The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION MANCHESTER AND BIRMING HAM EXTENSION RAILWAY-(STONE AND RUGBY). The Committee met yesterday at twelve o'clock Mr. AGLIONBY in the chair, and at four o'clock had dispo3ed of the allegations up to 143. On No. 128, that the plan did not describe the line and situation of the Railway through certain fields in Tamworth, they found that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. NATIONAL CONVENTION. (YESTERDAY.) Mr. DIALING, Delegate from Bath, in the chair. minutes being read and confirmed, The announcement of the rent received was as fcll'ws RENT. Beith, Scotland £5 0 0 Kiltvinning. ditto ~ 5 0 0 Kintore, ditto l 5 0 _ . . A few Journeymen Taylors in in Cheapside Bromley - Hollingreen • Wolverhampton 5 0 0 I I.e. SECRETARY then read the Ali , sionalie:' letters ,tErng which were two from Bailie Craig, who gave very tttering accounts of his progress in Scotland. Anothur it.om Mr. Salt, Missionary to Warwickshir,., in which he ,:atcd that his success was rater indifferent, from the people being unpreT2red, and from their hying kept in cheek by the middle classes. STATE OF THE COUNTRY. Mr. Richardson's motion on the state of the country was then brought forward, upon which the meeting resolved itself into a Committee, Mr. MALING in the Chair. Mr. RICHARDSON said that having given the notice of a motion on this subject it became his duty to bring i for ward. Although the returns yet were few in comparison with the great numbers in preparation, yet he thought they could iwt devote their time to a better purpose from time to time is the returns would be received, than to acquire inforrn:ltion which would give them an opportunity of con futing their enemies.—( Hear, hear.) Ile would read those returns which he had received. (Mr. Richards 9n, a:id th ,se other delegates who had returns from their con stiue.icies, then read those statements, which were re ceive uith greet satisfaction.) Joys, from Wales, read a statement of the neigh beat:hood from which he was deputed. It was very lengthy, and spoke much of the people's determination of attail,iog their object. Mr. PITKRITIII.EY moved that The discussion of this question should be postponed until Friday, in order that :night have sufficient time to prepare their do in i reamer that would challenge those opposed t i a stateu:•ent of their comparative wishes to h•• tuse of the people. Dc,r..ALL :".econdc(l the resolu'ion. nt was appointed for the further hearing of ducu - TTEE ON IRISH WRONGS. M► "CO ;IN m, ISIIO from h'; r/e. tlibt in reply to the stlterr.ents which in the, 1: &olio Press, that be used his plivilege cf that Committee, to obt tin a Inlority of in - u: s i,; once with regard to the publication of the report of Cein,,:itte en st.v.ll ~ -;r,, n gs. He did it without intending a.ty f.ff. , nce to the Convention, and by doing R 0 only fol t.. t x;ernple which was set before him by the Editors of p , p , 2rs the week preceding. to whose clever tves,, lad to beAr testimony ; with regard to the e:o pe-ron wh: ever lid taken up that trheful inenru ~f knowledge with an intention of preventing :ts inr i fearly i'Aelhgence was eves!. successful.—( Hear. ) if lie had unwittingly committed an offence acainq abcir robs; but }t ho?•ed tnat by giving this docu- ;vent t, Oie c , :untry he had much sei - vecl!heir cause. Of e,livinced, from having received, since the .t oF address, testirtioates from persons who I:: V., f:!'1 t,ken any part in politic..., and from . .=ho had hitherto held back from inquiring into obj, - cts. Ho would not further detain them, hut h0p0..1 that he now be allowed to read the Ta order that no time might be wasted, and as he understood Mr. Whittle had treparcd an allress :11sty, ~nd which that gentleman intended to move es an an,nirneat to that which the Committee hrd. Fre par,d, Mr. O'Connor then read the address, which was received with much applause. Mr. O'CoNNon gave notice of motion for to-trorrotv to get up a meeting at the Crown and Anchor ; and also to c:et up a dinner, at the White Conduit House, to Messrs. Attisood, Fielding, &c. `SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. (LLOYD'S.) CUSTOM-HOUSE, MARCH 11. ENTERED INwAnns.—The Harlequin, Strannack, from Boulogne; Renovatio, Ball, Lisbon : Attwood, Major, Rotter dam; Friendschaft, Shipman, Freyburgh ; Sussanna, Lesing, Hamburgh ; Ramona, Middleton, Calais; Louis Elise, Osmond, Rontleur ; Osier Riesor, Laisen, Gottenburgh; Fora, Han ken, Elsfieth ; Aurora, Schroder, Pillau ; Sylt, Ketting, Al. tuna; Bo s l e y Wood Culling, St. Michael's; E. Catherina, Lineman, Dra m • Konsber,,,cr, Nielsen, Gottenburgh ; Alex ander, Moore, D ' robach ; Commercien, Johnson, Lyngoers ; A dventure,ti, - iiber,St. Michael's ; Solide, Jansen, Gotten burgh ; lclena, Preston, Memel ; Caroline, Kort, Altona ; Lord Spencer Spence, Tarra g ona ; Henry Thomp son , Wat'sins, New York ; Margerita, Boornyard, Gronengen ; M'ry Walker, Livingi.tcn, Trinidad; Wizard, Ward, Smyrna; Dart, David, Madeira ; Romerege, Gether, Gottenburgh ; Daring, Mill er , St. Mi c h ae l' s ; Horatio, Finlay, Nantes ; Mermi, Phillips, Ostend ; Arca, Carruthers. Bordeaux. I.I:STE.MED OUT WARDS.—The London, Rumbert, for liam br.cgh ; L. Atkinson, Pugwash, for Nova Scotia; Giraffe, Strannack, for Rotterdam ; Childe Harold, Willis, for Bombay ; Iloughton le Spring, Proud, for Montreal ; Dauntless, Pinder, for Calcu to ; Horewood, Cole, for Algoa Bay ; Chandos, Hayes, for St. Vincent's : Margaret Parker, Evans, for Cal cutta; Fair Barbadian, Ward, for Sydney; Warblington, Ben son, for Gibraltar ; Strathfieldsaye, Walker, for Sydney; En terprise, Brlmford, for Odessa; Agostina, Perry, for Calcutta; and Royal Tar, Lewes, for Lisbon. CLEARED OUT CARGO.—The Edwin, Veger, for Odessa ; Chandos, Hayes, for St. Vincent's ; Lord S aumarez , Si mon , for Algo a Bay; Governor M‘Lean, Morley, for the Cape of Good Hope ; and Larkins, Walton, for Madras. IN BA LLAST.—The Champion, Champion, for Cadiz ; and Oidambt, Kammeger, for the Baltic. GRAVESEND, MARCH 9.—Arrived the Henry Thompson, from New York ; Dart, Madeira ; Botley, Wood, St. Mi ; Candidate, Leghorn ; Lord C. Spencer, Tarragona ; Romerege, Gottenburg ; S o lid e , ditt o ; A urora , Pill au ; Helena,Memel ; Flora, Elsfleth ; Friendschaft, Freyburg; Alargaretha, Gronengen ; Aleda, Dram ; Caroline, Altona; Tylt, ditto; Konsberg, Gottenburg. Sailed the Renown, for S 3dneY; Courier, Calcutta ; Thames, Madras ; Red Rover, Sydney ; General Kyd, Madras ; Gladiator, New York ; Hope, Rotterdam ; Jubilee, Hamburg. ANTWERP, MA acn 9.—The Ardeto Maxedoni, Bullock, bound to this port, was lost near Flamborough previous to the 13th Feb. CONSTANTINOPLE, FEB. 13.—The Mary, Muir, from INewprt, which was on shore in the Dardanelles 6th inst., is a total n reek—most of the cargo (iron) likely to be saved. PA an-, Mancit 8.----A vessel of considerable size, bottom upwards, and many pieces of wreck, were passed in lat. 47. N., 1.,n. 17. W., by the Romans, arrived in the Loire. PORT T ALBOT, MAI CR 9.—The Felicity, Thomas, of Swansea, was lost on the Tuskan Rocks yesterday morning. illinFoan, MARCH 9.—The Lamb, of Sunderland, is dis th:irg:ng to find out and stop her leaks. BLVTII, MARCH B.—The John Mover, Gibraden, from Hamburg to Newcastle, is on shore on Creswell Rocks, and is not expected to be got off—two of the crew downed. Br.e.wicK, MARCH B.—The Douglas, Hambly, of New ta:itle, supposed bound to London was wrecked this morning on Goswiek Sand Ridge—crew drowned. INEWCASTLE, MARCH 9.—The Enterprize, of Montrose, fell on her broadside yesterday, and caught fire, but was towed into deep water, bottom up. Bonr,EAux, MARCH B.—The Jean Maurice, David, hence to England, in proceeding down the River, was driven on a sandbank and laid on her beam-ends, but righted after being lightened, and must discharge her cargo. VEssr.r.s SPOKEN WITH . —The Sackville, from Constanti beple to Cork, on the Ist inst., by the Standard, Peile, arrived off Cork. Sophia, London to Jamaica, 6th ult., lat. 25, long. 35, Henry Hood, Bristol to Virginia, 27, lat. 48, long. 15, Cambrian, Mauritius to London, lat. 2 N., long. 23, by the Richard, Cunningham, arrived at Cork. Mary Heartly, Li verpool to Mauritius, lat. 44, long. 15, by the Daring, Miller, erri Ted off Margate. Versilla, 25th Dec., off the Cape of Good Pipe, bound to Algoa Bay, Governor, Liverpool to Jamaica, 711 ult,, lat. 24, long. 25, by the William Barran, arrived of Dartmouth. George Canning, Monte Video to London, 26th tilt, lat. 43, long. 22, by the Favourite, arrived at Fal rnzettla., Heart of Oak, Ancona to Falmouth, Ist ult., off Cape dr. GlitUDennett, Liverpool to Barcelona and Jemima Sophia, Nnvcastbs to Trieste, 16th, off Cape Santa Maria, Eliza, Bristol to Anti, - 26, lat. 44, long. 11, by the Candidate, Goodwin, aertrecklo,the River. Parmelia, Sierra Leone to Plymouth, 3d isat r , lat. 49, long. 8, by the Royal William, arrived at ?