The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-14 00:00:00

rittrlv Mbition SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock. quoted to the House. He hoped, therefore, he had fully justified himself to the House fo t he course he had taken.—(Hear, hear.) And now, having made this statement, he wished to ask the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether the denial of the words in this judgment were persisted in, and whether also the remaining words which he (Mr. Ferrand) had put upon the notice paper had not likewise been used? Sir JAMES GRAHAM was understood to say that he was not fully prepared to re-enter upon this subject, but he would give all the information in his power. The lion. Gentleman said, before quoting the words asserted to have been used by Lord Denmin, that he had made every inquiry to ascertain that they had been uttered, and it was evident he had done so. The morning papers, too, confirmed the version that his private authority had given to him, and this, taken al together, he freely admitted constituted strong testimony in its favour. But he (Sir James Graham) could again assure the House, and that from the highest autho rity, that Lord Denman had been tuisundr,r stood in what he had been asserted to have uttered—that he did not utter it, but that what he did say was exactly the converse of what he was reported to have said. What Lord Denman had stated was this, that it was sometimes necessary to break in upon general principles in order to get at a right rule of conduct and maintain the strict administration SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT. GLOBE.—We can have no occasion to direct atten tion to particular passages of Lord John Russell's speech. The whole of that speech will doubt less be perused and appreciated universally by our readers. What is more unusual, we find " green spots" in Sir James Graham's speech to dwell on with pleasure. We find something like distinct announcements of intended practical neasures for the benefit of Ire land. We shall n' allow any party feeling to prevent us from expressi• , satisfaction at these announcements. There is nothis of which we are more certain than that the mate) ii condition of Ireland is the great problem. If it were possible to relieve that—we do not say party disputes would be waged no longer — we do not say churches, corporations, and all that sort of thing, would not still supply party topics, and would not still serve as party demarcations. But we do say, that neither English nor Irish are now in the sixteenth century—that neither English nor Irish will do battle, under municipal banners, for points of faith. The progress of the last three centuries would indeed have been insignificant, if it were possible, for any such points, to revive real active hostilities. These contro versies may agitate bonnets in Exeter Hall—men have no such bee in theirs. We do not mean to say that men have ceased to have any persuasions on these points. TheDub.in Review announces with great gratulation, that Mr. O'Con nell communicates every week, and holds up his edifying example to the young men of Ireland. But men have ceased to entertain any notion of imposing their own persuasions on others. When we say men, we not mean that sort of men who professionally, or extra-profession ally, speculate upon schemes of proselytism. We mean men capable of leading opinion ; of really determining public events. The men who lead Exeter Ilall find themselves left in the lurch by even their own party. There is another point of view in which solid measures for material improvement in Ireland have not merely a material, but also a moral importance. It is, we fear, in human nature, that the aspect and tones of multitudinous misery excite in those less unhappily situated, a sort of shrinking aversion, as frequently as compassion. They strike on the eye and ear too pain fully : there is an irritable impatience in wretchedness that repels sympathy. There is also in it an appre hended contagion: a contagion not merely apprehended, but experienced by large classes of our population from the inroads of Irish poverty and Irish habits. All this goes far to explain whatever exists of that English aversion which Irishmen complain of. What may con tribute also to explain that aloof feeling—is, that Irish politicians, whose ambition addresses itself to masses thus stewed in misery, naturally echo their exacerba tion—adflress them with habitual violence—with fre quent injustice—with continual postponement of truth and reason to the feelings of masses who demand ex citement to divert from pain. All this is anti-pathetic —long may it be so—to the tone of English opinion. But. the question is, whether all this is not natural amongst a people conditioned like that of Ireland. A people so conditioned is placed under moral anti politi cal, as well as physcal, disadvantages. And just in pro portion as it is possible to raise it from that condition, will its moral and political weight be likewise increased in the national councils. The aspect which the Irish people exhibit at present is that of uneasy masses, played uppn, and moved any way, by a few men. They can be moved any way, except to sit still, if we may speak Hibernian-wise. This restlessness loses respect, and fatigues attention. It is not the attitude of a people whose individual citi zens feel strength and self-reliance. Such a people is not to be moved at the will of others, nor moved for parposes not its own. Neither is it to be turned from a purpose, once deliberately espoused, nor diverted by dilatory pretexts. Individual self-reliance, and strength of character, are greatly wanting in the Irish people And it seems to us vain to deny much dependence of these qualities on individual condition—on the feeling at least of a condition not hopeless—a condition of struggle it may be, but not despair. STANDARD.—Sir Charles Napier and his gallant army are to be envied. They last night received the unanimous thanks of the House of Lords, and the all but unanimous thanks of the House of Commons, for the conquest of Sinde. This is a tribute, happily for our country, often before claimed upon just grounds by British generals and British troops, but we doubt whether it was ever more justly merited, and we are sure that the honour was never so highly enhanced by the manner in which it was conferred. In the House of Lords the ex- Governor- General of India ; in the House of Commons the leader of the opposition seconded the Motion, but this is not all—ktudari a leudato is the nobles:: object of ambition—but how can the prodigal commendation of the greatest of soldiers be appreciated ? The speech of the Premier in proposing the vote of thanks in the House of Com .. mons, wanted indeed that weight of high military authority, which no speech but the Duke of Wellington's could possess, but it was a noble panegyric worthy of its object, and of the speaker. Providence places the administration of the affairs of such a country in the hands of statesmen who, when the public interests are concerned, regard nothing but the ability to serve and the merit of the honour ed instruments whom they employ, and who fling from them with disdain all lesser considerations, when the great consideration of the public good is in question. The Napier family are Whigs, or something more, but this circum stance avails nothing with Sir 11. Peel when the public service calls for the exercise of genius and valour—or when the able and gallant public servant is to be rewarded by the gra titude of his Sovereign and fellow-subjects. It is not a Govern ment like Sir Robert Peel's that would supersede Beresford by - Whitelecke. A feeble opposition to the vote of thanks was raised by Lord Howick, supported by the precedent of "the untoward battle of Navarino ;" but there is no analogy what ever between the cases. The mildest explanation of the battle of Navarino ascribes it to an accident, but an accident which due care would have obviated, and which, even when it occurred, ought not to have led to a battle, which, how ever it might terminate, must prove detrimental to the honour, or to the best interests of England. The gallantry of our sailors saved us from the disgrace of defeat ; but in other respects English honour was deeply wounded, by the attack upon our ally ; and English interests were fatally compromised in the destruction of the Turkish navy. In the case of Sinde there was no accident, the war was forced on by the treachery of our enemy, and the result was equally glorious and • 'beneficial. As to the rule, that thanks are not due except upon a declared war, it would preclude a nation from an ex pression of gratitude to those who might protect it from the most terrible of dangers—an explosion of unsuspected and un provoked treachery. of justice and the taw.—(Hear.) It was a monstrous doctrine to suppose that a Chief Ju-tice, or any Judge whatever, could, under any conceivable circumstances, or in any conceivable case, lay down the doctrine that - it was necessary in any matter or thing to break through or set aside the law, or infringe upon rules which had exited from all time. SMALL DEBTS. The Small Debts Bill was read a second time. The Superior Courts of Common Law Bill was also read a second time. HORSE-RACING PENALTIES' REPEAL BILL. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY moved the second reading of this Bill. The Hon. Gentleman stated that, in perfect ignorance of the law, penalties hail been incurred by various parties, amounting to no less than half a million of money. He then proceeded to oxplain the state of the law, which was that a bet on any race, in which a stake of money above 101. was involi. ed, was an illegal bet. These qui tam actions had been com menced by informers for the express purpose of reco vering the penalties incurred under an obsolete statute of the 9th of Queen Anne, and another of 16th of Charles the Second. lie was not himself connected with horse-racing, though he had long enough ago to render him no longer liable, won and lost as much as ten pounds at a time on a race. But though he had adopted the profession of the law, and might say that he had some experience, he was still in perfect ignorance that he was then acting illegally. The object of the present Bill was two-fold ;he believed all the actions were brought under the 9th of Anne, and all the present Bill proposed to do was, to enact that these vexatious ac tions, on payment of the costs to the parties bringing them should be stopped. The only other object of the Bill was to assist in an investigation of the whole law relating to gambling, and provided that the operation of the old Act be suspended for a limited time, till the end of the present session, as much of it at least as conferred on the common informer the right of trying such actions. The present state of the law was very anomalous. A bet on a race while it was pending was illegal; but a bet on a race after it had been decided, between two persons, as to which horse had won it, had been held to be a legal bet. Under the present law the most indecent bets were legal. A most famous instance of this occurred in the year 1771, between two young men, the one named Cod rington, the son of Sir William Codrington, and the other named Pigot. They ran their fathers lives as it were against each other, and they made a bet as to which would die first. The bet was referred to Lord Ossory as to what the odds should be, and he • thought they ought to be 1,6001. to 5001. The bet was made, and