The Sun. — London, England, 1839-02-23 00:00:00

TEIE POOR-LAW BILL. General JOHNSON gave notice, that on Tuesday ne;;t ho would move for certain returns connected with the Po n..1,1w Bill—first, the number of union workhouses erceteci uudci• the New Poor-law Act, their cost, the sums of money which have been already bor rowed, and from what sources the rate of interest, the nature of the security given, the principal sums which had been repaid, and the law expenses attending such secu ri!ie3, with the amount of the sums annually levied under the denomination of the Poor-rates, and the amount of the sums paid fur the actual relief and maintenance of the poor in each Union—the amount of salaries, law expenses, and in die id ual charges, the expense of salaries and other charges of the Commissioners, with the names of the AssistantCom mii.s!oners, and the salaries and expellees incurred by each-- th , ; returns to commence from the passing of the Act up to ti►e Ist of January last, distinguishing each year. THE ARMY AND NAVY. Sir E. COD RI NGTO N said that on a former occasion when the Navy Estimates were before the House, a Com mission was appointed to examine into the condition of the officers of the Army and Navy. He found that inquiry did not extend below a certain rank, and wished a copy of the Commission should be laid before the House. Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the Gallant Admiral gave notice, he should have no objection to grant it. Sir E. CO D RINGTON then gave notice of a motion for Monday next. Mr. C. WOOD gave notice that, on Monday week, he would move the Navy Estimates. PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. FOX MAULE moved the Order of the Day, for the second reading of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill. Captain GORDON did not rise for the purpose of op posing the motion ; although there were many altera tions in, it, there were by no means any improvements upon the Bill of last Session.—( Hear.) All parties were agreed on the propriety and necessity of having good and sufficient prisons in all parts of Scotland. There were, however, several alterations in the Bill which he did not apprbve of, and he hoped the Honourable Gentleman would consent to have the Bill divided into two parts. Mr. F. MAULE had considered the proposition made by the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, but he did not think he could consent to it. The case of Scotland was totally different from that of England. In England the country gentlemen had devoted themselves to the state of the prisons, and had spared no expense in bringing these establishments to perfection. The system of Visiting Justices was one of the best that could be adopted, in order to place those prisons on a proper and correct footing. In Scotland they have done nothing of the kind ; they had a system which was con fessedly and notoriously a disgrace to that country. When th e H on. Gentleman said it was hard that Scotland should be mad e t h e scene of experiments with respect to ticsilent syst em , h e s h ould recollect that the Central cardin Scotland wou ld h ave a power of discretion, end that they would remain subject to the controul a the Secretary of State, which controul would be - - subject to the revision of that house. He con d not consent to divide the Bill into two parts. Mr. PRINGLE protested against the statements of the Hen. Member for Elgin, that the counties of Scotland had done nothing for the improvement of prisons, and that great strides had been made in England to effect that object. great sums had been laid out by the counties of Scotland, and all of them, more or less, had made great exertions. He would refer to the report of Mr. Hill, to show that large sums bad been laid out in the improvement of pri sons, and that the prisons were in good order.— (Hear ; hear, bear.) If the Honourable Member for Elgin would consent to divide his Bill into two parts, there was no doubt but that it would be carried through both Houses of Parliament, to the great satisfaction of Scotland ; and he wished to see this question settled at the earliest possible period.—( Divide, divide). Sir GEORGE CLERK was sorry that the Hon. Mem ber for Elgin was not disposed to adopt the suggestions that had been thrown out. He wished to see some impor tant improvements made in the state of the Scotch prisons, but be did not think the Hon. Member was warranted in stat ing that nothing had been done by the Justices of Scotland. By the former state of the law the whole expense of build ing prisons was thrown upon Municipal Corporations. He was ready to support that part of the Bill which made it compulsory on the country to contribute their fair propor tion of the expense of building prisons in Scotland. He thought however that it was unnecessary that the building of penitentiaries and large prisons should form any part of the Bill. The Noble Lord opposite had stated that it was the intention of the Government to call upon Parliament for a vote of money to erect penitentiaries in England, and if such a course was necessary for England he could not see why it should not ha adopted for Scotland. If such expel imenta were necessary they ought to be made at the public expense. Mr. F. MAULE said that the great object he had in view was to place persons who had to undergo a long sentence to gether. Mr HAWES said the object of the Right Honourable Bart. was to saddle on the general taxation of the country, the expense of erecting those prisons which the Scotch land-owners had fur so many years neglected to do— ( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.) He begged pardon. The object of this Bill, undoubtedly was, to erect certain prisons at the expense of the land-owners of Scotland; with the view of amending the system of prison discipline. This had been constantly opposed by Hen. Gentlemen opposite—(Cries of " No.") He recol lected then opposing this Bill last year, and he recollected that the great landowners threw out the Bill in the House of Lords. It was proposed by the Hon. Gentlemen near him, and advocated by many on the same side of the House, and the only opposition made was by Hon. Gentlemen op posite, on account of the little paltry assessment on their property."—( Cheers.) He wished it to go forth to the public, that the object sought was to assess Scotland to the amount of 30,000/ in one year, which would not be Id. in the pound, and on that account an opposition was made to one of the most useful measures ever brought forward.--( Cheers. ) The report of Mr. Hill had been referred to in order to show how much had been done for Scotland, but that report showed exactly the reverse, fur it stated that the different recommendations which had been given had been wholly neglected, and when this Bill was brought forward it was met with decided opposition by tic Hon. Gentlemen opposite, every delay was thrown in the way of the Bill, and when it got into the Lords how was it treated ? Did they meet the Bill on its merits? No. It was referred to a Select Committee, and there the whole inquiry was cushioned.—( Cheers.) The Report on the table of this Iluuse contained the most flagrant instances of injustice. The county of Aberdeen had been referred to as a kind of pattern county, but chat said the Inspector? The gaol was built in a very substat tial manner, but not with a view either to the employment or the separation of the prison ers. It was built in the middle of the town, and there were no means of inspecting the prisoners without their being cognizant of the fact. (An Hon. Member said it was not worse than Newgate.) He was not one of these who defended Newgate, for he had always denounced it as a dis grace to the Corporation of London, but he suspected it would be found to be an excellent prison compared with many of the Scotch prisons. In many of them every species of irregularity was carried on, and the prisoners could even communicate with persons outside the Ile hoped the Under- Secretary would press this Bill, and that the Scotch counties would be obliged to build and support their prisons.---( Hear, hear.) They were asked to do more than what was done in the English counties.— ( Cheers from the Opposition.) The present assessment in Scotland was far less than in the English counties. In many of the latter it was not less than 3d. or 4d. in the pound, whilst there it was not more than Id. He ear nestly hoped that the Under- Secretary would not be inti midated by the opposition which which was now offered, and that the country would perfectly understand that this was neither more nor less than a refusal on the part of the Scottish landowners to do that justice which had been done in every other part of the country.—( Cheers. ) Lord STORMONT thought the Hon. Member oppo site could not have paid any attention whatever to the Act; for if he had, he could not have been so totally ignorant of all its provisions. All parties were agreed as to the defec tive state of the prisons ; but there was nothing which the landowners wished so much for as a good and substantial system of prison discipline. The landed interests of Scot land were not opposed to the objects of this Bill, as far as the improvement of prison discipline went; but they were opposed to being charged with the expenses of experimental prisons. Mr. HAWE S said the Noble Lord could not have read the Bill, for there was nothing about building Peniten tiaries in it ; it only gave a general power to erect such prisons as might be necessary under a General Board. An HONOURABLE MEMBER. on the Opposition side of the House, said, that ahe landed gentlemen of Scotland considered it was injudicious that the general prison system and the local prisons—objects which were quite distance, and which would work better separately, should be united.—(Hear, hear.) The aspersions which had been cast upon the landed interests of Scotland on this subject were undeserved, The Bill which had been introduced last session on the question did not reach the Loris till August, and their Lordships felt that it was a Bill of too ranch importance, and requiring too much eon. sideration to be passed then. The Bill which was now be fere the House was varied from the Bill as it came from the Lords in several important respcot:-,and on all these points the Bill ought to be opposed in this House,. The LORD ADVOCATE said the provisions of the Bill had been misunderstood. The two objects which had been combined would be better carried into execution to gether than separately, and the union so far from increas ing would ditninieh expense. No imputation was attempted to be cast upnn the landed interests of Scotland on this subj, ct, nor was it to be denied that in s ome counties the prisons were in better order than in others. But it ,could not be denied but that in general the prisons of Scotland were in a most disgraceful state, and were the means of increasing rather than diminighing . crime. It ought not, however, to be argued from the increase of convictions that crime bad increased because the improvement in the law tended to increase the number of convictions. lint without casting any imputations upon one party or the other, let all Scotch Members join in a hearty endeavour to pass the Bill in as good a condition as possible, and to remove the national dizgrace with regard to the state of the Scotch prisons.