The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

did the Noble Earl mean to contend that the Government I were to lie quietly by. and let th-m strike the blow without interfering ? Why, it was only a few days ago that they had received an account of an expedition being fitted out from Corfu for the invasion of a country in alliance with her Majesty, and that had been'concerted in conjunction with foreigners in this country; and were the Government not to interfere? The inquiry should not be directed to particular cases ; it should be directed to the propriety of continu .g the power and as to the checks to be placed upon its exercise. He should therefore propose an amendment, introducing the, words which had been introduced in the motion in the House of Commons, and he *uuld move for a Secret Committee, composed of Members of both sides of the House, giving the majority to Noble Lords on the other side, and excluding froth it all persons holding office, or connected with office. The Committee wouli be so formed. that he trusted it would give general satisfaction to the public. He thought the matter ought to he inqured into, and he should therefore move as an amendment to the motion of the Noble Earl, that a Committee should be appointed, to consist of the following Noble Lords :—the Duke of Bedford, the E trl of Burlington, Lord Cottenham. Lord Brougham, Earl Powis, Earl Somers, and the Bishop of London. The Marquis of NOR ‘1 AN BY thought the amendment of the Noble Duke ought to be carried. in preference to the motion of his Noble Friend. No person was more anxious than him self that the subject should be properly sifted. He had never exercised this odious power except in cases where the safety of the State was concerned. He had heard some of the doctrines of the N0..1e Duke with regret. It was true that it was de sirable to maintain peace, but how he could apply his observa tions to the present case he could not tell. If the letters of exiles in this country were to be opened with impunity by the Pest-office, it was impossible to say where it would stop. He was very glad that the sabject was now to un dergo a searching inquiry, but he must beg their Lord ships to understand that he was far from consenting .to the doctrine laid down by the Noble Du ke. Of coarse he subject would relate to the management of the Post-office in Ireland as well as in this country. When he was in Irelami he never exercised the power, except in the case of Ribbonisiu. The Duke of WELLINGTON explained. There were two Noble Lords that he had placed on the Committee, to whom it would be inconvenient to attend; and he should, therefore, now propose that the following Noble Lerde should form the Committe —Earl Somers, the Earl of Burlington. the Earl of Roseberry, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cotten ham, and the Bishop of London. Lord CAMPBELL thought the petition of Mr. Mazzini ought to be referred to the Committee. The Earl of ABERDEEN said it should be. Lord CAMPBELL thought the Committee would report that a Bill of Indemnity was necessary. It was true that the power had existed for 150 years, and notwithstanding that he would venture to say there had been a great stretch of power in the Secretary of State's office. His belief was that, balancing inconveniences on the one side against advantages on the other, it would be best to put an end to this power. Lord BROUGHAM said, as he was nominated upon the Committee, be should. of course, reserve the expression of his opinion both upon the law and the facts. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE inquired whether the wording of the motion included the Post-office in Ireland ? The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would be an inquiry into the whole. The Earl of RADNOR withdrew his motion, and the amendment was carried. The Committee was appointed to meet on Thursday next. The Privy Council Appellate Jurisdiction Bill was read a , third time.—Their Lordships then adjourned. ______ . IMPEICIAL PARLIAMENT. fiOUSE OF LORDS. July 4. ROYAL ASSENT The Royal Assent was given to shortly More 4 o'clock, by Commission, to the following Bills :—The Sugar Duties Lill, the Vinegar Duties Bill, the slave Trade Treaties Bill, tlet Gold and Silver Wares Bill, Forestalling Abolition Bill, the Night Poaching Bill, the Assaults (Ireland) Bill. tte Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill, the Leeds and Bradford Railway 611, the Manchester and Rossendale Pailway Bill, the York and Searhorough Junction Railway Bill, the Eastern Counties and Peterborough Railway Bill, tt e Salisbury and South-Western Branch Railway Bill, the Rhitehaven and Maryport Railway Bill, the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill, the Edinburgh and Glasgow Extension Railway Bill, the ehorehami and Chichester Railway Bill, the South Devon Railway Bill, the South-Eastern Railway and Folkestone Harbour 13ill, the Stretfordßailway and Har bour Bill, the Edinburgh, Glaigovv, and Stßaore.away Railway Bel, the Preston and Wyre Railway Bill. the Coventry Water Works Bill, the Sheffield Gas Bin, the Manchester Warehousing Bill, the Manchester Police Kill, the Manchester Magistrates Bill, the Manchester Infirmary Bill, the Man chester Improvement Bill, the Nottingham Canal Bill, the F ritisla Society Incorporation Rill, Southampton Improve ment Bill, Canterbury Improvement Bill, Liverpool Fire Prevention Bill, Blayne Iron Cemptny Bill, the British Iron Company's Bill, European Life Assurance Company's Bill, and various turnpike, drainage, estate, naturalisation, and ether Bills. The Commissioners were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Wharncliffe. After the Commission their Lordships resumed the argu ments in the case of the Queen v. O'Connell and others. Their Lordships re-assembled for Parliamentary business at Five o'clock, wheat the Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from various Wesleyan, Baptist, Independent, and Church of England Con• gregat ions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, The Earl of GALLOWAY presented a petition from Olney, in Bucks, to the same effect. The Noble Earl also m ived the postponement of the third reading of the Brothels Bill until Tuesday week, in consequence of the absence of a 'alight Rev. Prelate. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented petitions from several Presbyterian congregations in the north of Ireland against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills. Lord CAMPBELL presented two petitions from Aberdeen, one in favour of the Presbyterian Mixed Marriages (Ireland) Bill, and the other against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Yorkshire in favour of protection to agriculture. MOROCCO. The Earl of MINTO gave notice of his intention to-morrow to put a question to the Government, with a view of ascertain ing whether they had adopted any measures to send to the coast ofltlorocco a naval force sufficient for the protection of British interests. Perhaps some member of the Government would inform the Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty of his intention to put the question. WAR IN AFRICA. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice of his in tention to put a question to some Member of her Majesty's Government, on Monday, as to the war pending in the western part of Africa. BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH. Lord WHARNCLIFFE brought up the report of the Com mittee appointed to inquire with respect to this Bill. The Committee reported that it was a measure for which it was usual to have the consent of the Crown before they proceeded. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Glasgoer against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill. The Bishop of LLA:siDAFF presented similar petitions. The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the application of the Bishop of London, fixed the consideration of the Lords Amend ment to the DissentersTHE' ST AT Chapel E Bill, for Monday week. TRIALS. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from West minster, praying that the House would address the Queen, to exercise her prerogative on behalf of Mr. O'Connell and others. POST-OFFICE.—OPENING LETTERS. The Earl of RADNOR then rose for the purpose of moving for a Committee of their Lordships upon the subject of opening letters by the Government and the Post-office. Notwith standing what had taken place in the other House of Par liament, he felt bound to bring forward the subject, which increased in importance every day. A Committee of their Lordships' House would have more weight than one of the House of Commons, because their Lordships examined witnesses upon oath, which they did not in the House of Com mons. He believed that until this expose had taken place, the public thought that their letters were held sacred, but the re velation made in that House had opened the eyes of the public to what was going on. From that rev'lation it appeared that it was the practice on certain occasions hi the Secretary of State's-office to open letters. It seemed doubtful from the Acts, whether there was sufficient authority to justify this pro ceeding. It had been stated to be one of the original objects of the establishment of the Post-office, but though it was mentioned in the preamble of the ordinance, it was not stated as the main object. The Act of MERCHANT SEAMEN. Queen Anne had been referred to, but there was nothing Mr. gave would, S. HERBERT notice that he te-morrow, either in that or any of the subsequent Acts, which authorised move for leave to bring ina Bill to amend the laws relating to the Secretary of State to detain and open letters. Although the registration of merchant seamen. he admitted that such a power was assumed, that was a totally THE FRENCH IN AFRICA. different thing from authority being given to the Secretary of Mr. SHELL gave notice that he would, to-morrow, put a State to issue his warrant. He would like to know question to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) relating to where the authority was to be found. He believed it was not the British Consul in Algiers—namely, whether that officer to be found in any statute, and the Post-office had not been in exercised his functions with a sequatur from the French Go existence long enough to bring it under the common law. vernment or by the authority of the Turkish Government. He had discovered that he was in error on a previOus He would also put a question as to our relati one with France °elision and supposing that the Secretary of State was a i n respec t t o th e F renc h p ossess i ons i n Africa. justice Of the peace for the whole country. Lord Campbell had decided that that was not the case, except in the instance truthnfr. WALLACE begged to ask whether there was any of treason sad one of his grounds, for stating that was , that i n the rumour that the Government intended to abandon the Railways Bill. he could not administer an oath, and therefore could not Com m:lit If, then,. he was not a justice of the peace, what Mr. GLADSTONE gave the most unqualified contradiction to e tlret itpast rumour. If he to-morrow night, he would do so on M could not bring on the second reading power had he to issue a warrant ? It was said that he before possessed it by usage. The Noble Lord then read a judgment Monday. ten o'clock of the Earl of Mansfield's on this point , for the p ur p ose In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, of showing that the argument of usage did not apply. Mr. GLADSTONE said that if he could not proceed with The Noble Lord then quoted the opinion of Lord Camden a s the Joint-stock Companies Bill to-morrow, he would fix it for to the seizure of papers. He said letters were the dearest pro- Wednesday next. perty men possessed, and so far from enduring seizure they In answer to a question from Mr. BERNAL, -would scarcely bear inspection. He did not deny that cases m ight arise in which this power would be necessary for the The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the ne gotiations with the Belgian Government on the subject of safety of the state. But to anticipate such a case was, he thou g ht, ost-office communications were progressing. foolish proceeding. If the power were exercised, it was better it was done on the direct responsibility of the SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKS. Minister who might apply to Parliament openly for an indem- Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from Renfrew, enty ; but he did not think that any case could justify the de- against any interference with the present system of banking in taming of letters of foreigners. He thought it was a breach Scotland. Much alarm hail been created by an intimation given of hospitality, against which his mind, and he believed that of b the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that as the House the public, quite revolted. What had they to do with the in- hail assented to the Bank Charter Bill, he should feel himself at ternal affairs of other countries? If a foreigner came to this liberty to turn his attention to the banking and currency of country and did net violate its laws, he thought he ought to Scotland and Ireland. He begged to ask whether it was in have the benyfit of the Constitution. He again bore tended to interfere with a system which had worked so well as that Scotch banking? 