afterwards Mr. Codrington thought the terms were too . much in favour of Mr. Pigot. It was afterwards dis=. covered that Mr. Pigot's father was actually deadlitit the time the bet was made, although neither party knew it • and acccordingly Mr. Pigot lost the bet, but he disputed it, and the case was tried before Lord Mansfield, who directed the jury to find for the plaintiff, and the 5001. was recovered. Could they conceive a greater anomaly than the law which allowed bets of so disgusting a description —which did allow a person to make bets on horse racing without being subjected to all the chicanary any attorney's clerk might think proper to adopt. The present actions had been commenced for the mere purpose of extortion, and not for any • moral purpose. The first Act which was passed with reference to this subject was in the reign of Charles 11., which Act was entitled an Act for the pre vention of fraudulent betting. The aext Act was the present one—namely, the Act of the 9th of Anne. It was remarkable that this Sovereign indulged largely in the sports of the field; and only two days before she died one of her own horses won the cup at York. This Bill was brought in in the year 1711, for the par ptse of imposing fresh penalties for excessive gaming. It was evident that the clause in the Bill was not in tended to apply to horse-racing, for there was a clause in the Act declaring that it was not intended to extend to games played within the precincts of the Palace. Now, he could not well understand how races could take place in the drawing-room of the Palace. In the reign of George 11. two Acts were passed for the encouragement of horse-racing, one of which enacted that races should not be run for any sum under 501. After these Acts had passed, the construction now relied on had been given to the law by the judges but that was in a civil case, and the House was aware that the constraint placed upon an Act of Parliament, in a civil case, was very different from that which would be placed on it in a criminal proceedin g . That case had been decided in the year 1744 ; and it was then de termined by the Judges that horse-racing was included in the clause,which mentioned " all other games whatsoever." The penal clauses of the statute had never been attempted to be enforced against persons making bets on horse races. For one hundred and thirty-three years that clause had remained unnoticed and forgotten. Persons had broken the law without any knowledge that they were doing anything illegal. The persons against whom these actions had been brought were quite unaware that they were doing anything illegal—and he believed that if any lion. Gentleman would take the Act of Par liament and read it, and nothing else, he would not say that it was intended that the Act should apply to horse-racing, Ile should next proceed to show that the actions had been vexatiously brought. Who were the parties bringing them ? An attorney and an attorney's clerk. He had been to the Exchequer-office for the purpose of ascertaining by whom these actions had been brought. All of them ex cept one had been brought by Charles Russell, and James Russell was the attorney ; and-in the other action James Russell was both the informer and the attorney. He held in his hand five writs against one of the most honourable men in this country, for sums amounting to nearly 80,000/. The members of the bar, the House were aware, were incapable of acting except at the intervention of an attorney, between whom and themselves the greatest confidence was felt. But this attorney went to a distinguished man one of the ablest men in his profession, representing himself by name as the attorney in one of these actions, and by this means he got the opinion of his Learned and esteemed Friend, and stole a march upon the defendant. The principle upon which this Bill was founded was familiar to the Legislature. Parliament had, for some years past, shown a disposition to alter the law, su far as it gave any remedy to a common informer. As far back as 1806, informers had been deprived of power to bring an action in the Excise department. There was high constitutional authority to show that this was no infraction of justice. In 1814 a Bill was brought in to stop certain actions brought against certain members of the clergy. On that occasion Lord Eldon said, "It was certainly a delicate proceeding, but it had been the practice in all . times, when an informer made a vexatious use of the law, to shield those against whom he was proceeding." He ap prehended that the case before the House must rest not on the moral culpabilities of those who were sued, but on the vexatious nature of the actions. He had ascertained that actions had been commenced against twenty-one parties, and that the penalties amounted to nearly half a million of money. One of the parties was the Earl of Eglintoun, another Mr. Greatorex, a third Lord George Bentinck, who was there to answer for himself, and did not at all appear ashamed of his position.—(Laughter.) Amongst those gentlemen was one who had formerly been a Member of that House, and for whom Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had, no doubt, a very great respect—he meant Mr. John Gully, the late Mem ber for Pontefract. Some Honourable Members were, no doubt, aware of the practice that was called " hedging," which meant betting both ways, and I the mischief of these actions was, that, if a man bet and lost 1001., and by a counter bet recovered 99/., the 1 penalties were fixed not upon the 1/. that had been ac tually lost, but upon the 100/. which had been lost in the first instance, and hence the enormous amounts for which the action for these penal ties was brought. One of the grounds of opposition to the Bill was that it was said there would be no ' inter ference if the parties interested were not rich men.— 1 (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) The Hon. Member for I Finsbury said hear, hear. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—I am not talking to you. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY—Somebody then spoke, and 1 he (Mr. Wortley) now asked the lion. Gentleman for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would Mr. Russell bring these actions against a poor wan ? What would 1 r he get by it ?—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The parties who brought these actions selected the rich, because it best suifed their purpose so to do. This he trusted would be considered as an answer to that objection. He hoped that the House would agree to the Bill ; and he would not have ventured to introduce it, but that he thought it was important not merely to the individuals, but to the public.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M. GIBSON said that there was no necessity for the Hon. Gentleman to apologise for the time which he had occupied in bringing forward his motion. The Bill involved considerations of the most important kind —perhaps, as the Hon. Gentleman had said, important t._9 , lt e e n individuals, but certainly important to the public. Hon. dwr,atwo rGentlemanprotectioneliev eth o from reom whoproposedth hailot ex s those l s , o . h enact violatedn obeyede an t tine law, Plaishdtftoactltvhaietlial very satisfactory explanation of his reasons must have been expected and required. In proposing to the House the amendment which he(Mr. Gibson) had risen to move ' it was necessary for him to state, th a t h e t h oug h t t h e House had nothing to do with the character of the parties. The House ought to dismiss the question of character entirely from its consideration--they ought to have no thing whatever to do with considerations of character or station in such a matter as this. To allow such con siderations to influence them was to legislate, not on principles and for principles, but from personal motives, ILLNESS of the KING of SWEDEN. and for almost personal ends. The Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill had, in fact, given the . best reason possible why he (Mr. Gibson) should persevere in his amendment.—(Hear.) He said the law affecting these subjects was so bad, that it re quired revision altogether. He did not, however, tell them what might be the effect of looking carefully and searchingly into the effects of these laws. It might turn out, after inquiry by a Committee of the House, that the Legislature might still 'maintain the opinion that this very position of the law it would be desirable ' to maintatn. And should this be the case, as very likely it might be, they would, if they consented to this Bill, be saving those who violated the law by a sort of parenthesis. The House might report it to be desirable that certain penalties now attached to acts of gaming should still be retained. He (Mr. Gibson) had heard that people on the other side were very fond of trying to make the nation moral and religious by Act of Parliament—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear")—and he, therefore would not, if he could help it, allow great men, and rich men, and influential men, to escape the infliction of laws which they had made for other people.—(Cheers.) They might ask them to suspend the actions, but not to discontinue the law ; but the actions were not to be sus pended, they were to be put an end to altogether. Now he did not believe there was so much ignorance prevail ing as to the existing law respecting gaming as the Hon. Gentleman seemed to think ; on the contrary, scarcely a term passed in which actions were not brought under these statutes of Charles and Anne. Mr. WORTLEY—There has not been a single action. Mr. GIBSON—Wait till you have heard the other side. Mr. WORTLEY—There has not been any action brought for horse-racing. Mr. GlBSON—Really they could not sit there to draw distinctions of this kind. The Acts were levelled against gaming in general, and not against any parti cular sport. But that' it would be occupying the time of the House, he would move that this statute be read by the clerk at the table. The Act of Charles was to prevent deceitful and exces sive gaming. There were certain pastimes and games enumerated in that Act, and amongst those games and pastimes horse-racing was named. There could be no doubt that that Act, which was meant to apply to gaining, applied also to horse-racing. He thought that those who supported this Bill in • the other House of Parliament must have been jesting when they called this Bill at present before the House a "manly sport and a wholesome pastime Bill." This was an absurd ground for Right Bev. Prelates to take for supporting the Bill. It put him in mind of the lines " Great men may jest with Saints, 'tis wit in them, But with the less foul profanation." —(Hear, hear.) Qui tam actions it was well known had been often brought before for small penalties, yet they never before heard of a gentleman going to that House, and asking for a Bill of indemnity.—(Hear, hear.) There had been numerous cases in which qui tam actions The latest accounts from Stockholm are of the 2d of Fe bruary. The King had had a rather restless night, caused chietlY by swelling and pain in the leg and foot. The bulletin published at five o'clock in the afternoon of the 2d, states, however, that his Majesty was better than on any preceding day Since the commencement of his illness ; and the pain and swelling of the leg had abated. In consequence of the progressive improvement in the King's health, the prayers in the palace chapel are discon tinued. A Royal ordinance has been issued, conferring the full exercise of the Royal authority on his Royal Highness the .Crown Prince. The King signed with his own hand both this ordinance and a similar one for Norway. The Daglizt Allehanda now contradicts the report which it was the first to publish. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) had been brought of late years. In 1816, a person named Hill had been prosecuted; in 1827, a person named Wilton had brought a qui tam action for gambling against a person named Taylor. That case was a remakable one. It had attracted the general attention of the country, It had been brought before the House of Lords by writ of error, yet no one had thought of introducing a Bill of indemnity. It' the law was not what it ought to be the Legislature had no one to thank for it but themselve , . They had invited informers to take upon themselves the odium and the expense of prosecuting those cases ; and they had a right to complain if the Legislature attempted to deprive them of those vested rights which it had bestowed upon them. It had been the policy of the Legislature which had held out to the informer the advantages which had given rise to these actions. Was it justice now to interfere to deprive the informer of his vested interest ?—(Hear, hear.) Would it not tend to lower the character of the Legislature with the people ? Would it not be said that all those who had friends in high stations could suspend the operation of the law—could have bills of indemnity introduced to re lease them from the liability to penalties which they had incurred. In the year 1842 qui tam actions had been brought under the provisions of this very clause against a person named Bond. Actions of a precisely similar character to those now under discussion.—(Cheers.) The law had been allowed to take iss course. The plaintiff had had received the full amount of the penalties, There was no insinuation that Bond had per mitted unfair play but merely that he had offended against this particular statute.—(Hear, hear.) He did not consider that Bond was so much to blame as the parties who supported his establishment.--(Cheers.) He was not so much to blame for the supplying the de mands of those who were supposed to be raised to ele vated situations for the purpose of setting an example to the people. He felt bound to oppose the passing of this Bill of Indemnity until he had a resolution passed pledging the House to appoint a Committee to revise the laws relating to gambling. The pledge of a single Member was not sufficient. They had got them now into a corner, and it would not be right to let them escape out of their difficulty, until they had pledged tdemselves to revise the law generally. He, there fore, must press the resolution which he intended to propose as an amendment to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to a division. He would take the liberty of quoting from a Conserva tive journal an urticle on the prosecution of Bond. The lieu. Gentleman then read an extract from the Times et Thursday, Dec. 8, 1842, expressing the satisfac tion which the conduqtors of that journal felt at the result of the prosecution of Bond, and stating that the country was not indebted to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, nor to the Home Secretary, nor to ! the Society for the Prosecution of Vice, for that pro secution, as all those authorities seemed to consider that the Corinthian atmosphere of St. James's was out of their jurisdiction; they were indebted for it to an artist of the name of Smith, and to an Act of the good old days of Queen Anne.— (Loud cheers.) That showed that the statute was perfectly well known. Bond had been ruined and forced to leave the country. No Bill of Indemnity had been brought in for him ; no statute had been passed to prevent the rich from setting a bad ex ample to the poor. (LEFT SPEAKING.) STATE OF TRADE. (From the Alancliebter Guardian.) Although no great aniount of business was done yes terday, either in goods or yarn, the market was exceed ingly firm, and with somewhat more of buoyancy in prices than has existed for some days past. Although many of the spinners have recently turned their attention to spinning higher counts of yarn than previously, the ge neral demand for light fabrics causes those descriptions of yarn to be much inquired for, and they are still very scarce, so that a further change from low to high counts may be expected; and a further diminution in the con sumption of cotton. The prices of printing cloths con tinue to advance, and very high prices have been paid this week for good 22's ; but 40-inch shirtings are rela tively low, though in somewhat better demand than last week. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, FEB. 12.—There has been very little change in the market to-day-from last week. The demand continues good, but many refuse to sell at the prices offered. The wool market is brisk, and prices are gradually on the advance. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. L. BRUGES took the oaths and his seat for the borough of Devizes, in the room of Mr. Sotheron, who has accepted the Stewardship of her Majesty's Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. PAKINGTON brought in the County Coroners' Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday next. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET brought up the Report of the General Committee on Elections, stating that the 4th of March next had been fixed to ballot for Committees to try the merits of the petitions against the returns from the city of Durham and the borough of Athlone. Sir G. CLERK laid upon the table returns relating to the Post-office, the Ordnance, and other public depart ments. COUNTY RATES (IRELAND.) Sir R. FERG USON moved fo'r a return of - the several counties, counties of cities, and counties of towns in Ire land, of which the valuation, under the Act 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 84, has been completed ; specifying the name - of each barony or half barony, the acreable contents and the valuation thereof ; stating also, the sum ordered to trevied by the grand jury warrant of Spring Assizes, 18•tri /for each such barony or half barony, and the ;tie per centum which eaeh such sum bears to the valuation, also the sum ordered to be levied by the grand warrant of Summer .Assizes, 1843, for each such barony or half barony, and the rate per centum which such SUM bears to the valuation ; stating also the name and acreable contents of each such county, county of a city, and county of a town ; the annual value thereof, according to the valuation under that Act ; the amount of the expense of such valuation, the cost per acre of such valuation, and the rate which the cost of such valuation bears to'each 100/. of the valuation (being in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 334, of 1843).—Ordered. Mr. FEFIRAND said, he must request the indulgence of the House for a few moments whilst he made one or two remarks on a subject which was somewhat personal to himself. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the answer he had received from the Right Hon aronet (Sir James Graham) the other evening, on the su ject of what had fallen ue frop Lord Chief Justice Denman in the Court of and child, on the subject of the separation of. mother Queen's a that that he (Sir James Graham) had stated words as those attributed to him had never been used by his Lordship. He (Mi.. Ferrand) had stated ' t l in that e it Cou s rt of House that, in giving judgment in a case in Queen's Bench, Lord Denman had delivered unanimous opinion of the Court that there were a some cases in which it was necessary to break in upon an Act me of Parliament. Now the House might conceive that, before he brought such a dictum as that before the House, he had taken every precaution to be satisfied • that it had been so laid down by that Learned Lord. He begged to say that, since the denial by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) of the utter ance of the words in question by Lord Denman, he (Mr. Ferrand) had referred to his authority for what trIV Sl'A-ejce had advanced to the House, and that that authority ,r177-I<,s-\hjd re-asserted and confirmed his original statement. Beferriiri, too, to the Morning Chronicle, to the Times, t i • " ‘ ..Of the Il orntng H erald, and to the Post, he found the time judgment in substance, and almost in the very s in which he (Mr. Ferrand) had brought it before - House. All these papers, generally so accurate and ai • thful in their reports, all of them agreed in attributing tia 46 Lord Denman almost the very same words he had THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY i 4, 1844 THOMAS H IGGIN SON, pawnbroker, Liverpool, Feb. 23, at twelve, and March 20, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Cazenove, official assignee, Liverpool ; Thompson, Liverpool ; Norris, Allen, and Simpson, Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn, London. JOHN HOOSSE BARRY, merchant, Liverpool, Feb. 27, and March 27, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official assignee, Liverpool ; Sharp and Jackson, Bed ford-row, London ; Miller and Peel, Liverpool. THOMAS LAY, grocer, Dudley, Worcestershire, Feb. 21, at twelve, and March 25, at eleven, at the Birmingham Dis trict Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham; Collis, Stourbridge ; Smith, Birmingham. RICHARD LANG, tallow chandler, Mill-bridge, York shire, Feb. 24, and March 26, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee, Leeds; Jaques and Edwards, Ely-place, London ; Watts, Dewsbury. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. E. Pither, cattle-dealer, Webb's-lane, Hammersmith. J. Simmons, wheelwright, Hardingstone, Northamptonshire S. Tarry, s h o emaker, Maseby, Northamptonshire. J. Wheeler, s oap-boiler, Bugbrook, Northamptonshire. W. Copson, hatter, Grantham, Lincolnshire. M. Westphal, commission agent, Woodstock-st., Hanover-sq. H. Carman, draper, Holywell, Flintshire. W. Thomas, stone merchant, Cardiff. J. Tummond, tea dealer, York. J. Lilley, grocer, Birmingham. C. I figginson, schoolmaster, Filkins, Oxfordshire. W. Dawson, saddler, Chesterfield. R. Pool, clothes dealer, Manchester. W. Brown, baker, Waterloo-road, Surrey. T. Rolfe, jun., journeyman wine-cooper, Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate- street. R. Williams, shoe manufacturer, New Brentford. J. Hargreaves, s hoemaker, Blackburn, Lancashire. H. Rogers, parish clerk, Melverley, Shropshire. J. Pritchard, tailor, South-row, New-road, St. Pancras. W. Hinchliff, haberdasher, Chelsea. J. T. Morgan, butcher, Feckenham, Worcester. G. Taylor, butcher, Poynton, Cheshire. J. Wcodhouse, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire. J. W illey, butcher, Manchester. D. Bates, card maker, Huddersfield, Yorkshire. C. A. Petterson, book-keeper, Le e d s , T. Owen, retail beer seller, Liverpool. W. South, jun., brick maker, Reedness, Yorkshire. J. Jackson, grocer, Skipton, Yorkshire. J. Croft, patten maker, Leeds. J. Davies, miller, Dyserth, Flintshire. W. Cooper, corn dealer, Ryde, Isle of Wight. T. Bland, market gardener, Christchurch, Monmouthshire. D. White, Gloucester-place, Walsworth. C. Nurse, plane maker, Maidstone, Kent. J. Laws, ginger beer maker, Wells-street, Cripplegate. R. Mayes, grazier, Ravensden, Bedfordshire. ; C. S. Shannan, tea dealer, Bedford. ' J. Peachey, pawnbroker, Wellington street, St. Luke's. W. Pearce, hosier, Nottingham. J. Campbell, Boston, Lincolnshire. J. Hambson, warehouseman, Hulme, Lancashire. J. Marsland, weaver, Bradford, Yorkshire. B. Wood, waterman, Mirfield, Yorkshire. J. Mantle, perfumer, Bedford. R. Bremridge, boot