con sequence of the course he had adopted on the subject of Canada. He was not acquainted with the merits of the case of the petitioner, but be must confess that the conduct of the Assembly of Jamaica with respect to the present bill, was anything but creditable ro themselves. But it was another question, whether the course they had pursued ren dered it necessary that their constitution should be abo lished for any length of time. Lord St. VINCENT supported the prayer of the peti tion. He considered the measure one of the hardest and most uncal:ed fur that had ever been brought forward. Lord NORM ANBY said that when the Bill came under discussion, he should be prepared to meet the Noble Lord, and the House would then see whether the Noble and Learned Lord would differ from those with whom he had hitherto acted. Lord BROUGHAM said the Bill was brought forward because it was said to be favourable to the Negroes ; on the other hand, if he found that it was intended as a Bill of Pains and Penalties—and it was not denied that it had that tendency—he should certainly eppose the measure. The Marquis of NORM ANBY would be perfectly ready to meet the Noble and Learned Lord on that point. It was stated that the Bill would have the effect of postponing the enjoyment of the elective franchise, but when the Bill came before the House he would be in a cosidition to proceed; that it would not defer these rights one moment longer than the time they were able to enjoy them. Lord BROUGHAM said, if the Bill was so good a thing for the Negroes, why not extend it to Barbadoes and the other Colonies ? The Marquis of NORNIANBY said the necessity was obvious. The other Colonies had not refused to legis ate. Lord BROUGHANI—Then the Bill is a matter of punishment, and not of bounty and favour—( Cheers and laughter)—and he had opposed it, as he had done the Canada Bill, because it Was a penal Act. It was sent, from the Noble Marquis's confession, for the mischief of the whites, and not for the advantage of the negroes. The Marquis of NORMANBY had admitted that it had that tendency, and that he would be ready to meet the Noble and Learned Lord on that ground also. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition in favour of the Caledonian Canal. The Earl of ROSEBERRY and the Earl of ZET- L AND presented petitions in favour of a penny postage. The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition in favour of Church Endowments in Scotland. Lord DUNCANNON brought up the Report of the Committee on Irish Education. The Designs C o py r i g h t Bill and the Designs Copyright Extension Bill went through Committee. Their Lordships then adjourned. placed under the superintendence of the Clergy of the Es tablished Church. PENNY POSTAGE. Mr. HO DGSON Presentd a petition from Hertford, praying for the establishment of a Penny Postage on the plan of Mr. Rowland Hill. Mr. HUME presented petitions to the same effect from Kilkenny, the Town Council of St Ives, Fowey, Dundee, the Mayor and Inhabitants of Huntingdon, Bardwell, Burnham, six parishes in London, and several other places. Sir R. FERGUSON presented petitions to the same effect from three parishes in Nottingham. Mr. HOPE presented a similar petition from Weymouth. Mr. PEASE presented a similar petition from Hudders field ; and petitions with a similar prayer were presented by Mr. Fitzsimon, Mr. Hughes, Mr. 0. Gore, and Mr. Round. Mr. COLQUH OUN presented a petition from Green wich, complaining of the manner in which certain signa tures had been obtained to a petition presented from that town. _ . MALTA. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Malta, praying the House not to adopt any measures to deprive the people of that country of the benefit they cherish under the Press. The Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed, and gave notice of his intention to call the atte7tion of the House to the subject of the petition on the 19th. THE BANK OF ENGLAND. Mr. HUN! E postponed his notice relative to the Bank of England, to the 16th. NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. Mr. PEASE moved the further consideration of the Report on the Great North of England Railway Bill. Mr. BOWES moved a clause compelling (so far as we eould understand), the Company to complete the work within a given period. Mr. PEASE said he was glad that it was not pre tended that the Company had conducted themselvesunfairly. But a similar clause had been proposed in the Committee, and disapproved of. The Company had laboured with great perseverance to effect an important public work • and he hoped the House would not fetter them by this Clause. Mr. LA M BTON said he thought the clause would tend to cast discredit upon the Company : and he hoped the House would not agree to it, for if it was a :proper Clause it should have been introduced before. —( Hear.) Mr. HUME thought there ought to be some general rule applicable to all railroads. