The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

* 1 1 1 0 , 3 2 Ar 2 3 , h — for b e TY ° Free ilo, 'Pe r WI in f ixoo ov itt)f r. ex l 00 0 ast s r t ; fe 108. J► ..... 0 ewpo r inodr rd Glar .WOO a halt rers) lo ths, b u G. Be". o niil6s' low) 12 '''''' '''' saltine, pigot ie For st 6 to 1 Ho rissl .1 mil e ' I ;erg) % ...... COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of public bus:n e Mr. Smelt" requested to know from the Chairman of th e• Royal Exchanwe Committee whether the encaustic Pttilting i m that building had been performed upon the r l eiPle of public compet i t i on ? He was induced to ask que-tion, in consequence of a statement which ap- P " a ed in the papers some days ago, an' to which much r l " , tlce had been attracted. L.,JoNEs said , they certainly had been exe eutPd upon the principle of puhlic competition. A Mirainsa---Arnongst EnAlisb artists ? M r. R. L. JONES re Vied that he was - not aware of any e xclusio n whatever with re , pect to the artists of any cenntrr. thelql.ii. TAYLOR—I can state that more than half of , persons engaged in these paintings were English men - -(Hear. hear.) Mr. It, JoNEs--There is no doubt whatever of that. N lr. ANDFRTON—I am anxious to know, for the sake . oft( " mercantile men, whO.are subjected to great incon ."lli"ee by the .delay, when it is likely that the bu ildin g * 1 be opened ? 14 . R. L. JONES—I hope, and believe, that it will be 0 Perled during the present mayoralty.—(Loud cheers ) T CITY . OF LONDON FREEDOMS. w ' a be Repirt of the Freedom Committee , to whom i t s referred 6. to inquire into the power of the Corpora btl4.n. to enforce upon all persons, whether carrying on t ., sin esAi wholesale or retail, within the City. the obliga ,lr'.ll Of taking up the freedom of the City, and the pro riil,etY of enforcing the same upon all traders, and . parti or';lY Upon wholesale dealers," was, upon the motion T ry Ashurst, the Chairman, ordered to be printed. • h e Commit tee to whom it was also re f e rred to con gibl T" er ?is to th e p ro priety of making a county-rate within t le 1 44 C it3', stated, that in ursu ance of the reft.renefts they etis i: tr as ie et from time to tune and considered the matter , e " in order to obtain the best information, they directed search to be made into all the charters. records, illrnunts, and preeedings which would tend to throw t liPon the subject ; and they ordered extracts to be 4le from them, to enable the Court to con sider the la in o ne comprehensive view. In furtherance of these directions the Town-clerk had prepared and laid. we 'r.e them extracts from the charters , the book a nd , 'meets of the Corporation. the statutes of the realm , "" Other documents, from the earliest times to the e % t re 'ant moment. The correction and printing of these cacti had necessarily required much labour and oc or the some time. The subject matter was n o t onl y d rgreatest importance to the City, but al.o in sidvie, e weighty co nsiderations, having on the one e t , deep-rooted prejudices, long practic e, and abetted neglect to overcome ; and, on the other, the tie e „ s sitY of extensive and effective correction of existing t ~t jue and the securing the restoration . of the ancient, % . t . and reasonable rights of the City. They had p e . i ghecl and considered the conclusions which were t i t i int adi and the proceedings which were suggested, and nTi n tigh they were not at present prepared to give their g: s l report on all the matters referred to, yet there were 1 .;" points on which they w ere prep . ared to report their of e(l t inmendations and to press the immediate adoption e e : s n i .emi as required' by the existing evils and the ne re. speedy correction. The pressure on the withi n deal ers and the i mm unity of others who dwell th e City, and partook of all its advantages, had i e t 2 hed mu c h with the Committee; and they had unani u,sly resolved that the Acts of Common Counci l, im - I : ei ; s 'ng penalties on persons resiiering in the City , and not rGlled as citizens, using arts, trades, occupations, and f Yst eries within the City, should be recom mended taai; for i mmediate enforcement. As to the expediency of s ilet" ?, a county rate, they had not at present obtained information as would enable them to make a report 4 0 11 that point. They had been the more inclined to f et e the adoption of proceedings for the penalties er the acts of Common Council, as they had the satis iiie,tien of knowing that that the Court of Aldermen had ex r'ise had laid before them, by the Remembrancer, N ., ',nets and documents relative to the wholesale dealers, eas of which had been communicated to them by the U rt Of Aldermen, and from which they found that the same s a l view they had taken of the liability of the whole 1e dealers, who were not freemen to legal proceedings , t.Penalties under the laws and customs of the Corpo was adopted by the Reanembrancer. 14 le report was appointed for discussion at the neat %wt. $ O 4 long discusion took place , upo n the motion of Mr. wta that it be referred to the Committee on the trade rs freedom to consider the expediency of reducing tho fine on admission to the freedom of the City to the i' n eient fi ne of 21. 6 s . 811., and the proposition was lected by a large majority. PORTRAIT CF, LORD DENMAN. 1: 1 ; n e LORD MAYOR said he had received a letter from t t i b fl bl Y - gifted and . most estimable lady, accompanied by length portrait of Lord Denman, Chief Justice of . t, e queen's Bench, who had formerly filled the office of ` n en geant of their City. The rank,. talent, and e x e l i cit, of then oble individual who was the subject of the e x e l i a lt• the faithfulness of its resemblance, and the of its execution, would, he was.sure, render it Tt,,F l 7 acceptable present to the Court.—(Cheers.) " T L "ing• is a copy of the, letter. Co te ° th e Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and . e r1 ;"' l uouneil of the City of London. 7, 1 1 LORD AND GENTLEMEN —I solicit your accept ancec,et a full-length portrait of the Right . Hon. Lord e - " ro an, Chief Justice of England, which I have had • is t ;i ty llo o l f !lu o r n T n i l aaint expressly fur the Corporation of the • j "I hope I have so far pro9ted by the opportunities his •ortiship kindly atf.rded me, as to obtain it likeness suf • ficiently faithful to be valued by you, and to convey to Posterity an adequate resemblance of this distinguished mdividual, of whom it will be recorded in history that, when excluded from political considerations from the w ell-earned honours of his profession, he was elevated b . Y the an c ient privil e ge of the Corporation of London, to judicial station and forensic rank ; and after having, un der their auspices, for nearly ten years, maintained a a e g voe r ePutation as an upright judge and a powerful Att or t , he was raised by his Sovereign to the office of he has and, finally, to the eminent position „ Al pow the honour to fill. Com d theas I have been for many years to members of affeed; Mo n Council by filial and conjugal ties, it shi ale much satisfaction to place under the guardian ._ P of that body the last of this magnitude which it is may, intention to undertake. fel ' I g „" ai l myself of this occasion to express my grate nse of the respectful attention I have personally honourw received from the corporation; and I have the _ t o b yL d and Gentlemen, your obedieet acrYlint, e, In- or MARY M. PEA RSON. "Cl apham Common, July 18, 1844 ." T het ir readin g of the letter was rece ived with cheers. thZ; r * I t le JONES said he was one of the few members reneining in the Court who twenty-two years ago 4- 4 t:i supported Mr. Denman's election as Common . e A r geant. It was a period of great political excitement. en Party feelingnd prevailed to shut him out from that lail k a • position in his profession which he was by his u i e nts so. well qualified to occupy.—(Loud cheers.) subsequent honourable and useful career had justi fied the in eyes of the world the discrimirating selection himh,atl the the Common Council, who, in conferring upon rank of Common-Sergeant, smoothed the rug Z y n access to fame and fortune, and enab!ed him to sur ennt th e di f fi cult i es w hi c h a d verse circumstances had pe ed in his way .—(Ch eers .) His Lordship always ex elited himself pleased to review from his present ex • a n e u emnainence the events of former days, and he (Mr. hi: l v e s) entertained no doubt that the Corporation and to ' f - , ordship would feel equal satisfaction in transmitting the ut nre ages, within the walls of the-Council-chamber, m emento of his Lordship, which that splendid por thq't afforded.—(Loud cheering.) In conformity with thlie precedent established forty years since, when the ou ' Mrs. Darner :presented the bust of Lord Nelson, e f, n , in the Court, he should move that the cordial thanks le Court be given to Mrs. Charles Pearson for . this La y Y aluable . present, and that it be referred to the City the Committee to provide a suitable place for it in e sP o uncil•room.—(Cheers.) th 1r 1) . LAURIE said that, participating as he did with 1:1 ! other members of the Court in the great respect they th re for Lord Denman, as well as for toe lady by whom Portrait had been painted, he should content himself seconding the motion. Situatß. TAYLOR remarked, that being in the same te en " 0 0 as Mr. Jones, he concurred with that gentle. ln expressing the satisfaction they must feel in ij oh n s; been members of the Court when the Corpora ls; e Xerci-ed one of their highest and noblest privi s in the selection of this distinguishcd individual to th e judici a l o ffi ce o f C ommon S ergeant , by whi c h he at e "rne time attainel professional rank as an advocate. kt ltuti •• • As a con •titutional advocate, and us a con eavi °nal jud4c, Lord Denman had done justice to the , hh Y expectiiCons of his friends, and had maintained that a e i v ra eler for con s istency which had recommended him to teileh rsal coi:fidenee and regard. The Corporation of Lon in e , h a just right to plume themselves upon the manner they and their ancestry had. ired their consti or ti °nal right of appointing to high office. The records h at s l e ) Corporation proved that the House cf Commons een provided with three Speakers, the Woolsack i t • I t'n or twelve Chancellors, and the Courts of West, ii':!ster with as many Chief Justices and Chief Barons, L Litl i e t a whole host of puisne Judges. Lord Coke, King, Sir Thomas More, Chief Justice Hale. were a.to , e ruited from th e ran ks of the City Law Officers, l aw was not a little remarkable, that that eminent wl e Y ' t .r and distinguished scholar Mr. Baron Boiland, e„, 4 ) "ad bee n compet i tor w i t h L or i Denman for the ele v ' II " Sergeant's go An, was, like himself, afterwards A lte to the judicial bench. kil rlernta n FAREBROTHER observed that the ability hi . l of this distinguished Nobleman stood too bni n h e ill publi c est i mat i on to need any eulogy from him, s e , e could not h e lp a ll u di ng t o t h e resolute and per (),ell:ng inatin,r in which his Lordship had, upon a l l le 4 .. s "ins• opposed any invasion of the rights and privi said ,of th e citizffni London.