maker, Hampton. J. Bond, tailor, Ardwick, Lancashire. C. T. Oliver, clerk, White Hart-court, Bishopsgate-street. H. C. Carpenter, clerk, Coborn-street, Mile-end. B. Smith, builder, Northampton. F. W. Winsor, warehouseman, Trafalgar-place, Walworth. W. Hemming, coachman, Birmingham. R. Bassam, blacksmith, Hingham, Norfolk. J. Hands, stationer, Birmingham. T. S. Atkins, tax surveyor, Leicester. D. Armfield, provision dealer, Prestbury, Cheshire. J. Fryer, grocer, Chorley, Lancashire. W. Prockter, card maker, Rochdale, Lancashire. C. Knowles, schoolmaster, Gawsworth, Cheshire. T. Leach, labourer, Tongend, Lancashire. R. Forrester, town carter, Chatham. G. Penny, grocer, Totnes, Devonshire. H. Cope, coal higler, Old Radford, Nottinghamshire. W. P. Stokes, compositor, Haberdashers'-street, Hoxton. J. Bills, lodging-house keeper, West-ham, Essex. W. Kington Newington. E. C. Puna:lank, comedian, Edwardes-square, Kensington. J. W. Turnbull, glove manufacturer, Exeter. SECOND NOTICES. J. Routh, Camberwell-grove, Feb. 19, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. R. Routh, Camberwell-grove, Feb. 19, at half.past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee. E. A. Evans, tobacconist, Great Surrey-street, Blackfriars road, Feb. 19, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee. T. B. Day, Hanover-square, Clapham-road, March 6, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Lackington, of ficial assignee. J. Muffins, schoolmaster, Lewes, Sussex, Feb. 24, at half past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. R. Levick, clerk, High Holborn, Feb. 17, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee. J. Smallshaw, gunner, R.N., Landport, Hampshire, March 5, at eleven, at the Court of _Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. J. Cox, miller, Ipswich, Feb. 17, at one, Court of Bank ruptcy. Edwards, official assignee. W. Pullin, plasterer, Tuck-street, Shoreditch, Feb. 27, at half-past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee. R. G. Cattell, jeweller, Buxton-street, Clerkenwell, Feb. 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. J. Mort, jun., grocer, Little Bolton, Lancashire, Feb. 20, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanway, official assignee. W. Forster, whitesmith, Warrington, Lancashire, Feb. 19, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stanway, official assignee. G. Berkeley, farmer. Eastington Longdon, Worcestershire, Feb. 21, at one, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee. I. Robson, farmer, Thornton, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. G. Buckley, woollen-cloth spinner, Almondbury, Yorkshire, Feb. 19, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, of ficial assignee. G. Foulds, stone mason, Bingley, Yorkshire, Feb. 19, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee. T. Pycock, farmer, Atterby, Lincolnshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. T. Joy, beer seller, Liversedge, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. W. Peat, jun, Yeadon, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. R. S. Taylor, veterinary surgeon, York, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. J . H a ll a m, jun., piece maker, Skipton, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. T. Corlass, licensed victualler, Keighley, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. B. Woffenden, woollen yarn maker, Dewsbury, Yorkshire, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, of ficial assignee. official assignee. M. S. Lotinga, surgeon, Bishopwearmouth, Durham, Feb. 26, at twelve, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official assignee. manufacturer, Sheffield; Feb. 17, at Leeds y le o j s v r . .e k n W slN ,D r a i a ar li t le ks k t , ter e hr F i : ce e t a t b La n C . be d oel cud , . jrs,t. knifea W ti e a rl l i l ome e k pt v e le e r n, , j hcloth Leeds weavers, District C. Armitage, engraver, Sheffield, Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Court. at Fearne, official assignee. of r, B Bankruptcy, rom pt on B Kent,as n A g i h a a r l e l h - s e a e Gre c et o la ur nd t: Freeman, official assignee. DIVIDENDS. at eleven- J. Harrison, coach builder, Brighton, March 7, at half-past one-C. Marshall, brewer, Old Castle -street, Whitechapel, March 7, at one--G. Bishop, merchant, St. Mary-axe, City, March 7, at half-past twelve-F. W. E. Barandon, merchant, G. NeAtttlethtoen, Courttailo Pbilpot-lane, City. March 6, at half-past two-A. Mason, coach proprietor, Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk, March 5, at half-past eleven-. A.. and C. Duncan, merchants, Tokenhouse yard, City, March 6, at half-past one. In the Country. J. Brown, merchant, Sheffield, March 8, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court--G. and W. Boyd, millwrights, Hull, March 7, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court-St. John Cartwright, grocer, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, March 7, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court-S. Ferris, J. H. Butler, and J. Butler, m erchants, Liverpool, March 9, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court-W. Jacks, merchant, Bristol, March 6, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court-G. Holds worth, worsted spinner, Northowram, Yorkshire, March at eleven, at the Leeds District Court-R. Hansford, grocer, Weymouth, Dorsetshire , March 7, at twelve, at the Leeds District Court-W. P. Georges, wine merchant, Devonport, March 7, at twelve,at the Exeter District Court-J. R. Mun den, flax spinner, Barwick, Somersetshire, March 7, at one, at the Exeter District Court-A. Webb, carpet seller, Liverpool, March 8, at twe lve, at the Manchester District Court-G. Hood, earthenware manufacturer, Burslem, Staffordshire, March 6, at one, at the Birmingham District Court-J. Bate, ironmonger, Dudley, Worcestershire, March 9, at half-past eleven, at the Birmingham District Court-T. W. Jones, draper, Wellington , Shro p shire, March 7, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court-G. Wheldon, clothier, Dudley, Worcestershire, March 9, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned. A. Wells, surgeon, Wickford, Essex, March 7-J. M•Lean, statuary, Sun-street, Bishopsgate-street Without, March 7- J. Dobson, ship's carpenter, Old Gravel-lane, Ratcliffe-high way, March 7-P. Beyfus, steel-pen manufacturer, Hounds ditch, March 7-J. Gnnton. butcher, Cambridge, March 7- E. Thompson, tailor, Southampton, March 5-J. Andrews, licensed victualler, Guildford-street East, Wilmington-square, March 5-C. Willsmer, draper, Tillingham Essex, March 7- A. G. Roussac, merchant, Austin-friars, City, March 5-W. Read, engraver, King-street, Covent-garden, March 7-H. Cotman, draper, Norwich, March 5-A. W. and T. S. Low man, cheesemongers, Eastcheap, City, March 6-J. Wolland, turner, Exeter, 11Iarch 6-J. Bowles, worsted manufacturer, Leicester, March 6-J. Baylis, victualler, Deritend, Warwick shire, March 9-F. Peters, wine merchant, Manchester, March 8-R. Prince, stuff printer, Manchester, March 6-J. Smalley, iron founder, Sneinton, No ttin g hamshire, March 5- W. Dickinson, merchant, Bexley, Kent, March 5-J. Web ster, newspaper proprietor, Sheffield, March 5. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. T. Knight and E. Cutress, millers Preston, near Brighton -F. W. Edwards and J. Foy, commission agents, Alderman bury-T. Purcell and T. W. Nichols, tallow chandlers, Bat tersea-T. Littledale, H. Littledale, R. Aspinall, and T. Lit tledale, jun., tea brokers, Liverpool (so far as regards R. Aspi nall)-R. Richardson and J. Hol lida y , tailors, Liverpool-G. Barnes and C. Beswick, newspaper proprietors, Sunderland- Deane, Youle, and Co., general commission merchants, Per nambuco, Brazil (so far as regards W. Atkinson and R. S. Graham)-J. Ellerton and T. .nel, warehousemen, Law rence-lane, City-T. Hankey, J. A. Hankey, and T. Hankey, jun. (so far as regards T. Hankey)-W. Wilkinson and J. Adams, black ornament makers, Birmingham-F. Harrison and H. Shuckford, hosiers, G re enwich -J. Bradder and J. Wood, butchers, Stafford-R. Briercliffe, T. Briercliffe, and S. Barrett, cotton-waste dealers, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire -W. Adams and W. Pearson, spar and marble manufacturers, Matlock, Derbyshire-Ed. and Eh. Grainger, mercers, Dudley, Worcestershire-B. Slipper and J. Cornick, builders, Little Britain, City-J. Marrian and J. J Reynolds, stampers, Bir mingham-G. Rands, sen., and C. /lands, leather sellers, Northampton-E. and C. Margetts, brokers, Liverpool-W. H. H. Turner and C. Hunt, joiners, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire-J. Yeomans and W. Standfield, merchants, Shef field-T. T. Cattley and R. L. Young, lead 'vim/tants, Cousin-lane, Upper Thames-street -J. and W. J:Bilint,"snr geons, Edgeware-road-D. Hoyle and G. Sykes, cheese factors, Huddersfield, Yorkshire -H. Linney and J. Tanner, boot makers, Alton, Ilampshire-S. Hatfield and G. Brazilier, tailors, South Holton-street, Oxford -street-J. H. Crosland and J. Hemingway, painters, Leeds. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. DAVID STOCKS, farmer, Cameron bridge, Fifeshire, Feb. 19 and March 11, at twelve, at Smith's Inn, Kirkaldy. AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS DESTROYED.—The village of Charlton-on-Otmoor, situate within a few miles of Oxford, has latterly been the scene of several very lawless proceedings. Some of the labourers, for the want of employ ment, have been driven to the Bicester union workhouse, which has caused a great deal of excitement and dissatis faction in the minds of those remaining. Several of the re spectable inhabitants have had their windows broken, and on the night of the 26th of January three ploughs were de stroyed, by cutting them to pieces. Each plough belonged to a different farmer of the village. A paper was left on one of them, with the following written on it ;—" A fully belly does not know what an empty one feels." THE REBECCAITE CONVICTS.—Shoni Scybor Fawr and Dailr Cantwrs, sentenced at the last Winter Assizes, the former to transportation for life, and the, latter for 20 years, are now in Millbank Penitentiary, preparatory to their em barkation for a penal settlement. Sovereign and a Protestant Churc h, in this countr y , and he explained that what he meant by the word Protestant was, they should not have any minions of Popery in that Government. ( Hear, hear.) These were the words of the Member for Worcester; but were they not terms of abuse, and were they not contumelious terms ?—( Loud cheers.) Was his Right Hon. Friend Mr. Sheil— was Mr. Wyse—was Mr. More O'Ferral, were these minions of Popery ?—( Cheers. ) But more than this, two years ago, a Right Hon. Gentleman brought forward a motion of want confidence in the existing Government, which was carried by a majority of one, and the appointment of those three gentleman to office had been alluded to, of w hom he would only say that they were hardly placed in a position high enough for their merits. The Hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Bradshaw) a constant supporter of the present Government, and one of that majority, attacked those appointments; and said that each of them was a direct insult to the nation, and that the Government was upheld by a body of Irish Papists who were elected by savages not more civilized than the inhabitants of New Zealand.