The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-28 00:00:00

t utver• The Oso• little Os re alludeer iuired the it to ke'P d for the veen thenl , despera te Wile of the be inch o the last alf on 19• wa s the arn Stolle fired boat► —St:eltoo , as, Janie! .re steered due th cr §O. forme° P a lace ; i by Jl_ A r' r Edo' r fttw st o : our, for ed to d l° aliKbu d of %Yel vrne ,l to .rday , ichess of a 'taro arendish her 'lsl. wit h the ' [s officill VS With and t h l p e el an- nerd W N it tiool Lcellor c ius were t dinner :WI di °, Grac e laughter I.oo * t) 11 try. i n soul * res Peel ,sates to lies had in. ea ; P of 3 t l4 of hil ~ x.r. 18 44 . ion, iFe our I° . ; bject ' don of of er itsel f ling o. nuag i e priv d e Ari 3ch sa l of th e timat e by th e of th e ,tote THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 28, 1844. 6 1i-"E tti AL 3. , ,P!,Ti% Their Lord i s r lip '' s a i:' LORDS, June 27. -sembled at Five o'clock. A t B ROTHELS SUPPRESSION BIEL. Th r• eq e t of the D 1;e of WELLINGTON, the R i ' s ,"" l G.\ UMW V. ~h o in the absence of ; .7" 4 !', - ter eliar:ie of sh;v, postponed ; 1 1 1 `; (1 revl . tv,r Thurs. l .o. liisi m p of f4INTCOL V pre.ent. d se-, - ..rul petitions "ri„ , tth e Diss. , nte rs ' (1 1 i p o , s Bill. tig n "'shop of pres. oted peti- E al iot , n Derby ando , ker O. I OWE , pre: uteri ns ii ,, ion ~f Thet's Bishop St As . jpil 411 , I Bang-r 'shop ov LONDO:' prese , tel n i }ward . 90 Erwin v,,vious parts of the co ,,, ,tiy agitint )e e ittii n ,, e , r m Chapels Bill. He 1110 k tha• ooportnnitj thi s " 41 '4 the disetiss;(ms which had n pline :It .11 Itip: e le .asure had not hai the eff-ct of alte;'lng I,i, opinion ode !trig it. Although s , rne amtndin-•i!.: 11'6 been kentsin knother Owe, yet he did not, thin' tho .e amend toisof w(mld have the effect of doing ay with the li obi 'evens tendency of the measure. H. hoped his the; a nd Learned Friend on the Woolsack would wire Niedtordships some time to consider before they were u Pon to pass those amendments. th PRIVY COUNCIL BILL. L ora e request of the LORD CHANCELLOR, _ it 111 till M nRouGHAm postponed the second reading of onday. Th , POOR-LAWS (IRELAND). topi e : A tarynis of CLANRICARDE rose to move for °f any declarations in ejectments or notices to ha Commis— inse reland, or upon the guardians o anyp. fr,,:ijeet in moving for these returns was to obtain too ls n u e! Majesty' s G overn ment some expression of opt ifelanPit respect to the present system of poor-laws in the /7' He wished also to call the attention of 101,840yernment to ihe manner in which the work- Ireland were built, and as to the manner . et tale they were supplied with water. In T an ) kti,n l the. drainage and sewerage were entirely the" He was borne out in this statement Ic k il s statement of Mr. Penethorn on the subject. Ott g ," t be thought that this was a very unimportant 1 4 1 1i, e- : but he could assure their Lordships , that t he Itcli - ` Was one well worthy of their eon ratio I nr k n• The Noble Marquis then read several tipk, to from various reports which had been made the , t ba subject of workhouses in Ireland. While iti tt rior-law s in Ireland remained in their pre tekedBt4te, they could not hope to see any ttehrY, for the evils which were so widely to ",'ned of. At present it frequently cost more leti k i ° deet the poor-rates in Ireland than the „ I lkt amount of rates collected. He knew nh ati u k _the Ballinasloe union no less than 400 th - 'en employed in the collection of the rates, (b ai t did not succeed in collecting above 14/.- 1 4i to °.4r -) At the union of Tuam the guar geins. were unable to get a collector, and I tie e ,ln rates to meet the charges of the union, an °1 114;" :) „ 4 upon the workhouse had been put into the oft • h„ - °' the sheriff.. —(Great laughter.) A meeting ltg„," guardians of this union was lately held, and at Ift meeting a "motion was made to admit the public, t i t • l 'e motion was rejected, on the !. , ,Tound that Public were admitted so the board-room, ► 11 , 14 44. - „ eri ffs' officers themselves would take ad or the opportunity and rush into t `Nis r i n se•—(Laughter.) He thought the poor-law in . ~Nl ll ,- ; required: the earnest attention of their ▪ cPi, and ho thought that inquiry ought 1 ,7 instituted into the subject as early a l bei, B%ib le. He blamed the Commissioners, for tt, l'ivd that they might have carried out the law for ie v i4tage of the country had thy adopted i pq m • " t 'llt course to that whien they hud taken. e ver, that the Government woul d take u p A 1 et, and institute a thorough inquiry into it. 'hike of WELLINt4TON said there was no ob ,(loji„%t" the production of the papers for which the ") i sl ` i , ‘ a L tarqui s moved. With regard to the reports R~it i " the Nobly Marquis had referred, respecting the th ng a the p oer-law in Irland, e thaight he me.ht , es t , 't they fully justified e the c-hmplaints which i had 1 04% 4 ' ros n eeting the poor-law. In con "f th,- report of Mr. Penethorne, a.Committee 4 kl s ;v ll app ,intd in the o'her House of Parliament, e, 00 0 as the report of that Commi:te. , should be Government would be prepared to • me-tstire with respect to this subject, and Net s. - urdships would then have the whole matter before T • he Earl of MOUNTCASFIEL said that the com e-' • o f want of water in the workhouses of Ireland 714,, ve rY general throughout the whole country, and 4 o l eneed several cases which had come under his own '1 11, 4e • Itio u e ; -..arquis of CLANRICARDE expressed his gra ite-4)n at hearing what had fallen from the Noble 9 tO s l ,, a nd expressed a hope that early in the next sea- IA IV l ne steps would be taken to alter the present lavv. 'ioli e r : e °tion was then agreed to, and their Lordsh i ps d. • 1 10UsE OF COMMONS, June 27. ktEAR.Ea took the Chair at Four o'clock. OC,,,LAGSTON-UPON-HULL DOCK BILL. order of the day being read for the third r ead- Ir t his Bill, L' t tlat . "YAWN moved the addition of the following 1- -" ~ k "And be it enacted, that no ves?el re -1'0:° to the Port of Hull, an d not entering th e pll 3 ' h , one of them, of the said Do ck Com p an y , 1 - M 1,7 liable to any tonnage duty to such , Company. till ,1 1 41 r e it enacted, That vessels entering the port Lltt, , ra tt l any of her Majesty's North American more colo than not be charged or chargeableewiteth Z' b e l i i n tl o , and threepence ree r p a e t n e c s e as per rvesseisgispayr Hu ton from dock the the sa Baltic. Also the omis,lion oftlls e classes es in the amended clauses e ef• l t — t 2 99, and 290." th e a short conversation the clauses were referred f 'Ztanding Orrs' Committee, and the third read tae Bill Orde de red for next Tuesday. 1,114, VOTING IN COMMITTEES. r a djourned debate on the right of Members to vote _ ' l lter - , at at lltt . ttea on questions in which they have a person I , ; :,aas then resumed ; the que-tion . arises from the eiaL''',e,on the Middle Level Drainage Bill. , e. e il lea 'COURT cited a variety of cases from ct p lht o l l former Speakers of against the House, the k N4, 11 .! voting un d er such circ umstances, and moved .e a ~4 1)11 to the etfect that no Member, either in tit, °P to Committee, should give a vote where he had ‘l:!..jhtere s e b 4t t.EI-VV thought it would be impossible to carry 1n the case of Railway Bills and the improvement of t,twns, thowgh ,Menthers '''l . : l l,, il lterest tom, it W 1.3 absalately necessary that eti•se the ri tilt to vote. W • - h tliq ARBUR, YN thought that as long as the ralo . s welt, in , existenceth-v etig'it to tat observee,. of op . :nion that de., votes ot her ,hiro and the Hon. H F or f I. etie-el inalere ought to be objeete.l t.i. iheTight it ' utterly impo,sible 1. 1 4 11,1. •" - Tal rule:; of the Hons.:. into affect, t he Nl' I t this ', theof the Co oinittees of t -s e coigtttuao, Orte r ' ll ght to be ,:iterel. ;I S r few w from Lori '7:',RANVII.LE ,k, , ‘sEp. lOr~M W IWI, • ‘• t sac motions as these rrt!;ist 11 ,`T''' I '• If the vote of Ir. Yortw. the Memner Abe 4 i -)ri dcr-', was . to be considered bal bet:wise he had 14-ntorest in the uestion, what, he would ask, he tAit,:rf; ti le votes of Hon. Members last night on the tj c il. t. ? l , the corn-laws ?—(llear.) Had not two th„!? w b r i Member. who voted an interest in the ques eq,? v o , 'lli also, became of the votes of those who gave vOsb,, - { ,'% the sugar question, which was shortly to j:`• ) te the _Muse ?—(llear.) The landlords who II I e't night for a continuation of the term laws, kr:lr• P h i e.. rents, and their own individual interests. %he s i gr ke's vote was to be questioned, he was . ready toe n t lb two-thirds of the votes given last night on li k4 : lo ti ri av a e Nv s. s , and a great number of those given on the th s a• SIBTHORP would like to know how the tt entlentan who had just sat down had voted on Ottl..'W.tiera Bill ?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) e ° , ll .l t , a AKLEY had no hesitation in stating to the at :' Gallant Member the course he had pursued ; 0511.-1.14 he could say was, that he hoped the e ) 11 , tv ep rl L l Gallant Member . would follow his example. let,allea division when it was proposed to give the i n " the 1, 4 additional sum for mileage, he had invariably 'kle ° Ur., and his name was not to be found in a P., N sion on that question. 14 4 t T- 48 COTT thought the Speaker should state tl iltj 'c'C s the rule of Parliament as applicable to this °ll . t. i ti c ige tt i 4 r n ALl . lEß thought it would be better to leave IN,. as it was. SC OTT withdrew his amendment. th e -" ( 'ene' s amendment, nearly to the same effect, i t kr . i e l d . 4 kve , k ,„ Y 'r ER thought it would be a cause of great Itk t ior ti ,,, --n ee and uncertainty if, after a Committee had 4 1'2,4 8 - : ‘ , 14 weeks, the report should be rejected on Vl% 4 4i; k sorne objection to the vote of a particular " li" ° had not been before objected to. agreed aL s - th e e - I,. 4 O ‘ I CCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER last, and thought that 84; 4 : - Ai l etr o il . ), A r L i tm ia b i er ot who spoken his vote, it could not O t t a P t t tia be object e d to. g YOFtKE e ' would have no objection to a,Aft e 4w I lls motion. .; 11 , 11 4:a t w a n f . ew Words from Mr. PUSSY, the motion was ti 41 ) '',/st was then brought up. 4 1:),, 11 '1 ' 4I) STONE hoped there would be no ohjec e : tc c r point of form, to the proceeding whi „ ch e he n 11). 