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the clause was negatived without a division. LONDON AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY. The Report of the Committee on this Bill was taken into consideration, and ordered to be engrossed. The London and Greenwich Railway Bill, and the Wishaw and Coltness Railway Bill, went through the same stage. CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTSION FRANCE. Dr. LUS HIN GTON, in moving an address for copies of all correspondence between her Majesty's Government and France, relative to the claims of British subjects for re dress on account of injuries inflicted on British trade on the western coast of Africa, since the year 1834, said that nearly 5 years had now elapsed since this attack had been made on British property, and no redress had been obtained ; and if this injustice, to which be alluded, were really and truly injuries which ought to be redressed, the time had now arrived, when there must be ample opportunity for the most perfect inquiry. (LEFT SPEAYIN4I.) TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING 5 to I agst Mr. G. Clark's Dragoman—taken 8 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Cse-sar—taken 9 to 1 agst Corsair—taken 10 to 1 agst Euclid—taken 9 to 1 agst Col. Peel's The Dey of .Igiers 20 to 1 ant Bulwark 25 to 1 agst Marquis of Westminster's Sleight of Hand 40 to 1 agst Lcrd Albemarle's Dostincr--taken 35 to 1 agst Westonian 35 to 1 agst Mr. Dixon's Camellino—taken 25 to 1 west Sir G. Heathcote's Palincoart—taken 25 to 1 agst Ilderum—taken 25 to 1 agst tr.ther—takev 1,000 lo 10 agst Dart—taken 50 to 1 aget Marquis of Westminster's Lord Mayor—taken 25 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's Erin-go-13ragh--taken 18 to 1 agst Fulwar Craven's Deception (taken) 1000 to 10 agst Peon—taken 1000 to 10 agst Bosphorus—taken 1000 to 10 agst Taunton—taken 40 to 1 agst Melburn-50 to 1 to 50 to 1 agst King of Kelton—taken 1000 to 15 agst Wapiti—taken 25 to - 1 agst Mr. Watt's Clara 25 to 1 agst Charlotte West IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mar 1. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before four o'Clock. STONE AND RUGBY RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. B. WILBRAHAM, the Stone and Rugby Railway Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. COPYRIGHT BILL. Mr. WAKLEY opposed the Bill, as fraught with injury to the public, and he thought the Hon. Member for 13rid port was right to make all the objections ho could to it. _ _ Colonel SIBTHORP said, if he mistook not, there was that evening a dinner and a piece of plate to be given to the lion. Member for Kilkenny, and he be lieved the Hon. Gentlemen opposite (Messrs. Wakley and Warburton) were engaged to attend that dinner, and they were anxious to get away as soon as possible, lest the soup and fish should be cold before they got to the Crown and Anchor, or perhaps they were fearful that all the courses might be eaten up.—(Laughter.) '['hey ought not, however, on this account, to interrupt the business of the House. Lord DUNGANNON remarked that the Hon. Gentlemen opposite were exciting a sympathy for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman by their manner of op• posing his measure. After a few observations from Mr. Warburton, tho Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor-General, Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion.. 9 Against it Majority against the motion B2 Strangers were again ordered to withdraw en the question that the Chairman report' progress. On a division the numbers were— For the motion 9 Against it Majority against the motion 6B Another division substantially on the same question instantly took place. The numbers were— For the m otion 7 Against it Majority against it Mr. EASTHOPE, when we returned to the gallery was, amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," declaring his reso lution to persist in the same course. Lord DUNGANNON characterized that course as pally and pitiful—( Loud cheers) —seeing that the House was more than ordinarily full. Mr. PRIME objected to the Bill, but be would only meet it by fair means—(Cheers)—and he did not consider it fair or right to meet any Bill by such a course as was being now adopted.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. WAR BURTON moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. The House then divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it Major'ty against it Another division then took place, when the numbers were— For the Motion Against it 8 Majority . b 6 _ Another Di..i4on took place, the numbers were— For the Motion 6l Against it 8 Majority On our re-admission, we found Mr. WARBURTON defending his conduct. A Bill of so much importance ought not to be proceeded in on a Wednesday, until that day was made a regular day of business. He would not oppose the discussion upon any other night, so that his conduct was neither unfair nor factious. He therefore moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to s it ag ain. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished the whole matter to go fairly before the public, as many of the most strenous oppo sers of the Bill had voted in the divisions against the Hon. Member for Bridport, whose conduct he could not imitate, however much he might be op posed to any Bill. Look at the precedent which they were setting—it was in fact a question of privilege, and would lead to a question of the power which a Member had so to delay all the business of the House. Mr. WARBURTON would persevere in the course he had begun, and was not afraid of its going before the public. lie wished them to know of it, as, when their attention was called to it, such important Bills would not be pressed on upon a day when Members made en4agements to dinner or otherwise—nor upon a day when few Members attended to their duty. After a few words from Mr. PRYME, Lord DUNGANNON said the Hon. Member for Bridport seemed determined