—(Great cheering.) lie tu ' te ne coul.l n‘ , t refrain frem doing justice to the good and g,od fee!ing of the lady who had gracefully I,,,rziet'ietd, faithful, v-alous, and able officer of the Cor (s4tn, now elevated to the summit of his profession, elleer,subject of a portrait presented to that body troe, e '! ) He had seen with admiration the magnificent bl eu tem of her pencil, which her fidelity in resem fre.e, and fo r taste and ability in execution, need not '‘ll;c(b"petition with any of the splendid portraits with mt.. the Council Chamber was adorned.—(Cheers.) th e rn Mr. JUPP, and other memi erg, supported Lao ""nt which was carried unanimously, anti amidst • a cclamation s ,. Air. L IQ •L. Josies having moved that the Lord Mayor , vouesti.'d to convey the foregoing resolution to Mr. elrse n , AsuccsT stated that he most cheerfully se q..: the srtunity of remarking upon the very• gratifying cir. motion, and avail, d himstlf of the s e o. ! l a:cc that the portrait had been painted by a . ladv, rae u an t d cultivated an elegant accomplishment as tfie s 01 honourable independence, and who, by her eir.inent position in the arts, had afforded to females of talent and education a bright example of success in a department of industry consonant with the delicacy of the sex and the refinement of their taste.—(Cheers.) In the' early days of the Royal Academy, and under the presidency of Sir 'Joshua Reynolds, female artists par ticipated with their brethren in the honours of the pro fession. Angelica Kauffman, Miss Moser, and, he be- Ferei, the lion. Mrs. Darner, who had been referred to that day, were Royal Academicans ; and it was gene rally understood that had Sir Thomas Lawrence lived, the Silique law, by which the lords of creation bore ex clusive sway in the domain of British art, would have been restored.—(l,Oucl cheers.) The walls of the Royal Academy had annually exhibited the pro ductions -of Mrs. Carpenter, Mrs. Charles Pearson, Mrs. Robertson and other able female artists, besides the !itinerary contributions of ladies of rank. It would be but the payment of a grateful homage to public opinion which had already, by it s patronage, given to those ladies an elevated position in the fine arts of the Royal Aca demy, and the literary institutions of the country were to c infer honours upon ladies eminent in art. , , sciences, and literature, - who had earned distinction in the arena of pul,Fc competition.—(Loud cheering.) Deputy STEVENS cordially agreed in the observations of the preceding:speakers, and particularly in the remarks of the last gentleman who had spoken. He was delighted to witness the grcat improvements which had taken place during the last few years in female education. He hoped that still further encouragement would be given for the cultivation of literature and the . arts. Mrs. Pear son, who had been long known as the estimable wife of their respected City Solicitor, afforded the best proof, by her example, that the highest attainments in the arts was perfectly compatible with the display of the domestic virtues, which were the charm and ornament of the sex. The motion was carried unanimously.—Adjourned. THE BIRMINGHAM ELECTION. (From the Cheltenham Examiner.) This catastrophe has been consummated, and the country has this week witnessed the humiliating spec tacle of a great constituency sacrificing certain success to the gratification of internal feuds and dissensions. Thus has Birmingham been lost to the Liberal interest— the Tory candidate has been returned, and Mr. Joseph Sturge entitled himself to the lasting gratitude of the party for his services on the occasion. The unhappy split which manifested itself immediately on Mr. Schole field's death, remained unclosed to the last ; and the result was, that the Liberal party, weakened, dispirited, and frittered away in unworthy rivalry, was unable to cope with the united and sanguine party opposed to it. The . Conservatives are not a little vain-glorious at the fact that they have polled more than the combined forces of their opponents. But, re garded as a mere party victory, they have little to con gratulate themselves on ; Mr. Spooner purchased the votes of many of the middle men by his distinct decla rations against the present Ministry • he announced him self as a No-Peelite ! and as one who, on the Factory and Sugar Bills, would have voted against Ministers, and scorned to do as many of his party did—rescind his vote to keep them in office. So far, then, the Ministry gains but little in Mr. Spooner's advent to Parliament. As to the causes of defeat to the Liberals, they are simply these : united, they were un doubtedly able to carry their man ; their unfortunate dissensions destroyed that certainty, by cramping the energies, and destroying the unitedness of the party, and preventing many, from the improbability of victory, from going to the poll at all. As we before stated, the only means of healing the breach was for the weakest party to give way ; the result has shown which that party was. The smallness of - Mr. Sturge's mino rity proves the hollowness of his pretensions to repre sent the borough ; he must have known, long before he went to the poll, that he could not command 500 votes ; in fact, that the only end of his opposition must be not his own success, but the defeat of his brother Libe ral, and the letting in of a Tury. Mr. Schelefield, on the contrary, had a prospect of success. No one questions that had he stood alone, he would have com manded a majority with the undivided support of the Liberal interest, his success was certain. But fate, and the folly of party, decreed otherwise. Birming ham was destined to have the enviable notoriety of giving the first victory to disunion, and its name will hence be a word of warning, and caution, and disgrace to the constituencies of the empire. The public voice will not fail to visit this disgrace upon the right quarter—the man who, with 300 votes (not a tithe of the polling constituency), set up his own ambition and his own pretensions against the all but unanimous voice of his party.. It would scarcely be credited, but . for the living example that so much professing philanthropy should be a cloak to selfishness and personal ambition. But, in these days, unfortunately, professions and prac tice often run to opposite extremes ; and the consti tuency of Birmingham have lent themselves to the full development of the phenomenon. In plain language, Birmingham has been Sturged. (From the Cambridge Advertiser.) ' We live in strange times, and consequently may ex pect to witness strange things. There is, for instance, the result of the Birmingham election—few will hesi tate to admit the strangeness of that event. Indeed, seven years ago, had any one ventured to predict that Radical Birmingham would choose a per son of Conservative principles for its repre sentative in 1844, he would be laughed at for his folly ; but yet the thing has come to pass. We, being no party politicians, can afford to admit this fully and, unreservedly, but at the same time we think the solution of the political phenomenon to be simple and obvious. A house divided against. itself cannot stand, neither can a party, nor the section of a party ; and, therefore, ever since we heard of the split that had taken place in the Liberal interest in Birming ham, we set down Mr. Sp ooner ' s return as cer t a in and inevitable. Besides, he is, we be believe, a gentleman of great local influence, and deservedly popular with the electors of Birmingham—that coupled with the dis union and antagonism in the ranks of the Birmingham electors, easily, we think, accounts fur his triumph, over the moral-force Chartist, and the mere Whig. Of course, if local jealousies prevail, men . must make up their minds to see the common cause sa crificed—if personal antipathies intervene, men must lay their account with witnessing the ruin of public principles. Nothing is surer than that. The Liberals of Birmingham have themselves to thank for the defeat they have sustained, and it is only to be hoped that they will profit by the lesson that has been ead them. If they do, the Liberal cause will be rather served than injured by Mr. Spooner's return ; but dozens of such returns cannot make up for the loss of strength occasioned to the Ministry by the feelings of distrust and disappointment that obtain amongst their supporters, and that are so spreading amongst Con servative constituencies in every quarter of the empire. Look how severely their conduct on Earl Powis's Bill has been censured by their friends both in and out of Parliament—look what a storm of odium Sir J. 