The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-02 00:00:00

ibtrb SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Cloch. THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.) _ BRITISH FUNDS. Bank Stock ......... ......... ... 1} 8% Indian Stock 3 per Cent. Red . 99% Ditto Bonds .......... 3 per Cent. Cons. 31 per Cent. Red 102% Ditto New Annuities ... New 3% per Cent •-- Ex. Bills, 1,0001. lad ... 75 pm. New 5 per Cent. Ditto 5001 Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small 75 pm. Jan 1860 l2 7.16 Bank Stock for Acct.... Oct. 1859............., Consols for Opg. 1 ,8% Jan. 1860.....•••• ••••• - ,lndia Stock for Acct.... 283 -- , - FOREIGWVIJNDS. Austrian, 5 per Cent ......... (Ditto, New per Cent Belgian, 5 per Cent ..... ....... IDitto, New Ditto Brazilian Ronda 82% Prussian, 5 per Cent — Buenos Ayres, 6 per Cent... Russian, 5 per Cent .... Chllian, ll per Cent ... ...... ... li 5 'Ditto, Metallic Colombian, 6 per Cent ...... 13% Spanish, 5 per Cent 23 Ditto, IW4 — Ditto, 3 per Cent 3 'ls Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent — Ditto, Deferred Danish, 3 per Cent Greek, 18.5, 5 per Cent — Exchange —f. —c. Mexican, 5 per Cent .... ..... French, 3 per Cent. —f. —c. Ditto, 6 per Cent., 183 ' 7 Dutch, 2% per Cent...... CO% Peruvian, 1025, 6 per Cent — Ditto, 5 per Cent .........100% SHARES. Birmingham and Derby, £lOO paid 6 14 Birmingham and Gloucester (100 paid). ...... Eastern Counties (23 paid) ;.............. Ditto Registered (8/65 8d paid) Great Western (75 paid) ..r -- " l -2551 Ditto Half Shares, 50 paid '7 9 14 Ditto Filths, 12 paid London and Birmingham (Stock) Lon Jon and Brighton (50 paid) ....... .......... .. ... Landow and South Western (41/. 6s. 10d. paid) Midland Counties (100 paid) 94% Newc,istle and Darlingron Junction. 21 paid ..- South Eastern and Dover (33 2s 4d paid) Yarmouth and Norwich (18 paid) Orleans, Tours, and Bourdeaux, 1 paid Paris and Orleans (20 paid) Rouen and Havre, 10 paid COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—(THIS DAY.) Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gibraltar — Ditto, at sight l2 4 Leghorn 3O 45 Rotterdam 2U. 12 64 Genoa 25 90 Antwerp 25 90 Milan — Bamburgh M.B. 13 13i Venice 47 Altona l3 14 Napes 39 Paril, 3 days' sight... 25 60,,5 - ra ermo, per oz llB Ditto, 3 months 25 'BO Lisbon 54 Marseilles - 25 85 Oporto s3i _. Bourdeaux 25 85 Rio Janeiro 23 Frankfort on Maine.. 1214 Bahia - 23 l'etersburgh, 3 Us... 37 Buenos Ayres — Berlin.. 7 - NewYolkldys sight Vienna, effec. IL 3 M 952 Trieste, ditto Mactid 37 Philadelphia - PRICES OF DU WON, PER OZ. Foreign Gold, bars. X 3 17 9 Cadiz _ _ fortugal Gold Coin 3 17 5 Dor' 36 Barcelona 36 Sevile New . iubloons 0 0 0 New Dollars 0 4 10 Silver in liars 0 4 11i THE LONDON GAZETTE (THIS EVENING.) WHITEHALL, JUNE 22, 1844. The Lord Chancellor has c _appointed Eiward Burrell, of Tydd St. Mary's, in the county of Lincoln, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor has also appointed James Buckton, of Wrexham, in the county of Denbigh, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. WHITEHALL, JUNE 27, 1844. The Lord Chancellor has appointed George Peters Wilkes, of the city of Gloucester, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. CAMBRIDGE HOUSE, JULY 1, 1844. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has been _pleased to appoint Dr. William Smith, as one of his Physicians. BANKRUPTS. HENRY WIER COLLINSON, hat maker, Stamford street, to surrender July 12, at two, and August 16, at half past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official as s•gnee, Birchin-lane, Cornhill; Hodgson and Burton, Salis bury-straet, Strand. THOMAS SCOTT, baker, Colchester, July 16, and August 13, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official as signee, King's Arms-yard, _Noergate- street ; Marriott, C.,1- ,chester. WILLIAM HARDING, grocer, Seuthampton-street, Camberwell, July 9, at eleven, and August 9, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, Alderman bury ; Jordeson, St. Nlary-at-Hill. FREDERICK ROBERTS, butcher, Handley, Cheshire, July 10, at half-past twelve, and August 7, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liverpool ; Nicholls and Co., Bedford-row, London. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. J. Newsome, engineer, Batley, Yorkshire. S. Haddock, builder, Nottingham. J. Woodward, lace manufacturer, Nottingham. I. Webb, butcher, Formarton, Gloucestershire. E. Swan, licensed victualler, Ipswich, Suffolk. S. Rutley, carpenter, Bromley St. Leonard's, Middlesex. T. Dobby, cab proprietor, Brownlow-mews, Russell square. J. Quelch, jun., hair-dressefßeading. G. Senior, candlewick-manufacturer, Manchester. C. Cope, commission agent, Edgbaston, Warwickshire. B. Barker, carpenter, Pontefract, Yorkshire. J. Pratt, straw bonnet blocker, Dunstable Bedfordshire. J. Ludbrook, watch-maker, oham, Cambridgeshire. J. -Whitting, plumber, Flagon-row, Deptford. H. W. Weston, agent, Vaughan-terrace, Shoreditch. F. Turner, colliery viewer, Newcastle-upon. Tyne. B. Polkinghei ne, Plymouth. G. Stramonds, traveller, Brighton T. Williams, box-maker, College-street West, Camden-town. J. Barnard, coal-meter, Brompton, Kent. J. Collis, coal-merchant, Berkeley-street, Clerkenwell. G. Tucker, coffeehouse-keeper, Bath. G. Bragg, grocer, Prittlewell, Essex. W. Rushworth, tea-dealer, Bradford, Yorkshire. .1. Crawshaw, weaver, Rochdale. J. Wilson, trimming-manufacturer, Bethnal-green. J. Jenner, shoemaker, Brixton, Surrey. A. Jacobs, dealer in jewellery, Princess- st., Ratcliffe-highway. G. Brodie, comedian, Craven-buildings, Drury-lane. J. B. Harwood, master ma - triter, &stern-place, Poplar. J. Ellard, furrier, Charlotte- street,Black friars-road. E. P. Owen, Lien Aber, Merionethshire. A. Macpherson, accountant, Albany-road, Camberwell. If. W. Thomas, innkeeper, Andover. S. W. Morris, law writer, Carey-street, Chancery-lane. G. Watson, undertaker, Weston-street, Somers'-town. J. R. Chapman, schoolmaster, Ferry-bill, Durham. J. Whillier, baker, Hereford-street, Landport, Portsea. T. C. Fletcher, s choolmaster, Ilkeston, Derbyshire. S. Jefferys, maltster, Arnold, Nottinghamshire. J. Bennett, licensed victualler, Nottingham. S. Wheatley, farmer, Unstone, Derbyshire. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT (THIS EVENING;) HOUSE OF LORDS. Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Clo:k. CORN LAWS. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petiti' n against agricultural protection from Sydenham, in Wilts. The petitioners stated that to the petitions which had been presented in favour of protection to agriculture, many agricultural labourers had been compelled to atta?,h their signatures. Lord METHUEN denied that such was the fact. The Duke of RICHMOND also denied this, and said that the Anti•Corn-liilP` -League had roused the agricultural boLly in this couytry, and the con • sequence was, that protection societies had been esv,blished, by which the falsehoods indulged ID by the Anti. Corn-law League, had exposed ^dnd laid bare to the public. He wished his Noble Friend, the Noble Earl, when he next addressed the la bourers in his district, he would tell them that free trade only meant low wages. -The Noble Earl, on a former occasion, had alluded to a pamphlet which had been pub lished on this subject by Mr. Caley. He, (he Duke of Richmond) was glad the Noble Earl had alluded to it, because the result had been that the pamphlet of Mr. Caley, little known before, was now eagerly sought The Earl :of RADNOR repeated` that this pamphlet contained the grossest exaggerations and untruth. The Duke of CLEVELAND defended the Agricul tural protection societies from the imputations which bad been cast upon them. Ile did not wish to enter into a discussion on so extensive a subject on the presen tation of a petition. lie should, however, be always ready to enter into a fair fight, and fully discuss the The Earl of STRADBROKE argued that the rate of wages were always reduced when prices of corn were low, and were raised'as the price of corn increased. After a few words from the Duke of BEAUFORT, The Earl of RADNOIt said, it was idle to attempt to disprove that wages depended upon the price of corn, because everybody knew that they did not.—(Laughter oa the Ministerial Benches.) Lord ASHBURTON contended that cheap bread and high wages could not exist together. After a short conversation, the subject dropped. (LEFT SITTING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the,Chair at Four o'clock. Mr. GLADSTONE moved certain alterations in the Standing Orders relating to railways, by which subserip• Lion contracts entered into before the session of Parlia ment in which the Particular railway Bill was introduced, should be valid. 'I he present Standing Order provided that no subscription contract should be valid which was entered into subsequently to rile last day of the session of Parliament preceding the session in which the rail way Bill was introduced. The rlterations were agreed to. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the agri culturists of Hartstone, in Norfolk, agreed to at a public ~.• , . meeting which was held in consequence of a recent de :. cisiou of the House on the subject of the corn -laws. The petitioners stated that they did not believe that a certain ,• ,price. for corn could be insured to them by law, and they prayed for a total repeal of those laws.—(Hear, hear.) RAILWAYS. In answer to a question from Sir-J. - GUEST, on the subject of railwayit, Mr. GLADSTONE said that he was afraid he could not give as full an explanation as he could wish to the first part of the question, because, the question in what degrea it was desirable ,that future railway companies should be included in the inovisions of the Joint-Stock Companies Bill, was one which requiredconsideration. The sii , Lo'..3 of the provisions of Oita Bill might not be applicable to those companies, but certain of them would be found useful, as applicable to railways as well as to other joint stock c ompanies, in their earlier stages. He was glad the Hon. Baronet asked the question, because it gave him an opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which existed on this subject. He was at a loss to imagine how it could have originated, but a misapprehen sion had gone abroad that it was the intention of thLjau to take away from the shareholders of N' F.IV S Prtibibiti. incorporated 'under Act of Parliament, the ,-. . c ..,,,. , r cp., _. of lament. liaTll l l4y 4,..7. where .it was conferred by There - was no intention of inter midi privileges. He did Rot think that any House would be ready 6 bring foaward such 1, or if one such were found, he did not i . - - - - I• 4 ''''-' :: 4. , 7 T i e ' (t:;f:•:.::,./ •'.:; '..:--'- ,4 v.. -A -.',1":-.4.- i:71 4 ~... ilztrq el i , .. , ',Z.: , ;,' - ' 1 .•:j \ :::-',' .-- -_-_ --- ,:r . , -, 1 . /. '',, :1 s think a seconder could be got for it. The proposition would be utterly ridiculous and inadmissible. In answer to another question from Sir A. GUEST, Mr. GLADSTONE said, that the conferring the pri vilege of limited liability on new railways, was only just less absurd than the proposition he had •Justspyken of. CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND. Mr. WALLACE rose to move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the Judges who presided at the as sizes held in the city of Glasgow, in the month of May last, and especially into the circumstances attending the trial of Alexander Walker, accused of an assault with in tent to ravish a girl of tender age, n amed G race Macfarlane. The Hon. Member said he regretted that he felt it his duty to bring forward this subject, for it was one which referred to the misconduct of one of the highest Crimi nal Judges of Scotland. He had not determined to do so until he had well considered the course which he was about to pursue, and being confirmed in the view which he had taken by a great many persons in his own part of the country. At the late assizes held at Glasgow a person was tried for assaulting a young girl, who was not thirteen years of age, in the most violent and brutal manner, with intent to violate her person. It was necessary that he should detain the House for a very few moments, by endeavouring to ex plain to English and Irish Members the great distinction between the mode of conducting; criminal cases in Scotland and the mode of conducting them in this country and in Ireland. In Scotland they had a public functionary who was now in that House, viz , the Lord Advocate, whose special duty it was to be public prosecutor in all cases of criminal delinquency.. That individual, either in his person or in the persons of his representatives, was, in fact, the grand jury of Scotland, and it depended entirely upon the manner in which cases were brought before him or his representatives whether or not any particular case was brought before the Criminal Court. There was another wide distinction between the two systems. Previous to the trial of any criminal in Scot land the: evidence againSt 'Min was first taken