►litford The following characteristic anecdote of a Bri tish sailor will be read with feelings of deep interest ; the subject of it was the father of Sir T. Trowbridge, now one of the Lords of the Admiralty :--" A curious scene occurred on board the Sans Pareille on the morning of the Ist of June I Lord Howe's action); Captain Trowbridge, ago tad been recently taken in the Castor, with his nvoy, bound to Newfoundland, was a prisoner cn board tl e French ship just named, where Rear Admiral Nieuily bed his flag flying. After Lord Howe had obtained his pc sition, and drawn his fleet in a line parallel to that of the en , my, he brought to, and made the signal to go to breakfast. Trowbridge knew the purport of the signal, and telling it to the French Admiral, they took the ad vantage of the time allowed them for the same repast. Trowbridge (whose appetite never forsook him on these occasions) was helping himself to a large slice from the brown loaf, when the French Captain observed to him by an interpreter (for Trowbridge would never learn their language) that the English Admiral showed no disposition to fight, and he was certain did not intend it. " What r said the English hero, dropping his loaf, and laying his hand almost too emphatically on the Frenchman's 'boulder, while he looked him furiously in the face, " Not tight I stop till they have had their breakfast ; I know John Bull - well, and when his belly is full, You will get it." In a few minutes after this, the fleet bore - up to engage, Trowbridge was sent into the boatswain's stere room, where for a length of time he leant against the foremast, and amused himself in pouring out every invec tive against the French, and the man appointed to guard him. Suddenly he felt the vibration of the mast, and heard tt f4ll over the side ; when grasping the astonish e d French man w i t h b ot h his hands, he began to jump and ceper, with all the gestures of a maniac. The Sans Pa_ route stun after surrendered, and Trowbridge assisted in ge.tin e her to rights and taking her into port.—Brenton's Naval History. the Revue du Havre of Wednesday says : A i. ,l, P , A rri pi a li d e e a uL , who has played so desperate a game in Ca is in the Prime is o a r ppearance last night at our theatre. He life, and has an energetic countenance. All eEyorgsivilmatire.taurned with interest towards the head on which _,_ a „ e h s %set a price, and which, on approaching our 11 ,. ° !P,, ! , 15 .L._1 . ? 0 , wag in danger of being thrown into her do not know what this latter allusion means. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 11. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at Five o'Clock. Lord KENYON presented several petitions from Wales, praying that the revenues arising from the sine cure of St. Asaph might be applied in augmentation of small livings in Wales. The Bishop of St. ASAPH presented petitions from various parts in Wales to the same effect — also a petition praying that the sinecure rectory might be attached to the Vicarage, the former being of the value only of 1201. and the latter of scarcely so much ; and as the district extended seven miles in length and four in breadth, and of a population of 2,000 who were not very rich, the Right Rev. Prelate did not think the House would be of opinion, the amount of both being under 2501., it would be too much for an officiating minister. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from a place in the Highlands of Scotland, covering three hundred square miles, praying for Church Exten sion. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Pickering, in Yorkshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Also a petition from Greenfield, in North amptonshire, against the Beer Bill. Lord CAWDOR. presented a petition from Street, in the county of Somerset, against the Beer Bill ; also a petition from a place in Cornwa , l, against any alter a tion in the Corr-laws. Lord HAWARDEN presented two petitior:s from places in the county of Tipperary, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. CORN-LAWS. Lord RADNOR wished to know, on behalf of his Noble Friend, Earl Fitzwilliam, on what day it would be convenient. to their Lordships for him to fix his mo tion on the subject of the Corn-laws. It would be convenient for his Noble Friend to fix the 22d of this month, if that would be agreeable to their Lord slops. After a few observations from the Marquis of SA LISBURY and Lord BROUGHAM, it was agreed that the motion should be fixed for the 14th inst. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from the inhabitants of Coldstream, Crutchley, and several other places, praying for an alteration in the Corn-laws. Also a petition from the Board of Guardians of the Union of Dorking, praying for some measure whereby they should be at liberty to levy rates on the owners of property where the rent exceeded five pounds. Also petitions from Leominster, Liverpool, and other places, praying for the adoption of a penny postage ; likewise a petition from Dewsbury; in Yorkshire, against the Beer Bill ; and a petition from several parts in De vonshire, praying for the cstabhshment of Local Courts. Upon this last subject the Noble and Learned Lord said, when it was mentioned last he had pledged him self to give all the assistance to it in his power, and having done what he already could do, he hoped his Noble and Learnt(' Friend on the Woolsack would proceed with some measure on the subject, which he hoped would be found to he useful. In reference to the establishment of the Bankruptcy Court he would just mention, as a proof of the benefit that had resulted from it, that there had been collected of old assets from bankruptcies previous to 1830—some of them thirty and forty years old—na less titan 2,600,000/., which ' had been paid into the Accountant-General's bands, every farthing of which had been since distributed among the creditors, and every farthing of which would have been lost, but far the establisiayee. of that Court. The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition against the laws authoriziog,the existence of beer shops. POST-OFFICE The Bishop of LONDON said that, exactly a month ago, he had moved for certain returns res:)ecting a proposition which had excited a great degree of feeling in the metropolis—he meant the sub ject of a Sunday delivery of letters at the post office. A memorial had been presented to the Treasury, signed by 1,600 attornies and solicitors of London, against this measure. To that memorial no answer had been returned, nor had even its receipt been acknowledged. He would therefore ask the Noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to this proposition ? Viscount MELBOURNE said the proposition was not yet before the Treasury. The Bishop of LONDON said that the Noble Viscount's answer was not satisfactory, for although the proposition inioa not have been as yet brought before the Treasury, yet still it would be satisfactory to the memorialists, and to the country at hsrge, to be assured that they need entertain no apprehensions with regard to this subject. Lord MELBOURNE was understood to say tl:at nothing bad yet been done upon the subject. ATTACK UPON ADEN. Lord LYNDHURST said he understood that an attack had been made upon the fortress of Aden by a force sent from Bombay, and considerable slaughter of the natives bad taken place. Now, as the Sultan of that country had always been friendly with England, he (Lord Lyndhurst) wished to know what explanation the Noble Viscount could make upon the subject. Lord MELBOURNE said an attack had been made, from the fortress of Aden, upon a vessel belonging to her Britannic Majesty, and negotiations had been commenced, upon a demand for satisfaction, for the sale of the fortress to the East India Company, and an agreement to that effect was made; but when the forces arrived to take possession, the son of the Sultan said his father had no right to dispose of the fortress, and demanded mere for it, upon which the fortress was attacked. In answer to Lord L YND HU RST the Noble Viscount said he would lay on the table the documents. IRELAND. On the motion of the Marquis of WESTMEATH returns were ordered of the convicts discharged before the expiration of their sentence from March 1, 1835. PRIVILEGE. On the Order of the Day for considering the report of tho Committee upon the petition of John Joseph Lawson, praying that their Lordship's officer might at tend the Court of Queen's Bench with the notes of the evidence before the New Zealand Committee, Lord LYNDHURST said he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House, because he differed in opinion from the majority of the Committee. The facts were as follow :—Last Session, a Committee was appointed to consider the state of New Zealand. The evidence of that Committee was communicated by their Lordships to the House of Commons, and by that House published. Certain persons deeming their interests to be affected by the statements in that Report, animad verted upon it, extracting portions of the evidence to make their observations intelligible. In consequence of this an action was brought against the printer of those ob servations, who, in legal phrase, justified—that is, un dertook to prove the truth of everything he had stated, and upon that issue was joined. According to the rules of evidence the defendant could not prove his case, but by producing the officer who had taken the evidence before their Lordships' Committee. On the application of the counsel for the defendants—the At torney-General—the trial was put off to afford time for an application to their Lordships to allow their officer to attend the Court. The Committee had decided that this application should not be granted. He (Lord L.) could not understand by what reason that refusal was justified —especially as the result would be to produce great injustice. Something was said upon the Committee about the privileges of their Lordships—but those privileges were intended to advance and not to defeat the ends of justice. But the main ground, he believed, on which the decision of the Committee