The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

PARLIA:I4.I.NT. USE OF LORDS, Jaly 9. Their Lordships met at Fiv: o'clock. DISSENTER' CHAPELS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM presented a p.tition from the Rev. Dr. Shepherd, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Lord RADNOR presented petitions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapis Bill. i Earl FITZIIARDINGE pre=eate 1 'petitions from several congregations against the Dissenters' Cha pels Bill. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of G ALLO W AY presented petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Bishop of NOR WiCII presented petitions, from places in Suffolk, against Cie Di-;:enters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of RODEN presented petitions from the Le la nd to to the same effect. He hear til y agri ments expressed br the petitioners. The Bishop.of EXETER presented similar petitions from various Baptists and other Dissenting congrega tion 6. He could not help remarking, that the measure, as returned to their Lordships, amended by the other House, was the most stultified in all its details that he had ever read. The deed stated that the 'worship of Almighty God should be celebrated in those chapels by Presbyterian Dissenters, and yet a Right Hon. Gentle man in another place had stated that this was vague. Lord KINNAIRD wished to ktrow whether the Right Rev. Prelate was in order in entering upon a discussion of the whole question, and in quoting speeches made by gentlemen in another place. The Bishop of EXETER said he had a perfect right when presenting a petition to give his views upon the subject-matter of that petition before it was laid upon the table. He had, however, stated the opinions he entertained on the subject, and would now lay the petition on the table. The frith Marriages Bill was read a first time. DIVISION OF PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The Duke of HAMILTON prayed their Lordships to grant him their patience while he made a few re marks upon the present Bill. He had not been able to attend on any former occasion when this Bill came before their Lordships. The Noble Duke proceeded to expa tied) upon the effect which the Bill would have in the country parishes of Scotland. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that discussion was un necessary, as the Bill was already passed. -BANK CUARTER BILL. Lord WHARNC TAFFE moved the second reading of the Bank Charter Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday. BROTHELS SUPPRESSION BILL. The Bishop of EXETER moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Brothels Suppression Bill. Lord FOLEY moved, as an amendment, that the Bill he read that day six months. on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence of the evil. lard GALLOWAY thought the Bill was presented in much a shape to the House, that they could not, if they wished to put down a vat amount of misery and crime, hesitate to give the Bill their utmost support. He felt that, in the whole catalogue of crime, there was none which more loudly called for the interposition of the Legislature than this. Lord MISTO thought than it was a paramount and inivnbent duty upon her Majesty's Government to lay before the House the best and most authentic informa tion on this subject. He wished to know from the Noble Duke whether it was not the intention of her Mjesty's Government to introduce a mensurc fin• the 'zit= pur pose as-that of the Right Rev. Prelate's? The Duke of WELLINGTON said that, in reply to the question of the Noble Earl, he had to inform him that her Majesty's Government had informed them Ayes upon the subject before the House, and he should wish, in order to give time for further inquiry, and for the introduction of a measura under the auspices of her Majesty's Government, - that the Right Rev. Prelate would not press the third roltlin , :r of his Bill. Tho Bishop of EXETER said that, euler such circum stances, he would not press his measure. Lord MOUNTCASLIEL, affu alluding to the miseries inducted by the .houses which the Right Rev. Prelate's Bill was inended to suppre , s, said that he would, session after Cession, bring this matter before them. The Bill was, after some discussion, withdr'awn. Their Lordship) then adjourned. //OUSE OF CO .1/11z ).V.S. July 9. (Continu from onr Afterno , n Editioa of yesterday.' The .110:2..5e. resuwd Five The report, on the. Greit South-`,ire , torn (Ire:land: 73 .i;yay L;141 furt,hr conild,!re L itad ordered S. CRAW FORD pre;ented a pe;iCor. f.-on 3 Eridg. water, prayi;og for an ex.ensi,m of !he safreAge. Mr. T. DUNCOAI 'Kt-3 , rite! a pAtion frou . 14ington, prayin g , that t.xistmg railways may be coon poled to havt, third-class cirrilge , , Lis well ai futan railways. NOTICES OF 'MOTION'S. \lr. MIME gave noti , ..e that he Ahoull that clay three weoks m the a motion re.peeting th” correTowience bet,t een the Briii3h Government awl the Raja of Samra. utErA.m. Mr. \VYSE beggedto give th .t in iveordance with tot arrangenteat between Iti7u,ell' and the Right lion. B tr4net at the heat of h-r Mae.ity's Govern m4nt, it wai his intervion to def , r 11i3 rnoton about the Irish State trial:, stoat up ui the parer for that civility., un!il I,,,i ng a G o v e ;n,nev iraAe Bai•onet (Sir R. Peel) had CO71:! , !:1 , •1 ;tl fill. He had fur'Cier to ~ zive 1-14): , _• • t hi; o;1):.r also t I ‘n day'; piper, And w'd h hetl re'ee.l tha LJniv.l.-,it; Du'd:u aid the Mayn) )01, sh ,u 1 tl. until the voLr, f r Miyn ,oth came re s vilaily bef,;r: the House. L•e 11 the light lion. Baronet hurt is hen he Posed g ) int ,a Co nmittee ipp'y ? Sir 12. PEEL said, :tit, .r tlyJ :n.taner in which, a former oveasion, the Hight; liononl7;ilAe Gentlealan (7)fr.'Vyi ) had waived hi; rif!it of p7:•esdo,leo at the r quest of the Geurnme:t.,ll hon Id to pl ee the e rlie.-,t day poifilce at - tia - the 11 ,,, ,im! 31'1'" in t'L.! other ifouie at the disposal the Prat lion. Gen tiennn.—(lL.ar, heir.) As to the rines!ion which had been put to hi;n. he was tit propt , ,d at that. won - lent to state wh , n he propose 1 to go ro a n a Committee of Sapp!y; hut in' the coario of the pre...ent. twee he would endeavour to name a day for tivit puroo-0 - ). SIIAREUOLDERS IN RAILWAYS. ?[r; WALLACE give noti:u t'lat, when th' Home divided on the Railway Bill, he should propo-.e Out the mines of 11-in. h mhera inter•cst,d in any those un (l,-Ttakings should not he recniv -d.. lac wont-I take the director; tir,t, nod th ythareholders se-ond.—(Loud lauzliter.) He begged to inquil•e lit the tip 'a!:cr what would b. 2.. the proper dine aid curs to take in thi: nitt , tr, as there :V.13 a dirLrenc..• of opinion upon the subj - eet.—( Loud latighte ,- .) ' III SPEAKER said the prier t:in for rualciiy; the objection was after the teller 3 tied !a!;:ni nn.el),r;, but before the nuairs ., seer- deelar..d tit., ch. ,ir, PO3R-1. C4p'ain PECLIELL r CIA!, wl bringing up tiro reptr. vf the 1'0 ,, r-11,w Arne:ill - twit Bill lir should move tl.e omilsion ot . the 11'11 eta.i..e, a , signe I the duty of tipprenti3ing pauper ehil.lreti to the Poor law instpal or the artrtl or G POST:OFFICE C07:1 \llrr FE. Lord SANI))N aloved that a he sent to the 7,ords,-reqw4ting that the Atar Tt;-; O!' Larridowne, the E Ar l ~f 1,01141;i1o, awl the Earl of Ile , h)rotigh, rnight txamin A beforo tn,t;et..rot Coapoitteo on o - teni!':g the letters'at the Po:t-ofti..e.—.l.gred to. G ITE UN' , EV. Mr. T. DI_INC_,'ONIIIE would, 'if ile , ro were no ohjee. tion, at once .move for copies w'ilich hal taken-place between the Secretary and the Lieutenant-Governor of Gucr.is!y, since the Ist . August Tast. Sir:JAMES GRAHAM said t7m.t the same reason which had induced the llonciurable Gentleman to post pone the motion of which he hid given notice, on the subject of the aWtirs of GueresiT, still existed. The whole of the circumstances connec el with the recent unfertimate disputiis in Guernsey would iipudily be brought judicially under the notice ti' the Committee of the Priyy Council ; whilo th cnii;2 WA!. penditii.;, he thought it would not be for the interest of the pub lic service to produce the corrc3ponlemee. Mr. DUNGVBE would postpone his motion until this day fortnight. MESSAGE FROM. TILE LORD —1 ) 0:.-;T•OFFICE. Messengers from the Lords brought down certain Bills, and also brought down a message requesting that permission might be given to Lord John Russell and to Sir James Graham to attend before the Lords' Com mittee on the Post-office, in order to be examined. The SPEAKER informed the messeng.-irs that the House would send an answer by messengers of its own. IRISH MARRIAGES BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the first reading of the Irish Pre'ihyterian Marriages Bill, which had been brought down from the Lords.—A greed to. DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. CEIRISTIE rose to submit his motion on the Danish claims, of which he had given notice :—" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an address to her Majesty, praying that she will be • graciously pleased to take into her early and most favourable consideration the case of the claimants for ' losses sustained by the seizure of British ships and cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807, and reported to have been established by the Commissioners, to whom it was referred to examine and adjudicate on all such claims, in their report bearing date the 12th day of May, 1840." He said, " this question has been so often before the Home that I shall be justified in doin g that which I should otherwise h ave d one as a matter of policy, and • detain, the House but a short time in dealing with the . subject. I cannot but remember that when this ques tion was formerly brought forward in this House, it came recommended by all the weight of the talents and great abilities of Mr. Cresswell. After that gentleman ceased to be a Member of this House, it was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hatt). Thq g,rentleatan's avocations, however, prevented him froM bringing it forward this se;sion. This is the reason that lam here to undertake it. I expect, of course, to hear it said that it is high time we should have done • with these Danish claims.