before the Local Court which was called the Sheriff's Court. It was then transmitted to the Lord Advocate, and after being sifted by him, or his deputies, it was decided whether or not the case should be brought on for trial. Such were the stringent measures taken to purge and purify the evidence before any crimi nal was brought up for trial. Another very ma terial distinction which existed was, that the juds were appealed to by the counsel on botlj sides as to the relevancy of the indictments, and after it had been decided that it was relevant the judge had no further right to interfere with the trial. Now, he had to complain of a most unprecedented and extra ordinary interference on the part of the judge, and he had to ask the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into these singular proceedings. In the case to which he had to call the attention of the House, Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Wood were the presiding judges. It was a regulation in Scotland, that trials for rape should be tried with closed doors, and in this case he admitted that that regulation was complied with. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the oath administered by the jury, which was, he said, of the most solemn character. He admitted that the usual forms were observed, and that the jury were chosen in the usual manner. The jury proceeded to the trial of Alexander Walker for the assault on the girl, and Lord Wood was the pre siding judge, when the case was in so extraordinary a manner broken in upon. The document he should now read to them was a statement of facts by one of the pro testing jury ; that gentleman said that the verdict was not that given by the jury at all. The return made to the House of Commons was therefore not a true return. The Hon. Member then read a letter, signed by a per son named Guffy, from which it appeared that Mr. David Muir, the Advocate Depute, had been treated in the most ungentlemanly manner by the Lord Jus tice Clerk, and in which it was denied that the jury had given a verdict of not guilty. Now he (Mr. Wallace) would unhesitatingly state that he _believed there never was a more deserving assistant in the Lord Advocate's department than Mr. Muir, the young man who had been abused by the Lord Justice Clerk. There was not a more rising young man at the bar than Mr. Muir. No counsel had ever been so insulted or so brow-beaten as Mr. Muir had been by the Lord Justice Clerk. He wished to call the- attention of the Home Secretary to the subject, for the appointment throughout the whole of Scotland had been ascribed to the Home Secretary. That judge had been placed over the heads of eleven of the judges, to many of whom he was greatly inferior, and he was speaking the opinions of the other judges who presided at Glasgow, and of the jurymen, and of all who were present in Court, when he said, that conduct more insufferable, more disreputable, more unprovoked, or more provoking, had never been exhibited than had been exhibited by the Lord Justice Clerk on that occasion. The trial had been carried on with closed doors. The girl who was the prosecutrix, was only twelve or thirteen years of age, and a more horrid, brutal, and disgusting assault; had never been brought before a Court of Justice. He had all the documents relating to this disgraceful transaction in his possession, but he would not weary the House with the disgusting details. It would be the duty of the Home Secretary or the Lord Abvocate, to defend the conduct of the Judge if they could. He was passing through Glasgow at the time, and he was told that if he went to the Criminal Court he would see, on the part of the Lord Justice Clerk, the most disgraceful conduct in brow-beating witnesses and counsel, and that, in fact, he was acting hke a bear. Ho had gone there a short time before the Court rose, and the Lord Justice Clerk interfering with counsel on both sides, had conducted himself in a manner that would- have disgraced a petti fogging attorney. He had never heard of imperti nence as bad been exhibted by the Lord Justice Clerk on that occasion, and if an inquiry were allowed he would prove the truth of these statements by the testimony of judges, counsel, magistrates, jurymen, and spectators of the Court of Assize. They would hear from the Lord Advocate if he had given a just description of the cha racter of Mr. Muir, his deputy. The Lord Justice Clerk had interfered in a manner which he dared not to have done if the Lord Advocate had been present. The office of Lord Advocate was paramount to alilothers. No man could define the bounds of his jurisdiction, and no judge would dare to interfere with his conduct in the prosecution. He was the public prosecutor. It would be well if such an office existed in England. It was an office of the greatest benefit to Scotland, and if that office were degraded the people of Scotland would know that it had been so degraded by the present Government, and by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who now filled that high and important office. Relying with confidence upon the justice of the case, lie had not the slightest hesitation in moving for a com mission. The LORD ADVOCATE said, that he would en deavour, as far as possible, to avoid the niceties of the law alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman ; and would only state such circumstances as he thought would constitute grounds for resisting. The Hon. Member alluded to - the nature, the powers, and the duties attaching to the office he had the honour of holding ; he was fully sen sible of the importance of those duties, and the respon sibility which attached to the exercise of them ; and, therefore, he had endeavoured, being obliged to intrust the performance of some of those duties to other per , sons, to select such persons as he thought were most competent to discharge those duties, and he subscribed, in every respect, to the character given by the Hon. Gentleman to Mr. Muir. It was true, as the Hon. Gen tleman had stated, that a prisoner was not put upon his trial till his case was investigated before some local ma gistrate, and till such a body of evidence was adduced as would justify tfie committal of the prisoner—that being done the examination was submitted to those who acted with him in the office of Lord Advocate, and they saw if the evidence was sufficient to put the party on his trial. In the case of Mr. Walker, the public prosecutors were of opinion that the evidence adduced betore the Magistrate was sufficient to put him on his trial ; but any person who watched the progress of trials, and particularly criminal trials, must be aware that the evidence adduced at the trial was not the same as that which the public prosecutor had reason to expect. Now in this par tiuclar case the trial proceeded with closed doors, under the authority of a statute, which directed that this course should be adopted in cases where the evidence was unfit to be heard. Now the charge against the judge, as he understood it, was this, that during the progress of the trial there was an undue interference— not on the part of the presiding Judge, but on the part of the Lore Justice Clerk, who was said to have con ducted himself in such a manner, that a course was abandoned which ought not to have been abandoned, and that a party was allowed to go away who ought to havebeenconvicted. He did not admit thataJudge sitting at the trial had a constitutional right to stop the course of a trial which, in the opinion of the public proscutor, ought to proceed, because the public prosecutor was charged with the interest of all parties concerned, and he was to see that the interests of justice should not suffer ; but he thought it was conducive to the public interests for a judge, who saw the principal witness, on whom the weight of the prosecutionfrested,and the other witnesses also failing, and that there was no probability of a verdict being obtained, the opinion of the judge be ing decidedly against the prosecution in suc'h a case, he did not think that it was improper or con stitutionally wrong for the judge to stop the prosecution. Now what was the record in this case? It appeared from that, that the prisoner having pleaded not guilty, an interlocutor of relevancy was asked, for the purpose of disposing of the points of law before the case pro ceeded to trial, and it never could happen in Scotland, that after the trial was concluded the proceedings were rendered nugatory because the matter set forth in thein dictment was not sufficient. After four witnesses had been examined, the prosecutor stated that he should abandon his case. The prisoner therefore had no op portunity of making a defence ; and he must say, in allusion to what had been stated with respect to the foreman of the jury, that it was a most fortunate thing for the prisoner that that juryman did not try him.— (near, hear.) If the jury did not return a verdict at all, it was the duty 'of thp Court to dismiss the prisoner, never to b e t r i e d again. The protest was not given in until the n ext day. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a letter from the Clerk of the Court to the Solicitor-General, stating that when the question of " not guilty" was put to the jury, they said they had no objection to that verdict. In this particular case both judges were of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a charge of rape. The girl's own evidence was contradictory. This he stated on the authority of the Advocate-Deputy him self. He read a letter from that gentleman, stating that the evidence of that girl was shaken and that a verdict , of " not guilty . " was return e d, against which the written protest of the Jury was not presented till some time after wards. He saw nothing to complain of in thecase. He did not gather from the statements before him that the conduct of the judge was at all overbearing, and he informed the House that that gentleman had been for eighteen years THE SUN, LONDON, TU At the head of his profession. He did not think that any grottlid for inquiring into the case had been made out. In Ills opinion, the motion ought to be negatived. Mr. WALLACE replied. As usual, whenever he brought any case before the House with respect to the conduct of his countrymen, he never received any assis tance fi:Oin that House.—(A laugh.) He believed that Mr. Muir had been most improperly snubbed by the Lord Justice Clerk, and he bad no doubt if the Learned Judge had been at the bar instead of being on the bench Mr. Muir wculd have pulled his nose.—(Great laughter.) The truth was, Mr. Muir had never intended ' to give up the case.—(Hear.) He felt confident - that the Learned Lord Advocate would not wilfully misrepresent, but he (Mr. Wallace) believed that he had greatly misunderstood it. There could be no doubt whatever that the girl received treatment of a most brutal description, and had he (Mr. Wal lace) been one of the jury (and he had been accustomed to act as a juryman)— he would certainly have come to the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty, and have returned a verdict accord ingly. The unfortunate girl was now thrown upon the wide world— a child, he must say, she being only twelve years of age—with a stain of the mest serious nature on her character—that she had been a consenting party to the vile offence, and moreover, that she had perjured herself, and also that the respectable woman with whom she lived had foresworn herself. He had a bundle of papers in his pocket. which if the Learned Lord would peruse might alter his opinion regarding the medical testimony which had been given. But this case had been met by Hon. Gentlemen opposite in the way they always met "such cases ; they barely listened to such statements, but never with any intention of remedying the grievance complained of. He never felt more convinced of the justice of any case than that which he had laid before the House, and, feeling so, would consider it a breach of his duty if he did not push the matter to a division. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the Motion 3O Against it 149 Majority against tbe Motion ll9 Upon our re-admission to the gallery, we found Sir R. PEEL upon his legs, suggesting that Hon. Members who had motions upon the paper for to-night, and who had precedence of the Hon. Member for Fins bury, should give way, in order to give that Hon. Member an opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the subject of the Post-office. Unless the Hon. Gentleman who had precedence gave way, it would be impossible for the Honourable Member to bring on his motion until a late hour, when it would be impossible to discuss it fully. Considering the notice which had been given, and the attention the subject had attracted, he considered it of great importance that it should be decided this evening, and he hoped that other Hon. Members who had notices on the paper would give way. k LEFT SPEAKING.) MARKET INTELLIGENCE. (From the London New Price Current of July 2.) SUGAR.