to persevere in the most unjustifiable course he had commenced—(Hear, heal)—and it then became a question with the Learned Sergeant whether be had patience to go on. If he lost the present opportunity of getting the Bill through Committee, he hoped the Government would afford him some early day. He said that the Hon. Member for Bridport was pursuing a most unjustifiable and unprecedented course. Mr. Sergeant TALFOU RD said most certainly he would not succumb---(Cheers)—so long as the House supported him. He felt quite sure that if he lost the opportunity of proceeding with his Bill, he would not have another, and he would consider himself a traitor to the Bill, if he were to desert it while he had the support of a single Member of the House. Mr. HOBHOUSE said the Learned Sergeant had better have considered the other suggestion of the Noble Lord, and have asked the Government to allow him another day. It appeared that the question was not considered important enough to bring down either Lord BROUGHAM asked whether her Majesty's Government would have any objection to the production of the correspondence that had taken place between Lieutenant Bosanquct, of the Leveret, and the Portuguese Minister, on the subject of the African slave trade. lie apprehended there could not be the slightest objection to the production of these papers. lie ( Lord Brougham) had been abused by the Members of the Portuguese Parliament, most properly exercising their priviloge, as he (Lord Brougham) should exercise his ; and they had expressed the greatest indignation at his calling it a feeble Government. Now he apprehended that these censures arose from incorrect translations of his speech. Ile had certainly alluded to the conduct of An tonio de Meth°, Governor of Mszambique, who went out in a slaver from the very port of Lisbon, and the vessel, instead of returnfng there, had carried over 600 slaves to Rio and Cuba, for the profit of the Governor whom it had taken out. There never had been such a gross thing done, and yet the Governor was never pu nished for it. In fact, a duty of seven dollars a head was levied lii;on every slave-ship, and yet the Portuguese Government called that prohibiting the slave trade, ia hile they were actually deriving a revenue from it. He had been informed that six months ago a vessel was fitted cut with a double set of papers and double logs, and when bis informant went on board a sight presented itself which experienced as they were in the atrocities of that execrable crime called by bad courtesy th • African slave trade, was enough to harrow up one's feelings, and almost make the blood curdle in their veins. The vessel had been anchored (Jr the coast at night, and in a tropical climate these 600 wretches were kt pt under hatches all night. In the morning no less than 60 were found stretched dead, having been suffocated for want of air, and 20 or 30 more were in so desperate a sate, that they died before the ship was a league 1 from the shore.—(Hear.) Here (re upwards of 80 individuals murdered, cruelly murdered, in one night by that Government, for who did it by another did it by him self; and yet that Government levied a tax of seven dollars per head on every slave ship. These are the facts which he had thought it his duty at the earliest mosient after they had come to his knowledge of laying them before their Lordships and before the face of the co..ntry, to the useful and wholesome end that they might be inquired into in the proper quarter, and that those who boasted they had made treaties with Portugal by which Por tugal had bound itself to put down the slave trade, should demand an immediate explanation. upon the subject, Ile believed the facts he had stated, were not exaggerated, and if necessary, he had no objection to give his author's name. With these observations, h e had only to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Admi ralty, if there would be any objection to the production of Lord Bosanquet's correspondence on these matures. Lord MINTO was not r'avare that there would be any objection. At the same time he would be glad to have the opportunity of consulting with his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, before he gave a decided answer. A notice had some time since been given by his Noble Friend of his intention to 12y some papers on the table of the House of Commons connected with the Por tuguese treaty, and ire found upon those papers a measure of a vigorous character calculated to enforce more treaties with Portugal. ( Hear, hear.) It was not at all impro bable that the papers now referred to mignt form part of more to be produced by his Noble Friend. Under such circumstances, the Noble Lord would probably delay making his motion till he saw what papers were produced by his noble Friend. He The Noble Lord would say that as far as his recollection served him the account of the transactions given by the Noble and Learned Lord would be found to be pretty cor rect. The Noble and Learned Lord had said the slave trade bad been connit eI at very openly—he might have used a stronger word than connived. The active and zea lous conduct of Lieutenant Bosanquet had been the sub • j ct of great complaint on the part of the Portuguese When those complaints had been received, the answers sent out to them were that rs soon as Lieut. Bosanquet returned to this country, every opportunity would be taken to primate him for his conduct.