The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-18 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. LAW INTELLIGENCE INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, JOVE 17. HA TTON-GARDEN: Henry Fox was placed at the bar, charged by ,11r. Cresscy, sadlcr, of Cow Cross -street, Clerkenwell, with cruelty to a horse. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was in the service of the prosecutor, and had to take care of bis horse. On Sunday last, the prisoner was riding the animal which became rather restive, on which the prisoner beat it in a most violent manner over the head with a thick stick, and through the medium of blows upon its eye, it burst in its socket. The spectators expressed their indignation, and gave the prisoner into custody. Several witnesses corroborated the evidence. The prisoner did not deny having beaten the animal, but said, the blows upon the eye were not intentionally given. The prosecutor stated that he was obliged to part with the horse in consequence of the acute agony that it suffered. Ho estimated the damage he had sustained at 3/. Mr. BENETT said it was a most cruel and brutal transac tion, and he ordered the prisoner to pay 3/. for damage, and convicted him in the penalty of 403. for the cruelty, and in default of payment to be committed to the House of Correction for 14 days. THREE PERSONS BURNT.-Thursday night, lostween seven and eight o'clock, a fire broke out in John. street, Blackfriars-road, at the house, No. 16, occupied by Mr. Nicholson, hatter. Engines were soon on the spot, but the fire was got out before their arrival without doing any serious damage. Mr. Nicholson, his apprentice, and a boy, were all at work together, when the copper con taing spirits of wine boiled over, and in an instant ignited. Mr. Nicholson and the lad arc severely burnt, but the ap prentice is frightfully so, as the flesh came off with his clothes. A cab was instantly procured, in which the sufferer was conveyed to St. Thomas's Hospital. EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION.— Thuts day, in the Insolvent Court, Thomas Radcliffe applied to be admitted to bail until his hearing. He had been sued in the Court of Requests for the sum of 1/. ha., on which he had been taken to prison. The demand was disputed. The Learned Chief Commissioner asked whether there was any other execution against him ? The insolvent an swered in the negative. It appeared that he had paid his attorney 21., which, he said, bad been advanced to him. The Court said it was a farce to entertain the case ; they should refuse the bail, and the man might pay the small debt and go out of prison. —Bail rejected. A week of plentiful, though by no means conti rucq wer, has been of inestimable service to the farmers and gardeners. For the la , t two days the weather has become cooler than is desirable at this season. We believe all the crop.; are in a good state, though grass is backward. —Lce Is Mercury. Money is so scarce in New Orlean that when two dollars meet, their owners are are obliged to introduce t orn to each other, they ate such strangers.—. New Yo Paper. FATAL ACCIDENT.—A MAN SHOT IN Ails- TAKE FOR A DEER.—An intinest was held on Friday last, at the Greyhound Inn, Enfield, before H. Sawyer, Esq , Coroner, on the body of James West, who was unfortu nately shot on the preceding day, in mistake for a deer, by Benjamin Nott, a young farmer residing in the chase. The jury having taken a view of the body, which pre sented a most dreadful spectacle from the whole of the contents of the gun having entered the brain, just above the right eye, taking away a portion of the scalp, and thereby causing. instantaneous death. The circumstances which came out in evidence, and which led to this de plorable result, are as follow :—A stray deer had been repeatedly seen by the witnesses, and also on the day in question, who informed young Nott of the circumstance, v . :hereupon he fetched a loaded gun with the intent of kill ing the animal ; he also was accompanied by a boy and a dog, in case he mi sse d or wounded the deer, cautioning the bay not to leave the spot for fear of injuring him if ho fir d; unfortunately the d ecease d had gone to an adjoining field to show a boy a blackbird's nest, when Nott per something, but very imp er f ect l y, the Ledge being so thick of foliage, believed it to be the deer and shot the poor fellow, as before described. The Jury, after visiting the fatal spot to satisfy their minds, under all the painful circumstances of the case, returned a verdict of accidental death, and 205., deodand on the gun. It is proper to add, that the youth's father has promised to assist the poor widow and children in their future melan choly prospects. The excitement and commisseration produced amongst the inhabitants has not been so strongly manifested since the barbarous murder of Benja min Couch Darby. SINGULAR INSTANCE OF IVIANITFACTURING DI , :PATCII AS CONNECTED WITII RAILWAY TRANSIT.—On Thursday afternoon last Mr. W. Taylor, cotton manufac turer, of this town, purchased a considerable quantity of cotton from Messrs. Bateson and Sons, Liverpool, which was sent by Messrs. Tattersall and Clare, Mr. Taylor's brokers, to Mr. J. Hargreaves, jun., to be conveyed to Pre.-..ton by the North Union Railway; and although it did not actually leave Liverpool till after three o'clock yes terday (Friday) morning, it was delivered at Tulketh fac tory at eight minutes past nine o'clock, and before eleven o'clock part of it had passed through the several operations of mixing, scutching, sapping, carding, drawing, slubbing, roving, and spinning. At Calf-past eleven o'clock a por tion of it was made into cloth by the power loom, and at twenty minutes past four o'clock in the afternoon three and a-half yards of good, perfect, shirting cloth were forwarded by Mr. Taylor to Messrs. Tattersall and Clare by the train leaving Preston at twenty minutes past four, and would, in course, be delivered to them before seven o'clock the same evening. We have no doubt but that this morning (Satur day) hundreds of gentlemen on 'Change will have an °PPortunity of seeing cloth, the weft of which was made from cottic that had been conveyed from Liverpool to Pr eston en d b ac k (e i ghty miles, including the distance from the delivering station to the factory,) and had passed through th e var i ous operat i ons necessary for its production, i h n th e short space of fifteen hours, after deducting one our not for dinner, during which time the manufactory W 25 at ork • an d : 'this was done without any very extraor dinary hurry " e rt • that th e t i From the foregoing, it appears e occupied in t h e whole of the operations, from first op en : f the cotton b ags to the production of several yards o f the fabric, ii; was somewhat under s i x wor ki ng h ours. How forcibly this fact rem i nd us that we live in the age of enterprise n the very millennium of railway velo city! Last evenin g cloth, produced from th e dreSS Wag worn by the weaver of the Liverpool yesterday same raw material sent from Morning. —Preston Chronicle of Saturday. paptneau, the runaway hero of the Canadian in surrection, seems to he a great pet j ust now with the ultra liberals i n France, Lie is said to b e preparing a complete history of recent events in C ana d a, and in the meanwhile intends to publish a series of articles in the Revue du Progres. CRIM CON. Stephen Gontnte was opposed on the part of W. Walton. The insolvent, described as a surveyor, bad been sued by Walton, who was a draughtsman, fur criminal conversa tion, and laid the damage at 2,0001. The jury awarded ael., and the costs amounted to 1141., on which he went to prison. In his schedule set forth a statement, and so lemnly recorded his innocence. He was told by the Coun sel for Walton that if he persisted in the statement he would be indicted for perjury ; he declared it to be true, and his Counsel regretted that he could not enter into the case. On the trial the insolvent could not be examined, but in this Court he could be questioned on his oath. Mr. WOODROFF, on the part of the creditor, said he should not go into the case, as the Court could not enter tain it. The ini . olvent denied that he was entitled to any pro perty ; his family lived at Hammersmith, and possessed property ; he was only 23 years of age. The COURT said they were bound by the verdict, and their p"ovince was merely to consider the situation of the parties and the damage; awarded. The judgment was that tl.e inso:vent lya remanded, at the suit of Walton from the vesting order, for a period of five calendar months for the damages given. KENSINGTON PETTY SESSIONS OPPOSITION TO CIICIICII-RATES.