had been formed, was that the petitioner had violated a Standing Order of their Lordships, that no one should publish any of the proceedings of their Lordships. All that the defendant had done was to publish certain passages from the evidence to make his observations intelligible. I f, in so doing, he had violated their Lordships' priviliges, let him be punished specifically for so doing, but it would be highly unjust to withhold from him the means of ob taining justice in this cause, for their Lordships could not know whatthe amount of the verdict would be, and there fore the punishment would not be apportioned to the of fence. It had been said by a Noble Lord that it was ne cessary that a proper protection should be extended to the witnesses before their Committee ; but does the witness meet protection ? There was not any petition from the witness in this case. The witness was not assailed—the witness was the assailant ; and what the defendant asked was that justice should not be defeated, but that evidence should be produced, that the Jury might decide according 1 1 to evidence. An observation had been made, the force of which he could not understand ; it had been stated by the Noble Lord, that it had been decided by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench that an action would lie against the printer of the House of Commons f or p r i n ti ng a p e tition to that House which contained libellous matter, and it had been said that that case might come before their Lord ship's House. Of course, if it came before their Lord ships, it would be decided according to the orders of their Lordship's House. He confessed he did not see the force of this objection, but he merely stated what he wished it to he, but at all events should that case be brought before the House all the facts would be admitted on both sides, and it would be mere l y as t o the question of law that their decision would be called fear, but what the petitioner asked for in this case was that the officer should be permitted to offer evidence as to facts ; in the other case the facts were admitted ; there could be nothing added to them or taken from them ; he did not see how this case could have any bearing on the present question. A Noble in didividual, for whom he entertained the highest respect, had asked why the Queen's Bench could not alter their technical rules of evidence ? Now, if there were anything less technical than another, it was the rules of evidence in Courts of Justice. These rules had been long fixed, and were founded on experience and philosophy—there w as no thi ng te c hnical about them, besides, the Court of Queen's Bench had no power to alter the rules of evidence, if that Court were to attempt to do so, the case might be brought by writ of error before their Lordships ; and their Lord ships could not alter the rules of evidence—their Lordships were bound to decide according to the law, and the law of evidence was part of the law of the land. He was not aware of any further ob jections that • had been urged before the Committee against granting the prayer of the petition. How would the House of Corurrons act under similar cir cumstances? That Hohse had privileges nearly similar to their Lordships, and were as strict in enforcing the observation of them. He held in his band a paper, .to which he would direct their Lord ships' attention. It appeared that on the 12th of July, 1820, the House of Cow mons had ordered the short-hand writer who had attended the Police Com mittee of 1816, to attend at the trial of Meek v. the Magistrates of Middlesex, and to produce the notes which he had taken before the Committee in 1817. There were certain cases in which the House of Commons had refused to grant a similar petition—. that House were in the habit of doing what he should wish their Lordships to do, to examine the merits of each particular case and decide accordingly. It had been said that this case differed from that of Meek, inasmuch as Meek had not violated the privileges of the House. He would ask bow the petitioner in this case had violated the priaeges of their Lordships' House— he had merely published a sufficient portion of the evi dence to illustrate his own observations. Their Lord ships were the highest court of judicature in England, and he could not believe that they would refuse to per mit this evidence to be produced, whhout which justice could nut be administered, and he would therefore humbly submit to their Lordships, that the prayer of this petition should be also granted. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that having had the honour to have been the Chairman of the Committee to whom this petition had been referred, he felt it necessary to make a few observations. Whatever deci sion their Lordships might come to he thought they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Committee had arrived at a correct decision. It had be n said there would be a hardship on an indi vidual in their Lordships refusing to grant the prayer of this petition, but the question was whether it was for the interests of the country that they should maintain the privileges of the House. As far as ore of the par ties was concerned he (the Noble and Learned Lord) knew he would be happy if the House could accede to the prayer of the petition, because that would enable him to vindicate what lie had put upon the record. The petition stated the fact of the report, and then it stated that before the Committee that was sitting upon the New Zealand case, the evidence of Polack and Pewel was given, and that certain observations were made thereon. Their Lordships had not the subject of the act before them, 'out the fact of the printing of the evidence of the witnesses was admitted—evidence given before a Select Committee of that House. The petitioner then stated that he was advised, and verily believed, that it was indispensably necessary that the original examination, given and signed by the said wit nesses respectively, and afterwards printed and published, as aforesaid, should be produced at the trial. It was stated further that the evidence taken was according to an order of the House, printed and presented to the House of Commons—that it 'was again printed by the House of Commons, and afterwards sold at various places in London. The petitioner carefully avoided connecting the selling of it with any order of the House of Commons, but contented himself by saying, that it was again printed by the House of Commons, and afterwards sold at various places in London. But the fact of the printer having published evidence taken in their Lordships' House was the ground on which he came for their Lordship,' assistance. By one of the standing orders of the House, it was resolved that it was a breach of the privileges of the House to print or publish any thing relating to the proceedings of the House without the leave of the House. The party, , therefore, who came to ask their Lordships to make an order by which he might he enabled to protect himself • against the consequences of publishing what he was the author of, came to state that he had been guilty of a breach of a standing order of the House—h e having published that which was the subject matter of the action.—( Hear.) This resolution was ordered to form a standing order of the House, and whether their Lordships should thick proper now to maintain that standing order or not, whether they should think it right for the interests of the country that that resolu tion should continue to form part of the standing orders or not, was what he apprehended could not he taken into consideration at present. The question was, whe ther a party who had violated a standing order, could come and ask for the protection of the House against that act. However hard a refusal might operate on en individual, yet if the House was to accede to this prayer, he would ask their Lordships to consider how far they then might be called on to go ? Any party who had violated an order of the House, might come to the bar and say that he had done so, and thereby got him self into difficulty, but he prayed their Lordships to do that for his protection which no other power could do, then they would, as a matter of course, have to grant him their assistance. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) having attended the Com mittee,. of coarse knew the grounds on which the Committee proceeded, and a very large part of the Committee considered there were no grounds whatever presented for inducing the Committee to re commend the House to accede to the prayer of the petition. Supposing the petitioner had purchased this report of a person authorised by the House of Com mons to sell it, and having so purchased it he had from that copy printed it, would that make any difference ? Was the House prepared to say that a party who had violated a standing order could protect himself by say ing that somebody else had done it before him ? Or, suppose it stood upon the fact of a sale by an order of the House of Commons, were their Lordships prepared to say that because the House of Commons thought proper, for reasons known to itself, to authorise the sale of a certain paper, that therefore their Lordships were to be deprived of their privileges ? He apprehended that would not follow. But their Lordships were not now called upon to assert their privilege against the House of Commons, or against an individual.--(Hear, hear.) He would be the last man to assert any privi lege of their Lordships' House against the other House of Parliament unless it were absolutely necessary.