The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

Noble Lord also, that this tax nn what he might call one of the grst neees.:aries of life, had hitherto been frit ac one of the reatest grievances under which the labouring classes could be oppressed, because it tended to increase to a still higher amount th e present very high price of feel._( Hear, hear.) He had heard th e Sobl e Lord opposite defend this prepesiiion upon the ground that it was a very low tax ; but that seas an argument which cut two ways ; for it argued either in tavour of the tax, it:a:4.llll,h as that another artilitio al pe , •ny would not he felt ; or tria:, he.•aua,a it was s all a,t irdliug, it should be aho- Ushed altogether, which Le (Lord Howick) conceited was not the real ar g ument against it.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure the Noble Lord opposite and the House, that the sole object of this tax was to improve the condition of certain classes in pates of the City, and the fund proposed. to be raised in this way could not be ap plied without the sanction •if Parliament, and, therefore, no ap prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund would be applied.—( Hear, hear.) Last year this suiiject was brought before Parliament, and it was then fully diseusiseil. He did not propose now wearying the House with a detail of what was said then ; but, notwithstanding the objections he had heard urged against the impost this eve,,ing, he would just call the attention of the House to a few specific remarks iilustraiive of the uti lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex tract frera the work of Mr. Seaford Smith, in which was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of Whitechopel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some means of preventing the recurrence of fever and other diseases, krising, from such causes a• a pestiferous atmosphere; and having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and ellevs re moved, and wider and healthy and open streets built instead of them ?—( Hear, hear. ) A tax for an indefinite period was proposed on coals. Thirteen-pence was the original tax, to last till 1862, one penny of which was about to expire. It was intended that the penny should be continued for the same period as the twelve pence, for the purpo e of constituting a fund to build infirmaries for hose parts of London called the fever districts. Looking to the purposes of the Bill—namely, the alleviation of the distresses of the poor—and the good which would result from the expe,diture of 11,0001. per annum for the mitigation of their ills lie was of opinion that an actual amount of positive good would preeonderate. Those were the general principles on which he would give his cordial support to the motion of his Noble Friend, which would be the means of lessening, in some degree, the distresses of the poor in the fever districts. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said the improvements now going on in London were a great benefit to the working classes, but he did not think that the nutting a duty on coal could add to their comforts. He was ratherrdesireus that the duty should be tale-n off altogether. The poor would not derive any benefit from relieving them from a tax of only one penny, for there was not a single poor family in London that consumed more titan one ton annually. .11r. HAWES wanted to know whether it was possible or not for the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter, to find out a substitute for the proposed tax. What was there at present in the tax that recommended it? A little more in. vestigation would have shown that it was a tax on the poor, and not on the rich. The benefit from the tax would result to the rich, whose property it was intented to improve. After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON, Mr. EWART said he had considerable reluctance in opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always c inducted himself with unusual fairness. He complained of the manner in which the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House. Neither the Noble Lord, nor the Right Hon. Gentleman near him, had undertaken to defend the principles of the tax. It was a proposition to levy a tax in opposition to every measure of sound policy. He was opposed to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city of London the amount of tax was twenty-five per cent. on the first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places, and the country looked rather that all these taxes should be taken off than increased. He trusted that the House would act on sound principles, and refusa the Bill proposed by the Government. After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman lIIIIITHERY, who explained, The House divided, when there appeared, For the amendment Against it Majority On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN COLN moving the following amendment :—That from and after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny per ton on coals, cinders, and culm, so imposed and extended as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be laid cut .r invested in the purchase of Stock in some of the public Stocks or Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi ties, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, to 2n account to be intituled, " The Metropolis Improvement Fund Account ;" and the said Com missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly dividends or interest of the Stocks, Funds, and Securities so to be purchased in their names on the account aforesaid, in like manner for the purpose of accumulation in the mean time, and until the said Fund shall be required for and appropriated by Parliament to the execution of Improvements in the Metro polis. A desultory conversation then ensued, after which, Mr. HUME wished to know how the tax was to be ga thered ? The Earl of LINCOLN—in the same manner as formerly. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses 3,4,5,6,7, and 8, were then agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to. Mr. HUME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro duced this session to carry out sanatory improvements in the metropolis? He was well aware there were great difficulties, but the evil in London was a crying one, and required an imme diate remedy. Lord LINCOLN said that no such Bill would be introduced during the present session. The Bill was then ordered to be reported to•morrovr. POOR LAW (SC'ITLAND) BILL, On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House west into Committee on this Bill. Clause 56 was agreed to, as was clanae 57, and all the clauses op to 64. Mr. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap plication of this clause on Scotland. If any Gentleman had read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to throw the inhabitants of many districts, especially in the High lands, into a state of positive idleness. He•would, therefore, caution Hon. Members that it would have. the effect of changing the habits of the whole population. Mr. HASTIE explained that the able-bodied poor in Scot land had now the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take away this power he should introduce a clause for that purpose. Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know whether the object of the Bill was to take away 'he principle, for he thought that if a working-man were -to be thrown into distress he ought to be kept from starving without going into a work hou,e. Till within the last few years, at Maxwell Town, there had been no assessment whatever, and the poor had only been relieved by a voluntary subscription of the heritors. In the county of Kirkcudbright certainly there had been no poor , law whatever, and therefore he thought that it would be better for the Learned Lord to settle the point. Mr. P. BORTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re gret that there was any necessity for a p ,nr- law at all, and he trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to thq habits and independence of the people. But he thought that it was cer tainly desirable that the heritors of Scotland and the poor should know whether there was any right whatever to relief in cases of distress. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, stated that the relief was for the poor, and unless they intro duced an express definition as to what was meant by poverty, the able-bodied poor man out of em ployment was entitled to relief. The statute of Elizabeth provided for three things—either that a paor man should be provided with sustenance, or removed to his native parish, or to the parish of his settlement; and if the Hon. Member did not move for the exclusion of the section, lie would. Mr. EWART said that it mattered but little what was the •pinion of this or that Government re:pecting the law of Scot land : for he understood the LE:arned Lord-Advocate to say, that the able-bodied poor man •was not entitled to relief, and h e -greed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Coekermou'h Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no other 11fember did an, he should move that the proviso be expunged. Mr. P. Al. S rEwART said there was moth doubt at pre sent as to whether ahle-bodied paupers were entitled to relief, and ti3o effect of this clause would be to increase that doubt. Lord DUNCAN believed that no able-bodied person had ever received relief under the present system. lie should s pport the Malice, as it would still have the eff ct of preventing ali!o : bodied pauper!from obtaining re!ier. Mr. P. BO RT . H WICK objected to the proviso in the clause, and moved that it be omitted. The Committee Olen divided, when there app,ared— For Ow amenlnent For t. e motion... Majority. 1, -5? On the on of strangers, we fcund Mr. 'MGM. moving, according to notice, an addition to clause 64, to tla effect that it shall be lawful for the parochial board of every parish, or combination of parishes, to allow out of the funds, raised by assessment or otherwise, for the relief of the poor thereof, such relief to able-bodied persons within such parishes, or combination of parishes, as the board may deem necessary, during the existence of temporary distress, arising from the inability of such person tai obtain employment, pro vided always that such relief to the able-bodied has the appro bation of the Board of Supervision. He hoped the Lord- Advocate would not oppose this ad ;it ion to the clause. The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the proposed addition. He thought it would lead to false expectations on the part of the able-bodied, and it would place the Board Of Supervision in an invidious position. Mr. AGLIONBY said that there was no evil found in this country from an excessive provision for the relief of the able bodied in the time of great distress. Some such means of relief as existed in England ought to exist also in Scotland. It would be a stain upon the Legislature cf the country, if the case of a man willing to work, and unable to get work, was not pro vided for in a Bill of this nature.—( Hear.) Mr, ROSS said that in Ireland the able-bodied pauper had no right to demand relief; yet the parochial authorities had the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He .cou1:1 not see any reason wl.y the parochial authorities in Scotland should not have the same disc-etionary power. After a few words from Mr. BAINE, 'The Committee divided, when there appeared, For the amendment ... Against it Majority against the amendment —36 The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 65. Clause 66 was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments. Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70, were then agreed to, without a discussion. On the proposal of clause 71. SHARHAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso at the end of the clause be expunged. Mr. P. M. STEWART did not think that the working Hof the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would Po prevented by it from obtaining that amount of relief, or that period of relief to which he would be entitled, or to which he ought to be. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would .explain this clause upon constitutional grounds. The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the dame, on the gro.and that it would have the eff,ct, of affording more real mean.' of defence to the poor man than he ever could have hoped Ie have had within his means, because it gave him the power of sueing in forma paupePis, which he never had before by any previou s ly ex i st i ng law. In fact, he had now the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry into his ease, because the Act compelled the Board of Inquiry to enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each poor man who applied for relief, and if they did not do se, the Bill gave the power to the poor man to enforce an inquiry into his edge wi thout any expense, because he still sue d in forma pau p e ris,—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. AGLIONBY could not but regard the speech of the Lord-Advocate as that of an interested advocate. (Cries of " Oh, oh !") He was very glad to find such provisions as er.abled the poor man to appeal against the rule of the Board of Supervision in forma pauperi.' but then he (Mr. Aglionhy) would still contend that the latter part of the clause contained a clause which was against the poor man, and there fore, that part of the clause should be stru ck out. The poor man was the one virtually shut out from redress by this , clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while he cell al'owed to sue in forma pauperis, or that any atorney would undertake a suit for a man without money w h e ,:ewith to fee him ? For these reasons, believing that the pea c ti t ol effect of the clause in connexion with _therm* TM TRE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVtNING, JULY 15, 1845. Lord RADNOR—Are you prepared to say that you have been injured in your business in consequence of the statements which have been made ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. LORD CHANCELLOR—Withdraw from the bar, but do not leave the 1-louse. Here the witness withdrew, anti Peter Hardwin appeared ai the bar of the House. The LORD CHANCEUOR—What are you?—l am a solicitor. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you the attorney em ployed by the last witness fir the purpose of bringing this action against Thomas Baker ?—Yes, my Lord. _ The LORD CHANCELLOR—For defamatory words?— - . For defamatory words, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you not aware that they were spoken as evidence before a Committee of the House? Peter Hardwin—The report states that the words were used before a Committee of the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR—And that was the founda tion of the action ? Witness—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you wish to say any thing further, as you are aware that a complaint has been made of your conduct in that respect? Witness—l have only to observe that instructions were laid before Counsel, and it was according to his directions that this action was entered into. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Is the action going on? Witnes4—lt is at present pending. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Do you intend to proceed with it ? Witness—l have not had instructions to do so. Will your Lordship allow me to say that I have every reason to believe that Baker's information, on which the action has been founded, is false and— The LORD CHANCELLOR—That is quite immaterial to the present question. Mr. Peter Hard win, you may withdraw from the bar, but you must not leave the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and moved that John Harlow was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the Howe. Lord BROUGHAM said that in rising to address their Lordships on the important question before them, he could not help remarking that during the four years which he had, by the favour of his late most gracious Majesty presided on the woolsack, no case of a similar kind had oc curred. He thought this a matter of great gratification to himself, and he entertained a sense of grateful feeling to their Lordships that during the whole of those four years, although occasions had frequently arisen for it—yet, in no one solitary instance, was he ever called upon to interfere with the strong hand of power to uphold the privileges of that House. ThaChe, presiding in the highest court of law— taking his station among the judges in the court of last resort, had never been called upon to interfere in a case similar to the pre sent, out of the ordinary course of law, was to him a source of the greatest gratification. This principle which he now con tended for was not a new one which he advocated when he entered those walls—he had occasion to assist in several cases where the same was upheld and vindicated. In the celebrated ease called emphatically, and justly " the Parliamentary Privi lege Case," wherein Sir Francis Burdett raised the most important question concerning its limits ever yet pro pounded, he had argued its merits in every stage, and even on a writ of error before their Lordships' bar, and in presence of the Judges of the land called in to give their advice. He then enjoyed and exercised his right of appear. ing as Counsel against the exorbitant pretensions of the other House, and he was not called to answer at the bar of that House, nor menaced with imprisonment, for doing his duty to his client, as the attorney in the present case. No; he was suffered by their I.ordships, as their Lordships now re fused to suffer Mr. Hardwin, to discharge that duty to his client, and for half a day together to treat with scorn that affected privilege—that assumption of power—without risk or inter ruption. If the House of Lords had any right to commit an attorney for discharging his professional duty, then sure he was the Commons' House of Parliament, who, from the time when Lord Holt called the Sergeant-at-arms a hawk sent out to seize its prey, had been quite aware of and alive to its pri vileges, and abundantly prone to vindicate them, had the same right to have committed him ; but with all its disposition at every stage of its existence to stretch its privileges, and worst of all to question those of the rival House of Parliament—not withstanding all these propensities, he was suffered to argue that case fully, freely, and unintimidated, and yet take a seat in that House whose affected rights he was treating with disdain. He would begin by admitting, whoever might deny, he was not there to deny the privileges of both Houses of Parliament ; not only of one House, but of both, for whatever belonged to the one belonged to the other. It was the privilege of Parlia ment, and not of either House. No ; he did not venture to deny the existence of these privileges; but just let him see what those privileges were, and what were they for ? Why they were to remove all obstructions to the exercise of the functions of Parliament—to liberate the Members of either House respectively who might be constrained from attending their Parliamentary duties ; to inquire, and for the purposes of inquiry to call all persons before them, treating those persons with the same respect and courtesy that they received in all courts of justice ; to examine those who were called before them, and if refusing to answer, or if prevarica•ing, before them, committing such persons for contempt. They were not, however, to punish for perjury, because that was not a ground upon which the summary proceedings of commitment could not be taken, there being a punishment awarded for such offence by the criminal and statute law of the country. All these privileges were absolutely necessary for the proper exist ence of Parliament, and for the due and proper performance of its functions, and he was willing and ready to admit that they existed under the law of the land. But then he was asked to concede to that House the power, and the same power was claimed by the other House of Parliament, of declaring from time to time what these privileges were—of declaring from time to time, as occasion arose, what act amounted to a breach of any given privilege—to punish parties so de clared by a vote to h tee committed a breach of the privi!ege— taking wish their own hands the judicial powers of, and making themselves the only Court of Appeal in the kingdom, and having done this, declaring what should be the law in a case for a breach of the law, in which they j themselves were the pro secutors and the agrieved party, and judging and adjudicating, without jury, upon an offender whom they themselves prosecute for an offence declared by them against a law made by them and only by them, and still made by each without the consent of the other or the Crown, and then, last of all, condemning a party for injuries done to themselves, upon a law made by them selves and for themselves, and taking into their own hands the lawless and anomalous power of putting into execution the sen tence which they themselves had passed. No, they hal no right to such powers as these; and he, therefore, entered his protest against them in the name of the Crown, and on behalf of the people of Eog!and, whose most sacred rights and liberties were invaded by such powers. They stopped an action legally commenced in Westminster hall, alleged to have been brought for injuries sustained by one of their fellow subjects. Sir Francis Burdett brought an action against the Speaker for taking him into custody when he refused to obey the laws of the House. That raised the question in another farm. But here was a case in which a civil right attached to a civil individual, in which that right was vested in an individual—in which that right arose out of a wrong and grievous wrong committed against that individual— in which, as they were informed, he complained that his cha racter had been falsely and foully slandered by persons—that he had been greatly damaged by that slander, and that for that damage he had sought redress as by law he was entitled. What were their Lordships called upon to do? To pronounce the bringing of the action ; breach of privilege. They had examined him at their bar. The) had done an act of no ordinary nature. They had gone the length to ask him to disclose what the case in law was when from the statement of the opposite party it must appear that he had a different cause of action to t hat stated in the declaration. It was an action for words spoken by a witness, in giving his evidence. How would any of their Lordships, who had brought an action, like to state in the presence of au adversary wh} he brought his action, what evidence he meant to adduce, what he meant to do, what to prove ? They had done all this; but lie should say no more then on that point. He protested generally, reserving to himself the argument when the proper time should arrive.