—On Saturday, Mr. Wm. Parlor, of Brompton-square, appeared before Sir John Scott Lillie and J. P. Barlow, and Daniel Sutton, Esq., the sitting Magistrates, on a summons at the in stance of the churchwardens of St. Mary Abbott's, Ken sington, to sow cause why he had refused or neglected to .pay certain Church-rates for the years 1836-7-8, as sessed on him, amounting to upwards of 10/. Mr. Farlar ar.s . .vered the charge by pleading the illega lity of the rate, which he contended was as illegal as the rate of 1835, which he had before successfully opposed at a great expanse. \lr. Sci-roN—What was the amount of the rate Mr. Farlar on that occasion objected to? Mr. Churchwarden Chesterton—Only eighteen shillings. Mr. Farlar—And the expenses amounted to no less than 7001. Mr. BA hi.OW—Upon what grounds do you object to these rates ? Mr. Farlar—Bccause they are equally bail ; in fact, the last rate is the worst the churchwardens ever made. Sir JOHN SCOTT LILLIE—What is the cause of the ille gality of the rate ? Mr. Farlar—lt abounds with cause; it is ,pleed:d with cause. . • S Join SCOTT LILLIE—But I want to know one of the causer. Mr. Farlar—One is because it is excessive; and another, because the churchwardens had enough money in hand to go on with. Sir JOHN SCOTT LILLIE—State what was your objection to the rate cf 1835, as that may be a guide to your reasons on the present occasion. Mr. Farlar—The reasons of my objection in 1833 can have nothing to do with those on the present occasion. I rely on the Act of Parliament, which enacts that, when the legaii;y of Church.rates is questioned, the Magistrates have no jurisdiction. Beside, I have another and a final objection, which is that it does not come under the cogni zance of the Bench, inasmuch as the total amount exceeds 10/. I also want 3501. for costs from the Churchwardens. I have got an order for 4W., but that amount I will not accept ; and I intend to go to the Privy Council for an order for the whole. Mr. BARLOW asked the Churchwardens if they intended to follow up the claim ? M. Chesterton replied that the Churchwardens would tale advice on th e su bj ect. Mr. BARLOW hoped they would - go the cheapest way to work, as the expenses already incurred had occasioned much iii-feeling in the parish. Mr. Farlar replied that he had learned a cheaper way than before ; he, like others, had profited by experience. The Churchwardens were bound to commence in the Ec clesiastical Court, but he (Mr. Farlar) could move it the next day into the Court of Queen's Bench. The BENCH said, under these circumstances, the case was removed from their cognizance, and they could not interfere. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 17. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. Lord HADDINGTON presented a petition from the Justices of the Peace, and others, praying that means might be take n f or th e comp l et i on o f t h e Cale donian Canal. Lord ROSEBERY presented a petition from the county of Edinburgh, against any endowment of the Church of Scotland. The Marquis of WESTMEATH wished to call the attention of the Noble Viscount opposite to the circumstance that a Session or two ago he brought the subject of the lay patronage of Church livings in Ireland, as existing under the sixth of Ann, and supposed to be protected by the Crown during the non-conformity of Roman Catholics, under consideration. A Noble Friend of his was in that situation. His father having been a Roman Catholic, he conformed to the Church of Eng land, and asserted his rights to certain livings in the dio cese of Westmeath, upon which he succeeded. Another of those livings had fallen vacant,but the Lord Lieutenant had bestowed that living upon the nephew or the son of one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, who had been appointed by the present Government. There could be no doubt that his Noble Friead's title to those liv ings was clear, and that it would be an ex tremely hard thing to drive him to a litigation upon this subject with the Crown, when from the Crown he could get no costs. Under these circum stances he hoped the Noble Viscount would take the means of having the matter fairly and equitably con sidered. Lord MELBOURNE said he should inquire into the circumstances. Earl STANHOPE gave notice that to-morrow se'n night ho should present to their Lordships several peti tions praying for Universal Suffrage, Triennial Parlia ments, and Vote by Ballot, upon which he should take occasion to submit some considerations, as he considered those subjects were such as to demand the serious atten tion of the House. Lord HADDINGTON wished to put a question to the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. It would be in the recollection of the House that he brought under the attention of the House last Session the fact of certain individuals—one an ironmonger and another a country practitioner in surgery, who had been appointed Justices of the Peace in counties in Scotland, and who had been guilty of acts which he thought dis qualified them from sitting on the Bench, and he wished to know whether the Noble and Learned Lord had made inquiries into the facts ? The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made inquiries into the subject. He had had very considerable difficulty in ascertaining the facts, hut at last he believed he had ascertained them. The result did not correspond with the impres sion which seemed to hare been made on the Noble Earl's mind. It was a long story, and he was not pre pared to go into the full statement of the circumstances, if that was what the Noble Earl wished for. Lord HADDINGTON said, he had no wish that the Noble and Learned Lard should go into a long statement on the subject ; he only wished to know whether the Noble and Learned Lord had; not found that those two individuals had made a voter drunk at the election for the county of Ross, and in that state removed him, so that he was not allowed to vote. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the fact was that the three persons were together, and they were all drunk together.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) When the voter got sober he found himself where he did not wish to remain, and immediately was allowed to go back. All three then resolved to return, but on their way they thought they should like to visit Cawdor Castle. To do so they again went out of their way, where they met with some other friend or friends, and having got a little social again, before they could find their way back they were too late for the election. However, there was nothing criminal brought home to the two parties. The intention to remove the voter did not seem to have been at ail pro-concerted ; the resolution was formed while they were all three drinking, and was abandoned immediately after they got sober. The Earl of HADDINGTON said there could be no doubt of the facts, that these persons did endeavour improperly—though unsuccessfully, to prevent the voter from exercising his franchise—and he could not help thinking that the Lord Chancellor should not have ap pointed them to the commission of the peace. 'ffie LORD CHANCELLOR said he had never till now heard any objection to these persons, and really the many and onerous duties of his office pre cluded him from looking into the particular details of such cases. On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON the Waterford Fever Hospital Bill was read a second time. In answer to a question from the Bishop of EXETER, The Marquis of NORMANBY said a Bill had been received at the Colonial Office ' which had b een passed by the Col o ni a l Legislature, for re-inve s ti ng th e clergy reserves i n th e Crown, but there was an informality as to its not having been accompanied by an address, which threw a doubt upon the propriety of sanctioning the Bill. The matter was now under con ' sideration. Earl DURHAM presented a petition from the De puties of the Protestant Dissenting Congregations re , sident in and near London, praying for the abolition of Church-rates, and of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from the dioceses of Oxford, Worcester, Peterborough, and Ely against the Church Discipline Bill. On the motion of Lord DENMAN the Borough Courts Bill was read a second time. His Lord sip then corrected a mis-statement in the press, that he had attributed to the House of Commons the absurdity of the former Bill ; he had never said anything Ike that, nor would he ever have said anything so disrespectful of the House of Commons, particularly at the present time. BEER BILL. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from Sunderland against the new Beer Bill. Lord BROUGHAM said he did not deny that some of the beer-house keepers might have capital in the business ; and such would doubtless be licensed by the Magistrates. He would now simply move the third reading of the Bill, proposing that the debate should be taken on the amendments of his Noble Friend opposite. That was the usual course, and it might be opposed on the question that the Bill do pass. Lord WROTTESLEY complained that the Noble and Learned Lord was passing the Bill without any debate upon it ; surely he ought to state his reasons for moving the third reading. Lord BROUGHAM said, upon the second readiug of the Bill they had had a long debate, and it was the usual course to give no reasons on the third reading. Lord WROTTESLEY had wished to have made a few observations on the second reading of the Bil!, but was prevented by its being sent to a Select Committee. That was a Bill of very great importance, it being neither more nor less than whether beer may be sold on the premises in any but licensed houses. The licensed victuallers viewed such a power with considerable jea lousy, and laid many informations against them, but that power was granted after a long and patient inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, who recommended it by a considerable majority. The Noble and Learned Lord charged much of the crime of the country upon the beer-houses, but so far as his expe rience went, and he spoke of his own neighbourhood, the keepers of be,r-shops were more respectable than the licensed victuallers. If their Lordships agreed to that Bill they would create a great increase in the pernicious custom of gin -drinking.