—( Cheers. ) Lord BROUGHAM was exceedingly glad to heat. - the statement Which had just been made by the Noble Lord. He hyped the measure about to be taken would in. deed be a vigorous measure. The more vigorous it was the better pleased with it would lie be, and the more h a .tidy would he support it. It was useless, however, to talk of abolishing the slave trade until they put an end to HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. . .. _ . Mr. 'MACKENZIE presented a petition from Aber deen, complaining of the Aberdeen Harbour Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel against certain parts of that Bill. Oa the motion of Mr. ESTCOURT, the British Mu seum Building Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. ESTCOURT moved that the Standing Order No. 12 should be repealed, and that the following should be instituted in place :—That no postponement of the first meeting of any Committee on a Private Bill, or a petition for a Private Bill, shall take place unless notice be given in the Private Bill Office and in the Committee Clerk's Office one clear day before the time timed for such meeting. Sir E. WiLmoT thought it would be for the convenience of all parties if the Committee, when a selected Member did not attend, had the power to nominate another in his room. The Committee in which he was to sat to-day was obliged to adjourn, in consequence of the non-attend ance of a selected number, which might have been avoided if another Member might have been chosen. Sir T. D. ACLAND said that a similar occurrence had taken place that day, in the Collumpton Roads Bill. Mr. SEIANV LEFE VRE hoped the Committee of Se• lection would not be blamed, ss no neglect had been com mitted on their part. They had sent notes to Members selected, requesting to know whether they could attend or not. Sir J. Y. BULLER thought a little more time ought to be given in sending out the notice. The motion was then agreed to. On the motion of Mr. Alderman TIIONIPSON, the Wearmouth and Tyne Bridge Road Biil was read a third time and passed. Sir E. KNATCIIBULL presented a petition from dif ferent parishes in Kent, in favour of the South-Eastern Railway Bill. Sir EDWARD FILMER presented petitions in favour of an alteration of the line of the South-Eastern Railway Bill. The Perth Harbour and Navigation Bill was read a third time and passed. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Mr. DARBY presented a petition from a p arish in Kent in favour of the South - Eastern Railway Bill. Captain PEC HELL presented several petitions in favour of the Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL then rose for th e e purpose of calling the attention of the House to theP tit i oin the case of the South Eastern Railway Company. The Ilouse would recollect that it was a petition in behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company. He would trouble the House very shortly. A 13i1l had b een intr o duced, an d th e standing orders were not comp lied with, and he now applied to have the standing orders disp ense d with. The execution of the plan had p rogressed to a considerable should extent, and if this applicationb e refused, the Bill would be delayed until next year , and great inconvenience would arise. All parties were agreed, and there WAS no moved dissentient voice. He therefore that the Bill be al lowed to proceed. Mr. HODGES felt grateful to the Hon. Baronet \ir. rl for having brought forward this proposition in absence. The circumstances under which the question were l . ) originally presented itself to the Standing Orders now quite different from what they were at that time, for now there was no opposition whatever to the measure. Mr. BA RNEBY said the proceedings in this case were unprecedented. There was a Bill, No 1, which passed the Standing Orders Committee,. and No. 2 did not, the Committee reporting that in their opinion the Standing Orders ought not to suspended. He thought:this was.a new Bill, and the Speaker ought to give his opinion, in order to g uide the House to a sate decision. The Bill p ro p osed a d eviation from the original line of upwards of three miles, and the parties would not have fair play if the Bill were allowed to pass, fur thry had been deprived of the notice required by the orders. Mr. HODGES rose to answer, but he was inter rupted by Mr. I3A RNEBY, who spoke to order. The lion. Member had already had one speech upon the Bill, and it was ag,inst the rules of the House that he should have another. Sir C. BURRELL said the objection of the Standing Orders Committee was merely technical, and ought not to prevail when all the parties interested were consenting to the alteration. Captain PE CEIE L L. The great opposition to this Bill was from the London and Birmingham Railway Com pany. They had withdrawn all their opposition, and were now in favour of the line, as were all the parties whose land was to be af'Ected. He therefore hoped the House would not agree to defeat the Bill upon a mere technical point. Mr. DARBY said the parties who opposed the first line were pettitioners for the second. He thought that no parties could be taken by surprise. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said the Bill now before the House was the one in which all the Standing Orders had been complied with. The SPEAKER said it was a very strong proposition to transfer the substance of a Bill, as to which the Standing Orders had not been complied with to a Bill in which they had been complied wih. H e considered the least objectionable course would be to ask the House to allow the latter Bill to be proceeded with. On the motion of Sir E. KNATCHBULL the debate was then adjourned till Monday. The Rochdale Water-works Bill was received. Mr. H. BERKLEY presented a petition, in which he said he could not concur, from Bristol, praying that Rob er t Owen b e beard before that House as to his new philosophy.—(Laughter.) Mr. BLACKSTONE presented a petition from Wal lingford against the power given to magistrates to support Popish chaplains for g aols. Lord A. LENNOX presented a petition from Cbi. chester praying for an extensio n of religious instruction on I the principles of the Church of England. IMr. THORNELY presented a petition in favour of a penny postage. Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from a parish in the County of Lanark, praying for an extension of the Church of Scotland. Mr. COLQUHOLTN presented three petitions to the satire effect. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition agreed to at a county meeting in 'Monmouth, praying that no system of national education might be established, unless it were of the leaders of either party. The Hon. Member for l3ridport, thought it was very important, and he (Mr. Hobhouse) would support him while he persevered in his present course. Sir E. KN ATC H BULL said the whole of the de tails which the Hon. Member wished to discuss migl,t be debated on bringing up the Report, as suggested by the Solicitor-Genera, and this might be done on some other day than Wednesday. Mr. JONES said, if the Hon. Member had divided the House in this manner on some important clause, he could not have objected to his doing so if the House had not been sufficiently well attended ; but really he was now dividing the House on a matter of form. Mr. GODSON wished the House to divide until seven o'clock in the morning, and to have no more speaking on the subject.—(Laughter.) Mr. WARBURTON said he would agree to the Ist and 2d clauses being taken, provided the 3,1 should stand over, as it involved the principle of the Bill. The House again divided, when the numbers were— For the motion 9 Against it Majority 54 The House again divided. For the Motion Against it Majority ... 56 ~.. -47 On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. WARBURTON on his legs. He said it had been always represented that the authors were a wrong ed party.—( Cries of " Question.") As the House was likely to sit for so many hours, he would endea vour to amuse it by making, a few remarks, and he trusted the Honourable and Learned Mover and other Members would do the same.—(Laughter.) He contended that the Hon. Member had made use of an artifice in conducting this argument, which would justify the most absurd notions ; be had contended for an indefeasible right in the authors to their copyright, which only existed in the limbo of vanities, with the rights of man, the social compact and other absurd theories. He hoped other Hon. Members would as sist in passing the time until seven in the morning, in producing more amusing arguments. Sir G. STRICKLAND protested against the false positions assumed by the Hon. Member for Bridport. He could never agree that the absence of Ministers constituted a reason for not discussing a Bill.—( Hear.) Mr. WILSON PATTEN said the Hon. Member for Bridport was eating his dinner in the House (Mr. Warburton was eating a biscuit) while ho was keeping other Members from theirs.—(Cheers and laughter.) He had robbed the Learned Sergeant of his right to a fair discussion, And the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, of the company of some who should have dined with him. The Committee then divided, when their appeared For Reporting Progress 6 Against it Majority —sl On our re-admission we found Mr. WARBURTON on his legs, stating his intention to renew his motion, unless they could come to some understanding. The Committee again divided, when there appeared For reporting progress Against it 64 , Majority —s7 The Committee again divided, when there were— For the Motion Against it 6l Majority in favor of the amendment —53 Mr. O'BRIEN said, that for the honour and dignity of the House, he hoped these proceedings would not be published. He would therefore move, that in com pliance with the Standing Orders, strangers should withdraw. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD was most anxious that this disgraceful opposition should be published. Mr. MACLEAN deprecated such farcical pro ceedings. Mr. WARBURTON said the Hon. Gentleman had assumed the fact, for it was nothing better to discuss this Authors' Bill on a night when Hon. Members were not in their places. He would admit that all the authors came to support the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but there was not a fair attendance.—(Here the cries of ‘, Divide" were repeated.) The Committee again divided. The numbers were-- For the motion 5 For the amendment 72 Majority for the amendment Strangers were then excluded for a long time. On our re-admission we found clause 2, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill ; and Mr. WARBURTON stating the clauses to which he objected. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD would accept no favour from the Hon. Member—he would enter into no com promise with him. He would not share with the Hon. Member the odium which must attach to him for the course which he had taken.