0 "-Ih a v-!Pose. It appeared to h;m that Cr, riu Just, taken place on the subject had t the h '414 unsetiefecter state. It 2ppoarecl that the teo 1,4 , 04,b, power of nee:rong the (11! - 31iole, but ete t i.;, , tie Committee ought to here this imforma fp at) 11(4 "In ie ated to-them in a more formal manner. It 4 t , wh tt hcient that they should !Lather that information th e L a 4 passed i n t h e House in the course o f d e b ate . ter rulw outereforo frameil a proposition affirming thth at. ti lt !tea ~,,the Ho use i with respect to the vote of an n• . di r tiouse7einher, ex t en d e d likew i se to Committees 01 tit: C tif)u lie did not think that a question put for i kti tl n s 't 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 guidance ouebt to remain without a re- R 4 -" to the 10 '•verl, " That the rule of this lita - - , e re el tt itin o, I( votes of Members having an interest in a 4 ee n ,', o ' i e : arty likewise. to any vote of a Member k ti r„ 11 7,A.Is ttee. e " 4l r 44)(11,13(FEIT°N had no doubt that the rule of the l ite the 6 - Couirnitt«,—the only potot was, 00 1 411 huld q i nl e terraine the point f itself ? t. to have the decision of the CtlAr mili the ev er e Spt i , ,s,tha t ~Lis-ER said there could be ne doubt . what : Vh ar; :ue rule of the House was binding also —l ' 44 ". • It had been so decided on many he lionourahlo Meady,r for Oxford had quoted a decision of Mr. Speaker Abbott in 1811, who then laid it down as a rule, which had existed for 200 year:,, that the vote of a Member of the House having a direct interest in a question must be disallowed. Sir ROBERT PEEL could not doubt but the autho rity of the Speaker must be decisiv.- ou this point ; but wha , was to he the authority det-rmine it—the chairman of the Committee, or a maiorite of i, ? In some eases it would dis,qualify Mem bey's for votin:,; on a Railroad Bill. The question was, whether in a doubtrul case, the Committee could deer mine the application to the rule. Sir G. GREY said that the rue would have disquali fied some o f t h e Members on the South Devz,li Railway Commi , tee. Sir R. PEEL said the Thglit 1-lon, Baronet had no , quite apt,rehended t nature of his objection. He quite admitted that the duty to be discharged was an invi dious one; but it was a cons-i'ution,tl question, whether any authority less than the House itself should have the power of deciding that a Member should not vote. Mr. F. SHAM' thought it would be very inconvenient to lay down a general rule with respect to a particular case. He was of opinion that if the Chairman intimated to a Member that he ought not to vote, that Member would not persist in voting. If he did, it would be open to the Committee to appeal to the House. Mr. WAKLEY said it might happen on the Post offic,, question that a motion would be proposed that the Government did not possess the confidence of the House. In such a case would Hon. Gentlemen vote for maintaining themselves in office ?—(Hear.) The SPEAKER said the Bill applied only to Mem bers who had a direct pecuniary interest. Lord J. RUSSELL said his own opinion was, that very often Members were more interested indirectly than directly. It happened that he himself had pro perty to the value of 801. or 901. a-year in these lands, though he did not think that that occurrence would in fluence his vote. If the House agreed that the rule applied to Committees of the House, then the Committee, having this resolution before them, upon a question being stated, any Honourable Member who felt he came within the rule, would abstain from voting ; if, on the other hand, he did not come within the rule, it would be inconvenient for the Committee to de cide that particular question. He thought that when there was an objection before the Committee, it would be proper to bring the subject before the House, which would then act in the nature of a court of appeal. After some observations from Mr. GREENE, Mr. PUSEY said that he thought the course of the debate had justified what the Committee had done. Mr. ESCOTT wished the House would make some positive rule on the subject, as the question would con stantly arise. The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was car ried without a division. _ _ Mr F. FIZENC Fr presented a petition, but the nature of it could not he heard amid the noise which prevailed. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. COLQTJHOUN gave notice that on the third reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, he should move that the Bill be re •d that day six months. He wished to know when the Right Hen. Thronet intended to intro 4nce the measure ? sir R. PEET, the rleaure had already been so ful 7 y t' l !),,ght that the third realintr, of the Bill might be taken after the Bank Charter Bill on that evening. Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he should to-mor row ask the Rio-ht Hon. Gentleman, if the report was e, correct that the Zollverein had determined to increase the duty on the importation of British iron. • STATE OF THE LABOURERS IN NORFOLK AND SUFFOIS.—INCENDIARISM. . . Sir W. JAMES wished to ask the Right Honourable Baronet if there was any truth in the reports which he had seen in the Times newspaper, that, in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, it was customary in cases in which ab'e-bodied labourers applied for relief from the boards of guardians, to require him to produce a sort of round-robin from all the farmers of the district, stating that they hid refused him work. This, he cansidered, was giving the magistrates end guardians too vreat power over the poor labourers who were bound to the soil by the land of settlem. nt, and he wished to know if it were correct. Sir J. GRA HAM could not give any answer as to the. accuracy of certain statements which had appeared in the Times newspaper ; but he was prepared to answer the question of which the llon. Baronet had given notice. The Hon. Baronet had given notice of his intention of asking whether it was true that a system of denying relief altogether to able-bodied paupers prevailed in certain parts of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, more particularly in the union of Hatherley, unless they could produce a certificate from all the farmers in the union that they had refused them work. He had caused inquiries to be made into the subject, and he did not be lieve that the system prevailed to any great extent, in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. There was no such union as the union of Haverly. There was a parish of Haverly, in another union, and he believed that the prac tice complained of did prevail in that parish. He could assure the Hon. Member that the practice had been un known to him, and he extremely regretted that it should have arisen. As soon as it became known, the Poor-law Commissioners had directed the Assistant-Commissioner to inform the board of guardians that they must discon tinue the practice, and he believed there was no proba bility that it would become general. Mr. M. GIBSON wished to correct a misrepresen tation of what had fallen from him last evening. He had been represented as saying, in reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that the wa.zes in Suffolk were sufficient. He had said no such thing. He had said that it was useless to call upon individuals to raise wages, as if individual farmers could give what wag es they Pleased. He thought it was an unfair attack to make upon the farmers of Suffolk. He wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman on the subject of the incendiarism. The Right Hon. Gentleman had Stated that he believed the peasantry were, to a great extent, free from the charge of incendiarism; but there were persons perambulating the country setting fire to farm buildings. He wished to ask if the Right Hon. Baronet would have any objection to issue a Commission to inquire into the cause of the incendiarism prevailing in the three counties, and if he had none, he (Mr. Gibson) would move an address to her Majesty for that purpose. Lord J. RUSSELL wished to ask if there were many prisoners in the calendar for the approaching assizes charged with the crime of incendiarism. Sir J. GRAIIANI was obliged to the Noble Lord for haviror interposed the question. It was quite true that there were many prisoAers in the calendar for those thre ,, counties charged with incendiarism. Their trials would take place at the next assiz:.s in the regular man ner. and th • evidence on those tr i als could not fail to threwthr- li g ht on the causes which had led to the lat e un hapny inltendiary fires. The Hon. Gentle..tr-tn had mis terstool what he (Sir R. P. e') had said. He had xai•l that , lid not. beleve the peasantry of these c inn tie., eommitt,>d these crimes, but that they were perpe tra.ed hr neiAbou, s thp> sufferer-. through pique and With respoet to the Commission, he thought it , v 0, 1 ,1 he tirridvi:able. the assizes afire approaching. an I the trials would shortly come on, a hen all the cir cumstance: mode pubic. Mr. AGLIONBY asked whether it was not the duty of the Assisiaat-Corn uission-r: to prevent. such illegal the Right !lon. Baronet hitns&f had con practices u s demird ? ''ir J. GRAHAM believed the attention of the Assis t,;„_commi.,sioner:; had not been called to such a pra •tiep. THE IRISH STATE TRIALS. Mr. WYSE wished to -tate. that having received a promise from the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Government, that if he wo:lld po-tpone his motion re- Speeting the rocent trials in Dublin until after the coun sel for the CroNn should have made their statement upon the writ of error in the douse of Lords, he (Sir R. Peel) would allow the motion to come on upon a Go vernment day. Upon that understanding he was willing to postpone his motion. Sir R. PEEL assured the Hon. Gentleman that he should keep faith with him. IRISH MAGISTRATES.—MR. O'DRISCOLL. Mr. ROSS wished to put a question to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. Some time ago Mr. O'Driscoll, a magistrate of Cork, was convicted of an assault, and after his conviction he insulted the magistrates who had found him guilty. Afierward4 Mr. O'Driscoll was in vited to tender the resignation of his commission, on the ground of infirmity. Mr. O'Driscoll resigned. He (Nlr. Ross) had been informed that Mr. O'Driscoll had been reinstated. He wished to know whether such was the fact, and how it had come to take place ? Lord EIAOT had received no communication from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland that would enable him to ans.ver the question ? Mr. ROSS said he would put the question upon an wher occa,ion. ROCHDALE YEOMANRY. Mr. BRIGHT said that last night he had presented a petition with respect to the formation of a corps of yeo manry at Rochdile, and had given notice that it was his intention to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet, the Seer 'ttry of State for the Home Department, upon the subject this evening. Sir J. GRAHAM trusted that the Hon. Member would give notice of his question for a future day, as he must confess that he was totally unaware that it was the intention of the Hon. Member to put any question to him. Mr. BRIGHT would give notice of his intention to put the question on Monday. ORANGE PROCESSIONS. Mr. 