—( Hear, bear.) Mr. PRINGLE said the increase of crime was proved by the assgreeatation of the number of indictments, and he was well aware that where in 1812 there were 12 indict ments, there were now upwards of 60. Mr. GILL ON said the objeetion to the Bill upon the score of expense came with a very bad grace from the country gentlemen of Scotland, who had so long enjoyed an immunity from this expenses of the criminal jurisdiction of the country, the greater portion of which, and all the most important cases,were carried on at the public expense. He was sorry that last Session a similar Bill had been opposed upon some paltry pretext with regard to the mode of laying on the assessment. The Conservative party had long suffered the abuses in Scotch prisons to go un remedied, and now that the Government made an attempt to remove those abuses, the Bill was met by every pea sible objection, and he was afraid it would meet eventually w ith the same fate in soother House as it had last Session. The Bill was then read a second time, as was also the Bankrupt' Estate (Scotland) Bill. The House basing resolved itself into a COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY, The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER moved a grant of 2,000,0001. for the Tr4nsfer of Aids Agreed to. AFFIRMATION BILL. Mr. HAWES moved a Committee on this Bill. Mr. G OULB URN then rose, and said he would sta'e the reasons which, in his opinion, ought to arrest the further progress of this Bill. If anything could have con firmed the bad opinion which he had entertained of It at the first reading, it was an observation which in the last debate respecting it had fallen from an Hon. Friend of his —that it was a Bill equally intended for the benefit of Members of the Established Church and Dissenters , -this observation clearly convinced him that the nature of the Bill was but imperfectly understood. He was aware it had become a fashionable doctrine, now-a-days, that oaths were altogether unnecessary in the administration of justice, and Ithat solemn affirmations might answer equally well, To that doctrine he was entirely opposed—but of all the means which bad been devised for carrying that doctrine into effect, none could be more objectionable than that proposed by this Bill, via., leaving it to every person to determine whether he would give his evidence on oath or not,-,- ( Hear, hear.) Such a measure was not only opposed to all precedent, but tended to derange the administration of justice, and to promote hyptocrisy and fraud.—( Hear, hear.) It was perfectly true that in fornieryeara the Le gislature had granted indulgence to Moravians, cauakees, and Separatists, and allowed them to take the affirmation instead of the oath ; but these were cases of known recog nized religious sects; and it would he easily known ormas . certained whether any person belonged to them or not. But thie Bill put it in the power of any person, upon ti.e pretext of a conscientious objection, whether truly or falsely, to e!aim the exemption:i and was not this opening the door to 11 . % oc:rise and fraud, when a n y person who thought he had an interest in his testimony being diseredifed might be allowed to give his evidence merely on affir. 'nation, and this tended neeeaorily to throw discredit on the administration of justice. No man eofild go into a Court of Justice without observing that public opieioe attached to false testimony on oath, a much higher degree of ogilarg than to a mere false affirmation. And this feeling ope rated equally on the minds of the witnesses. who would often make false statements upon affirmation, which they would not dare to do upon oath. Now let the House sup pose the case of trial in which it should be absolutely np, cesaary to call witnesses, some of whom might be Willing and others unwilling to give their testimony ; and let it be supposed that one individual had the strongest motives to discredit perhaps his own testimony, would not this Bill give him the greatest opportunities of doing so. For while one,-', individ ua l would have solemnly sworn before God to tell nothing but the truth, the other, the dishonest party, • Yrnght say, I -am entitled by law to make a verbal declaration ; and, being permitted to do so, hp might recklessly proceed, having no feeling of sacred obligation#, to overthrow the statements of other witnesses, and to con tradict his own. When the passions were inflamed against any individual, might not a malicious witness, under the i shelter of this Bill, make statements to injure the rights character, and property of another? Therefore, in the case of witnesses, this Bill would have the effect of encou raging the dishonest witnesses, and deprive even truth of its due weight when coming from the lips of a sincere per son. But this was not all. Were persons to he at liberty to have their option to swear or declare that they would administer justice between the parties coming before them ? Why the oath of a juror was the only security that the public had for the faithful discharge of his duties. It was the protection the innocent party unjustly accused had to look to; and it held cut to the guilty the consolation that he should be proceeded against with justice.—( Hear. ) Now this Bill would permit a juror to come into the box, and say that he had an ojection to an oath, and had made a declaration on a former occasion. The de claration would in this case be also admitted ; but what confidence would the person to be tried have on the con science of such a man, who might perhaps be known to the party chiefly interested as an unscrupulous characterl--- ( Hear, hear.) Some Hon. Members might have pecu liarly literal views about dispensing with oaths, But the general feeling of the public was that oaths were inva riably more binding than declarations, and it was clear that individuals whose life, property, and character were zt stake, would have more confidence in a tribunal bound by oath to do justice than in one made suspicious in conse quence of being bound only by the form of a declaration. True, the Bill said that a man telling a falsehood after making a declaration would be punishable as a perjurer. But if it should be found that one of a Jury had, after making a declaration, not acted honestly, was the verdict of the whole tribunal to be in consequence impugned, or were they to punish a man for perjury after the person he had condemned had been hanged ?—( Hear, hear.) There would be frequent contingencies under the Bill. It would render the proceedings of the law less efficacious, arid its result always doubted. The House were bound to consult no doubt the feelings of those who bad to submit to a tri bunal as well as of those who composed a tribenal.—e (Hear, hear.) And as an oath was generally considered to bind jurors stronger than a declaration there ought to be no choice left. It wee. said the B;11 was absolutely called for for the sake of freedom of con:ei?!lePr But the freedom of conscience was made by this Bill a question of three shillings and sixpence.—( Laughter.) The man who could pay three shillings and sixpence would have his con science respected, and his affirmation admitted; the poor man who could not raise the pence would have no rcspept paid towards his scruples.—( Hear, hear.) This distinction would indeed afford a roost dangerous privilege to those who could afford to pay for it.—(Cries of hear, hear,) The administration of justice would not in any way be ha proved by the penalty of perjury, which was imposed by the Bill for a false affirmation. How under the Bill was any one to be convicted of the crime? A person might go into any Court in Westminster Hall—into any Ceert of Quarter Sessions—nay, in any Session in any Borough in England, and register the fact that he had an objection to take an oath; be then goes to another, and distant part of the country, and claims the advantage of the Act. Who was there there to detect him Who was there to know whether he had ever registered or not. The Bill did ho more than make a new crime. If it was so bad in the case of witnesses, how much more objectionable when the Bill came into operation with respect to ju rors ? Suppose any one convicted before a Jury who had taken advantage of the Bill, bow was it in his power to tell or to find out whether all, or any of them, were not perjured under the Bill ? The remedy, in fact, was no remedy at all—the faults of the Bill remained unmitigated. If the House bad any re gard to the rights of property belonging to themselves or to any one of their fellow-suteeets, they would resolutely refute to pass the Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Ipswich the other evening, alluding to him, said he opposed the Bill from some indefinite fear of the Fsta. blished Churcls—he did not at all argue the question upon such a narrow ground, for he believed it would be equally dangerous to persons of property, whether Churchmen or Dissenters. If the members of the Established Church maee such a declaration, they could not be sincere in their profession, and they must be acting either ignorantly or fraudulently. Being a member of the Church, he had confessed that all vain and rash swearing was to be avoided, but a man might lawfully swear when the Magis trate required him, in a case of charity or truth. The Bill might be a snare to the weak Churchman. At all events he believed it would be a curse to the country, and therefore he would move that the Bill be committed that day six months —(Cheers.) Mr. HA W E S, before proceeding to remark upon the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, would like to be informed which of the Thirty-nine Articles he had been reading. The Right Hon. Gentleman took great objec tion to the Bill because it would interfere with the due administration of justice. But did not he know—the country knew—that a Bill similar in its principles had re ceived the sanction of the Chief Justice of England—it had also received the sanction of two or three Judges, and he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that there were many distinguished lawyers in that House who were pre parted to support its principle. Surely he might oppose such authority to that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who of course had no practical knowledge of the subject. He had not quite fairly stated the case as it stood at present, for now a Quaker, a Moravian, and a Separatist, might all make affirmation ; not only so, but aay person who has been a Quaker, or any one who was able to say that he belonged to the persuasion of the Quakers. That was the Legislation of the House of Commons, sanctioned by the House of Lords very recently. In place of the abun dance of declamation with which the Right Hon. Gentle man had favoured the House, would it not have been much better for him to have given one instance of the evil working of any one of the above exceptions? The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for the Oxford University, I said, upon the passing of that Bill, thee every one would call himself a Separatist, and the evils would be enormous. Now he had never heard any complaint that any one claiming the privilege were other than they professed. The Right Hon. Gentleman made his greatest objection to the fee imposed by the Bill. Now would he help him (Mr. H.) to strike out that clause entirely ?