—To- day buyers of West India Sugar operated with caution, and the limited business transacted was in most cases Gd per cwt under the rates of Friday : the purchases amounted to only 350 hhds &c. including 142 hhds 8 trcs of Barbadoes at public sale, which went off with heaviness, and at a decline on the rates of the former sale of 6d for the better, and is per cwt for the lower qualities ; fine yellow went at 64s to 655, good 61s 6d to 635, mid 59s to 60s 6d, low 57s 64 to 58s per cwt. The assortment was large of all descriptions. REFINED.—To-day the home trade purchased Refined goods with reluctance, and reduced rates were accepted, brown Lumps selling at 73s 6d to 745, and standard Lumps at 75s to 75s 6d per cwt. Bonded Crushed Sugar is wanted, and prices are firm at 26s to 26s 3d for first quality. 111Aumnus.—The transactions have been upon a large scale, but the market having been freely supplied, prices have suffered a decline of is Gd to 2s 6d for brown and com mon yellow, and is per cwt for the better descriptions. This afternoon buyers were cautious in their proceedings, in con sequence of a public sale of 8,000 bags being declared for Friday. EAST INDIA.—This afternoon Bengal Sugar was not so much wanted, and two parcels offered at auction, amounting to 3,577 bags, went off quietly, but the whole sold at former rates ; fine white at 65s to 67s 6d, good 638 to 63s 6d, middling 60s 6d to 625, low 59s 6d to 60s, middling yellow 57s 6d to 58s 6d, good middling 595, damp yellow 565, and white 59s Gd to 67s per cwt. FOREIGN.—YeIIow Havaannah Sugar has met with atten tion, and in some cases merchants have succeeded in obtain ing-rather higher prices. To-day there was no public sale of Foreign Sugar, but privately several inquiries existed; a cargo of yellow Havannah afloat, of 2,500 boxes, sold for a near port at l9s 6d per cwt. On Friday, 250 boxes white and 500 boxes of yellow Havannah will be offered at auction. COCOA.—There has been no public sale of West India, and privately few parcels have been disposed of, although there are sellers upon rather lower terms. Foreign Cocoa has sustained the former value. This afternoon, Bahia Coaoa sold 28s 6d to 29s 6:1 for fine bright red, being cheaper. TEA.—The market has presented a dull appearance for all dascriptions of Tea since we last wrote. To-day, there was rather more demand for Tea, and prices have made a stand ; it was difficult at gurehase common sound Congou cash, under 10id per lb. Rim—For Bengal Rice full rates have been paid. In Foreign East India Rice more business has been transacted, at the previous currency. Patna Rice at 133 to 16s; and Carolina at 21s, 245, and 26s per cwt. COFFEE.-Importers of West India have again supplied the market largely : still a good demand has been expe rienced for all clean qualities, and the rates previously esta blished are sustained. This afternoon Mocha at a decline on former rates of 2s to 3s per cwt, fine ord green mixed clean garbled went at 66s to 67s 6d, mid greenish 67s 6d to 68s, mid yellow 67s 6d to 68s, triage 47s to 50s, and sea damaged 34s to 67s 6d; Ceylon fetched 52s for real good ord, and 48s 6d to 51s for sea damaged first class. East India went at 30s tid for good ord Padang, and 51s for Bengal Jamaica all sold at steady prices, good mid fetched 96s to 975, mid 86s 6d to 945, low mid 81s, fine and fine fine ord 67s to 755, and triage 54s 6d per cwt. Ceylon Coffee 49s 6d to 50s good ord. Mo Ln SLES.-For West India rather lower rates are accepted ; Antigua fine new at 265, St. Kitts inferior 23s to 23s 6d, St. Lucia 22s to 23s • Trinidad taken in at 25s per cwt for good quality ; East India Molasses at 15s to 17s per cwt duty paid. Jamaica Honey of good and fine quality at 65s to 75s per cwt. SPICES.-Black Pepper has met with a dull demand, and rather lower rates are accepted. In the value of white there is little variation. Ginger is still wanted, and East Indian is fetching stiff rates. This afternoon Malabar Pepper half heavy sifted went at 4.1 to 31-(1, and sea damaged first and second class 2 T 7 cl to 3d per lb. Rum, BRANDY, AND lIOLLANDS.-Jamaica Rum at firm rates; common quality 3s 2d to 3s sd, fair 33 to 36 per cent. over proof 3s 6d to 3s 9d, good 32 to 35 over 4s to 4s 6d, fine 32 to 36 over 4s 9d to ss, and very superior 5s 2d to 5s 4d per gallon. Leewards at 2s 2d to 2s 3d per gallon, proof strength. Demerara 3s to 3s 4d per gallon for strong descriptions. Calcutta Rum is 11d to is 1114 paid for proof, with certificate. Sellers of Brandy terms. Cognac, best brands of the vintage of 1838, hhds 5s 4d, puns 5s 2d ; ditto 1839, hhds 5s 2d, puns 5s ; ditto 1840, hhds 5s id, puns 4s 11d; ditto 1841, hhds ss, puns 4s 10d; ditto 1842, hhds 4s 9d, puns 4s 7d; mid to good mid of other brands 3s to 4s 6d, and low 2s 8d to 2s 10d per gal lon. Geneva for export at is 9d to is 10d; fine in small parcels fetch 3s to 3s 4d per gallon. To-day proof Leewards at 2s 2d to 2s 2id. and good brown at 2s 3d per gallon. Cal cutta at is 111 1 (1 to 2s per gallon, proof. SAGo -This afternoon Sago met with more attention, but holders were compelled to submit to a decline in prices of Is to 2s per cwt ; good small white Pearl at 18s to 19s, good middling 17s, and fine 20s 6d to 21s per cwt. Bermuda Arrowroot went at lld to is Id ; St. 'Vincents 51(1 to 10Id, Jamaica 8d to 10d, other sorts West India Is to is 21d, East India 20 to 3d, South Sea 21d; East India Tama rinds 15s t0,17s per cwt. INDIGO.—In East India those parties that are inclined to realise have been compelled to accept prices 2d to 4d per lb under those of last quarterly sale. Oils.—Sperm Oil at 80/ to 83115 s per tun for fine quality, a few lots very low, 56/ 5s to 70/, and Headmatter fetched 841. For common Fish Oils higher rates have been ob tained. Southern Oil at 32/ to 33/ lOs for fine, 30/ 153 to 31/ 15s for goods and 30/ to 30l lOs per tun for common. Sales of pale Seal have been made at 351 lOs to 36/. Cod at 33/ lOs to 34/ per tun ; Sea Elephants' Oil for exportation, in bond, went at 26/ 55 to 27/ ss. Olive Oil has been taken sparingly, and lower rates again accepted—Gallipoli at 48/ to 48/ 10s, Spanish 46/ to 474 and Barbary 45/ to 45/ lOs per tun. Linsesd Oil at 25s 6d to 25s 9d per cwt. Cocoa Nut taken in and withdrawn at 30s per ewt for good. Rape Oil steady—pale at 38s to 38s 6d, and brown 37s to 37s' 6d per cwt. Palm at 27s to 28s 6d per cwt for good to fine quality. To-day Linseed Oil firmer at 25s 9d to 26s per cwt currently paid. TALLOW.