'WYSE postponed his motion with respect to , Orange pro..essions till Monday next. { )!; 1t SUGAR - DUTIES :ha: the Duties Bill be read a lA\\ ..._._ S rc),t , to address th e iiii intention to de tain th e House a' sue. nt gh getht I, only but was o t • o r not ad a - sincesub ject the discussion had t a k e n p la ce he had .-s,elee h tion as to slavery in Ja va, an d that was intended L ase the to which at t he p resent moment h e d ress himself. The object of the Government in intro ducing the present Bill was or was not to increase supply of sugar. W hatever the extent of the bpeorta tion of sugar under the Bill mi g ht be, it was to ported distinctly as • the p roduce of free labour, and im ported with slavery. N o w, he (Mr. Hawes) th oughtt he should be able to show the House, up on authorities that could n ot be questioned, that very little sugar could be imported from the east that was not more or less tainted with slavery or the slave-trade. 'ln 1814, it was calnulated by competent atithf,rty, Sir Sturn'ord linftba, that there were in Java 27,000 slaves, and the Chinese not only countenanced slavery, but were actually ~l ave dealers themselves. Sir George Siauntoo, in his able work, showed that slavery t,xisteil to a very considerable extent in China. The 1-1 ,- $ll. Member then read several extracts from Sir George Stauntea's work, to prove that slavery existed in the Ck.le,t:al Empire. Some of these extracts went to state that a stave in China, who wiltay and seriously injured his master, should be put to death with slow torture ; those slaves who struck their master should be put to death ; the slave who accidentally killed his master should be killed, according to the same law, by strangulation; and a master might punish a slave to any d-gree short of death t‘ithout incurring any guilt. How could the Bri tish Government prevent the slave grown sugar from coaling into this country from China, once they agreed to receive Chinese sugar? Certificates of origin would be no guarantee. It would be ludicrous to suppoie the like. The Hon. Membertheuquoted an extract from a re port of Sir Fowell Buxton, to show that slaves were largely exported from the territories of the Imaum of Muscat, both to Java and Zanzibar, and from other authorities, to prove that slavery existed in both places. After these authorities, how could the Right Hon. Ba ronet expect that no slave-grown sugar, consistent with tke provisions of the Bill, would be admitted into the country? If the Government really entertained the desire of discountenancing slavery by this measure, they would most assuredly fail in it. But how could the country expect that the Government was sincere in its object, seeing that so many of the members of it were decidedly opposed to the abolition of slavery ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Why? . . Mr. HAWES thought the Right Honourable Baronet himself had not been a very strenuous advocate of the abolition of slavery. Neither had he ever heard the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in all the long discussions on the abolition of slavery. He would not further intrude on the time of the House. Mr. GLADSTONE said that after the very full dis cussion this question had already received he would not long trespass on the time of the House. Regarding the question of slavery in Java, to which the Honourable Gentleman chiefly confined his arguments, there was very little slavery there, and that only domestic slavery ; the inhabitants of Java were as free as the people of this country. Mr. P. M. STEWART was sorry to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman repeat the statement he had made the other day; he would le we it to the Dutch authorities to say whether slavery existed in Java or not. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that slavery did not exist in Java, and that the slave trade did not exist. Now, he re peated again that the whole of the labour of Java was a forced labour; and that the whole produce of that island was the result of that labour. Was this a system of free labour, according to the plain sense of the word? Forced cultivation, and forced deliveries, were enforced by the Dutch Governor, and within ten years the quantity of sugar thus raised had been increased twenty-five times. Was that a kind of labour as free as that of the peasants of this country? It would require something more than a French pamphlet to prove that this was free labour. The coffee of Java was another article which still more strongly proved the fact that labour was forced. Every householder having six acres of land was compelled to cultivate 1,000 coffee trees, and was also compelled to deliver the pr. duce to the Dutch Government at 61. 6d. per cwt., the market price being 40s. Could this be called free labour? Of the Bill itself, he might say that no measure had ever inflicted so much injury and mis chief on the great West Indian interest as this Bill. But passing by all this, it appeared that the sugar of Siam was also to come into this country. Now, of all sptems of slavery that of Siam was the worst. It was ou.eageously bail, and was supported by the worst kind of slake dealing and ki in tpping. The Bill had deranged the whole trade, had thrown it into confusion, had les sened consumption, and injured the revenue, while in the manner in which it had gone through the House, it had done no credit to the strong Government. On many points the Government had been completely out-argued. and on one almost out-voted ; and the measure had created a most unfavourable impression out of doors, causing serious misgivings as to the judgment and, he feared, the justice o f h e r Majesty's Government. Mr. GLADSTONE agreed with the Hon. Gentleman th t a very severe system of slavery did exist in Siam ; but the Government had not decided that its sugar was to come in ; it had not been included in the Bill. Mr. MANGLES could not let the Bill pass without protesting against it. He was always glad when the measures of the Government partook of the principles of free trade ; but he felt that there was something more precious still than free trade—that was justice. He did not think that the colonial interest had been treated with common justice. Nor had the interests of their East Indian possessions been at all considered. He de precated this measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman be cause it would tend to injure the cultivation of sugar in India. It threw the sugar growers there open to new ; competition ; and though free trade was a very . good thing, there was something better, and that was Justice and fair play.—(lronical cheers.) He now came to the case of the West Indies. He considered that great in jury was done to the West Indian interest by not allow ing the emigration of free labour to the Mauritius and West Indies. The Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposed the introduction of free labour, though they now favoured it. , But what was done now might have been done ten years ago. The circumstances were precisely the same. The Anti-Slavery Society were fighting the battles of the slave states of America when they opposed' this measure. They not only did injustice to the West Indies, but to the hill-coollies themselves ; for they would make their fortunes if they were allowed to come to the Mauritius. At home they made scarcely anything, and they existed in a state of barbarism which would be considerably removed if they were allowed to emigrate. He did not believe there would be any good derived from their colonies unless a moral ploughshare was driven over the Colonial-office. That was the great obstacle to colonial improvements. He had the sincerest respect for the Noble Lord who presided over that office, and for the ability which ho always disp'ayed ; but if he had all the heads of Cer berus, and all the hands of Briareus, he would not be able to manage the large and numerous interests com mitted to his charge. He would oppose the measure of the Government, because he thought it was unjust. Lord STANLEY said he would not have spoken on this subject at all were it not for the allusion which had been made to him by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The Hon. Gentleman gave another proof that however strenuous an advocate one might be for free trade, he soon found out that there were some par ticular questions to which free trade was not applicable. —(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the Hon. Gentle man would talk no more about those who advocated free trade in the abstract.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the case of East India sugar it appeared to him most monstrous to consider that the East India body were hArily dealt with.—(Hear, hear.) They were placed on a footing of equality with the West Indies, and in addi tion to this they had the cheap labour of the hill coolies for 2d. a day, which the Hon. Gentleman ' thought so necessary to the West Indies. And yet with those advantages and the additional advan• tages of British capital and machinery, the Hon Gent'eman says that with a duty of 10s. in their fa vour, they could not compete with the sugar-growers of , Java and Manilla. The East Indies had abundance of time to compete, and with an almost unjust advantage over the West Indies, with the sugar of Java and Ma nilla; and yet they complained and desired to keep up the monopoly they had. The Hon. Gentleman, who was so great an advocate of free trade was the man, the only man, who put himself forward to complain of the hard shin and injury done the East Indies by the admission of Java and Manilla sugar.