4e stimony to the high moral character of Mr. Mazzini , who, a he admitted, was n enthusiast in the cause of subjectirß;irhEouEtLcosmaimd uthni tin actaheg withdtheuwol n not take any step upon the persons best acquainted liberty, but stated that he was principally occupied in with the subject. literary pursuits. Was the dissemination of liberal MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND. opinions a crime in England ? Himself a descendant of Mr. Sergeant MURPHY begged to ask the Right Hon. a f a mily who tied to England for refuge. With respect Baronet whether it was his intention to uphold the division t o M. Stolzmann, his letters were never opened till the of the House yesterday in reference to ministers' mon e y ? arrival of the Emperor of Russia. Was there any Sir R. PEEL said that the matter was in the Iron. and Clanger, he would ask, of any of the Poles assassinating Learned Gentleman's own hands, and he did not think it would the Emperor ? Mr. Mazzini had been very active in be jest to exempt mi the property to which the motion related for est ablishing schools for the education of the poor Italian the payment nisters' money. boys, whom, no doubt, their Lordships saw wanderin" DISMISSAL OF IRISH MAGISTRATES. about the streets of the metropolis. The priest attached to the Mr. P. S. BUTLER wished, for the information of Irish magistrates, to learn, from the Noble Lord the Secretary for Sardinian Smbassy raised a cr y a g ainst him because there was no religious heatruction. But if that were even so, it was dismissal from the Ireland, what were the grounds of Mr. Cornelius O'Brien's better than that they should be left to r un ab out the streets. magistracy. The greatest moral evil would be produced by this practice. Lord ELIOT had no official information on the subject. They had heard of the conscience of the State, but he thought 31r. CHRISTIE rose, parsuant to notice, to ask Sir Robert that was nonsense when applied t o sects and religions . But Peel whether the Government have taken, or intend to take, the Government ought to take cre not to set the example any steps for removing the disabilities and disadvantages under which Dissenters from the Church of England labour in the of falsehood, treachery, and forgery.—( Cheers.) On one oc profession of the law ; but at the request of Sir R. Peel, he eastion, a person from whom he received a begging letter had postponed the question till Monday. forged his seal. Was not that what the Government had done f There was no more of falsehood, forgery, or treachery THE LETTER-OPENItiG. in the one case than in the other. It was so felt by everybody. Mr. HUME had seen in the ordinary channels that in the He was glad to see the manner in which the French looked on discussion of the Committee respecting the opening of letters this subject. J. Guizot declared in the Chamber of Deputies in the Post-office, the Right Hon. Baronet had said that he was that letters were secred in that country. He felt ashamed indifferent to the Subject. The contrary was the fact ; and in that none of the Ishible Lords opposite could say that. He the first debate he had denounced the opening of letters as spoke warmly on this subject, because he felt warmly. H e base and disgraceful; and he had said that nothing could be hoped their Lordships would now take the first step to put more degrading to a British Minister than to act as a spy &stop to this practice. He asked for a Select Committee to for foreign Governments.—(Cheers, and cries of " Order , inquire into the system o f o p enin g and detaining letters, and order.") He must say that if the House had ap inted him to the Committee, he would have had nothing to snore particularly into the circumstances under which the Po )letters of Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Stolzmaun had been opened. do with it —( Hear, hear.) He would have nothing to do with The Duke of WELLINGTON fully admitted that this Secret Committees, and he thought that no proceedings of that queetion had at last assumed a shape that should be inquired House should be secret from the public.—( Hear, hear.) Every. into. But the law and the practice should be inquired into. where he had gone throughout the country, he had heard but When the Noble Lord attributed to the Government treachery, j one opinion of this disgraceful conduct. Only yesterday, fraud, and falrity—(Cries of Hear, hear)—it was time that in a linen draper's shop at Yarmouth, a person came it should be inquired into. But he thought they should in and complained that a letter had not been sent to him, according to promise. But the ,ho man assured him that p o t' o into a roving inquiry of the description pointed out in , the letter hai been duly posted, and perhaps it might be the N oble Lord's speech, to inquire whether this man's or the other man's letters had been opened. A great part of the found upon Sir James Graham's table —(Laughter. ) Sir R. PEEL said that the Hon. Member's absence from Noble Lord's speech was directed entirely to the repeal of the law, and maintained that it should be immediately . and totally the discussions did not show any intense anxiety upon repealed. The Noble Lord might be quite justified is the subject; and he thought that the Hon. Gentleman having already made up his mind that the transaction was base entertaining that opinion ; but it was an opinion in which he would not find many to agree with him ; and disgraceful, disqualified him from sitting on the Committee. but at the same time, he must say that, if bethought Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved that petitions presented that power was exercised, or ever had been exercised, on the subject be referred to the Committee —Ordered. . in the manner referred to by the Noble Lord in some parts THE BANK CHARTER BILL. Of his speech—that was to say, that it was applied for On the reading of the Order of the Day for the third read pirate purposes and for private interests, and not for I ing of the Bank Charter Bill, the purpose of promoting the public benefit—he should Lord WORSLET presented a petition against the Bill. say that the law ought to be repealed and put an end Mr. WODEHOUSE then rose to move the amendment of to forthwith.—(Cheers.) But the law stood on the broadest which he had given notice, to the effect " that en tender in the grounds for the public interest, and the exercise of the power it payment of money made in the silver coin of this realm, of arty conferred ought to he used on std other grounds than thos e of sum exceeding the esm of 251. at any one time, shall be re public interest. He had no objection to the appointment of a puted in law or allowed to be a legal tender, within Great Comnaittee to inquire into the law and th e pr actice under the Britain or Ireland, for more than according to its value by law ; but he objected ti. the appointment of a Committee of weight, after the rate of 53. 2d. for each ounce of silver ; that House to inquire into. the eircurstotances of opening the i and no person to whom such tender shall be made letters of particular individuate. He believed the letters of she shall be any ways bound thereby, or obliged to receive the two individuals alluded to were - hp:fled ; but the law was seine in payment, in any other manner than as aforesaid, any open to them—(Cries of " () hs oh i")—and time person law, steipte, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." The who opened them was, guilty of a .m;edemeanor, are. Hon. Meniher, having read several long extracts in support of less he could Proance,_autuoritt for the the oeenitne of them• !tis views form the evidence taken before the Bullion Corn lie would not follow t"' Noble e o !'" into his argumenie 43 to mitts", proceeded to say that the measure was dangerous in the power of the Secretary -of :state to issue general warranie• the extreme, He was upheld in his views upon this subject The Secretary of State was in this instance the o ffi cer of t h e -Ly no less an authority than Mr, Berries. He was a t a Sovereign—the officer of the Government. T h e Pos t-o f fice l oss to find upon what t g h r e ou ß n ig ii h s t th ll e on l . lo it n ie . m ill e e r m to b r er p lo o r rt l s l m a o li u fa th e was one of the departmen ts of the Governm ent , and the (Mr. C. Wood) and Secretary of State had a right to send an order to the officer ( Mr. Baring) had given such a strong and energetic patronage of that department, which his was bound to o bey. The Act to this measure. They had bolt addressed the House in o f Parliament was precise in tnat particular—it enacted th a t laudatory terms of the Right Honourable Baronet's (Sir le e s letters were to be delivered as they were put into the post- bert Peas) Bill, but neither of them had informed the office, except in certain cases, one of which was where a House of the pr ecise reasons which justified their approval of warrant for the detaining and open in g such letters was issued it, It was well to talk, As those Hon. Members and alr. Jones by the Secretary of State. There could be no doubt about the Loyd did ? of approaches to perfection in their monetary system, law. It was true. there was no express authority by law t o but in his (Mr. Woslehouse's) oiriMon, it would be much more enable the Secretary of State to issue the warrant—( Hear, ' satisfactory to the country to prove that sech approaches had bear) —but he had the authority, acting as an officer of her been made. In the witola of his (Mr. Wodelloose's) experi etfajesty's Government, to call upon the Poet-master ence, he had n ever read such a little° of nonsense as that to carry the law into execution. The question which had teen peblished upon this subject by Me , Jones Loyd. mus t always turn upon that par t ic ular instance. Sir R. PEEL skid the cause was not in conformity with and he would say, on the part of his Right lion, Friend, that the notice of the Hon. Geru.leni4p he. as a m ember of her Majesty's Government, was willing to Mr. WODELIOUSE said 'it wes pot. share the respowibility with his Right Hon, Friend. No act Sir R. PEEL thsurht that a g reat part of the speech of the had been perforated by hie Right H on . Pried b ut w h a t had I Bon. Gentleman ought to have been addressedegaieet the third b e en performed for the purpose of promoting the public inte- reasimg of the Bill. The clause wools! bare bee' a very rest. The Noble Lord had talked of the exemption of foreigners, , good one :1 by the . present law the legal tender in and had talked of a breach of hospitality ; but if foreigners, ;silver was now abus e pi. but by the present law the lawn domiciled here, acted in a manner pontrary to the interests of tenths ( of silver was limited to te a , if they permitted '251. to were they not guilty of a breach of hospitality?