—( Hear, hear,) Now they sad this was a breach of privilege. Go on with the action if they liked, and for ought he knew he intended to go on uith it, but that they should send them both prisoners to Newgate. This was what they were about to do. This was one of the instances in which they stood in a different position to the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House diet not examine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial character at all, whilst they were judges in the highest Court— the very Court before which this action might be brought by a writ of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the parties to proceed with the action at their peril, laying the foundation on which they, as a Court of Error, might be called upon to decide. At your peril go on—we are the Caurt of last resort. But there was another most material particular in which that House differed from the other, which he could welt believe; but he could well imagine that a person most consistently saying in the other House of Parliament— these are our wivileges and, we will not allow an action to h.. brought, that we will stop it main fort , , by main force, be • cause that action was brought to trial—to judgment-- and that judgment is carried by an appeal in the last resort. In all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to them. If evidence was rejected, if a sentence was improperly given, if a judge charged a jury in violation of the law, then a writ of error lay sv,th the aggrieved parties, and they could bring it for trial before that House. They were judges in such cases whether they would or no. They were to act ex neces sitate. Hut it was said that unless witnesses were proteciel, unless they knew they were to have protectio n , th ere cou ld be no security of their evidence being °brained. Why, they wet-e. protected. They were protected in their co ning to the House, in their remaining there, and in their !caving. For all purposes of securing evidence there was no illegal interference whatever. There was no cause for apprehension. It was their bounden duty to protect the witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it was at all necessary to exempt witnesses from the ordinary op-rations of the law after they had given their evidence. To no such conclusions did he come. But it was said, what was the use of bringing witnesses before them, if they were liable to be called to account before a court of price ? Did that prevent them from speaking the truth. If they slandered they were liable to damages, but if they spoke the truth the law would afford them its protection. But let them see the fallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur day a witness had been exam:fled respecting a line of railway. Nothing could be more false than the testimony of that witness, who seeing that witnesses were present that would be brought forward to confront him, admitted that he had given evidence on a former occasion that he could not sub,ta.ntiate there. That subject, however, would come, in all probability, before their Lordships to-morrow. But this perjured witness, whom it was held to be so necessary to protect, was liable to be punished for the evidence he had given ; and if so there was an end to the doctrine of protection. The Clerk of the Committee, the short-hand writer, or even the door-keepers, might indict that witness, and the House had no power to stop the proceedings. The result of such proceedings would depend upon the truth or falsehood of what he had sworn. What was there different in the present case to the one he had referred to? They were both the same. Whether the case was a civil or a criminal action, or whosoever originated it. Nothing was so plain as that a person giving false evidence was liable to be indicted at the suit of any one. But it was said the cases were different, that the one suit had been instituted by a private party, and the other would be instituted on behalf of the Crown, though a private individual was moving in the case. If so, then, it came to this, they had no privileges against an action from the Crown, but only against thesubjeet. He had been led to think that their privileges were only in their hands to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of the people. But according to this doctrine, it now seemed their privileges were omnipotent only against the people, and impotent against the Crown. But let them look to what must be the necessary results. He meant the lagical results of such a course. In the first place, the advocates for privilege said that the punishment for perjury was sufficient to protect the slandered individual; but the law said that there should be another mode of proceeding. '1 he law said the punishment was for the protection of the public, and the action was to give the slan dered individual reparation. Bet the advocates of privilege said there should be no separation, there should only be punishment. Now he prayed them to consider what must be the consequence of this legally —judicially. He entreated an answer to his qnestions, They committed the plaintiff and his attorney. Did that put an end to the action ? No such thing. The action remained-ethe action went on. The plaintiff and his attorney and his counsel might be committed, and he found that a respectable gentleman, whose name was not mentioned, had given an opinion which placed him in great jeopardy. Why he had given an opinion on which the action had been brought. He bad given; sound opinion —a lawyer-like opinion —such an opinion as he was bOundlii give to those whq sought his professional advice. But according to the advocates for privilege, he was liable to be brought to the bar for that opinion. Now suppose a!! these three several persons to be committed, would that stay the action ? No, not an 1104 r, Parliament. would be up, and another attorney woc d found who would carry the action on, unless Parliament met in the vacation, for the purpose of incarcerating hose who continued the action—but even if they imprisoned them all, one after another, until there was not an attorney left—when their gaols should be filled with refractory atto neys and counsel, would the action cease ? No ; it would still go on. It had been suggested that the defendant should not plead, and those in the other House who had defended privilege as if it were the life of Parliament, had expressed their regret and repent ance, of course he meant in their votes, for having in a cer tain case allowed one of their officers to plead. Now, in his opinion, they had shown their wisdom by ordering the Attor ney-General to plead to the action; but it appeared that they had repented them of what they had done; and that another time they would commit all the parties concerned in bringing the action. Of course they would commit the judges and the jury who tried it. They would commit the Chief-Justice, and the judges ; and the Chief-Justice, being a member of their Lordships' House, and not being very likely to go volun tarily to prison, they would be at once com mitt e d i n a conflict with their Lordships. But, suppose there was no plea. The plain tiff would sign an interlocutory judgment, as a matter of course; a writ of inquiry would issue ; the Sheriff would execute the writ, rtd, on the applicvion of the plaintiff, he would be bound to execute that judgment, unless a writ of error were sued nut ; and, even then, sinless the judgment were stayed. So that if they refused to plead, the action would go on and ripen into judgment, and the case might eventually be brought be fore them judicially by wr:t of error. " Non meus hic sermo." These were not his opinions only, they were Ow opinions of Mr. Justice Patteson and of the Chief-Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the highest legal authorities in all other places except in the Houses of Parliament. Now, he called upon them not to be powerful by halves—not to have their pri vileges piecemeal. If they were determined to stand up for privilege, let them carry it to its fullest extent, and not stop half-way. Let them commit judges and juries, and set Par liament in irreconcilable conflict with the courts of justice—in mortal conflict, at least as far as Parliament was concerned. Yet, in the midst of that tempest, so bootlessly, so recklessly, so senselessly excited—amongst the midst of that terrible darkness there would shine a light, to which all good men would point, to which the eyes of all wise men would be di rected for comfort and safety—not that lurid light which the tempest might extinguish, but that bright, pure, unsullied light which the law, in the administration of justice, derived from those untarnished sources from which juvice flowed. He would remind their Lordships of the perils which attended those who injuriously brought on a contest—a hopeless, helpless contest—with the law. They would by this course be the only power in the country which was itself to determine in its own favour. Something reminded him that this, however, was not the only branch of the constitution which stood precisely under similar circumstances. He meant the Crown ; and he supposed the Crown was as ancient a branch of the Constitution as either of the Houses of Parliament. lie knew that there was great doubt existing in the minds of many that there was a popular assembly named the Wittenagemot existing in Saxon times, and they knew that an assembly from the boroughs was collected after the Norman eonque-t. But then it was maintained by other persons that thin could not be considered as a distinct power ; and it was only some years after the passing of the Great Charter by the Barons that they had really anything like a Parliament. Thus, at all events, a Crown existed, at least, as long as a Parliament, and the executive of the country was inherent in the first of these. Yet the Crown never did arroga'e to itself the privileges that that House did. If the Sovereign did wrong then the subject petitioned against him, and brought him to the court of law. If the subject en croached upon the Crown, the Crown appealed to the law, and the subject was brought before it. The Crown prosecuted by its law officers, and the merits of the case would be decided on by the judges of the country. Then why, he asked, should Parliament seek to usurp a power which the Crown itself never dreamt of exercising since the beginning of time? The Crown had its constituted commissions, before whom witnesses were examined, and their witnesses required to be protected. The investigation could not be proceeded with without some degree of protection, but if the Commissioners of the Crown celled a witness before them, who slandered his neighbour, or who per jured himself, was that neighbour not to claim equal protection as his slanderer, and if he brought an action against that wit ness for the slander, and he (Lord Brougham) should like to know if, even at the time, when Jeffreys WAS Chief-Justice, it would be said the witness must be protected, he must not be harassed. We stand upon the privileges of this House—we advise your majesty to proceed at once on a principle which is inalienable iu this House, and which has been exercised from all time. If, then, the Crown never resorted to this extreme measure, even if a wrong were committed upon it, why should they, sheltering them selves under the shield of their Parliamentary prerogatives, invite a conflict with the powers of the law ? How had this privilege originated ? Was it not first in the commission of a wrong; and secondly in the assumption of a privilege to pro tect it?' He could pointout among the illustrious patriots of the country, among the most distinguished of those who had done honour to the bench and to that House, a band which exerted itself as adversary to the principle of privilege, the privilege claimed by that House.' Accidentally the Parlia ment beingsplaced against the Crown gave rise to their sup port of high Parliamentary privileges. He must remind their Lordships of the excess to which they carried their privi• leges. Suffice it to say, that a year afterwards, he found these ordinances of the House which had thus entered itself into the power which it had thus used under the name of privilege to declare as it wished, and to act as it thought fit. The very next year, by an ordinance issued by the House of Com mons, without the consent of that House, the Crown was to raise train-bands, and another ordinance was for the raising of two troops of horse to defend the Par liament and to protect its priv leges, and to give the needful protection to their witnesses against the Queen, the Bishops, and the Lords, and the third ordinance was to levy money for the sake of protecting their privileges and to pay the Bills issued by the Commons' House of Parlia ment itself. There were many other cases in their journals and standing orders showing the laws made by the House of Commons in support of its own privileges, to which he would now refer. After the Revolution of 168t5 and 1639 they had orders which were still standing, orders communicating to the servants of :Members of Parliament of both Houses the same privileges of exemption from actions and arrests as those which their mestere, enjoyed. Another standing order never modified, though of lite years not pracCesed, was that no person should presume to take the goods and chattels of any Member of the House of Lords and Commons in exeeu'ion upon any judgment. Another order of the reign of George I. declared it to be a high breach of the privileges of that House if any man presumed to write the life of any deceased Peer or publish his will, and orders were posted on the outside of the House; to the end that all persons sh tuld have knowledge of the same. They were so inemsistent and capricious as to prevent all publication of any debate within the House of Commons. Whether the order was strictly complied with bs