—(Loud cheers.) Such was the language used at that time, and POW they had prosecuted some of the ablest men in Ireland, and to conviction, for endeavouring to excite hostility against the people of England.—( Loud cheers.) His belief was, that these directions against the people of Ireland were part of the stock in trade of the party now in power. He believed that they worked upon the prejudices, the honest but ignorant prejudices, of the people of England. They made them believe that the Roman Catholics were about to hold the highest offices in the State, and they thus animated them, far their own purposes, against that portion of the empire.— (Loud cheers.) He alluded to this subject, because it was now said that the Roman Catholics could not be placed in office because they belonged not to the political party in power ; but, he asked, what man of the least feeling, of the smallest ,spirit, could join a patty who treated with contempt and insult, and unendurable injustice, the great body of the Roman Catholics, who belonged to an ancient religion, and who constituted more than 6,000,1 1 00 of the people of Ireland?—(Great cheering. ) Having stated what he thought was the injustice done to the people of Ireland with regard to the administration of justice, with regard to the franchise, and the disposal of power and patronage, he would now review the conduct of the different Governments with regard to thoSe subjects. From 1836, the gentlemen who held the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for Ire lan.l, determined to give a new direction with regard to the administration of justice ; and for this purpose they directed the Crown solicitors that Catholics and Protestants should be equally entitled to serve on juries, excepting cases of special objection. It appeared by the evidence of Sir Michael O'Loghlin, that after three years' experience of this system, the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of justice was greatly increased. Evidence to the same effect was given by Sir W. Somerville ; and let it be recollected that this evidence was given before the Lords' Committee of 1839, which was appointed to inquire into the state of crime in Ireland, under the administration of Lord Nnrmanhy.—( Hear, hear. ) The evidence showed that crime had greatly diminished; that there was more security for life ; and that property was worth more by four or five years' purchase, than it had been some years before.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the muni cipal franchise, the late Government were of opinion that the same principle should be adopted in Ireland and in England. This House agreed with them, but the House of Lords rejected the Bill. But had not the people of Ireland good reason to complain? The late Government were not in the same posit ion with regard to administration and legisla tion. It appeared to him, and the , people of Ireland were of the same opinion, that on the whole it were better for them to have a Goveinment whose administration was favourable to them, although their legislation in their be half has obstructed them—than that they should have a.Govern ment whose laws would not be more favourable, and whose administration would be adverse to them.—( Hear:hear. ) In 1841 the Right Hon. Gentleman had Ireland delivered over to him in a state of political tranquillity.—t Cheers.) He did not wish to exaggerate. He knew there were evils to be cured, which could not be done in a few years; but the temper of the people had improved.—(Loud cheers.) They had more confidence in the administration of justice • the national wealth of the people had increased ; the price Of land had advanced ; life and property were more secure ; and per. sons were more willing to embark capital in the country. He had seen, in the appointment of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Eliot) the germ of a hope that.things in Ireland would go on smoothly. The Noble Lord himself was in favour of impar tiality. At the commencement of the present Ministry, he (Lord John Russell) had expressed an opinion in favour of that appointment. His (Lord John Russell's) belief was, and he stated It now, that notwithstanding the wrong and injustice they had suffered, the Irish people would have suited their own interest better if they had remained in tranquillity, until, by a gradual increase of strength, they could have produced such an impression on the Government and the Parliament of this country, as would have been irresistible in favour of just prin ciples. That was not the case. Those who had pos sessed more peculiarly the confidence of the Irish people, were indignant at the treatment they had sustained. They maintained, with great force, that a remedy for those evils never could be obtained from the English Parliament. They said the only remedy for them would be found in a re peal of the union. It was a matter for consideration with the Government how that cry was to be met. The Government might, either by a motion of their own, or on the motion of the Hon. Member for Limerick, who asked them temperately to consider the subject, have done so. The Government refused to do this. They stood with confidence on the Act of Union. They said they would not inquire into the fairness or the justice of the Act of Union, but they seemed determined to act up to its very letter. What was the consequence of that ? It appeared, from the indictment lately prepared, that meet ings had been held in Ireland at which between three and four millions of persons had been present. These meetings were held for the pupose of agitating the repeal of the union ; and resolutions were passed in favour of such repeal.— (Hear, hear.) Was it not alarming to find so great a portion of the population of Ireland was discontented? More than forty years after the union the people of Ireland declared that nothing but repeal could give them satisfaction. The people made various speculations upon the intended con duct of the Government, and various opinions were given. Some said they thought the meetings were clearly illegal, or accompanied with circumstances of illegality ; the Govern ment should at once issue a proclamation to prevent any fur ther meetings. Others said that such would have been a very unwise course; if the meetings were allowed to continue mere numbers would not produce any considerable effect, and at length the leaders who presided at these meetings would desist of their own accord, or else resort to some steps which would be clearly illegal, and on such steps proceedings would be grounded. The Government took neither of these courses. 'They dismissed some twenty or thirty magistrates in the most strange manner.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Lord Chancellor of Ireland declared that certain persists who were in the commission of the peace in Ireland, could not hold that commission because they held repeal opinions and attended repeal meetings, and that after a Member or Members had made certain declarations in the House of Commons they should be dismissed for acting contrary to those opinions, although, as had been pro perly remarked in that House last night, the sentiments of the Right lion. Baronet respecting repeal could he only known by a,breach of the privileges of that House.—( Hear, hear.) In fact, these could not be known, except through the newspapers, and the magistrates of Ireland were not aware that the Times, the Morning Chronicle, and the Herald, were the recognised organs of Ministers and of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) But yet those magistrates were dismissed because they did not act in accordance with the opinions so delivered. Those proceed ings—this 'dismissal, did not diminish thedanger of those meet ings—did not lessen the numbers who attendedthese meetings, and many magistrates were dismissed, in whom the people placed the greatest trust, and who were the means of removing from the magistracy of Ireland, by that confidence, the odium which formerly attached to that body. Those meetings were allowed to go on from March until October, and then suddenly, early one morning, the Lord Lieutenant and the Chancellor landed at Kingstown—the meetings which had been hitherto held undisturbed were decried by proclamation, and their sup pression immediately directed.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was one circumstance attending that proclama tion of a very extraordinary character. He alluded to the meeting which was to be held at Clontarf. All the arrangements had been made for that meeting, and had been published and declared at the Donnybrook meeting, which preceded it some time previously. In fact, it had been uni versally known, for many days before, that a repeal meeting was to take place at Clontarf, yet not a single step was taken for its prevention, but a proclamation was issued upon the Saturday afternoon which immediately preceded the Sunday on which the meeting was to be held. Those who issued that proclama tion were responsible for the time at which it was issued.— ( Hear, hear.) He would not say—he should be sorry to make such a statement—that they had issued it in the hope of blood shed—( Hear, hear) —but in doing so they had acted with a carelessness that showed they had not a sufficient value for:life. —( Hear, hear.) What had prevented the people from coming up in crowds ?—( Hear, hear.) What but the exertions of Mr. O'Connell and his associates?—(Great cheering.) Not the care of a paternal Government—(Hear, hear)—but by a few irresponsible men, and one of those had become a victim in the cause of peace.—( Hear, hear.) Did not it therefore be come that House to make an inquiry —( Hear)—a strict and searching inquiry, why that which was known to all the world was not known to -the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Council in which he issued the late proclamation ? ( Hear, hear.) He was not one of those who approved of meetings that were calculated to excite tumults, or might end in forcible intimidation.—( Hear, hear.) Previous to the commencement of the meeting at Clontarf, the proclama tion he had adverted to had been issued, stating that it was dangerous to the public peace, illegal, and unconstitutional.— ( Hear, hear.) What had been the result of that proclamation ? Far different to what it would have been but for the inter ference of Mr. O'Connell.—(Hear,. hear.) But, however, much they might triumph in sending Mr. O'Connell to gaol, let them not forget that Mr. O'Connell had on every occasion persuaded the people to keep the peace, and dissuaded them from violence.—(Cheers.) At the thne that he (Lord John Russell) had held office, he had on several occasions felt anxious as to the course which Mr. O'Connell might adopt. At the time the outbreak took place among the Catholics of Canada, he had watched the course of Mr. O'Connell with the greatest anxiety. Mr. O'Connell had held up the conduct of the insurgents to odium, and had warned all who had any con fidence in him not to be guilty of a breach of the peace. Again, when outbreak was threatened by the Chartists of England, Mr. O'Connell told the Irish people that the object' of the Chartists could only be obtained by physical force, and that a resort to physical force could not be justified under'any eircumstances.—(Cheers. ) Then, again, at the time of the agitation respecting trades unions, Mr. O'Connell had not only exposed his popularity, but his life, to discourage' the movement in favour of trades' unions. —(Cheers.) ' , These things were worthy the serious consideration of the GOvern ment ; and when multitudes vi ere assembled far the purpose of discussing the obvious and admitted grievances under which Ireland laboured, surely it was some safety for a Government to know, that at the head of that movement was a man who had always persuaded the people to peace, and dissuaded them from a resort to physical force.