—(Hear, hear.) But they were not even called upon to assert their privilege to the hard ship of au individual ; what they were asked to do was, to overlook their privilege, and to concede to an indi vidual that he had not done wrong. All the cases bearing on this question had been brought under the review of the Committee, but they were found to have no application to the present case. The present case stood by itself, there .was na precedent for it ; it rested entirely on the question whether, for the sake of justice, as it was stated in another Court, their Lordships would dispense with their standing order against an in dividual who had, according to his own admission, broken it. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY entirely concurred in the view that had been taken of this subject by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, Lord BROUGHAM was greatly taken by surprise, by the statement of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack. He (Lord Brougham) never held a clearer opinion upon any subject of law or of privilege, in or out of Parliament, than that which, upon much consideration of this question be had come to respecting it. He hoped he addressed a favourable audience so far, as they had been described by his Noble and Learned Friend, that they, being Judges and Members of the highest Court of Judicature in this realm, would feel the greatest reluctance to shut out any necessary evi dence, which in the administration of justice in the Court below, was a desideratum ; because if the other House of Parliament was disposed to lean rather against its privileges, than for them, even upon ordinary occasions and where culprits were brought to its bar, charged with an infraction of its pri vileges, how infinitely more did it become their Lordships' House, the highest Court, to lean against straining its privileges against the interests, and in defeasauce of the ends of strict, -rigorous, impartial justice. But bow infinitely more did it behove that House to administer, not the privileges of the House, if that were the question, but to adopt topics drawn from the existence of, and in regard to, those privileges, with a view thereby to a movement calculated to shut the door of justice.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped he ad dressed those who would bitterly lament to haVe thus to act, if he showed them, as he should undertake to do, with the most perfect confidence, that with every perfect consistency with,„ their privileges, the prayer of this petition might be g lued. The whole of the argument of his Noble and Learned Friend o n the Woolsack was grounded on this, that because this party had fallen into his present difficulty, and was thereby dragged into a Court of Law, in consequence of violating the pri vileges of their Lordships' House, he could not come and ask their Lordships to aid him out of th e difficulty which that violation had brought him into. In the first place, he would admit, for the sake of the argument, this to be true, in point of fact, upon which all this consideration rested, viz. that it was in the cours e of violating their Lordships' privileges the party had got into his present difficulties—that he (lid what he did, i n nicking this communication of the evidence given before the Committee upon the subject of New Zealand, ille gally ; and he would ask, even after admitting that, for the sake of the argument—and he admitted it for the salc.o of the argument only—whether there was any right or ground whatever—whether there was common con sistency, or even decorum, in visiting him in this fashion ? ( Hear, hear.) Supposing he was guilty of a breach of privilege. Did they, during the whole 365 days of the year, attempt to exert their privilege against other persons who were guilty of a breach of it ?—(Hear.) Were their privileges not in a profound sleep through out the whole of the year ? Were they not in as pe rennial a suspended animation as any animal or being in the whole of God's creation?—(Hear) —and was this the way to awaken the sleeping lion, and to set him to roar upon this unhappy creature ?—( Hear, and laughter.) What was it their Lordships did every day and every hour in constant breach of their privileges ? There was not a newspaper that was net a breach of their pri vileges, from the vety beginning of it to the lest corner TNE sgiN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH_ 12, I`o9. in it, where the printer's name was inserted.—(Hear.) I dare say (continued the Noble and Learned Lord) you all read those breaches of privileges with abhor rence.—(Hear, hear.) I dare say my Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, when a newspaper is brought to him, cries out, " Avaunt ! Carry it away ; I won't have it. What ! speak of what passes in the House ! Is it possible that I can peruse that ?—(Hear, hear.) Is it possible that I can give my countenance to that—my sixpence to the encouragement of such en enormous offence ?—( Roars of laughter.) Why I ant an accessory after the fact if I do so ; therefore away with the monstrous violation of the privileges of my House !"—( Hear, hear, and renewed laughter.) That would be consistent with my Noble and Learned Friend's present notion of the doctrine of the privileges of this House, and I do not know that it is not so, though I have never heard it distinctly stated ; but at all events, as my Noble and Learned Friend treats it, I your Lordships are all accessories after the fact. — (Hear, hear.) What is more you benefit by it.— (Hear, hear.) You pay for it—you furnish the funds for carrying on the breach.—(Hear, hear.) You pay the reporters for coming here to report your proceed ings—( Hear, hear)—and you open your galleries and ' give them convenient accommodation, and furnish there with seats that they may have the better end more I comfortable converdence for committing this f u! and I astonishing offence, which literally astounds my Nobs:, and Learned Friend to find that it should ev. r have been committed.—(Hear, and immense ciiceriri.) What do I make of that ? Why, that it does not I quite become us to put our privileges into our pockete, just when an individu a l snowing th ose sr i v i thmayr e b v e e r y r d r , z , i , y e n o t f ei t i h efroril year,ruin s by leges still to slumber, we should start up and sra, " Oh dear ! it is very true we have priv degas, e quite forgot—let us bring those privileges into exercise, and thus compel the individual to submit to an injury, it I not to his total ruin."—(Hoer, hear.) I don't think that is quite consistent ; 1 don't thick that is quite de corous, or quite in conformity with the high sense of I justice of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) But there was another thing. He did not say that any privilege of Parliament could go into disuetude any more than a point of law. But the law admitted of consent or assent ; and if their Lordships allowed certain p erson , to do any thing,'and to publish all their debates and ail their reports of Committees—( ar, hear)—had not the printer a perfect right to say he had their Lordslii; s consent for printing what he had printed.—(llea-, hear.) They had not stirred nor whispered a syllable against the system that had been ptileued, therefore he had their Lordships' consent. He (Lord Brougham) came in the third place to deny that this was a breach of privilege—not only that, a consent was given. His Noble and Learned Friend had road the resolution that it was a breach to publish this w i t h out the 1;0 consent of the House ; and he had now to prove then it I was published with the leave of the House. He had shown that in one way already, by showing the tacit consent of the House ; but he would contend that hero was a tacit answer in the affirmative to a direct appliei,- , tion. As his Noble and Learned Friend read the reso lotion, he of course meant to read it that it was a breach to publish it without the leave of the House had and obtained ; and he would show that that leave had been had and obtained.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The House of Commons sent a messenger to their Lordships, and one or the other of his Noble Friends must have gone down, in the solemn manner that was known to their Lordships to he consistent with their proceedings, to the bar of the House and received a message from the Commons, asking leave to here the report of their Committee upon New Zealand ; the question must afterwards have been put by one or other of his Noble Friends to the House, awl there must have been placed, and exist on the journals of the House, an order directing a copy of the report to be sent to the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he would take it that his Noble and Learned Friend en the Woolsack, or his other Noble Friend . (Earl Shaftesbury) was prepared to show him an order ' appended to that order, saying, " always on condition, that the House of Commons shall not make any use of it, that it shall not print it, that it shall only read it itself, and that it shall not sell it."—(Hear, bear.) But here comes the House of Commons, and opened a libel shop—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and asked to have their libels retailed at 6d. or Is., according to their length ; then, their Lordships being in the other House of Parliament, and the proceedings originally emanating from them, they became partners in the libel shop— not sleeping partners, but avowed partners.