the press of this country, he would leave their Lord ships to consider. There was just as much a breach of privi lege in publishing the speeches of any Member of the House of Commons or Lords, as there was in bringing actions against any officers of the Houses or any witnesses examined before their Committees. He would only have them to consider, be fore they finally resolved, that privileges were originally thought necessary to protect the Houses of Parliament against the Cro,vn. The friends of liberty said that privilege is absolutely necessary, and asked what they would do if the Crown were against them. His (Lord Brougham's) answer was, so much n te t tn to • carFreyr,atf h th ig e h hand with their privileges. Crown was against them, he t d h e e fi e b d e t p t e a r r o a r m t e l He all s o sn o,f o r io rtoid as a inc directing all justices and magistrates, and p ael discretion suggested to them, in the p keeping th e s t r eets clear. B u t, sroiftotihueirs others, a t n doe3r their supposing there were not sufficient justices, magistrates, or con stables, in Westminster to suppress the riot, he should like to know what was meant by all others. He only stated these things to show the inconsistencies of their privileges. He (Lord Brougham) was rnest sure that they had nothing to fear from the justices of the land ; and that they ought of all men, and of all bodies of men, to show the most willing obedi ence to that law, and they ought to be the very last to shrink from protecting their rights, the rights of their witnesses, and the rights of their servants and officers. Their Lordships ought to keels in mind the great maxim that the very belt which bound together the great social pyramid of England was not the apex of the Crown —not the middle region—not the lower reeien of the people—but that middle region, in which justice was administered according to law, by I.swyer:, and, above all, by lawyers who were no political partisans. It was because they were secured from politics—it was because politics never crossed the threshold of their houses of justice to impede their course, or to tarnish their renown, or interrupt the calm and equable tenour of their way ; it was for that rea son that they were to be safely relied upon by all men ; and it was for that re ison th it he ought, and they ought, to rely infi nitely mote securely upon the protection they were su. e to afford, thAn in any assumption of power under the name of privilege which they might possess. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he considered this a question of the greatest importance. and before he would enter into it. or would say a word with respect to the question itself, he wished to point out to their Lordships the situation in which he stood with respect to it. The Noble Duke presented a petition from a party complaining that an action had been brought against him in consequence of evidence which he gave before a Cotntnittee of the' Hulse. It was their Lordships' pleasure that the question of the gaming-laws should be investi gated, and a Select Committee was app into.' for the purpose of inquiring into the subject. He (the Lord Chan cellor) felt it to be his duty, in consequence of that preliminary step, to bring forward the motion shish had given rise to this discussion. He wished, then, in the posi tion in which he was placed, and in the character with which he was clothed, to lay b -.fore them, p'ainly and clearly. the real position of this question, what was the nature of it, and what was the authority on which it rested, in order to enable their Lordships to came to that decision which, after consider ing this important question, they should pronounce. His Noble and L earne d F r i en d (L or d B roug h am ) h a d quo ted and referred to s evera l prece d ents, w hi c h h e ( t h e L or d Chancel lor) admitt e d t o b e very a b sur d sa d very ex t raor dinary. No doubt thi s H ouse an d t h e ot h er H o use had, under the name of prinei ple, conducted themselves upon one occasion in an arbi trary and tyrannical manner. The sovereigns of this country at different periods had also abused their power and authority, and he would beg leave to add that when the people them. selves had by accident become clothed with power they had, in more than one instance, used a tyrannical, a despotic, and arbitrary power —( Hear, hear.) The question now was whether, under the circumstances of this case, they ought to interpose their authority in stopping proceedings against a person who had preferred his complaint at their Lord-hips' bar. The first thing was to consider what were the circumstances and facts of the case. This witnes s was examined before a Select Committee of Inquiry into the laws of gaming. He answered the question , put to him, and there was no pretence to say that these answers were not fairly and honestly given. It was a Select Committee, not open to the public, but, in consequence of the evidence having, in some way or other, been made public, this action had been instituted, his Noble and Learned Friend, in the course of his speech, seemed to doubt whether they had sufficient evi dence, independent of what was stated at their Lordships' bar, to show that the action had been brought to recover dameges in consequence of evidence which had been brought before their Lordships' Committee. That question was investigated before a Committee of their Lordships, and every member of the Committee was satisfied that the action had been brought to recover dam iges for evidence so given, and for that evidence only. They had the declaration before them cons pired with evidence before the Select Committee, and it cor responded in every word. It was a long succession of testi mony, consisting of questions and answers, so as to render it impossible for any man to doubt that the action was brought in consequence of evidence used before a Committee of their Lordseips. It was not n ieessary to bring the parties bringing the action before the bar, but for the purpose of giving them sel to themselve s ri g ht if the y thought an opp or t un it y o f exp l e i n i ng to their Lordships what were their m o ti ves , a proper. They did not do ets, and in consequence he (the Lord Chancellor) made a motion to the effect that they were guilty of a br eac h o f t h e i r L or d s hips' privileges , in order that, after having evislenee advanced on the subject, they might clime to a decision on that point. It had be en said by his Noble and Learned Frie n d, and very correctly said, and he thought said on torrner occasions, that no tuition of this kind could be main tained in the Courts of Westminster hall. Therefore h e (Lord B roug h am ) sugges ted that they should allow the acti on to go on and th e l aw to take its cours e. His ( the Lord Chan (seller's) answer t o th a t was very short and simple. Here was a Pe an nrs(i .caacitleiodnlowefates b ro ught against him, and it entirely failed; Committee and compelled to gi ve evidence; failed; Out anybody who had any acquaintance with the adrni nistretion of justice would see that notwithCaMing the verdict in his favour the consequence would be that consider able costs would come out of his own pocket.—( Hear, hear.) Everybody knew that the defendant was entitled only to taxed costs, and these fell very far short indeed of the real costs which the party had to pay. So that the in dividual who was eompelled to come before their Committee and to give honest evidence, was to be dragged into a court of justice and go through all this ordeal, and ultimately, in the event of his success, to be taxed with these costs. That was only a part of the ease. Everybody who knew anything of the administration of justice knew how many accidents there were which occurred in a cause. Slips might be made, owing to the fault, perhaps, of the counsel, the consequence of which would be that the defendant would have a judgment against him, and would have to pay the whole costs out of his own pocket. These were the risks to which they would expose their wit nesses. Was it not of importance that they should protect their own witnesses? And what was of more importance than the appointment of select committees for the purpose of discovering the truth of important matters ? If a witness who was to be examined before any of these Committees knew the risks to which he was exposed, and that he was running the chance of being dragged before a court of justice for the evidence which he would give, it would lead to a suppression of the entire truth, and would induce him to withhold everything that he felt a'iraid to disclose. His Nobleand Learned Friend thought it extraordinary that a man should be interfered with in his appeal to a court of justice. It was strange, considering the high poition that Noble Lord once occupied, as head of the Court of Chancery, and considering his great erudition, that he should have propounded such a proposition. Why it was an every-day practice in Chancery ; if any officer in the execution of his duty had an action brought against him, he prayed for an injunction to stop the suit, and it was immediately accorded, while the man who brought the action was committed to prison, and kept the till he obeyed the orders of the Court. B u t the Noble Lord had said, that even if the House went to ulterior steps, it would be inutile, for others would conduct the suit. But the action could not be carried on without agents, and if any man diced to carry on the action, while its originator was in custody, he would be committed for contempt, and also punished. This was perfectly analogous to the present question ; and the prin ciple was not only applicable to officers, but all persons con. netted with the Court. If a receiver, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, was harassed by an action, he could claim and re ceive the protection of the Court ; so also was it in the case of a commission of rebellion. The Noble Lord had asked what would be their next step if the present were adopted, and as serted that the House would never be able to carry itself through triumphantly. Only let the infringers of their privi leges try, and they would soon see if they could be put down or not.—( Hear, hear ) A collision between the House and the courts of law was impossible. If the injured sought redress in inferior courts the courts would refuse to interfere. Why, Lord Chief-Justice Denman, in the last judgment which he deli vered, asserted that his Court was bound to protect the privi leges of Parliament; and had it not been for an informality in the warrant the question could not have been entertained by them ; and in the recent case in th e o th er H ouse , th e Com mons had asserted and maintained their prerogative. He had thus briefly stated what appeared to him to be the fact and merits of the case in its present position and subsequent effect, and he had, he hoped, enabled their Losdships to perceive the exact state of the quest;on, and to come to a right decision. Lard BROUGHAM wished to explain that he had not de nied that precedent gave the power now sought, but he doubted the expediency of the House exercising it. As to the case of Chancery, he was astonished to hear his Noble Friend adducing such an inapplicable principle as that of injunction to the pre sent question. The cases were wholly dissimilar. In one they could apply to a court of justice ; in the other, to the legisla tive tribunal only. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. Lord CAMPBELL said, that as no other Noble Lord seemed willing to address the House, he wished to offer a few remarks upon a question SD important to their privileges and respect. The Learned Lord near him ( Lord Brougham) had said that the course they were taking would but render them selves obnoxious to popularity. He however would willingly incur that risk, as he believed that they best consulted the liberty of the subject in asserting their own rights. The Learned Lord had unwisely referred to precedent, and had triumphantly appealed to Floyd's case, but that was not an in stance of privilege, but impeachment. Some of their privi leges had doubtless been found unnecessary, and therefore voluntarily given up. In the time of the Plantagenets, Par liament met three times a • ear; but" at Easter, Christ mas, or Pentecost, the Houses frequently did not sit more than three or four days, therefore that and the privilege of giving protection to the goods of Members and their ur vents was abandoned, the latter by an Act of 10 Geo. 111. His Noble Friend had urged that it was only when their pri vileges were obstructed that they ought to be summarily vin dicated ; but, suppose a charge were made against the Lord Chancellor in his Court of bribery and subornation of wit nesses, would not that be an obstruction of the administration of justice ? And the case was exactly analogous te that now propounded. But Lnrd Ellenborough had distinctly laid down a contrary principle, and asserted that the privileges of Parlia ment were inherent, and should be defended, even when no obstruction was threatened. And it had actually been held of late, that the same principle held good in all the legis lative assemblies of the colonies, and the privileges had been recently declared as belonging to the Government of Jamaica. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the judges. For the judges he had the greatest respect, and he much regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, was absent on this occasion. He respected the wisdom of the judges, but he had a greater respect for the aggregate wisdom of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But, admitting the doctrine that had been laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham), not only could parties for giving evidence be brought before the judges, but also they could be taken into the borough or county courts. They could be taken into the county courts where they would be adjudicated upon by parties who had never been educated in a knowlege of the law. But a true knowledge of this question was not to be found even in Westminster-hall. What could many of the judges there know of the privileges of that House ? Many of them never had been members of it, and could not be expected to understand its usages and modes of proceeding. The privileges of that House did not exist in any written memorials ' but were contained in cert a i n usages an d customs. There was likewise a danger of judges being influenced by popular clamour to act in opposition to the due interests of the country and the privileges of the House. Lord Bacon says, " A popular judge is a deformed thing ; plaudits are fitter for players than magistrates." There had been times in which that House had been highly unpopular, and when it would have been impossible to get a jury to act impartially on any question affecting that Flame. The other House had been in the same position, and would have had an equal difficulty in getting a verdict. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the ewe of Sir Francis Burdett, who had been allowed to appear by counsel, but in that case it should be recollected, and no doubt their Lordships would recollect, that the Crown gave Sir Francis Burdett liberty to proceed. Under the peculiar circumstances, this was thought to be the most advisable course. He would now give a few instances to show that judges ought not to be trusted in matters involving the privileges of that House. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to several instances in which the courts of law had interfered with the privileges of the House. It was once, my Lords, made a ques tion during a se=sion of Parliament whether the Sovereign did not possess the right of prescribing the exact business which Parliament should transact, and also the mode in which Parliamentary proceedings should be conducted. The judges, una voce, pronounced that such right was inherent in the King, and that whosoever denied it was guilty of high treason. The LORD CHANCELLOR—What is the date of that decision ? Lord CAMPBELL—The decision to which he referred was given in the reign of Richard 11., and the Chief Justice Tres. silian, who presided at the time over the Court, was most de servedly hanged. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Then that cannot be con sidered a preeedent.—( A laugh.) Lord CAMPBELL—The judges were asked whether it was possible to impeach the King's Ministers in the High Court of Parliament. The judges, una voce, answered no, and that whosoever proposed such a course was guilty of high treason. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack asked in what reign these decisions were given, arid he had stated they were made in the reign of Richard the Second. In the year 1625, in the reign of Charles the First, a progenitor of a Nob'e Lord in that House (the Earl of St. Germans), along with Selden, Stroud, and Pym, requested to put a c-rtain question to the House. Orders came from the King that the question should not be put, and Parliament was dissolved. These parties 'were arrested and the Attorney- General instituted proceedings against them in the Queen's Bench. The proceedings were carried on, the question was fully argued before the judges, and they convicted these five illustrious men, on the ground that, though they had spoken in Parliament, they had spoken in an unparliamentary way, and were, therefore, amenable for the words spoken. They were severally fined. He would refer to another case, in whic:a a Member of the House of Commons, Sir William Williams,•for putting his name to minutes of the House, by order, was prose cuted, and fined in the sum of 10,0001., 8,0001. of which he paid. The Noble Lord, having given several other instances of the practice of the several courts of law, the Common Pleas, the Exchequer, and the Queen's Bench, proceeded to say that there had been as yet no instances in which parties had been proceeded against f.e. evidence given before a Committee. It was only in these speculative times that such a course could be conceived of; and he was of opinion that unless they in stantly put a stop to such proceedings, and vindicated their privilege!, actions of this kind would be multiplied to an in definite extent. There was no confidence to be placed in the courts of law, as far as their privileges were concerned. For the good of the people, as well as for the independence of the House, they were bound to take steps to put an end to those proceedings. Unless th e y did so , their dignity would be assai'ed, and their usefulness destroyed. —(Cheers. ) The Earl of WICK LOW said, if their Lordships intended to proceed in the way they had specified, it could not fail to lead to serious consequences. He had no doubt that a breach of privilege had been committed, but it had grown out of a dis regard of the p riv il eges w hi c h t h ey possesse d. I t was a b reach of privil e g e to report their proceedings ; it was a breach of privilege to publish evidence taken before a Select Committee. They had winked at the breach of privilege committed in pub lishing the debates ; they went further, and authorized the sale of printed papers. Such a course was most objectionable, in many cases, to individuals who had given evidence. These re. ports should only have been circulated amongst their Lord ships. The case before them arose out of the publicity which had been given to evidence given by a witness before a Com mittee of that House. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack. Not one of the cases brought forward by that Noble Lord or by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) could fairly be applied to the case before them. The majority of the cases which had been cited were materially different from that which then engaged their attention. He looked upon it as one of expediency—of discretion. Would they enforce their privilege? No. Because they were not popular with the country. There' was a deep rooted antipathy to the privileges of that House. If they were about to establish a precedent they should take care of its nature. He hoped that the indi vidual would be able to get out of the dilemma in which their Lordships were about to place him. Lord CAIIPBELL strongly advised their Lordships to put a stop to the action. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion that Mr. Harlow be committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod until the further order of the House.—Agreed to. Their Lordship. then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Hardwin, should be also committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod. Lord BROUGHAM said, what might be considered con tempt in 1810 would now have a different construction upon it. The Duke of WELLING FON said the question was now about the attorney. The case was a very eatraordin•iry one, and mi,gnt be specially attributed to the attorney. It was this, that the declaration concealed the fact that the evidence was given to a Committee of the House of Lords. It stated that it was given in a room before their Lordships. This was a very important fact, and should have appeared on the face of the declarat ion. Lord BROUGHAM —That is the special pleader's fault—not that of the attorney, Lord CAMPBELL considered that they would do wrong to commit the plaintiff, and not his attorney, Alio was much more to blame than him. Pettifogging actions were brought by pettifogging attorneys, who in duced sums party to become the plaintiff. Ile must protest agaigst the dgetrine that it was the duty of a solicitor to bring every action which he was instructed to bring. It was the duty of an attorney to exami n e the cause of action— that there was some reasonable cause for laying it. If they committed one, they ought to commit the other, Lord BROUGHAM said, I have a communication to make, before you order the committal of this person, who has been grievously injured. He has instructed his attorney to dis continue the action. I therefore think that you should proceed no further. The Earl of WICKLOW said, the plaintiff had stated that when he brought the action he was not aware it was a breach of privilege. The LORD CHANCELLOR said in the present case, as far as it appeared to him, the attorney was the most guilty party.—( Hear. ) The plaintiff might know nothing of the privileges of Parliament, but the attorney could not be ignorant of them, and be wished to draw part:cular attention to the de claration. It stated that certain words were spoken in a certain Committee, from the reports of which they were taken. It dropped the word " Lords," and the mere dropping of that word showed it had been left out intentionally ; because any one doing so would have been guilty of a breach of pri vilege, so that the attorney was the most guilty party. After a f:w words from Lord BROUGHAM, The LORD CHANCELLOR put, the motion that Mr. Hardwin, having been guilty of a breach of privilege, should be committed to the eu , tody of the Usher of the Biack Rod, which was agreed to, and the parties, who were in attendance at the bar of the House, were then taken into custody. COST OF OPPOSING RAILWAY BILLS. Lord BROUGHAM intimated that he had abandoned In resolution relating to the cost of opposing railway bills, and had embodied the object of the resolution in a declaratory Act, which provided that the promoters of railway bills should enter into recognizancest, binding themselves to pay the taxed costs of an opposing landholder, should the House think fit to make an order to that effect. The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a se cond time on Thursday. DOG-STEALING BILL. This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thurs lay. Messengers from the House of Commons brought up the South Wales Railway Bill, the South-Eastern Railway Bill (Tunbridge-wells Branch), the General North of England and Hartlepool Railway, and several other Railway Bills. Several measures lying on the table were then advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'.3.—YESTEIZDAY. LIVERPOOL CCI'. 3 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's Winesour—taken 11 to 2 agst Mr. Mo:tyn's Milton—taken 8 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Trueboy 8 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 10 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario—taken 11 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning 20 to 1 agst Mr. Jaques's Extravaganza—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Godfrey—taken 33 to 1 agst Mr. A. Wr. hill's Ironmaster Of the nine horses priced, four only were in any real de mand, namely, Winesour, Milton, Rowena, and Lothario. Lightning's figure was nominal ; Extravaganza's and Godfrey's parties wore select, and the Ironmaster was sent to the right about—he is more like;y to run at Goodwood than Liverpool. GOODWOOD STARES. 