—(Hear, hear.) If their Lordships really meant to prevent abuses, they ought to take the means of appointing a proper police force. It would be far better that they should encrease the metropolitan police force than appoint a rural police. Detachments of the metropolitan police might be sent by railroads within a very short time to disturbed districts, and then brought back to town again when their absence was no longer called for. The staff of the militia was also at this moment absolutely useless. It was merely a burthen on the country. It might be made very efficient, and by dividing it into batallions it might be of great use to the police. But while the country was left in the state in which it was, and especially the metropolis —very little improved, in deed, he believed, since the days of Alfred, who any old man might be a constable, and he believed that a woman had been one—what could they expect but abuses ? It was admitted that under this Bill there were 45,000 beer-shops in the country, and it was not the fact that many of them had only a chair and a table in their houses. A great many of the persons occupying them had built the houses in which they sold beer; many of them had leases of the premises, and most of them had embarked a great deal of money in their concerns. Most of them bad been faithful servants, who had saved a little money, and this was the only way they had of employing their little capital, with a prospect of being able to support themselves and their families, When they embarked their property in their concerns they had a right to expect that the Legislature would protect them is what they had invested. It was to be remem bered, also, that the time of these persons was their property ; and upon the whole, lie hoped their Lordships would pause before they adopted this Bill, the adoption of which would be an act of the grossest injustice. The Marquis of SALISBURY rose, and spoke in a tone of voice so low as to be but very indistinctly heard in the gallery in much that he said. As regarded the reference made by the Noble Lord who had just sat down to the staff of the militia, he (the Noble Mar quis) must observe, that the militia had always been, as he had ever understood, a very effective force ; and although he had been for many years a colonel of the militia, yet be had never before had any idea that there fore he was to be appointed a police officer. There could be no doubt that the passing of the Beer Bill had been Y ; and he r emem b ere d very injurious to the communit being in a small minority in opposition to the passing of it. No doubt persons who had embarked property in those houses were entitled to the consideration of their Lordships ; but if the Noble Lord opposite was to call out the whole of the militia, he would not be able to prevent abuses being carried on in those Houses. Some other mode must be adopted than this for the purpose of giving a good and wholesome beve rage to the people. He was sure his Noble and Learned Friend opposite could not anticipate that this Bill, in its present shape, could have a chance of pass ing the House of Commons ; but he (the Noble Mar quis) was sincerely desirous that some measure should be immediately passed on the subject. He had pre pared some amendments which he hoped would be ac ceptable to his Noble Friend and to the House. The effect of his first amendment would be to introduce a clause declaring that no new house should be opened for the sale of beer, except under the authority of the magistrates. In the next place, that the certificates should ba raised from persons rated at 61. to persons rated at 10/. Again, that the sureties required by the 11th of Geo. 4. and the Ist of Will. 4, should be persons resident in the parish where the beer-shops were. And further, that the Justices should be empowered to grant licenses for the sale of beer and cider only ; that was to say, that they should have a discretion to grant that license apart from the sale of spirits. By these provisions the respectability of those who kept the beer-houses would be increased, and in that way the evil of them might be diminished. Unless these amendments were accepted, whether this Bill was rejected or was passed, the state of things would go on pretty much the same as had been for another year. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER wished to know what course the Noble and Learned Lord meant to pursue. Lord BROUGHAM said his plan was to persevere, as lie had hitherto done, in hearing all that could be said both for and against the measure. The Noble Marquis opposite had failed to convince him of the propriety of his proposed amendments, and if he were not convinced by what he might hear, that he was wrong in his mea sure, he should certainly continue to press it. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER wished to know if the Noble and Learned Lord would agree to post pone the further consideration of the Bill for ten days or a fortnight. Lord BROUGHAM could see no occasion or rea. son for that whatever. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was so the. roughly convinc e d th a t t hi s was a most harsh, cruel, and unjust measure towards a class of persons well de serving their Lordships' attention, that he should cer tainly oppose its further progress. A very great altera tion had been made in the Bill in the Committee. By the Bill as it was now proposed, beer was not only not allowed to be sold and consumed on the premises, but it could not be sold by retail at all. The Noble and Learned Lord was quite aware that there was not a chance of the Bill in its original shape passing the House of Commons, but probably he thought that denuded as it had been in Committee, it might have the ghost of a chance. This alone showed that it would be much better to leave a measure of this nature to the House of Commons to originate. A great mistake had been committed by their Lordships entertaining a financial measure at all. But he would say that the places that did most injury to the morals of the community of this country were the gin palaces, and he would say, put down in the first place the gin palaces, after them put down the public-houses, and next again put an end to the beer-shops.—(Cheers and " Hear, hear, hear.") If Noble Lords would only pay a little attention to the subject-..if they would only devote five or ten minutes of an evening, of the time they spent in drinking their wine and spirits, or claret, he was satisfied that they would view the case of these men in a very different light.—( Hear, hear.) It was said that the brewers were hostile to the beer-houses, and he (the Marquis of Westminster) regretted that such was the case, for he believed they had benefited most materially since the present Act had passed. The consumption of malt and hops had increased very considerably, and that was owing in a great measure to the num ber of ,beer-houses, and the increased comsurnp tion of real commodity that had taken place, With regard to the offences committed in these beer houses, he held in his hand a return of the offences which had been presented by Grand Juries during the three years last passed, and the number amounted to only 28.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared from a return which had been made of convictions under the Beer Act, in a population of 14,000, for the first four years the number averaged 41 per annum ; and in the year 1835 the number was 2 ; in 1836 there none, and in 1837 there were 3, making making only five convictions in these three years. If the Noble and Learned Lord would only withdraw the Bill, there would be an end to the question altogether ; but if he was determined to persvere with it in the face of these facts, he hoped their Lordships would consent to hear the evidence of the parties affected by it at the bar of the House. He had letters from all parts of the country, complaining of the manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord had treated the question.—(Hear, and a laugh.)— They complained that their case had not been fairly represented by the Noble and Learned Lord. Ho would now state to their Lordships some of the grievances to which the beer-sellers were subjected. With regard to obtaining licences. They required the signatures of , six ratepayers, and their certificates were to be re newed every year. They were also obliged to obtain security for their good behaviour, and for the penalties they were likely to incur. It appeared that the total number of beer-sellers licensed in 1837 was 133,142. Their hours were also very much limited—they were were compelled to closeat 10 o'clock, or as much earlier as the Magistrates thought proper to appoint. The penalties for the most trivial offences were 405., and in many cases as high as five pounds ; it was declared that a single conviction rendered them liable to forfeit their licenses. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he felt it his duty to oppose the present Bill. Lord DA CRE contended that they were bouud by eir former legislation on the subject, considering the vast interests involved in the question. The Noble Marquis who had just sat down had expressed a wish that the present Act should continue in force, but he believed the Noble Marquis was not aware of the vice and drunkenness of which these houses had been productive when he made that statement. Although Ire differed in many points from the Noble Marquis, he could not say that he wished for the total, and absolute, and unconditional repeal of the Act. There was a vast amount of capital involved in that trade ; its object bad been to create a competi tion in the manufacture of that article, and it had been productive of that beneficial effect. It was, he believed, admitted that the great brewers used merely malt and hops in the manufacture ; there was not a scintilla of evidence that any adulteration took place in its manu facture, but the moment it reached the hands of the victuallers then the adulteration, the evil, and the mis chief was practised to an enormous extent. The brewers had no remedy—they could not find any other market for the commodity, and were completely at the mercy of the victuallers. What was the remedy ?—a free trade in beer ; and that was the Act th ey now proposed to repeal. It was admitted that the beer-shops had occasioned a reduction in price, and an improvement in the quality of the article. No one could deny that these were great and important advantages; the di sa d vantages were the great facility of obtaining these licenses, by which beer-shops bad been increased to a great extent. If the number li censed for each district were limited the evil would be considerably diminished. It appeared to him that the magistrates were not the proper parties to ascertain the number of shops that ought to be licensed—it was the people themselves who ought to determine that point. lie would therefore suggest that there should be only a given number of beer-houses to each district of a given population. Say one beer-shop to every 500 inhabit ants, and that proportion might be extended or con tracted as the House would deem advisable. That he thought preferable to leaving matters in their present state. He would also suggest that the ratepayers wha would recommend a party for a license should possess a higher qualification, to ensure their having a more re spectable class of persons in the trade. The brewers would easily find these sureties if the parties were re spectable. These suggestions he thought would tend, if carried into effect, to correct the evils complained of, while it would supply to the lower classes a very great desideratum. It appeared to him also that the beer shops and public-houses should be placed upon the same footing. He hoped the suggestions he had thrown out would meet the approval of their Lordships.—(Hear.) Lord ELLENBOROUGH had been informed that strictly this Bill was not inconsistent with the privileges of the House of Commons, but he had no doubt it would be represented to be, and treated as such, and therefore he thought it would be immediately rejected. The very circumstance of its originating in their Lord ships' House would cause it to be received unfavourably in the other H ouse . H e thought this Bill, however, went a little too far in proposing to put an end to beer houses so soon, but was afraid the amendments of his Noble Friend near him would constitute a new Bill. If their Lordships were not disposed to adopt the simple measure of the Noble and Learned Lord, it would be better to re-commit the Bill in order to consider the amendment proposed by the Noble Mar quis. He did not think that sufficient efficacy could be given to the police to eradicate the evil, and regretted that the Noble Viscount o pp os i te (Melbourne) had not as yet stated distinctly and specifically the views of the Government on this measure. It was a measure which a Government having a regard for the morals of the people would think it right to express an opinion upon. Lord MELBOURNE admitted the great import ance of the subject, and could not help feeling the great pressure of the general opinion that prevailed of re spectable bodies, and of p ersons , w h o h a d t h e b est means of obtaining information. He was therefore compelled and forced to admit the evils of the present system, and the great failure of the Beer Act. He admitted it, because he was compelled to admit it, but he could not in his own mind believe that it had ope- rated to the extent of changing the whole morals, feel ings, and disposition of the country, and had altered, as it were, the nature of man.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that people's enthusiasm had carried them a little away on this subject, and he could not believe there was such very great difference between the beer-houses and the lower class of public houses. He did not think there could be such a difference between them as that the one should be conducted with perfect quietude, and the other with turbulence, riot, and disorder, because one was licensed by a magistrate and the other by the Ex cise. —(Hear, hear.) It was, no doubt, a subject that required regulation ; and whatever regulations might be applied, they must recollect there would be still in those houses a little irregularity. It was said that thieves met in beer houses : well, thievcs met in public houses.—(Laughter.) Where were they to meet ? They must meet somewhere.—(Renewed laughter.) They could only meet in places that were open, and the most safe places they could meet in, were those places to which they went. Do what they would, make what regulations they would, the proprietors of these shops would always be open to charges and sus picions. But if they were to pass the present Bill, as it had been brought into the House, by the Noble and Learned Lord, they would be doing a very unwise and nugatory act. In the first place, the Noble and Learned Lord had introduced it in a very doubtful and faultering manner—(Laughter) —and with a great deal of hesitation.—(No, no, from Lord Brougham.) The Noble and Learned Lord had said they could send it down to the House of Commons, although they did not insist on it as it stood. He (Lord Melbourne) thought there was considerable objection to the mea sure, inasmuch as it proposed to deal in a very abrupt and hasty manner with considerable provrty. They had dealt very summarily and abruptly with property when the original Beer Bill passed, because they had deteriorated the value of public-houses, for which enor mous sums of money had been given ; and now they were, with a certain degree° of haste and ra pidity, to deal with property which they had nursed and raised up in the same summary manner. There certainly was some excuse for introducing the Beer Act, because, although they had established Beer Houses, yet by taking the duty off beer they had given the publican a great advantage ; but now it was proposed to demolish houses they had fostered, without giving to the occupier any equivalent. The property they were to deal with was very considerable. He un derstood from the rooms that the number of beer sellers were 45,000, and the number of licensed victu allers were about 55,000. The amount of revenue received from the licenses of the beer-sellers, was 133,0001. for the year 1837, and there was a growing and increasing revenue. No doubt his Noble and Learned Friend would say—" so much the worse—it is a revenue founded on the immorality and corruption of the people."—The amount paid for the licenses of licensed victuallers, was 91,0001. The consumption of malt on which duty was paid had increased under the present system. But, perhaps, that increase was not to be ascribed to the beer-houses, but to the taking off the duty on beer, and to the general increase in the popu lation. The licensed victuallers who occupied houses rated under 20/. were 18,378, the beer-sellers rated under 20/. were 15,515. The beer-sellers who brewed their own beer in 1837 were 16,800, and if they were to judge by the penalties for the adulteration of beer, there were fewer convictions of keepers of beer-shops for the adulteration of beer than there had been of licensed victuallers. On the whole, he must say, although it might be very wise and prudent, that he thought it was a very harsh and hasty measure.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the Bill, if sent down, would not pass the House of Commons —there was no man who was a reformer of beer in the other House that was in favour of it. He thought some uniformity of legislation on this subject ought to be adopted. Whatever penalties they might impose —whatever rules they might establish, unless they gave the means of carrying these rules into effect legislation would be totally useless, idle, and superfluous. It was in vain to complain of laws—it was in vain to complain of Magistrates —or of the inefficacy of laws, if there were not the means of executing them ; and their Lordships might depend upon it that until something was done to give the Ma gistrates more powerful hands, and greater means of carrying into effect the laws of the country, all the laws they could enact would be of very little service. A few firm and resolute men in a county could do a great deal towards carrying the law into execution, and it would not require so much expense as was supposed to place the constabulary force on the ancient principles on which it was established. A great deal of prejudice prevailed on this subject. He thought the liberty of the subject was best secured by a decisive, firm, and vigorous administration of the law, and he did in his conscience think that was one of the great objects to which the attention of Parlia ment and the public ought to be directed ; but on the whole it did not appear to him it would be a wise and prudent course, even for the objects in view, to pass this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM had never heard a speech on any one subject from any one person, in any one place, which betrayed such an entire ignorance of 'every part of the subject to which it was addressed as that just delivered. —(Laughter.) He said that with all respect.