—(Cheers.) Mr. WARBURTON was quite willing to take upon himself the whole judgment of the public for the pro ceedings of that night. He knew when he began his course that it was one which would not be popular in that House, and from the public he expected a dif ferent judgment. He had no objection, if the Solicitor- General or any other had any objections to make, to go into the discussion, but he must decidedly object to any decision upon that, the most important part of the Bill. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL certainly objected to fill up the blank, as proposed, with the word sixty. lie would propose that a short period should be given after the death of the author, in order that his exe cutors should have time to make the arrangements ne cessary, whether it should be three or five years he did not well know, but he should suppose that three years would be quite enough for the purpose he intended. Mr. WARBURTON said if there was any under standing that it was at all likely that that amendment would be carried he would not object to it, nor to the House proceeding with the Bill. It was so small a deviation from the law as it at present stood that he would not think it worth while contending for. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, as ono of the friends of his Learned Friend the Solicitor General, could not accede to his proposition, because it would be giving up the whole principle of the Bill. Mr. DARBY objected to thim proceeding with the Bill under the threat held out by the Hon. Member for Bridport, that if the House agreed to the propo sition of the Solicitor-General he would allow the dis cussion to go on, but that, if not, he would revert to the course which he had previously pursuCd. Sir G. STRICKLAND said that much of their le gislation was carried on by compromise, and he trusted that, upon the present occasion, the opposing parties would be enabled to meet each other. Mr. WARBURTON said, that according to the mode in which the blank was filled up, so would he shape his course. Lord MA HON said, if they were to discuss that Bill, as they did others, let them go on, but if the Hon. Member for Bridport intended to resume the course lie had followed before, they had better pro ceed to it at once. Mr. WARBURTON would most certainly reserve to himself the right to shape his course according to the manner in which the blank was filled up. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD was very glad to find that it was at length conceded that the House was competent to discuss the Bill—(Loud cheers.) The filling up of the blank with three or five years, would be absurd, because, in fact, it would be in many instances limiting the protection enjoyed under the present law. He would moat cer tainly propose that the blank be filled up with sixty years, and the House would dispose of it ; but lie trusted that they would not allow the Hon. Member for Bridport to go on with . the game of " heads, I win, and tails, you lose." They might as well again revert to those eloquent divisions which had already taken place. Mr. W. ATT WOOD would cite only two instances of the opinions of celebrated authors upon this point. Dr. Johnson was no mean authority, and his opinion was that author's should have the right of Copyright for a period of one hundred years. The other was an authority to which even the Hon. Member for Bridport would defer. It was the opinion of the French author, Sieyes, that the property of an author in his works was of the moat sacred de scription, and ought to last during his own life, the life of his wife, and of his children. Mr. WARBURTON said it seemed to be forgotten that any extension of the rights of authors was a rob bery upon the public, and the opinion which had been quoted of Sieyes was an opinion in support of absolute nonsense. The House ought to fix only such a term of years as would prove a sufficient inducement for authors to write good works. Every year after that was taken from the public, and would be a great encouragement to plagiarism ; by ingenious devices they would have long extracts from works, or the words little altered, and and probably not bettered. For the credit of authors themselves he thought they were not justified in filling up the blank with a long period. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the public ought to make some sacrifice on be half of authors, and he proposed that 31 years be sub stituted for 60. If so long a term was proposed the public feeling would be against it. After a few words front Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Darby, and Mr. Hayter, the House divided, when the numbers were— For the motion Against it 27 Majority for the 60 years —lB Mr. WARBURTON then moved that the Chair man report progress. 8 For the motion.. Against it 62 Majority ...................... Mr. WARBURTON then moved that the Chair man do now leave the chair, when the numbers were— Ayes ......................................... 707 Noes Majority —63 Mr. GODSON said, that the House having decided against the Hon. Member for Eridport on the term of 60 years his only wish could be to see the Bill destroyed, and that that question must be decided on the third reading, and he would therefore put it to him if he would persevere in detaining the House all night. Mr. WARBURTON believed that the introduction EVENING EDITION. of this term would destroy the Bill effectually, and therefore he would allow it to proceed through its fur ther stages in Committee, making such observations on the diffa.ent clauses as should occur to him. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Member for BriLiport thought the intro duction of this term would be the death warrant of the Bill ; he hoped it was only in a state of suspended ani mation, and should on a future occasion move the sub stitution of 31 years for 60. After a few words from Mr. PUSEY, Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said that he should willingly agree to the term of the Chancellor of the Ex checquer, but that on principle he thought sixty years an ignobl2 compromise on the part of the author. Mr. GLADSTONE supported the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 4 being proposed The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed it as con taining a dangerous principle interfering with a vested right in the public at large. • Mr. GODSON said if the first clause wero a g ood one, of which he doubted, this clause followed as a na tural consequence. Mr. W RBURTON said that the public i n the argument of the Hon. Member was considered. as a were non-entity. He had not heard how the a uthor of this Bill could defend himself for attempting to deprive the public of this right which they had ac quired—the reward of education. No provision what" ever was made for the public in this Bill. Mr. GODSON explained, and eked what was the meaning of public and of vested interest ? Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD thought the Hl' Member could hardly have heard his numerous ad' dresses without knowing that the claim set up by the public was entirely futile, and that they had no right et, all. He contended that publishers in London an ° Edinburgh should not be permitted to send forth the works of that great man of whose services we had bee r } deprived by a premature death, to the detriment ' those whom he had left to our care. He would sell arrogate to himself the title of Libe r al at the expen se ° the good and the wise. Mr. STRUTT said that, as far as he could trace the shadow of an argument in the Learned Sergeant': speech, it went to show that the public had no rig whatever, and therefore he ought t o p ro p o se a perp etut copyright. He was opposing his own Bill. If tb h : public had no right to that for which they bad worked, they had no light to th e possession of the steam engine or the printing m a chi n e. He had any thing but satisfied at the sneering manner in vil''" a the Learned Sergeant had talked of our darling ai s l e much injured public. He thought the interests of tot public should not be laid aside, and protested agai ns t the tone assumed by the Learned Member for Itea wn. in stigmatising all those opposed to his views. st Mr. T. H 0 BHOUSE thought this c lause the ono objectionable in the Bill, it was in f a ct a n ex pan t a o . law, and would, if passed, tend materially to the do" — tion of the Bill on its third reading. Mr. MILNES condemned the manneria 140 tb! Bill, after all the labour and tim e th a t h a d been ° le ; ficed upon it, had been received by G en tlemen a t t e e other side of the House. He co n t en d e d that, l 'l the protection of copyright, autho rs cou ld publish boo` much cheaper than without it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ - to thought the House should not h es itat e in assenting it the fourth clause on the principle that authors 0 " to be rewarded. Lord HO WICK regretted that the time o f ti, House had been wasted for five hours in vel cati° to divisions--vexatious he must say, with all respeot,th the promoter of them—which had nothing to do with a discussion of the Bill. He thought the Bill ob ° ,, ti o be considered more is reference to the public, t ' a , the authors. He objected to the Bill in its present e hi ! r s t on the ground that it would create an unju ell monopoly for authors, many of whom would be le provided by twenty-eight days' protection inst,et twenty-eight years. He would admit that un cl e present system authors who had spent all their 11 0 0 ; in the composition of perhaps a single valuable W to might suffer great hardship. He should be bell h • o pg see the interests of such men secured ; but, • non c l i ni r l ot in the objections of other Honourable Members, he "" oppose the clauses now under consideration. h t The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought AO in the case of patentees, it would be sufficient te : D o r talented authors, whose remuneration was late for riving, opportunities of soliciting the P r ivy Cono el : bt. an extension beyond the ordinary period of copfr 4 C• He, therefore, opposed those clauses. m alt Mr. WARBURTON replied, and argue of the monopoly of copyright by stating thtit the rilf - o - 0, Gibbon, Robertson, Wilberforce, Doddridge, J eD/37 , 3 e8 and others, had been sold for 300/. per cent. let. %%0 the expiration of their copyright.