—For Russian Tallow on the spot a good demand has been experienced ; P Y Candle at 41s 3d to 41s 6d per cwt. For delivery in the last three months of the year at 42s 6d to 42s 9d per cwt. Town Tallow at 41s to 41s 6d per cwt nett cash. New South Wales at 34s 6d to 41s 9d. Cape 44s to 453. Odessa 40s to 40s 6d, and South American 34s to 41s per cwt. To-day P Y C at 41s 6d on the spot, and 42s 6d to 42s 9d per cwt for delivery in the last three months of the year. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—The proceedings in the two Houses of Parlia ment last evening indicate increased embarrassment and un popularity to Sir Robert Peel and the Government of which he is the chief. The Bill introduced by Earl Powis to the House of Lords for repealing the Act for uniting the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, had passed the second reading by a considerable majority, notwithstanding the efforts of the Duke of Wellington, as leader of the Government in that House of Parliament, to obtain its rejection. In the course of Sir Robert Peel's memorable " explanation" in the House of Commons, on the adverse vote on the , Sugar Duties, the Right Hon. Baronet showed how greatly he had felt himself personally annoyed, and his position injured, by the vote of the Lords on the Welch Bishoprics; indicating, as it did, an indisposition, in that quarter also, to place im plicit confidence in her Majesty's Government. The embar rassing effect of the decision of the House of Peers on Lord Powis' Bill was increased by a difference of opinion reported to exist between the Head of the Board of Trade and the rest of the Cabinet respecting this measure. Mr. Gladstone was known to be in favour of the retention of the two Bishop rics, and is said to have intimated that he would be com pelled to vote for the Bill if it came before the House of Commons. The alternative, in such a state of things, must be a resignation of office by Mr. Gladstone; the effect upon the efficiency and character of the Government would be most injurious to both. Pledged to resist the Bill—which was certain to pass through all its stages in the Peers, with the prospect in the Commons that it would cause one of the most efficient members of the Cabinet to withdraw from his connexion with it—a course has been taken which, if it has relieved the Government' of an immediate difficulty, has increased in intensity and extent the dissatisfaction of the High Church portion of its adherents. The prero gatives of the Crown were involved. Her Majesty's advisers had not thought proper to obtain her Ma jesty's consent, so as to justify the House in proceeding to pass the measure. And this preliminary objection—only imperative when taken, but not essential to give Parlia mentary validity to the Bill—was interposed to stay the further progress of the measure, which was thus dishonour ably "bucked," to prevent it from working worse mischiefs to the Government in the House of Commons. The Duke of Wellington " had no authority to give her Majesty's consent to the discussion of this Bill ; and on that ground alone the Right Rev. Bench ought to withdraw their support from this Bill, and allow it to drop. He had not the power or the inclination to amend the Bill and implant such machinery as to carry out all those objects in relation - to these fliocesss which were proposed in the report of the Commissioners, and which her Majesty in SD AY EV Council had power to execute if this Bill was not passed." This objection might have been taken ab initio ; and would have prevented the unfortunate vote on its second reading. To take the objection after the House of Peers had, by a considerable majority, in effect passed the Bill, was most ungracious. The Duke of Newcastle pro nounced the course taken by the Government as a "manoeuvre —a State trick." The meekness of the Episcopal Bench was ruffled; and Bishops spoke unadvisedly with their lips; while lay Peers were fired with holy zeal in behalf of the Church. The Duke looked more than usually grim, un moved by the discord that prevailed ; and Earl Powis closed the scene by referring to precedents which showed that, with reference to similar measures, the preroga tive of the Crown had never been interposed, as a bar rier to their being entertained by their Lordships' House. It is obvious that the prerogative of the Crown was never thought of by the Government until it became necessary to get rid of the Bill, which was fraught with the elements I of discord among the members of the Cabinet. To pre vent this, the prerogative of the Crown was made a pre text for getting rid of the Bill—a mere stalking-horse, kept in ambush, to be used whenever the exigences of a tottering Ministry require its aid to serve their pur poses. If we turn to the Commons, we see the Premier compelled, from very shame; to forego his purpose respecting the Irish Registration Bill. The second reading of the mea sure was announced by Sir Robert Peel for last evening. After shelving one Government measure after another, as im possible to be proceeded with at this late period of the ses sion, the order of the day was moved; the Irish Registration Bill was to be discussed, and then its further considera tion postponed till the next session. This trifling with the public time, and "manoeuvre" to entrap Members into premature opinions, was well exposed. At length Sir R. Peel, seeing the hopelessness of resistance, gave way ; and the Irish Registration Bill, which more than three years ago was deemed essential to preserve Ireland from a host of evils, re mains among the useless parchments on which abandoned measures are engrossed—fit only to be cut into slips for " measures " more useful, but of less dignified appellation. STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle threatens that the great "Mazzini question" is to be anew agitated in the House of Commons to-night. We have no objection to this provided that the question be treated fairly, which it cer tainly cannot be without a full and searching investigation into the custom of the Home-office for some considerable pe riod of years. As we have before said, " The custom of sin office is the law of that office"—a law rigidly binding upon all who occupy the office, and the investigation for which we call is indispensable to the ascertaining what is the custom of the Home Office. Let Sir James Graham's immediate predecessors in the office—Lord Normanby, Lord John Russell, Lord Duncannon, Lord Melborne—make a clean breast as to their pratice, and then the public will be in a condition to form a correct judgment of the present Home Secretary's conduct, but not before. This consideration is not offered