—(Cheers.) It had be en inserted for the purpose of pleasing the other side of the Woe; and lie was willing to improve the Bill by striking out that olatize. He hoped to have the support of all those who so loudly cheered the Right Hnn. Gentleman on this subject in getting rid of the objectionable clause, Could the Hon. Gentleman state a case which had occurred be fore him either asJudge or Juror, where Quakers or Mora. vians who had claimed the exercise of affirmation, had not been equally believed ? He asked him to give a ease where he had found an affirmation discred:ted, nor did he believe lie could show the course of justice had been impeded by using an affirmation instead of an oath ; but if the course of jus tice was likely to be impeded, the Hon. Gentle - man ought to introduce a Bill to repeal the indulgences already granted. The lion. Gentlemen could not assign a reason why a oonecientieus Churchman should not have the same privilege as a Quaker now enjoyed. guppQsa In the (nee of the murder which had lately occurred in Ireland it could be proved by one witness who declined to take an oath, was he not right in saying that he would be allowed to af firm, and would not the House soon have heard of some special 13111 to enable him to give evidence in orch. , .r that the murderer might be convicted? If a person conscientiously objected to take an oath be was shut out of all professions —the whole of that class were excluded from civil rights because the House chose not to relax the law in their favour, which they had relaxed in favour of others. He wished to call the attention of the House to some alterations which he proposed to make in the Dill in order to render it more unobjectionable. The principal alteration was in the 3d clause, and made it a positive misdemeanour for a per son to affirm falsely, which should render him liable to an imprisonment fur sie months. He wished to introduce another clause, that any person making such affirmation or declaration wilfully, might be convicted of perjury. lie hoped the House would see that this Bill did not deserve the character given to it by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and that it was nothing more than a pledge to carry out to others the same indulgence, which had beer, recently granted to certain sects.—( Hear, bear.) Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the - fallacy of the state ment of the Hon. Member for Lambeth was in supposing that a man capable of dishonesty would be equally capable of perury. He would appeal to any man wha had been in Court of Justice, whether there was not a reluctance to ;wear falsely. Swearing falsely was a crime, even in the judgment of the most profligate, essentially distinct from speaking falsely. lie did net pretend to measure the re lative guilt in the eight of God, but there was practically the greatest difference between that which men would speak and say, and that which they were called upon to swear. But this was not confined to the lower classes. He felt that whatever indulgence might be given to them, none could be claimed for educated men ; but in educated men, and even in those who had sat in this House, there was a great distinction in what they would state and what they would swear. He would mention an instance of one individual, who gave evidence In a Committoe - of this House, and in a Committee of the other, and when a distinction in the statements was observed, he said one was conversation, the other was an oath. That was in the case of an intelli gent and well-educated man, and happened oontinually. He could state on the authority of one of the most learned Judges in the country, what happened in his presence be fore he filled that high situation. It was in the ease of an appeal before the Commissioners of the Property -tee, many years ago. A gentleman stated that he had no return whatever to make—that he had no property. He was sub jected to much examination before the Commissioners, and his memory was assisted by reference to a mortgage. " Have you no rportgege ?" was asked. He said " No, none at all." He was then asked, f` drill yoii tale poet oath you have no mortgage ?" He said, " if it comes to that, I'll make a return." The return he made- was to the amount of 4,0001. a year. He mentioned theatre show that the dietinetion made between an oath and a declaration was found to bestrong ht the eaee of peregee of educetion i and if so case erery in those ama nwhowould were o seethandoe teitwe'retfaL (Ha moreeiri, hear.ke ryi3 be He regarded this as an attempt to do away with oaths altogether, for if eleie gilt passed, another year would not elapse before some sweepin,, measure woela he ieieeduepq to get rid of them. They bad now given greater Con pessions than had ever been given to men in any society. To the opinions ef bodies in respect o f oaths, there was no nation now existing which ipagigepe c e , eq ual t p th e se already on our statute-book had been conceded. 3414`p they prepared to go further than beyond the grounds et : sects and associations, and to give to the caprice of any individual the same indulgence? If not, they were utterly in_ consistent with themselves in Claitplpa liberty of conscience. He believed that civil society had never existed, lied never been kept together without some sanction of an oath. In some countries even a belief in the existence of a God had Peep roeietained by the observance of an oath. The pre sent. Pill would tend to weaken the great principle, that appeals tp God had been re ti e6giiised as nezes t ''y p a civil state of society. He urge the House to 'foibear adopting the principle oontained in this Bill• If this Dill were passed in two years' time they would be called on to pass a Bill to relieve the country from the intolerable burtheu of any oaths at all. He felt it necessary to oppose this Bill in the present stage, regretting that he had not had an oppqrtnnity of opposing it in that stage in which the pociOe could be toot I f eg4irtelv opposed. Mr. GIBSGN 'begged fee makd 1-eruarks en what had fallen from the Hon. Medi* for he University 'of team,*seidge z igdßthehtlloi. Gentleman Hon. i A-eemnbeerrarfenr (Mr. G 0 the University o lha d ventured to tak e up , w h en he suadlib° his , speech by attackin g u o r n n) f a ( N that he thought the Bit g to the protection to extend O f,, x vin fo e r r d. a position occasion conscientious s crup l es, they were as nlucli commence G ibst; : ) l ought ea of Members of th e E sta bli shed Church, eny other me m b er o f the community. The Right Hon. G entlemen had attack ed that position, to as if a Member of the Church c f England could not which, entitledfro t l as ' remain a Member of the Church, if he objected to an oath.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr Gibson) knew many Members of the Church who went to the Communion, who participated in the services, and who told him that they conscientiously believed the taking of an oath was inconsistent with their duty towards their God.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Geet. would not find one Bishop in the Church who would concur with him in the oeitii9tl th?,t: was essential for a me r e le:mate to adhere strictly to every article of the - tiherch of England.—( Cheers.) The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church had differed, and who was to be the infallible e epeunder of those articles ?—( Cheers.) Where there was this wide limit for tlie eerclse of conscientious scruples, it did appear to him to be monstrous that the Churchman should not have the same privilege extended to him that Was to iatliVidieela who belonged to other sects c teli ects l; of d the community. —( Hear, hear, hear.) With regard to what had fallen from the Hon, Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxfolel s , the truth. 140 eddeessed to this hi s w h o le argument appeared to t b o u o t at h h e s•a ( lt m og r. ct o he ib r . . Tha position, tueig t i h lt at h e s some persons tee di d n o 4o b a j d e Qq c al t l e tti i ztlin many oases a very But why was mode of strengthening s the conscience, by ;h0 aid of religii 3 ussaactioo to with est o h fic t i didntrimenoeodat Because s e o H f a e n enforcing t u h g h w t a a stand temptation, and not to deviate from the path of truth— but in order that an oath should have that effect it was es sential that the oath should be in accordance with the consci ence, for if .het oath was forced upon the conscienec-,if it was compulsou—it ceased to have that binding effect, and it added to the very hypocrisy which the Hon. Gentleman said would he the effect of this Bill.—( Cheers.) There was another position which the Hon. Baronet had main- With considerable fritlfless, bet be eeeily hardly think. it was a tenable position. He was astonished ' at the Right Hon. Baronet maintaining it, because it ap peared to him ( Mr. Gibson) that a man who would affirm falsely, but who would dread en oath s was inibeeeci.td tix siipCrstittoua, not a religio ß s ref,ling t and that there was no morality in it.—(Loud cheering.) They were bound as a Legislature not to take advantage of mere peenipiges ieflitences, If they endeayottred to repress con. scientious actions—to punish a roan for acting accordieg, to his conscience—that was, to send him to prison if he would not take an oath, when he believed taking an oath tees inconsistent with his duty towards God—they might be protecting eonselenee, Out would he doing a great evil. He had not heard one single argument alleged by the Right Hon. Gentlemen, the Members fur the Universitis of Cambridge and Oxford, that really shook the strong position which bad been taken up by the advocates for thia Bill, and he should give it his support.—(Loud cheers. ) Mr. O'CONN ELL would follow the Hon. Member for Ipswich with great reluctance, fearing that he should weaken the very admirable speech that had been just made. Hear.) He should not have risen at all, but that there was one view of the case, which the Hon. Gentlemen bad not taken up; it was this, that the Bill was intended not only to velieve the conscientious scruples of the witnesses, but was intended to give the benefit of the testimony of conscientious men to the party litigant.._( Hear, hear. ) It was not solely for the benefit of the Quaker that he was allowed, but it was fur the benefit of the party who might be injured if the Quaker did not depose. It was for the benefit of the public, of the prosecutor, and of the pri soner, and he had seen cases in the course of his profession which would illustrate what he was contending foe. Thirty years ago, in the city of Cork, an attorney's clerk was indicted for forgery. His defence was that he was author ised to put the name to the paper. He ( Mr. O'Connell) was his Counsel, and had produced a respectable Quaker, of the firm of Harvey, Gibbs, and Harvey, to prove facts from which the Jury might infer authority. That respectable gentleman came forwind, but refused to take the oath, and the man was convicted. The Quaker gentleman went the next day before Mr. Justice ll.iy, who tried the cause, and there made an affirmation to the facts out of Court which saved the plan's life, but which would have ac quitted him had that evidence been given in Court. There was another case in which he was counsel, and which related to a literary gentleman who had since ac quired considerable property. He would not give the name publicly, but would mention it to any one in pri vate. That gentleman was indicted for a horrible crime imputed to him by a female. At the time at which it was stated he committed the crime imputed to him, he was dining in his own house with a Quaker gentleman. The Quaker was produced, he violated his conscience, took the oath, and proved the facts. He said the honour and character of the gentleman were at stake, and he would take the oath. The gentleman was honourably acquitted, prosecuted the prosecutrix, and then produced the Quaker to sustain his case, but the Quaker refused to take the oath the second time. He said he had on the former day chosen the lesser evil for the greater, but he would not do it again.