—( Hear. hear, and much cheering.) They knew the order of the House of Commons. They had it before there, and they were aware that they had resolved that their proceedings should be sold ; and this was ore of their proceedings.—(Cheering.) Now he wished their Lord ships only to look at what was the strict letter of Par. liamentary proceedings, and what was the strict letter of the law. His Noble Friend who spoke last (Eat i Shaftesbury) was an old Member of Parliament ; but his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, he might say, was only a Member of yesterday, though it might have been better for the country if he had been a a Member for a much longer period. His Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) had a Par liamentary experience of twenty-three years, - and he (Lord Brougham) was sorry to say that he had an ex perience of thirty years, and he could assure his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack that just as he acquired Parliamentary experience, so would he lose his love for privilege, and be inclined to learn not to but against privilege.—(Hear.) Irony thing was more odious, more hateful than another, it was the allowing a privilege to lie dormant till it was made a topic in an argument forinjustice.—(Hear, hear.) Again, every report in the House of Commons when presented, was understood in Parliamentary law to have been read at the table. The report in this case had been communicated to the House of Commons with a full knowledge of that Parliamentary usage. If a breach of any privileges had been committed, it was the privileges of the House of Commons, for the Report by being read at their table had become part of their proceed ings.—(Hear,hear.) Even admitting that their Lord ships' privileges had been violated, the just way to deal with the offender was to call him to their Lordships bar. to hear his defence, and to inflict the punishment which they might deem just. But by withholding the evidence in this case, the petitioner would be exposed to a verdict for an indefinite amount—whether 40s. or 5001.—(Hear, hear.) If the evidence was withheld, it would go to the Jury that the petitioner had fabricated the report.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble' and Learned Lord went on to refer to a case in which an action for libel had been brought against the publisher of a speech made by Mr. Creevy, a Member of the House of Com mons in 1813. The action was brought by a collector of taxes, upon whom the speech reflected. For the defence he (Lord B.), who was Counsel for the defendant, proposed to call a Member of Parliament to prove that the speech had been spoken. Now not having obtained leave of the House to do so, this cf course was a breach of privilege ; but no objection was raised at the trial to his calling the witness—though the witness being prevented from attending, the Judge (Mr. Justice Le Blanc) directed the fact to be admitted, that the speech had been spoken ; and even in the House or Commons the right to call such evidence had never been questioned. If this doctrine of privilege was • pressed to such an extent as some would press it, the consequences would be most serious. The Noble Earl (Roden) was about to bring forward the subject of the Irish alleged misgovernment, and in so doing would state a gi eat many things, reflecting not merely on those connected with the Government, but on IVlagis trates, and on private individuals. Whoever published • the speech of the Noble Earl would be liable to an indictment, or to an action ; and as he would not be allowed—according to this doctrine of privilege—to prove the delivery of the speech—it would go to the Jury that he had fabricated the speech, and the penalty would be proportionably greater. Better, (continued the Noble and Learned Lord)—better at once say, there shall be no reporting of our proceedings, than to open your doors and invite parties to publish your pro ceedings, and at the same time tell those who do so, that they must beware—that they incur the risk of pu nishment—like the Empress Catherine, who after she had murdered her husband, ordered his body ,to be exhibited that the public might see there were no marks of violence, but whomsoever approached near enough to see, bayonets were pointed at their breasts. My Lords, if you refuse this motion it will go forth to the world that you are guilty of the hypocrisy of saying to the world, " people may publish our proceedings— but we are so far from being sincere that whosoever avails himself of our permission, will be liable to punished in a criminal proceeding, and to be ruined, perhaps, by damages, in a civil one?' My Lords, I have spoken at greater length, and with more ardour, than in my present state of suffering I ought to have done ; but my heart is in this cause, and so long as I am in this House injustice shall never without pro test be committed.—(Loud cheering.) Lord HOLLAND thought there was no force in the argu men t s o f th e N o ble a nd Learned Lords. He denied that this question involved the s ubstantial j usti ce of th e case . H e did no t b e li eve there was a necee. sity for quoti n g the evidence ; and in feet the only ground u p on w hi c h th e petiti on er claimed the indul gence of their Lordships was that he had committed a House , f si dN C e n o i m bei Commons. as to breach of their privileges.—( Hear.) land) could not admit that the privileges of their Lord ships were dependent upon the their h ei e d ( n L o t o Lordships' r s d ee l h i eln w l There could be nothing unjust in the as casese Committee. Inf o ji f ttthe a eo y. a fo t r t c h i n e g r t e h ci e u i re request privileges individual; bu t, i n orisdbseapptdeoa e r ac t bl i hr n ee g tagh f di r avy o te m nhb rea t o h swk e eat n losi i them, if this request were ranted, t L h e e a y rn c e o d uld Fr r i a e f n u d se ha to d permitsh shown n evidence b y g s f e j a v , c e t and h eN i a witness speeches spoken in that House. aware of the analogy between Peer gwingn making evidence a speech t theb before r b r a e r , or before gu ilty not only of a breach of would ask if their Lordships were prepared to allow the clerkswatat passedt h e i t nabtlhe their r o Lboerdcsahlilpe:ds Htoo were to do this, they the orders of this House, but of an Act of Parliament. 1 would be noinu The Bill of Rights expressly stated that no speech, debate, or proceeding of Parliament, shall be questioned in any place out of Parliament. Now, surely it would not be contended that the speech of a Peer before that House, or the evidence of a witness before a Committee was not a proceeding of Parliament. His Lordship then alluded to the case of Lord Abingdon, and con tended that if that case had been an action f or damages, or if the case had not been admitted, that House would never have afforded the means of proving that a Noble Lord in addressing that House bad made use of certain expressions.—(Hear, hear.) If their Lordships ad mitted the production of evidence in this case, they could not refuse the same request if made relative to the pu blication of a speech. God forbid he should ever wish to prevent the publication of their Lordships' debates, or wish them to push their privileges to excess. He had often, on former occasions, begged their Lordships not to insist on their privileges in a rigid manner ; but there was a great difference between not punishing a breach of privilege, and actually acknowledging a breach of privilege, and assisting in the man ner proposed. If a clear case of necessity could be made out, that this was a case affecting life, limb, or pro perty, it might be a matter worthy of consideration, but with all due deference to the two Noble and Learned Lords, he did not think that this evidence was necessary to the defence. Much sarcasm had been thrown out as to the technicalities of the law of evi derce, but he certainly understood that the Court was in all eases bound to receive the best possible evidence. Now he would ask, what evidence could any Court re quire more than that the statement bad been made on the authority of the House of Lords, as proved by docu ments published and sold as such. The Court would be bound to receive such evidence as the best possible evidence, for lie could not conceive how that could be considered as possible es idence which the highest Court in the kingdom had determined should not he giVen. If they granted this petition, it would be utterly impos sible to stop there. There was nothing peculiar in this case which should prevent others from presenting similar petitions ; and what would become of the freedom of debate, if every speech made io that House was liable to be prosecuted for what any individual might considt r as libellous matter con tained in it? and in the trial of that question evidence he permitted to be given as to what passed in their Lordships' House. The Noble and Learned Lord had said that this had no connection with any other ques tion ; but it must be - in the recollection of all their Lordships, that there were matters pending between the other House of Parliament and certain Courts of Law, touching Questions of privilege, which might even tually he brought before their Lordships for decision by Writ of error ; and such being the case, he thought it was the duty of their Lordships to abstain from any proceeding which might' bear the slightest appearance of prejudging that question. He felt that the granting the prayer of this petition would be inflicting a heavy blow, and a most injurious proceeding as regarded the privileges of this House, while it would in no way what ever assist the defendant. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had been a member of the Committee ; and notwithstanding all that bad fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord, he did not see how that Committee could have come to a different de cision. The Committee could not have advised the House to do away with their privileges, although the House itself might determine to do so, and he still ad hered to the opinion that that Committee had come to a proper decision. He had never contended for an ex cessive or harsh observance of the privileges of that House ; but what was now asked was not that the House would overlook a breach of its privileges, but that it would facilitate the publication of libellous mat ter by affording the publisher means for its justification. Their Lordships then divided, when their appeared— Contents Non-Contents lB Majority for granting the prayer of the petition__ 13 _ _ Their Lordships then adjourned at Teu Minutes after Seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, .11L4ant 11. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. A Messenger from the Trinity H o u se a pp eare d a t the bar, with the annual returns which were laid on the table. Major WOOD brought in the General Cemetery Bill, which was read a first time. Sir MATTHEW WOOD presented a petition against the Commercial (Blackwall) Railway Bill. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition in favour of the Manchester and Birmingham Extension Railway Bill. . CORN-LAWS. Col. SIBTHORP presented petitions from several parishes in Lincoln against any alteration in the Corn laws. Mr. PAKINGTON presented two petitions from Leicestershire to the same effect. "Mr. HANDLEY presented a petition from a parish in Lincoln in favour of the existing Corn-laws. Mr. WODEHOUSE presented similar petitions from Norfolk. Mr. BYNG presented a similar petition from the Hundred of Sculthorpe. Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented 17 petitions from Oswestry, Leighton, and other places in Salop, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. LANGDALE presented a petition from the clergy, bankers, and tradesmen of Bevon, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. BOWES presented a similar petition from Bar nard Castle. Mr. H ALFORD presented a petition, signed by 2,361 persons, master manufacturers and others, in favour of the existing Corn-laws, and deprecating any enact ment which should render this country dependant on foreign countries for a supply of corn. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Mr. DEN NISTOUN presented a petition from Glas gow against any additional grant to the Church of Scot land, and praying the House to adopt measures for sepa rating Church and State. Mr. 0. GORE, Jun., presented petitions from the three parishes in the county of Carnarvon, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the present Corn•laws. Mr. H. SMITH presented a petition from Col chester, signed by merchants and manufacturers against any alteration in the present Corn Laws. Mr. M'LEOD presented a petition from Cromarty we understood) against any further endowment to tilt? Church of Scotland. Lord C. MANNERS presented three petitions from places in the 'county of Leicester, against any altera tion in the Corn-laws. Sir CHARLES STYLE presented a petition from Scarborough, praying for the total and immediate re peal of the Corn-Jaws. Mr. MACKENZIE presented a petition from the county of Ross, in favour of the present system of Corn-laws ; also, one praying for a uniform rate of postage. CARLOW ELECTION. Mr. VIGORS presented a petition from Thomas Gisborne, jun. Esq., against the return of Mr. Bruen, for the borough of Carlow. CORN-LAWS. Mr. BAILEY presented several petitions from dif ferent parishes in Breconshire a:.inst any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. JONES presented a petition from some place (the name of which we could not learn) against any al teration in the Corn-laws. Mr. HARCOURT presented petitions from differ ent parishes in Buckinghamshire,:signed by 579 persons, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. ROUND presented a petition from some place in Essex, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. CHEUTE presented a petition from a parish in the county of Norfolk, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. IRISH MUNICIPAL REFORM. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from some place (the name of which we could not hear) against Irish Municipal Reform ; against the Dissolution of Irish Municipol Corporat,ons, and praying the House to take measures, absolutely, utterly, entirely, and unre servedly, to exclude Papists from the Municipal Corpo rations of Ireland. NEW BEER ACT. Mr. DU PRE presented a . petition from some place in Buckinghamshire, praying for a revision in the New Beer Act. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. Mr. PRAED presented a petition, praying the House to institute an inquiry into the system of education pursued `at Maynooth. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. - - Mr. B. HUGHES presented a petition from Bangor, praying the House not to consent to the transfer of the sinecures of the Rectories of North Wales to Queen Anne's Bounty. Lord ELIOT presented a petition from Streatham against any alteration the Cotn-laws. Mr. PEMBERTON presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Ripon against the adoption of any system of education not. in accordance with the doctrines of the Established Church. Mr. W. ROCHE presented a petition from Lime rick in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBU LL presented a petition from a place in the county of Kent against any alteration in the present Corn-laws. Mr. R. PALMER presedted two petitions from Berk shire against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. MILES presented similar petitions from Somer setsbire. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented several p e titi ons from Yorkshire in favour of the abolition of the Corn laws. Sir T. ACLAND presented thirty petitions from► different parts of Devonshire against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Lord STANLEY presented petitions from Alces ton, against ally alteration in the Corn-laws. Lord WORSLEY presented petitions from different parts of Yorkshire, against the Beer Bill. Lord MAHON presented petitions from Hereford, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. BETHELL presented petitions from Bridling ton to the same effect. Mr. HUME presented petitions from Brixham and other parts of Devonshire, praying for an alteration in the Corn-laws. Sir ROBERT PEEL • presented petitions from Temworth, and several parts of Staffordshire, against any alteration in the Coro-laws. The Right Hon. Barcinet also presented petitions from different parts of Stnffordshire, praying the House not to sanction any_ex clusi a plan for the introduction of Railways into Ireland The Right. Hon. Baronet also presented a petition corn. Fla;ning of delay in the Courts of Equity in Scotland, and praying for inquiry into the Equlty Courts both of England and Scotland. Also petitions from Orkney, in favour of additional grants to the Church of Scotland. Sir. G. CLARK presented petitions for Extension of the Scotch Church. CORN LAWS. Lord INGESTRE presented a petition in favour of the Corn-laws. Mr. R. STEUART presented petitions —some, we believe, from Berwick, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. BANNERMAN postponed his notice of motion till the I9th March. BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion for Wed nesday, for an address, requesting copies of the cor respondence respecting the conference between the five Great Powers, relative to the question between Holland and Belgium. SCHOOL OF DESIGN. The HON. MEMBER also gave notice that he would move fora return of the expenses of the Government School of Design, and (as we understood) of the Royal Academy. SUPPLY. Lord JOHN RUSSELL mcved the Order of the. Day for the House going into Committee of Supply. Mr. PALMER begged to ask the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whetht r any provision had been made for the Established Church in the colony of South Australiay Mr. LABOUCH - ERE said if Hon. Members would do him the favour to give him notice when they intended to ask him a question with respect to his de partment, it would tend to the convenience of the pub lic business.—(Hear, hear.) He believed a chaplain had been sent out in the first instance, and other ar rangements were in progress. In answer to a question from Mr. LEFROY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he was not aware of any arrangement having been made as to resuming the adjourned debate upon the Irish outrages. Until the firist and second votes bad been taken on the Navy Es timates, he could not consent to any other question being brought forward. . . Sir R. PEEL understood that immediately on the first vote being taken, no objection would be thrown in the way of the debate being resumed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL knew nothing of any such arrangement. He objected to three or four hours of an evening being occupied with a debate, and then adjourn- ing it. THEATRICAL ENTERTAINMENTS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, it would be his duty to call the attention of the House to the position in which it stood with regard to the vote the House came to on a former evening, and he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of Hon. Members, that that vote had not only been disregarded by her Majesty's Ministers, but that most unprecedented and extraordinary measures had been taken to defeat the manifest object of that vote.