—(Hear, hear.) That it is a very old motion which has been often discussed ; but I bog to remind the House in the present state of • the question, that these are the third and last of three classes of claims, the first two of which have been satis • fledftrSt one and then the other, but both after long 'V& t.; X Ogterrnined opposition from succeeding Governments I ,r 4 tn t this third and last class of claims have already . -had t justice affirmed by majorities of this House. I snow,s will be said that on the last occasion when the ,q_ne§tion,,,, as brought forward by the Hon. Member for Latlabeth; e (Mr. Hawes) was in a minority. I know that heexivethd a larger majority than had ever before been ,reehree* is support of his motion, but to his great sur- --/ N, prise he found himself in a- minority. But still the Danish claims put forward four victories in opposition to this minority ; and whatever opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an individual, may entertain on this subject—awl I know that Right Hon. Gentleman has always, both in and out of office, consistently voted against those claims—l am sure he cannot deny that there must be some strength, even if not suffi cient strength, in claims which have before been so earnestly and perseveringly advocated by so dis tinguished a member of his own party as Mr. Cresswell, and supported by so large a number of members of his own party, and which, on several occasions, have been supported by members of the present Government. At different times I find that no less than ten Members of the present Government have voted for these claims. I am sorry to see that several of those Members are not now in the House ; but I begin by mentioning the name of the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whom, I see, in his place. I believe I am correct in stating that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, who began by opposing the Danish claims, after giving more mature attention to the sub ject, in the year 1841 voted in their favour, but voted against them when they were brought forward last year. The Hon. Member for Wenlock, a Lord of the Trea sury, who voted on three successive occasions in their favour, and the Honourable Member for Belfast, were away from the division. Next, there was the Solicitor-General, who, I presume, investigated those claims with a lawyer's mind, and who, I hope, will give his assistance on this occasion. Next, there were the lion. Member for Selkirk, the Hon. and Gallant Member for Chippenham, the Hon. Member fur Southampton, who was Under-Secretary for the Colo nies, and the Ilon. and Gallant Member for Scarborough, who, in 1838, said, " I shall support this motion, as it is not a question as to the length of time which has elapsed, but whether the House will do justice. No time will be allowed as a bar against justice." The last on the list is the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Kent. Under these circumstances, I hope it will be admitted that the Danish claimants are Justified in once more bringing forward their claims, if only to ascertain whether the adverse majority by which they were met last year, after several successive victories, was the result of accident or not ; and whether the Government really intended, after the encourage ment which was given to the claimants on previous occasions, to persevere in making a question of this sort, involving the pecuniary claims of individuals — which to some individuals is a question of thousands of pounds, and to others involving a question of comfort or beggary for the remainder of their lives—whether such a question is really to be made a party question and an official question ? These claims, as is notorious, arose out of the well known capture of the Danish fleet off Copenhagen in 1807, when we were at peace with Denmark. An English fleet suddenly appeared off the coast of Denmark, and the Danish fleet fell into our hands. In consequence of this capture, Denmark made reprisals, and seized the property of British sub jects, taking our merchant ships in the Baltic by way of reprisal. From the date of the 15th of August to the middle of December no declaration of war was made. In that interval the ships of the claimants, whom I represent, were seised, and for that seizure they claimed compen sation. At that time there were British ships in the harbour of Copenhagen, the owners of those ships having had no intimation that there was any likelihood of war, from the secret manner in which the hostile proceedings of this country were carried on ; and they cafne to their own Govern ment for compensation, as individuals who had suffered for the public benefit. In other cases, also, losses were sustained in the Baltic Sea, in consequence of the sudden and unauthorised withdrawal (by the Admiral) of the fleet which went out from England as a protection for those ships, destined to Russian and other ports in the Baltic. The owners of those ships say that they have, on this ground, an additional claim for com pensation, because they suffered their losses in con sequence of the conduct of the officer under whose guard these vessels went out. Those for whom I appear sly that they have a claim for compensation, on the ground that their property was seized by way of reprisal, that being a case in which the right of the sufferers to compensation is established. What is the answer ? It is said that the property of the claimants was not taken by way of reprisal, but that daring all this time we were at war with Denmark, and that the losses of the claimants did not come under the same category as book-debts,and ships and cargoes in har • hour. Now, how is it proved that we we re during this time at war w;th Denmark ? ;Vhy, a document is brought for ward, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Annual Register, and it is said that that is a declaration of war. Last year my Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth moved for the production of this document in the original, with an authentic translation ; and it now turns out that this document, on which so much stress has been laid, has been mistranslated, and that the most warlike word in the translation is not warranted by the original.. In the Annual kgister it appears that there had been an order to seize all English ships as well as all English goods and merchandise. Now, if there had been an order to seize ships, goods, and merchandise, that would not perhaps, of itself, be sufficient to tun the document into a formal declaration of war; but certainly en order to seize, or in other words, to confiscate, would be all feeler to institute a proceeding whieh was only authorised after there had been a declaration of war. In this way it might be ar gued that the document amounted to a declaration of war. It turns oust, however, the word or words trans lated in the Annual Registry, " to seize," mean no more Olen to lay an embargo on the ships ; and the (linrence be•ween an order fur an embargo and order to seize cr confiscate goods is a very wide one. There arc many other reasons why this document should not be coneiderel as a declaration of war. The only allu sion to ear in the whole paper is in the preamble ; ;eh !re se, i: the document had been a declaration of war, sitawieg it to be so, would have appeared in the body of the dec.unent. Besides, it is not a document :Orintelly addressed to our Gov, rnment, as it would have h.en in tile case supposed, but merely to the subjects of the King of Denmark, and not to all the subjects of the King, but only to a portion of them. Again, it did not errianats from the central seat of Government, but from a province, and this a very important circum stanee. Besides those proofs that the document is not to be considCred es a declaration of war, there are many others which are scarcely less striking. For instance, on the very day on which it is slated, viz., the 16th of August, an order appeared at Copenhagen, and about that order—l do not know whether or not the Right ilon. Gentleman is aware of it —abeut that order there can be no doubt that it is a simple order to sequester property. In the capi tulation of Copenhagen, on the 7th of September, one of the articles relates to the English property which has been, not seized or confiscated, but sequestered. On the 23d of October a remonstrance was agreed upon, in reference to the order of sequestration. The Danish Minister remained at our Court till the m'ddle of November, 1807. Was not that totally ineenaistent with our being at war ? And se late as Deeember, the 13th of Deeember, in lhat year, the King of I )enniarlt i , suel a proelama tioe, in answer to merchants who had asked him to authorise the correspondence with England, in which he eyes the King, in c isfining himself to the sequestration of property, had done all in his power to assist their mis fortunes. The merchants at once, by becoming privateers; might recover their property, and that was after he had stated he had authorised sequestration, he authorised reprisals en English prnperty. Were the circum stances that had taken place between France and Morocco. a state of reprisals or war? M. Guizot, in the French Chamber, eaid that war had not been announced, but that the attacks that had taken place had rendered reprise's necessary, and that a strong force had been sent against some of the Moorish towns, which had been taken. The argu ment derived from the document in the Annual Register, that it was a declaration of war, was entirely errroneous ; that being so, the distinction that was set up between the claims satisfied and those that remained to be satisfied, fell entirely to the ground. But, I will suppofsio that there hal been a declaration of war, would that have deprived these parties of their claims ? They had no reason for supposing that the war had not been brought on in a regular way, but in a peculiar manner. There is an instance, else, of individuals who have ap plied to the Admiralty for licenses for ships to call at the Danish, and other ports, and those licenses were granted, not only during the time, but afterwards. Those persons have suffered for the public good, and having suffered for the public good they have a right to come to the British Government to ask for redress and compensation. These are the chief points of the case I have to submit. I will just mention that the British Government obtained a very large sum of money—upwards of a million of pounds—by the sale of the captures. Mr. Percival announced in the year IMO, when giving an explanation of this matter, that a sum of money had in the first instance been set apart for the satisfac tion of those merchants who had suffered by the manner in which the war broke out. If that sum was set apart for the merchants who suffered by the manner in which the war broke out, I submit that there is no body of claimants who come with stronger arguments for compensa tion from the British Government than those whose goods were confiscated during the time the war was being carried on. I have gorse into the question in this general manner, hoping that the Government may be disposed to undertake the con sideration of the merits of these claimants. Ido trust that the Right Hon. Gentleman will see that they are worthy of consideration. It is not wy wish to divide the House on the subject of these claims if the Right Hon. Gentleman will give the slightest assurance that the matter will be consi dered by the Government. This is a question involving very minute points, and it is a question which cannot be sa tisfactorily disposed of in a debate of this kind. These claims, I will remind the House, have been confirmed on four different occasions by majorities of this House, and by large majorities. I have already spoken of the manner in which several members of the Government, on former occa sions, supported these claims. I know the Right Hon Baro net (Sir R. Peel) has never gone so far as to vote for these claims. But I have the authority of a Danish claimant, who was closely watching the Bight lion. Gentleman from the gallery, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion, for saying, that during the whole of that debate the Right Hon. Gentleman was present, and was an attentive listener; and when Mr. Cresswell finished, the Right Hon. Gentleman turned round to him, and expressed his approba tion perhaps only, however, of the manner in which that eminent person had executed his task. But let that be as it may, there is no doubt of this, that at the last moment the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) left the House without voting at all. That, said an experienced friend to the Danish claimant—that is a sign that when Sir R. Peel comes to be Minister your claims will pro bebly be settled. I hope the Right Hon. Baronet and the House will be satisfied I have not stated