---( Hear, hear, from Mr. Goulburn.) There was a cheer.—( Laughter.) Why, In consequence of that, one of the most abominable perjurers that ever existed, was acqui• ted.—(Cries of "Hear, hear," from Mr. Goulburn.) " tlear, hear I" That was to avoid hypocrisy, and the individual Quaker who was called, only sacrificed his scruples in order to clear the character and save the life of a young man. Was that a situation in which any man ought to be placed? This Bill was a step, therefore, towards showing respect for c onsc i ent i ous f ee l_ ings, and he must say, that the Bill was opposed by those who opposed every step towards the progress of religious freedom—(Cheers)—and upon what grounds? Why upon the sanctity of an oath. Was it possible that Gentlemen could forget, that in our Courts of Jus tice there was only a particular class of witnesses, for whom they had the sanctity of an oath. A Chinese was examined before one of the Recorders in Ireland, a few years back, and he broke a saucer; whereupon he went on and gave his testimony. Well, in that case they had the sanctity of breaking a saucer.—( A laugh.) The Mahommedan was sworn in his own peculiar fashion ; the Jew was aworn on the ancient Testament; the Quaker was not sworn at all ; and the talk of an oath being neces, sary to sustain social order and civilised society, app eare d to him to be the strangest thing that could be imagin e d.— ( Hear, hear.) Then they were told by the Hon. B a ro ne t that no society was ever formed without oaths bei ng sanctioned. Did the Hon. Baronet ever he of pennsil e vania, where there was 4 moral people wbo would not allow an oath to be taken by any body ? The Hon. Baronet had really been making calculation, he had been making a kind of barometer of immorality—he had almost said rascality. The Hon. Baronet had Said there were some man who told lies who would riot take an oath. What an admirable class of persons they were to convince a Jury. Then he said there were a set of persons who affirmed anything, but would not swear—what an Q4col - ground was that for refeeing to legislate on the sub, jest l But this bed been put so well by the lion. Member for Ipswich, that he would not pursue it further. They had been told by the Hon. Member f or C am b r id ge that public sentiment went so far that it made p eo pl e a bid e Hear.) N ow h e cou ld name ono o f t h e assemblies in the w or ld, i n w hi c h t h ere were men Hear)--in the that table, u a b s i s e e , m e b v l y e r , wheny person i ta mein- gbm by eri; t sah h tt e ez i as r tnnl o ac e t t i ot h on s —( of property and station--the chosen reprei-entivives of a calcu lated be sworn at not upon the oath taken, but what party they were for.—( Cheers.) The word that passed then was, not that they were sworn so-and-so, but that there was 7 to 4 (Continued cheering.) 1:C: was a mockery, therefore, to talk of the sanctity of ait oath. An oath taken in the man ner he had adverted to ins: eased mischief. —(Cheers. ) What weight, he would ask, could be attached to the statements of any man that had taken such an oath ? Hear.) In his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion no mischief could possibly arise to society by the present bill ; it would relieve many who had conscientious scruples, and if it should ultimately lead to the total abolition of oaths, it would be a consummation devoutly to be wished, for there week] then be a greater reverence of the name of the eternal God.—( Hear, hoar,) If there did now exist a difference between an assertion and an oath, it was a false morality that had introduced it. The present Bill was an additional step in the progress of freedom of conscience and the trihunal that was constituted would decide upon tha -weight of the testimony of the party giving it, Had there any mischief, be would ask, arisen from contrasting the affirmation of the Quaker with the oath of the Christian ? They had been told by Holy Writ—" Swear not at all." Those whp construed that test as hp did, and as the Hon. Bart. did, felt it right to take the oath, but there wore others that construed it differently, and who considered that it was to be construed according to the words, and to be so acted upon. Were such a class, ae would ask, not to be re spected, and their conscientious scruples entertained in that House? The object of the Bill was to give their testimony effect without an Oath; and believing that such an object would lee attended with the best results , he should give his cordial support to the measure. Mr. LAW said that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had particularly called upon Win to state whether he had wit nessed any diftrence between an affirmation and on oath in a Court of Justice. He had not come down with any particular case, but he begged to offer to the Hon. Member and to the House the experience of more than twent y y ears in different Courts of Justice, both fo r the administration of ordinary and the criminal law. He cou ld safel y sa y that up t o n .lth at the safety of the t t te pr e e o e u e n n ty t r hoe m r a t i h n a ly t t d r t ib, p r u depended—that wbieh the blyrtieS of is tothe ' liberty of the country depended—be alluded juries hour the Juries of of the country—up to the present country depended—upon which the property, life, and England had preserved the greatest respect and vPnera 7 fioti for an oath. and had acted unda its inftuerice.--- ( Hear, hear.) He was quite satisfied that whatever de sire of popularity might influence those out of the House to support such a measure as the present, he was sure that lac!lnd the feclinqs (If these i , lo g a Z in s is e t n e s; of the ectiu , siie country, vi; b 4 opp?opposedto {lie present Bill. He had been perpetually reminded by Juries iu , l oci menifeeted a disineli t. ltesp ? on coming into the box, II the administraticin matters of difficulty and a a tt p e a n r d ti a e n u t l particular upon 1414 to ollserye the formalities. which justice was ad taking au oath. He had a lways found, too, that of "a f t e ll ; :1 1g e t a h wa tg s u t o i t le pr W epo til re e d 4*e to s and to the Jury, was always attended with the best effects, what value could be and such being the case, he, which he would shrink diminish those eanctioris under ministered. It had been said, o h n e tc vv a tt ry s upon his at tached to the evidence of the man who had ventured to state that, when he was not sworn, from when he was? Now he had known several instances Oath', although hi. ; had u g en:e re Of where a witness bad bex i e t ; d e Befiree— be had kno wn many instan is ce n : e i r v e h s e t if 3 y u e p t o t n e h i e n i n n minded, he had admitted that what he had stated was false. Revery day his experience convinced him that, how. e mi a l t e li d t t h h le at e ever painful it might be to extract testimoir. Which -;" b; • t r ' n l a party -e•e Ler eostite to an oath was such, that parties, when hound by it, , unhesitatinglyl- •e would gave @visienq aga-l?st themselves, which t ot h ave dotes, had it had not been for the. oath. his opinionthe exce tio ~ • In p n from oaths bad ..ental principles mat was not the case with me Church of England, and therefore it could not be said that they were about to extend to the members of the Church of England the same privilege as they would confer on other bodies., What was done in the case of the Separatist? They exempted Elm from the obligation of taking an oath, but on what grounds? They required from him this declaration—" In the presence of Almighty God I solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm and declare that 1 am a member of the sect called Sepa- curred. The lion. and Learned Member also presented a petition from an individual, complaining of the hardship to which grocers are subjected by the licensing system. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented a petition from a place it the county of Math, complaining of the present tithe s) stem. Mr. R. STUART presented petitions from Jelburgh and other places, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. FACTORIES. Lord ASHLEY begged to ask the Hon. Member (the Under Secretary for the Home Department) whether it was his intention to move the second reading of the Facto ries Bill on Monday next. Mr. F. MAPLE believed his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had a motion which stood first for Monday (the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill), and which he apprehended would create considerable discussion. Should it not be over before ten o'clock at night, he should not proceed with the Factory Bill that evening. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES. Mr, GOULBURN begged to ask that Hen. Gentle man whether the Registration Bill for Births, Deaths, aid Marriages would come on that evening. Mr. F. M At" LE replied in the negative. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next. Mr. SHAW wished to ask the Noble Lord, the Secre tary fur Ireland, when the Prisoners' returns, and what were called the Clerk of the Crown and Peace returns for Ireland, would be laid on the table? By the 7th of George IV. such returns ought to be made to the Secretary's-office in the first fourteen days of Janu ary, and according to the Act the Noble Lord ought to have laid them on the table of the House before the 24th of February. Lord M 0 RPETH bad not as yet received the returns. He believed they were with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but he would make inquiries. HUSH RAILWAYS. Mr. BARRON inquired if it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure this year founded on the Report of the Irish Railway Commissioners. Lord MORPET II said that he had already given no. tice that be should bring that subject before the House. INSULT TO THE ENGLISH FLAG. Lord INGESTRE said he had seen a report of what bad fallen from the Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty in another place. In consequence of that speech, he wished to put a question to the Secre tary of the Admiralty. He wished to know if there would be any objection to produce the corres pondence which had taken place between the Lieute nant come finding the Express packet, and Commodore Douglfts, our commander on the coast of Mexico. He ax,erved that the Noble Lord at the head of the Admi- rally had not given a very precise answer to the qucs i von.—(Hear, hear.) As the question was one of much importance, he trusted there would be no objec t tion to the production of the correspondence asked for. Mr. C. WOOD—The only Ajection to the production 1 of that correspondence was, that none such existed, so that no information could be given upon the subject. He had brought C,0..