—(Laughter.) Did any body ever hear anything like the notion of his Noble Friend, that there was no difference between the conduct of a house licensed by the Excise and a house licensed by a Magistrate ? There was all the difference in the world. His Noble—and lie could not say Learned— his Noble and Unlearned Friend—(Laughter) —his Noble and Ignorant Friend—(Great laughter) —seemed to be taken in with the word licensed. The difference between a house licensed by the Excise and a house licensed by the Justices was, that the one was well-con ducted and the other ill-conducted. This Bill only went to reduce the law to its termer state. " My Lords (proceeded the Noble and Learned Lord) I am sorry to observe the indifference with which the subject has been treated on the present occasion. I never disguise my opinion of your Lordships' conduct— your Lordships no doubt love the good order of the country, you have a great regard for the the morals of the people—but there is something you love still better.— (Laughter.) This is a very critical hour with your Lordships—(between seven and eight)—you would wil lingly make every effort for the repression of vice in the land—but there is another thing you prize far higher, there is something else for which the nobler part of your Lordships' constitution — (Laughter) —f ee l s a much dearer sympathy.—(Renewed laughter.) And, my Lords—(Turning to the Right Reverend Bench, where e sat in solitary distinction two Prelates)-_I regret t o see a o u to th tine l (Cthat my appliesoabyserv:lteimbonersof your a e l ol Lordships'e_ t:iy h House— ontinued cbs eeto the spirilteal s equally (Continued l aug ht er )—th e Ri ght Rev. Prelates, the guardians o f t h e mora l s o f the p en unceasing in their denunciations of the present Beer law—their language has ever been, " For God's sake, Noble t Y and Learned Lo r d' s words be taken down.—(Hear, hear.) ML Lords, do away with the beer-hous es , t h ey render our preach- their r o ise d, preach ing and teaching vain." I h ave come forward at their instigation—l have placed my se lf as an instrument in the hands of these public guardianwshoich i the f country's morals, and there are out of the wh o l e twenty-six Pre lates, just two who will sacrifice thei r di nners, who will upon this occasion.—(Order, order.) S BUI sacrifice their regard for their belly, t o The order M ; a Ircim" Marquis move fS that A the Lord BROUGHAM—In order to which, I will repeat them.—(A laugh,) The Noble and Learned Lord was proceeding to repeat word for word, the whole sentence, amidst a great deal of smothered laughter when— , Lord KENYON rose to order, and said the words which had been objected to were not those which the Noble and Learned Lord was now repeating. Lord BROUGHAM.—Aye : but I must repeat the whole context.—( Laughter.) The Marquis of SALISBURY appealed to the candour and right feeling of the Noble and Learned Lord to withdraw the objectionable words.—(Hear.) Lord BROUGHAM very sarcastically—Well, well, my Lords, to oblige my Noble Friend, I will say this, that the bench of Bishops, at whose instigation I brought this subject forward, have—out of their earnest regard for the morals of the com munity—(A laugh)—have sacrificed all personal considerations (Laughter) —and have attended— during this discussion—by two of their body—l can't go further.—(Renewed laughter.) And I, having the the greatest veneration for the Bishops—(Laughter)—a respect for them—in whi c h I d on ' t y i el d to my N o bl e Friend opposite—(Laughte r — an d " I don't know that" from the Marquis of Salisbury)— I felt peculiar pain in not seeing more than two out of the twenty-six pre sent on this occasion.- -- (Renewed laughter.) But my Noble Friend is content with two only—(Continued laughter)—l on the contrary would fain see the whole twenty-six here, for if they were here, they would all vote for the Bill.— (Laughter.) My Lords, I have heard nothing to induce me to depart from my present course. It has been said it would be better that th , e , measure should origi nate with the House of Comm o ns ." I quite agree to that ; and hence it was that on a for mer occasion I postponed the Bill that the other house might have time to consider such a measure. I waited for months—the other House originated no measure on the subject—were we to remain with our hands tied, and do nothing?—(Hear, hear.) If the House of Com mons neglected their duty, are we to neglect ours ? --(Hear, hear.) It has been said again that the other House is not favourable to this measure. My Lords, I do not believe such to be the case. I know the country gentlemen are against the present system—as well as the lawyers and Judges—and how the majority of a House pretending, purporting, to represent the Commons of England, should do otherwise than speak the sense of the country, lamat a loss to imagine. Ido not believe the. House of Commons would reject this measure. But it is for your Lordships' consideration, whether you ought not to discharge your own duty.— ( Hear, hear.) I have no objection to an intermediate kind of _beer-house —between the publican's house and the present beer-houses ; and have framed a clause allowing the magistrates to license houses for the sale of beer, though not for the sale of spirits, thus uniting the comfort of the poor, with magisterial con troul.—( Hear, hear.) Capital is said to be invested in the Beer trade. Will not that be attended to by the magistracy ? To hear Noble Lords talk, one would suppose the Bill would prevent the magistracy from licensing, whereas, under this Bill, the magistrates may, if they please, license every one of the 45,000 Beer-houses to-morrow.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill is not to put down the Beer-houses, but to put them under the inpection of the magistrates. My Noble Friend (the Marquis of Westminster, who sat close to Lord Brougham) says, they might as well be put under the control of the bottomless pit—(A laugh) at least my Noble Friend looks that, though he did not say it—(Laughter)—my Noble Friend has not so much respect for the magistrates as I have.—(Laughter.) My Lords, I am determined to do my own duty on the present occasion. I have brought this subject for ward, prompted by a regard for the people, and a desire to see their morals and habits improved :—I have moved the third reading of the Bill : I now wash my hands of it. If it be thrown ouf-, by the non-attendance of those who pushed me forward to introduce it, I may regret having taken the trouble to introduce it, but I shall not be sorry for having done my duly : the evil will no longer lie at my door : I have felt the necessity of bringing the subject forward. It has been said that only twelve presentments have been made against the present system. But let it be recollected that these are from twelve different counties ; no inconsiderable number ; and let it also be remarked that Grand Juries seldom present against a legislative enactment. My Lords, I now leave this Bill in your Lordships' hands. It is opposed by the Government. I hope they have at least made it an " open question."— (Laughter.) Perhaps, as it only regards the morals of the people, they have not.— (Renewed laughter.) I shall certainly not bring ridi cule upon my proposal by making it what is called an annual motion." I entertain, however, the most san guine hope that the Bill will not be rejected by your Lordships—of this lam quite sure, that if I fail now, I shall never hereafter succeed. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had voted on several occasions for the amendment of the Beer-laws. The friends of that system, however, had hitherto been able to resist every proposition for the amendment of the existing system. The present pro fosition was for its total abolition. Now capital was said to be involved in the beer trade, and our object must be not to injure that capital. This object had, in the Bill, as originally framed, been attained by allowing the sale of beer on the premises. To enable the magis trates to increase beer-houses, was worthy of considera tion. And perhaps the best course would be to read the Bill a third time and then consider the amendments. (Year, hear.) The Bishop of CHICHESTER rose and made some reference to the remarks made by Lord Brougham, and which caused the " scene " above described—when The Marquis of SALISBURY spoke to order. The Noble and Learned Lord had already withdrawn the objectionable words.—( Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM—(with much vehemence) — But if the Right Rev. Prelate wishes, I am ready to re-enter into the debate.