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. ;;entleman then referred to the way he (Lord Stanley) had acted with regard to the admission of free-labour from India to the Mauritius and the West Indies. The Hon. Gentleman used the same arguments which (Lord Stat ley) urged in 1842 for the admission of hill-coolies. The first step which he took, when be was appointed to the Colonial-office, was to bring forward a measure for the admission of the hill-coolies into the Mauritius, and lie w‘ts opposed to bringing forward that measure by the Hon. Member for Northampton, and the Hon. Member for Beverley, who had so much practical experience on the subject. Mr. MANGLES—He was never beyond Calcutta. Lord STANLEY --Yes; but it was in Calcutta that the use of kidnapping was resorted to to such an extent— (Cheers)—and that such frauds had been committed, while the vessels were passing down the river. He i (Lord Stanley) objected n 1840 to the removal of the restrictions on emigration to the Mauritius, till the report of the Governor-General on the subject had arrived. From the time when the Government came into office in 1841 they had kept this question steadily in view. In 1842 they introduced the system of immigration into the Mauritius; and after its success there they would take measures for extending it to the West Indies. If they had acted more hastily, they would have been charged with imprudence. If the failures which had formerly occurred had been repeated, it would have created an insuperable obstacle in the minds of the people of this country to the extension of the emigration to the West Indies. The Government were sensible of the importance of pouring a supply of labour, safely and continuously, into the West Indies; but they were an xious to do it in such a manner as to promote the best interests of the colonies themselves, and to avoid those evils which would be the most serious obstacle to a con tinuous supply of labour. Mr. WARBURTON said he was sorry that the sup port which free trade had at one time received from the West Indies had been so short-lived, and that his Hon. Friend below was now one of the warmest combatants in favour of exclusive principles, The Hon. Gentleman below him complained of injustice to the West Indies. He said that free trade was a good thing, but justice was a much better thing. Let them compare the injus tice done to the West Indian proprietors on the one hand with the injustice done to the labourers on the other. In England they talked of the moral and social condition of the labourers, but who gave any thought to the moral condition of the hill-coolies ? Was it right to bring Mahomedans, Hindoos, and Pagans of all kinds from different parts of the world to the West Felies, without any regard to the effect on themselves? —(}fear, hear.) Now, he had a suggestion to make to the Government in reference to the measure before the Ilat-e. It was proposed to give the West and East Indians a protection of not less than a million and a half a year. Now, would it not be better that the people of this country should pay 500,0001. a year in the shape of annuity to the West Indian proprietors, than that this protection should continue? He believed that that would be the cheapest course, and the one most advantageous, in the long run. for the West Indians themselves. Lord SANDON totally disagreed with the Hon. Gen tleman in reference to the question of. immigration. He believed that. if labourers were not provided for the West Indies, the colonies would be thrown out of cul tivation, a n d they would thus be left entirely dependent lon Cuba and Brazil. Whether, in the present state of those countries, this was desirable, he left the House to judge. Mr. BRIGHT said that, if he came to that House complaining that he could not sell his manufactures at a sufficiently high price, and asking for a law to give him a higher, the language which would be applied to him would be scarcely Parliamentary.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that nothing more monstrous could be than that the Legislature should interfor , to protect interests which might prosper better if they were not protected. The Right lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, had stated to the House that the West Indies had a claim for protection, and a just claim, on the ground that the system of slavery under which their grounds had been cultivated was abolished, and that there was a great scarcity of labour, although their lands were exceeding!) , fertile. Now, he would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman what claim had Mauritius, and the other colonies in the East, where there wits scarcity of labour, to a protective duty of 10s. ? He asked what reason could be given for this most unjustifiable pro tection ? Mr. BORTHWICK (who rose amid loud cries of " Time, time," and laughter) said that he would only say one word on this question. Sir ROBERT PEEL—One, one.—(A laugh.) Mr. Borthwick considered the measure as dangerous and injurious to the West India interest ; and he was sur prised that no pers el connected with that interest had opposed it in the Committee. It was, therefore, left to him, and to those who thought with him, to defend that negle,ted interest. An Hon. Member opposite had said that the question was as plain as that " two and two make four ;" but there was no analogy between this question and abstract arithmetic : for two and two fools would not make two wise men.—(Laughter.) He was prepared to contend, that the planters had not gained by starving, but were the victims of it. The slave-trade in the British colonies was the own child of the British Legislature. He venerated the names of Wilberforce and Clarkson, as much as any man could—(A laugh) — but he could show from the history of the colonies, that traffic in slaves in the first place, and the continuance of slavery afterwards, were matters of reproach to the British Legislature rather than to the colonists. Much had been said about Ithe twenty millions that had been raised for the extinction of slavery. Why, the fact was, the planters had lost a hundred millions. The Hon. Member, after going at some length into the de fence of those who had voted with Government, con cluded by stating his determination to support the third reading of the Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not assert that he was going to say only one word, but he would endea vour to make the remarks that he was about to address to the House as short as possible. Before, however, ho spoke to this particular measure, he must make some re ference to the statements made by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In what he had stated to the House, therefore, was one remarkable mis take. He stated that there was a measure brought in by the late Government, in 1838, which sanctioned the introduction of labourers into the colonies, but that it had been found that such abuses existed is consequence of it, that the Government withdrew the measure. Now, there happened to be a few remarkable facts connected with it, and the most prominent was this, that there being abuse, the question was brought forward, according to the history given of it by Hansard, by an eminent op ponent of the Government in the House of Lords, and at that time Lord Glenelg stated that it was his object to permit the introduction of labourers into the West Indies for the purpose of producing competition and preventing the natives from falling into a state of bar barism. He stated that it was likewise his intention to continue the Order in Council of 1838 till 1840. It was, therefore, in the contemplation of Lord Glenelg and his Government to continue the emigration, and to en deavour to prevent the abuse which might take place under the Order in Council. The Order in Council was to continue till 1840, for the purpose of seeing whether emigration from England to the West Indies might not be safely continued. It was then agreed that the measure should be withdrawn till further inquiry could be made. This course was adopted in consequence of the opposition that was made to the measure. When he (Lord J. Russell) was at the Colo nial-office, he endeavoured to promote emigration to the Mauritius, and he was told that the best way to do that would be, instead of advising her Majesty to issue an Order in Council for that purpose to introduce certain clauses in a Bill for that purpose. Such clauses were introduced, and they were defeated by the political oppo nents of the Government. He thought, therefore, that the Noble Lord could not take much credit to himself for having resorted to the allowance of the emigration of labourers. No doubt the Noble Lord had well attended to this subject, but it was much to be regretted that he had not attended to it before.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the particular measure now introduced, he could not but remind the House of what its history was. It was introduced upon the ground, that there was not a sufficient supply of sugar in this country.—(Hear hear.) Those who represented the West India interests said that there was no falling off in the produc tion of sugar, and they objected to the introduction of the Bill. He (Lord J. Russell) did not agree with them, for he stated a greater supply was wanted. The Noble Lord then referred to the different supplies of sugar for the last three or four years, and observed that during the last year there had been a falling off of the number of tons imported. That was very likely in consequence of the uncertainty that had prevailed with respect to the present measure. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that it would have been most desirable, if any measure on the subject of sugar was to be introduced, for the Government to review the whole subject, and bring for ward a permanent system, and not one of the present fluctuating character. It seemed to him that the maxim of the Government was to give the greatest possible dis turbance to the interests of the producer, without giving any advantage whatever to the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) Much discussion had taken place about free and slave labour. The present measure left that subject as un certain as it had ever been. The statements of his Hon. Friend near him with respect to slavery in Java re mained uncontradicted. It was true that the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial department had said that the slaves in Java bore a small proportion to the inhabitants of the place. That might be, but that was no ground hatever for adopting the course that was now pro posed. With respect to the protection of the sugar growers, he thought it ought to be equal over the whole world.