— be a legal teedet in silver, they would of couwoc depreciate the this country, ( Hear, hear.) Was it fit that the Secretary of State should standard of stelae ot F 4i.gy. It. was imposaible for hied, there: Allow acts to be done which m i g ht inflict the calamities of war fore, to apeede i the peepenenn of his Hon. Friend. on powers with which we were friendly ? The polity of this Mr. HU.MU ovimgd depreciate the standard cf velee of silver. H. l : yli9ulti always depreciate n!attSe, 0 itp effect would be to country was to maintain peace everywtorp, because it was tLo int-'rest of this country that the world should remain at peace, i c•pipse the . establishment of a double steadied, and if foreigners fitted out expeditions for Corfu es' Malta to Mr. IhVe.4TZ believed that if the clause were adopted, it disturb the peace of Italy, would it be eonteuded that they were would not attain . tho object the Honourable Gentlemao not guilty 6f a breach of the laws of hospitality , and that they haJ view. ./le would take ow opptetunity of correcting ought not to be interferes& with as acting contrary to the intoterts a uaisajTrgtoniwn which had . occurrest#lth p i e4 t 4o w ti :a h t , l l l ,o e of this country? A ', 7 ce years sin, an expedition had been fitted bad 304 on a former Seetesiene , He was refire t out here against a neighbouring otentry, which was all ;said t 44 be Adhona4sed a clininrente:ien in ihe cerrency. He'had but successful. Nov would i;, not have iteep the duty of the never dour this; Nr ke 144 #lways lieheved that the d,epre- Government, if they had received' 0.2 e smallest .etjmation of ciation of the cttp!e . nay WU OPP A( Oe greatest4 l o.l e v er the expedition, to interfere to prevent it i All foreigners ligig committed on the puuli.7- were subject to the municipal law of the coUri:rv , and were i ki answer to a question from Sir W. JAMES, ;;cued to act in conformity with the interests of the 1-;ountry. Lis ri. p Er.l., ;aid, that some new gold mines had recently If the Government knew that foreigners were preparieg en ep i been discovered in Ssberl4. poclitiOtl ill tbii colutr7 for thy IV*" vi II !W ei r CAu ltr i? ' PIP r N.*T4w4,RT 0141 ht the 4iscoveri would place . . _ _ . HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 4. The Sramcza took the Chair at a Quarter to Four. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the Bar, and sum moned the House to the Bar of the House of Peers to hear her Majesty's Royal Commission read, for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills (for which see Lords' Report). AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION. . Mr. HOSKINS presented a petition from the Agricultura' Protection Society in favour of the objects of that body. POOR-LAWS. Captain ROUS presented a petition from Westminster against certain proposed alterations in the poor-law. Petitions against the - new poor-law were presented by Lord RSHAM, Colonel RoLLEsToN, and others whose names we could not learn. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Maryle bone, praying that parishes whi:h have local acts for the ma nagement of their own poor, should be exempt from the control of the Commissioners. RACE-COURSE GAMBLING BILL. Mr. CHRISTIE presented a petition from Charles Henry Russell, the plaintiff in certain actions brought to recover penalties from several noblemen and gentlemen for excessive gambling upon horse-races. The petitioner complained of the injustice of the Bill that had been introduced to suspend those actions, and prayed to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. Mr. Christie then gave notice that he would move. to-morrow, that the petitioner be heard at the bar, according to his prayer. Idler—" Look to the state this old man is brought to. Do you wish to come to the same state? " But the rogue would prefer crime, which may lead only to a g That humane and constitutional law, so much eulogised by Lord s a a o y l — , ( a ‘ n No, d th l at is far better than a workhouse." Brougham, gave the Commissioners a power of raising money without the consent of Parliament, which was beyond any pre rogative possessed by the Crown. He would not go into a de tail of what he considered to be the causes of distress, which so alarmingly prevailed since this law was passed in 1834. The Act, instead of amending the administration of the old Act, was, in reality, an Act to punish the idle and unindastrions, with this misfortune, that it included the industrious poor in the nine category. He concluded by thanking the House for the indulgence it had extended towards him. Mr. FERRAND seconded the amendment, but without speaking upon it. Sir J. GRAHAM said that after the speeches which had been made it was expedient that he should address a few ob servations to the House upon the important subject then under its consideration. And he would begin by frankly stating that if, after hearing all that had been said, and after duly consider ing much that had been written, he could come to the conclusion . that the existing law was hostile in principle to the interests of the poor, no consideration upon earth should induce him to oppose the motion for its re-con struction. But his experience told him, that the poor-law as amended in the year 1843, had been useful to the working classes ; and although, doubtless, it was, like every other law, capable from time to time of modification. still he frankly confessed that his judgment approved the general results which had been produced by it. After taking a very long historical review of the various poor-laws, from their earliest origin to the last great amendment in 1834, the Right Hon. Baronet contended that that amended Act was identical in all its essential provisions with the enactment of Elizabeth, of which there was, in the present day, so much talk, but which was, in fact, so little understood by those who made a sort of stalking. horse of it. Now, the Act of 1834, had been denounced as unconstitutional by the Hon. Members for Bridport and Evesham ; but it had not been stated by either of them what was to be its substitute. Neither to the Act of Elizabeth, of George the Ist, or any other Act were they to go back. Ne substitute whatever was offered to them —nothing tangible suggested ; but it was said, that in the matter of out-door relief the present law was essentially different from that of Elizabeth. This he (Sir J. Graham) denied. In the Act of Its 34, there was no denial of out-door relief.—( A loud " Hear, hear," from Mr. Ferrand.) He ( Sir J. Graham) was stating the fact—the fact and the law. There was no provision in that Act directing a denial of out-door relief. No less than one million five hundred thousand persons in England and Wales had, during the )ear 1842, received re lief, and a very considerable number of these persons had received such relief in their own houses. Such was the fact, and therefore the assertion that the law specially forbade out-door relief at once fell to the ground. He lamented, with every Hon. Gentlemen who heard him, that so large a pro portion of the population of England and Wales should have required relief; but he rejoiced, as an Englishman, to think that he lived in a country whose laws were so considerate and humane as not only to provide this relief, but to authorise, to direct, and absolutely to require its administration.—( Hear. ) The Hon. Member who had just sat down said the honest, industrious poor, should be provided for by the State. But much depended in what sense the term " poor was used ; if by " poor" he meant the honest, industrious labourer, who was unable to obtain employment, then he entirely agreed with him ; but care should be taken that idleness should not be en couraged. The law in Scotland did not recognise the claim of any able-bodied pauper to relief ; and such had been the law there since the time of Charles the Second. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport had in his speech alluded to the distress which prevailed in the manufacturing districts. It was true great distress had existed there, and great distress still existed there, but it should be recollected that the population was very dense in these parts, and unfortunately as population increased poverty became pro portionately mere prevalent. The only way of properly and efficiently meeting this evil was by multiplying the means of productive industry.—( Hear, from the Opposition.) Heknew what the Hon. Members on the other side of the House meant by crying" Hear," but notwithstanding be asserted the principle though they might differ as to the means of applying it. He was willing to admit that any restrictive interference with manufactures and machinery would be the greatest blow the country could receive. He would not say that the present law was perfect. It might require many amendments—it did require some, but he felt satisfied that in the present state of the country nothing could be more unwise than by a summary resolution of this sort, to annul the only law in the statute-bo o k providing for the maintena nce of the poor. Such a course would be, he finally believed, an impolitic and fatal course ; and he hoped the House would take the more humane and benevolent course—to revise the statute, and introduce the re quisite amendments. Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought it was possible to frame the present poor-law in conformity with the altered state of society in which they now lived, and should therefore resist a motion for the total repeal of the law. He would not say, in the words of the Hon. Member for Evesham, that the present poor-law was unconstitutional ; but he was willing to admit that it was unsound, and if the Hon. Member for Evesham would so far alter his resolutions, he would support him. The Hon. Member quoted from several documents to show that the unions had been formed without any regard whatever to the population—sometimes they were too large, and sometimes too small ; by the former, poor men were obliged to perform long journeys to a workhouse for relief—by the latter, the taxes on the rate-payers were made oppressive almost beyond endurance. He quoted from the report of Sir John Waltham in proof of what he stated, as to the desirable ness of having unions of a moderate size. After some further observations, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that if the alteration he suggested were adopted, he would vote for the resolution of the Hon. Member for Evesham. Lord J. RUSSELL said he owned that the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, very much snrprised him. He could very well understand the resolutions of the ' Hon. Member for Evesham. It was plain and straightforward, but he very much apprehended that the declarations of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire were not in accordance with his professions on the hustings and elsewhere. The complaint of the Hon. Gentleman was, that the union workhouses were too large, and this, he must confess, appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) a very extraordinary complaint. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, had answered much that had fallen from the Honourable Member for Evesham respecting this law. Hon. Gentlemen, in speaking of this law in public, were very fond of indulging in vague as sertions. They described the law as oppressive and unconsti tutional. They talked about the unchristian system of sepa rating husband and wife. Now, it so happened, that there was no such provision in the law ; but in the next place, he would inform those Hon. Gentlemen, that in large workhouses it was necessary, for mere decency, to adopt such a system. But was this a new system ? No, it had been in existence long before the new poor-law came into operation. The Honourable Member for Evesham, in speakin g o f this law, talked as though we had been living in a per fect state of happiness from the time of Eli za b et h d own passing of Lord Grey, and Lord Brougham in particular, should have endeavoured to have disturbed that which, for three hundred years, had been the cause of so much happiness. No doubt it was a very wise law for the time in which it was passed. but it was not intended that it should remain unaltered through every change in society. The Hon. Gentleman talked very much about its having been con ceived in a Catholic spirit; but he (Lord John Russell) thought tkat every law which was Passed in the reign of Eliza beth was conceived in a Protestant spirit. But had this law produced the happiness? showiie that it had not. which H on. Gentlemen opposite thought that a refe rtaelukceed to so In the reign of William and Mary, and Queen Anne, great complaints were made as to the operation of th e new poo r-law, about historymh wou l d and frequent applications were made to Parliament for its reform. • In the year 1796 passed that law which the Hon. Gentleman had so much commended, but which he (Lord J. Russell) thought contained a great many evils. Did that law meet with general approbation ? Se far was this from being the case, that immediately on the termination of the war, Com mittees of Inquiry were appointed on the subject. Various alterations were proposes!, but the evils complained of grew greater • and greater; and in 1830 that law, which bad produced tumults and disorder in the country, w as repealed. It was found necessary, in consequence of the state of the country, that a change should be made in the law, and Lord Grey's Government undertook to effect that change. It was very easy for persons to go about saying that by this measure the poor of the country had been deprived of the charity , to which they were entitled. The fact was otherwise. It was a degradation to the people to be obliged to live on pariahs allowance instead of wages, for it reduced them to a state of slavery, and any law which would have the effect of placing them again in a state of indepen dent labour, was likely to prove in the end a blessing to the country. That the law was difficult of operation no one could deny. The object of the law was to give a stimulus to labour—to get rid, if possible, of a system of allow ance and wages combined, and to give relief in cases of desti tution. He thought this was a sound principle, and he would be sorry to see it departed from, for if they were to do so, it would be only to bring back the many evils which existed prior to 1830. He was sorry to find that se important a measure as this had been delayed to so late a period of the session. From what he had heard, he could not but wonder that gentlemen should be found to pledge themselves against a law, of the provisions of which they appeared to be quite ignorant. He was glad, however, to find that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State intended to persevere will this measure. and he should give his cordial support to it. Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained. Sir W. J AMES oppo.ed the measure, as one not founded upon the principles of justice and morality. The Bishop of Llaxidaff had told him that the workhouse system under this Bill never would answer the purpose intended. But it was said that it was wrong to agitate upon this subject, because such agitation tended to make the poor discontented and mix rable. But he could not agree with that argument, for he was convinced that under the present law the wretchedness of the people was rapidly increasing, and would go on unless the Legislature returned to the old law. He knew that there were many abuses in the old lax which required correction. It would be better to leave the poor entirely to the assistance of Private charity, than to lead Them to look for such relief as the present law profe,sed to give them.—( Cries of " Divide.") Captain PECHELL, who roee amidst repeated cries of " Divide," said he knew how difficult it was to obtai n a hear ing in so impatient a House. But he would remind the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, that he had promised, in the earlier stages of the Bill, that he would give every gen. tleman an opportunity of stating his opinions in the present stage.—(" Go on.") He was willing to admit that the Bill was greatly modified. Still it retained many clauses which he considered objectionable in the extreme — ( Hear , hear )._ and, above all, he should feel it his duty to support every proposition for getting rid of the authority of the Commis. sooners.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") These gentlemen interfered in the most vexatious way with the local management of the parishes under their control. That interference extended even to the apprenticing of the parish c hildren.—( Hear, hear. ) And they were now attempting to control those parishes which were already so well managed under Hobhouse's Act.—( Hear. ) Ho would recommend the Government to look at the cliseon_ tent which this measure occasioned throughout the country, and the great unpopularity, and many election defeats, which it occasioned to the late Government. Ile would support the pre position or tfiu hon. Afeiiiber fOr Evesham.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who also was received with load cries of " Divide,") said that on so important an occasion he had a right to claim the ettentiell of the qfp l ll- 0 --- u Oi t eer, lo r" r ~e1:1;44„,q4'd su pport' t d tl t e ha t. t es th n e 4t Hon ni h Gentlemanletubex eon. and ha hope would resist any ad t etopoi to inufiet to atter the terms of it.—( Hear.) Those Commissioners possessed the most unconstitutional Powe rs , ren d er i ng a ltogether null and unavail leg the•functiens of the elective bodies—the boards of per clians.—(HeMo bear, )• Th e gre4 t 'l,6o 6 oeofl3ill'was'to ; terrify the poor man, by the horror of the workhouse, from peeking relief until he was in the very last stage of destitution. —( Hear, hear.) In the Tenth Report of the Irish Poor-law ce3mmissioners, it was stated that t h e law was going ou digit satisfactorily, fnit whet . was the OFnof, the. the last stage or destitution cane to the workhouse so 'educed by went, that they died soon erte e th e i r adm i ss i on . That was the satisfactory working of the law in Ireland I People kept out of the see-t -houre as long as they eosins ...es --" the Right Hon. Baronet's measure on a our tie foundation than it was before. Sir W. JAMES explained. Mr. WODEHOUSE in reply said, he had proposed this clause in consequence of a conversation which h e had had only two days ago with Lord Ashburton, He would, however, withdraw the motion, as the sense of the House appeared to be against it. The clause was then withdrawn. Mr. TURNER then moved the following emendieient at the end of clause 9:—" And with a view to , prevent 1013 to the working dessert, that from and after the passing of this Aet, the Governor and Company of the Bank of 'England, at their bank or branch banks of issue, shall take, as of the value of twenty shillings all sovereigns, and as of tiae value of ten shillings all half sovereigns, tendered to them, which equally balance in the scales, notwithstanding the same may not turn the balance; and that any loss arising to the said Governor and Company of the Bank of England from the taking of such sovereigns or half sovereigns,. shall be deducted from the profit arising to the public from any increase of the issues of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, before such profit be paid ever to the public. In line one, of clause 14, to expunge the -words " Provided always;" and to insert at the end of line 11, of clause 14 :—" Provided always, that all special circumsta-nces arising out of such contract or agreement be ex plained to such Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such contract or agreement; and that the said Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes shall have power to take such special cir cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average under such contract or agreement." He proposed these amend , ments in consequence of the loss which the public had sustained in consequence of light sovereigns. Sir R. PEEL said the amendment had nothing whatever to do with the measure which had no reference to the coinage. Mr. HUME said the public had suffered severely by the tight sovereigns, and the Government should take some step to prevent a recurrence of such a public injury and inconvenience. He thought there had been a great want of attention to the ;subtle. welfare in suffering the matter to lie so long neglected. ;irr, C. WOOD said he apprehended that at the present moment there was very little inconvenience from light gold. isnatever extent the evil might have gone to some time back, it was a satisfaction to know that it existed but to a very slight degree at the present moment. The great point, however, now was for the Government to take such measures as would, for the future, effectually prevent any depreciation of the previous metals. This was most material, and ought to be most scru pulously attended to by the Ministry. The amendment then was, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. TURNER then moved to introduce into clause 11 the words " that all special circumstances arising out of such con tract or agreement to be explained to such Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes by one of the contracting parties to such coutract or agreement ; and that the said Commissioners of Stamps and 'faxes shall have power to take such special cir cumstances into their consideration in adjusting the average under - such contract or agreement." In 1841 the Bank of England requested the firm in question to issue its Bank of England's notes. The consequence of that was, that this bank did use the Bank of England notes, together with its own, and so put a quantity of its own notes out of circulation. The effect was, that whereas the deputation of that bank was 72,000/. in 1841, it fell to 51,000/. in 1842, to 30,0001. in 1843, and to 25,0001. in 1844. He thought this bank had a claim for protection, and it was with a view* to do justice be proposed his resolution. Sir R. PEEL thought it would be highly inexpedient to give to the Commissioners the power of allowing certain banks under peculiar circumstances to become banks of issue. He did riot think the special case made out in favour of the Bank in question. There had been a full discussion of the principle in the Committee, and he did not think the House would consent to so great an alteration as the Hon. Gentleman pro posed to be made on the third reading. Mr. TURNER then withdrew his clause. The amendment was withdrawn. Several verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time. On the question that the Bill do pass, Mr. HUME rose, and said he regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had not rendered his measure complete by re pealing the legal tender clause. Sir It. PEEL said he thought there was a sufficient reason for not repealing the legal tender clause, by the inevitable dis turbance which it would produce in existing arrangements. The Bill was then passed. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion that the House go into Committee on this Bill, Mr. F. FRENCH pitt questions regarding the administra tion of the Irish poor-law, which Sir J. GAAHAM, on the ground of their vagueness and his unpreparedness, refused to answer. Mr. COCH RAN E moved, "That the new poor.law, though improved by the proposed amendments, is still opposed to the ancient constitution of this realm, and inadequate to the neces sities of the people." He very much regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had brought the amendments forward at se late a period of the session. It was a measure which especially con cerned the lower classes, whose condition had of late so much forced itself upon the consideration of Parliament. The pre sent poor-law was contrary to the ancient constitution of this realm. The departure of the recent poor-laws from those which formerly existed, was admitted by Lord Althorp in his admirable speech on the introduction of the new poor-law. That Noble Lord was in favour of out-door relief. Then how came it that the practical operation of the present poor-law was so harsh in its operation, and so contrary to the spirit of the 434 of Elizabeth? Mr. Pitt said the evils of the poor-law were not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution ; but he coincided with Blackstone, who in his " Commentaries" thus wrote :—" A plan was formed in the reign of Queen Eli zabeth, mere humane and beneficial than even feeding and clothing of millions, by affording them the means, with proper industry, to feed and clothe themselves. And the farther any subsequent plans for maintaining the poor have departed from this institution, the more impracticable and even pernicious their visionary attempts have proved." And Mr. Canning con demned any precipitate course in altering the poor-laws in any way not in accordance with the spirit in which it was instituted. Every poor-law should have two objects in view—to relieve the poor, without insulting their feelings and treating poverty Us a crime, and to make the poor thankful for the benefits conferred by the mode of its administration. He deprecated the present system of cooping up the poor in workhouses, and the classification that prevailed there, so much against the feelings of human nature, and so destructive of the finer and tenderer feelings of humanity. The bread they ate there was that of bitterness. asi the garments they were clothed in were the garments of Mane. Under the new poor-law, crime had won ' derfutly increased, as had been seen from the Parliamentary returns, which he would quote to the House. In 1836 the amount of convictions in England was 14,700. In 1837, when the new poor-law came into operation, 17,000; in 1838, 17,000; in 1839, 18,000; in 11140, 20,000; in 1841, nearly 21,000; and in 1842, nearly 23,000 ; thus showing a fearful increase of crime since the year 1836. The cost of the support of the poor was eight millions in 1835, and it was very little less now. This did not include interest of sums borrowed for the erection of workhouses. The Act of Elizabeth was based on the principle that, if a labouring man, who was willing to work, should be thrown out of work, it was the fault of the country. The present law, however, pro ceeded on the principle of throwing the labourer on his own resources. The labourers were that class on which the pros periiy of a nation depended. When the wages of the labourer of the country were high, that country was sure to be pros perous. lie believed that a great portion of the distress which existed in this country was owing to the great use of machinery in our manufacturing districts. The consequence was that an enormous amount of pauperism was thrown on to the land. —( Hear, hear.) The manufacturers benefited by the distress of the country, because they could then command labour and reduce wages. He, for one, be lieved that our greatness amongst nations was not upheld by the development of our manufacturing system. But even if it were, he thought that system ought not to be allowed to be upheld at the expense of the happiness of the people. He rather thought it ought to be sacrificed, if it were necessary to do so, to secure the happiness of the people of the country. The report of 1834, on this subject, stated that the poor were idle, improvident, and vicious. He thought the refutation of this was to be found in the results of the allotment system wherever it had been established. In order to benefit the poor of this country, it was essential that the machinery employed in manufactures should be taxed for the relief of the poor, and that the allotment system should be generally established. He thought that our system of poor laws ought to be placed on the same footing as that which was established by the Act of Elizabeth. No system of poor-laws would be successful, unless it was founded on the Catholic spirit•which characterised the carrying out of the Act of Eli zabeth. The people of Scotland were decidedly hostile to a measure such as that of her Majesty's Government. By that Treasure, the poor of the country were treated as a different kind of beings to the other classes of society. The poor had the same feelings and the same sympathies which they in that House had, and it was a disgrace to those who would attempt to treat them otherwise than as beings having the same feelings and sympathies as themselves. He concluded by placing the motion of which he had given notice in the hands of the Speaker. The SPEAKER said there were only two amendments that could be made on the motion that the order of the day be read, namely, either to move another order of the day, or to move that the other orders of the day be read. Mr. COCHRANE was understood to move that the other orders of the day be read. Colonel SIB'tHORP, in seconding the motion, said that he agreed with everything that had fallen from his Hon. Friend. He looked upon the present poor-law as brutal and uncon stitutional. The returns from all parts of the country showed that there was a great increase of crime, which would not be checked until the poor were placed in the enjayment of those rational amusements to which they were entitled as much as the highest noble in the land. He would riot occupy the House in going over the same ground as his Hon. Friend. But if the went into Committee he would move an amendment for the purpose of abolishing the Commission. Sir, JOHN GUEST made a few observations in reply to Mr. Cochrane, but in a tone nearly inaudible. He asserted that manufacturers were rated to the poor-rate, and he himself paid one thousand pounds a quarter. lie disclaimed the charge of avarice to which those were liable who maintained the corn laws for their own advantage. BORTHWICK then moved an amendment, to the effect that the Act of 4 and 5 William IV., commonly called the new poor-law, was unconstitutional in principle, and oppressive in operation, and that it is therefore expedient that the said Act should be taken into consideration with a view, not to its partial amendment, but entire reconstruction. He wished the presentoppressive and unjust law should be repealed, and that in its stead should be enacted a wise, just, benevo lent, and catholic measure. The reproach of having departed from the wise law of the 43d of Elizabeth lay with the late Go vernment and its supporters, who were placed on the very pin nacle of political economy. (He read a long extract from a pamphlet by Lord Brouehara, in which the Noble Lord ridi culed and condemned the project of Mr. Pitt, toenact a Bill by which every poor man should be made comfortable in his own home. The Noble Lord called this a frantic proposition. But he (Mr. B.) considered such a proposition as consonant with all the principles of English law, and immemorial usage. The Noble and Learned Lord declared that the advisers of Eliza beth in preparing that Act (the 43d), were wholly ignorant of all sound principles of legislation, and that they had laid the foundation for extensive misery and pauperism, and the Utter extinction of every feeling of humanity from the breasts of the pc / grey classes, He ( Mr. Borthwick) could not agree with the soble 4urd that lord Bacon and the distinguished philesophers and statesmen who 4sleiaorl that great Otteen, were ;gears nt of political philosephy, of morality, qr re igloo : The Noble Lord hod raid that the old leaf giaa roe to agrarian disturbances. But bad there been no such disturbances Since 14 9 Bill was Rased in 1834 ? Those disturbances were at least . fssloent aria as terrible oincp that period. as they had been hefore. The Bill heciproped uttetly ihsfhcient fqr every jeet ebich it was intended to e ffrct. Rafea lied in GAO' in: gageis been greatly increased; bit without giving adequate relic to the poor, orprofineing their content. He thought the powers of the Commissioners were tinconstitntional, and placed the poor out of the pale of the f.%oosti: nation, leaving to the Commissioners an irrflivilstlole ipos'er over' their liberties, and, in some' instance, even over theirlivp. whp past tiyo4 for ssty mil in honggr able toil , thriling in the cottage which he had inherited tom father, happened to be a einnth es WA anensployeds Lord Act dirvet fi d, before he unit d even claim the body and soul together—he must first sell the dwelling of his lathers.—c Hear ! hair. Thy Act said tY the rt?kra Rd thy unui *amine overcame their norrors. Was this fiiir treatment of the working -classes ? Was it not most cruel and inhuman ?—(Cheers.) Under this law iA Englawl 4 uew qatera of givhig tickets had growu by TIIE sr w, LOND X, FRIDAY P.VEN'IN'G JULY 6, 1f644, which the farmers were enabled to roduee the wares of their labourers.—(Cheers.) Something must be done for the poor man. He mug either be supported from the ealth of the country, or he mus' come back upon the land, and support him self by his independent labour.--( Hear, hear.) If something were not done, the country would become a prey to anarchy and riot, as was the case in the latter part of the reign of Henry the Eighth, and down to the time when the present law was passed.—( Hear, hear.) He entreated the House to look to the condition of the working-classes at this moment, and to consider seriously the claims of humanity and justice. He would Tete for the resolutions. Lord SANDON would tent trespass long on the House.— (Cheers.) He was glad to hear the workhouse test disclaimed. --(Cheers.) That was not the language which was used in the early debates upon this question.—( Hear. hear.) Much had been said about the inflammatory language used out of doors ; but if it had not been for the efforts which had been made to expose the growing evils of the system, there would have been no amelioration of the law, however slight. ( Hear, hear.) He could not admit the the test of extreme destitution was fit to be applied in a country like this.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then reed an extract from the report of the Commissioners of Poor-law Inquiry in Scotland, con demnatory of the workhouse and extreme destitution tests. His Right Hon. Friend told the House the evils of the eel law, and went through a catalogue of those evils ; but he omitted to state the tact, that all those evils were repro duced under the new law. —( Hear, hear.) He wished new to state why he could not vote for the resolution of the Hon. slember for Evesham, or the motion of the Hon. Member tor Bridport ; because he was not prepared all at once to make a total change in the existing system. Mr. WAKLEY thanked the Noble Lord for his speech, which was characterised by a consistency in strong contrast to the inconsistency of many Hon. Gentlemen around him, who obtained their seats on the ground of their opposition to the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had been consistent. in supporting this Bill, but he had supported it under very different faces.—( Hear, anti a laugh.) If the destitution test were to be given up. why were the houses of torture to be kept up ?—(Cheers. ) In justice to the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite ( Colonel Wood), who expressed his dissere-, at the expression, he must admit that in the union in which he resided, the work house was not a house of torture.--( Hear, hear.) The avowed object of the Bill was, in the course of time, to get rid of poor laws altogether. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman still adhere to that opinion ? Any hope of causing the Act to be repealed was futile. He (Mr. Wakley ) was quite sure that no spon taneous act of that douse would do away with it. The leaders o f both parties were in favour of it. They lauded each ether as practical men—but he (Mr. Vv akley ) was convinced they really knew not the state of the country—they knew not what they were doing. Apply to the independent labourers of Eng land—those who never yet had applied fur relief, but upon whom calamity might come to-morrow—and not one out of a hundred .would be found to sanction or to support it. He begged to say he put little faith in those gentlemen who were specially forward on this occasion in asking for a reconstruction of the Act, for when the working classes asked them for their fair portion of power, in order that good laws might be made, those very gentlemen were amongst the first to treat their claim with coldness and with scorn. As to the poor-law itself, he begged to say that its poison was cir culating through the whole social system, and as he ever would tell the truth, he must tell it now, though with pain, that the elected guardians were becoming harsher in their administra tion than the ex-officio guardians and the Poor-law Commis sioners themselves.—( Hear, hear.) It was a fact within his own knowledge, that in several instances where the elected guardians had refused relief, it had only been obtained by the intercession of the ersofficio guardians, or by the direct inter. ference of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.—( Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM explained. Colonel WOOD ( Brecon) said from his own experience he could assert that the guardians, especially the ex-officio guar. diens, were anxious to administer the law fairly and justly between the two parties, the rate-payers and the recipients ; and whenever there was a slight inclination in the scale, it was in favour, as it ought to be, of the latter class. The fact was that public opinion had greatly underated the operation of the law.--( Hear, hear.) In the first instance it most cer tainly was administered with too high a hand, and in too harsh a spirit, but public opinion had had its legitimate in fluence, and would continue to have it ; and thus directed, in fluenced, and softened, he could safely say, the Bill was work ing well for the poor, and for the rate-payers, and would in the end effect incalculable good to the country.—( Divide. ) Mr. BROTHER TON (amidst loud cries of " Divide," and great uproar) said he had a strong conflict in his own mind as to the vote he should give. He had hitherto invariably opposed the ne,y poor-law. He thought it began at the wrons end. He ob jected to such large posers being given to a body of Commissioners. He disliked the enormous size of the unions and the workhouses, and he felt that the Bill could never be worked in the manufacturing districts. But now, when he found that eighty-five per cent. (as sated by the Home Se cretary) of the poor hail been relieved out of the workhouse, and when he heard the statement+ as to the mild way in which the law was now administered, compared with what had been the custom, his views were somewhat altered, and he was now disposed to support the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair, in order that, by getting the Bill into Committee, they might render it a more mild and merciful measure still. The great thing, after all, that the people wanted was not so much a poor-law as plenty of employment, good th a : e things, they wouli have towel the s and cheap food and. if they had only commenced w ith enactment of a sound poor-law a very easy teak indee4.— wages. ( Divide. divide. ) Mr. FERRAND (amid loud cries of " Divide, divide," " Go on, go on") moved the adjournment of the debate.— (Ne, no.) Sir R. PEEL trusted the Hon. Gentleman would make his observations at once. The Government was not compelled to bring in this Bill, but had rather done so to meet the views of those who desired a mitigation of the law. The measure did not go the length that some of these Hon. Gentlemen wished, but in no one point did it render the law more stringent—in many it mitigated it—and yet those who most asked for it were now trying to impede its progress. If such were the case, then all that the Government could do would be to withdraw the Bill.—(Loud cheering ) Lord JOHN MANNERS strongly proteste I against the language of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) and was surprised he had thought proper to use it. For five months they had been discussing every conceivable subject, and new when an adjourned debate was asked for on a Bill the most important to the in terests of the people that .could possibly be brought forward. they were threatened with the withdrawal of the measure if their wish for another debate was persisted in. The Govern ment itself had brought forward the Bill at the beginning of the session, and for their own convenience had dj •urned it from time to time till the present period ; and now, when fair discussion—and fair discussion alone—was asked for, they were met by threat.. He thought such conduct unbecoming in the Government, and most disrespectful to the House and country. Mr. B. ESCOTT strongly urged an adjournment of the debate, that the Bill might be thoroughly discussed. Lord STANLEY- said that discussion of the Bill was just what the Government wanted. But the fact was. that Hon. Gentlemen had been discussing general principles all the evening, and not the Bill, which ought, properly and strietly, to be the subject of the deliberation of the House. If the measure was to be lost, it would be from a superfluity of talk ing.—( Laughter. ) If Hon. Members would consent to legis late without talking, whether they should legislate or not— ( Hear, hear, and laughter) --an advance might be made, and a good practical measure, might he devised in mitigation of the existing system and of great value to the community a. large.—(L au d cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. B. COCHRANE complained of the tone adopted by the Noble Lord ( Stanley). The Noble Lord said they were not prepared to introduce a Bill, but he believed his Hon. Friend the Member for Evesham was willing to bring in a Bill likewise of complained the session ? of He the should tone on the subject.—( Roars of l aug h ter .) W hy was not the Bill bro ltr. u i gh is t forward o ar: T at i a i n w e l a c rl g earlier period certainle persevere in suppo r t ing t h e mot i on for adjournment. and manner of the Noble Lord, as totally unworthy of him.— ( Laughter.) He admitted the talents of the Noble Lord, but did not relish the mode in which they were on this occasion directed.—( Renewed laughter.) The Government had broken faith with the House on this subject. These amendments ; should have been introduced at an earlier period of the session, and at an earlier period of this evening. It was of the utmost importance that the new poor-law should have a full discus sion, and he did not think it had already received that discus- I sion. The House then divided on the question of adjournment-- For the adjournment lB Against it ............... Majority —2Ol On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. FERRAND addressing the House. He said, that un less the Government redeemed the pledge they had given. that. this measure should be fully discussed, he should feel it his duty to oppose, in every way possible, its going into Committee. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to explain the course which he had taken in respect to this Bill. In compliance with the request of the Hon. Number for Finsbury, he had made a general statement of its enactments, at a time when he had not even the draught in his possession. But after the de bate on the second reading, and now after seven hours' de bate, he co u ld no t think that the principle had not been fully discussed. He thought that when 219 .sle nbers voted against the adjournment, and only 18 gentlemen thought it necessary that an adjournment should take place, it was not necessary to adjourn. Mr. DUNCOMBE bore full testimony to the correctness of the Right Hon. Baronet's statement, and he believed that fur any delay in the measure the House and net the Right lion. Baronet, were to blame. Mr. BORT HWICK would not move the adjournment him self, but, after what had fallen from the Noble Lerd the Secre tary for the Colonies, he would vote with any one who moved it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Ndble Lord disclaimed an) person it allusion to him ( Mr. Borthwick), nor had he been personal in his observations. Sir R. PEEL had so often seen the lion. Gentleman take a reasonable part, that he had no doubt he would do so on the present oe.cssion.—( Great laughter. ) Mr. BORT 11W1CK explained, amidst great laughter, and cries of " Spoke, spoke." Mr. FERRAND said that he was indu-ed to move the ad journment, at the request of an Hon. Member, who said he wished to speak, and that his speech would occupy at least an hour.—( Laughter, and cries of " Name, name.") Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hoe. Gentleman might have his opportunity to-morrow, as the discussion would come on at half-past four o'clock.,-( Hear, and laughter. ) After a few words from Mr. COCHRANE in explanation— The House divided on the main question, when the numbers were-- For going into Committee For Mr. Borthwick's amendment l9 Majority for going into Committeee —lBo The House then went into Cornmitte, pro forma, and imme diately resumed ; the Bill to be further considered in Com mittee to-morrow (this day.) The Prisons ( Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL. Lord PALMERSTON moved the second reading of thg Gaming Discontinuance Bill. Mr. CHRISTIE opposed it, and moved its postponement. Sir B. PEEL thought the Bill should be read a second time. After a feWwords from Mr. Duncombe, Lord Palmerston, and Sir R. Peel, The House divided on the question of adjournni,nt, when there appeared—. Fear the postponement Against it Majority 5l The Bill was then read a second tune, and ordered to h e s•- 9 . mitted on Wednesday neat. The other orders nit. the ciay were then di-posed of, an d the House adjhurnid'at a'Quarter past Two o'clock. THE LIGIITNING. — (F ro m a Correspondent.) —As Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, §tebonh9ql teuac,C . , •Li vc ,A; home, was sitting uP 19 1 )e 1 1, M c iiilUl'lo l 46 I W4j6eti . ciin. , fined throltgit 414134 rovcetoo, tWQ ho was ,truck tiOi'glitnini,, on 3 1 0,,,14 .) . ulghd as hedt , which d as hed the him, a nd entering his fingers ran tin h; , . his breast, who?, trum lii; neck and great.heat fur nearly half am • . • ..:• , were vlOW , lltly At:Aimed, and his 21",rn •: tlos,,rlii, - .+A s'nqck ••AntiLit- t 1 ,0 itlt•t viL•ctrilled water aL much more violent. On Wednesday morning he was much better, THE STATE TRIAL-S. WRIT OF ERROR. MOUSE OF LORDS, July 4. THE QUEEN AGAINST O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. • Sir T. WILDE (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition ofyesterday) said—What is the foundation of the difficulty here? Cannot s different judgment be given on different counts, even.on parts of a count and parts of a plea, supposing the judgment to be dissimilar, in a ques tion of this description, where Sentence. is passed, and which still may or may not be supposed applicable to each of the counts? That a judgment ever passed which was applicable to all the counts upon which it was entered, I very much doubt. But most extraordinary it is that a . prisoner is to suffer under sentence, which, as appears in the record, is applicable to three or four several offences, and that he was to be told when he ap pealed against that sentence, that a surmise would be made tliat it was intended to be 'entered on that which it wasnot. Suppose there be three counts in the indictment, anti that the Court of Queen's Bench holds the first to be good and the others bad—that the Curt of Ex ch•qu7 r buds one to be good, which the Court Queen's 13,!neh has pronounced bud, and that your Lord snips dt,eitie that that count is good which they both pr. mounce co he ba 1, tr.nd that the oth, , r two are bad. What is to he 111, inteochment? It is perfectly e that there should be any intendment at all. It wolld ne . pt.r:ectly at surd that if a man was eonvt:ted on eleven counts, and suffered sentence, and that a Court of Error found possibly one of the counts to be good, Ow he, sh..add suffer under the accumulated sentence of the eleien counts, , etch contai:,ing ,riff: rent offences, 'F is no f•aniatioa for it; and no authority can be pro:ltfori f,r , t. Whenever a court cif law has refused a motion for at rest-of judgment on bad counts, it assigned for a reason that judgment was given on the good counts. Lord CAMPBELL said, is there no case of an error after judgment ,? Sir THOMAS WILDE—No, my Lord, we have sent to the Crown-office, and we believe there is not one. What ever be the intendment it cannot be doubted that there may be indictments for several distinct offences, that some of them may not legally subject the party to pu nishment, and sentence be given on the whole. At this period of the argument, the Lord Chancellor and some of the Judges retired for the purpose of refresh ment. On their return Sir T. WrLuc re,umed his argument as follows—l - was stating to your Lordships that I was certain no au thority could be . introduced for the extraordinary proposition, that, where judgment was entered upon ate - indictment in which a writ of error would issue, it was shown that some of the counts were good and some 'of them were bad, the judgments should be considered as entered upon the good counts, and not upon the bad ones? Suppose your Lordships should decide that the sentence passed WAS applicable only to some of the counts, and suppise Mr. O'Connell to be again indicted upon the counts which were decided to be bad how could he plead autrefois convict—a autrefois convict ? On this point I will draw your Lordships' attention to the case of the " King v. Wolf."