the facts of this case in any unjust or strained manner ; and if the Government shall think proper to divide the House on this occasion, I do trust the Right Hon. Baronet will not think it can redound to the honour of the Government or the party which supports the Government, if they, on this occasion, make this question, the consideration of which cannot possibly have any connexion with party topics, a question of confidence. I trust they will not call on those- members of the Government who have voted more than once in support of those claims, to turn round on THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY' 10, 1644. who have suffered on such occasions, if you are prepared to permit their representations to you to prevent your feel ings of your sense of duty to the public, there will be no limits to the demands made on the revenue of the country and the taxation of the people. The Hon. Member for Mentrose tells us that we have acted most unjustly in not acceding to these claims. I beg to dispute that point with him. I think that the Hon. Gentleman has during the whole of his public life—l do not intend to dispute the usefulness of his labours—but he has, during his whole life, given up his time to attack little expenditures, but leaving large ones to themselves. He will object to the giving of 5.0001. or 10,000/. additional in the navy estimates to carry on war, bat when you come to the question, whether we shall, in deference to private application and individual feelings, ad vise the House to incur an expense on behalf of the public of 225,0001. he then has no objetion ; and, perhaps, on the next occasion, he will consent to a much greater sum. Now, Sir, that is not my view of my public duty, and it is not the ground on which I accepted the offace I new hold. I be lieve it is my duty, whatever the sufferings of these parties may be, that when ships arc captured at the time of war, to resist, on public grounds, the repayment to the parties of the losses they have sustained. On that ground, Sir, I shall resist the motion of the Hon. Member opposite; and I am sure that those who have given their attention to the subject will be of the same opinion, and will not permit the Hon. Gentleman to succeed in his motion. Mr. HAWES—Sir, I am extremely sorry to detain the House, but it is utterly impossible that a question of this im portance can be made subservient toa particular hour. I will, therefore, endeavour briefly to state the views I entertain upon this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman has added nothing whatever to the present subject. He looked at the case on two grounds. He says the capture took place in the time of the war; and, further, that the law officers of the Crown had given several opinions adverse to the claim. Let the House recollect, that with whatever force the Right Hon. Gentleman's arguments apply to the third class of claimants, they apply with equal force to all former claimants —( Hear, hear )—and, therefore, permit me to say, that the claims now before the House do stand upon grounds which really entitle them to the sympathy and consideration of this House. Now, was it a state of war under which these cap tures were made ? It is now admitted that it was a state of war, but it was a state of war which peculiarly distinguishes this case from all former similar cases, and I hope will pecu liarly distinguish it from all future cases. You say that in July, 1807, hostilities had commenced. In July hostilities commenced, and British troops were landed on the shores of Denmark. Was that a formal declaration of war? N., says the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was in August, but that is the disputed point? The English declaration of war was not made until the 4th of December. Sir GEORGE CLERK—The 4th of November. Mr. HAWES—WeII, take the 4th of November, if you please, but that is not the 16th of August, allow me to say. These captures took place between the 16th and the end of August. If the declaration only took place on the 4th of November, then the captures took place before the declaration of war. Now, I want to know what is to be taken as a declaration of war to British merchants? 'The Right Hon. Gentleman says, take the attack upon Gluckstadt and Copenhagen as the declara tion of war. Now, the troops sent out were not for the purpose of carrying on a war, but for the purpose of supporting nego tiations that were being entered into to prevent war. The sending troops therefore was not a declaration of war to the British merchant. The Right Hon. Gentleman says that the battle of Waterloo is a case in point. He asked were we at war with France then. I will ask, were we at war with China ? ( Cheers.) We took towns and ships there, and the navy were refused all prize money because there was no war.— (" Hear, hear," from Sir C. Napier.) Will the Right Hon. Gentleman condescend to meet meet me on that ground. It was very convenient to the Treasury then to say that this was no war, and it is now convenient to say that in the present case it was a war.—( Cheers.) In both cases there were conflicting declarations, and it is now convenient for her Majesty's Go vernment to meet the present honest claimants in that way. I challenge the Right Hon. Gentleman to point out a single similar case to this in the whole history of the country. This expedition was secretly sent—the expedition was sent before any declaration of war—and by that expedition this country gained a million of money by the seizure of ships. I call upon the Right Hon. Gentleman to find me a similar case to that ; I say that in the speech which the Right Hon. Gentleman has made he has been guilty of flagrant inconsistency. I ask if there was any prize money allowed to our navy serving in China ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —Yes. Mr. HAWES—I am told not. The Gallant Commodore near me (Sir Charles Napier) says there was none. Surely that cannot be a matter of dispute. Were we at war with China—for that will settle the whole question. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman will allow me to treat his arguments with reference to points of law. I will quote a high legal authority. I will refer to the opinion of Sir William Follett. Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, I per fectly understand that el-seer; but what was the opinion of Sir William Follett. Not when be was Attorney-General but before he was so. Why, favourable to these claims. But have we no other great law authorities in our favour? What were the opinions of Dr. Lushiugton and Sir Frederick Pol lock? Their opinions were likewise favourable to the Danish claims. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The. Right Hon. Gentleman might quote the opinions of law-officers of the Crown, but some of their opinions were directly opposite to what they were when not holding office, Just let the House reflect for a moment on what those claims really are—the claims of shipowners whose property was on the high seas, and which was committed defenceless to them on the faith that it would not be interfered with nor exposed to hostilities. I must say that the refusal of compensation for such a seizure is most unjust and contrary to justice and equity ; and I further say that to refuse such compensation is false economy, and discreditable to this country. The grounds upon which this appeal is made have been so well stated by my Hon. Friend behind me, that I will not intrude on the time and attention of the House. It is sad we have no legal right—well, we don't raise it—we don't appeal to courts of law, and make our application on grounds of equity and justice. We say this is no common case, but a very special one, the parallel for which the history of this country does not furnish. On these grounds, and wishing to keep faith with this House, I earnestly hope the House will do justice to these British merchants awl British shipowners who have been so unjustly plundered. The decision of this House has been reversed, but I hope British I honour and British justice will be relieved by the decision of the night from the foul blot which the refusal of these just de mands has hitherto cast upon it. Colonel MT HORP—I always felt it my duty to attend in the House on these important occasions, and to record my vote in favour of justice, for I consider the claims of these individuals founded on justice, and, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say on this sub • ject—whatever obloquy may be imposed upon me— ter the course I have taken, and will take ; I will never shrink from the fearless and manly avowal of my opinion, whatever views a Ilinister may entertain. The House has already de cided by a majority in favour of these claims. I hope the Hon. Member will persevere, and that he will divide the ; 0 House upon it, and I hope t he meas ure will be forced upon the attention of Parliament un til the y ar c conceded— Gotta cavat i e 2s e a o d ,o e o n'l l ° and further hope that . will not d e t er t h e Chan cellor of the Exchequer from disch a r ging such a debt of ho tahPe id paemltr'y non consideration vi‘ sod 'a of eP ho nour. I am sure the British public would be glad if these claims were equitably arranged—they are the claims of their fellow-creatures and of their fellow -subjects. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks of law— that the law is against these claims. Law, Sir, law ! Why, I know we all know how often law and justice are alike perverted by the subtlety and the acuteness of lawyers, but that is no ground for us to overthrow a claim which is clea r ly founded in equity.—( Hear, hear.) Then, Sir, that Right Hon. Gentle man talked of a declaration of war, and we all know what that is to go for. The point, the proper point, and the only point, for this House now to look at, is this, and I shall put it to you. I ask, did, or did not, the merchants of England go to the Admiralty, and ask in that, the legitimate and proper quarter, whether their vessels might tall,—and what was the answer? The answer of the Admiralty was this:—" They may proceed will the greatest safety."—( Cheers. 1 Under the sanction of the Admiralty, then—the first quarter to apply to —there merchants went forth with their ships and their car goes. Instead of the Government warning them from going, they advised them to go. How could they presume to recom mend merchants to go forth, and then, forsooth, deny the lia bility of which they were the cause? Such conduct, I say, shows a want of generosity—yes, and I must add, a want of feeling too.—( Loud eres of " Hear, hear.") Therefore, I assert .it is the duty of the Government frankly, freely, and fairly to acknowledge these claims—to see them rightfully ar ranged.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer also says there is a wide difference be tween the former class of claimants and the present. It mat tered not one whit about classes. They all went forth on the faith and under the sanction of the Government, and that faith ought to have been held inviolate.—( Hear, hear.) I will not trespass longer on the attention of the House.—(An Hun Member near the Gallant Colonel said " Hear, hear," in a peculiar tone.) I do not wish, and I never do wish to treipass upon the patience of the House, but. I shall stay as long on my legs as I consider right for the discharge of a duty I hold to be a solemn one.—("Query," by the Honourable Member.) Duty, Sir, before pleasure.