- 2 -(Hear, hear.) He had on a former occasion made a motion to that effect, but he bad failed in carrying it. Then came the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol, and he must call the attention of the House to the situation in which it placed itself upon that subject. That proposal was given notice of long be fore it was brought on. The Bill was read a first and second time ; and it was not until the mea sure was in Committee that the proposition was brought forward in a full House ; and that House decided in favour of the proposition by a majority of twenty. This was on the Friday. Upon the Monday, without any notice, that decision was reversed, and the proposition which was affirmed on the Friday was negatived on the Monday. It had been said that the course the House had pursued was sanctioned by what had taken place when Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a motion was made and carried for the repeal of the malt-tax. Now in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, the decision of Monday night was nothing like the de cision on the malt-tax. The decision on that question was not taken in a very full House. It was a question, likewise, that affected the whole finance of the year ; and Lord Althorp said that it was but just that the House, having come to a decision, of the importance of which Members were not aware, that they should have an op portunity of maturely considering the whole question, and of determining whether they would have a malt tax or a property-tax. He (Lord J. Russell) thought that on that occasion it was but right that the House should have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject, but in the present case there was nothing resembling it. The first decision was taken after long notice ; and the next after no notice at all. For himself, he (Lord J. Rus sell) when he came down on the Monday, was not aware that was to be done, and it was not till he heard the determination of the Right Hon. Baronet, that he knew the course that was to be pursued. It was true they had heard of meetings at the Carlton Club on Sunday, and rumours were rife upon the subject ; but the Right lion. Baronet, without any notice whatever, came down on the Monday, and proposed that the House should undo what it did on the Friday. Now what was the course that had been pursued by the House upon that occasion ? Why many Hon. Members who had actually voted for the amendment of the Hon. Member for Bristol on the Friday night actually voted against it on the Monday night ; other Members left the House, and ultimately the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol was rejected. Now it was to have been expected that upon the rejection' of that proposal some other proposition would have been brought forward by some Hon. Member for the purpose of rejecting the propo sition of the Government, but nothing of the kind had taken place—no further step had been taken, and they were now reading the Bill a third time, and not a single Member had been found to oppose the introduction of foreign sugar in the manner proposed by the Govern meat. The fact was the Right Hon. Baronet had told Hon. Members that he would not remain in office unless the vote of the Friday night was rescinded, and that threat had had its duo effect. He agreed with what had been stated that it would not have been wise in the Government to have introduced the Sugar Duties Bill again, without any alteration, but that he (Lord J. Russell) saw no reason why they should not have supported the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristsl. The question that was to be decided on the Monday night was between the character of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, and the character of the House of Commons was sacrificed to him.—(Hear, bear.) Such was the state of things to which the Go vernment had brought the House. Such a state of things he was confident could not last; for of this he was sure, that if the House of Commons was unmindful of its own character, dignity, and privileges, the country would form a most indifferent opinion of them. He believed Hon. Members to be mindful of the declarations they had made at their elections, and the pledges they had given to their constituents. Was the course pursued on Friday night consistent with their pledges, or the character of that House. Why the country would at once see that Honourable Members, instead of keeping their pledge, were supporting measures because they were agreeable to the party in office. The people, they might depend upon it, would not tolerate such proceed jugs, and it was but due to the character—to the cha racter of Members themselves, whatever their pledges might have been—whatever their politics might be — whether Conservative, Whig, or Radical—to take care that the Acts of that House should be the solemn de clarations of its opinions, and that those Opinions, when once formed, should not be changed or altered. The con sistency of the House of Commons was of far more im portance than any particular measure, and in parting with this Bill he must enter his solemn protest against the course that had been pursued by the House with respect to it.—(Hear.) Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS was anxious to say a few words in order to defend his consistency. When he notified his determination to vote against the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Bristol, he stated that his opposition to the Government measure was unabated, and, in order to show that he had been consistent, he had come to the House that night for the purpose of voting against the measure if any division should take place.--(Hear.) He would give his vote, aye or no, for every proposition that was brought before him. He thought the measure of the Government would be most unjust and injurious to the West India interest. The principle he would always stand upon was the principle of full protection to our colonial empire. He considered the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol and that of the Govern ment to be opposed to the principle, and he had, there , fore, opposed both. He thought they ought to maintain the principle of prohibition against all foreign sugar. From the year 1831, when they indulged their humanity at the expense of the West Indian interest, the produc tion of sugar had diminished. It was just beginning to increase, and now they again attempted to curb it. He had hoped, after the first division on the question, that the Government would have thought it ad isable to re enact the present duty for another year, for in this he would have heartily supported the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir R. PEEL said that he was unwilling to prolong that discussion because he was anxious to proceed with other business to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, and nothing would have induced him to say a word excepting the speech of the Noble Lord opposite. He must say that he considered that his lion. and Gallant Friend was perfectly justified in the vote which ho had given upon this question. His Hon. and Gallant Friend was decidedly opposed to the measure of the Government, and he was also opposed to the propo sition of the Hon. Member for Bristol. If the Noble Lord had proposed that the third reading of this Bill should be rejected, he would !save the support of his (Sir R. Peel's) Honourable and Gallant Friend.— (Hear, hoar, from Sir H. Douglas.) He could not see how his Hon. and Gallant Friend could take any other course than that which he did, for he would not have been consistent in doing otherwise He thought that the Government were - per fectly justified in the course which they took in attempting to rescind the resolution to which the House had come. There was no distinction between that course and the course which was pursued on the malt-tax. Lord Althorp pursued the same course with respect to the malt-tax, yet he (Sir R. Peel) never heard, either from the Noble Lord opposite, or any other Member, that that course was degrading to the House of Commons. The real object ought always to be the public interest. He still entertained the opinion that the proposal of the Government was more advantageous to the country than the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol, and he could not help thinking that it was becoming in the Government to submit the matter for the reconsideration of the House. He thought there was great objection to a prospective reduction of duty, definite in amount, and to take effect on a cer tain day. He thought that such a prospective reduction, definite in amount and time, had a great ten dency to damage the country in the interval. It would affect the consumer, because there would be no reduc tion in price; but an increase, and that increase would go into the pockets of persons who had no claim to their sympathy, namely, the pockets of the grocers and the retail dealers, who happened to have a sufficient quantity of sugar on hand to enable them to dole out an imperfect supply. There would be a loss to the revenue without any corresponding benefit to the eonsumer, or advantage to the producer. He still entertained the opinion that there was nothing inconsistent with the duty of the House of Commons in their entering into a reconsidera tion of this question. The Noble Lord fairly admitted that it would have been hardly consistent with the credit of the Government if they had proposed a con tinuance of the old sugar duties. Ilis Honourable and Gallant Friend (Sir H. Douglas) thought this was the wisest course to pursue, and no doubt those of the West India interest who voted with the Noble Lord thought so too. The Government thought it desirable. owing to the increased de mand, and the tendency to increased prices, to admit competition with foreign free-grown sugar. They ad hered to their opinion, and he must say that he never could understand the ground on which the Noble Lord opposite had opposed the proposition of the Government. He could not doubt that the Noble Lord had done so from public motives, but he could not help thinking still that it was the duty of the Government to resist the combination which was formed against them, and to at tempt to procure the deliberate sense of Parliament upon the resolution which they believed to be for the public interest. He rejoiced in the course which they had taken, and he thought no discredit whatever had been thrown on the House of Commons by their having re considered the decision to which they had come on a former night. The Hon. Member for Durham asked hini why he did not go further with respect to the abolition of protection. If