as a to quoque argument, a kind of argument which we, at least, shall ever disdain to offer in behalf of any Conserva tive against a charge brought by Whig-Radicals, because we think that a Whig-Radical practice ought generally to be known only to be shunned—" Ut fugerit exempla vitiorum quieque notando." But we recur to our proposition, that the custom of an office is the law of the office ; and it will hardly be disputed, that the uniform practice of his four immediate predecessors ir. office must be to Sir James Graham a conclusive evidence of "the custom." We are in possession of some curious facts and revelations connected with this subject, which would astonish those who see the Members ofLord Melbourne's Government—particularly Lords John Russell and Palmerston—joining in the cry against Sir James Graham. We have heard something, too, of the history of M. Mazzini, which, independently of his sup posed connexion with the only conspiracy that threatens the peace of Europe, would properly render him an object of peculiar vigilance. It is better, however, to wait until the ex-Home Secretaries shall have had a distinct invi tation and sufficient time to explain their practice, and M. Mazzini's history will come out more conveniently upon a formal inquiry. Meanwhile, though this gentleman has lent himself to very worthless persons on the present occasion, we would not, even by implication, offer him an injustice. We are not aware that there is any impu tation whatever upon his honesty or honour as a private individual ; but he is said to be an extremely prompt, energetical, and bold person—admirable qualities in a good cause, but which, in the warm temperaments of the south may lead men concerned in political intrigues to contemplate the use of means which our more phleg matic disposition reject, and which we would not willingly see resorted to among strangers, much less among our friends. Again, we disclaim making any charge against M. Mazzini, except that he is a man of an impetuous and daring temper; and such men surely, for their own sakes, if not for the sake of others, ought to be closely watched when they are supposed to be engaged in dark political in trigues. In justice, therefore, to M. Mazzini, of whom, as we firmly believe, a great deal more than the truth has been told by some officious agents of the Austrian Government— no less than in order to act fairly by Sir James Graham and the law—the matter ought to be fully investigated. QUEEN'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY.) (Sittings at Nisi Prins, at the Guildhall, before Lord DENNAN, and a London Special Jury.) CONSPIRACY.-THE QUEEN V. LORD ASHBURTON AND OTHERS. This was an indictment against,. Lord Ashburton, Mr. F. Baring, and Mr. Mildmay, members of the house of Baring and Co., for a conspiracy to ruin and destroy the credit and property or Mr. Kinder, by procuring an Act of the Legislature of Mexico to nullify a contract in which he was engaged. Mr. Erie and Mr. Bodkin conducted the case for the prosecution; and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Clarkson appeared for the defendants. This case, which occupied the attention of the Court during the whole of yesterday, was resumed this morn ing, when the case for the prosecution closed. The fol lowing are the facts of the case, as we gathered them from the evidence of Mr. Kinder, and from the very vo luminous documentary evidence which was put in and read, consisting of all the proceedings in a Chancery suit instituted by Mr. Kinder against Baring and Co.: — In the year 1825 Mr. Francis Baring, who was at that time travelling . in Mexico, agreed, in conjunction with the representative of the house of Mr. Kinder, in Mexico, to take a very large tract of land, extending from ocean to ocean in that country. Information was sent to the members of the house of Baring in London, and to Mr. Kinder, by their respective agents, and it appeared that both parties were dissatisfied at the purchase. At that time the house of Baring held dishonoured bills of Kinder's to a large amount, and granted him indulgence, to which Mr. Erle contended he was well entitled, inas much as his resources had been stopped by Mr. Francis Baring iu Mexico. Mr. Kinder, it appeared, had sus of transferring g th e e st p ed ur W ch company, but the firm of Baring, which had kept itself aloof from all joint-stock Lo e rd te A a s j h e b in u t r - t s o t n eek thepropetty companies, refused to accede:lto such a proposition. Baring and Company sent out to their agents in Mexico, warning them as to Kinder's credit, and stating that they held dishonoured bills of his to a large amount, and desiring their agents to adopt every means in their power to put an end to the contract. In accordance with these instructions, the agents exerted themselves to procure the passing of an Act through the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract. This Act was passed on the ground that foreigners could not hold land in Mexico, and it appeared from certain letters from the Mexican agents of Baring and Co., that one of them, a foreigner, named Noulti, had bribed' certain mem bers of the Legislature to suppo - et the Bill. These transactions took place in 1828. In 1830 Mr. Kinder went to Mexico. He returned to England about the year 1837, and in 1838 he filed a bill in Chancery against Lord Ashburton and his partners. They put in their answer, which gave Kinder access to all the papers. In 1840, and just as Lord Ashburton was on the point of sailing for Mexico, Mr. Kinder went before the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, and pre ferred this indictment, on which Lord Ashburton was arrested, and gave bail at the Judge's Chambers four days before he sailed to the United States on a diplo matic mission relative to thelßoundary Question. Mr. KELLY, for the defence, commented on the con duct of Mr. Kinder, waiting sixteen years before he brought forward this indictment, and in bringing it for ward in the manner and at the time he did, just as Lord Ashburton was about to leave England as the represen tative of his Sovereign. With regard to the facts of the case, he contended that if the Ilouse of Baring had been desirous of ruining Mr. Kinder, they might have done so most effectually by securing him on his dishonoured bills, instead of holding them even as they had done. It appeared that at first Kinder had expressed himself dissatisfied with the purchase, and there was nothing to show that he had even expressed his satisfaction at it, so that the house