—( Laughter and cries of " Hear, hear.") 1 have often before supported these claims. I have never changed in respect to them, and I never will, so long as I have the power of judging between right and wrong. —(Hear, hear.) I most cordialty support the motion of the Hon. Member for Weymouth, and I ask him to persevere in his motion, on all occasions, year after year, till fair dealing and equity prevail. Let us proceed with energy and determi nation, and depend upon it, before very long, we shall have the pleasure of seeing the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer knock under to us.—(A laugh and cheers. ) Sir C. NAPIER—I am quite delighted to have heard the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer de clare that the taking of Copenhagen was in itself a sufficient declaration of war. On the first attack on Canton I find that the army and navy, who had one year's additional batta for that attack, and who carried on a series of brilliant operations after that, under the command of Sir W. Parker, and received the thanks of Parliament for their services, who were sent up rivers, with orders to detain vessels, and who did detain vessels and ransom them in the most piratical manner, having received orders so to ransom them.—l find, Sir, that after the lapse of this time they were compelled to give these vessels up, and to give up the ransom money also, in order to enable the Chinese Government to pay the expense of the war to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who received that money, and the army and navy were deprived of the prize money which they were entitled to after the attack upon Canton, on the ground that war had not been declared. Now the Chancellor of the Ex chequer says that the attack on Copenhagen was a sufficient declaration of war in the Baltic, and I hope that he will act on the same rule in the case of Canton, and give those seamen and soldiers the prize money which they are entitled to; and if they are not paid it how can you expect that on a future occasion men will come forward and volunteer in the navy ? They will say, "No! The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say there is no declaration of war, and will deprive us of that prize-money which we have fairly earned." Sir R. PEEL—I do not belive, Sir, that the :navy will ever act upon the principles just enunciated by the Gallant Officer opposite. I believe, that whenever ordered on service, they will do their duty to their country without reference to any pe cuniary consideration. If that consists in performing such ope rations as were performed in China, they will not refuse to do it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer may determine that they are not entitled to prize-money. Sir. C. NAPIER-1 did not say the navy would refuse to do its duty. I said that if the navy were treated with regard to prize-money as they have been treated in China, you would not get volunteers to cuter the service. Sir 11. PEEL-1 hope the House will not be turned aside from the consideration of real question at issue, by any reference to the Chinese proceedings. The real question is, whether the House of Commons shall vote a sum of upwards of a quarter of a million on account of alleged captures upwards of 37 years since. The attention of the House has not been called on the present occasion so mach to the origin of these claims, as it has been on several previous occasions when they have been submitted to the House ; but an attempt has been made to refer to the votes of various Members of the House on former occasions, when these claims have been brought foment. Now it has been said that I retired from the House on a former occasion with out voting. When I was in opposition to the late Government, I uniformly gave them my support in resisting these claims. In 1841, when Mr. Cresswell brought forward his motion in favour of these claims, I was in opposition to the Government. Mr. Cresswell, at that time was seated on the benches behind me. In 1841, I recorded my vote in favour of the course which their votes, and so allow it to go forth to the country that great and galling grievances are taken up and are abandoned only to suit the purposes of party.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME—I did not, Sir, intend to address the House upon this question j at all events, at the present moment ; hut, as I second the motion, I will take the opportunity of offering a very few words upon the subject. For thirty-six years these claims have been before the country, and for twenty-six of these years all attempts to obtain a remedy from this House for the wrongs inflicted have wholly failed. It is now twenty six years since I first supported these claims, and on every sub sequent occasion that offered I have done the same, being per fectly convinced, after the most accurate examination of all the facts of the case; of the injustice that has been done. On four successive occasions, though wholly unsupported by Ministers, these claims have been admited by the deliberate opinion of the House. On six different occasions, now that I recollect right, have they been acknowledged by the House. In the time of Lord Althorp, when be was Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and using every power of the Government against these claims, their justice was acknowledged. At a subsequent period a commission was appointed to ascertain the extent of the claims—to report how far they were founded in justice—and what portion of them ought to be paid. On that occasion a majority of 34 decided, against the opposi tion of Ministers, that the claims should be ascertained. In 1839 a motion was made for the payment of those claims, and the motion was carried, in spite of the opposition of the Mi nistry of that day, by a majority of 34, the numbers being 62 to 94. Again, iu 1841, when a motion was brought forward that these individuals in the third class should be paid the amount of the property which they had lost, and which they could not guard by insurance, the question was decided iu fa vour of the claimants by a majority of 127 to 96. Notwithstand ing this majority the Ministry of the day refused to pay these claims, and on the 10th of June a motion was made for an ad dress to her Majesty, praying her to take the case into her consideration, and to order payment, and assuring her that the House would make good the means for the payment of them. The Ministry of the day opposed that motion, but they were beaten by a majority of 75 to 64. Her Majesty returned an answer stating her readiness to liquidate the claims. There has never, I believe, been any greater advocate for economy in this House than I am, but I do say that the refusal to pay these claims is a disgrace to the country. —( Hear, hear.) Those persons who have suffered in consequence of our unholy attack upon Copenhagen, who could not protect themselves by insurance against the consequences of our infamous policy, are, and I have always contended that they have been, entitled to full compensation for their sufferings and losses.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth brought for ward this motion last year, and the result was most anomalous. It is all very excusable for party spirit to have sway in this House on political questions, but when the rights of private individuals are concerned, party spirit should not be permitted to have power to induce Members to forget the claims of honour and of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The motion was brought forward by Mr. Ilawes on the 20th June, 1843, and on that occasion 42 voted for the motion, and 57 against it, 1 being a majority of 15 against the motion. But out of the 57 who voted against it I could name at least 15 who, on former occasions, had voted in favour of these very claims—( Hear, hear)—and if those 15 are added to the 42, that will make the number of voters in favour of the claims amount to 57, and leave only 42 voting against them, which will give a majority in favour of the claims. That is one ground for defending justice in this case. The House has decided already in favour of these claims, and the denial of them is a denial of justice. The late Government brought down Sir Thomas Wilde to argue the case on technical grounds against the claimants. We all know the talents of that Learned Gentleman ; we all know his ingenuity and his re search ; but after all the exertion of his talents, the majority of this House decided in favour of justice, and I have a right to say that a majority of this House has decided, over and over again, in favour of these claimants, and that is one very strong point in their favour. I say they were impartial majorities, because they were gained against the Ministers of the day, And there are always individuals who. whatever their own feel ings may be, are ready to go with the Ministers for the time. The consequence is, if the House had left die decision of the question to justice between the two parties, the majority on each occasion would have been greater. On that ground I support the motion of my Hon. Friend with great satisfac tion, and I hope he will take the sense of the House on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) I have no idea of a question of this importance being passed over. I can only say to the Danish claimants, as I have said to them ever since the year 1818, when I advocated their cause—never give up your claims. I had the satisfaction twenty-six years after that time of seeing two classes of those claims settled, and as to this third class, if the present House of Commons and the present Ministers are not honest enough to allow them, another House of Commons may be. At all events, let it be recorded now who are in favour of the motion and who are not, and for the rest, let it be left to those chances which never fail o attend a good cause. the Attorney-General, and quoted him as an authority in fa vour of the Danish claims. But what was the Attorney-Ge neral's explanation ? It was given in 1840, in the presence of the Hon. Member, and he would ask the House if it was fair to attempt to lead it to believe he was in favour of the claims. Sir William Follett said in 1840, " The Hon. Mem ber has pleased to refer to an opinion he had been alleged to have given with respect to these claims. An opinion of a lawyer depended entirely on the case put before him, but since the real facts of the case been before him he had never had the slightest doubt on the sub ject. A few years ago the matter was brought before the House of Commons by his Hon. Friend Mr. Cresswell, who asked him (the Solicitor-General) to support him ; but on hearing the facts of the case in that House, he was not satis fied that the claim had been made out, and he considered the Government was right in resisting it." And here (continued Sit R. Peel) was his Right Hon. and Learned Friend's vote recorded in the division list of that year, directly in opposition to the motion. When, in opposition to the then Government, he could not have been under any undue influence, and yet, instead of voting with Mr. Cresswell, he voted against him, stating, that when he came to look at the case, he thought the Government was right in resisting it. Arc we at liberty to discuss the justice and policy of the war with Den mark? If that is the case, if we are at liberty to discuss the justice and policy of the war, I know no limit that can be placed to such claims, I have never heard of a war the justice of which was admitted by all parties. The question is, was there war at the time ? This country believed that Denmark was about to deliver its fleet over to France. We