—(Order, order.) The Bishop of CHICHESTER would only say from his own knowledge, that the Right Rev. Prelates whose absence had been impugned, had been employed for five or six hours to-day, principally on the Church Building Bill, and also in consideration of what ought to be done on the Church Discipline Bill—that they had not dined at seven o'clock, and that not one of them had been unemployed since nine that morning. Lord BROUGHAM begged that any standing order in the way of hearing the Right Rev. Prelate, might be waived.—(Cries of " No, no.") He would not stand in the way of any castigation from the Right Rev. Prelate, but he would say, that if the Right Rev. Prelates had been engaged in Committees all day, so had the laity of their Lordships' House. For his own part, he had been engaged as well as them all the day, and if they had not dined at seven o'clock, neither had he dined at eight ; and as to any diserderly observations be had made, he could only say that none that he had made could be compared with the disorder that had proceeded from the Rev. Prelate. Lord PORTMAN hoped the House would at once go to a vote upon the question, whether his Noble and Learned Friend's Bill should be read a third time. He objected to the Bill being re-committed. The Bill which would go into a Committee on this subject very shortly, in the other House of Parliament, would be be perfectly useless in the way of remedying any of the evils now complained of, and the passing of this Bill would show that their Lordships were determined that some strong step should be taken. At the same time lie had great doubt whether this Bill should have been introduced originally in their Lordships' House, as be had heard from considerable authority that there would be a question whether it could even be read a first time in the other House. Lord DELAWARR had agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord in this measure in Committee, and he regretted to have to oppose the amendments pro posed by the Noble Marquis ; but he felt bound to do so, as he was of opinion that those amendments would only tend to perpetuate the mischief. The House divided on the question that the word " now"—[in efro:.,t that the Bill be now read a third time]—do stand part of the Bill. Upon our re-admission into the gallery, we found there were— Contents..... Non Contents .. l9 After a short conversation, on the motion that the Bill do pass, the question was postponed till Monday next, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNK 17. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. The Sheriffs of London presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London against the Metropolitan Police Court's Bill. Mr. BARNARD brought up the Report of the Committee on the Deptford Pier Bill ; also the Report of the Committee on the Deptford Pier Junction Rail way Bill. On the motion of Mr. HAYTER, Ivanoff's Na ,uralization Bill was advanced a stage. Lord JAMES STUART presented petitions from Ayr against the Ballot. Mr. B A INES presented a petition from Leeds, signe by 11,300 persons, in favour of the Vote by Ballot ; also a petition from the Dissenters of King's Lynn, Nor folk, which was not strictly in favour of the Govern ment plan of education, but yet was not against it. It deprecated the arrogant and unconstitutional demand of the clergy of the Established Church to control the eduzation of the people. Petitions against the Government plan of education were presented by Mr. Ilalford, from Leicester ; by Mr. Blackburne, from Warrington ; by Lord Arthur Lennox, from Boston, in Sussex ; by Mr. Grant, from Inverness ; by Sir E. Filmer, from Kent ; by Sir R. Inglis, from Somersetshire ; and by Mr. Fort, from Northampton. Mr. F. BERKELEY presented a petition from a place in Somerset, in favour of the Government plan of education. Petitions in favour of a uniform rate of postage were presented by Mr. Hodges, from Bromley in Kent ; and by Mr. Jones, from Caernarvon. Mr. HODGES presented a petition from Bromley in Kent, complaining of certain provision s of the Poor• law Amendment Bill ; by Mr. Sandford, from Somer set, and Sir E. Filmer, from Kent, to the same effect. Mt. COLQUHO UN presented two petitions in favour of Church extension in Scotland. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Somerset shire and Dorsetshire, in favour of Colonial Church extension. Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from Yeo vil, in favour of the Ballot. Sir J. Y. BULLER and Mr. PLUMTRE pre sented several petitions against the Government plan of education. Mr LYNCH presented a petition from the grocers of Galway praying that they might be allowed to vend spirits on and off their premises. Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from the Synod of the Secession Church in Scotland complaining of the Government plan for printing Bibles in Scotland. Major MACNAMARA presented a petition from Clare in favour of Mr. R Hill's plan of penny postage• Mr. ATTWOOD presented three petitions to the same effect from Birmingham. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Akenry, in Ireland, against the Corn-laws. Alse one from a party that was daily rising in numbers—it was from the Socialists of Birmingham in the Universal Community Society of National Reli gionists, they thought they could mend the founda tions of society, and prayed to be allowed to do so.— (Laughter.) He could not see his way to do so, but he thought it his duty to present the petition. Also one from persons calling themselves Delegates from the work ing classes, complaining of the power which the Crown had of dismissing magistrates and praying that they should be as they formerly were elected by the people, but they partictiLarly complained of the dismissal of Mr. John Frost, and prayed that he might be reinstated. Also one from John Hinde, complaining of his having been deprived of a pension of 91., which he enjoyed for military service because he attended a public meeting. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Norwich praying for an extension of the powers of Local Courts. Mr. LYTTON presented petitions against any fur ther great to the College of Maynooth, from Kilkenny and Coleraine. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from Bridge water, praying that the Established Church might not have the controul of any money granted by Parliament for the purposes of education. Also a petition from the Westminster Reform Association in favour of the Ballot. And a petition from an indivi dual of the name of Thomas, complaining of the erroneous conviction of his brother, instead of another person, and of his having been sent to hard labour, THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1839. which had such an effect on his mind, that he was now the inmate of an Asylum. THE CANADIAN PRISONERS. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from the nine Canadian prisoners, stating that several others under predisely similar circumstances had taken their trial, and been acquitted, and that they had been led to expect they should not be so severely punished as to have sentence of transportation inflicted on them: The petitioners prayed for an enlargement of the Habeas Corpus Act, so that prisoners in a colony might be enabled to obtain a writ of habeas without being brought to this country. He begged to move that the petition be printed, so that the attention of the House might be called to this subject, as the Government had acted not only with harshness, but with great unfairness towards the petitioners. On the motion of Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN the Rathkeale (Limerick) Inclosure Bill was read a second time. CORPORATION OF LONDON (SALE OF GROUND) BILL. Mr. R. PALMER brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill. Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished to ask the Hon. Member whether it was correct, as had been stated to him, that the object of this Bill was to enable the Corporation of London to do that which, without it, they could not do, namely, to sell a portion of their property for the purpose of building a Roman Catholic College in St. George's Fields. That was not stated in the preamble, or any other part of the Bill, and he would therefore ask his Hon. Friend whether it was within his knowledge that such was in point of fact the object of the Bill? Mr. PALMER said that personally he knew no thing whatever of the object of the Bill. The Hon. Baronet had better put the question when some Mem ber of the Corporation was in the House. Mr. W. BARRON presented a petition from the Members of the Chamber of Commerce, of the city of Waterford, in favour of a uniform plan of penny postage. Also, a petition from the same body praying that the city of Waterford may participate in the advantages of any grant that may be voted for the formation of rail roads in Ireland. Also, a petition signed by seventeen Apothecaries in Ireland, praying that the House would be pleased to order the evidence taken before the Com mittee which sat to investigate the state of the medical profession in. Ireland in the year 1839 to he printed. The Hon. Member moved that this latter petition be printed, as it was his intention to bring forward a mo tion on this subject to-morrow. THE CANADIAN PRISONERS. Mr. LEADER gave notice that, on Tuesday, the. 25th inst., he should call the attention of the House to the case of the Canadian prisoners. Sir W. FOLLETTpresented a petition from Exeter, praying the House to take some measures for the sup pression of idolatrous worship in India. Mr. PEMBERTON presented a petition from Ripon against the Government plan of education. BEER BILL. Mr. SANFORD begged to ask the Honourable Member for Worcestershire, whether it was his inten tion to bring forward the Beer Bill on Wednesday next. Mr, PAKINGTON was about to reply, when Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, before the Honour able Member answered the question, he wished to state, that his Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had several clauses to pro pose of a very important nature, which would not be ready for some days. It would not, therefore, be in the power of the House to consider the Bill till Wed nesday next. Mr. PAKINGTON would ask the Noble Lord to fix a day when the Bill might be brought forward. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would fix Thursday in next week. Mr. PAKINGTON, with the understanding that he should have an opportunity of bringing forward the Bill on that day, would offer no impediment to the ad journed debate on Wednesday. THE BUDGET. Mr. HUME begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman, Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was able to fix a day when the budget would be brought forward.— (Cheers and much laughter, when it was ascertained that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not in his place.) Mr. HUME gave notice to the Right Hon. Gen tlemen of his question—(renewed laughter) but would take an opportunity of asking the question to-morrow. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. F. KELLY begged to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of Government to bring forward during the present Session any measure relative to the Church rate question. He had asked the Noble Lord in March last, and he had then stated that be would be able to reply in a week or ten days. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that no Bill would be brought in during the present Session upon the Church-rate question. STOCKDALE v. HANSARD.—PRIVILEGE. Upon the question of reading the Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Commit tee on Printed Papers, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, after having been one of the Com:nittee of Printed Papers, he thought it right to say that if there was any proposition to be made to the House relative to the opinions of the majority of that Committee, he thought such a proposi tion should be first brought forward, and after that he should be ready to state the course he proposed to adopt. Mr. W. W. WYNN said that whatever course it might be ft to pursue, he apprehended that her Majesty's Ministers who haci proposed the appointment of the Committee, and who had hitherto moved all the steps taken by the House on this subject, should ex plain the course they intended to adopt. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had already stated that he was ready to state the course which he thought ought to be pursued by the House on the present occasion. At the same time, he must be allowed to observe that it was matter for the House to determine alone, as it re lated to the privileges and powers of the House of Commons as the House of Commons, and not to the conduct of her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that it was necessary, under existing circum stances, that some course should be proposed without any further lapse of time, because to-morrow a very im portant step would be taken with respect to proceedings in the action of which the House was already in pos session of the details. If he did not feel it to be so ne cessary that some immediate decision should be come to by the House, he should rather have refrained from proposing any measure or resolution of his own, leaving it to those who had more deeply studied the question of privilege to propose to the House what they would recommend, with greater fertility of argument, and greater weight and authority ; but as it was ne cessary that some step should be taken, and as the House, to whom the Report of the Committee was now known, must feel that it was necessary to come to some immediate decision whether they would or would not take any further steps with respect to the action upon which certain proceedings had been taken against the Speaker of that House, he should propose certain resolutions for its adoption.—(Hear.) Before stating anything further he would put the House in possession of the resolution he meant to pro pose, " That it is the opinion of this House, that under the special circumstances of the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, it is not expedient to adopt any further proceed ings for the purpose of staying the execution of the writ. That the House, considering that the power of printing and circulating the votes and proceedings of the House is necessary for, and conducive to, the public interest, it will enter into the consideration of such measures as it may be advisable to take in consequence of the proceedings in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, for the maintenance of that power, as soon as the Committee have made that full and complete report mentioned in their last." He should proceed to give his reasons why he thought the House ought to come to that practical decision, but without entering the larger and graver question, which must be deliberately considered by the House when that further Report was made, or when any further proceeding was taken against the printer of the House—when he proposed that the House should not take any proceedings for staying the execution of the writ, he was bound to state his own impression, that nothing which had occurred in conse quence of a resolution of the House, which recom• mended that the Attorney-General should appear and plead in the action, had deprived the House of the power to take instant proceedings in order to stop the exeeution of the writ.—(Cheers.) The argument on that behalf had been very clearly stated and put on record in the Committee in an amendment which had been proposed by an Honourable and Learned Member. The Members connected with the law on both sides of the House had recommended that course, and the same course had been taken in a case which he thought was much stronger than the present—in the action brought against the Speaker by Sir F. Burdett ; the Speaker acting under the advice, pleaded to the ac tion, and immediately proposed to commit the solicitor. This was the course that had been adopted by the House of Commons, and by the Government of that day, and that course had been agreed in by Mr. Perceval and had met his approval, and he (Lord J. Russell) con sidered that he was a great authority on this subject, both from his studies, and from the situation he occupied. All the House had done in effect, was to inform the Court of Queen's Bench that this was considered by the House of Commons as a question involving the privileges of the House of Commons, a power which they considered essential to the due performance of their functions, they had therefore pleaded, in order to bring correctly and formally before the Court of Queen's Bench, th a t th e H ouse o f C ommons so coi?si sidered it. It was o b v i ous th a t the pleading to this cause , an d p l ac i ng this opinion before Commons e ci the Court cou ld no t preven t th e House of emmops from taking any course th e y thought p ro per after the decision of th e J u d ges o f the Court of Queen's Bench ; but although there could be no question as to the com petency of the House to interfere to stay the execution of the writ, yet it was a question whether the House should do so. The first question he would ask was, would it be common justice so to do? He thought that no person could be found who would admit that it was. The House of Commons having brought the question before the Court, the Judges thought they could not merely accept this information from the House of Commons, but considered that they were not legally precluded from giving judgment in this case, as in any other case which might come before them in Courts of Law. This being the case they decided that the defence was not sufficient, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. After this a Sheriff's Jury sat and assessed the damages at 100/. The Sheriff who bad the execution of this judgment merely considered that he had received a legal and sufficient authority for pro ceeding to execution. Neither the party who had insti tuted this action, nor the Solicitor who had brought it for ward, nor the Counsel who had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, nor the Judges who had decided the case, had been declared guilty of a breach of the privi leges of the House of Commons, and when neither the Plaintiff, nor the Solicitor, nor the Counsel, nor the Court, had been visited with punishment from the House, it would be hard that the executive officer to whom, in the legal and usual course this writ came for execution, should be committed to prison. He thought this was against all notions of justice that could be entertained on this subject. He would say respecting the previous acts that the House of Com mons were perfectly right in directing the Attorney- General to plead to this action, but at this stage of the proceedings it would not be consistent with justice that the Sheriff should be ordered not to proceed with the execution of that writ, with a view to committing the Sheriff to custody if he should disobey such o rder. He also thought it would not be consistent with ex pediency—(Hear, hear)—because if they were to pro ceed on this question in a manner which would be thought by the people of this country (as it appeared to him) inconsistent with justice, there could be no higher degree of inexpediency—there could be no more decisive evidence of the inexpediency of such a proceeding than the decision, that justice would not be in its favour.