the Hon. Member had listened to the debates which took place in that House, he must have discovered the difficulty which existed to prevent him from doing so. There were the difficulties arising from the strenuous opposition of the advocates for protection, and when they came to deal with details, the most formi dable difficulty was to be found in those who were the loudest in their declarations in favour of free trade. One Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mangles) who was a purist with regard to free trade, had attempted to show the House of Commons that it was unjust to diminish the protection on East India sugar, and that it was unjust to allow Manilla and China sugar to come into competition with East India Sugar. How could the Hon. Gentleman advocate the admission of slave labour produce? How could the Hon. Gentleman make this consistent with his former doctrine? The Hon. Gentle man said he was the decided advocate of free trade and the admission of slave-grown sugar, and yet, when there was a particular measure reducing protection, he de nounced the authors of it as being unjust to his friends. So with respect to the article of cheese. It was pru dent to reduce the duty on cheese. If he were called upon to name the man who was the decided advocate of free trade, he would say it was the Hon. Member for Chester. And yet, when there was a proposition to reduce the duty on cheese, that Honourable Member said it would be unjust to do so. And so it always was and always would be in these cases. And when the Hon. Member for Durham asked him (Sir R. Peel) why he did not remove protection, he could only say that the removal of protection was incumbered with great difficulties, and among the greatest difficulties was the opposition of those who pretended to be the advocate of free trade principles. Mr. MANGLES explained. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. BANK CHARTER BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, that the House resolve itself into a Com mittee on this Bill, Mr. WODEHOUSE wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of which he had given notice yesterday. He felt it his duty to do so. The question he wished to put was, whether it was the intention of the Government to ex tend the provisions of the present measure to Ireland and Scotland? Sir ROBERT PEEL had no hesitation in saying, that when the measure now under the consideration of Parliament had become law, the Government intended to put itself in friendly communication with bankers in those countries, with a view to extend the provisions of this measure in respect to the regulation of the currency to Scotland and Ireland. He rather thought, however, that such a measurecould not be brought forward during the present sessi , m. Mr. WODEHOUSE thanked the Right Hon. Baronet for his answer, which was perfectly satisfactory. He would then give notice of his intention to move for the restoration to the banks of the power of convertibility re specting silver, which they possessed prior to the Act of 1816, to the extent it then existed. but no further. In answer to a question from Mr. F. T. BARING, Sir R. PEEL was understood to cay that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill re garding the Bank of Ireland during the present session. If however they should change their opinion on this subject duo notice of such intention would be given to the House. _ _ After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and from Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, who presentmi a petition from a Carlisle Banking Company, con plaining of the dimi nished powers of the country banks, which the Bill before the House would enact, and praying for larger privileges, and by Lord WORSLEY from another bank ing company to the same effect. Mr. RAIKES CURRIE, after some prefatory ob servations said, that a memorial had been drawn up and signed by the majority of the directors of the bank of which he was a member, respecting certain provisions in the Government measure, but that memorial had not been presented to the Right Hon. Baronet in deference to his (Mr. It. Currie's) request, as he did not wish to embarass the Government until the measure was fully before the House. Many influential bankers, amongst whom were Messrs. Loyd and Grote, and other gentle men extensively connected with commerce and banking, were adverse to many provisions of the measure, and for whom he might say. " Alalim cum Catone errare quam, Cum istis hominibus idem sentine." He wished to see a perfect convertibility of the paper currency ; but the Hon. Member for Lambeth assumed that this measure was brought forward for the purpose of preventing those great oscillations of price which had hitherto occurred. Now, as he (Mr. Raikes Currie) ap prehended it was not directly meant for any such pur pose—that was hoped to be an incidental effect of its provisions. It was hoped that this Bill would prevent that intensifying and that spasmodic action which for merly used to occur in the endeavour to bring back the gold to the bank. The advocates of a metallic standard said that in the abstract the best state of things was a metallic currency, and they would allow departure from this to a system of paper money, for.two: reasons, and for two reasons only. First, for sake of economy ; and, secondly, for the sake of convenience. They hal now got to something which would test men's opinions. Did the Hon. Gentleman opposite expect any other advantages from a convertible paper currency than those of economy and convenience ? There were those who expected relief from taxation and discount in addition to those advantages, but the moment they aimed at those, lie believed they endangered the convertibility which they all agreed was the object of the present mea sure. He regretted to hear what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Nottingham, with regard to Mr. Jones Loyd, who, he said, was a free-trader in everything except what he dealt in himself. The London bankers could have no interest in the present measure. To those who agreed in what he had stated, the measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman must appear a strict logical sequence. What he blamed the memorialists for, was that they admitted his premises, and denied his con clusions. The whole principle which the Bill professed was that of non• interference—that no body of men and no Government should be able to interfere with the currency. "Whatever private London banker gave his opinion in favour of the measure, it took away from them the only remaining monopolies they had, while the conntry bankers were dealt very leniently with. It was urged that, when the balance of trade was against them, gold would leave the country and a great tightness in the circulation would be the result. But that was neces sary, to prevent them from falling into extreme danger. He had supported this measure in all its stages, and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman might look back with §atisfaetion to the changes he had brought about in the currency system. Ire first brought back the standard in 1819, and, since that time, he supported the principle of that measure against all opponents. He gave it his cordial support, because it recognised a true principle which was adapted to the present circumstances of the country, with great practical sagacity.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GISBORNE explained. The expression which he had used with regard to Mr. Jones Loyd was, that he was a free trader in everything except that which he dealt in himself; and to that extent he considered him self perfectly right, for Mr. J. Loyd was an advocate for free trade except in credit, which was what he dealt in. Mr. C. WOOD said that Mr. J. Loyd was not in any concerned in this measure, so far as having any in terest in it. He believed Mr. Loyd was for the aboli tion of restrictions on everything. Mr. NEWDEG ATE said it was difficult to apply the rules of normal philosophy, which seemed to have so much weight in the mind of the Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken to this question. He thought the pre sent measure bore the impress of that difficulty. He thought the difficulties of the subject arose from the high measure of their standard. The pound contained so much of the precious metal, that it was difficult to supply it. a purely metallic basis ; and the fact of 14,000,000/. being necessary to carry out the present measure, justified him in the statement. He had acted against his feelings and his friends in the views he adopted upon this question ; but they were his honest opinions— (Hear, hear)--and he gave expression to them. He might be mistaken in his views, but he thought that there should be a paper superstructure on a metallic basis. He thought that even the present mea sure proved they could not ensure perfect convertibility with so high a standard. Ile was no opponent of the metallic standard, but he thought it was not applicable to the present circumstances of this country. Sir W. JAMES rose, but such was the noise which prevailed in the House while he was speaking, that it was impossible to hear what he said. The House then went into Committee, Mr. GREENE in the Chair. On clause 4 being proposed, Mr. COLLETT asked the Right Hon. Baronet to give a clear definition of what was to be considered bullion. Sir R. PEEL—AII gold of the proper assayed fineness would be received at the Bank as bullion, at 31. 17s. 9d. per ounce, the difference between that price and 3/. 17s. 14-d. being just enough to cover the expense of coining. Mr. C. WOOD informed the Hon. Member that gold in whatever shape, except that of the coin of the realm, and even that, if it was under weight, was considered as bullion; foreign coin was also bullion if of the standard value.