- In that case a jury had been allowed,, to separate, in a case of misdemeanour. In the morning the defendant's counsel had objected to a 'continuance of the proceedings. Lord Tenterden, who presided, said he would not stop the case, but that he would take care to have the fact stated upon the record. The defendants were convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and a fine of 10,000 L A writ of error was brought, and Sir Charles Wetherell appeared to argue the case before your Lordships. The indict merit was produced, and on the postea it was entered that the Court had been duly adjourned. Lord Eldon imme diately stopped the case, saying that he could look only to the record----that whether the jury separated or not, w as a qtr stion they could not enter into, as the record stated that the Court was duly adjourned. The writ was dismissed, and the parties suffered the imprisonment. I mention this to show hoW implicitly your Lord shill hold to the record even when it may be equivocal as to the purpose for which an entry wasmade. Now, I ask, how would your Lordships deal with a plea of autrefois convict if put in by Mr. O'Connell, with regard to one of these bad counts ? How would you deal With suca a plea if it were brought before you on writ of erro.. and the record showed a conviction on that count? Why, a counsel would be unworthy to stand before your Lora-hips who should attempt to argue such a plea in the lace of such a record. Suppose an indictment for perjury and assault—an indictment on two counts—sup pose the party convicted and again indicted for one of the offences. He would plead autrefois convict. By aad ny the man produces-the record of his, conviction of perjury and assault, he suffers the punishment— thl House, in such a case, deal with it otherwise than stated in the record ? The truth is, the record must be dealt With as it ' was found. I cannot produce it in order to show that in point of fact the Court pronounced a judgment of a particular kind, because that was not admissible. If it was tnund that the counts were good which we say are bad, the intendment will be the same. There is no case whi c h. an intendment is given, except upon the state thetas of the record, and your Lordships cannot give judgment -in this case, except upon the statements in the record In the case of the King and Fuller, that was an in -dietment charging the defendant with attempting to get seamen front the service; there were several counts in that indictment and several objections. There was an objec tion made to onecount in particular, and upon that a mo . tion was made in arxest, ofjudgrnent, but it did not succeed. Now•ztl j the Present caseitisUbmit that the several counts have ri,cbsegteti to are noingcrod in point of law. Ido 110 0 0 esn to admit that the• other counts are good, be cause apprehend the objections I have urged to the„ othi, r : ,Counts -will equally apply to them. I have • now. lladdressed your Imrdships as to the effect of the general judgment - upon the good and the bad counts ; and I will now refer the House to some authorities, to show that counts in indictments of such a general nature have been continually held to be bad. The Learned Gentlemen then referred to Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, Curwood's edition, and the 3d Institute, in order to show that general counts in an indictment were held to be bad. In the case of' the " King v. Richardson," in Ist Moody and Robinson. the parties were indicted for a conspiracy against Sir Henry Parley. The case was tried in the county of Somerset. The indictment charged that the defendants did conspire, confederate, and agree to cheat the said Henry Parley, and certain overt acts were also stated. The overt acts not being proved, at the close of the case for the pro secution counsel for the defendant observed that the count could not be sustained, inasmuch as the count was too general, and stated no specific act by which the Court could judge whether the conduct of the defendant was unlawful or not. Lord Denman said, "My opinion is that the indictment it: bad in point of law. The alle gation is too general, and it does not convey any specific idea which the mint can lay hold of to judge whether any unlawful act has been done or not. " My Lords, my great objection to this indictment is, that it constantly introduces terms such as those which the Noble Lord here refers to as indefinite, and having no legal and precise meaning. Reforence was made in the case I have just cited to the case of the "King v. Gill," 2,1, Barnewall and Alderson, a 'case which is so often referred to on account of its laxity, that it is hardly to be considered an existing authority. The Learned Counsel then referred to the case of " The Queen v. Parker," tried in the Central Criminal Court. In that case the object of the conspiracy charged had been accomplished. The indictment charged that the parties al tered into a conspiracy with each other and with ether per sons, by divers means, to acquire and obtain goods from divers liege subjects of her Majesty, and to cheat and di:fraud her ! Majesty's subjects by false representations, and that the defendants received the goods which had been obtained by false pretences. The jury said that the parties had, by means aforesaid, unlawfully , gained possession of the goods, and cheated and defrauded their owners. Now, in the present case there is no mention of the persons to be in timidated ; there is entire silence as to the means by which certain ends, and those not ordinary ones, are to be accom plished, and the generality is infinitely' greater here than in any of the cases to which I have referred. • In the " King r. Cooper," 2d St range, t h ere i s t h e case of a person in dicted for stirring up strifes, quarrels, and disturbances against his Majesty's subjects. That was held to be a bad indictment. The indictment in this case was for stirring up Irish subjects against English subjects. In the " Queen v. Rowell" a number of per Sons were indicted for conspir ing wal agreeing with one another to do certain indecent acts in a public place and in the presence of her Majesty's liege sub jects. Mr. J ustice Patteson said "he could nut admit an indict ment f r treas9nable, or for indecent or other bad practices to b , + co.iveyucl iu such loose terms. Front such words used in co,n,non p.triatice the specific offifrice flight ,be inferred, but those loose words could not be admitted into a legal do cument." Mr. Justice Williams and the other Judges con curred wi h Mr. Justice Patteson, and their judgment was respited. Lord - BROEGHAM—What are the words of the indictment —I mean what are the adjectives used to describe the i n . decency ? • Sir T..WiLnE—My Lord, the words are very offensive. They are " to do certain indecent, lewd, nasty, and unnatural acts." ' But, notwithstanding all these words, the Court held that the indictment was - too loose, and could not be sustained. Such, my Lord is the general doctrine, and there are, a great many , other cases similar to those which I have referred to; but I will not now trouble your 'Lordships with them, i stated to your Lordships that, in the case of the;, Fuller," it was argued that the Court would give t 4 upon a good count, although the other Onhtlta worts bad. In the case of the ," Queen v. I ngram, The Court held that time fine could not be inflicted upon good counts, the Others being too general. That case Is reported in Salty. I will now beg to refer your Lordships to the case of " Grant v. Astell," Ist Cooper, page 776, in which the decision was the same, The position which I wish to present to your Lortiallipa Is that the indictment consists of several counts which are bad by means of their vagueness. Sonie cf these counts do hot chary, nor any pretence te - i. legal stitute any legal_ con charge. Other ceauta are expressed in too general terms to must auto a isglileharge, and the judgment Which 9s_pi l issed L T .. .11 these t counts cannot be sustained in point ho nt` o l f a o y,, n T judgment has been passed for a greater charged in the fth ces than were 4 . l 4ictlfletl6-ir gr ill eat r er number of offences than the 40411 4 ;14111s had pleaded guilty to. I must call your 14oisiships' attention again to the first count. It first sets out some overt acts, omitted in the next, although in respect to oneral charges the first and second counts were the same. ow, I must call your Lordships' attepM9,4l 1a this first count. The charge is that the defvtle,. - Aia. oonspired and agreed with each other and yi: i th divers hiller persons unknown to raise eoitte ilikontent and dissatisfaction amongst her Ma jesty's liege subjects stir up hatred and curl ; tempt of her • Majesty's Government—to ko,vcd I\ll4e and jealousy in the minds of key , -sty's Irish subjects towards their F f .,ngliA Atilo;nr, F le f e s , ami d v ., - discontent ill tlvi A tto.: -1.4,- ( . t „,„;, tfiw , 0,111 - 4 which • chairs on. .- acts, and to aeompllsh doubt, .mv t - * guilty of three several eonspiracies, though the indictment presented a charge of only 'one. It would be found the same as if it stood thus :—Eight persons conspired to cheat another person A.B. of three horses, black, white, and grey, Eii,ht persons are supposed to conspire, they are proved to have met in a room—that they came to an agreement to cheat A. B. out of his black horse ; but a part of them declined to become parties to cheat A. B. out of another horse. Two persons out of the eight retire from the room, and those who remain enter into an agreement to cheat A. B. out of another horse. A portion of them again retire, And those who are left conspire to cheat A. B. out of the remaining horse. Now here are three conspiracies between different persons at dif ferent times. Such would be found to be the conviction in the present case Eight persons would be found to have conspired to do certain acts. Some of thoseare found to have conspired to do other acts, and there is a third conviction for conspiring to do other acts, referring obviously to different times, and with respect to some of the acts to different persons; (The Hon. aud,Learned Gentleman here read the finding of the jury at length on the first and second counts.) Now, by this finding there were eight persons convicted of one cote spiracy. seven persons convicted of another conspiracy, and three persons convicted of a third. Now, on the record, there is one entire charge. The first and second counts •contain one charge only, but the finding makes th em gu ilt y o f dis tinct offeces, some distinct as to the persons, and all as to their objects. These offences may be more or less extensive; they may be the whole, or a portion of the count, but upon the finding the defendant can only be guilty of one offence. It wag not competent for the jury to find and the Court to give judgment upon perfectly distinct and independent offences, although those dffences are part of what is the entire charge, and although each of these might have been the subject of an indictment. This finding, therefore, cannot be a good one. If there are three perfectly distinct legal offences, they c annot be convicted of one entire offence. The first objection in this part of the case is, that upon those two counts, each being entire, the jury did not convict the defendants of one entire offence, hut convicted them of three distinct offences. On the th ird ci.o ut, your Lordships will find that Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of the whole of the third count, and that Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. Steele, 31r. Ras, and Dr. Gray, are not found guilty of the whole of it ; they are not guilty of that part of it which charges them with conspiracy to excite disaffection in the army, and the Reverend Thomas Tierney was found guilty of that part only which relates to the ex c iti ng o f disaffection in the army. Here your Lordships will observe that Daniel O'Con''' nell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of the whole matter of the count. They were charged with coil spiring together with Mr. Joh n O'Connell and the other de fendants to accomplish certain objects, and Mr. D. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy, are found guilty of conspiring to cl. that of which Mr. J. O'Connell and the others who conspired with him are not found guilty. It i s i m p oss ibl e that M'r. P. O'Connell, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Duffy could have conspired with those other persons without those other persons con spiring with them, for the nature of a conspiracy is, that I mutual agreement or contract has been entered into to effect the common object. The count charges eight persons with conspiring together, and they find that the eight are guilty , but that five of the eight were not guilty of what three others were convicted. If the acquittal of the five be light' the conviction of the three must be wrong, and here the same objection arises of finding two offences, and I thi4 this finding is erroneous, and ought to be set aside. • The LORD CHANcemon—Suppose a case of three perstolt being indicted for conspiring to do an act, of whom two'ers found guilty and the third acquitted—would not that 138 pop_ _ Sir T. WILDE—I do not apprehend you can find that to t ; men conspired with a third, and find in the same record 0 9 ' the third did not conspire with them. . • The LORD CHANcnu...on-4n a conspiracy between A, C, and other persons, if you find A guilty of a conspiracy, '" is not necessary that C and B should be joined in the cow spiracy. Sir T. Wtt.DE—Every indictment for a conspiracy Mu st be framed in one of two ways—either that persons unknown had conspired with A and B, or that A and B, and o th ers unknown, had conspired ; but you must a l wa y s prove the conspiracy as you charge it. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Is it necessary to grove a COr spiracy against all the persons who are made parties to it r (At this period of the proceedings it was a n n ounc ed tba, t the Royal Commissioners were in waiting to give her MajestY , assent to certain Bills.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—We will renew the argunien after the Commission is over. Counsel were then ordered to withdraw, and the Ito.Y •Assent was given by Commission to certain Bills, for wine,: set our Parliamentary r e p or t. Aft er the Commission t" argument was resumed. Sir ThostAs WILDE then resumed—Your Lordship 1 05 asking me a question respecting the acquittal of one defog' dant, when three were charged on an indictment for cons Pi. racy. I know of no case in which a record properly . 8 1 1. 4 tered and properly prepared shows incongruity on til t face of it. In this case, instead o f fi n d ing th% Daniel O'Connell, Barrett, and Duffy conspired with ea; other, and with certain persons unkn own , to doeorti!Al acts, the jury find that they are guilty of the p rem i ses charge"' On the first and second counts they find them guilty of ,Con' spiracy with each other to do certain acts which form a Pot of the premises set out in those counts. In an indictrot against those persons for cons pi rac y w ith eac h other to "*. certain things, if the guilt of one of the three is not eat s , blished, the proper mode of entering the finding i s , that 53 1 : No. 3; not guilty, as to Nos. 1 and 2, guilty of conspiroc2 with each other, to do so and so. Lord CAMTBELL-.-I1 that an essential part of the We ment? Sir T. WrLDE—Theessential p ar t i s , th a t i t ;;$ an agreed eat with several to do certain acts which constitute a cony racy. The indictment here charg e l a conspiracy not the e ll with the eight defendants who w ere li v i ng at the time 01 trial, but with a ninth who was not living. The Loan CmulcELLon----Three persons are indicted conspiracy, and two have been f oun d gu il ty o f the pretow''" whilst the other is not guilty. Will not that do? Sir T. WILDE—No, my Lord. I must pray your Lordshlp to use the word premises, without stating its meaning' The LORD CHANCELLOR—.I made use of th e wor d pre lnises because it is in this very count. Sir T. WILDE—And I use it for the same newton. - .t then, when your Lordship uses this an as objection ! I what is meant by premises? The word " premises," prehend, means that they are in " guilty of having em, oe o into the conspiracy charged the count. If it not mean that, who can tell what it does wel l y If the word "premises" be a legal word, there must h e certain meaning attached to it. S u p pose t h ey were to be w dieted again, what would be their plea? The LORD CHANCELLOR—I think it is precisely the sa rli. question. Sir T. WlLDE—Surely it would be a different offence? of The LORD CHANCELL OR —N o t at all.• Suppose the pitr., t '. o are charged with o conspiring with A, B, and C, t o d o cet'il l acts, and the jury were t o fi n d t h at they had conspired 10 A only, would not that be sufficient? Sir T. WILE:—.Yes, my Lord. But y our L ordsh i p e g' „ the most material p ar t of the question : th a t B an d C 1131 -been acquitted, and the conspinicy with theni deni e t; Upon this occasion a cousr e tracy is charged against eig". three are found bruitey of the premises. If it was oh petent to find t eem guilty of conspiracy with the 0t"11 five, why was not th e ver di ct consistent ? For 1,/,''to charge had they received judgment ? Thi s applied, to. a certain extent, through all the subse quen t collo io He conceived, therefore, that the record was defectiv!io what it had not found, and inasmuch as it had not foul - w o o acquittal.; for instance, the whole were found guilty et' o f premises when the jury had negatived the possibilitl it e that guilt by the acquittal of certain persons To whom they intended to conspire, and on ol e it intention a portion of the charg e wail fou r " o to, There is a verdict of not guilty in favour of the defend e . e r which ought to have b een followed up by judgment. ` pfi t. diet was of no avail which was not followed up by judg in /i ol and he was not aware o f any case w h ere judgment ws°oo pronounced in which a verdict of acquittal was found. . 4 0 defendants were acquitt e d on t h e count c h arg i ng them 'O6 attending an unlawful assembly, and upon this acquitta l judgment of the Court was not pronounced. 0 11 Lord C,AsteenLL—ls that an error of which you ea l3 , a , o u yourself You can only av a il y ourse lf of that by wh i ch are damnified. Sir Thomas WILDS —Those f or w h om I appear, sp A rat he other defendants, may be d amn ifi e d in this respect,. t" -eat, verdict of not guilty coul d not b e p l ea d e d to another ind ictnl .e. The LORD CHANCELLOR —W e can repair that defect he'ir, Sir T. WILDE—I am not aware that in a criminal ° o f where the Court below d oes not pronounce judgment, 1 Lordships have ever added it. of The Loan Cii.orcEmon—l am informed that the C.. ol .`,„tef Queen's Bench has done so in a case called " The r> i - o y , case," and upon the distinct ground of its being discretion of Sir THOMAS WlLDE—There are many things whiting Court of Queen's Bench would do which this House, s " c iio as a Court of Erro r , wou ld not do. I consider that the re , , ',.• 1.4 is goOd for nothi ng t i ll it is sanctioned by judgment pronounced. I have now stated the most important Pc' to e which I intend e d to address to your Lordships, but there,cli: some others of a tec h n i cal nature, upon which Mr. Per „ o ' will address yo u M y Learned Friends will address your ships upon some of those points which I have abstained o f urging at greater length in consequence of the shortne'f.,6 time. They will address you on the chall eng i ng o f the J" and the constitution of the jury-list. Lord BnotiGlLtx--You do not mean to give 'ap the P with regard to the swearing of the witnesses. _ Sir T. WiLDE—The very reverse.- my Lord. P ti- e po Learned Friends and myself ba,veP7reed that there are rate Pints upon which each "' . .r.tould address your Lord', l 'ire and was afraid ..11,iat 3 :: "I should address myself to re Pints , that I "tu'.7. - occupy too much time, acid what in f _tie outset. vent others fre; - ,,, being heard. I now conclude what to say V.7. - e Learned Gentleman concluded ins argument g" 0. 4 minute to five o'clock, and the further hearing of the was adjourned till to-morrow at ten o'clock. IMPORTATION OF GOODS FROM MYSOR.E. Lords of the Treasury having had under considerat iw r e , letter from the East India and China Associatior l ir ei ll speeting the ad m i ss i on o f sugar an d ot h er artich's Mysore, th e i r Lordships hate dir ec t e d t h e Ceri'z'-oce sippers o f C ustoms to b e appr i sed that Mysoiep. , is, le2ally admis.ible as produce of Madras, A ol e o° this order has been furnished to the varion.s depart, l l4 a$ lit London, alid also to the of the several outports of the "Ur,.ted Kingdom, for in.i comptrob e t heif infoorition and governunlt. BIRTHS, On the 2° .:th ult., at th e Manor House, Weston, Ch tor the lady of Henry Hill, jun.. Esq., of a son and heir. ell , ' Cin the 29th ult., at Ridlington. Norfolk, the lad , ' Rev. John Webb Flavell, of a son. w ine On the 30th ult., th e w if e of Dr. Rowland, Queen'''. Bloomsbury, of a daughter. itto , On the 2d inst., at B e l grave-square, Mrs. William of a son. - On the 2d inst., Mrs. W. B. Minet, of a daughter. On the 2d inst., at 3I SI R G R eo I :;, Hanow 1 - 1- a re , e' i°131 ',,f 7: Jephson Rowley, Esq., of Rowthorne, in the co a nn sq t): ° _.. j le; '- to Mary Ann Rowley, relict of the late William Now Sh O effi n e th hi e . 29th ult., at Milverton. P LatirageiSilefr:Sqi, (tliellascomho House, iii loilie 7 o . u else rrel l , to s la ° ri f an t li bee t 11. 51 140/v': the same county norolds; Esq., o f Coo l ' Oa th , DIED. Wh ir I, - ' c Ist. inst., at Vicar's-hill, the Rev. Tlaan lo De , t OP- eta , -dm, D. L>., Vicar of Kingsteignton-cum-Highwce- i r !, , 00 ,1 , ' On the Ist inst., at ityde, John Wroughton Ilarr i- o f of Cambridge-terrace, Elyde-park. EA' On the 2d inst., Jane, the wife of J. W. Nic:;olson , ag e ' Lark-hall-rise, Lark-hall-lane, Clapham. h 1 fir On the Ist inst., in Cambridge-street, Connaug ...f el Mary, the widow of the late Richard Henry C r owe, v' ~ iix i, x • >;14:1:, a:,-ed 95. cs it, 94 0,1 i l';;‘ :. !list., at ilenfield, Sussex, Goring Ri de ~..;'l,,r, '.,..; ,, stv's Bptll Regiment. Of -...,,-..-.....- -:47=4......`.•, - - ..: • ' ... -•- • ' -- ',, t: -S 01, ~1' L , .,1:, i- - :', .. ziii Piti)11s11.() by MURIA) Yt if , ,,, f ( ; - i;:t... ....! • , ',"l-:,:r:,. - :' - couli3r.!7 :-2 1 ,,p .- to un",.. LI; •egal ~,gr,., , , ..;:“.,. i 1..,., .. , • ~. .:., Priuter, ~ The Sun OilieCl v oll In, i i -: ~.,- ;.:,5. ;( .citi,:..,,. I i - li:c,: .t ., , 11, , t. , scveral agre2;:lacnts Straud, 111 t :U.:I Preit: et of the Savvy, in the I alleged, but only one; but the jury have found the defendants I Bliddlaass, rriday, July 5, 1544. create : our Lordships cotiapiiracy to do certain _audit specific purposes. There is no ..ores, that this count presents but one charge, "tat is cf & conspiracy to do certain acts. I am not here to say to your LAnd-Liips tku: /mi v port,fi tln ...hat cot. A 1 thou • .),4,1 p;:; 1 I,y *i' • ; , ;,nTiny c urt cot:l(l44a, bail ) . OSTI sOu r are .. CAL) }UL: 1A.12] AASt and eve 4venini ottltPartieu ry, W itneas, Ha I 9 SA too or tronvey ZrPenter, b res e -- tend on in a it tia efre , ets pr, 41 selosur e '' t i vb t and law'tnzthe 11 4 7 4 , 1 _ 11 the 2741'11 at t day of wtt AB' z . t wo ali ffe . h , a 4,*sex, a et.• to ati :ikrupt and effects 2ive! Itztn be hear ,„erein witn,„g sifts L ° , ", 18 44 whn e , ' siLv, Alanttt, Ai U t. C. ► , [ l 4Tt A t m ak ie "er "ec eed , Yet o fr e UB h all it I, lZ a t,,Qe i r n g tll e Y' „, be eea itbh,l Tam b e . e SPooll Teasert ditt( klar Bl) P ri s , klt no k id lilt Z . W atsor Li s 'Y hi sow to fetal I is be tested, I 'er: 4 7:red C. w ear. le Jo atsor Dula tretts Pose s; an d ter r Y Tab Pair. J 1 , 1„ ht a h erds, b ln yM Uee l With t,o pa r T ea • the het 4 Pate Qu of S AgTgo3 p, 3 5 . The se , fiery " . ° ,l Nit.] T' , ' -- St en's Suits. Isow ditto 0. 1kp ol ; ,ex t h, no Ny U bser, n ! i .,° (ll en to r , tc r ,wee. and 482Linst • ?1 ' t h 44h oor ThQoeen c 44 d th o , rzaPkw7sritl; th b .11 N ' 8 greei till At Re, tare gter _lp s 11 4:%1 Ever ILAN' ~ANr —9', at re s t ( A~