then sent a naval force to clam from Denmark either a denial of that charge or the delivery of their fleet, as there was a secret article in the Treaty of Tilsit, by which Denmark had stipu lated to deliver its fleet up to France. This country demanded the Danish fleet from the control of Bo naparte. On the 16th of August, 1807, Denmark declared war ; on the 14th of November following, this country declared war against Denmark, in these terms : " Whereas the King of Denmark has issued a declaration of war against his Majesty, and his Majesty has ineffectually endeavoured to obtain a revision of that declaration against this country, his Majesty hereby declares war against the King of Denmark." Now, what was the opinion of Sir W. Scott, the very highest authority, on the retro-active effect of a declaration of war? Many causes have been decided in the courts much more strong in equity than these claims. There was the case of the seizures at Demarara. The question was, whether it was a prize or not. It was a claim made by persons said to be British subjects, because the seizure was made before the declaration of war, but the decla ration of war was subsequently made, and the opinion of Lord Stowell was, that the declaration of war had a retrospective effect, and that all property previously detained was liable to be considered the property of enemies taken in time of war, and that all seizures made became prizes. So in this case, I say there was a declaration of war previously to a great part of the seizures, namely, a declaration of war on the part of Denmark on the 16th of August, that there was a hostile fleet before Copenhagen, and a declaration of war on the part of Great Britain on the 4th of November, and that this declaration had a retro-active effect in the words of Lord Stowell. I say we are not at liberty to determine now whether there were sufficient motives to demand the surren der of the fleet, and the opinion of her Majesty's Government is, that those claims are not well-founded ; that to admit them would be to admit a dangerous precedent, and would revive other claims as strong as these. And her Majesty's Govern ment, as guardians of the public purse, which is assaulted by so many claims, of which the House of Commons is not always the most effective protector, feel it to be their duty, in per formance of the obligations they owe to the public, to take that course which they took when they were in opposition to the late Government, and to offer every opposition to those claims which they did not believe to be founded in justice. Mr. MUNTZ—I will make a few observations on this mo tion, not that I have any interest in it, though I had an in terest in the Spanish affair, which was not a very different case from the present. Both appeared to me to be unjust, whether the taking of the Spanish vessels or the taking of Copenhagen ; but that is not the question which we are to ar gue. The question which we are to argue is whether the mer chants could take care of themselves, and whether they were not placed in a false position by the declaration of the Admi. ratty. 1 must say, as a merchant, that we had a just claim upon the Government for compensation, and I think that in a question between the Government and individuals, the nation ought not to sacrifice an individual for so small an amount. I think that if one case could be justified, this claim is equally justifiable.—( Hear. ) After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, wbo was un derstood to support the motion, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided:— For the motion 6B Against it Majority against the motion DOG-STEALING BILL Mr. LIDDELL called the attention of the House to a petition presented last session, praying for further protection against the depredations of the dog stealers in this metropolis; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the alle gations of the said petition, with a view to the correction of the evils complained of therein. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was unwilling to refuse inquiry, but at the same time at this late period of the session—(An Hon. Member, " The dog-days . '—Laughter)—he thought the appointment of a Committee might prove inconvenient. THE ROYAL ACADEMY. Mr. HUME moved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, as patroness and comptroller of the Royal Academy of Arts, pra3ing that she will be gra. ciously pleased to take into consideration the laws and regulations of that institution, with a view of ren dering it more conducive to the advancement of the fine arts, better suited to the spirit and circumstances of the present age, and, more consonant with the intention of its royal foun der, George the Third. The Hon. Member said that the Royal Academy had failed to promote the object for which it was established, and eminently demanded reformation in many of its departments, as it had grown into an odious mono poly. The Royal Academy had received 80,0001. The build ° cost more than 1(:0,001;1. An Hose. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, and there being only thirty Members present, the House adjourned at Eight o'clock. The question having been put, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose. He said, I hold this to be precisely one of those occasions on which the Government of a country is called on to exercise that au thority which the Constitution vests in it, of endeavouring to control the disposition of a popular assembly to vote money, not justly due to those who claim it. While I hold the situa tion I do, from the kindness of her Majesty, I never shall be wanting in courage to maintain what 1 believe is right, though I ay b i7se e fi ew o dh p o p t ohasereeda claimse b t o e t d h n o a rtbehyo just,s e t r p ew u p t irl e f t forward o n t ts l h i . e e s m e l. c f, claims and m not s o t this principle, whether I was in the Government or out of it, I have equally resisted the payment of these claims, and whatever opinions I may have before entertained, perhaps with little effect in another quarter of the House, I am bound by my duty in the office I have the honour to hold, to resist the motion on the present occasion. The Hon. Member who opened the debate told us truly that this House is not a satis factory tribunal, before which to try questions of a pecuniary nature. I agree with the Hon. Gentleman. It is not the fault of the Government, which has given every consideration to these claims ; they have been duly submitted to the legal authorities to ascertain what is the true construction of the law, as applicable to the case put before them, and the uniform opinion of the case, as submitted to the legal authorities com petent to investigate and decide on questions of this nature, has always been this —that under the ordinary usages of ear, as established between civilized nations, they cannot be acceded to If 3on accede to it ycu open a door not merely to the payment of those 225,000/., but to all payments of a similar kind in all future wars. It is the constant practice of war, that ships taken at sea are considered in a different light from ships seized in harbour and property taken on land, for when taken in harbour they are exempt from confiscation; hut it is not so at. sea. I am not here to argue that this distinction is just, but I am here to argue that if it be unjust in the case of th 2. Danish war, it is unjust in the ease of every war in which this country has been engaged. The Hon. Gentleman who made th:s motion commenced his speech by stating that many Members had changed their opi nions upon this question. It may be so, and lam not surprised at it, for in the first instance the generality of persons do not consider the distinction made between the various classes of claimants—between those who lost property in book debts— those whose property was taken on shore in the Danish States, and those whose property was captured at sea. But when persons saw the course of proceed ings in that House, and how differently the law of nations applied to the different classes of property, they, as was natural and just, reviewed the judgment they formed, and came to a differetst decision on the subject. But, in addition to those who changed their opinion, the Hon. Gentleman thought he could make out a case against some gentleman who did not oppose them on former occasions, but who are now prepared to oppose them, and he says that the Right Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, gave an expectation to those claimants that he would consent to their claims, because upon a discussion on the subject, after Mr. Cresswell's speech, he was observed by a gentleman to turn round and make an ob servation to Mr. Cresswell, and then walk out without giving a vote in his favour. And this is the ground on which he says he is justified in entertaining a favourable decision. It has been said that there was no declaration of war when this cap: urc took place, and these bring no declaration of war, that the parties were entitled to have a different rule applied to thtnn from that which would be applied in ordinary cases. Now to that proposition I give a distinct and positive denial, as strong as it is possible to give. At the time when this capture was made, on the 16th of August, 1807, war was ad mitted to exist between England and Denmark ; and that fact has been disputed only by these who wish to make the non declaration of war a ground for demanding that this payment should he improperly made. 'The Hog. Gentleman has re ferred to the Danish proclamation of the 16th of August, 1807. Now I will read some of that proclamation.—(The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the proclamation, which was to the effect that the English Ambassador (Jackson) declared that hostilities between England and Denmark had commenced, and demanded passports and safe conduct for himself and suite.) Therefore the war might be considered as actually begun. The Hon. Gentleman has also adverted to the proclamation, which was published at Copenhagen, bearing the same date, the 16th of August. Now, that proclamation could lead to no other inference than that it was a declaration of war.