—( Cheers.) It was singular that the Government should have taken no steps to put a stop to those meetings, until the time at which the Clontarf meeting was to have been held, and they h a d near l y come to an end , but having done so, they might very well have stopp ed them , and waited till Mr. O'Connell s h ou ld h ave taken some other steps too dangerous to pass unnoticed. But they had thought that it would be better to have recourse to a prosecution, and that prosecution was fo r a ll t h ese meet i ngs w hi c h they them selves had allowed to pass, for all those acts of which they had taken no notice--(Cheers)—for articles in news papers—which might have been prosecuted as seditious libels— ( Loud cheers)—acts which had been suffered to pr oceed without inte rr upti on f or n i ne mont h s t oget h er , w hil e one of the persons prosecuted had only joined the Association at a late period, when it might well have been supposed, from the supine ness of the Government that there was nothing illegal in it, and that any person holding repeal principles might safely join it. —(Cheers.) They did not prosecute them for these separate meetings but for a conspiracy, and he had been reminded by this prosecution most strongly of the prosecution against Horne Tooke and Hardy.—(Cheers.) 'they had brought together acts extending over a period of nine months in pre cisely the same manner as had been done in that instance, and which had brought down upon the prosecutors the eloquent denunciations of Erskine.—(Loud cheers.) These persons were indicted for conspiracy to obtain some common end by illegal means. Those means were the meetings which had been suffered by the Government to go on without interrup tion for nine months.—(Hear, hear.) He had read the able and temperate speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland, the able and equally temperate speech of the Solicitor.. General, and the able, but by no means temperate, charge of the Chief Justice—( Che.ers and laughter and, for his ewn part, Ile could not but c ome to the conclu sion that the meetings attacked were either legal and innocent, or illegal and criminal. If they were legal and innooent, bow could the attending them , or any number of them, eonstitute a crime? If the had been illegal and criminal , w h y ;zed they been allowed to pee. nine months unnoticed ?—(Cheers.) y Surely the Government did not expect that these meeting! would cease of themselves, when no notice had been given 01 their illegality ?—( Cheers. ) It had been said that they hid been suffered to pass unnoticed, because the Government had not at the moment a sufficient force in Ireland to suppress theist. It was impossible to believe that such could be the case. It vets impossible to believe that the. Government would seek thus to entrap men— ( Cheers) —t hae they would conceal their opinions for the purpose of s weteping all these persons nits their net—( Loud cheers) —that they would seek to obtain, conviction fur acts which they then e s elves had passed over unnoticed. —( Cheers. ) The indictment was for conspirse and it appeared from the charge of the Cicief Justice,.that t tee present law of conspiracy was not the ancient law of the land. By the ancient law of the land, the combination of people 3 , 1 i secret to commit injustice was necessary to be prove*, in order to substantiate the charge of conspiracy.- - ( Het hear.) The alteration in the law had not been many by statute. The new law of conspiracy was what Alr' Bentham would call judge - made law , an d he had read a note. from the last edition of Hale's Pleas of t he Crown, which stated that the law of conspiracy had of late been carried :Duch for,' ther than it ever had been in ancient tildes, and tha t Lem Ellenborough had stated that it had been carried far enougit• e:t (Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) the me ht that he to at c aution should be used in the application of that doctrine Aceordl g meetings held for the discussion of public s ub j ects. to that doctrine, any person might be involved in a charge_ of conspiracy.—.( Hear , hear.) Tak e the Anti-C:orneeLaTe League, for instance. Suppose t h a t, in etensequelie scarcity, violent epeeches should he made, and P! d i should be guilty of riot ; it might be ver y p ro p er to I , l ' an those persons for their conduct, but what would thee say 1 d indictment for conspiracy which should inc l u de the M.rea ' s - Westminster and Jr.A Jones Loyd, because they were 'e cru ; bers of the Anti-Corn-Law League? — (Chee rs and lau,ghl!r'to Or, if a Government of a different opinion should collie ' fl e power, he could not see why the Agricultural L eag ue might not be indicted for conspiracy.—(Cheers and laughter. The being present at an illeg al meeting, as he had said berfores was merely a single point to be proved by evidence, aye o and the jury could come to a clear decision upon it. Butritoar; conspiracy everything was involved, everything was where the law and the fact were at such e distance tr d of each other, and it required the utmost clearness Of head "that understanding to consider the subject. It was obvious to this law of conspiracy might be used for the opprcsssion of .w e a va iled subject, but what was the remedy ? It was that vitieieu a v e en e in the case of Hardy and Horne Tooke. It was a fai r ,'„ e „. impartial trial by jury.—(Cheers ) ) Was there such a ic eoce .e.. tion in Ireland ?—( Loud cheers. He returned to the I A anent which he had quoted of Sir Michael O'Loghlin, thoee; had been the practice since the union to strike o ff Gathol_we; and liberal Protestants from the jury. He bogged the fi r to consider what had lately taken place in Ireland. e n the P place, it appeared by affidavit that in the general list of pees sons qualified to serve on:special juries there were sixty ea' omitted. t he els Mr. SHAW (Re; order of Dublin) — Tha t has no • stated on affidavit. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was stated in the challengoe : the array. (l he Noble Lord here read the challenge.) e a t, Right Hon. Gentleman opposite contradicted t his statenee_d_ but he (Lord John Russell) believed that i t had been, e mitted by the Attorney-General and the law officers of t he Crown upon demurrer.—( Hear, hear.) The Rig ht WY Gentleman denied this, but the traversers said there seere S e o f names omitted, and Mr. O'Connell said that thirty' fi those sixty were Roman Catholics , being a much gr eater r t i o portion than was on the array when it was finally s truck. j, l o - i t (Lord J. Russell) did not. charge any person with fre beet even supposing that it was dune innocently, and with the it. intentions, still he thought, under the circumstatieee2ot was the duty of the law of fi cers of the Crown and the Gover e 7o, itself, to see that no advantage was taken of the eircure o sta nin se It was the custom formerly in Ireland to exempt r - bad Catholics from juries , and on this occasion t en persoeel been rejected by the law officers of the Crown, bec ause were Roman Catholics. This proceeding was of cient to deprive those-State prosecutions of the moral ° r e e f * which they would have justly had under other circunistatie, If the object of the Government had been to ensure a c e ,, u lie set tion he could understand the mode of proceeding —if 'Z t in the case of a private individual, where a private rig . ,“ t og. contested, he could very well understand this made Of r" a jury. The Noble Lord then read an extract from of to e itself s_i4to dente of Mr. Keeemis, given before a Committee ed if House in 1839, when Mr. Kemmis was a g ed 'he did not think that placing the greater o'onese of Protestants on a jury where, in the ordinary c n ot of the panel, the Catholics would preponderate, weclobee packing a jury ? Mr. Kemmis said he thought not „„sete asked what he thought packing a jury signif ied, he said , vi n o ting in a jury to convict or acquit.' There were 01 t o- Roman Catholics among these forty-eight ; and all tbostbir versers with the exception of Mr. Steele, wer e lies ; yet from this roll was st uck out all the Ro ie ll e o n m r Ir elan d a circumstance which would induce the people , 1 ; believe that the jury was appointed to convict.--ell• e e l;eoal was impossible that, under such circumstances, the Pe c t ar tiel believe that their leaders had been tried by a fair and uPP e r the jury. He could very well understand why me mbers t hat Repeal Association should be excluded from the jurre te „ere he would himself object ; but two of these ten Pers eus . tier not, and never had been, members of th e Re p eal Assoctbeeos and had never contributed to its funds. Ile was , , ten aie fore. bound to believe that these two gee` had been objected to solely because they we re wolf man Catholics, and that the other eight, whether they [L e r ° ti tre' repeal principles or not, would have been excluded ovs'afee they were Roman Catholics. He held in his hand ae nee er davit of one of these gentlemen, declaring that he had e ver been a member of the Repeal Association, and had a o f subscribed to its funds. With regard to the proceedignii the trial itself, he did not mean to enter into theta• d a l• respect to the conduct of the Attorney - Gen eral, it l' s o ld ready been made a subject of comment in that House, The he had been excused by the Ministers of the Crown. Attorney-General, in a court of justice, when the Judg es v - 10 about to enter, surrounded by all the maj est y of j ustice, the midst of a great and important trial , so far lost his teneril H s and outraged decency, as to invite a breach of the peace. had been excused on the ground of irritation by e e c i l of the members of her Majesty's Government ; but if e ii.st allowance was made for the feelings and irritability of t he n o w law cfficer of the Crown, should there not also be sortie s 3. ,bo ance made for the exclamations of the Roman Catholf' had been for years subjected to the grossest irnputatioda, a (Hear, hear.) Had not their priesthood been de no minat e priesthood ?—had not their religion been slandered had not the people been called barbarians, and worse than ' t he Zealanders ?—and yet they were held less excusable than de, Attorney-General, who had transgressed the bounds that ' cency. He perceived, by the newspapers of that day', Der. meeting had been held to celebrate the liberation o' d pa id Oastler—( Hear, hear)— and a Noble Lord who presi de .eed it e all kinds of compliments to Mr. Oastler, who was recogOl° ba ll the organ of the feelings of a party, but who, PerhaPs'oiloo given expression to the feelings of that party with t ea ti he'' liveliness—he could not but remember that espressiou_eor fallen from this same Mr. Oastler which might well be pie pared with the speeches which had been made by tho se °raised' victuals who were the subject of the State prosecutions in, ' ic he .d e With regard to the traversers who have been conic $3 they shall have received their sentence your proceediegosoor be at an end for the present. But would this have all thes e Bating effects?—(Cheers.) What de you expect frolotrinoj proceedings?