—(Hear, hear.) He would therefore not enlarge upon the impression that might be pro duced, or upon the feelings that might be created, by a proceeding, on the part of the House of Commons, which would excite general repugnance and dissent. It was sufficient for him to say, that he thought those feelings of repugnance and dissent would be naturally excited, and therefore he had come to the conclusion that it was not expedient in this case to adopt any proceeding for the purpose of staying the execution of the w rit. He thought it was competent to the House of Com mons to do so, and the House had not deprived itself of the right to do so if it should be absolutely neces sary, but he did not think it would be considered that the Sheriff was the person on whom the punishment should be visited. Having said thus much in support of the first Resolution, he would state with regard to the second, that he thought it necessary to make some few remarks in favour of the Resolution to which the House had already come, and the substance of which was stated in the Report, namely, that the House should have the power of publishing such of its votes and proceedings as it should deem necessary or we' ducive to the public interests, and which it stated to be necessarily incident to its constitutional rights and privileges. The House would recollect an action was commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench ; but they did not think it proper without further knovvledge , both on the part of the public and on the part of the Judges, to order the commitment of any person who w ere parties to that proceeding. The House decided that the Attorney-General should appear and state that the House of Commons considered this power necessarily belonged to them, and it appeared that in so proceeding , while it did not give up the rights of the House, that the House acted with very great temper and modera tion. The Attorney-General had stated with very great ability and with great learning and knowledge on this subject, all the points which it was encumbent on him to press on the attention of their Lordships. He (Lord John Russell) would not enter into any of the argu ments used on that occasion, but he thought it necessary to say a few words as to the nature of the decision of the Judges upon this question. The Attorney-Gene ral had stated to the House the general effect of the judgments. That statement was impugned at the time, but what he had read since of the opinions of the Judges confirmed him in that statement, and had confirmed him (Lord John Russell) in his opi nion, that however right it might be in the House of Commons not to proceed to any violent or extreme mea sure until they had submitted by pleading their case to the Judges, that the Judges, however con scientiously they might decide the question, were not the fit judges of the privileges of the House of Commons. He did not wonder that it should be so. He thought it was consonant with the whole of our history that the Judges, eminent in their own place, distinguished with respect to the functions they have to perform, were not and ought not to be the supreme judges of the powers and privileges of the House of Commons.— (Hear, hear.) It was a matter which naturally did not come under their consideration, which did not attract their daily attention, upon which it' was obvious they were likely to come to a narrow and very exclusive decision. He should take the liberty of referring to some passages in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. With regard to the particular case in ques tion, the case of a Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, Lord Denman was of opinion that that statement on the part of the Inspectors would have nothing to do with the proceedings of the House of Commons. He was not now questioning any legal act or proceeding, but he was questioning the opinion of the Chief Jus tice of the Queen's Bench with regard to the functions of the House of Commons. Lord Denman said that a book found in the possession of a prisoner in Newgate, could have no influence in determining how prisons would be best regulated. Now, it might so happen that matters of no very great public import ance might come before the House of Commons, but it did so happen that the question under consideration was one upon which Parliament might very fitly pro ceed, and upon which it had been called upon more than once to proceed. He would mention that a Bill had been introduced for the regulation of prisons about three years ago in the House of Lords, and having passed was sent down to the House. It was said by an Hon. Member that the prison of Newgate was so well regulated, and that it was so free from anything like irregularity, that it ought to be exempted from the inspection of the Inspectors. He (Lord J. Russell) had been threatened with the loss of that Bill if he had persevered in including Newgate. He had, however , persevered, believing that Newgate was not wholly ex empt from irregularity.—(Cheers.) Now only conceive any person—only conceive a Judge saying that the regulation of the prison of Newgate had nothing to do with legislation, when upon that very matter the whole question turned.—(Loud cheers.) The very next year a Committee was appointed to inquire whether a better regulation might not be adopted for the prison of New gate, and the Committee reported in favour of that regula tion. And was he to be told that the regulation o f the prison of Newgate was not to come under the conside ration of the House•of Commons. It was no doubt a most important question, which the Inspectors who had been appointed by the Legislature were bound to con sider. Perhaps, considering it with regard to other questions which they had to take into consideration it was of minor importance. It was a part of their business, small if they pleased, but still it was a part of the business of the Inspectors. Then it might be said that this should be the limit of the House of Commons, and that it should not proceed further. That course would be most unjust, because he thought it was right that those who had the manage ment of the prisons should be made aware of the Re port, in order that they might be enabled to contradict its allegations ; but if that House had ordered that Report to be printed, any person who communicated that Report to the Court of Aldermen, or any other person not connected with the House, would be liable, according to the Court of Queen's Bench, to vexatious proceedings in that Court. The opinion of the Judges in substance was, that though Members ought to have papers, they ought not to communicate them to others. Lord Denman was against even the power of printing for the use of the House, and Mr. Justice Pat te l t n had said th a t th oug h papers, however defamator y, might be printed for the use of Members, their further circu lation could not be admitted, and that such defamato r y matter ought either t o b e de stroye d , or no t communi cated to oth ers . If suc h op i n i ons were to be main tained, th e H ouse o f C ommons would b ecome co mpletely powerless, and every Member might be applied to, to .de stroy the copies of an y P ar li amentary papers h e p o ssessed His Right Hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, i n suc h a case , upon hi s re tiring from_ Parlia ment on acceptin g th e office of Judge of the Admiralty Court, might have been called upon to destroy every that tw o Id whatever beote n o p u o r course copy in his library of any Parliamentary paper he Judges The o pinionsof the received.—( Hear, hear.) t s i l t i e ow H e o d o t s o e m hi i m g high offices, because No compl aint could sible that the House could h c e o n u l b d e a e c n q t u e i r e t s a c in e e i d n tuh,iotisie regard to h (Lordt k j fit to Russell)alop give to the person thetl e iio removal use woofu would y noof parson complainth e nab l edli i holding g t made against him. As an instance of this, he would put the case of his Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He had taken great interest with regard to the slave trade attacked the copy carried on under the flag of Portugal.might move for some He some despatches relative to that subject ; but it might be said that those despatches contained some libel against the captains of the vessels, or the Queen of Por tugal. An action might be brought and that House would be unable to defend itself, because it would not be allowed to tell the whole of the United Kingdom what the case was with regard to the Slave Trade. He (Lord John Russell) was ready to admit that it was pos ! sible the House of Commons should exceed its due and proper powers, but he did not think that those powers could be interfered with in the manner proposed by the Judges. Mr. Justice Coleridge, in giving judgment, had put a most extreme case. He had stated that the House of Commons, if it was to assume the pri vileges it had done, might order the execution of I ETENI NG EDITION. 1----: op t on ( tail Wa