12 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Pythia 12 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel 15 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen :flab 18 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Venus—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Parr's Europa 20 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's _.Egis—taken 20 to 1 agst Sir C. 11Iwick's Glossy 20 to I agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o'Gaunt 25 to 1 agst Lord Howth's Warp —taken 25 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario 25 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 25 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wee Pet 30 to 1 agst Mr. Herbert's Ajax 50 to 1 agst Rowena winning this race and the Liverpool Cup. tiery little doing ; Queen Mab and (with a small party Warp alone in request. GOODWOOD CUP. 5 to 2 agst Mr. Irwin's Faugh-a-ballagh—no backers 11 to 2 agst 111 r. A. W. Hill's Ironmaster—taken 10 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Arundo—taken 12 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Stomacher—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr Vane's Valerian—taken Very little done. ST. LEGER. 5 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Wcatherbit 13 to 2 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Merry Monarch—taken 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Old England—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. illostyn's Pantasa. 25 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger 30 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's the Baron 33 to 1 agst Col. Auson's Kedger 1000 to 30 agst Lord Chesterfield's Pam—taken 35 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Ould Ireland The Irish horses and Kedger were friendless. DERBY. 1,000 to 30 agst Mr. Bowes's Brocardo—taken 2,000 to 50 agst Duke of Richmond's Tug Net—taken 2,000 to 50 agst Mr. Ramsey's Malcolm—taken 15,000 to 225 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's King Charles—ditto, LIVERPOOL RACES. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY AFTERNOON, }OUR O'CLOCK.— The following is a list of the entries which closed this after noon on the race course at two o'clock ; WEDNESDAY. The Croxteth Stakes—Vaudeville, 3 yrs—.Corranna, 6 yrs, Erebus, 4 yrs,—Semiseria, 5 yrs—Cinizelli, 2 yrs—Shadow, aged—A-la-mode, 4 yrs—Trueboy, 5 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs— Slid Lothian, 3 yrs—and Lancashire Witch, 3 yrs. The Maiden Plate. Ada, 3 yrs—Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Trimnoir, 3 yrs—Br e by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Jack Palmer, 4 yrs —Steam, 3 yrs. THURSDAY. The Queen's Plate. I3retwalda, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs--B c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—The Shadow, aged—Poussin, 5 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs—Sir Abstrupus, 5 yrs—Pug, 3 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs —Jack Palmer, 4 yrs. FRIDAY. The Stanley Stakes, for two yrs and 3 yrs olds. Pug, 3 yrs—Pluto, 3 yrs—Birthday, 2 yrs—Lanca shire Witch, 3 yrs—Hope, 3 yrs—lsabella, 2 yrs—Bur lesque, 2 yrs—Andrew Brandy, 3 yrs—Dean Swift, 3 yrs— Lord Harry, 2 yrs—B c by Phcenix, out of L'Hirondelle, 2 yrs —B f by Jereed, dam by Bustard, 3 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs. The Selling Stakes. Triumvir, 3 yrs—Erebus, 4 vrs—Juvenal, 4 yrs—Ambition, 4 yrs—Br cby Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Sir Henry, 3 yrs— Poussin, 5 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—THE ORIGINAL METALLIC TABLET STROP;. WITH FOUR SIDES.--Mr. George Saunders, inventor and manufacturer, No. 25, Strand. — This article has been in extensive use for the last thirty years by the first cutlers, who pronounce it to have no equal in producing a fine smooth edge to a razor, so necessary to shave with comfort. They may be had of the following cutl ers : —L owcoc k , 38, Cornbill ; Lund, 24, Fleet-street ; Davis, 69, and Looker, 42, Leaden hall. street ; Verinder, 79, St. Paul's Churchyard ; 161, Strand ; Coleman, Haymarket ; Philp and Whicker, 67, St. James's-street ; Warner, 25, Sackville street ; Paget, 195, Piccadilly ; Kingsbury, 152, and Durham, 201, Regent -street ; Einslie, 46, St. Martin's lane ; Robinson. 53, Bishopsgate-street ; Carter, Paris ; Lamprey, Dublin. The fact of their being sold by the above makes it superfluous for the inventor to speak further in their favour.—George Saunders, No. 25, Strand. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Ladies, whether temporarily exposed to the scorching rays of the summer sun, or frequenting the crowded saloon, or close assembly, will find Rowland's Kalydor a most refreshing preparation and auxiliary to comfort, dispelling the cloud of lan guor and relaxation from the complexion, and immedi ately affording the phasing sensation attending restored elasticity of the skin. The numerous varieties of cu taneous eruptions, suoburn freckles, tan, and disloura- tions, are pleasingly eradicated by the Kalydor. and the skin rendered delicately clear and soft. Its purifying and refreshing properties have obtained its selection by the Court and the Royal Family of Great Britain, and those of the Continent of Europe, together with the elite of the aristocracy and haut ton. The high re putation it bears causes unprincipled shopkeepers to offer their spurious " Kalydors" for sale, composed of the most deleterious ingredients, containing mineral astringents, utterly ruinous to the complexion, and by their repellent action endangering health. It is there fore imperative on purchasers to see that the words " Rowland's Kalydor" are on the envelope (an engraving of exquisite beauty, from a steel plate by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon, and Co.) All others are fraudulent counterfeits. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND HEARING. — No. 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented Spectacles, Telescopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, &c. Patronised by General Sir Edward Paget, Sir Even Lloyd Maiston, Frederick Goodfellow, Clayton Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robertson, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, Fox, Price, Lindsay, and Thackray, Major-General Sir H. Elphin stone, P. Fyers, D. Macleod, Hamilton, Turner, Weinyss, and Cock, Lieutenant-Generals Sir Henry Botiverie, Sir J. Ms:cdonall, Sir R. Barton, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir Win. Enstace, Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir David Milne, Sir George Monday, Sir George Martin, Sir James H. WhitsbCd, Sir 1). G o ld, Ross, Alexander, Curzons, Tompkinson, Hollis, and Price, Vice-Adinjral F. Austen, Rear .Admirals Brown and Ribouleau, &c. Messrs. S. and B. Solumons, Opticians, have invented Spectacle Lenses upon a new construction—lmmediately they are plat d before im perfect vision, that mist and dullness which appear be fore the eyes is at once removed, every object becomes clear and distinct, !-o that the most aged imperfect sight becomes bright and brilliant, and is brought to its youth ful, natural, and original state. Also Achromatic Tele scopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, Invisible and all kinds a Acoustic Instruments, for relief of most extreme d-afness. Caution—Messrs. S. and B. Solotions, Opti cians, are not iii any way connected with a person of the name, iu their immediate neighbourhood, nor in any part of the country. To prevent mistakes be cautious, and Observe,—Only to be had at 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly, opposite the York hots 4 CAPTAIN CIIAMIER'S NEW NOVEL—We are re quested to state that Mr. Colburn. of Great Marlborough street, has this day published " Count Konigsmark," an His torical Novel, by Captain Frederick Chamier, R.N , in 3 vols., which can now be had at all the Libraries. Mr. Colburn has also just published the following new novels : —2. The White Slave, a Russian story, by the author of " Revelations of Russia," 3 vols-3. Self, by the author of " Cecil," 3 robs 4. Maids of Honour, a Tale of the Court of George 1., 3 vols —5. Jonathan Sharp, or the Adventures of a Kentuckian, written by himself, 3 vols—and, 6. Do Hoban, or the Court Conspirator, by M. Eugene Sue, author of the " Mysteries of Paris," &c., 3 vols. THE RECENT CASES OF INSUBORDINATION IN THE POET-orsicE.—On Saturday, in consequence of the insubordinate conduct of some parties in the General Post-office, the superin. tendent residents of the inland-office, with the inspector of letter carriers, summoned for attendance in the afternoon, the whole of the letter-carriers and sub sorters, for the purpose of reading to them the answer of the Noble Earl (Lonsdate) the postmastcr.General, to a report recently forwarded to his Lord ship, of the state of the office as noticed by Thomas S. Dun.. com b o , Esq., the Honourable Member for Finsbury, in the late debate on the abuses of the office, The following is a copy of his Lordship's reply through the Secretary, Colonel Maberly With reference to your report of the 4th instant, en closing severgl anonymous notices that have been distributed in the letter. carriers' office, I am commanded by the Postmaster-Geneval to direct you to assemble the sub.sorters and letter-carriers, to in. form them that while his Lordship is at all times ready to listen to any grieva , ce which they have to complain of, when conveyed through their superior officers, he has seen, with great displeasure, the discreditable conduct of some individuals of their body, and that if he titceceds in discovering the parties, he will ipstautly dismiss Them. (Signed " W. L. MAOISM" • ' • to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a shadow of relief, he truAed some explanation would be given by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or modified. Lord DALMENY thought the quarter sessio s were not sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor. and believed that the court of supervision would obviate this nomaly, and quoted Dr. Alison ti confirm that opinion. Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the c use as that of legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor. :11r. WAKLEY said that he had hitherto supported the Bill, because he conceived it framed in a spirit of conferring relief on the distresses which he understood existed in Scot land, and because he had been led to believe that no poor-law at present existed to remedy the distress of the labouring classes of that country. But he now believed that the Government were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op press the poor; and as to the clause in question, it was cruel and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its subsequent stages. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment 45 Against it Majority against the amendment —34 The clause was then passed. On the next clause being proposed, Lord ASHLEY recommended that the term " five years" should be substituted for seven years. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment ...... ••• 8 Against it ... Majority —loo The gallery was :immediately after cleared for a division on an amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority —63 Mr. AGLIONBY then made a few observations disap - proving of the 72d clause, which was then proposed. The LORD-ADVOCATE explained that the operation of the Bill would be such as to enable the poor man to receive relief on easier conditions than formerly. Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill did not place the Irish and Scotch paupers on the same equality as Scotch men in Ireland who, if destitute, received relief and permanent relief,. and he thought that the same liberality should exist in Scotland by the operation of the present Bill. After a few words from Lord DUNCAN, Lord CLENIENTS said that Englishmen and Scotchmen were employed in great numbers in Ireland. A good feeling was promoted between► them and the natives. He was asto nished that the Noble Lord was desirous of stirring up ill-will between Irishmen and Scotchmen. The poor-law, after all, was merely a public fund, out of which the public should de rive assistance when they stood in need of it. Many Scotch farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland could not get in their crops if Irish labourers did not come over from Ireland to aid them. And if they encouraged Irishmen to come over it was their duty to support them. Mr. LOCKHART said he would give the Bill all the oppo sition in his power, as it had not undergone any alteration from the state in which it had previously been presented to the House. The Hon. Member said something about the number of Irish paupers, and the difficulty of relieving them, but he was not clearly audible in the gallery. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that if the Government passed the Bill in the form which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to wish, it would be no cre.lit to him or the hospitality of the country which he represented.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Government deserved the warm thanks of every Irish Member for placing the Irish on the same level with the Scotch paupers. He must remark that the Scotch felt no scruple in s.ttling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe rience he felt bound to express his belief that if • anlrishman and a Scotchman presented themselves before an Irish board of guardians, such was the generous feeling of hospitality by which they were actuated, that they would relieve the Scotchman in preference to the Irishman. He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in troduce religious differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law. Lord DUNCAN laid that if he had made any allusion to religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from his being unaccustomed to Parliamentary speaking. Sir W. SONIERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the disavowal, and would withdraw any expression of censure upon the words which the Noble Lord had, he now believed, inad • vertently used.—( Cheers.) After a few words from the Lord Advocate, Mr. Ross, Lord Duncan, Mr. P. M. Stewart, Mr. Bouverie, and Sir G. Grey, the House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority for the clause —79 The clause wa; then aereed to. Mr. BROTHERTON then moved that the Chairman re. port progress. The galleries were cleared, but no division ton's place, the Lord-Advocate having acceded to the motion. The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again this day. BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. Vn the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER tbat this Bill be read a third time, Mr. WILLIAMS said if the motion was urged at that late hour he shouid move that the standing orders of the day be postponed until this day. After some conversation the third reading was postponed until Thursday. SUPPLY. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT moved that the House go into a Committee of Supply, in order to vote the sum of 146,2941. Us defray the expenses of the militia. The House then went. into Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the grant, on the ground that the service was an incomplete one. The grant was agreed to, and the House resumed. The Valuation (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. The Geographical Survey . Bill passed through Committee. STAMPS 'ACT. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, the House went into Committee pro forma on the above Bill, and it was ordered to be reported this day. TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Sir THOAIAS FREAIANTLE, this Bill was ordered to be read a second time this day week. TURNPIKES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This Bill was ordered to be read a second time. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS BILL. The several clauses of this Bill were agreed to. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL. The report on this Bill was received. The Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland) Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported this day. ART UNIONS BILLL (No. 2). •The report was ordered to be received this day. The second reading of the Games and Wagers Bill was post poned to Friday next. Several other orders were also postponed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bid to amend the Act of the 3d and 4th Victoria, c. 109. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the Howe adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 14. Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock this evening. Several Railway Bills were brought up from the Commons and read a first time. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn milted. COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the Nike of WELLINGTON, this BE was read a first time, and ordered to be printed. IRISH POOR-LAW. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented two petitions complaining of the present mode of administering the poor-law in Ireland. The Norm's MAnclurs at the same time moved for a return of the number of children under the age of fifteen at present in the workhouses of Ireland, distinguishing orphans from the other children, and that the report of the Commissioners ap • point , -1 in 1836 to inquire into the state of the poor-laws in Ire land be reprinted.—The returns were agreed to. LIVERPOOL AND BURY'RAILWAY. Lord STANLEY presented several petitions in favour of the Liverpool and Bury Railway Bill. WASTE LANDS IN AUSTRALIA. The NOBLE LORD laid on the table a Bill for regulating the sal«. of waste lands in the Australian colonies. The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. IRISH COLLEGES BILL. The NOBLE LORD also appointed the second reading of this Bill for Monday next. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. The Earl of DEVON said he had conferred with some of the 'Members of the other House of Parliament with respect to the Bills which the Government had intended to introduce, and he had come to the conclusion that it would not be for the public benefit to introduce the Bill with respect to the shorten ing the form and reducing the expense of leases. He had come to a similar conclusion with respect to the Bills for re gulating distresses and vjectments for the non-payment of rent for land, the Tenure and Leases Bill, and the Grand Jury Bill. These Bills, from the late period of the session, could not re ceive that consideration to which they were entitled. They would be carefully considered during the recess, and would be then proceeded with. Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the Nob'e Lord that it was necessary to postpone some of the measures he had enumerated. enumerated. But with respect to the Bill for amending the laws relating to grand juries, which had been sent down to the Lower House, he thought it might be passed during the pre sent session. Surely there were enough of Irish Members to pass the Bill before the session closed. The Marquis of CLA N RIC ARDE thought the Irish people had had sufficient time to consider the subject. He thought that the customs and feeling's which lawful habits had en gendered and strengthened should be respected. He hoped, therefore, that time would be given to the people of Ireland to express their opinion on this subject. The Earl of WICKLOW thought that both those Bills should go together, and he was of opinion that his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies should withdraw his Bill. Lord CLARENDON then begged leave to move a resolu tion, that it is resolved that in reference, not merely to existing treaties between Great Britain and Spain, but with respect to the commercial enterprise carried on between her Majesty's Government and the colonies, that the Reese is of opinion that the subjects of the King of Spain should be permitted to im port the productions of all their territories, paying nut higher duties than other colonies pay on like articles. The resolution was ordered to lie on the table. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. The LORD CHANCELLOR then ordered John Harlow to be called to the bar, and asked was he present. John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORI) CHANCELLOR —Where do you reside ? John Harlow—No. 9, Leicester -square. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Have you brought an action against Thom is Baker ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—For what? John Harlow— For false and malicious language used by him before the House of Lords. The LORD CH kNCELLOR—For language used in giving evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Have you anything further to say on that subject ? John Marlow--I will only say, that I have been very much injured in my business, by being ointed out in the streets as being a gsmbler, when I know that such is not the cage. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you aware that a corn- Plaint has been made to this House your conduct, in bring ing this action? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—And that a complaint has been made, that it is a breach of the privileges of this House ? John Harlow -_I was not at all aware that it was a breach of privilege, when the action was commeeeecl. And I hope that your Lordships will give me an opportunity of seeking redress, when I Lae* been so materially injured by the statements which were made. Lord CAMPBELL —The question which I beg leave to put to you ia, do you still mean to go co with the aetion ? John Harlow--My Lord, lam not at this moment prepared tq say that I will. Lord CAMPBELL—Are you, at this moment, prepared to say, that you will lift? Johp Hariow—No, Any ;,ord. STATE OF TRADE.. b oo LEEDS CLOTH MA RE ET, —The business at the Clotu:mo has been comparatively flat this week, and the supplY °f , 6 711i was small, both o n S a t ur d a y an d T ues day. Price s fi ef about the same. The principal demand was for b e avers! _ e cloakings, and sh aw l s . Th ere was b u t a s mall business Eno fine and middle c l o th s . I n th e ware h ouse s a little itu r mcnt has been observable. i t hy toir ket , MANCH ESTER TRADH.-1 here was a very r ob.. yesterday for goods generally, with a tendency t_ (l A higher prices, particularly in shirtings for the east, "'",,,, 0 i55 4 rnestic cloths. The demand for yarn continues still v - w hiall and higher prices were obtained for some-numbers, for large contracts have been made. BRADFORD MA RE ET. — There is a good demand for .--,fter wool at former price s . Sh or t woo l s Are much sough t p eed but do not realise hi g h er p r i ces . I n th e yarn markedee are a little higher, b u t no t so muc h as might be l a cer! from the production being v er y me agre. In t he trade there is a fair business done, but the reV o n ist yarn being higher, is on account of there being a bett" ette for pieces made altogether of wors t e d. For the b r , iter , pieces there has been a g oo d sa l e . Th e attendance °Joreis chants has been numerous. Worsted goods are much 111 request than the mixed ones.— Leeds Times. v g S : A • LL‘DVERTISE.'IIIENTJ -r, —BRUSHES.—NEW • - S TO —The Triple Hair Brush, One stroke of this is e2b§, to the effect of one penetrating, and one even-cut brush ;to he had in four Size s ; is. 6° 6d, ; No. 8,7 s. 6d. ; No. 9,9 s. 6d. ; No. 10, r 4 0 08 The Double Anti Pressure Nail Brush, which nc' e " divide the quick front the nail no pressure beinFid quired, and thoroughly cleans and polishes the n 9 . 1 00 five small-tooth ; a tenth part of the time of any other method ; P r i l o ,4, bone, No. 1, 25.; No. 2,2 s. 6d.; No. 3,3 s. 6 61 .,.; /.le° 55.; and of all sizes and prices in ivory. Tii ° till Tooth-pick Brush, which entirely enters betviree.asiod interstices of the closest teeth ; marks, f lll A l c iliag; brushes, No. 1, hard; No. 2, Isss hard; No. 3, Trieje./' No. 4, soft. The narrow brushes, No. 5, har u; ,, e h,° t less card; No. 7. middling ; N o . 