—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Connell, as a at e n phant speaker—as a man who had forced the Governteeeocipsi Parliament of England into the concession of the E lli ot: 4o o .f tion Act—as a triumphant speaker,was, no doubt, air admiration to the people of Ireland, but he doubted "" es sle ,e Mr. O'Connell, convicted by a jury, purposely and eaPreeisoei Protestants—( Loud cheers)—convicted and sen t to l ;i s iole and suffering for the people of Ireland, for whom he a t 11 / 1 such results—suffering, perhaps, in health, 3 011 0 advanced age, in a prison, would not have,. a f I , t . e n ; greater hold upon the affnctions of the peoP'' as eb land—he very much doubted if the sufferingtoo whom you imprisoned would not have more sympathYtettli7f triumphant leader whom you disliked.—(Cheers.) „ oste consider what they could do with regard to the ether `b ore Ireland—whether there were not measures--wht; e e be was not a course, by which they might roe the people of Ireland to this eee ntr VerY °I 0 evils of the present state of things must be felt on c oo t a i d If they considered the finances, what expense must it ee ticta,,, to govern Ireland by military force and the f r ,. - e ige an d fortresses ? If they considered the state of their ' t „,' etrlJed lations, and if any differences existed between this c "j e r • - be any foreign State, what advantage would not his l leh feelie h e have with both countries united, and supported hY and affections of the United Kingdom—(C lic i e , ts ?ded v ide') Minister of Foreign Affairs, who represented a f aral', e ot one portion ef whom was governed only by force ° he pre; to (Cheers.) On every account they ought t i o f setttiele, t wiiiit b b eo e lora: state of affairs. Let them take care care. maintain the union, that the people of Ireland C ha d a n ere of nefits of that union, all those advantages which thel i . le f A. ao mired, and which had been sanctioned by the 11 e• !„,tice" if 1829. Let them have ne partial administration 0 1 ,_,J; 0 5.) re . partial, no sectarian administration of justice .—(.' b I the House went into Committee, his first resolution 0.0 spect this subject. He would next endeavour to frahTe to tti t ; / , franchise - for the people of Ireland ae might be agreuceic coo) and conformable with the law prevailing in at bee', If they could not have a 40s, franchise, they slip., o'. have one equal to the franchise in this country. eot io_,t le t e; nell complained that the whole of the agricul o f V ot e, Ireland had not more electors than the single county o f , r , b e that while Wales -had 36,000 electors, the coo,,,e t l i on. e ' t bel whiCh was nearly Null in population, had only 'o eie e i 0 i 1 sl? were obvious inequalities, which must be rerael f .' it h wished to proceed in-concert, and acted in goo e d w ay no t e bise to the engagements of Mr. Pitt in 1799. It y' e , free - tlie O'Connell alone who spoke of the inequalities o f ,f t : t i e ina e f. „ o td in the two countries ; but the Right Hon. eeee od a Member foe Waterford, and the Duke of Leinsters' ag e for e ' Charlemont, who were no levellers, no agita te h r t ' Of!, de' representing it as a great evil. They e u g, o ' n 98 11 ' to set about a cure. They ought to ac` „ 0 ia ;data, claration' of the Right Honourable Gentlerr t beY sip There were two courses they might pursue. I t ' ro ly that e tamed 'the law as it formerly stood, they had t ruly oe eerily of scruples, justice to all parties, and „ i se cu r be• ar./ 0 I 'l they passed the Act they lost the whole..--(" e „ a- ;esol uti :bj ec e - , should, therefore, assert that principle in an y to to as',. ° 6 l lo l - 4 ' should propose to the House. He came n e ” ta of Ad') which nearly touched and related to the PeeP_ ; seta — fl e upon which they atte:npted to legislate, but not ee soo' he se/ either for the people of Ireland, or for ail, rf e ar, tho j alluded to the Ecclesiastical Eetablishmenteeee s tatr' s ee Wherever that was advocated it was invariabeydeteee!! se e our Establishment raised jealousies, produced T oo iple 1 ;f re; P r :„i s ters t se" other evils. With regard to the voluntary stated, that the evil of it would be that the_ o l e r fra pe . ts 'ti t e: l ' ligion would be dependent upon their flocks fore a c ts t . that, being so, they would join in every act of petl' he f d t s er , ..—( Hear, hear.). With regard to the last objeetif e u sio ttelll' e ff it was evident 'every where. But the eee' joh he I' in Ireland combined both the objections to a"reerteeetti verted. The people felt that they were exclud ed— e ar, P e et . ; —that there was a class paramount over the10.77) 0 00 1 3, But then he would come to the evils of the e v a 'e $ 2,0 5, ciple. What was the fact with respect to tn o i nie of s pic. o the clergy of six millions and a half of the C let t , were supported by its But it was said that gle e ' by, In, to whom the greatest praise was due, were of _eo, d o e > i° political discussion more than any other set of eat co o _, in tt o Quarterly Review he had seen it stated t hat t ,.. o % ' the h fo u re r , t ) or other, it was necessary to remove the clergy t here be er:, and the platform. Would it not be bettei, He ar, o f tr. unite' both systems in one great principle e. retaining to re , Then withrespect to the union. If the mg r ' lr Oi a tabl e _ o f terms of; the union was not in accordance F et , s ee a bi ;erei e people of Ireland, for his own part he could vigor, eve tee jection to the alteration of the Act of Union•----,d r eow 5 0 0 He confessed that he did not think they Cou'oaorto t to grievances of the people in Ireland, but hY for oee d id pr alteration in the Established Church• He • Th e W e et think that the voluntary system would be effective; the e th e he should prefer would he one that would ehae:ci putting the Established Church o f 'England nip t h e i< the/ Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian Chi c ev er, thieet pe of Ireland, upon an equality. He did not hoa that could be done at the present an t' °Tl"'OP the House would only proceed - in a spirit o f TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE ERRATUM in the list of Sheriffs appointed by her Majesty in Council, for the year 1844, published in the Second Sup plement to the Gazette of the 30th of January last : Leicestershire.—For Archibald Algernon Henry St. Mawr, Esq., commonly called Lord Archibald Algernon Henry St. Mawr, of Burton on the Wolds; read, Archibald Algernon Henry Maur, Esq. commonly called Lord Archibald Alger non Henry St. Maur, of Burton on the Wolds. DOWNING-STREET, FEE. 9, 1844. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Major Henry Cres wicke Rawlinson, of the Ist Bombay Grenadiers, in the service of the East India Company, to be a Companion of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath. ST. JAMES'S-PALACE, JAN. 31. The Queen has been pleased, on the nomination of Lord Forester, to appoint Henry Sibley Hodgson, Esq., as one of her Majesty's Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, vice Blewitt, who retires. WHITEHALL, FEB. 13, 1844. - - The Queen has been pleased to present the Reverend Regi nald Hobhouse, Master of Arts, to the rectory of St. Ives, in the county of Cornwall, and diocese of Exeter, the same being void by the death of the Reverend John Jope. The Queen has been pleased to present the Reverend John Lamont to the church of Croich, in the parish of Kincardine, in the presbytery of Tain, and shire of Ross, vacant in conse quence of the Reverend Gustavus Aird, late minister thereof, having ceased to be a minister of the Church of Scotland. Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Glamorganshire. Royal Glamorgan Light Infantry Battalion of Militia—J. N. Lucas, Esq. to be Major, Feb. 5. CROWN-OFFICE, FEB. 13. 11E3IBERS RETURNED To SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PA ALIA ME NT. DEVlZES—William Heald Ludlow Bruges, of Seend, in the County of Wilts, Esq., in the room of Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. WILTSHIRE NORTHERN DIVISION Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron, of Bowden-park, in the said County of Wilts, Esq., in the room of Sir Francis Burdett, Bart., deceased. WHITEHALL, FEil. 2. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Robert Azlack White, of Grantham, in the county of Lincoln, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. WHITEHALL, FEB. 5. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Thomas Sismey, of the town of Huntingdon, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of ancery. The following places have been duly authorized for solemniz ing marriages therein, pursuant to the Act of the 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 85:— Independent Chapel, East Retford, Nottinghamshire. St. Wilfrisl's Church, Hulme, Lancashire. Roman Catholic Chapel, Richmond, Surrey. Ducie Chapel, Cheetham, Lancashire. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. JOSEPH RHODES, woolstapler, Leeds. BANKRUPTS. JOHN FAULKNER, builder, Danvers-street, Chelsea, to surrender Feb. 22, at half-past eleven, and March 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assig nee, I3asinghall-street ; Ward, Lincoln's Inn-fields. JOHN MILNER, engine manufacturer, Brook-street, New road, Feb. 22, at half-past one, and March 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Basinghall street ; Rivington, Fenchurcli-buildings. THOMAS AMOS, builder, Kingsland-road, Middlesex, Feb. 27, and March 26, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane ; J. and W. Sheffield, Leadenhall-street. EDWARD MANSFIELD MARKS, upholsterer, Mon timer-street, Cavendish-square, Feb. .24, and March 26, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official as signee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry ; Ivimey, Chancery-lane. GEORGE FIELD, packer, Bond-court, Walbrook, Feb. 21, at two, and March 27, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcyy. Lackington, official assignee, Coleman-street; Cot trill, Throgmorton-street. ROBERT TURNER, fancy cloth manufacturer, Al mondbury, Yorkshire, Feb. 26, and March 27, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee, Leeds ; Robinson, Huddersfield ; Bond, Leeds ; Clark and Co., Lin celn's Inu-fields, London. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 13. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. The Report of the Poor-law Commissioners was presented, and ordered to be laid upon the table. Mr. W. WILLIAMS presented a petition from certain county-rate liners, residing on the line of road between Fish guard and Haverfordwest, complaining of the misapplication of trust funds, and praying for inquiry.. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Society of Friends, expressing their disanrobation of the practice of voting the thanks of the House to the Army for military ser vices, and beseeching the House to withhold its sanction from all acts of t apine and bloodshed. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from the frame-work knitters of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, praying the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into their grievances. Mr. HUME presented a petition from a place in Scotland, praying that the grievances of the people might be investigated and inquired into before voting the supplies, NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY. Mr. FOSTER presented a petition, praying for leave to bring in a Bill for a Railway between Edinburgh and Berwick. COURTS OF LAW IN SCOTLAND. Mr. WALLACE postponed until the 27th inst. his motion fixd for this evening on the Judicial Establishments of Scot land. DON CARLOS. Lord JOHN MANNERS gave notice that on the 29th .nst. he should move a humble address to the Crown, praying her Majesty to use her influence to effect the liberation of Don Carl s from captivity. CORN AND COLONIES. Mr. HUTT gave notice that on this day fortnight he should move a resolution, that it is expedient that the laws affecting corn in India, Australasia, and other colonies, should be assimi lated to tho.e now in force in England. SINDE Sir E. COLEBROOKE gave notice that on the 27th inst. heihould bring forward a motion, to the effect that the demands made by the tJovernor-General of India upon the Ameers of Siiide were inconsistent with the honour and true policy of this country. BUSINESS HOURS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. W. WILLIAMS gave notice that his dropped motion, notice of which stood on the paper for yesterday, that no new business likely to lead to discussion be brought on in the House aft, r twelve o'clock at night, he proposed to bring on on the 27th instant. Colonel RAWDON postponed the motion of which he had given notice till the 27th instant. PARENT AND CHILD—THE POOR-LAW. Mr. FF:RIt AND gave notice that he should, on a future day, move for a copy of the Minutes of the Poor-law Commis sioners, which had received the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as to the separation of mother and child in the Poor-law Unions. THE BANK. Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved for several unopposed returns as to sovereigns, half-sovereigns, and the amount of deposits and securities in the Bank of England at certain stated periods. WOOLLEN .MAN UFACTURES. Mr. ALDAM moved for an account of the quantities and declared value of British woollen manufactures exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1843; specifying the coun tries to which they were sent. SMUGGLING. _ _ Mr. HUME moved fora return of the number of persons convicted on charges of smuggling.—Ordered. ORANGE SOCIETIES (CANADA). Mr. LEADER said that he had a question to put to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. One of the pro vinces of Canada being Catholic, and the Catholic religion being established in that province by statute, and cases of vio lence committed by Orange societies having occurred, a Bill was passed during the last session of the provincial Parliament for suppressing those Orange Societies, which Act was, he be lieved, little store than a transcript of one passed by the Impe rial Legislature. Sir Charles Metcalfe, the Governor, had re served his consent to that Act, and he (Mr. Leader) wished to ask whether that reservation was approved of by the Govern ment, and whether the consent of the Government was to be refused to that Act ? Lord STANLEY said he had ascertained by inquiries that, on the 9th of December last, Sir Charles Metcalfe did reserve his consent to an Act for the suppression of those associations in Canada. That Bill had not been transmitted to the Govern ment by Sir Charles Metcalfe, and not having any information as to its contents, he could not answer the question of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. LEADER said this was some time ago, ar.d asked when the Bill would a! rive ? Lord STANLEY said there had been one mail since the 9th of December, by which Sir Charles Metcalfe might have trans. mitted the Act ; but, in the circumstances in which he was placed, it was not unreasonable to suppose that his time was so occupied as to render it difficult, if not impossible, for him to have transmitted it. No doubt in a short time he should re ceive it, but he did not think the omission of one mail formed any great subject of complaint against the Governor. CHARITABLE TRUSTS. • • . • Mr. C. BERKELEY begged to ask the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary of State whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any Bill this session with regard to charitable trusts, and if so, whether any provision in it would relate to ancient charitable bequests. Sir J. GRAHAM said it was the intention of the Govern ment to introduce a Bill on the subject of charitable bequests. That Bill would be introduced in the other House of Parliament. COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND). Mr. 'WALLACE wished to ask the Lord Advocate, in virtue of the provisions of the Act 2 and 3 Vic. c. 3b, passed in July, 1839, for the purpose of raising the salaries of the Judges in the Court of Session, and regulating the arrangements of judicial business in that Court, whether, since the 2.9 th clay of July, 1839, when the salaries of all the Judges were raised and made payable forthwith, the sittings of the Court of Ses sion have been extended, for the purpose of " diminishing the arrears of business," which the said Judges were empowered to do. 2dly. Whether any regulations have been passed by Act or Acts of Sederunt, " for carrying into effect the purposes of the above Act," "by diminishing the arrears of business," or otherwise, as the Judges of the Court of Session were em powered to do under the Act. idly. Whether, to his know edge, any Act or Acts of Sederunt have been pa-sed for the above purposes, which may be expected to be laid upon the table of this House this session, in terms of the Act. The LORD ADVOCATE, who spoke in so low a tune of voice as to be scarcely audible, was understood to say, that tariou3 powers had been given to the Court, having the ob ject in view which had been stated by the Hon. Member. With respect to the latter part of the question, he could not say that such Acts had been passed (as we understood). MEDICAL CHARITIES IN IRELAND. Colonel CONOLLY wished to ask the Government; if it was asthe ineld thisirinlrtenatnionto e isntsrsn. o io duee any Bill relative to Medical Charities Lord ELIOT (as we understood), said it was the intention of the Government to do so. STATE OF IRELAND. Lord J. RUSSELL kin continuation from our Third Edition last night) said—Let them beware lest, under the name of an extension of the franchise, the measure proposed by Ministers, might not be a measure for giving increased power to the Protestant landlords of Ireland, in order to e'ect men of their choice, and net the choice of the electors, as Members of Parliament.—( Hear hear, hear.) He came now to another subject, to the eligibility of Roman Catholics to offices in Ire land.—( Renewed cries of Hear, hear.) (The Noble Lord then quoted an extract of a speech from Sir Robert Peel, in which the Right Hon. Baronet said that it would have been better if the penal acts affecting the eligibility of Roman Catholics to office had not been repealed at all, than, when repealed, not to be practically acted upon.—( Hear.) He ( Lord John Russell) would ask to so sat appointments had the present Government preferred Roman Catholics. They had had the appointments of a Master of the Rolls, of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and of three or four Puisne Judges, and yet they had not appointed a single Roman Catholic.—( Hear, hear.) In fact, they had scarcely appointed a Roman Catholic, in a na tion of Roman Catholics, to a single office of trust or power since their accession to office. And yet that was the power they professed to give by statute. That statute spoke of un just preference and unfair suspicion, and the course that had been adopted towards Ireland was a course of unjust preference and unfair suspicion, considering their talents, and the number of that people. —( Hear.) He now came to an objection that had been made that would induce him to enter a complaint and protest that the whole Roman Catholic body were opposed to the present Ministry.—( Hear, hear.) If such was the case, how came it to be the fact ?—(Hear, hear.) Hitherto the Roman Catholics had acquiesced in such doctrines.—( Hear, hear.) He never heard such charges made against them. ( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, they had been charged with having too great a wish for arbitrary power.--( Hear, hear.) How came it, then, that the Roman Catholics opposed the present Ministry ?—( Hear, heat;) He could easily answer that question— (Hear, hear)—and in doing so he was autho- rised to make a grave charge against some of the present members of the Government.—( Hear, hear.) It had been asserted some time ago that Mr. O'Connell and others had united to endeavour to excite feelings of among the people of Ireland to the people of England.—( Hear, hear.) That was no doubt an offence at law. They had had a charge in their favour from the Chief Justice. —(Cheering and counter cheering.) They had had a verdict of a jury in their favour. There could be no doubt but that in the opinion, both of the Government and of the Crown lawyers, that was a grave offence, and it did right to bring men, aye, eminent men, to the bar on such a charge.—( Hear, hear. ) But had there been no persons doing this, reversing-the words England and Ireland ?—(Cheers.) Had there been no per sons who had endeavoured to excite in the people of England feelings of hostility and ill-nature towards the people of Ire land ?—(Renewed cheering.) iThe recommendation of the two Houses had been, that the two countries should be bound by reciprocal affection, not one-sided affection, not affection on the part of the people of Ireland to be returned by feelings of hostility and ill-will on the part of the people of England. Had no person in this country endeavoured to excite feelings of hostility in the minds of the people of England, by calling the people of Ireland aliens ?—( Cheers.) Affixing to them a term which belonged only to persons born out of the Queen's allegi ance, and used for the purpose of depriving them of the benefit of those corporations which had been granted to the people of England.—(Cheers.) He would ask why had not the Attor ney- General prosecuted this person in the Queen's Bench ? (Cheers.) How came it that they had had no speech of eleven hours stating the enormity of his offence ?—( Renewed cheers.) The answer no doubt would be, that the words had been spoken in Parliament, and were protected by privilege. But had that person in any way been deprived of the confidence of the Crown?—(Cheers.) Had he been marked as a person not proper to be admitted into the Queen's Councils ?—(Cheering and counter-cheering.) On the contrary, he occupied the highest place there, and he was at the head of the magistracy and of the law in England, and stood there as the person to direet the prosecution against Mr. O'Connell, for having ex . (tited feelings of among the people of Ireland.—( Cheers.) Had diey ever heard of anything so monstrous as this ?—(Tre mendcins cheering.) He did not believe that that person held his situation on account of any superiority in his judgments in the Courts over which he presided, for he believed that no duties were more highly paid, or performed more carelessly, than those which were performed by that functionary.—(lm mense cheering, and counter cheering.) It was on account of that declaration—on account of that hostility to the people of Ireland, that that person had obtained his office.—(lmmense cheers from the Opposition, answered by groans from the Mi nisterial side of the House.) Well, Government had had their conviction—they might have their superiority in this House, but they should not prevent him from advocating what he thought was the cause of the oppressed.—(Loud cheers.) A Noble Lord opposite laid great stress and emphasis on having a Pro testant Government, a Protestant Constitution, a Protestant •-•-••••'''''.--