— ( The Right Honourable Gentleman read also this proclamation, which was to the effect that " hostilities having commenced on the part of England, the Vanish. Govern ment declared all British property to be laid under sequestra. tion, and that all Danish subjects were enjoined to assist in that sequestration, with respect to all British property whatever) Did not that amount to a declaration of war? I look upon that proclamation as irrefragable proof that, as far as Denmark was concerned, war commenced from that moment. Coupled with that, the taking of the capital would have been sufficient inti mation of the war. I should think that the battle of Water loo would have been a sufficient intimation of war between this country and France, without any declaration of war, and there had been none at the time. I think that the House will agree with me, that as far as the fact. on the part of Denmark, is concerned, the war commenced from the 16th of August, 1807. But the Hon. Gentleman says that the British Government did not make any declaration, and that this Government is to be bound by its own acts, and not by those of Denmark. But, Sir, on the 25th of Sept., in the British declaration of war, there is a statement confirmatory of the statement which I have made to the House. It was, that notwithstanding the de claration of war,on the part of Denmark, it remained still for the Danish Government to determine whether war should actually take place. Can there be a stronger proof that the British Gover nment considered Denmark to have made the declaration of war of which I have already furnished the House with the details ? But, Sir, look at the declaration of Denmark, which was sent round to the different States of Europe at a period antecedent to the British declaration. The Danish Government say that without danger and dishonour they have no chance but to commence war. Every document to which we have access shows that the war commenced on the 16th of August, 1807. It is ad mitted by both parties engaged in the war ; and yet, forsooth, in order to establish a claim which cannot be maintained unless you deny that there was war, all these documents are overlooked, and the House is called upon to pay an enormous sum of money to persons whose only claim is founded upon the hypothesis that the seizures took place before the declaration of war. But, said the Hon. Gentleman, this war, if it were a war, is to be treated upon different principles from others, be cause due notice of it was not given—it was a secret war. Why, will any man contend with respect to the wars between different nations, that when you observe that a Power is placed in a situation to do you an injury, you should immediately give the Government notice that within six months afterwards, you intend to commence warlike operations? Is that the way in which this country has acted towards other nations with whom it has been engaged in war ? or is it the way in which civilised nations usually act towards each other? Quite the contrary. How did the war with America take place? War was declared on the part of the United States long before it was declared on the part of Great Britain ; and when Great Britain expected, from the negotiations which wore pending, that hostilities would be prevented, was it ever contended that those who lost ships in the American war were entitled to come before the House to claim compensation? It would be difficult to prove that there was not, in the case of the war with the United States, the same want of information as in that of the Danish war. But, says the Hon Gentleman, the claimants in this case are entitled to compensation, because the British Government withdrew their fleet from the Baltic at an early period, instead of leaving it to protect British subjects. Why was such a thing ever heard of, as that a British armee ment, stationed in a sea like the Baltic for warlike pur poses, should remain there exposed to all the dangers of such a situation, in order to protect British ships, and that if it did not remain, and any loss ensued, the merchants should be entitled to compensation ? All I can say is this, and it is what I have already repeatedly stated, that if you are prepared to make payments on such grounds as these, if you are prepared to yield to the claims of those the late Government took, directed by a sense of the duty in TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. chester, Aug. ',at twelve, at the Manchester District Court-- refusing these claims in opposition to that personal and private FOREIGN-OFFICE, JULY 5, 1844. L. and J. Rostron, merchants, Manchester, Aug. 1, at twelve, canvass of which I myself have had so many reasons to corn- The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Michael Ken- at the Manchester District Court—C. S. and W. Heywood , plain. Now look at what has been said of the opinion of the nedy as Consul at Galway for the United States of America. warehousemen , Manchester, Aug. 1, at one, at the Alan- Attorney-General. Why any one who heard the speech of the WHITEHALL, Jui.v G. chester District Court —A. T. Tebbitt, wholesale tea dealers, Birminam, July 31, at eleven, at the Birmingham Hon. Member for Lambeth, must have inferred that Sir W. Fol- The Queen has been pleased to present the Rev. Donald lett had given his opinion in Parliament in favour of these claims. M‘Connochie to the church and parish of Durness, in the District Court—R. P. Atcherley, mercer, Whitehureh, The Hon. Member for Lambeth has referred to the-opinion of )resbytery of Tongue and county of Sutherland, vacant in Shropshire, Aug. 2, at t we l ve , a t th e Bi rm i ng h am District •y csnsequence of the Rev. William Finlater, late minister thereof, having ceased to be a minister of the Church of Scotland. WHITEHALL, JULY 8. The Queen has been pleased to present the Reverend Neil Mackenzie to the church at Duror, in the parish of Appin, in the presbytery of Lorn and shire of Argyll, vacant by the transportation of the Rev. Donald 111‘Naughton, late minister thereof, to the church and parish of Kahn, in the presbytery of Weem. Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire. Derby Militia.—Major R. B. Leacroft to be Lieutenant- Colonel, vice Gladwin, deceased, Juno 27. The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury having certified to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na tional Debt, in pursuance of the Act, 10th George IV., c. 27, see. 1, that the actual surplus revenue of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, beyond the actual expenditure thereof, for the year ended the sth day of April, 1844, amounted to the sum of two millions and ninety five thousand four hundred and twenty-seven pounds, nine shillings and sevenpence, the Commissioners for the Re duction of the National Debt hereby give notice, that the sum of five hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty-six pounds seventeen shillings and fourpence (being one fourth part of the said surplus of two millions and ninety-five thousand four hundred and twenty-seven pounds nine shillings and sevenpence) will be applied, under the provisions of the 'said Act, between the 7th day of July, 1844, and the 10th day of October, 1844, to the following purposes, viz. : £ s. d. To be applied to the purchase of stock ...... 23,856 17 4 To be applied to the purchase of Exchequer Bills, made out in pursuance of the Act of 57th George 111., cap. 48 ... 523,856 17 4 Add Interest receivable on account ofkDona tions and Bequests, to be applied to the purchase of Stock 3,546 6 10 £527,403 4 2 S. HIGHAM, Comptroller-General. National Debt-Office, July 5, 1844. BANKRUPTS. CORNELIUS BE AVIS, carpenter, Shirley, Hampshire, to surrender July 16, at twelve, and August 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook court, Basinghall-street ; Hillier, Lewis, and Hillier, Ray mond-buildings, Gray's-Inn ; Usher, Southampton. AUGUSTUS PORT WAY, tea dealer, Braintree, Essex, July 16. at two, and August 20, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms-yard, Moorgate-street ; Hardwick and Davidson, Basingliall-street. JAMES PAGE, builder, Devonshire-terrace, Fulham road, July 16, at half-past one, and Aug. 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee, Basinghall street ; Richardson, Smith, and Jones, Golden-square. HARRY MORGAN SHAW, jeweller, Newport, Isle of Wight, July 16, and Aug. 21, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings ; Taylor and Collisson, Great James-street, Bedford-row. ALBERT POTTER, carpet manufacturer, Kidderminster, July 17, at half-past eleven, and Aug. 14, at one, at the Bir mingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birming. ham ; Boycott and Lucy, Kidderminster; Reece, Birmingham. JOHN CROWDER and JOHN GREEN, jun., trimming manufacturers, Macclesfield, July 24, at one, and Aug. 9, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Post, official as signee, Manchester ; Hacker, Leek ; Oliver, Manchester ; Falcon, Elm-court, Temple, London. WILLIAM COWARD, baker, Hartlepool, Durham, July 15, at eleven, and Aug. 26, at one, at the Newcastle-upon- Tyne District Court. Baker, official assignee, Newcastle upon-Tyne ; Harle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; Chisholme, Hall, and Gibson, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London. JACOB WOOD and WILLIAM NORTON, fancy cloth manufacturers, Kirkheaton, Yorkshire, July 19, and Aug. 9, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official as signee, Leeds; Lever, King's-road, Bedford-row, London; Robinson, Huddersfield ; Sanderson, Leeds. CHARLES BENJAMIN REYNOLDS, tailor, Devizes, July 23, at twelve, and Aug. 23, at eleven, at the Bristol Dis trict Court. Hutton, official asssignee, Bristol; Turner, Ba singhall- street, London. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. R. Nash, Great Yarmouth. A. G. Hamilton, agent, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. C. Harding, schoolmaster, Wakefield-street, Gray's Inn-lane. G. Robinson, boot maker, Althorpe, Lincolnshire. R. M'Gregor, coach-wheel maker, Manchester. • S. B. Parsons, York-road, Lambeth. T. S. Dear, baker, Bow-street, _Covent -garden. Court—C. Harrington, glazier, Kidderminster, Worcestershire , July 31, at one, at the Birmingham District Court—T. New ton, cattle dealer, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, Aug. 2, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court—J. Jones, grocer, Wellington, Shropshire, Aug. 2, at half-past eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned. F. Banner, provision merchant, Upper Thames-street, July 30—R. Wi'ls and R. Davy, drapers, Oxford-street, Aug. 1- - C. Williams, furrier, Sutton-street, York-road, Aug. 2—C. Robinson, oil merchant, Great Trinity-lane, City, July 31--T. Wimtanley, commission agent, Laurence-lane, City, July 31-- C. Nichols, bookseller, Wakefield, Yorkshire, Aug. I—VV. Thompson and J. Mellis, merchants, Neweastle-upon- Tyne, July 31—J. Falkingham, bacon factor, Bradford, Yorkshire, Aug. 2—J. S. Tolson, fancy cloth manufacturer, Hudders. field, Yorkshire, Aug. I—T. Newton, cattle dealer, Holbeach , Lincolnshire, Aug. 2—J. Hellcwell, dyer, Salford, Lanca shire, July 31—F. P. Everett, draper, Reading, Berkshire, July 30—W. Monteath, linen draper, Oxford-street, July 30 —P. Seddon, coal dealer, Middle Hutton, Lancashire, July 30 —J. Etock, linen draper, Leeds, July 30—S. Bettison, wine merchant, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire, July 30—E. Holmes, warehouseman, King-street, Cheapside, July 30— G. and J. Wilkinson, curriers, Bishop Auckland, Durham, July 30. J. Mash, coal dealer, Hoxton Old Town. J. Williams, silk dealer, Sclater-street, Bethnal-green. G. Brown, blacksmith, Maldon, Essex. J. Drake, boot maker,'Halifax;Yorkshire. J. Cottee, cabinet maker, Maldon, Essex. J. Brown, hackney driver, Liverpool. M. May, silk velvet manufacturer, Fuller-street, Bethnal-green, H. Cosins, furniture broker, Water-st., Arundel-st., Strand. F. Newenham, artist, Soho-square. T. Rogers, tailor, New North-street, Red Lion-square. J. Rason, blacksmith, Liverpool. G. Bristow, sen., carpenter, Little George-street, Bermondsey, J. Oakes, traveller, Liverpool. J. Drinkhall, porter, Manchester. J. R. Miller, estate agent, Liverpool. W. Raley, (lancing master, Elm-lane, Bayswater. J. F. Redshaw, upholsterer, Great Portland-street. C. Pashley, plumber, Rayleigh, Essex. J. Faithfull, gardener, Grove-end-road, St. John's-wood. W. and G. S. Scoble, bakers, Topsham ' Devonshire. R. Wellicombe, butcher, Church-street; Camberwell. S. Gale, Boston-street, Dorset-square. G. Heffill, tailor, Chenies-street, Bedford-square. W. Childs, grocer, Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk. T. C. Blick, surgeon, Islip, Oxfordshire. A. Clarance, potato dealer, Itomford. J. Allanson, corn miller, Kirby Malzeard, Yorkshire. W. Smallwood, pawnbroker's shopman, Manchester. J. Birley, commission agent, Bawtry, Yorkshire. J. Fleming, carpenter, Halifax. S. H. Sale, commission agent, Ashton-under-Lyne. F. Drake, machine-maker, Huddersfield. I'. Arundale, colliery agent, Whitkirk, Yorkshire. J. Sibley, blacksmith, Luton, Bedfordshire. G. Wimshurst, carpenter, Chrisp-street, Poplar. A. Bray, perfumer, Hoxton New-town. R. Dwaber, tailor, Liverpool. H. Beasley, stone-mason, Walcot, Somersetshire. W. Rowland, farmer's assistant, Llaneilan, Anglesea. R. Higgins, meat-salesman, Nevvgate-market. R. Derbyshire, butcher, Liverpool. H. Laundy, law-stationer, Thanet-place, Strand. J. Tyler, ahopman, Walcot, Somersetshire. T. W. Dobby, cutler, Myddleton-street, Clerkenwell. W. E. Adams, painter, St. Chad's-row, St. Pancras. J. Friend, shoe-maker, Hytte, Kent. J. Cotterell, beer-seller, Banbury, Oxfordshire. li. Isabel', builder, Swansea. W. Lewis, baker, Heston, Middlesex. S. Collins, blacksmith, Heswall, Cheshire. J. Dawn, porter, Birkenhead, Cheshire. J. I'ickard, saddler, York. A. Hodpon, machine-maker, Bradford, Yorkshire. H . Hustler, cloth-manufacturer, Yeadon, Yorkshire. J. Forrest, victualler, Bradford, Yorkshire. SECOND NOTICES. A. Norfolk, porter, Reigate, Surrey, July 13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. F. Hillen, assistant warehouseman, Shepperton - cottages , Islington, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. 