8, s oft, at Is. lose° 10s. per dozen in bone; and 2s. each or 21s. Per D 8 in ivory, the hair warranted never to come nut' hit Medium Shaving Brush, between the usual badg e : pit and bristle brush, being a selection of the strollgts"th only from the badger skin, in a v a r i e ty of sizes , ° t oil bone and ivory. The above articles are the in / of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate•sto London, and, being protected, any one imitating will be proceeded against. t t v. Pocket Edition (500 pages) A , in an envelope ß I , price 25., bY, ' ° N M R A its Hindrances and Obligations. " Of griefs concealed, and disappointments keen, Which young and gentle—the matured and sage, The lonely and the mated—all sustain." a l 13y R. J. CULVEKWELL, M.D., y ‘ce stis Afem her of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, -"," yon d the Hall, and twenty-three years Resident Practitioner Also, companion to the same (72 Engravings), price I s., by Y v- ON CHASTITY—its Abuses and DiseaseS• " Whereon doth hinge the dignity of man, The health of offspring, and domestie love !" gb These publications are free from empyricism and mol d to tr mentality—they abound in stern truths, and are address ed telligence of the times. wiee t•Sfol, Sherwood, 23, Paternoster-row ; Carvalho, 147, '' A utlinso llannay, 63, Oxford-street ; Mann, 39, Cornhill ; and th!;;;Ar• Arundel-street, Strand.—At home daily till Two • Even! • till Nine. Dlt. CULVERWELL'S GUIDE TO HEALTH Af n rfA LIFE, ADDRESSED CHIEFLY TO YOUNG 111, New Edition, with additions, price Is., by post ls. 610 W HAT TO ME EAT, DRINK,DICAL K AND i t o f On the Errors and Extravegancies of Early Life, such 111 4 rate feeding and drinking, snuffing, smoking, precocious 14 , strained indulgences, mental and bodily excesses, late bni, l e eitS excitement, and other outrages, exhaustive to the aniin Si .a also, per contra, the value of careful living, fresh air, e ii4 go;ilf and out-door exercise salutary occupation, and good fneerestoP ment, whereby the most shattered constitution may be ap health, on 1 life preset - wed to the latest period allotted to fn By E. J. CULVERWELL, M.D. M.M.C.S., L•A" ;eel , 1 11 Shen, ool : ,23, Paternoster-row ; Carwalho, 147, Fleet - s t ioof; nay, 63, Oxford-street; Mann, 39, Cornhill ; a nd the Arundel-street, Strand. At home, daily, till 2 ; evening , ' d e FOURTEENTH EI)ITION of the SILENT FRIEND °- „ Frailty, with Coloured Engravings. Just published, price 2s. 6d., free by post (in a sealed enve'7 o ol Fr HE SILENT FRIEND; a Medical N l ' 1: :;: ti o' M. the Infirmities of the Generative System in both 04 _, t A r on the loss of the reproductive powers, with means of a 0;00 The bandit! effects of solitary indulge- ce, neglected sOns o All toms, &c., are fully pointed out. Illustrated by Eng-ravills','„f i d by observations on Marriage, w ith plain directions for the ,; 0 0_7 certain disqualifications. By It. and L. PERRY and Co., pe Surgeons, London. Published by the Authors, and I 1 3 ' 4l Ol •Of their residence, 19, BERNERS-STREET, OXFORD-5 1 1,4, Sold by Strange, 21, Paternoster-row ; Hannay and CO ford-street ; Gordon, 146, Leadenhall-street ; Purklo , street, Soho; and all Booksellers. P 0 "We regard the work before us, the ' Silent Friend, ,„,e d embracing most clear and practical views of a series 0f...7'0;01 hitherto little understood, and passed over by a majority yam dical profession, Dr what reason we are at a loss to knovt.fs however confess that a perusal of this work has left Sne k „ttoOrl o , impression on our minds, that we not only recommend , ' O OV wish every one who is the victim of past folly, or suffering -„d ,M cretion, to profit by the advice contained in its pages." — Airdll o ll , The CORDIAL BALM of SYRIACUM is exolusivev. k nerfid, the cure of nervous and sexu a l d e bili ty, irregularity, W e- s itslo o 0 0/ of appetite, indigestion, consumpti ve habits, said debilities, a 1 0 41 excess, &c. In bottles, price I Is., or th e quan tity a 0 0 0 bottle for 335., by which Ils. are saved. Th e tivo-pow be had as usnal. At li The CONCENTRATED DETERSIVE ESSENCE, an 03 laic remedy for searching oat and purifying the blood fr o , , L*l , blotches on the head, face, and body, ulcerations, and t o f Ift el ie o erections arising from improper treatment or the effects _op removing secondary symptoms, and all eruptions of the 401,, FI Ils. and 335. per bottle. o PERRY'S PURIFYING SPECIFIC PILLS, price - 8 . 0 ,1 7- and I is. per box, are the most effectual remedy for strint ur to D e O ce o motion, irritation of the bladder, &c., without hinsiranc__, e . 0 1 Consultation fee, If by letter, 11. Minute detail of ca , 7„ - ttlnfl Messrs. Perry are in daily attendance, for consultation,'o4.,,i ridenee, 19, Berners-street, Oxford.qtreet, London. freln olfr 5 tills. * On Sundays from 10 till 12. One personal visit i° cc sirs- • a AT1,,1110,15 LAMERT ON DEBILITY, .N.EttVtAJS.NEnn, AZ -- DISORDERS ARISING FROM EXCESS, o r ' c ' "He, who in pleasure's downy arms Ne'er lost his health or youthful charms, A hero lives, and justly cal dad Exclaim, in me behold a man P' „ Just published (in a sealed envelope), Tenth Edition, pri ce •-• 00 sent by post, free, to any address, 3s. Gd., QELF-PRESERVATION : a Popular 0 9 ,1; those concealed disorders, originating in voutlif . , 4 00 0 4 1 and terminating in Nervous Debility, Local and C0n,;,,, Af Weakness, and all those Sinkings, Anxieties, and Tren' ti ," afflict the Weak, the Sedentary, and the Delicate. Observations on Marriage, and on the Anatomy, P'.., Diseases of the Reproductive Organs, with plain Directise f of perfect Restoration. By SAMUEL LAMERT, Consulting Surgeoo' 51) , 0 1 9, BEDFORD-STREET, BEDFORD-SQUARE, , 11 0 t 0 Matriculated Member of the University of EdinburlP h . c oti A Member of the London Hospital Medical Society,i t Apothecaries' Hall, London, &c. t f ° " The various positions of Lover, Husband, and Par ent ' A pre, , herent privileges of mankind, are frequently marred an oc ti,!;6o l l through the follies and frailties of early indiscretions. 11 , ;, others, this Essay addresses itself; and by Its perusal 01 '7, yea ' A may be satisfactorily adjusted that admit of no aPPe.' e i ef, most contidential friend."—Stafford Gazette. 0 1 ' 1 j ° ' "Long experience in the treatment of a class of dise• - ',,,61c P 4 neglected and most imperfectly understood by the great t medical profession, has enabled the writer to prove t il t, Ol e eP. concealed causes of Nervous Debility in existence, wlie r " us e /AO . ; routine practitioner would never dream of finding then to certain habits, forming the most secret, yet deadlf,,,llo springs of domestic misery, and premature mertali`Y." 1 Journal. 5 0 v Published by the Author, an d so ld i n L on d on by S. retbe'`,,',c6e 52, Paternoster-row; Starie, 23, Tichborne-street, Qua . `" street ; Hannay and Co., 63, O x f or d- s t ree t ; N o bl e , 1 , ' , Zell' lace Gordon, 146, Leadenh a ll-st ree t ; an d by a ll Boo lo `lii , 1 1 0 , /g pi, home every day till Three, a n d f rom Five till 0,0 WEATHER PREDICTIONS. delight in this foreknowledge should purchase , of time, GRIMSTONE'S WEATHER ALMANACK, (10,00;1 Lions of the weather, from his publication to the prese n- ther ' o de`, been checked by many proprietors of newspapers and , o ,,roc j e The " Times " has eulogised its correctness and Pe c "ous' printing ; see page 57. The "John Bull " published 10 010;10j Dec. 22, 1544, giving it, indeed, 336 correct daily Pre,`,' ,De ~ copy, pages 52 and 54. Also, " The Sun," the " Globe. the " Post," " Herald," " Ch r o n i c l e ," " S a ti r ist," , many others, have noticed the correctness of this uniqu e Amongst the great variety of matter is an Interesting 1301, hir Royal Highness Prince Albert while at the College of ri eet., useful Chronology, Royal Family, both Houses of Parl di -f tp`l i mary of Population of the British Empire, Populatioatrs,p4 towns and cities ; a Calendar, containing Sundays, fee 0, e ef e versaries, phenomenons,• chronological events, moon's I'tier°t Key tides, gardeners' monthly calendar, a column for the wo',. o f op!, C ; pages 3to 25. Stamps, assessed taxes, li , `„ h e D o r Copies of 31 letters, from ladies and gentlemen of " t _ de oi7, respectability, cured of ophthalmia, gutta serene, catar. c idter i po; nervous deafness, headache, and spectacles left off, 5010(Vil, hem upwards of 20 years, by using Grimstone's Eye „ 61,, ji",: ations in French, Italian, and Spanish; pages 59, Read page 54, the Medical Report in the " ForcePs," o lt'e proving the great advantages arising from the constant : rec ts , s ll , ‘ stone's Eye Snuff having been the cause of clearing ours ,`„. lt,',/tP es many green eye-shades, and other human distlguremen,,,:riti e`iitr only fashionable snuff of the day sold under the Ali", , s S g r er, re ,„ Lords of he Treasury and Royal Family. Griunston-ciag at Almanack is a beautiful pocket size, with a steel engll o senting a bird's eye view of Oxford-street, &c., bound e „.44; blue, with gilt edges. o d f Sold, at 3d. each, by all the Londo n wholesale publis,,,' lc i f-a, sellers. Wholesale only by the prop r i e t or, W. GRIMFI-- Snuff and Cigar Merchant, 434, Oxford-street, Loudon* ea t, Copy of one of the above Letters : St. Martin's-le-Grand, General Post-office, Inland v" ctober, 9 1844. Sir,—For the last three or four years I , have been la. - a nervous deafness, so much so at times as to be almos t hearing. After trying several very eminent /wrists, from rived scarcely any relief, was induced at the solicitati o ',,ne of d to try your excellent Eye Snuff. I accordingly procure. " D eil'o 9 1 . j 4s. 4d. canisters, after taking which I found considerable f 00 1, 0 0 .0 much co that I sent for two more, which having u sc n' r e. hearing completely restored, and I have not been deaf s'l'-iatr of mention that the time I commenced taking your April last, and have continued taking it sincs.-1 'ielit servant, w. 14. ef Ce': To Mr. W. Grimstone the cy' dire Any quantity of Eye Snuff can be forwarded through Post, by sending money orders. A 2s. 4d. caaister , will cost 35., and so on in like proportion BIRTHS. Joh • Ed' On the 10th inst., at F re d er i c k- s t ree t, Mrs. f Taylor, of a son. ;he ° ,of On the 11t1 ie Al inst., in Torrington-square, , round Barlow, Esq., of a dau g ht er . , 1 , 1- ter• On the 11th inst., at Ebury-street, Eaton- glul e a wl,',,r , , of J. Worlledge, jun., Esq., b arr i ster - at- l aw , of 3 of ite'' On the 12th inst., at Tottenham, Lady MaddF° , h ill, On the 23d of June, at Laurel Cottage, Sunning k ora' the wife of C. C. Brooke, Esq., of a daughter, still- el in 101,p ARRIED. On the Bth inst., at Aberdeen, James Keith, ? . j'ate ~, L.achine, Lower Canada, to Susan, daughter of t he ,fi , George Angus. octi o a On the Bth inst., at St. George's, Hanover-Nl ° o ftb e ~ Robbins, Esq ,to Emily Agar, youngest daught er - sli` J. W. S. Cruttwell, Esq., 83d Reg iment. of qtr ,l ' On the 12th inst., at Frome, M r.' John RockleY c t e r garden, Lo n d on , to Mrs. Edwards, relict of the '' Edwards, of Frome, Somerset. ji# DIED. 0 114 On the sth inst., at Tunbridge-wells, Charles Oil la On the Esq. 6, ath ged 42. 0 0 „. inst., at Charles-street, B er keley -5 - Toy Ann Baker, a ge d 82. . gro. On the Bth inst., a t the Ffryth, near Wreahatot am ping, widow of the late J. Topping. , p Wig g ' k On the 4th of May, at Meerut, in India, Ja—ina. -r; - ,! f o son of C. Sparkes, Esq., of Aberdeen-lace, age" „I'll , " " a g e o" . On the 6th inst., at Laurel Cott age s nflu't , '. l Pr" , . u 41 - ..0 Eliza, the wife of C. C. Brooke, Es q., late of t he 4l' .., i ft Guards. , r• iiit o On the Bth inst., at Margate, Andrew JaMes -1- " r ,l i el k On the 9th inst., Charlotte, relict of Mr. 531j ' New Bond street. O n the 9thin;t., at Limehouse, Mr. J. Wan e°. htti A the 10th inst., Louisa Blanche, eldest da n t 4 Rev. G. Sanby, Vicar of 'lixton, Suffolk, aged I** 100 On the 11th i ns t., a t B ow hill- terrace , Brbctolli Lewis, ° A i r011;•" P ( 14';'n , on ; Printed and Published by MURDO Ss' ° No. il2, Strand, Printer, at The Sus Ot r ' ci3 'Coll ii Strand. in the Precinst of the Savoy', in vie 5114dleaex, Tqesday, U.) , 15, 1845. o` ol t ‘ge t a t4 h is "'ule) tot I ntel •tealps( 1 1le fte toa bir eel 11 / 4 : 81 hue No a h for 6 3. G arr it !co , To , but C- on Thy Are The In The c l ............... t i PI , .... --... • , t 100 0 , .f , ........1 tht •--- itma.Pti nc The _ ti nn g I~g ra f or 1),&, .I‘lo Th, Vor , Self An, F or We