'Gra ham's tampering with the Post-office called down upon them; these things are not to be forgotten, or atoned for by the sddition of one unit to the number of their par tisans in the Lower House. Character is everything with the country in the long run ; and, indeed, in the present condition of parties, with a servile majority of ninety at the beck of Ministers, the result of an isolated election can only be a matter of very secondary importance. It is only as a sign of the times that it is at all worthy of notice. (From the Worcestershire Chronicle.) The Birmingham election has terminated, as we pre dicted, in the return of Mr. Spooner, by a considerable majority. This is owing to the unfortunate division in the Liberal ranks, occasioned . by . the Complete Suf fragists, who must have known, in bringing forward Mr. Sturge, that there was not the ghost of a chance of securing his election. The only purpose 'served by the line of conduct they thought fit to adopt, is the pur pose of the Tories, the hereditary enemies of good government. They have demonstrated, at the same time, the absurdity of their pretensions, laid bare the weakness of their cause amongst the electoral body, and established beyond the possibility of question which of the two Liberal candidates ought to have given way to the other. Three hundred and fifty votes given for Mr. Sturge; more than seventeen hundred for Mr. Seholefield! Surely the former and his supporters could not have expected the majority should give way to the minority, that the 1,700 should allow the 350 to impose, as it were, a candidate upon them ! The probate result of the contest, as between Mr. Schcletield and Mr. Sturge, must have been ascer tainable before the election. Mr. Sturge and his friend;, had they made any calculations upon the subject, as various communications to the press on their behalf would lead us to believe they did, must have . known sufficient of the comparative position occupied by each candidate, to be convinc• d that it was hopeless for them to contest the election. Yet they and ,he persisted, and the consequence of their unpatriotic obstinacy has been that they have a Tory Member, instead of a Liberal .mo. The principle Gn which the Complete Suf fragists have acted is just like that which is mani fested in spoilt children, who, because they cannot have just what they desire, throw away the good thing they might have. Became the Complete Suffra gists cannot have a member whose political sentiments exactly match their own, they contrive to let in, not the one whose opinions come the nearest to his, but the one who is the farthest removed from him, who has scarcely a Angle sentiment in common with the pattern they have set up. And when they have done this they believe, for we give them credit for sincerity, that they are going the right way to work to promote an extension of the popu lar liberties, and to advance the cause of good Go vernment ! We pity their infatuation, and lament its result. BatottroN, WEDNESDAY, Six o'CLocK P.M. — About twelve o'clock this morning a steamer hove in sight, rounding Newhaven cliffs, having in tow a large vessel, and in about an hour afterwards it was a , certained to be the ves sel which Captain Warner intends to blow up with his newly invented shell. Some hundreds of persons immediately paid the toll to the Chain-pier, for the purpose of getting as near a sight of the vessel as possible. The steamer did not stop, but towed the vessel into Shoreham Harbour. Captain War ner, on leaving Brighton last night, proceeded to Dover, for the purpose of engaging a steamer to tow the vessel to Shoreham, and having effected that object, he left Dover and arrived here this afternoon. It is uncertain when the expe riment, will be tried, but in all probability it will take place on Saturday. Captain Warner is staying at the New Steyne Hotel, and will write this evening to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to ascertain their pleasure as to the precise time for the trial of the shells. INCENDIIRY FIRES.—Our accounts of the fires are diminishing, and we trust they will continue to diminish. We have but one incendiary fire to record in this county since the date of our last publication ; and those of a purely accidental nature are also limited in number. The evil has been extensive and frightful enough without the added hor rors of exaggeration into which so many of our contempora ries, copying the example of the Times, have. fallen, and the pri.spect of an abatement of that evil will, we trust, be hailed IT all with thankfulness and gratitude.—Bury Herald of , yesterday. Till SUN, 1,014130 N, PRIDAY MOILNING JULY 1 1e44. ITYIPEittAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 18. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. Me::sengers from the House of Commons brought up the Southampton Improvement Bill, the Glasgow Rail way Extension Bill, and another private Bill. SCHOOLMASTERS OF SCOTLAND. Lord MINTO, in presenting a petition from the paro chial schoolmasters of Scotland, complained that the dis cussion which took place when he formerly put some question upon the subject to her Majesty's Government had been misreported in the provincial newspapers. It had not ben said in that House that her Majesty's Ministers had washed their hands of the subject. That was the very contrary of what occurred ; for his Noble Friend opposite had said that the Government were willing to give the subject a favourable consideration, but were unable to take it up at present. The petition which he now presented originated in a mistake of his Noble Friend's answer, in consequence of the imperfect manner in which it had been reported. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that his Noble Friend bad rightly understood. the answer of the Government. DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL. Lord HATHERTON moved the second reading of this Bill, which, he said, was intended to remedy the inconveniences to which some counties were subjected by having parts of other counties embodied in them and completely detached. After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY and the Duke of RICHMOND, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. AGRICULTURE. The Duke of RICHMOND presented 120 petitions in favour of agricultural protection, some of which included a prayer against the Anti• Corn-law League. THE RACE-COURSE G4MING BILL. Lord CAMPBELL presented the petition of which he hal given notice, from Charles Henry Russell, to be heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, against the Actions for Gaining Discontinuance Bill, lie thOught the petitioner was entitled to be so heard—an indulgence for which there were many precedents : amongst others, a case in which his Noble Friend Lord Brougham held a brief shortly after he was called to the bar. The Noble Lord on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond) had said that there was some doubt whether Russell had a right to be heard, as it was supposed that he was only the nominal plaintiff. But the fact was, that Russell would be liable to the costs of the whole proceeding, if he should lose his actions, and he was therefore im mediately interested. He (Lord Campbell) therefore hoped the House would grant the application. After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND, the petition was laid on the table. Lord CAMPBELL then moved that the petitioner be heard at the bar, by himself or counsel, on the reading of the 0.-der of the day that the Bill be committed. SALMON FISHERIES BILL (SCOTLAND). The Earl of RADNOR in presenting a petition against this Bill, said he understood it could not proceed further without her Majesty's con sent being previously given, as was the case with another Bill recently abandoned on that ground. But he hoped, whether that objection applied to this Bill or not, their Lordships would reject the Bill.—(Hear.) The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the object of the Bill was a very fair one ; but he would not object, if opposition were persevered in, to postpone the Bill till another session. ~ The Earl of RADNOR complained that no notice bad I been given in the orders of the second reading. If any such notice were printed in the orders, he was very much mistaken, and he had paid great attention to the progress of the motion, as he looked with some suspicion on the appearance of a new Salmon Bill for Scotland or Ireland every year —(A laugh.) The Duke of RICHMOND ultimately agreed to put off the Committee on this Bill (which stood on the paper for to-night) till Monday fortnight, in order that he might make himself master of the subject in the mean time ; for he must confess that he knew nothing about it when he moved the second reading. THE ALIENS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM begged to draw the attention of their Lordships to the subject of a Bill which had come up from the other House, and which stood for the second reading. As the law now stood, aliens were subject to great disadvantages in this country. They could not hold office, nor inherit free hold property, nor possess leasehold property ; neither could they own a share in any ship. The law would ope rate with great severity in cases of persons born of marriages in which one or other was a foreigner. He knew a most eminent lady who held an English and Scotch peerage in her own right ; but she had married a French nobleman ; and if she had a son born in France, that son could not inherit her titles or her estates in the kingdom. The law of Eng land was the most illiberal of any nation in the world. In France the nation of any country was allowed to buy or inherit land or any kind of property, and to hold office, just as if he were a native of France. In respect to Ireland, however, the legislation of that country had been as liberal to foreigners as that of France, for aliens could purchase property, hold office, or even sit in Parliament, as freely as a native, until the 36th of George the Third. The object of introducing into the Act of settlement the disqualification of foreigners from holding office, was to prevent the foreign favourites of the King from being preferred to Englishmen.—(Wear, and a laugh.) But the Spitalfields weavers—or such as were foreigners— were disqualified even from holding the office of parish constables in their own parish. Now the cost of an Act of naturalisation could not be less than 1001. But were there not many foreign artisans whose skill would be of great value to this country, if they were not dis qualified in such a way, and could not get over the disqualification, except at such an enormous, and, to them, insuperable expense ? The report of the Committee of the House of Commons was a most just one, but in some respects he did not altogether con cur in its recommendation. In the Bill which he was now about to call their Lordships' attention to more par ticularly—the Bill to which he alluded in setting out— he proposed to add a clause, that the wives of British subjects should be naturalised by the fact of their marri age; and that in all Acts of naturalisation the clause prohibiting a naturalised person to sit in Parliament, or hold office under the Crown, should be omitted. It was a strange anomaly that the naturalised foreigner could not hold the humblest office under the Crown for fear he should betray the country to foreigners, whereas if he were chosen as the husband of the Sovereign, the Act of Settlement would be so far suspended, and he would be endowed with all British privileges. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the Chamber of Co:nmerce, Dublin, in favour of the Dublin and Cashel Railway. The Marquis of WINCHESTER presented numerous petitions in favour of agricultural protection. ART-UNIONS. Lord MONTEAGLE moved the s econd reading of the Arts-Unions Legalisation Bill. He stated that the ob ject of the Bill was to exempt the members of those in stitutions from the penalties to which they were sup posed to be liable under the Lotteries Suppression Act. These institutions were founded upon the report of a Committee of artists and friends of art, and were in imita- tion of the oue established in Prussia, under the auspices of the King and the direction of Baron von Humboldt. Since the art-union of London was established, it had distributed more money for the encouragement of art than the liberality of Government had contributed in the same time. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE-10,000L more.—(Hear.) Lord MONTEAGLE—Members of both Houses of Parliament, and of the present as well as of the former Government, and those distinguished persons, with 13,612 other subscribers, were liable to penalties, as en gaged in illegal lotteries. Their Lordships had lately sanctioned the principle of a Bill to give to the persons who incurred penalties in gaming on horse-racing the same protection which he asked them to give to those most laudable institutions. The enactments of his Bill were two—first, an indemnity for all the proceedings that had taken place; and secondly, that any art-union which should in future obtain a royal charter on the ap proval of its rules and regulations by the Board of Trade, should be a legal body, and be empowered to dis tribute works no •orriing to the provisions of such charter of the Crown, or permission by the Board of Trade. The petitions in favour of the Bill had come from every important town in the United Kingdom; and he hoped their Lordships would now allow the second reading, not binding them or any Noble Lord to the precise terms of any part of the measure. The Bill was then read a second time. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT. . _ • The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that, on Monday next, he would move the second reading of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. He would also move that counsel be heard against the Bill, as they had been heard in the other House. • • INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILLS. The LORD CHANCELLOR brought up the report of the Select Committee on these Bills. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that their Lordships should at once refer the report of the Select Committee to a Committee of the whole House, as it was desirable to lose no time in passing so important a measure at this period of the session. Lord CAMPBELL thought that, in the absence of Lord Cottenham, who had had no notice of the Noble and Learned Lord's proposition, the Bill ought not to proceed another stage. After a very desultory conversation (amidst much in terruption), in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and Lord Mountcashel took part, Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report be now referred to a Committee of the whole House. His Noble and Learned Friend who was absent would have ample opportunity of expressing his views of the report at a future stage. Lord CAMPBELL continued to oppose this proceed ing, on the ground of its irregularity and the absence of notice. After some further conversation, Lord BROUGHAM postponed his motion until to morrow, with the hope and distinct understanding, that no person would take advantage of the late period of the session to induce persons elsewhere to defeat the Bill. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, said that he had to accuse the Commissioners of Education in Ire land of having unlawfully applied the school funds, and usurped the school land, and of other violations of their trusts, and excess of their lawful powers. In one case, in which he was a trustee with another Peer, with a Miss Stannix, he was refused by the Commissioners all information as to what had been done with the property. He communicated with the lady, and she informed him that she was induced to make over the property •to the Minister without consulting him as a trustee, through the linfluence of her solicitor. The Noble Lord was in- terrupted whilst reading the lady's letter by the an nouncement of A message from the Commons. The messengers brought to the bar several Bills which they had passed. The Earl of MOUNCASHEL said it was now sug gested to him, that he ought to take the case into Chan-.• cery ; but that would be useless, as the Lord Chan cellor of Ireland was one of the Commissioners. The LORD CHANCELLOR—You could take it into the Rolls Court. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said the Master of the Rolls was also a Commissioner.—(Laughter.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—Oh, pray, don't bring it before me. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL was proceeding with the statement of his case against the Commissioncrs when he was again interrupted by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, who said that the House could do nothing in the matter, which was one for a court of law only to determine, and he asked the Noble Lord whether it was worth his while to occupy the time of . the House when his speech could lead to no result ? The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL said, if their Lordships would hear him, he would show that the House had power to interfere. He then proceeded to argue that the Commissioners had made inaccurate reports to the House as to the instalments which they had received nut of this property. That was a matter into which the House ought to inquire. They (the Commissioners) had 1,2001. to account for, and to the schoolmaster of the school in Clonmel, to which the property belonged, they had only paid 100/.. He concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the charges which he had made. Lord WIIARNCLIFFE recommended his Noble Friend to lay a statement. of his case before the Lord Lieutenant, and, no doubt, he would receive some kind of answer. The Commissioners were gentleman of the highest responsibility, and, no doubt, they would explain their conduct. The Duke of RICHMOND thought that the House ought not to expresss an opinion on a case which ought to go before the Court of Chancery. He was surprised to hear that the trustees would not bring their case before his distinguished friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, because that Noble and Learned Lord was one of the Commissioners of Education. After a few words from Lord GLENGALL, and from Lord WHARNCLIFFE in explanation, The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the case brought forward was subject for inquiry in the Court of Chancery. He had not been able to understand what the case of the Noble Lord was.—(A laugh.) There was a Board of Education, and there were Commissioners of Education, and it was impossible to guess against whom the accusation was made.—(Hear. hear.) There was an Executive Government and a Court of Chancery, who would do any aggrieved persons justice. HORSE RACING BILL. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, counsel for the petitioners against this Bill will be heard to morrow (this day) at four o'clock. The Customs Duties (Isle of Man) Bill was read a third time, and passed. The House then adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 18. The SPEAKER took the Chair at One o'clock. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. The House went into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. . _ On clause 55 being proposed, Mr. VERNON SMITH said he rose for the purpose of asking for some explanation from the Right Hon. Gen tleman as to the nature of this clause. Sir J. GRAHAM admitted that there was some de gree of ambiguity in the clause ; but it was intended to give exclusive power to paid rate collectors to collect the rates, and thus save parishes the expense of a double set of officers for performing the same functions. After some dis s eussion, Mr. WAKLEY said the clause was so obscure and in- tricate, that it was enough to tie one's brains up in knots to read it.—(Hear, - hear.) He advised the Right Hon. Baronet to postpone the clause till it could be made clearer. _ _ Sir J. GRAHAM said, when he allowed' the clause was ambiguous, he did not admit there was any fault in the construction of it. Mr. HAWES, in clause 55, moved the following pro viso •—" Provided alwaya, that where the appointment of such assistant overseer shall have been made under the powers of any local Act of Parliament of a parish containing more than • twenty thousand persons, such appointment shall continue, and the powers of such local Act as to any future appointment of an assistant over seer shall be exercised, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act." The proviso was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was passed. Clause 56 was then postponed, which imposed a penalty upon overseers for neglect in providing funds for the re lief of the poor. Mr. HENLEY objected to it, as it would act with great severity on overseers. Sir J. GRAHAM. considered the clause absolutely necessary to prevent that neglect which had taken place on several occasions. Mr. HENLEY thought the word " wilful" should be inserted in the clause. Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to the insertion of the word. Mr. WAKLEY trusted the light Hon. Baronet would not consent to the insertion of the word " wilful," as nothing was more difficult than to define or prove wilful neglect. He did not consider the clause as it now stood too stringent. _ _ _ _ Mr. HENLEY objected to the offence being considered as a misdemeanour. Sir J. GRAHAM would consent to the offence being punished by a fine. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. On clause 57 being proposed, which provided that guardians under local Acts should conduct their pro ceedings in the same manner as guardians appointed under the 4th and sth of William IV., Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the words " local Acts " should be struck out, as he was anxious to ex clude metropolitan parishes, at present governed by local Acts. Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the omission of the words local Acts. There were several country parishes in which the provision was necessary. Mr. MUNTZ said that the parishes under local Acts objected to be under the control of the Poor-law Com: missioners at all. He should, therefore, move the omission of all the' words after the words " provided always," and the insertion of these words in their place :—That it shall not be lawful for the said Commissioners to interfere with the management of the poor in any parish containing more than 20,000 inhabitants, where relief has hitherto been administered to the poor by the guardians under the provisions of a local Act, without first obtaining the' consent, in writing, of at least two-thirds of such guardians, or a majority of ratepayers assembled in public meeting, called especially for that purpose. Sir JAMES GRAHAM had two objections to the amendment. It would be quite inconsistent with the provision agreed to by the House yesterday, and in the second place he believed the control of the Commis sioners was as much required in parishes managed under a local Act as in any others. Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment of his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Muntz). The Right Hon. Baronet objected that it would undo what had been done yester day. That was exactly what he wished to effect. He hoped the Committee would pause before it interfered with a system that had worked so well for so long a period. The guardians would be the protectors of the poor, and would be faithful to their trust to the rate payers, but they would not be the tools of the Poor-law Commissioners. The local Act had worked well, and had given general satisfaction in Birmingham • but the g uardians would n o t b e i nter f ere d. w ith. H e objected to the principle of the poor-law, and thought it proper, while they were on the details, to attempt to ameliorate it. He should support the proposition of his Hon. Friend. Mr. WAKLEY said they were all indebted to the Hon. Gentleman for his speech, but somebody had evi dently made a Mistake,—(llear, hear.) The Hon. Mem ber spoke strongly in favour of the Birmingham local Act, because under it the guardians were elected tri ennially—(Hear, hear)—the vote was . by ballot—(Hear, hear)—and the suffrage was universal.--(Hear, hear.) Was this the Birmingham Tory ? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) If it was, he heartily hoped they would have more like him in time.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem ber was returned as a good Tory, but he would find there was a reforming party even on those benches. With respect to the amendment itself, it was totally in applicable to the law as it now existed, and he should vote against it. Colonel SIBTHORP congratulated Birmingham on having returned to its senses, and stated that he should support the amendment. Mr. MUNTZ begged to observe that his amendment did not do away with all interference with the guardians —it only rendered it necessary that application should be made by a majority of the rat e p a y ers b e f ore suc h in terference could take place. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Muntz's amendment • 23 Against it Majority against the amendment... —55 Colonel WOOD moved the following addition to the clause:—" Provided always, that the said Commissioners shall, by order under their hands and seal, upon applica tion in writing of two-thirds of the guardians elected for any parish in which the relief of the poor is now admi nistered by a board of guardians, or a board of trustees, under a local Act, and which is united with any other parish or parishes for the administration of the relief of the poor, if such parish, according to tht enumeration of the population published by authority of Parliament, contain more than twenty thousand persons, to declare such pari,h to Le separated from such union; and the re lief of the poor shall thereafter be administered in such parish by a board of guardians, elected according to the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act, or by a board of guardians or trustees, elected under a local Act, as the said Commissioners may direct." He had presented a petitiorlfrom Kensington on the subject, and he thought parishes with such a population ought to have the power of separating from a union without coming to Parliament for a local Act. He hoped the Government would consent to the amendment, which would have a tendency to reconcile the ratepayers and the poor to the operation of the law. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said this question ought to be decided upon principle, and he had last year admitted that many of the unions embraced too large an area, and i he had proposed that committees of guardians should be formed to receive applications for relief in the distant given by the Hon. Member power to the Commissioners, 11,1 f d eov i r s e t wn rie e t Westmoreland n °l-e without riel theasnadvi a notice t o c o g n i s v e e nt of guardians, to alter the boundaries of unions. He thought it would be better that the decision.of the Committee should be first taken ' on the proposition of the Hen. Menibei for Westmoreland ; if that proposition should be adopted this proviso would be unnecessary ; and if it were not adopted his Gallant Friend could, if he would postpone it now, bring it for ward as a distinct proviso on bringing up the report ; and if his Hon. and Gallant Friend would make a slight alteration in the wordini , of the clause he would consent to his proposition. But. thought it best that the pro position of the Hon. Member for Westmoreland should Fe first decided, as it was a most important proposition, and worthy of most attentive consideration. Mr. WAKLEY supported the amendment. Colonel VOW), at the suggestion of Sir J. Graham, postponed his amendment till the bringing• up of the report. The clause as amended was then agreed to. On clause 58 being proposed, which related to the appointment of paid auditors by parishes under local Acts, Mr. lIOGG moved that the parishes of St. George, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and St. James's, should be excluded from the provisions of the clause. Sir -T. GRAHAM raid that if he could be satisfied that an independent audit under Sir John Hobhouse's Act was secure, then he should say the present clause was superfluous and unnecessary as regarded those parishes. Sir C. NAPIER did not think that barristers were fit persons to be appointed auditors. The system adopted in the parish of Marylebone with respect to the appoint ments of auditors had worked in the best possible man ner. He moved that the Chairman do report progress.. Sir B. HALL said that he had paid a good deal of at- tention to the parish affairs of Marylebone, and he had never heard of any clmplaint with respect to the ap pointment of auditors in that parish. Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not care who appointed the auditors, provided that the auditors were independent of the body appointing them. He wished to consult the wishes ofthe rate-payers. If they were satisfied, then he should be satisfied also.—(Hear, hear.) He would, therefore, not press that part of the clause which went to the appointment of barristers as auditors.—(Hear.). The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part of the Bi Clause 59 - was agreed to. On clause 60 being proposed, Mr. HENLEY was understood to propose that all future clerks of boards of guardians should be attorneys Colonel SIBTHORP was understood to support the proposition. Sir J. GRAHAM strongly opposed the proposition, which would have the effect of mixing up law and liti gation in every matter of business, however trivial it might be. The open system of appointment had worked well, and why then interfere with it ? Mr. WAKLEY said if they were to require the clerks to boards of guardians to be lawyers they would instantly entail an expense of thousands and thousands upon every union in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) He was most strongly opposed to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and he trusted the Govern ment would remain firm in its determination not to con sent to it. The proposition of the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire was then understood to be withdrawn. Sir JAMES GRAHAM then moved that the Chair man report progress and ask leave to sit again this day. SAVINGS' BANKS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions com plaining of the operation of the Savings' Bank Regula 'Lon Bill. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE also presented a petition from Mr. Rigby Wason, of the county of Ayr, stating that he had been summoned before the Committee on Controverted Elections, and had given certain evidence before that Committee ; but had seen with surprise that in the report it had agreed upon, his evidence so given had been suppresse4, and praying for the production of that evidence. The Hon. Member gave notice that to-morrow he would move that this petition be printed with the votes. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented several peti tions from the county of Northampton, praying for pro tection to agricultural produce. QUEEN'S STORES. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Mr. Duncan M'lntyre, of Fort William, North Britain, stating that some years ago he was the means of detect ing various embezzlements in certain stores, the pro perty of her Majesty, for which he was entitled, under the Act 10th William the Third, to 2001. from the Board of Ordnance, and praying the House to give him just remuneration for services for the exclusive use of his country. IRISH MAGISTRATES. Mr. ROSS gave notice that on Tuesday next he should move for an humble address to her Majesty, praying for the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll, recently restored to the commission of the peace in Ireland. POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE. On the motion of Mr. BARING, leave was given to Lord John Russell to attend the Committee of the House of Lords on the business of the Post-office. SINKING FUND. Mr. WODEHOUSE moved for a continuation of the returns relating to the Sinking Fund up to the present time. . REPEAL BUTTONS. Mr. WYSE said that, seeing the Right Hon. Gentle man, the Secretary at War, in his place, he wished to ask him the question of which he had given notice. He had observed in a Dublin newspaper, a few days ago, a report of an occurrence stated to have taken place in the Castle of Dublin. A young man, named Osberry, was driving a lady through the gates of the Castle of Dublin, and the soldier on guard asked him if he had a repeal button. He replied " No," and the lady told the soldier that he ought not to have stopped the man. The soldier followed him, and asked if he had a repeal button in his pocket, to which he replied that he had ; upon which he was taken to the Chancery-lane station-house, and was next day brought before the magistrates, who dismissed him as not being guilty of any offence. A case of a similar description had occurred to a person named Ignatius Ennis. He wished therefore to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether any orders had been given on the subject, and if so, whether they had been given by the Commander-in-Chief ? Sir T. FREMANTLE said that, in reference to the question which had been asked by the Right Honourable Gentleman, no orders had been issued with regard to the Castle of Dublin, but the Commander of the Forces for bade any civilian wearing political or party badges from being permitted to pass through the barracks in Ireland. He had not been able to obtain any precise information with regard to the case alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had every reason to believe that the order with regard to the barracks was legal, and of course if any person actually under those orders had exceeded his duty he would be responsible for the con sequences, and he believed that the soldier bad been threatened with a writ, and the officer had been bound over to appear on a charge of false imprisonment. LOAN SOCIETIES. In answer to a question from Mr. COWPER, on the subject of loan societies and pawnbrokers, Mr. GLADSTONE said that there was no proba bility of the report on this subject being laid on the table of the House during the present session, but it would be finished during the recess. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave notice that he would, postpone the order of the day on the Savings' Banks Bill, in order that the Poor-law Amendment Bill might be proceeded with. PROCEEDINGS ON THE POST-OFFICE COMMITTEE. Mr. DUNCOMBE rose, and said that he wished to make a statement with respect to a particular branch of the proceedings of that House. He had given notice of his intention, in order that the Government or the gen tlemen comprising the Secret Committee in the Post office should not be taken by surprise. He was well aware that it was not the practice or rule of the House to refer or interfere with the proceedings of Committees during their sittings, but he thought there were cases in which it was right to refer to them. He thought it was preposterous and most absurd for any body to lay down a rule that supposing a Committee of that House had done great injustice or committed some error, no reference should be made to that act of injustice or that error, until such Committee had made its report, when it would be too late to remedy the injustice or correct the error. He wished to call their attention to proceedings which were of considerable importance to the public. On Saturday last he was summoned before the Commit tee on the affairs of the Post-office. On being summoned before that Committee, he was told that the Committee understood that he had a statement to make to them. He said that he had no statement to make, but, as regarded any information that it was in his power to give that Committee, he would be most happy to give it. He was then asked if he was prepared to prove certain charges that he had made in his place in Parliament ? He stated he was prepared to prove them by evidence. He was then asked if he would repeat the charges which he had made in his place in Parliament ? And he did repeat the charges which he had made. He repeated to the Committee the same charges he had brought forward in the House, and each member of that Committee took down deliberately what he said, so that he stood in the position of one preferring an indictment against the Government. There was no reason why he should not now repeat to the House what he had stated on a former occasion, and that was that the letters of Foreign Ministers had been, and were, opened ; that a very unscrupulous use had been made, during two years, of this secret power of opening letters ; that a roving commission had been appointed in the year 1842 for the purpose of opening letters in the country ; that the letters of certain individuals had been opened ; that he (Mr. Duncombe) was in a position to prove, as he believed, that his own letters had been opened ; that some fifty or sixty of Mr. Mazzini's letters . had been opened since Christ mas ; that Captain Stolzman's letters had also been opened ; and that all this had been done at the instance of Foreign Governments. He (Mr. Duncombe) also described to the Committee the way in which he believed letters were opened in the Post-office, and he also stated he was in a condition to prove the existence of a secret or inner office, where this dark work was carried on. Having done this, the Committee asked him (Mr. Duncombe) to hand into them the list of witnesses by whom his charges were to be proved. He said, were he to do this, he should attend in the condition of an accuser ten times more .than be fore, and he could only comply with this demand on conditionithat he should be present during the examina tion of these witnesses. The Committee then stated that they did not possess any such power as that of allowing him be present without the leave or permission of the House. In that opinion he (Mr. Duncombe) fully concurred ; and as they pressed for his list of wit nesses, he (Mr. Duncombe) made a formal applicatiOn that the Chairman of the Committee should apply to the House for permission to enable him to bp present, he of course being perfectly willing to pledge himself to the same secrecy—(Hear; hear) — which the other members of the Committee were bound to observe. He was then ordered to withdraw ; and on his return he was informed that the Committee had decided to ask the permission of the House for him to 1 e present at their sittings. He (Mr. Duncombe) certainly had nothing to complain of in the demeanour of any of . the members of the Committee towards him. They were all of them in their manner most indulgent to li'm (Hear, and a laugh)—indeed, he might almost term their conduct as coaxing.—(Loud laughter.) It was then suggested to him that he might leave his papers in the hands of some member in whom he had confi dence, and who might put all the requisite questions.— (Hear, hear.) To this he (Mr. Duncombe) had re plied with perfect candour and courtesy that he had equal confidence in all of them.--(Loud laughter.) He was perfectly well aware that certain witnesses would give their evidence reluctantly, to say the least, and that others would, probably, not give it at all ; in which case it would be impossible for the Committee to enter into the merits of the question. Still the Committee pressed him very much to give up his list and to place them in the position in .which he stood himself. He said it was totally im possible that he could do .so unless he himself were present at the examination. Well now, let them look at the state of this question. In the first place, he was called to furnish a list of witnesses to support certain charges which he had made, and he was not to be present during the time that those witnesses were to be examined. The Committee was appointed, as he had before said, to investigate certain charges which he (Mr. Duncombe) had brought against the Government, but it turned round suddenly and converted itself in fact into a tribunal for trying his (Mr. Duncombe's) veracity. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly ready to submit his credibility to that Committee, but it was totally impossi ble that any gentleman who had not taken the pains that he had to become master of the subject, could exa mine the witnesses in the same manner as himself. They must remember that no lawyer was allowed to be on the Committe?.. Here were nine gentlemen turned into a room, totally ignorant of the subject they were called on to investigate.—(Hear, hear.) It was well known that the chief witnesses which they had exa mined were the different heads of the depart ments, and he maintained that, as far as they had gone, or were likely to go, they had only skimmed the surface on this great and important ques tion. The public would not be satisfied if the matter remained in its present position. The public did not want a report containing a great deal of original or antique research, but they wanted to know the ,exact circumstances under which this power had been exercised by the present and past Govern ments. He maintained that the truth could not be ascertained, unless he were present during the examina tion of certain witnesses. It was for the House to deal with the question as in their wisdom they might think proper. Lord SANDoN and Mr. HustE then rose to address the House amidst some confusion. The SPEAKER having observed, that there was no question before the House, DUNCONIBE moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee that he might be present during the examination of such witnesses as he might think proper to examine. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Lord SANDON, as Chairman of the Committee, wished to make one or two remarks. He complained of the terms of the Honourable Member's notice, the Honourable Member having himself admitted to the Committee that he could not be allowed to examine the witnesses without an application to the House. The Committee felt that the Hon. Gentleman had nu knowledge of the parties himself, and that he only acted on information received from others. For him to be present, therefore, examining witnesses and observing the evidence, would have been virtually to have put him on the Committee—(Hear, hear)—without his having the responsibility of being a member of it. The Com mittee conceived themselves to be quite capable of examining witnesses themselves ; but they did not think that it would in any way defeat the object of the investigation to refuse to admit him to be present during the inquiry. They should be most happy to have the Hon. Member on the Committee, if the House should think fit to place him there, as he would then have the same responsibility as the other members of it. Mr. HUME said he was sorry that this question had been managed as it had been. It had thrown a great deal of scandal on the British Government abroad, and the present proceeding was likely to add to it.—(Hear.) He was sorry he was not in the House when the Com mittee was appointed, or he should have opposed the omission of his Hon. Friend's name. He believed in the annals of Parliament no similar instance could be found of a person coming forward as his Hon. Friend had done, and giving himself all the trouble he had done, for which the country owed him a great deal.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee were placed in a limited sphere ; they had only official men before them, and could know nothing of the persons who gave information to his Hon. Friend. He thought the Noble Lord took a narrow view of what the Committee had to do. The Noble Lord said that his Honourable Friend wanted to be aware of all the secrets of the Committee, but his Hon. Friend never wanted to be a member of the Committee, and he only wished to be present during the examination of those witnesses who were to support those chancres which he made on his own responsibility. His Hon. Friend did not want to vote.—(Bear, hear.) lie only wished before the report was made, that an op portunity should be given to him to have that part of the inquiry sifted. Few persons would have taken upon themselves the responsibility of making those grave and serious charges against the Government which his Ilan. Friend had done, and it was impossible to convey to any individual member of the Committee that which his lion. Friend had the means of doing. He, therefore, put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether his Hon. Friend ought not to be present. On thess grounds he should second the motion of his Hon. Friend. Sir R. PEEL said he was unwilling to throw any technical difficulty in the way of the motion which the Hon. Gentleman had made, although he thought he was justified, according to the rules of the House, in object ing to a Member of that House stating anything with respect to the proceedings of a Secret Committee. but he was unwilling to debar the Hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making his statement. No notice of a motion had been given, and he (Sir R. Peel) was at a loss to understand the grounds upon which the lion. Gentleman had made the present motion. The House would recollect the circumstances under which this Committee had been appointed. When the proposal was first made almost unqualified satisfac tion was expressed with respect to the formation of that Committee.—(Cries of No, no.") He did not mean to say that it was universal, but the Committee was allowed to be appointed without notice being given. That Committee was composed of men well known for their impartiality and intelligence. In that Committee the majority of the members were opposed to her Majesty's Government. Four members were in the habit of voting with her Majesty a Government, and five with the Opposition, and the whole of those five members voted for the motion of the Hon. Gentleman for a Select Committee. That Com mittee had sat for several days, and he left it to every Member to judge whether her Majesty's Government had withheld a single fact from the knowledge of the Com mittee bearing on the inquiry, and whether they had thrown the slightest obstacle in the way of the inquiry, or imposed the slightest impediment in the way of the examination of any person whatever, either under the control of her Maje,ty's Government or not. Her Majesty's Government had no personal interest in the question which the Hon. Gen tleman had submitted to the House. He 'certainly should feel it his duty to advise the House to adhere to that course which had always been adhered to with re spect to Committees of that House. The question eas whether the House now repented the confidence which it had placed in the Committee. It was from no feeling of disrespect that the Hon. Gentleman had not been placed on the Committee. He conceived that permission being given to the Honourable Member to attend that Committee, he not being a member of the Com mittee, and not subject to the responsibility which was imposed upon members of Secret Committees, would, he thought, be casting a reflection on the House ; it would imply on the part of the House a distrust both in the stability of the Committee, and their desire for a searching and perfectly fair inquiry into the who'e transaction—secret-office and all. At the same time lie assured the House, and the report which the Committee would make would bear testimony to the fact, that her Majesty's Government were interested in no way what ever in the decision which the House might come to; and he felt it his duty to call on the House to adhere to its forms, and regardless of any personal imputation that might be thrown upon him, as the representative of the Government, that he bad some object in excluding the lion. Gentleman, he-felt it his duty to resist ,the pro posal of the Hon. Member ; nor could he support the proposal which had been made for the Hon. Gentleman to appear before that Committee, in order to be present at the examination of the witnesses. If the accusers were to be present, in order that the evidence might be given in support of the accusation, why should not those be present also who were accused ? Mr. DUNCOMBE—I have no objection to that. Sir R. PEEL—The lion. Gentleman felt the ju.,tice of that, and expressed his readiness to acquiesce in it, but he (Sir R. Peel) claimed no such privilege. He thought the House ought to adhere to their established rules. The Government were indifferent as to the de cision to which the House might come, because he would venture to say that the House would be satisfied that her Majesty's Government had concealed nothing from the Committee. They had no wish to conceal anything, but he felt that he had a duty to perform in the position in which he stood, regardless of any imputation ehich might be cast upon him. Mr. ORD was understood to oppose the motion. Mr. LABOUCHERE said it would be well fur the House to recollect the principle they had adopted in the appointment of this Committee.—(Hear, hear.) They had departed from the usual precedents in form- , ing Committees ; for they had determined that they would have no lawyers on the Coin-- mittee that the accuser himself should not. be present—and also that they would exclude from it all those who did hold or had held high offi..te in her Ma jesty's Council.—(Hear.) He confessed that at the rime he thought this was a fair principle, but circumstances took place a short time afterwards which excited in his mind, and in the minds of many other Members, the greatest possible surprise. --(Loud cries of " hear, hear.") Ho found from the usual organs of informa tion that a Committee on the same subject had been appointed by the House of Lords, which Committee was formed on a totally dif ferent principle than that suggested by the Ministers foi the House of Commons. For, on the Committee of the Lords were three ex-Ministers, two of them being ex-Chancellors, men, of course, accustomed to the most 'skilful mode of examination either fur sup pressing or for eliciting information. If the Go vernment meant. to_ act upon a totally different principle elsewhere, they ought not to have pursued this course in the House of Commons. With • regard to the motion before the House, he quite agreed in tne statement that the House must choose between rutting the Hon. Member for Finsbury on the Committee.. or a!lowing him to examine particular witnesses himself. Sir IL PEEL said, he really must say that; he thought it would have been much more consistent with the duty of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objec tion to the constitution of the Committee, that he should. have stated that objection at the time when it was ap pointed.—(Bear, hear.) if the lion. Gentleman thought that there ought to have been two Members of the pre,- sent Government on it, and two of the past, or that there ought to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for him to have made a motion to that effect. The Right Hon. Gentleman complained of the exclusion of : the lion. Member forFinsbury. hy, the Earl of Radnor, who had brought forward the charge in the House of Lords, had been excluded by his own consent, although lawyers were appointed. The appointment of such eminent lawyers in the lieuse of Lords was a decided proof that the Grbvern ment had no wish to exclude lawyers. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Right Eon. Gen tleman had a little misunderstood the nature of his 'ob jection. He had expressed his surprise that the Govern ment in one place had attached the greatest importance to the Committee being so constituted as to exclude lawyers and ex-Ministers, while in another place the Committee contained two lawyers and three ex- Ministers . . Mr. V. SMITH said he had understood. when he voted for the Committee, that no members of the Go .; vernment were to be concerned in the investi gation. The Government ought to have itet«l' the same in one place as another. The Committee had not placed the lion. Member for Finsbury in the box, and said, " We will report you to the House if you do not answer, as they ought to have done—(Heir, hear)—the public would now know that there was infor mation in the hands of a Member of that House which be had not been pressed to give. In the Committee on election compromises the House had not scrupled to put the accuser on the Committee and in the chair of it. He should therefore. move that the Hon. Manners Sutton, and Mr. T. Duncombe be added to the Committee. The question having been put, The O'CONNOR DON referred to what had been done by the Committee with regard to the presence of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He did not think it would be right for the House to rescind the resolution to which it had come when it negatived the proposition that he should be a member of the Committee. If the Hon. Member were allowed to be present it would be equivalent to his being a member of the Committee. He must say it was due to the Government to say that no information which the Committee thought desirable was withheld. It was given to the greaten st extent. lie trusted the House would withhold its opinion as to the result till the Committee had made its report to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the conduct of the Committee had been impughned.—(No, no.) But there had been a degree of investigation which he thought would have surprised the Hon. Gentleman himself. The SPEAKER said that the proposition made had been already negatived, and it could not be put again. Mr. HUME asked whether the same proposition could not be negatived twice under different circum stances ? The SPEAKER said that a proposition having been made which was negatived, it was not usual to renew the same proposition in the same session, but it was dif ferent with regard to orders for papers where amended re turns were required to be made. - Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to address the House amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide," and much confusioe. The Hon. Gentleman said that it was most important that the public should be satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee. No charge had been brought against the Committee, but it had been stated that they could not conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted unless the Hon. Member for Finsbury were empowered to exa mine certain witnesses. Grave charges had been brought against her Majesty's Government both with regard to the opening of letters and to the conduct of the Post office. Great excitement existed in the public mind on the subject. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department replied that he had done nothing more than had been done by his predecessors, and than had been the usual practice of his office. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had called for a Committee of In quiry, and, contrary to the practice of the House, the Right Hon. Baronet, who was the party accused, had himself proposed the list of the gentlemen who were to compose the Committee of Inquiry. lie did not deny but that the gentlemen constituting that Committee wero all most honourable men, but they were all friends either of the late or of the present Government, who were the parties implicated ; and however honourable their con duct might be in the management of that Committee, their decision would not give satisfaction as they were at present constituted. Her Majesty's Government could not but see that they would be acting wisely if they were to, adopt the proposition of adding the Hon. Member foe Finsbury to the Committee. It would give great satis faction to the public. On a question of so much import ance it was necessary that the public mind should be satisfied, and the country would not be satisfied unless the Hon. Member for Finsbury were on the Committee. Mr. STRUTT, as a member of the Committee, fel that he was placed in a very peculiar position. Tb mouths of the Members of the Committee wer sealed. In the course of the debate it had been allege, that it was nessary that certain evidence should be ex amined in order to make the inquiry complete, but i• was not stated whether or not the Committee ha already bad that evidence before them. The COIL mittee were endeavouring to pursue their duty faith fully and diligently, and they had done so without re Bard to either party in that House. They had ha • most ample evidence placed at their disposal by he Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) With regard I the proposal more immediately before the House, h thought it would be a most inconvenient course t adopt to admit any gentleman on the Committee c the terms proposed. The Committee had already got through a great deal of' evidence, and it would be a gret inconvenience if any gentleman were to be admitte now upon the Committee without knowing the evident which had been gone into already. He could not kno' whether that evidence might not have proved or di: proved the particular allegations which he wished t bring forward. If any gentleman were placed in position in which it was proposed to place the Ho: Member for Finsbury, it would be necessary that I should be acquainted with the evidence which ha already been given before that Committee. lie ha hitherto acted •on the principle of not sayin one word, or giving one vote, as to . the Const tution of that Committee. On a former occasion who the Hon. Member for Finsbury had been proposed as member of it he would given no vote, nor should he vet on the present occasion. He merely rose to caution tb Howe not to draw any inferem e from the silence of th members of the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. V. SMITH withdrew his motion. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished merely to say a fe words. The Right Hon. Gentleman said it would be great slur upon the Committee, if he were added to it the way proposed—it would be a still greater slur up( the Committee, if he were added to it as a membe The Noble Lord said that it 'would be tantamount making him a member of the Committee, it' he were pei mitted to be present during the examination of wi nesses.—(Hear, hear.) They ,might just as well si that the counsel who proved the preamble of a priva • Bill was a member of a Conainlitee.'—i(Hear, hear.) A • be asked was to he permitted, to he present at the ex; minution of certain witnesses, whom he was pro pared to produce to prove his charge. (Lot cheers.) Would the Noble Lord' say that th . charge had been either proved or disproved.—(Cheers The witnesses he would produce had not yet been colicr and by a recent and most searching inquiry, amounth • almost to a persecution, which liad been 'instituted at tl • instance of the Government, in 'order to"Aseertain who was that had given him (Mr. D.) this information, ' was necessary that there should be a searching scrutin from the letter-carrier up to the opener and the seal of letters—in short, through all the ramifications of tl Post-office. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet plain question. Did he ever open or cause to be open' any letter of his (Mr. Duncombe's)—(Laughter, ai cries of " Hear, hear ")—since the Right lion. Gent] man had been in office ? He considered it a very gre insult that any letter of any Member of that House, ha ing taken the oaths of allegiance,•and holding the pO: tion they did, should have their letters opened.—(Hear, The Right Hon. Baronet could have no hesitation • saying whether or not he opened his letters; for, Hai. were not opened by the Right Hon. Gentleman, or I. his directions, they were opened by tiller hands. (Hear, hear.) Investigation was, therellire, most e sirable. The Committee ought to have allowed him examine the list of witnesses will& he held in his han The Committee should increase its authority in ctai Felling the attendance of witnesses to give m - deuce. Ile was willing, before a Committee of eith House, to substantiate his allegations.—(Hear, heat He would then have all the charges he had made invt tigated. The Committee had no right to say he refus to facilitate their inquiries, or assist them in the invi ligation of these charges. lie had offered them eve facility in his power. Some of his witnesses were subs dinates in the Post-office, and he would not wish to gi up their names, unless he were present to protect the He knew their evidence would compromise the - condi • of their superiors, and their superiors would be most 1.. luctant to allow them to attend. Ile thought it v absolutely necessary that seme one should. he press who was acquainted with all the circumstances of' t case. He told the House and the public that examination—the labours of the Committee—would I be satisfactory, conclusive, or complete, if those witnes , were not interrogated. The Hon. Member conclud. after repeating the question to Sir James Grahani, saying he would persevere in his motion. Sir .T. GRAHAM must say that no gentleman the House was less accustom, d (if lie might use the t pression) to vapauring dam the Hon. Member for bury. The question which had been just put the lii Member knew that, consistent with his sense of du he could not answer.—(" llear, her," from the `ft benches, and ironical cheers from the Opposition.) • had already stated to the House, firmly but respectful that, consistent with his sense or duty, he cot not do so ; and he must Le the judge of what sense of duty was. Ile could not, and would i answer that question. When the appointment of Committee had been moved for, he had stated with disguise and wiihout reserve the course he meant ptir:Aie, having previously obtained the consent of 1 Majesty. On the word and honour of a gentleman had to the utmost degree since then redeemed Al pledge. He had been two or three days examined bef . the Committee, and his examination had not yet c eluded. He felt that he should be supported by b sides of the House in his resolution not to answer t question which the Hon. Gentleman had put to him. Lord SAN DON sail the Committee was willing give the requisite guarantee to the witnesses, and did not see what " protectimi" any witnesses before th Committee could receive from the presence of the II Member - fur kinsbury. The nitupies -would be p ( "t r , r be- A t iot