—( Hear, hear.) If on that occasion he had been defeated in the motion he had sub mitted to the House, if a majority of the House had de clared against him that the City of Westminster ought to be placed on a different footing than any other part of the country with regard to theatrical entertainments, he should have felt it to be his duty to have bowed to that decision; but he maintained that that battle had been fairly fought and fairly won, and those Gentlemen who had done him the honour to support him on that occa sion, had a right to expect there would be some good results from that victory ; and, moreover, the people of i Westminster had a right to expect that they should derive some benefits from it. What, however, had been the result ?—(Hear, bear.) He had been accused of wish ing to establish the Resolution of that House, as para mount to the law of the land, but he was not so ignor ant of the law of his country as to attempt to do so. He would, however, maintain, as great authorities hod maintained in that House, and particularly on the oppo- site side, that the Commons House of Parliament was established, not to be a control on the people but a controul for the people, and on the exi cutive Administration of the day—( Hear, hear)—and so, al though they might have conic to a vote the other night which the Lord Chamberlain might be ignorant of, yet there were individuals in that House who could not plead ignorance, and those individuals were her Maj. sty's Ministers. What bad been the conduct of Ministers in regard to that resolution? If the Lord Chamberlain, in his own name, had written the letter which he was about to state he would not have corn plained, but the Lord Chamberlain directed his deputy to write a letter unasked for and unsolicited, to the Lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, stating that he had be( n . commanded to inform him that no performance hut Ora , torios would be sanctioned on Wednesdays and Fridajsi, He wanted to know what her Majesty's Ministers had to do with the officers of the Household? The conduct of Ministers on this occasion hat been most contemn.' tible, most disrespectful to this House, and it had also been most unjust and oppressive towards those individuals who were more immediately interested. He should) prove that her Majesty's Ministers had nothing to do with the Lord Chamberlain, and that the power which he now exercised was placed in his bands by the 10th George 11. Until that time another individual had charge of the public amusements ; he was called the " Abbot of Misrule," and it was thought necessary to transfer the power and invest it in the Lord Chamberlain. All the' Act required was, that any plays that should be performed within the city of West minster. should be submitted to the censor forty days previous to their acting ; and then it -- 'W'on to say, that on and after the 24th of June, 1737, it should be lawful for the Lord Chamberlain, from time to time, to prohibit the acting, performing, or represention of interlude, tragedy, &c., that he should think proper. No days were mentioned : it was a question entirely in the discretion of the Lord Ccharnberlain, who had as much right to stop the performances on Tuesdays and Saturdays as any, other day. He be lievrd it was not the Lord Chamberlain who thought fit to stop these performances ; in short, they had his letter to prove that it was her Majesty's Ministers.— (Hear, hear.) It was wrong to place the blame on the Lord Chamberlain—it was wrong to place it on the Bishop of London.—(A laugh.) He believed that if the Lord Chamberlain had been left to his own dis cretion he would not have interfered with the rational •amusements of the people of Westminster. He main tained that this interference on the part of Ministers was unconstitutional. They had no more right to in terfere with the Lord Chamberlain than with the Lord Chancellor or any of his judgments, or the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, or the Archbishop of Canterbury. They bad no tight to inter fere unconstitutionally with the aniuseinents of the peo ple as they bad attempted to do on the present occasion. The people had declared it expedient to discontinue this prohibition, and he should have thought that an Adminis tration calling itself Liberal, would have bowed to the de cision of those who were generally its supporters. The battle had been fairly fought and had been fairly won, and no former resolution of that House had ever been so treated. Had the Resolution been moved by a gentleman on the opposite side of this House, it would have been treated in a very different manner. He knew that when an humble individual like himself brought for ward, and what was more extraordinary, carried a motion, it was not to be expected that the Ministers would attend to it. H.d it been proposed and carried by any gentle man on the other side, her Majesty's Ministers would have been the first to succumb.—(Hear, hear.) Two Sessions ago, the Honourable Baronet opposite—(Sir E. Wilmott) unexpectedly carried a resolution respecting slavery ; that motion was carried by 98 to 95, his (Mr. Mr. D.'s) motion was carried by 94 to 74, being a majority of 20—a larger majority than her Majesty's Ministers could command upon any question. —(Cheers and laughter.) What was the course taken with respect to that resolution ? Why, 48,hours was not allowed to elapse before it was taken notice of by the Noble Lord who asked what steps were intended to be taken upon it. He (Mr. D.) had fairly offered to leave the whole matter in the bands of the Government, if he bad been assured it would meet with their favourable con sideration, but he had been treated with utter con tempt, and defied to bring on his motion.—( Hear, hear.) - The question had received the utmost consideration by a full house. Upwards of 100 Members were present at the discussion who re frained from voting ; 50 probably did not like to vote against the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke ; 50 on the other side did not like to vote against the Noble Lord, so that he might fairly say he hail their sympathies with him. Upon that occasion he had shown how Lent was kept by her Majesty's Ministers— he had shown how it had been kept by the Bishops—and had he been aware of the circumstance, he could have shown how Lent had been observed by the Duke of Sussex ; upon that occasion he found that the Noble Duke had a large party, and among those assembled he found no less than 59 Clergymen. Now, he wanted to know what the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought of that ?—(Hear, hear.) Why, he would ask, was the Noble Duke and hi s friends to enjoy themselves on that evening—(H ear ) —and the amusements at Drury-lane to be stopped ? —(Hear.) Far be it from him to wish to see the Bishops prevented from enjoying any ra ti ona l amuse ment; but when they did so he thought other parties were equally entitled to be looked upon with a favot;r• I able eye.—(Hear, hear.) The House must always " CNING Epr ' lO . recollect that the day on which these enter tainments took place was Wednesday in Lent. He hoped that the time was now arrived when the established religion of England stood upon a firmer basis than persecuting the poor players of Westminster . —(lltar, hear.) He knew not who supported bin , in the motion he was now about to bring forward, but he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had nsed every exertion in his power to further the interests of those whose interests he considered to have been over looked. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would state to the House what had occurred on the subject, and he would then leave it to the House to decide as it thought proper. Tee Hon. Member for Finsbury, in the beginning of the Session, had asked him whether it was the intention of the Legislature to take off the restrictions imposed upon theatres during Lent, pith respect to theatrical enter tainments, and his (Lord J. Russell's) answer was that there was no such intention—that her Majesty's Mini sters had not thought proper to advise her Majesty that the restrictions which had been enforced from time immemorial during Lent, should now be dispensed with. On reflection he saw no reason to think that that advice was improper, on the contrary they were of opinion that if the customs hitherto ob served of imposing restrictions upon these per formances should be relaxed by her presen t Majesty, many persons would be sincerely shocked at this decision, and many of those who voted for the Hon. Gentleman's resolution the other night would say that_ that was a proof that the present Ministers 01 the Crown were determined to advise her Ma jesty to pay less respect to those established observances of Lent than had been paid by former Sovereigns.