%0 the only material document on the question, which was an extract from the only letter the Ad• I toiraltv had received upon the subject. It was perf.2ctly true that a man had been taken out of I the Express plcket, whether as a pilot or not, did not ap -1 pear, but he had been taken away in the roost unjustifiable 1 manner by a vessel commanded by the Prince de Joinrille. i—( Hear, hear.) The extract he held in his h and wa; the only information upon the subject which the ; Admindty had )et received. It was a letter addressed t to the Board by Commodore Douglas. After speaking of i ether things, the Gallant Commodore went on to say i •‘ I have also to add that I have received a satisfactory explanation front the Rear- Admiral Baudin of the un ,itetifiable attack upon the Express packet, which was en ; tirely a mistake on the part of the Prince de Jonville. The Rear. Admiral also says that be has informed his G,Nernment of what he has done." If the Commodore was satisfied with the explanation, unless the Government received further information—if the Gallant Commodore rids satisfied that the honour of the British Flag had not bet , ' tarnished, then the Government would be contented to let the case rest as it was. Ia consequence of the re , ceipt of that letter from the Commodore the remonstrance to 0:e French Government was postpone:l. Lord INGESTRE should like to know what cones , p , mdence existed on the subject. ► Mr. WOOD—The Noble Lord had asked for the car , respndence between the Lieutenant commanding the vat bet and the commander of the Corvette on this subject, Lord INGESTRE—Is there any correspondence be t,: the Admirals on this subject. More ample satisfaction should be required where so great an insult had been coin ' tui%eA against cur flag. lie should also like to know whether at the time of the commission of this outrage any ship of war belon g ing to her Majesty was on the station or not. lie i should likewiie wish to know whether the pilot, who had been the subject of this great act of cruelty, had been sof fered to return by the French Government. He under ' stood the circumstances of the case to be these that the \packet wa s waiting fur the mail; that the pilot was on board for the purpose of removing the ship from St. Juan d'Ulloa, on account of the approaching bombardment; that be was taken from the packet, and transhipped on board the French squadron. If these facts were true, it only made the case more strong and I oppressive. It was a case, it was perfectly clear, that ! demanded satisfaction.—(Hear, hear.) if he had not bees pretty sure that the answer would have been perfectly satis i,factory,aeop e lLe te slr t u o ld th trt pr h e l u ve di a e s e k o e f d t t e e ii c l i d u i e v s i t a i u o a n is a c s on it ee m rn ib e rh ei t (The Noble Lord was apparently about to enter more at detail into the subject, when be was interrupted by the i ‘ Speaker.) .I,lr. WOOD stated that he had not received any letter addressed by the Commander of the packet to the French iCommander. There was a ship of war present at the time. . With regard to the pilot, he was unable to answer the 1 question of the Noble Lord, as he had received no information as to what had happened with regard to the pilot. The only information the Government possessed 1 on the subject, was this letter from Commodore Douglas. ' which he had read. He had stated to the House every ' word of information that the Government possessed on this subject, but he expected that by the next arrivals 1 from the West Indies they would receive fuller information. 1 Sir E. C ODRINGTON said a few words, which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. MACLEAN wished to know from the Secretary of the Admiralty whether there would be any objection to a return of the different Lieutenants appointed to the office of Commanders ? I 1 Mr. WOOD was vory much mistaken if there was not a return, up to the end of the year 1836, of the pvrsens appointed to the rank of Commander. He believed return had been laid before the House upon the motion of the Hon. iVlember for Kilkenny. Mr. PLUMPTRE wished to know whether it was the intention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to bring for ward the estimates on an early day, as there appeared to be a growing anxiety with respect to that body, in consequence of the reports that had got abroad. Mr. C. WOOD said that nobody was more anxious than he was to bring forward the Navy Estimates for the purpose of putting an end to the absurd opinions that bad gone abroad in consequence of the repeated mis-statements which had been circulated with so much industry upon the subject.—( Hear, hear.) SCOTCH JUDGES. _ _ Mr. WALLACE gave notice that on the aecond r.2ad • ing of the Supreme Courts (Scotland) Bill, it was his in tention to move a resolution to the effect, that it was the opinion of the House that previous to the salaries of the Judges being increased it was necessary that ,an inquiry should be made into their judicial duties. He sitould also upon that occasion move that the Bill should be read a aecond time that day six months. BEER. SHOPS. Lord DUNGANNON gave notice of his intention to move for returns relative to Beer Shops in Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, similar to those moved for by the lion. Member for Kilkenny last night. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the Government would be happy to communicate with 11,,n. - Members on both sides of the House upon this sub- CO, as they were anxious to obtain all the information in l..te power. -s \~ • EVENING EDITION,-FEBRUARY 23, 1839 THE SUN, LONDON, SATITRDA:VS- been Carried too far, with respect to those who had what he would call elastic consciences —(Great cheering) —and who professed a disinclination to submit themse'ives to an oath in courts of justice. Such being the case, was the House by its measures to attempt to persuade men to feel conscientious scruples ?—( Hear, hear.) Was the House to say to them they were men of no great re ligious scruples, but could they not find ou t somet hi ng or oter which they felt disinclined to swear to ? If the House introduced Bills to meet cases like that, they might find ragged recruits among those whose statements were not to be believed upon oath ; but they might depend upon it they would not meet with support from the respectable Hart of the community.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He (Mr. L.) did not believe that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had the feelings of the conscientious part of the community in his favour.--( Hear, hear.) Honest men in this country did not desire such ease to their consciences, _._( Hear, hear.) There had been too many of such 6 ' liberal" measures—( Hear from the Liberal Members)_. miscalled liberal—which were more mischievous.—(hoar, from the Opposition.) This measure would change the whole system upon which the administration of justice had hitherto proceeded. So far from saying it was a matter of hypocrisy to act under the obligation of an oath in a Court of Justice, he (Mr. L.) considered that all the solemnity of an oath was barely sufficient to carry out the objet of public justice.—( Hear. ) An experience of more than twenty years convinced him that the impression on the minds of honest and intelligent Juries, derived from the middling classes of society, was not affected by these liberal sentiments of irreligion. They did not desire such a measure as this. He was per suaded that Juries would attach upon questions of life, of property, or what was more valuable than all, of repute tion--that jueies would attach much more credit to testi mony given on oath than to evidence given without that obligation.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He could not but think, however, that these scruples had been carried quite fay enough already. Th e Q ua k er had long been considered, and justly, as a rare exception to the rule, for their objection to taking the oath was in fact the key of their creed; but the indulgence which had been extended to the Quakers bed been carried rather too far in regard to ether :wets, and this Bill, in fact, extended it to cases in which no real objection existed.—( Hear, hear.) He should be dishonest in the discharge of those judicial du. ies which he was called upon to flelfil elsewhere, if he did not declare his eonviction that this Bill would erelersoine the foundations of society, by injuring the ad ministration of justice—(Cheers from the Oeposition)— and he was satisfied he was speaking the language of the enlightened, of the educated, and of the conscientious middle clqeses in this country, when he affirmed thet this Bill was as much opposed to their feelings as to honesty_ that it was in fact a measure of entire miechief.—( Cheere.) Dr. LUSHINGTON said he had listened to the speech pf the Hop. and Learned Recorder with very great regret. ...4 Hear, hear, from the Liberal Members.) It was not in that manner that measures affecting the consciences of large classes of her Mai+ sty'e subjects ought to be dis cussed —( Hear.) And this was the first time in his poli tical experience that he had hoard the Quakers, the Mora vians, and the Separatists, spoken of as persons of elastic consciences.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Liberal Members.) Those sects might be mistaken in their theological opinions, but, in their moral conduct—in their obedience to every obligation, to honesty and good faith, they were moat exemplary—( Hear, hear)_ and when it was attributed to them by the Honourable and Learned Recorder that they were persons of elastic con sciences—which meant a disregard of sacred obligations— which meant not being bound by moral duties and opinions of right or wrong—he ( Dr. L.), knowing their sacrifices-- knowing their sufferings—knowing their long endurance -for t one ience-sake, was bound to appeal to the House, and to the country, whether the statement of the Hon. and Learned R: corder was not calumnious ?—( Loud Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Now with regard to the question before the House. How stood the law at present ? A person refuses to take the oath. Wnat is to be done? Commit him. For what ? For taking a conscientioes scruple, which various Acts of Parliament had decided to be just and laudable in other classes of persons—for scruples which might indeed be erro neous, but which he (Dr. L.) would not decide upon, as lie would not, like the Hon. and Learned Recorder, whom he could not accuse of tolerance—( Hear, hear)—make himself a judge over the consciences of others.—(Cheers.) Well, the party was ject was to procure his evidence in a Court of Justice, and it was altogether frustrated by his refusal to take the oath. But, supposing that after having been committed, the person was to come back and express his willingness to take the oath, what would be thought of the conscienti, , usness of a p erson w ho fi rs t came into Court saying that he had a c onsc i en ti ous ob jection to take the oath, and shortly after s aid, " nere is such wonderful yirtue in the authority of th e tip-stuff, that now I am willing to take the o a th. "---(H ear2 h ear.) ( W H h e y a rs,uhcheaar.p)ers Even onssamtldthbee present the t,ll c o l, might duresse ta — ke % li p l e i rt e n r the oath in what form he liked i and he (Dr. Lushington) re membered an instance of a person of the Methodist persuasion, who required In take the oath upon the Old Testament only, and was allowed to do iio,---( Hear, hear.) And at the Queen's trial, when the question as to the form of taking the oath was mooted, Lord Tenterden said that a witness might be sworn in the manner most binding on his own conscience, and that it was impossible ts., eo further.