'l'urquand, official assignee. J. E. Adams, schoolmaster, Marylebone workhouse, July 13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. H. Jennings, Princes-road, Lambeth , Jul y 16, at tw elve at the Court Etßankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. L. Woodlands, carpenter, Princess-street, Bedford-row, July 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee. .17 Davies, fellmonger, King Sutton, Northamptonshire, July 17, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee. J. F. Muckleston, baker, London-road, Southwark, July 20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. J. Overton, attorney, Tavistock-place, Tavistock-square, July 20, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. J. Cato, wine-cooper, Wellington-street, Shoreditch, July 24. at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. J. Clark, bailiff, Orsett, Essex, July 20, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee. W. Blake, carpenter, Upper Holloway, Islington, July 15, at half-past eleven, at the Cuurt of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee. J. Walker, tailor, Fetter-lane, City, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee. W. W. Bradley, clerk, St. James's-cottage, Old Kent-road, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, offi cial assignee. W. Coker, shoe-maker, Loddon, Norfolk, July 15, at half past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee. J. Price, jun., grocer. Cotton-street, Poplar, July 15, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, offi cial assignee. W. W. G. Norman, printer, King-street, Bloomsbury, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. T. Paragreen, foreman to a coach proprietor, Richmond street, Maida-hill, July 15, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Graham, official assignee. H. T. Archer, attorney, John-street, Adelphi, July 16, at half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, offi cial assignee. J. Prout, hair-dresser, Castle-court, Birchin-lane, City, July 24, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell official assignee. F. T. B. Dumelow, clerk, Shepperton-place, Islington, July 20, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. H. Harris, sheet-iron roller, Gothersley, Staffordshire, July 16, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee. J. Smith, manager of a silk-mill, Leek, Staffordshire, July 20, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittle ston, official assignee. W. Wilson, farmer, Long Sutton , Lincolnshire, July 18, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore, official assignee. J. Barnett, farmer, Twerton, Somersetshire, July 16, at ele ven, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee. M. Hughes, snuff dealer, Birmingham, July 12, a t h a lf- pas t ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official assignee. •W. Barber, engraver, Hermes-street, Pentonville, July 16, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee. E. Maltby, Sneinton, Nottinghamshire, July 13, at half past ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittleston, offi cial assignee. J. C. Hudson, Burley, Yorkshire, July 12, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman, official assignee. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. W. Burton, upholsterer, King-street, Soho, July 30, at twelve—J. Butterworth, leather factor, Bermondsey, July 30, at half-past twelve—T. Harris, merchant, John-street, Ame rica-square, July 31, at one—F. J. H. Muller, furrier, Addle street, Wool-street, July 30, at eleven—H. Thorpe, linen draper, Kensington, July 30, at half-past one. In the Country. D. Hague, paper manufacturer, Horeforth, Yorkshire, Aug. 14, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court—C. S. Jackson, cloth merchant, Leeds, Aug. 1, at eleven, at the Leeds Dis trict Court—A. R. Hickman, victualler, Abergavenny, Mon mouthshire, July 30, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court— J. and G. Ewart, auctioneers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Aug. 2, at eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—G. E. Phillips, saddler, Plymouth, Aug. 2, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court—W. and J. Warrocks, machine makers, Mau- MARKET INTELLIGENCE. (From the London New Price Current of July 9.) Si:GAIL—To- day importers of Colonial Suor manifested more firmness, and refrained from offering any description at public sale. There was more inclination shown on the part of Grocers and Refiners to operate in West India, and a large business was transacted at the rates of Friday, and in some cases a small advance was paid for good and fine yellow. REFLNED.—To-day several parcels of Refined Sugar were taken by the home trade, but at lower rates—brown lumps selling at 71s to 72a, standard lumps 73s Gd to 74s per cwt. Bonded Crushed Sugar is wanted at 26s per cwt, but not much is to be had. Maxurrws —lmporters continue to be anxious sellers, and, having supplied the market largely, has produced a decline on previous rates of Is to is Gd per cwt. This afternoon there was no public sale, but 8,000 bags will be brought for ward on Friday; the business transacted privately was at former rates. EAST INDIA.—By private contract several parcels of Ben gal Sugar have been sold, but importers are compelled to submit to rather lower rates. This afternoon the principal feature in the Foreign free labour Sugar market was the public sales of 1,294 baskets Java, and 1,548 bags of Manilla, the former all sold at good prices, fine dry grey at 21s to 22s Gd, mid yellow 17s 6d to 18s, good 18s Gd to 19s Gd, fine 20s to 21s 6d, good white .22s to 235, damp and washed 16i 6d to 22s ; the latter of sound quality all taken in at 18s 6:l—a few lots of damaged sold at 13s to 17s 6d per cwt. For Ben gal to-day stiffer rates paid. FonEmx.—This afternoon 460 brls Pernambuco, at auction, were all taken in at 18s Gd to 19s for yellow, and 18s for brown, being above the value. By private treaty an increased desire was shown to purchase yellow Havannah, and two floating cargoes, amounting to 4,000 boxes, were sold at 19s Gd to 20s Griper cwt. _ _ MoLAssEs.—Virest India at full prices; Antigua at 25s to 275; St. Kitt's 22s to 235; and low Montserrat 20s 6d per cwt. Bengal Molasses 16s to 17s per cwt. COFFEE.—West India has been less in request, and im porters still supplying the market freely, has produced a declined on former rates of 2s per cwt. Mocha at 72s to 75s for good, and GSs to 71s per cwt for middling. This after noon ordinary Ceylon at 50s to 51s per cwt. Jamaica good middling fetched 102 s to 103 s, middling 85s to 86s 6d, low middling 80s, fine and fine fine ordinary 60s to 74s 6d, triage 3-1 s to 54s .6d per cwt. TEA.—There has been only a limited demand for black or green Tea, and holders experience difficulty in supporting former prices. To-day there was no variation in the prices of Tea, and few purchases were, made in any description. CocoA.—For British Plantation, importers are unable to obtain any advance in prices ; Grenada taken in at 42s per cwt. for good red. Foreign Cocoa is dull of sale, and may be purchased upon easier terms. This afternoon, Trinidad sold at 40s. for fair dark red. SricEs.—This afternoon there was no public sale of any description of Spice. By private treaty small parcels of common Sumatra Pepper were sold at 24(1 to 2;cl per lb. For Cassia Lignea there was rather more inquiry. RUM ' BRANDY, AND lloLLANDs.—Leeward Island Rum ) 2 - at 2s 2d to 2s 3d per gallon proof strength ; Jamaica Rum 38 per cent. over proof, part faulty, sold at 3s 4d per gallon ; Demerara at 3s to 3s 4d per gallon for good to fine. Calcutta Rum at Is 11d to is 11Ad per gallon proof, with certificate. For Brandy, prices are drooping. Cognac, first brands of the vintage of 1838, hhds 5s 4d, puns 5s 2d ; ditto 1839 hhds 5s 2d, puns ss; ditto 1840, lilids 5s Id, puns 4s lld ; ditto 1841, hhds ss, puns 4s 10d; ditto 1842, hhds 4s 9d, puns 4s 7d; and other descriptions 2s 8d to 4s Gd per gallon. Geneva at is 9d to is 10d, and fine for home consumption 2s 6d to 3s 4d To-day, Cognac, best brands of the vintage of 1842, at 4s 9d for hluls, and 4s 7d for puns. English Corn Spirits lOs 4d per gallon for cash. Geneva at is 10d to is lld per gallon for shipping. Leeward Island Rum at 2s 2d to 2s 3d per gallon proof. RICE.—In cleaned Rice several purchases made at 21s to 26s for Carolina, and 13s to 16s per cwt for Patna. This afternoon Bengal Rice went rather under former rates, good mid white lls to lls Gd, and sea damaged first class 103 Gd to I ls. Java taken in at 9s Gd to lOs per cwt for bold sound yellow. SAGO.—Prices have further declined for this article, and not much demand exists. Sago Flour 19s to 20s per cwt. Bermuda Arrowroot .scl to is qd, and Tapioca 5d per lb. INDIGO.—The quarterly sale of East India commenced to day. 826 chests have passed the sale. The biddings have been very brisk throughout the day for all qualities, except the good and fine, for which the demand was but limited. Otts.—Sperm Oil 801 15s to 83/ lOs per tun. In common descriptions of Fish Oils the advanced rates previously esta blished are well sustained; Pale Seal 35/ lOs to 365, and Cod 331 15s to 341; Southern at 311 5s to 331 5s for middling to fine ; Cocoa Nut Oil is • not offered at lower terms. Ceylon taken 'in at 30s per cwt for good quality. For Rape Oil prices are not so firm, pale at 38s, and brown 37s per cwt. Linseed Oil at 25s 9d to 26s per cwt on the spot. Olive Oil at further reduced rates. 461 to 471 accepted for Gallipoli; 44/ to 451 for Spanish; and 43/ to 43/ lOs per tun for Barbary ; Palm fine 28s to 29s per cwt. TALLow.—For Russian Tallow on the spot a good business has been transacted, P.Y. Candle 41s to 41s 6d per cwt. For. delivery in the last. three months of the year 42s 6d to 42s 9d. South American 376 to 40s for mid to good; and New South Wales 37s 9d to 41s 3d ; Town Tallow at 40s 6d to 41s per cwt. net cash. TIIE DEPARTURE or BARBER AND FLETCHER.