—( Hear.) That he was persuaded wo uld , be the case. He was satisfied that if they had propose ( ' that innovation it would be considered wholly uncalled for and unnecessary, and done merely for the purpose of throwing a slur on what had previously been done. The Hon. Member had then proposed an address to the Crown, on which there was a division, 161 against it, and 72 for it. The Hon. Gentleman then brought forward the question in another shape, and proposed a resolution which had been read to the House. On tha t occasion there were .92 for it, and 72 against it. it, appeared that there were a much greater number or Members who voted against the proposition than those who voted in favour of it. If the Mem' bars that voted on either side were put together , it would appear that there Were 233 against the proposition, and 164 for it. Therefore, when that resolution was carried, he certainly had no reason to presume that that teas the deliberate opinion of the House o f Corn" mons. The H n. Gentleman referred to a question brought forward last year, with regard to negro appren ticeship in the West Indies. With regard to that question, in the first instance, there was a division agaiosat the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire , an then there was a division in favour of the Hon. Me n. tier for Warwickshire. Now, in that case, the firs t decision was not considered decisive of the sense of the House. He had no objection to inform Hon. Member s what had been done by her Majesty's Ministers on the. present occasion. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they had improperly interfered with the Lord Chall i c i berlain. In former cases it had been usual for the W A Chamberlain to consult the Secretary of State, and it 1111.° been done when an application was made by . .„ 14 , f * Rayner to open a new Theatre in Westminster. The Lord Chamberlain on that occasion said that he rould be glad to have the opinion of the Secretary of State 0° the subject. In fact, from time to time on v arious questions ,the Lord Chamberlain had consulted 00, and upon questions in a certain degree connected Wit h the police regulations of the metropolis—that praeti i e ° was by no means unconstitutional.—(Hear, hear.) the same way on the present occasion, when a resolution bad been come to by that House, the Lord Chamberlain had applied to him for advice and instructions. (Lord John Russell) had thought it right to consult his .colleagues, and they were of opinion that the resolutio n of the House of Commons, after an adverse decision the other way, was not decisive, and that the quest ° ought. to be further considered. In one of his letters Mr. Bunn stated that he had thought proper, on a reso lution of the House of Commons, to incur considerab le expense. Now, the House had come to a re solutio n t that negro apprenticeship should cease in 1838 , but what would be thought if parties in Demerara bad ac ted upon that resolution, setting aside the preroga:. tire of the Crown and the laws of the realm He must say, with all respect for the resolutions of the House of Commons, that he had as little notion of tb ° resolution of the House of Commons setting aside the Statute laws, and setting aside the prerogatives of th e Crown, as he had of its setting aside the succession t ° ,l the Crown of England.—(Cheers.) Then, with the lessee of Drury-lane. The lessee of Drury-Is n ' chose to advertise that there would be a performance °° the Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, owing to a re str lotion of the House of Commons. The Lord Chamber:, lain, having the sanction and concurrence of her Maies t l: Ministers in that respect, informed that lessee, tha t ' - 'f e the direction of her Majesty's Ministers that ,p er forrnan e , v i would not be sanctioned by the Lord Chamberlain, an he (Lord J. Russell) conceived th a t they were perfee tiy t justified in pursuing that course ; and be conceived ties if they had acted otherwise—if they had said that 8 re solution of th a t H ouse was a l toget h er sufficient to se ' aside the leas, that they would. not only h a ve be es ' creating a decision merely on a trifling case of that de . scriptien, but would have been establishing a Pre" cedeut that could have been inj ur i o us w it '' regard to the proceedings of Parliament—(Hear)--; and although Mr. Bunn, it appeared, held in conterePd the prerog a ti ves o f t h e C rown , an d gave no res p e ct a U r no regent t o th e aut h or i ty o f h er M a j esty, ye t, a noth e person co nnec t e d w i t h anot h er t h eatre, M r. M a cre' l l' had paid that respect, and had informed the Lord Ch i nt i ieherlain that h av i ng seen th at a d vert i sement , b e wis a ` t to submit in every respect to the Lord Chamberlain , ha s that he w ou ld b e g l a d to b e i n f orme d w h at cour se V l3 intended to be pursued upon this question.---( 14e3 ' hear.) Th e L or d Ch am b er l a i n , b y hi s (L or d J. Rus sell's) advice, informed Mr. Macready, that with re spect to the present observance of Lent, it was not 'tie tended to ma k e an y a l terat i on w h atever ,.b u t that O n e whole qu e sti on as regar d e d t h e theatres, would be ta ke into further consideration before the ensuing eased He would now state to the House what was the gene le intention of Mini s ter s on thi s su bj ec t. Th e H o noura b Gentleman by his resolution, had induced the Hous etr,c declare, th a t no greater res t r i ct i ons s h ou ld b e plaeeu ° t , the theatric a l en t er t a i men t s o f th e Cit y ' o f W e ,, s ot minster, than we r e pl ace d on th e m in 'i t 'll) parts of th e M e t ro p o li s . H e (L or d J. RaS Se : had on the former occasion explained the positl ° l • 9 in which theatr es i n o th er parts of . the Metr o ll were placed, and so f ar as they acted the regu lar t , drama, they were acting without any authority w b , a , ever ; their p er f ormances were a lt oge th er irregw ° , 6 It had been s h ow n i n an ac ti on i n th e C our t o f Ctrl efl e , 0 Bench that if an actor a tt em pt e d t o recover his ' 3.r ' o or if a manager endeavoured to make an actor perfore his contra c t, th ere was no p ower t o en f orce it, bee°, 5 ,j by the A c t of Parliament, managers were prohibit i ' et from having theatrical perform a n ces w ithi n t we nty of London in Lent on any oth er d a y s t h an Mondslij Thesdays, Thursdays, and S a t ur d ays ; an d that' s o, theatrical performances within twenty miles of Lonr l S o excepting the two Pate n t Th eatres , were ill eg al. I. ; t did not think that thi s was a s t a t e o f t hi ngs that oug ' t to continue. He did not see why persons in dists li s parts should not have theatrical performances jus t much as the inhabitants of the City of London 135 He had always been of opinion that good theatriols, entertainments were as innocent and as wholesollo mode of entertainment and recreation as ) could be, and that they ought to be permitted.—(H est They were of opinion that it would be proper to in tr , i , duce a clause that those Magistrates who have t' ir i power to give licenses for music and dancing sh o e have the like power as to theatrical entertainments . . 1 . did not say that the power would be vested in th ''' l l hands—that was matter of consideration—but h e ' t ( e) say that in Marylebone and Lambeth they ough t r e have the power of having good and respectable the cal performances, as well as in other parts of the Ille, t b r is polls. Then it would be a question in making ' th e change of the law, whether they should keep trP, 0 0 restrictions of Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. uP tiee that he had to say, that it would have been trin s e t in 's. wise and indiscreet on the part of her Majesty's I ‘:' o l ge teas, if they had proposed to begin by making a " 3 f ioo on this subject ; but when this came to be the VI oh n dispute, they must look to what wag the genet i 't servance of Lent in the metropolis—(Hear)—a° . tainly it must be admitted, whether they I°- at what took place in London'or in Sussex, they ° t ee see that persons most zealous with regard washy observances of religion, and a great part of the ri er themselves, no longer observed Lent in the same eatt n or d as at an early time after the Reformation.-- - O e ne ed Then he should say that the custom having been 0b,27-dif in this respect that the observance being ex trenia i li te re ferent—that as the clergy had no objection to w ri t ip or balls during that season—it was not esPed i rine' making a change on this subject to keep up the dr s ep e, tion with regard to Wednesdays and Fridays. ----( .; of hear.) The H o n. M em b er h a d ma d e t hi s a m ots t hey censure on her Majesty's Ministers for the cours e p ity had pursued. Now lie might have taken the oprs r " - .the upon the last resolution of proposing an Address til lo ve Crown, and then there would have necessarily hEr Ad been an answe r on the art of the Crown to the t dress.eeers. He mi e The Hon g . Gent n.Ghaevne oe tleman might have p taken a a 0 .6 0 0 '0 re The ° e t sar the obviou s courses, b ut he had not c h osen to taketunitY' —lie had ch osen rat h er to snap at the ePP °r sing which would give him the means of PS et ey's rete the eded practice. upo n t h a t reset to introduc e a Bill to charpig a vote of cen sure on the conduct of her itiAl o bis t Ministers.—(H ear , h ear. ) H e did not objec t a bet ter moving a vote of censure, but he thought b e ha / oast, reserve it for a graver case than the present.-ese„ries hear.) This was a question on one side of th? ,. _7 sl o of performers and the amusements of the P ublic' h a d on the ether of the decent observance of Ira ll ' eh must hitherto been established ; and opposing, as do, th .:. i7 :, 7 ;be proposal G s o a u i of. to a vot7 of censure, he th oug lea ! 1i..,..,,, question at some other time. -Z.