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But the Nellie add Learned Lord added one further observa tion which had struck him (Dr. L.) very forcibly at the time, and had made a deep impression upoil thoesands since —that 1 when a man was sworn , h, whate - *4 form he imprecated Divine vengeance on his head. To. was felt so strongly in Scotland, I that about NIT keen years ago when the form of the oath was that the person knelt down and taking the Bible in his hands prayed God that if he swore falsely, all the curses in that Book I mi g ht fall upon him—,it was represented to the then Lord-Ad \vocate, and he declared that h e t h oug ht t h e o bj ections reasonable, and altered the form.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) It would be the grossest impolicy, and the most perfea injus thee, to suppose that they might not remain good members of lie Church of England, be..ause they dissented from some of their articles.--( Hear, hear.) A more dangerous doctrine never could be promulgated respecting the Church of England, than that Steffy men who partook in her communion—that ' every ffia,n who professed her doctrine, becau se h e did not not happen to coincide in one opinion, ought to be excluded from the pale of that Church ; it would, ill his opinion, go in direct violation of the epieiod of all the most celebrated divines since the time of the Refoi mation. —( Hear, hear.) The palicy of the Church of England was not to thrust out of her pale individuals who conformed to all her main points ; but allowances ought to be made for th se i differences which constantly would occur among honest and enlightened minds.—( Cheers.) There were persons not. I belonging to those sects who seriously suffered from their con , scientious feelings. He would give one instance, that of a gentleman residing in one of the midland counties, who, Lavine lost hie siter, because entitled to 4,04/. He, however, would pot take the oath, and paid the debts out of his own nocket, and the property went to decay. There would be such eases, and was no remedy to be offered ? Independently of the ques tion of the jurors' obligation, to take an oath in fulfilling many of the offices cif lift, waa a great and serious objection. It was i gated that jurors had a conscientious regard for oaths, oe in I other words. that they gave conscientious verdicts according to their belief ; but then it did not follow that a change in this respect would prevent them from being honest men .— , (Loud cheers,) He was aware that in the administration 1 pf illative they frequently met with an utter disregard to truth. But he further believed that the mai n - s t ay w i t h respect to the i lower class of witnesses was not so much the oath they took, as the tear of the consequences if they were proved guilty of being forsworn.—( Cheers. ) Mr, SHAW would shortly state his reasons for voting aga i nst t h e Bill. With respect to Juries, in cases of doubtful evidence they would be disposed to lean to that party whose evidence had been given upon oath against that party whose evidence had been given without that sanction. He had heard Jurors express great objections to persons who had not taken an oath. Suppose the Hon. and Learned Gentleman oppo site to be engaged as counsel in a cause, and that he had to cross-examine a witness, and it was put to him whetherhe would have the witness sworn, or let him give evidence on his bare assertion, how would lie act? lie (Mr. S.) had no doubt. that, looking to:mankind in general, and particularly to the Irish people, he would say, let him be sworn by all means.— (Hear, hear,) Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that evidence might be lost because they could not constrain a person to take an oath ; but the question was., were they to endure that rather than submit to a greater evil ?—(Cheers.) They could not meet every possible conscientious objection. Then it was said let every person be sworn according to the form most binding on his conscience. To that he agreen, but the question was not about the form of the oath but whether it should be dis pensed with altogether. There might be a few who had these conscientious scruples which cases might be met by such legis lation, but it was of the abuse of such a law that he was appre sive • and if they were to legislate to meet these scruples, they would open a door to more unscrupulous persons.—(Cheers.) Lord MORPETH said it must be admitted that it would be desirable to relieve cpnscientious scruples, and prevent the pos sibility of such a striking and affecting case as that which had been mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Member near him (Dr. Lushington). The question was whether there were stronger countervailing objections on the other side. He, so far agreed with the opponents of the Bill as to admit that there were cases in which the dishonest would shrink from per jury', but could they not attach to the snaking a false affirmation the same penalty ?—( Hear, heart He He did not see that the statement made by the Learned Recorder, re speeting the observation of juries, that certain witnesses had not taken an oath, was much in point. They naturally observed upon a positive injunction of -the law not being attended to. 'I he same observation would apply, in not making a solemn affirmation, as it did now in not taking a, s'llOrcite Oath. Then they had the additional seceeity which was provided by the pre liminary formal assurance which the person was to -give of his eouseientious repugnance to take an oath, and it would turn out that such a formal assurance would net be given by any persons whose general conduct and known opinions did not correspond.—( Hear, hear. ) g o was not prepared to say that some of the details rnig,ht not require modification, and tile sehele e ei SM 0 Ow M could ' not be co n _ tetnplitted without wee slight miegivings.--4 Cheers from the Opposition.) Bilt when a discussion was raised on the prig: ciple of the Bill, he felt constrained to-give his vote in a way in which it would afford ease to consciences, which it might suit the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite to call elastic, but which he (Lord M.) contemplated iii a far different light, as excercised, whether hy Quakers, Moravians, or Sepa ratiqs, er qiii orris else, who attached a more literal meaning tdan he did to a positive precept of the New Testament. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, though he might come to a very different conclusion from that of the Noble Lord, yet he could not come to it without the same misgivings and tsoulats which, the Noble ; l ord expel - jeered, b u t lie was bound to decide be tel-een the eeinffictinig advantages and dangers if this measure. anti he ?op.(' the balance to be against the further progress of the Bill,---(Chepr4.) He thought his Hon. and Learned Feiend had been misunderstood when it was supposed he had applied the term elastic conscience to the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists.—( Hear, hear.) If he were correctly under stood he (Sir ii, Peel) mtilit disclaim all participation in that remark,-(Chesirs.) So. far as h e h a d any connection with there, either in a public or private capacity, he never found men more disposed to act upon the principles of Christian and moral oblinticin than the biasses to which his Hon. Friend had alluded.—(Loud cheers.) But it had been assumed in the course of the debate that they were about to place the mem bers of the Church of England on precisely the same footing as the classes referred to. He contended they were not going to place the members of the Church of ;gland ell the same footing. Thp, rres4rupti4is • -, ; , ral. that au individual who be forigeif to the sect either of the Quakers, Separatist ! , or Mee- Wens, belonged to a sect, one of whose fundee-- was an objection to an oath : -wee ' the members e` ratiits, and that the taking of any oath is contrary to my reli igious belief." Did it stop there? No. The words were superadded—" as well as essentially opposed to the tenets of that sect." They would not require that from a Member of the Church of England, and therefore this Bill was not placing the Members of the Church of England on the same footing as the sects whose religious principles were fundamentally op posed to it.—(Cheers.) His (Sir R. Peel's) chief objection to the Bill was this, that they could not stand on the founda tion they were building. A great part of the argument against the existing system was founded on this, that there was no difference between the obligation of an assertion and the obligation of an oath. Why, then, did they require a solemn affirmation ?—( Cheers.) What did they mean by a solemn affirmation ? Did they mean to superadd a religious sanction to an assertion? If they did not, where was the distinction? What was the nature of the religious sanction which they sought to apply to the word solemn ? Suppose, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, there should be a party who, referring to the Word of God, found a prohibition against swearing at all—why not respect that man? Why should you visit him with punishment because he acted according to his conscience? Suppose another man said, I find also in Scrip ture an injunction that my conv ersa ti on s h a ll b e " Yea, yea, nay, nay,: and that is all the declaration I shall make, and you object to it as the condition of relieving me from an oath, while in the word solemn" you imply a distinction between the asser tions I am to make in Court and those I am to make in ordinary transactions, I think you ought not to draw a distinction between degrees of veracity and credibility, and you ought not, by the use of the words " solemn affirmation," to make it appear more binding than the bare assertion of a man. I clam, therefore, to be relieved from your solemn affiesnation. I ask you to trust to my word—to permit me to quote the text which I think favours my construction. What would they do with that man ? They would say his religious.. scruples were without foundation.—( Cheers. ) If they passed this Bill they could not stop short of an enactment to this effect, that no man should be bound to make an oath, but that every man should give his evidence in a Court of Justice, or perform the func tions of a Juror, exactly upon that sanction, which, according to his preconceived opoinion, he might think best. The Hon. Gentleman said they would take his security by a preliminary declaration, but that would be no security against scruples and they must come to this, that no man should make any de claration whatever. To push this argument to its natural con sequence, every Juror who hail to pronounce npon the life of another must be released from all religious sanction.— ( Hear, hear.) Balancing the advantages, limited in extent, with the enormous evils which would flow from the con sequences of this Bill he must give his vote against it. Mr. LAW explained that it was net his intention to direct the expression which had been remarked upon, against either the Quakers, Aleravians, or Separatists. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could not complain of the tone in which the Right Honourable Baronet had discussed this question, for he had stated it to be a question of the balance of convenience and inconvenience, of which he conceived the inconvenience to pre ponderate. It, order to arrive at that conclusion the House must consider that he was driven to the necessity of pushing the question to the extreme—a limit which he, the Solicitor- General, did not shrink from putting to the test. He was ready to admit, if in the progress of society that there should be cla-ses of persons who had a conscientious scruple in saying— " I solemnly affirm so and so," exactly the same principle which induced him now to say he would not put the indi vidual to his oath would lead him to say he would not put him to his affirmation.—( Cheers from the Opposition, and counter cheers from the Ministerial benches,) He sup posed Hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheered meant to say that was absurd, but he saw nothing absurd in it. Why require an oath at all ? Some people said it was the only test of the truth of what a party had to say. Let him call the attention of the House to one circumstance connected with this case, which would throw a great doubt on their sincerity who trusted so much to an oath. It frequently happened that a witness had stated something which he afterwards deemed on oath. If this importance of an oath had any weight, they ought to say, Never mind, he only said it when not under the sanction of an oath; yet everybody knew the case was established against hlm when they could get him to contradict an oath what he had previously stated. Of what value then was the oath in this ease ? It was not the oath that gave the sanction, but the solemnity of the mannei in which it was administered, and the circumstances under which it was taken. He would -sk whether the present alteration was novel ? Certainly not. lion. Gentlemen must be aware of the great alteration that vas made in 1829, when a declaration was substituted for en oath on taking office. He did not think the House would gain much by saying that exemption should be given to Quakers, Moravians, and Sepa ratists, but not to individuals of other denominations. He thought the ajection of the Right Hon. Baronet was a most cogent reason why the Bill should go before a Committee. lie felt the strongest conviction that the time would sho. tly ast4 ve w hen it would be co ns id ere d a com pl e t e moc k ery t o tb;- • • K more of an oath than a statement. He considered prejudice favour of an oath w ou ld b e remove d b y ti n" in . Me. PRYME rose a mid l ou d e r' .ee and education. and " Divide, divide." 11 ' es of "Question, question," differed on matter s Pr sse did not see why Quakers, who others. phraseology, should have privileges above Sts• ..ange.s were then ordered to withdraw, and the House di vided, when there apposed— For going into Committee 93 Against it Majority against going into Committee The Bill was consequently lost. The House then adjourned. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. At the Court at St. James's, the 20th day of February, 1839, present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council, Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint the Most Noble Constantine Henry Marquis of Normanby to be one of Her Ma jesty's Principal Secretaries of State, his Lordship was this day, by her Majesty's command, sworn one of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State accordingly. Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint the Right Hon. Robert John Lord Carrington to be Lord Lieutenant and Cus tos Rotulorum of the county of Buckir.gham, his Lordship this day too': the Oaths appointed to be taken thereupon, in stead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. CROWN-OFFICE, FEB. 19, 1839. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAMENT. COUNTY OF BUCKINGHANI.—CaIedon George Du Pre, Esq., in the room of the Marquis of Chandos, now Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. WAR-OFFICE, FEB. 22. 6th Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Gaptain B. J. Knight, from the half-pay Unattached, to be Captain, vice R. T. Gerard, who exchanges, Feb. 22. 7th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Serjcant-Major H. Humphrys, to be Quartermaster, vice T. Blackier, who retires upon half-pay, Feb. 22. 2d Regiment of Foot—J. Jopp, M.D., to be Assistant-Sur geon, vice Hibbert, appointed to the 15th Light Dragoons, Feb. 22. 9th Foot—Lieut. C. Hind to be Captain, by purchase, vice Telford, who retires; Ensign F. D. Lister to be Lieutenant, by pur-hase, vi• e Hind ; D. B. Macleod, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Lister, Feb. 22. 10th Foot—Captain W. Tedlie, from the half-pay Unat tached, to be Captain, vice W. Rannie, who exchanges, receiv ing the difference, Feb. 22. 17th Foot—Ensign T. 0. Ruttledge to be Lieutenant, by ourehase vice De Burgh, who retires, April 23, 1838; Ensign h. H. Cormick to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Ruttledge, whose promotion, on the 20th July last, has not taken place ; A. M‘Kinstry, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Cor miek, Feb. 22. 26th Foot—Lieutenant J. Shum to be Captain, by purchase, vice flovenden, who retires ; Ensign H. J. W. Postlethwaite to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Shum ; A. F. Wall .ce, Gent., to be Ensign, by purcbase, vice Postlethsvaite, Feb. 22. 31st Foot—Lieutenant H. K. Sayers, from the 2d West In dia Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice Hutchinson, who ex changes, Feb. 22. 52d Foot—Ensign G. Campbell to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Surtees, deceased, Dec. 21 ; Ensign W. H. F. Cavendish to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Campbell. whose promotion, by purchase, has not taken place, Feb. 22; Lieu tenant C. J. C. Mills, from the 59th Regiment, to be Lieute nant, without purchase, vice Napier, appointed to the Cape Corps, Feb. 23 ; R. 0. Cuming. Gent., to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Cavendish, Feb. 22. 59th Foot—Lieut. J. M. Isaac, from the Cape Mounted Riflemen, to be Lieutenant, vice Mills, appointed to the Regiment, Feb. 23. 66th Foot—Lieut. G. L. Dames to be Captain., by purchase, vice llamas, who retires; Ensign G. A. Taylor, to be Lieute nant, by purchase, vice Dames ; G. M. Knipe, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Taylor, Feb. 22, 91st Foot—Lieut. W. G. Scott to be Captain, by purchase, vice Boyd, who retires; Ensi g n J. Christie to be Lieut enan t, by purchase, vice Scott; W. T, L. Patterson, Gent., to be `E ns ign , by purchase, Tice Christie, Feb. 22; J. Paton, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice White, who retires, Feb. 23. 94th Foot—P. Estwick, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Osborne, who retires ; Captain W. B. M'Alpine, from the half-ray UnAtached, to be Paymaster, vice Paterson, de ceased, Feb. 22. 2d West India Regiment—Lieut. B. tE. S. Hutchinson, from the 31st Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice Sayers, who exchanges ; E,nsi n G. Griffin to be Lieutenant, without pur chase, vioe Halliday, deceased ; W. M. Murray, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Griffin , Feb. 22. Cu Mounted Riflemen—Lieut. G. T. C. Napier, from the 52d Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice Isaac, appointed to the 59th Regiment, Feb. 23, BREVET. —Capt. W. Tedlie, of the 10th Regiment, to be Major 4A the Army, Jan_ 10. HosmTAL STA ry.—B. U. Hamilton, Gent., to be Assistant- Surgeon to the Forces, vice Ottaway, who resigns. Feb. 22. I i vIEMORANDUM.—The Christian names of Ensign Donald son, of the Royal African Colonial Corps, are Thomas Hislop Janes, The commission of Deputy-Assistant Commissary- General George Bull has been cancelled from the sth of February 1839, he having received a commuted allowance for his half-pay. Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey. Surrey Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry—F. Mangles, Esq., to be Captain ; J. Hart, to be Cornet, Feb. 11. CROWN-OFFICE, FEEL 21. - - Days and Places appointed for holding the Lent Assizes, 1839 : MIDLAND CIRCUIT. The Right Hon. THOMAS Loan DENMAN, Lord Chief Justice; The Right Hon. Sir JOHN BERNAILD BOSANQUET. Northamptonshire—Monday, March 4, at Northampton Rutlandshire—Friday, March 8, at Oakham. Lincolnshire—Saturday, March 9, at the Castle of Lincoln. City of Lincoln—Same day, at the City of Lincoln. Nottinghamshire—Friday, March 15, at Nottingham. Town of Nottingham—Same day, at the Town of Nottingham. Derbyshire—Tuesday, March 19, at Derby. Leicestershire—Friday, March 22, at the Castle of Leicester. Borough of Leicester—Same day, at the Borough of Leicester. City of Coventry—Wednesday, March 27, at the City of Coventry. Warwickshire—Same day, at Warwick. NORFOLK CIRCUIT. _ _ _ The Right Hon. Sir NicoLAs CONYNGHA 31 TINDAL, KM, Lord Chief Justice ; the Right lion. Sir Joni VA COHAN. Buckinghamshire —Monday, March 11, at Aylesbury. 13edfordshire—Saturday, March 16, at Bed'ord. 11untingdonshire—Wednesday, March 20, at Huntingdon. Cambridgeshire—Saturday, March 23, at Cambridge. Suffolk—Saturday, March 30, at Bury St. Edmund's. Norfolk—Saturday, April 6, at the Castle of Norwich. City of Norwich—Same day, at the Guildhall of the said City of Norwich. HOME CIRCUIT. The Right Hein, J.a.xtEs Loan MUNGER, Lord Chief Baron ; Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE. Hertfordshire—Wednesday, Pt). 27, at Hertford. Essex—Monday, 4, at Chelmsford. 1°: 1 Kent—A! ..on - day, March 11, at Maidstone, - -a d Sussex —Monday, March 18, at Lewes. Winchester, Surrey—Monday, March '25, at Kingston-upon-Thames. Castlela u o f r.f 1 : v . WESTERN CIRCUIT. Southampton—Thursday,Feb., , Mr. Baron . G ults' F% ; 2V r al E th a e ronl‘ Wiltshire—Wednesday, March 6, at New Sarum, Dorsetshire—Tuesday, March 12, at Dorchester. Devonshire —Monday, March 18, at the Castle of Exeter. City of Exeter—Same day, at the Guildhall, City of Exeter. Cornwall —Tuesday, March 26, at Bodmin. Somersetshire—Tuesday, April 2, at the Castle of Taunton. NOTHERN CIRCUIT. The Right Hon. Sir JAMES PA RKE ; Mr. Baron ALDERSON. Westmorland—Saturday, Feb. 23, at Appleby. Cumberland—Tuesday, Feb. 26, at Carlisle. Town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne—Friday, March 1, at the Guildhall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Northumberland—Same day, at the Moot-hall, Newcastle-upon - Tyne. Durham—Wednesday, March 6, at Durham. Yorkshire—Saturday, March 9, at the Castle of York. City of York—Same day, at the Guidhall, City of York. North Lancashire—Saturday, March 22, at Lancaster. South Lancashire—Wednesday, March 27, at Liverpool. OXFORD CIRCUIT. - Mr. Justice PATTESON ; the Right Hon. THOMAS ERSKINE. Berkshire—Saturday, Feb. 23, at Reading. Oxfordshire—Thursday, Feb. 28, at Oxford. Worcestershire—Wednesday, March 6, at Worcester. City of Worcester—Same day, at the City of Worcester. Staffordshire—Monday, March 11, at Stafford. Shropshire—Monday, March 18, at Shrewsbury. Herefordshire—Saturday, March 23, at Hereford. Monmouthshire—Wednesday, March 27, at Monmouth. Gloucestershire—Saturday, March 30, at Gloucester. City of Gloucester—Same day, at the City of Gloucester. CIRCUIT of the PRINCIPALITY of WALES and COUNTY PALATINE of CHESTER. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS ; Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. Glamorganshire—Saturday, March 2, at Swansea. Pembrokeshire—Saturday, March 9, at Haverfardwest. Town of Haverfordwest—Same day, at the Town of Haverford. west. Cardiganshire—Wednesday, March 13, at Cardigan. Carrnarthenshire—Saturday, March 16, at Carmarthen. Borough of Carmarthen—Same day, at the Borough of Car marthen. Brecknockshire—Saturday, March 23, at Brecon. Radnorshire—Saturday, March 30, at Presteign. Montgomeryshire—Saturday, March 9, at Welch Pool. Merionethshire—Thursday, March 14, at Bala. Carnarvonshire—Tuesday, March 19, at Carnarvon. Anglesey—Saturday, March 23, at Beaumaris. Denbighshire—Wednesday, March '27, at Ruthin. Flintshire—Saturday. March 30, at Mold. Cheshire—Wednesday, April 3, at the Castle of Chester. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. JAMES STANGER, ironmonger, Maidstone, Kent. ROBERT LONG, dealer, Dursley, Gloucestershire. BANKRUPTS. EDWARD JAMES RA VENSCROFT, printer, Tooke 6' court, Cursitor-street, to surrender March $, and April 5, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Conquest, Moorga,te street, London ' • Cannan, Finsbury-sq uare , o ffi c i a l ass i gne e. THOMAS CARTER, stock-broker, Throgmorton-streets March 8, and April 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankrupt* A'Beckett, Son, and Simpson, Lincoln's-inn-fields; Tur quand, Copthall-buildings, official assignee. JOHN HELLYER, draper, Spalding, Lincolnshire, March 15, and April 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Harvey, Spalding; Hardwick and Davidson, Cateatou-street. WILLIAM WALLEN, builder, Circus-place, Finsbury, March 5, at twelve. and April 5, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Kiss and Son, London-street, Fenchnreh street ; Edwards, Frederick-place, Old Jewry, official assignee* WILLIAM NORMAN, baker, St. Neots, Huntingdonshire , March 1, and April 5, at twelve, at the George Hotel, Hun tingdon. Pearse and Son, Bedford ; Swain, Stevens, Maples , Pearse, Hunt, and Stevens, Frederick's,place, Old Jewry. AARON WOOLF, cabinet maker, Brighton, March 6, an' April 5, at eleven, at the To wn H all, Brighton. Watt" )° ' Worship-street, Finsbury. JAMES JACKSON, victualler, Epworth, Lincolnshire , March 9, and April 5, at twelve, at the White Hart Inn, Gainsborough. Nicholson and Hett, Glamfotsd Briggs; Dyneley, Coverdale, and Lee, Field-court, G ra y' s I nn . FELIX LUCKCOCK, w harfinger, Birmingham, FebruarY 26, and April 5, at twelve, at Dee's Royal ' Hotel, Bir mingham. Keswick, Birmingham; Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple. JOHN CAMP, grocer, Newhaven, Sussex, March 6, It April 5, at one, at the Town Hall, Brighten. Deinlotc" Brighton ; Tamplin, Chancery-lane. RICHARD SOUTHALL, jun., factor, Birmingham, Maw 5, and April 5, a t t en , at t h e N ew Royal Hotel, Birmingtum' Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple. DIVIDENDS: At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. W. S. Warwick, merchant, Billiter-square, March 15, a t half-past eleven—C. F.,lanbridge, W. F. M ars h a ll, and T• „ Ye illiams, menet gg cturers of artificial skin s , L am b' s -buildiu,' Bunhill-r0.:,, at one—W. Laxto n , i nn k ee per. q'a'"-cross, ' March 15, Hertfordshire, March 16, a t t wo —E. E ric ksen an A. B. Callandar, cornfactors, Mincing-lane, March 16, st O ne —W. Parker, money scrivener, H orncas tl e , Lincolnshi re. March 16, at eleven—C. L Birch, coachm a k e r , Great Quee n street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, Marsh 16, at twelve—W. 11 7 and S. Grove, bankers, Crosby-squar e , M ay 15, a t t we lve-- J' H. Arthur, stationer, Garlick-hilt, Q ueen hith e M arc h 15, a eleven—E. R. Bell, common brewer, March 15, at twelve` A. Robins, printer, Tavistock-street, C oven t- gar d en , Ma re t 15, at half-past eleven—R. Webb, grocer, T o oley-strai t, Southwark, March 18, at half-past eleven—J. H. Gurnel; victualler, Broad-street, Bloomsbury, March 18, at half-P as twelve. In the Country. W. Wakeman, wharfinger, Shenstone,'Staffordshire,_lo,arcb, 16, at twelve, at the Swan Hotel, Lichfi e ld—W. W. G ar lic k ' plumber, Manchester, March 19, at twelve, at the Cote 0 ,1 sinners' Rooms, Manchester—R. S. Burkitt, d raper , Sheffie, l l March 23, at eleven, at the Town Hall, Sh e ffi e ld—G. Ridt grocer, Berwick-upon-Tweed, March 18, a t e l even , at tPF Hen and Chickens lnn, Berwick—J. Hawthorn, brass found!t, Birmingham, March 27, at twelve, at Dee' s Royal Hotel, 8, 1 7 mingham—T. A. Sanders, builder, Ryd e , I s l e o f v.v.' March 18, at one, at the Crown Inn, Ryde. CERTIFICATES—MARC H 15. t'§ J. W. Borwiek, corn-chandler, Munster-street, Reese' _. Park—P. Astley, warehouseman, W oo d- s t reet, Ch ea psul'" l , , J. Brooke, manufacturer, Dewsbury, Yorkshire—J. (.lar merchant, Liverpool—M. Hawkes, auctioneer, Sharringt°°' Norfolk. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. It. Hutchinson and J. Clarke, ship brokers, Sunderlapt H. Tilsey and E. Cruso, surgeons, Hooknorton, Oxfordshr inr , F. Russell a n d J. M en d a y , z i nc wor k ers, Anderson ' s- b el City-road—S. Yearsley and A. Phelps, milliners, Welch evit , Montgomeryshire —W. Parmand G. Wilmot, curriers, castle-street, Strand—T. M or l ey and T. Beeson, Jun. , h -- makers, Nottingham—W. Mead and R. England, eoal I P e p r i chants, Kingsbury Eniscopi, Somersetshire—H. Hat* $ C. Busby, butchers, Dockhead—R. Ruddock and g. burn, varnish makers, Pentonville—S. Bennett and J Yardley, surgeons, Shiffnal, Salop—W. Birown, T. Kerr, 1. E. Beattie, cheese factors, Roalidal.- a _4, Fl em i ng ant Pendlebury, musl i n manufactur,lrs, Bolton-le-Moors, ', eashire—N. Hi ng l ev and E.. Nosworthy, .nail manufactu r : l7l o , Liverpool —P. Philli ps trid R. Gill, trunk m a k ers , Brnvo l •ie street, Long-acre--T. Munden and J. Cameron, &tiers c, music, New.strect, Birmingham—W. Beale and 4 J 'ds, Gummer, w i ne merchants, Hart-street, Mark -lane—Ai,-mu.ri4es, and Ke rr , an d A. Goodridge, of Renews and Fer n ews Fishe`" ti , Newfoundland—W. Munton and J. Moats, corn suer r, Spaldin g , Li ncolnshire—T. Carlisle, J. Robson, J. ber well, J. H. Day, J. Thomas, and T. Holmes, wholesale dashers, Bristol —G. Jones and T. Owens, tailors, Liver 7., c. J. Smout and A. Lambley, hotel keepers, Birmingham — r_ t iot Newell, J. Murray, and E. Patmore, milliners, Regent -5 —N. Massey and H. Leak, manufacturers f eartbenn;;, Stoke-upon-T rent— T . and J. Roberts, blacksmiths, _Luce, firth, Y or k s hi re— T . and C. T. Harrison and R. "' hotel keepers, Covent-garden. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. W ORS11111:8 TREE T. FATAL FIG HT. —Joseph Birch, a manufacturing dr u lieg and Jam es S ymonds, a pot-boy, were charged with ha nor aided a n d a b ette d Thomas Dickson in a pugilistic unclad. with a man named Charles Evans, and who has sinc e pit Thomas Dickson was brought up on Tuesday last, an,." o , remanded, to await the fate of the man, who was then ita._ o ll, It appeared that Evans and the deceased, who were frita,io, had been drinking together the whole of Monday, and j k°thre° toxicated. In the evening- they quarrelled, and ha d uP rounds, in the last of which Evans fell. He was take 00 insensible, bleeding from the ears, nose, and m outh. unfortunate nrai died on Thursday last. The D':',soners were remanded to await the result o f Corner's inquest. CORONERS' INQUESTS. (YESTERDAY. It At Mile-end Old Tour', an inquest was held on vet. Chapman, whose death was occasioned by poison- diet—Died by poison taken by mistake. :„, eel / In Little Tothill-street, Westminster, another I t oe was held on George Turner, whose death was brnug fort' by destitution. The Jury returned a verdict to that e FRACAS IN CH ELSEA .-T HE N E W - p ( Li of, LAW.—Much squabbling has recently taken place in the W: t - e e t Chelsea, between a body call e d th e " P aroc hi a l Cortin%ocl• constituted under a local Act, and the Board of Guardians, P - ion paliy, it would appear, from the latter having taken P'''' r iste‘ l of certain apartments in th e wor kh ouse hi t h er t o aPPr°P s no r. to the use of the ri va l b o d y. O n M on d ay last, Ws 00 respondent, the Parochial Commitee made a forcible eotOpoiCe the apartments by means o f s l e d g e h ammers, a nd the were called in to settle the m a tter ; b u t u l t i ma tely o, "`"„jen t , for a time restored without th e ir as si s t ance . O ur corres& l adds, that applications have been m a d e to the Se cret : : l State on the subject, and it is probable that the disputes : J oir brought before a court of law. Yesterday an application 10i'nej tp to the Queen's-square m ag i s t ra t es on th e a ff a i r, b ut they 6eCh interfere. SECOND HAND PLATE PURCHAS - 0 00 COX SAVORY, Goldsmith, &c., 47, Cornhill (veva stli from Gracechurch-street), London, informs Executor fro others, wiNhing to dispose of Second-hand Plate, that , osti having a ready sale, he can offer more advantageous pri,c el , vlSt e can generally be aff or d e d by th e t ra d e . S trangers offer'D" ti lcs . ; for sale are r e qui re d e ith er t o g i ve a reference , or ,„ 01 cheque crossed w ith th e i r b an k er ' s name, w hi c h ev er t h e y prefer. p On the 19th inst., at BlRTHSuffolk, otef Norton, Suffolk, the lady ° f 3 Iltuldleston, Esq., of a daughter. 00 0( On the 20th inst., the lady of H. R. Wotton, Esq* , s Great otlan-street, of (laughter. f ., 9 00 . On th P e r 20th d inst., Mrs. a Courtney, of Leatherhead, MARRIED mol . At Dapoolie, Bombay, on the 22d of November li t ' .I;4' Ede bald Graham, Esq., to Martha Ann, secon d daughter I ward Scriven, Esq., of Clarendon-square, London. Agr i : On the 21st. inst., at St. Georg e ' s , Ha n over-squar e 4,oo° Dowling, Esq., to Bertha Eli za , on l y d aug h ter o f Lie' Colonel Richard 13ayly. J 113ei $ On the 21st inst., at St. Marylebone New Chure u l o bet Dean, Esq., of Bolton-le-Moors and New York, to i only (laughter of Mr. Thomas Smallwood, of L0nd0n......./' London: sf Printed and Published by MURDO No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office. No. 112. ytrsnd the county of Itliddlesex.—Saturday, February R 1 .0; near Nary Af,, 14 411 'itua Curl t4e 831 bt; t : J. Zt 1 V: , w N kr, D I E D 'g- JO' On the 22d of F e br uary , at his residence iny, L i h n e e os Bl ob ies l fields, after a short ill ness , M r. John Bellamy, in t of his age. a elk On the 18th inst., at hi s residence in Hackney, Jesse '-'-° smith, Esq., aged 80. Aler On the 19th inst., Mrs. ill‘Latu in, widow of the W e , to rel ic. ander M'Eaurin,.Esq , aged 70. . On the 19th inst at Muswell-hill, Mrs. Fleminglj' scree of the late William Remington, 'E d-st r On the 20th inst., Mr. Charles Hall, surgeon , °I aged 32. On the 20th inst., at Bognor Lodge, Che_rleslq. White, °ll‘' orof e ' of Datchett, aged 85. On the 20th inst., at her sister's, Mrs. Theo bald, Aigi er Clapha m , Mi ss J ane Manning. et, ' 10 On the 21 s t i ns t., in Berners-street, Oxford-stre o f t third d aug ht er of the late Terence NV:Mahon, Esq . ' tbe ii, Island o f S t. Ch r i stop h er. clerk -- ' Suddenly, at Homertan, Mr. Webb, many Year s f Bank of England.: „,fstot." s_ i4._ ~_.