— The Agincourt (convict ship), with Barber and Fletcher on board, and upwards of 300 other convicts, left Woolwich for Norfolk Island, on Monday morning last, at six o'clock. The Lord Auckland, for the penal settlements, with a similar number of convicts, is expected to leave the same port this day (Wednesday), with a similar number of trans ports. The William Jardine, having on board 318 convicts (male and female), from the new Model Prison, Pentonville, is on the eye of departure. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. Sharp and H. J. Cook, bookbinders, New-yard, Great Qucen-street—M. and L Thompson, grocers, Ilebburn , Durham—W. Hepworth and T. Micklethwaite, printers , Wakefield, Yorkshire—J. and T. Gill, corn merchants, New Corn Exchange, London—J. Robinson and W. Maunder, shirt makers, Maiden-lane—S. Bromhead and T. Brooks, builders, Bristol—H. Engel, L. I. Lowenthal, and J. Lieb reich, woolstaplers, Leeds (so far as regards J. Liebreich) --- H. Metcalfe and W. Bothwell, sizers, Great Bolton, Lanca shire—M. Cook and C. Ford, milliners, Devizes—W. B. Aspinall, C. Aspinall, and J. Aspinall, sail makers, Liverpool (so far as regards J. Aspinall)—F. B. and C. B. Phillipson , chemists, Marehmont-street, Brunswick-square—S. Ashford and C. T. Cooke, file makers, Birmingham—J. and J. G. Payne, silversmiths, Wallingford, Berkshire—H. Pershouse , G. Welch, and W. R. Auster, brassfounders, Birmingham-- 3 . and G. Fox, printers, Pontefract, Yorkshire—R. Crabtree , T. Crabtree, and W. Burnley, woollen manufacturers, Bet" sendale, Lancashire—J. Allan and M. Chubb, straw hat ma nufacturers, Cheapside—O. and J. Austin, rope makers, Great Dover-street—W. and G. T. Badcock, wine merchants, Ox ford—B. Hately and T. W. Miller, ironmongers, Liverpool- - W. Warren and J. G. J. Bateman, shawl manufacturers , Norwich—S. Sillifant and E. Richards, drapers, Brecon—W. Buckley, W. Knight, and C. Hague, brassfounders, Oldham , Lancashire (so far as regards C. Hague). SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. THOMAS WHITSON, writer, Blairgowrie, July 15 and Aug. 5, at twelve, at M'Laren's Inn, Blairgovrrie. WILLIAM LYON, grocer, Dundee, July 15, at twelve, and Aug. 5, at one, at the chambers of J. Patullo, Dundee. JAMES LINDSAY, slater, Glasgow, July 13, at twelve, and Aug. 3, at twelve, at the Waterloo Hotel, Glasgow. ROBERT M'LEAN KENNEDY and CO., chemist!, Glasgow, July 13 and Aug. 5, at eleven, at J. Thomson % Tavern, Glasgow. - - - - ----- SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TIIE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—Among the Parliamentary business on the paper for this evening, Mr. Ross will move the House of Commons for the production of copies of the c orre" spondence which has passed between the Irish Govern ment, and any other parties, relative to the re•instate ment of Mr. O'Driscoll in the commission of th e peace in that country. As the removal of Mr' O'Driscoll from the magistracy was caused by conduct in that gentleman which drew down upon him no ordinary portion of justly-merit ed censure and reproach, it is only right that the Govern ment which has restored him should have an o pportw nity of showing—either that the imputations cast uPn n Mr. O'Driscoll were not justified by the facts ' • ° I. that the conduct charged against him does not dis qualify him for the office of a magistrate, howeve r much it may derogate from his position as a "gentlema°, or his reputation for humanity. The present state 01 public feeling in Ireland is such as to render care an ', caution, in the selection of persons for the office of magistrates, essentially necessary on the part of the Government. Many magistrates, in whom the great mas s of the people had confidence, have been removed froth the commission for taking part in meetings of the R e f' c Association. The number of magistrates for whose adiva: nistration of the laws the Irish peasantry cherished respec t : has been thus greatly diminished ; and their dependen cy on the impartiality of the judicial bench has he e, to this extent shaken. It was, therefore, no due to the people, whose interest in the character of the magistrates is immense, than it was no es : sary for the maintenance of social order and chea t ful obedience to the laws—both which the Governmen is bound to promote, and ought, by its administratio n, P aim to secure—that the magistrates' bench should o! free from gross instances of indecorum. No apP ii n i t ment having a tendency to strengthen and c' te l s .. dissatisfaction with the constitution of the o' n e g - to tracy among the Irish people, ought at any ti n ' bat, be allowed to pass unquestioned in Parliament ;„cra under present circumstances, it is especially itn'c'ont tire that Ministers should be called to a strict ac nbt for any marked departure from the rules which 1 °_, (10 1 to regulate the creation or restoration o f magistrates. Ministers have shown themselves Li mined to supersede political opponents for attendlD:t p d o ec li r t e ic e a s l m of eet p inz h s ib ag it a io iri n s . t wßhiychsotheyd o h i a n v g e t, ts t s h t l e e y( d ir tlletr hi diminished the public confidence in he an tration of justice. In many districts the Benc h is exclusively occupied by partizans of the Governinen!' which has placed itself in antagonism with 0: sympathies of the people. In such a state of thing, as this, could anything be more impolitic — more calcn t hated to rouse public indignation against the Governinen! and to engender suspicion among the peasantry, as to t'w_ impartiality of the administration of the laws—than i' see an individual replaced on the Bench, who se recen't removal from it had been provoked by his own outrnt upon the laws, and his intemperate attack upon bench of magistrates, who had, with great reluctalle convicted him of that savage outrage? Yet such is transaction to which the attention of Parliament will v called this evening. ec/ 1 STANDARD.—Mr. Gladstone's admirable sr , e 5 upon the second reading of the Railway . Bill, little to be said upon the subject. The principle or " question lies in a very narrow compass. A railw g . „; company comes to Parliament for a Bill—obtains it.„, displaces all other means of travelling upon the sal;,, line ; and then proceeds to make exactly such cba r gio and dispense such accom m odation as it th is t l e will afford it the g rea t es t amoun t o f p ro fit. This 15 he natural course of thi ngs , a nd the natural remedy for ° t he evil arising out of it is competition. Accordingly , 0 rates being thought too high, or the accornmodat':9r, insufficient, another railway company claims foto e l liament permission to lay down another railway P ra ' f e to the former. Oh no, cry the elder company, w e r ep invested our money upon the faith of a public eeV i tis went that there should be no second railway en; to same line. This is all quite fair. " Public faith en ~ be maintained inviolable; but is there to be no respi,i, to " railway faith ?" Railway companies invest t; yo money upon the faith that they are to 1 a monopoly ; but do they not take that 1 , 6 " nopoly under an implied pledge that they d o o not abuse it by an extortionate tax upon the loconl°- o f of the Queen's subjects—a monopoly of the mcan s ds ? which locomotion they have got into their own bs" It seems to us that the obligation between Parli ais i e ir and the railway companies is reciprocal. I ' 3r ,ot went is to protect their monopoly—they are ' to make a use of it oppressive to the P° o. But how is Parliament to enforce the observanog their plighted faith upon these Companies ? n '•''aeci their fares, and arranging the accommodation prdyler, for passengers and carriers? This would never ae s t ber The only means that Parliament can resort to is, to allow of competition by rival railways,. w y ; of as every one must see, would invite to a dead 105tter, an enormous amount of capital that might be be t tie employed, or to claim the power of buying in fer be public the existing railway at a fair price. The 1 31 " d i t, fore Parliament reserves to Parliament this latter riro, and we cannot guess upon what principle so fair a P position can be resisted. BIRTHS. On the sth inst., at Great Westwood, Elute, Mrs. .1" Gearey, of a son. Elleff' On the sth inst., at Dalston, the lady of Edmun d Esq., of a son. e lady On the sth inst., at Braughing Vicarage, Herts, Edmund bob' of Captain Say, of the Bengal Army, of a daughter, stily„f the On the 6th inst., at Thorpe-place, Surrey, the lad), 'we, Rev. Edward Leigh Bennett, of Long Sutton, Lincol n 5 of a dauter, stil. horn. , lieg' On the 6th inst. l , at Camberwell, Mrs. Stephen Spur ol a daughter. oS ° ler' On the 6th inst.', 'at Kingsbury Episcopi Vicarage set, the lady of the Rev. J. K. Fowler, of a daughter. , iiiii rle s On the 7th inst., at Camden-road Villas, Mrs. ' Teakle, of a son. " Fel l ' On the 7th inst., at Blandlord-square, Mrs. JoseP wick, of .a daughter. MARRIED. ll e". On the 9th inst., at St. Stephen's, Bristol, by tbbtroild. Charles Buck, Edward B. Gardner, Esq., surgeon, of SyYior water, to Ann, relict of George Symons, Esq., late () combo, Somerset. rertly tlle On the 4th inst., at St. James's Church, Muthill , „f shire, William Nelson Clarke, Esq., to Mary, sister v Rev. A. Lendrum. iii- U. On the 6th inst., at St. Martin's-in-the-Fieldg , ' r Of 1%-. cent Yardley, to Barbara Brain, youngest (laugh"' ,... William Cawthorn, jun. of f Le On the 4th inst. at Christ Church, Middlesex, o f t Gordon, Esq., late Of Madras, to Lilly Morley, relict y late John Morley, Esq. P I T: , On the 4lh inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square'of 19'?,,, son of the late Lieutenant-Colonel B. Bunco, lt•A'',' t o J'''' mouth, to Elizabeth Anne, eldest daughter of the I' L _....,,, Uttermare, Esq., of Curry Mallett, Somersetshire. __---- DIED. , a 10' On the 30th 'ult., in Russell-street, North Brix-0' lob o Roades, widow, aged 75. At Southamptoth-street, Covent-garden, CaP taill le, M'Dermott, late of the 11th Regiment of Foot. „ fivi Esq., On the late of the 4th ins East India Houset., at Clive, S omerse t s bire, Thom .010 .010 On the 4th inst., Elizabeth, wife of the Rev' -01( 1 Hamilton Attwood, of Beddingteld, Suffolk. of l i `' On the sth inst.., Mary Frances, eldest daughter , i Phillips, Esq., of Angel-terrace, Pentonville. ~,, I.P''' ° On the sth inst., Captain William Williams Foote' neD, the Royal Hospital Greenwich. , ia3 Wr e- , On the sth inst., at Denmark-hill, Surrey, COI -- tof Esq., aged 74. ii r iwc, tic On the sth inst., at Kendal, Westmoreland, 4.-a'd ' e the late John Barrow, Esq., aged 72. ,f ) 9 ' London: Printed and Published by 11:13111)9, - jsl -YOl o• of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun 01 104 (10 , 1 309 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , in tile Midden.", Wednesday, July 1 0 , 1844* Gni Dopy i‘itin At seven /I rt"e---I,ore tar 8111:S O 3 C 0) C re • Ertry w i nAVItP dAY. 1t P.ICN % TENT) ?at s as (- f-ALA ts _ and 4s. YATINTOI 11Z.A3Ist;A 1 - )lx nu " QYer •• ,vcniug. 3 nln z . tiuN nriri iittt“l,6 ItemThrna 'F° s(tetn: pat ur . f!, tklent p o l fi r 13 0f or tilol/, 3t Eakin% t] tiroSftl4l to ' t reCt l ' et:tr, J til`7 8 11 11 0 N .!krivrol t 4M3 ' ritl 3h 171071 b t A f "r n ic r? oMe e ord : on c ;"'„lrnin, ours ATh bt ro„ 4 „ t(Te , z n..endatk, cira„:urngp.ro, ~. App, - ti n* , 3 to r na C i r L Gold Or 31, The, ltro n; 11. tZ r 'N th e tkllbles : 7 7: 1 Aer Which po,Nr To t he Itth, at ' N t , ' • 43. iu l ia C 3 .'13 `f) 4. 7s. Nunclriel a llqu r N . °, 4 '". We h • ~,nllnenta ro rt b t Y and the and giv e usi n e 68. 0 ;:r " tr, r , er t rthi s "NEI; * hose Vsre Z i d th( y otii ac e , mi 'eceiv4 It "htui s, at &"