— Question , The Committee then divided, when there apP e3re Ayes N0e5...... ~=l9 Majority Clause 5 was postponed. the Ch an. Clauses 6 and 7, a ft er a f ew wor ds from. Mr. cellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-Gen era i % her Warburton, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and seVerni Hon. Members, were also postponed. On clause 8 being proposed, meet' Mr. T. HOBHOUSE sugg es t e d i ts postenee-eir on the ground of its affordi ng an opportun i t y o'r re lie ing the whole system of d e li ver i ng books 'tcr P„"blis• libraries, which tended t o en h ance t h e pr i ce t o the pub The postponement was agreed to. Clauses, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were postponed to Clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , an d 19 we re ogre" with some verbal amendments. Clauses up to 24 were agreed to. Clause 25 was postponed. Clauses 27 and 28 were agreed to. Clause 29 was postponed. Clause 30 was agreed to. On clause 31 being proposed, bea ti Mr. EASTHOPE said that the Bill hax1"001il described as one of great public importance , I r u jcl put it to the H ) n. M em b er if th e di scus sion su lion. e se , proceeded with i n th e p resent t hi n state o f the 0. 01 Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD wou ld PestP ° clause on which discussion would be desirable. Clauses up to 35 were then agreed to. • 0 10 4 Clause 36 was postpd. • .no . - The CHAIRMAN then one reported progress, • t leave to sit again on T w e s d a y. ,se. Oh The other Ord ers o f th e D ay were then 1114 ;; 09 . and the *House adjourned at a Quarter before 5, PLATED CORNER DISHES, A 0 GUINEAS the SET.—A. B. SAVORY nr a loa„Vto l Manufacturin g Silversmiths, N o . 14, Cornhill, x bei , posite the Bank of En g land), sub m it f or c hoice I l: 1 % 0 i , Rooms, many patterns of strongly Plated &ri te a t 7 Alei with Silver Handles and Shields, f or EngraVing , q, neat to 10 Guineas the Set of four; b y re moving t.. e j, from the covers, e i g ht dishes are f orme d w hen reclni a ` p o aYr N.B. A Pamphl e t o f t h e P r i ces o f Pl ate m ay b° h ,rp cation. s ; 0 SETS OF PLATED DISH COVE- 11 " f 'fa c 'tlo STRONG SILVER EDGES, may be selected te . 2 . 0 10 0 , 0 Patterns, price 161. the Set, or Sets of the same Pa t .0100 Argentine Metal, quite equal to plated in appearancetrortfjo and a Half Guineas the set, at T. COX SAVOR V aiI, i',i o tad Goldsmith, Silversmith, and Watchmaker, 47, Ce r- t i cep (Seven Doors from Graccehurch-street). The $ e o f one cover 20, 18, 11, and 12 inches in diameter' vari g .-A ti of N.B.—The three Sh o w R o o ms conta in a larr o f frl v S t e superior Silver-edged Plated Goods. A PamPl i ver Silve. Spoons and Forks, an d D raw i ng s of ~;( 1 gr‘' Plated Goods, Watches, Cl oc k s , & c ., ma y b° ';', 00 • will be forwarded in answer t o a p os t-p a id apPlica -- .minlenammossaissiew P beri BIRTHS. At Velore, on the 31st January, the lady of C °l°ll Home, Madras Native Infantry, of a daughter. On the 19th ult., at Berlin, the lady of Thomas o f Advocate, of a daughtt. On the 25th ult., a t Woodford-bridge, Essex , the I'ife o f H. llgweed, of a daughter. wilkidr , On the 27th ult., at Ringstead- house, Mrs . o .le, daughter. ladl° 'On the 28th ult. at Hevcrs, Sevenoaks, th e lop Minet, Esq., of a daughter. ries , On the 29th ult., at Putney, the lady OiDr. Cba bbe of a son. the la dy of ; On the 30th ult., in Bryanston-square, Allfrey, Esq., of a son. 0' MARRIED. n r/ , P e tin 1' At Secunderabad, East Indies, on the 14th of.,:t: l :l ol 7g tl ia , tenant IV. E. P. Cotton, of the 41st Madras r'a",: i .esq, r to Harriette, third daughter of the late John Pu l f - di eji• her Majesty's Attorney-General for the island of .1. Isorn e it On the 16th ult., at St. Marv's, Cheltenham, Mg.),_°. East India Company's service,"to Frances E daughter of the late Francis J. Jones, Esq., of S eaP°l et, r e isse f On the 30th ult., at St. Luke's Church, Old-streungot lizbet;it White, Esq., of Clapham, to Elizabeth Wilson , / I ' t t be to the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Calcutta. oacioetegg, On the 30th ult., at the church of St. Joh n ' ' Cl,ti OP Rev. James Guillemard, M. A., Fellow of St• -I°-ntog; Oxford, and Vicar of Kirklington, Oxfordshire, eldest daughter of Robert Tyser, Esq., -------- . ~ O f DIED. , e gel lr aert l. On the 26th ult., led 14 months, youngest son of Captain Townsend, R.N., of riathi%ti-il. soj On the Ist of May, in Torrington-sque ro, . r aloof aged 68. 'w ant I , i tyl George ...,04, .0 At Sierra Leone, on the 7th of March, of 0 11 r goJ e l ), fever, William Laurence White, Esq. (R.N. , Of •(i t ,L, be' b p r o ig od ß al r k i . sk l ) ,e , w so i n tav o e f d L e a sc u e r o en de c d e tEodtmhoend White, '"l ii ‘ crew e• grave m ore g wea slrl e s loved or sincerely lamented than this amiab le you m a ny O l e of He was a brave officer, and served his country i° disc barg a ne for several years, with honour and credit. In Or fr i e nd,' e h ild, the various duties of husband, father, son, an' v ," allk e- L oil excelled him. He has left a most disconsolate wic e r o d, id ca t to deplore the loss of one of the best of men : on has beto, e to to his sorrowing fam ly, is the reflection that h owl° off in the prime of life by the severity of the fatal cietolei which his duty called him. Georg e Pr On the 15th of December last, at Columbo, , ieiv inti , i i . Esq., Indian Navy, nephew to the late John r _ lioi tstb M.P., and formerly Physician-General of the BE n g ko ller , ment, aged 23. . Martin'rand. On the 30th ult., Anna, th e wife of Mr. Ilugho° , b e r • : 00tinio St _ Vp g p On the 30th ult s-le-G ., Adam Old ham, Esq., o f Georg ° Sul re y, aged 57. hone GrOiffinothuer2owBtnhe,ulEt.s,qa.,tl!oevizlooodclr-olse.dge, Chelten 1. 51.1228wr212m'115 0nd klas on : Printed and Published by 1411111D0 Osit)tod, i 0 No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Offen. No• the county of Middlesex. —Thursday, May 2, 183v' 1