—The clause was then agreed to. On clause 5 being proposed, Sir W. CLAY put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet as to the mode in which the issues of the Bank, based on security, were to be made. Sir R. PEEL said it would depond on the extinction, from some cause or other, of the issues which banks other than the Bank of England were at, present allowed to make. The Bank of England having 9,000,000/. of notes more than sufficient for the supply, and suppose 100,0001. of country notes to be withdrawn, in that case it appeared to him that the Bank of England might, with perfect propriety, supply the void to that extent from its banking department, without disturbing the arrangement as to 14,000,000/. Should the whole amount of 9,000,0001. be withdrawn, it was clear that an issue to this amount might take place on securities. Various cases might arise intermediate between the issue of notes to a very small amount, and the issue of notes sufficient to supply the void in the whole country circu lation, supposing it were withdrawn. With all respect for the Bank of England, he must say he thought it advisable, with reference to the past, to take precautions against any fresh issue upon security without the inter vention of the Council. This was an additional check upon the issue of notes upon fresh securities without public notification of the circumstances under which the fresh issue took place. It should be recollected that the public were to have the whole net profit of the issue of notes upon securities. Sir W. CLAY purposed, in clause 5, lines 30 and 31, to move the omission of the following words :—" Her Majesty in Council, upon the application of the said Governor and Company, to authorise and empower ;" and in lines 38 and 39, of the following words :---" The proportion of two-thirds." Mr. MARK PHILIPS and Mr. GISBOHNE supported the clause. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the clause. Mr. C. WOOD did not see how the difficulty supposed would be got over. Mr. TURNER thought the proposition with respect to the country banks was rather harsh. He deprecated doing away with the country circulation in ten years. Sir R. PEEL was convinced that if this Bill passed it would be the best protection to the really sound country bankers. Mr. M. PHILIPS supported the clause. It would have been well if in the district which he represented nothing but Bank of England notes had been circulated. Mr. MILES supported the amendment. In answer to a question from Mr.MUNTZ, Sir R. PEEL said they might assume that the country bank circulation was nine millions, which might be sud denly withdrawn. They would assume that the Bank of England circulation, applied to commercial purposes in the metropolitan districts, was twenty-one millions. They provided that the Bank should issue 14,000,000/. in securities and 7,000,0001. upon bullion, which was easily convertible into gold. Now, he would assume, for the sake of argument, that 9,000,000/. of country circu lation to be withdrawn for the purpose of circulating Bank paper, and they said that the same principle should be applied to the 9,000,000/. as the 21,000,0001., namely, that there should be 3,000,0001. on bullion and 6,000,0001. on securities ; or, if they estimated the total amount of Bank notes in the country at 30,000,000/., then there must be 10,000,0001. of bullion, in order to support the circulation of 30,000,0001., the same as they required a stock of 7,000,000/. for a circulation of 21,000,000 L Mr. TURNER said the Right Hon. Gentleman had made some statements regarding the country banks which were grossly incorrect. It was not true that the country banks had nine millions in circulation in gold, and very little inquiry would convince the Right Hon. Gentleman of the erroneous nature of his assertions. The amendment was then agreed to. Sir W. CL AY then rose to move that the following words be added to the fourth clause:—" And gold bul lion in exchange for Bank of England notes at the like rate." Sir R. PEEL thought the amendment unnecessary. He assured the Hon. Gentleman that he wished to keep out as many si~ notes as he could, provided there was a security of their being paid. Though it might appear expensive to keep a stock large enough to give that security, it would be more than repaid by the increased confidence of the public. Mr. GISBORNE said his objection to the measure was, that it tended to reduce prices, as the only means by which this country could procure gold. We could only get it by giving more goods for it than other coun tries could give. This lowering of price would operate injuriously, and would be an injustice to all debtors, and tend to give an undue advantage to all creditors. Sir R. PEEL said, if the law passed as it stood, the Bank would be able to carry on both its operations si multaneously. Mr. GISBORNE said he had as much right to appeal to a time when the Bank had only two millions of gold in its coffers, as the Hon. Baronet had to appeal to its now having sixteen millions. Sir R. PEEL said he wanted to avert the paroxysms of credit that led to such a result. Mr. KEMBLE supported the amendment. Mr. C. WOOD was also inclined to support it. After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, and Col. SIBTIIORP, Mr, T. BARING said, in the present state of the Bank there would be no necessity for this clause. In a few years, however, there might be such a change of trade as would produce an efliux of gold, and then re course would be had to the clause, and the effect would be to diminish the circulation by three millions. The Bank itself had no interest whatever in asking for issues. —(Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL begged to ask of the Right Hon. Gentleman, how he could explain the advantage to be gained by the Bank of England in their issues by the substitution of their notes for country notes ? Sir R. PEEL said that the country banks were obliged to reguiate their issues by those of the Bank of England. The Noble Lord asked what inducement the Bank of England had to substitute Bank of England paper for country paper, that it would have no profit from ; that was all very true, but they would by that means guard against loss. Bank notes would be appreciated, and the consequence would be an influx of gold for notes, by means of which the Bank would make a profit. Ile knew it would be impossible to introduce this measure without causing some clamour, but he trusted the House would allow the measure to have a fair trial. He trusted the House would not adopt the amendment of the Honourable Baronet. He believed if the House adopted the Bill, it would be found to work well. He trusted, therefore, that the House would support him in adhering to this clause. Mr. F. BARING would support the clause, and the Bill generally. After a few observations from Mr. MILDMAY, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Commit tee divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority in favour of the clause Sir R. PEEL stated that he would, to-morrow (this day), take the Dissenters' Chapels Bill first, and then the Bank Charter Bill, and on Monday proceed with the Irish Registration Bill. The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. Lord WOIISLEY moved for a Select Committee to in quire into the expediency of facilitating the inclosui e and improvement of commons, to consist of Lord Wors ley, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Aglionbv, Mr. Talbot, Mr. 'Wright son, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Brotfierton, Lord Granville So merset, Mr. Pusey,Colonel Wood, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Barneby, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Estcourt, and Mr. Robert Clive. The Noble Lord said that if this Com mittee were granted, he would to-morrow withdraw his Bill in reference to that subject for the present session. Colonel SIBTIIOHP asked if the Noble Lord could expect a Select Committee to sit at that period of the session with any chance of success ? lie thought the measure had better be put off altogether till the next session. Sir R. PEEL thought the Committee was advisable, as the measure would be improved by it. The motion was agreed to, and the louse adjourned at Half-past One. Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker, K.C.B. (Yaver Pasha), who distinguished himself at. the capture of St. Jean d'Acre, in 1840, arrived at the Burlington Hotel, Cork street, on Saturday last, from Constantinople. The gallant Ad , miral has been for some years (..A)miliander-in-Chief of the Sultan's navy. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House ot COM 7,14411. ) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26. CORN IMPORTATION. Motion made, and Question put, " That this House do re solve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the following Resolutions : " That it appears, by a recent Census, that the people of this Country are rapidly increacing in number : " That it is in evidence before this House, that a large pro. portion of her Majesty's subjects are insufficiently:provided with the first necessaries of life: " That, nevertheless, a Corn-law is in force' which; restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its abundance : " That any such restriction having for its object to impede the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of the community, is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and ought to be abolished : " That it is therefore expedient that the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith :" The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 124. Aglionby H. A. Fielder), J.l Plumridge, Captain Aldam, William Ferguson, Colonel Ponsonby, C. F. A. A rmstror g, Andrew Fitzroy, Lord C. Protheroe, E. Bannerman, A. Fitzwi;liam, G. W. P u l s f or d , It Bert Barclay, David Forster, Matthew Ramsbottom, J. Barnard, E. G. Lisburne, Thomas Rawdon, J. D. Berkeley, Captain Granger, T. C. Ricardo, J. L. Berkeley, H. F. Grey, Sir G. Roebuck, J. A. Bernal, Captain Grosvenor,'. Lord A. Ross, D. R. Blake, Mara Guest, Sir John Rus).ell, Lord E. Bouverie, E. P. Hall, Sir B. Rutherford A. o. Bowrin, Dr. Hastie, A. Scrope, G. 1' Bright, John Hawes, B. Shelburne, Lord Brotherton, J. Hayter, W. G. Smith, II Browne, R. D. Hindley, Charles Smith, J. Abel Buller, E. Holland, Robert' Standish, Charles Busfeild, W. Hersman, Edward Stanstield, W. BC. Byng, G. S. Howick, Viscount Stanton, W. Henry Chapman, Benjamin Huinphery, John Stuart, Lord James Childers, J. W. Heat, W. Stuart, W. Villiers, Clay, Sir W. Johnson, General Strickland, Sir G. Clive, E. B. Langston, J. H. Strutt, Edward Cobden, Richard Layard, Captain Tancred, H. W. Colebrookc, Sir T. Leader,' . 1 :1'. Thornely, Thomas Collett, John Leveson, Lord Towneley, John Collins, W. Macauley, T. M. Trelawny, J. S. Craig, W G. Marjoribanks, S. Troubridge, Sir T. Dalmeny, Lord Marshall, William Tufnell, Henry Dashwood, G. H. Maryland, Henry Wakley, Thomas Dennistoun, J. Mitchell, T. A. Walker, R. D'k:yncourt, T. C. Morison, General Wallace, Robert Duncan, Viscount Muntz, .F. Warburton, H. Duncan, George Murphy, F. S. Ward, H. G. Duncannon, Viscount Napier, Sir Charles Wawn, J. T. Duncombe, T. S. O'Connell, M. Williams, W. Dundas, Frederick O'Connell, M. J. NVood, Charles Dundas, David Ord William Wrightson, W. Dundas, Hon. J. C. Paget, Lord Alfred Yorke, Reahead Easthope, Sir John Parker, J. Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Pattison,James Ellis, Wynn Pechell, Captain Elphinstone, Howard Philips, G. It. Ewart, William Philips, Mark TELLE is Villiers, Charles P. Gibson, T. M. MAJORITY—NOES, 328. Acland, Sir Thomas Emlyn, Viscount Aleynell, Captain Acland, I'. D Entwisle, William Mildmay, H. :t. John A'Court, Captain Escott, Bichkam Miles, P. W. S. Acton, Colonel Estcourt, T. G. B. Miles, William Adare, Lord Farnham, E. B. Milner, Richard Adderley, C. B. Fellowes, Edward Mordaunt, Sir J. Ainsworth, Peter Ferrand, W. B. Morgan, (Marius Alford, Viscount Minter, Sir E Morgan, C Allix, Jshn Peter Fitzmaurice, %V. Mundy, E. M. Antrobus, Edmund Fitzroy, Hon. H Murray, C alt. S. Arbuthnot, Huh , Flower, Sir James Nee ld, Joseph Archbold, Robert Forester, Hon. G. Neeld, John Archdall, Captain Forman, T. S. Neville, Ralph Arkwright, George Fox, S. Lane Newdegate, C. N. Arundel ' Lord Fremantle, Newport, antle, Sir T. Newrt, Vi count Ashley, Lord French, F. Nichol', John Astell, William Fuller, A. E. Norreys, Lord Bagge, Wm. Gasket', James Milnes Northland, Lori Bagot, Hon. W. Gladstone, W. E. O'Brien, A. S. Bailey, Joseph Gladstone, Captain Ogle, S. C. 11.1 Bailey, Joseph, jun. Gordon, Captain Ossulston, Lord Baillie, Colonel Gore, M. Oswald, Alexander Balfour, J. M. Gore, W. Ormsby Owen, Sir John Bankes, George Gore, W. R. 0. Packe, C. Wm, Baring, W. B. Goulburn, - _Henry Palmer, R. Baring, Thomas Graham, Sir James Palmer, (1. Barneby, John Granby, Marquis of Patten, J. Wilson Barrington, Viscount Greer.e, T. Peel, Sir Rob.rt Baskerville, T. B. M. Grimsditch, Thomas Peel, Jonathan Bateson, Robert Oriniston , Lord Pendarves, E. W. Benett, John Grogan, Edward Pennant, Colonel Bentinck, Lord G Raiford, Henry Pigot, Sir R. Berestord, Major Hallyburton, Lord J Plumptre, J. P. Berkeley, Hon. G. F Hamilton, J. Hans Polhill, Frederick Blackburne, J. k Hamilton, Lord C. Pollington, Viscount Blackstone, W. Hanmer, Sir John Powell, Colonel Blandford, Marquis Harcourt, G. G. Power, James Bodkin, W. H. Hardy, John Pracd, William T. Boldero, Henry G. Harris, E A. J. Price, Richard Borthwick, Peter Heathcote, G. J. Pringle, Alexander Bowes, John Heatheotc, Sir W. P use y, Pnilip_ Bowles, Admiral Heneage, G. W. R as hl e i g h, Win. Bradshaw, James Heneage, B. Reid, Sir J. R. Bramston, T. W. Henley, J. W. Rendlesham, Lord Brisco, 51. Henniker, Lord Repton, George W. Broadley, H. Herbert, Sydney Ilichardsoßichard Brooke, Sir A. B. Hervey, Lord A. Rolleston, Colonel Bruce, Lord Ernest Hillsborough, Earl Round, Charles Gray Hodgson, F. Rous, Hon. Captain Buck Lewis W. is Rushbrooke, Colonel Buller, Sir J. Y. Hogg, J. W. w ki N . Y l' . Hodgson, R. Russell, Charles Bunbury, Thomas Hoboes, W. A'Court Russell, J. 1) Burrell, Sir Thomas Hope, Charles Ryder, G. D. Byng, George Hope, Alexander Sanderson, R. Campbell, Sir H. Hope, G W. Sandon Lord Campbell, John H. Hornby, John Shaw, t'rederiek Cardwell, Edward Hoskins, K. Sheppard, T. Carnegie, Captain Hotham, Lord Shirley, E. J. Cartwright, W. R. Houldsworth, T. Shirley, F. P. Castlereagh, Visa.. Howard, Lord Sibthorp, Colonel Chapman, Aaron Howard, P. H. Smith, Abel Cnarteris, Hon. F. Howard, H. Smith, T. B. C. Chelsea, Viscount Hussey, Ambrose Smyth. Sir H. Chetwode, Sir John Hussey, Thomas Smythe, Hen. G. Chohnondeley Hugh Ingestre, Lord Samna% A. Christopher, R. A. Inglis, Sir It. Somerset, Lord G. Chute, W. 1.. Irton, S. Sotheron, I'. H. Clayton, R. R. James, Sir W. C. Spry, Sir S. Thomas Clerk, Sir George Jennyn. Earl Stanley, Lord Clive, Viscount Jocelyn, Viscount Stanley, W. 0. Clive, It. H. Johnstone, Sir John Stewart, John Cochrane, A Jolliffe, Sir W. Stuart, H. Cockburn, Sir G. Jones, T. Sturt, Henry Charlet' Codrington, Sir W. Kemble, Henry Sutton, Hon. H. M Collett, W. R. Kerr, D. Talbot, C. It. M. Colquhoun, John C. Kirk, Peter Taylor, Edward Colvile, C. R. Knatchbull, Sir E.. Taylor. J. A. Compton. H. C. Knight, Henry Gaily Tennent, J.' E. Copeland, W. Knight F. W. Thesiger. V. Corry, H. Knlghtley, Sir C. Thompson, Ald. Courtenay, Lord Law, lion. C. E. Th rnhill, George Cresswell, Baker Lawson, Andrew Tollemache ' John Cripps, VVilliam . Lefroy, Anthony Trench, Sir Frederick Curteis, H. B. Lemon, Sir C. Trevor. Hon. G. It. Darner. Hon. G. Lennox, Lord A. Trollope ' Sir John Darby, George Leslie, C. P. Trotter, J. Davies, D. A. S. Lincoln, Earl of Tithe, Hugh M. Dawnay, Hon. W. Lindsay, H. H. Tumor Christopher Denison, W. J. Lockhart, William V a ne, Lord H. Denison, E. Beckett Long, Walter Verner, Colonel Dick, Quintin Lopes Sir Ralph Vernon, Granville Dickinson, F. 1 - k Lowther, John H. Vesey, Hen. Thomas D'lsraeli, Benjamin Lowther, lion. Col. Vivian. John Ennis Dodd, George Lyall, George Waddington, H. S. Douglas, Sir H. Lygon, General Walsh, Sir J Dougla., Sir C. M'Geachy, F. A. Welby, G. F. Douglas, J. D. S. Mackenzie, Thomas %Vemyss, Captain Douro, Marquis of Mackenzie Wm. F. Whitm ore , T. C. Dowdeswell. W. Maclean, Donald Williams, T. P. Drummond, H. H. Macnamara, W. Wodehouse, F. Duff, James DPNeill, Duncan Wood, Colonel Dugdalc, W. S. Mainwaring, 'l'. Worsley, Lord Duncombe, A. Manners. Lord C. S. Wortley, Jas, Duncombe, lion. 0. Manners. Lord J. Wortley. Hon. Joh* Du Pre, George March, Earl of Wynn, Sir W. W. East, James Buller Alarsham, Viscount YorkeiHon. F.. T. Eastnor, Viscount Martin, C.„W. Eaton, Richard J. Martin, G. TELLIRs, Egerton, W. T. Masterman, John Young, John Egerton, Sir P. G. Maunsell, T. P. Baring, H. B. Eliot, ord Maxwell, J. P. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. LONDON, JUNE 27.—Wind N.E., moderate breeze, and eloudy, with showers at times. DEAL, JUNE 26.—Wind, A.I. N.N.W., moderate ; N.N.E. to E.N.E., light.—Arrd. Icarvan Eyck, Havannah for Ant+. erp ; Belle, Bermuda. Sld. Buchephalus and Dia• mond, Calcutta; Naiad and Herald, Ichaboe ; Victoria, Val paraiso, and the rest of the outward bound. WurritY, JUNE 25.—The Mary, of this port, in making the harbour, drove ashore at Upgang and remains, but will be got oil when the weather becomes tine. OFF DARTMOUTH, JUNE 25.—Johanna, Batavia for Am. sterdam. _ OFF TILE START, JUNE 25.—Core, Palmer, Mauritius. FALMOUTH, JUNE 26.—Wind variable—Arrd. Terra Nora., Slater, Pernambuco. Sid. Fortitude, St. John's, New Bruns wick. Off, Faretta, Whickhers, Buenos Ayres, and sailed for Rotterdam. SWANSEA, JUNE 25.—Arrd. Sir I. L. Goldsmid, Cuba. CowEs, JUNE 26.—Arrd. Sir Charles Napier, Mauritius. OFF NORTH FORELAND, JUNE 25.—Barque Palinuras, St. John's, New Brunswick. CLYDE, JUNE 22.—Arrd. Amity, Harrison, Quebec. LivEErooL, JUNE 26.—Wind E.S.E., moderate.—Arid. Charles Hamerton, Cape Hayti. Sld. Caroline, Bombay ; Norma, Bahia; Ocean Queen and Victoria, Quebec; Velo city Africa;, Cynthia Ann, Halifax. Off, Tarolinta, sup posed from New York. DUBLIN, JUNE 25.—Arrd. John and Marv, Quebec. HULL, JUNE 26.—Luzon, Boston, United States; Evening Star, Green, St. John's, New Brunswick. Sid. Lady Consta ble, Quebec. DONEGAL, Jun 22.—Arrd. J. Richards, Clark, St. John's, New Brunswick. NEWPORT, JUNE 24.—Sld. Spy, Cape of Good Hope. HARWICH, JUNE 26.—A loaded schooner is ashore on th• Guntleet. SCENE IN THE SHERIFF'S COURT. One of those unseemly altercations which sometimes dis turb the serenity of a court ofjustice took place here on Tues day, between Mr. Under-Sheriff Kennedy and Mr. Thomas, the barrister. In the course of a trial in which Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, the Learned Under-Sheriff appeared to suffer considerable annoyance from certain irregularities that Mr. Thomas had been guilty of in conducting his case, and it was partly is consequence of this that a quarrel soon afterwards ensued. Several cases ou the list of causes hay. in g been rapidly disposed of, the last (Boatman r. Burgess), in which Mr. Thomas appeared for the defendant, was sad• denly called on. The plaintiff's attorney appeared to be taken by surprise, - and said something about withdrawing the cause. Almost at that instant, however, he discovered that the witness to prove his case, and whom he had believed to be absent, was in Court. Mr. Under-Sheriff Kennedy—Now, Boatman against Burgess. Mr. Thomas—lt's withdrawn, Sir; I have just marked my brief to that effect.. Mr. Under-Sheriff—lt's not withdrawn—there's thQ plain till's attorney ready to go on with the case. Mr. Thomas—l distinctly heard the attorney say that he withdrew the cause, and I call upon him to say whether that is not the fact? The attorney explained. Mr. Thomas still insisted that the cause had been with.. drawn. Mr. Under-Sheriff (angrily)—This is another specimen of the ungentlemanly and irregular conduct you have been guilty of all day. Such behaviour is too common here, and I now give notice that if it be persisted in I shall take effec tual means to repress it, by formally representing it to the Court. Mr. Thomas—l don't care what you represent. Mr. Under-Sheriff—Then I now tell you, Sir, I shall re present it. I consider your behaviour to be disgraceful. Mr. Thomas—l don't care what you represent, or what you think of my conduct. Mr. Under-Sherri''—llon't be impertinent, Sir; I shall not sit here to be insulted. All further dissensions were now happily interrupted by the plaintitl's attorney in the cause, "Boatman s'. Burgess," sud denly co mmencing his address to the jury. SINGULAR OCCURRENCE AT A SOLDIER'S FUNERAL, WINDSOR, JiTNR 25.—Yesterday afternoon the funeral of a private, named Garride, in the Ist Regiment of Life Guards, left the cavalry barracks (which are in the adjoining parish of Clewer) for the church in that village. Upon the funeral procession (preceded by a firing party, under the command of Major Heppv) arriving on the ground, there was neither clergyman, clerk, nor sexton to be seen, and not even a grave dug for the remains of the deceased! The clerk and sexton, after some little time had elapsed, were found, and from them it was ascertained that, from some neglect (but on the part of whom did not appear), no orders had been received for the funeral to take place. The sexton and assistants then pro. ceeded to dig the grave ; the corpse, in the meanwhile, being taken into Clewer church, and the comrades of the deceased " standing at ease" in the churchyard. This operation ne. cessarily occasioned a delay of upwards of two hours, at the expiration of which the body was consigned to its last rat. ing- place. 4. • t 8,14, t he the Pon ,ar- i - oes mei the the for )