of Baring might well believe that he like themselves would require to get rid of it, their interests in the purchase being identical, and as they knew that Kinder was not possessed of funds sufficient to carry on the undertaking, it was not surprising that they should desire to get rid of the connexion with him. There was nothing illegal in supporting a Bill before the Mexican Legislature to nullify the contract; but then it was said that Mr. Noulti, the agent, had bribed. True, in his accounts there was a sum entered f o r bribes, but those bribes had been paid without any com munication with the Barings, who knew nothing of Noulti's acts until after the transaction had been con cluded, and with regard to those bribes it should be re collected, that in many foreign countries it was im possible to get any great public business, even of a judi cial character, transacted without giving what were called gratifications to every officer, from the judge down to the crier. Now, all that had been done had been to allow these sums in Noulti's account, and no doubt, if they had not been so allowed, Mr. Kinder would have called the attention of the Court to it, as a most unfair and most unjust transaction. Then, with regard to the communication to the agents on the subject of Kinder's solvency, that was certainly a confidential com munication. No action of slander would lie on such a communication. If it' had been brought, Messrs. Barings might have justified, and have put in the dis honoured bills in evidence, and, therefore, this could not be given as evidence of a criminal conspiracy to ruin the prosecutor. - The Learned Counsel had not concludes when our report left. THE Spy SYSTEM. (From the Ten Towns' Messenger.) We do not at all wonder at the interest, as well as jea ousy, with which all parties in and out of Parlia ment, have regarded the letter-opening question, which was the subject o f a debate and division in the House of Commo ns on M on d a y n i g ht. In the debate, Sir James Graham, who tried to wrap himself still closer round in the mantle of dignified reserve, State policy, and Government prerogative, was rather roughly handled, and in the division he came very shortly off, 44 being the whole majority he could muster in a House of nearly 400 ! That Sir James Graham is an unpopular Home Secretary, there never was much doubt ; the present division shows with how much distrust and suspicion he is regarded. There is no point on which an Englishman is so sensitive as a lett er. To read anot h er ' s l etter , o r open another's letter, i s regarded, and very justly, as a mo r a l felony. There i s, however, no use i n disguising ; and it was not a t tempted to b e tdi sgu ised, that such a license must o f necess i ty, f or th e s afety and pro tection of the State, be vested in the Government, and such a license must not be interfered with or questioned. This right, however, which no ono in his senses would i nter f er e w ith or question, if it 2, 1644 were only acted upon in very rare instances, and those of exigency and importance, and with the greatest discretion and delicacy, all of which extenuating or rather justifying circumstances seem to be wanting in the present case, which is brought before the House as a very fair subject of complaint. We do not know anything about the foreigner in question. M. Mazzini, who has had 70 letters detained and opened, and with a petty cunning carefully re-sealed—all of which he declares are perfectly guileless ; but whether there was a necessity or not for opening his letters, there was no necessity for the want of strightforwardness and honesty in the way of dealing with him ; and there is a necessity, in spite of all Sir James Graham or his friends may urge—there is a necessity for that which public faith and public decency require, namely, an ex planation of the affair—a partial, if not a full explana tion, which is now altogether so doggedly, so discourte ously, so disdainfully withheld. (From the Liverpool Times.) Probably no discussion that has yet taken place in Parliament has damaged the Government so much as the debates on Monday and Tuesday nights, on the subject of the alleged Post-office espionage ; and deservedly so ; for Ministers have degraded not only their own, but the national character, by prac tices abhorrent to the feelings of Englishmen, and inspired by motives of the most humiliating kind. Well did Mr. Sheil say, that in this most shameful case the public opinion was altogether against the Govern ment. We believe that they have committed moral suicide; that after this deplorable act of Sir 'Tables Graham, they can never face their countrymen on the hustings a second time with any chance of success. A hundred party defeats would not have ruined their reputation so utterly as their unblushing avowal of a systematic breach of public honour and confi dence, and their hardened unconsciousness that they were doing . anything wrong in committing an act which, in private life, would send a man to Coventry for the rest of his days. The Home Secretary and his colleagues stood upon their right to exercise this extreme and delicate power, forgetful of the maxim, Summum jus , summa znjuria, and that, although they might be shielded by the strict letter of the law from personal responsibility, they were not the less guilty of perpetrating a consummate wrong, and most despicable meanness. For what could be more infamous than that a dictatorial power, paramount to all law, and only in • tended to be exercised in extremities—ne quit quid detrimenti republica cupiat —should, in ordinary times, be used as an engine to crush an unfortunate and inoffensive exile, not plotting against the social order of this country, but obnoxious to foreign despotisms on account of his efforts in favour of the " good old cause," which Englishmen, since the days of the glorious revolution, have been accustomed to honour ? Still more intolerable is it that this power should be expanded into a systematic abuse of the con fidence reposed in the Post-office by private in dividuals in general, and that no Englishman can hereafter indulge in the boast that, unlike other countries, the spy system is unknown here—that the privacy of his letters is sacred from all eyes except these for whom they are intended. Sir J. Graham has dispelled that proud illusion for ever. The Englishman's house may be his castle, but his letters are not his own secrets. We must hang our heads and confess that, in this respect, we are no better than our neighbours, so long as a Tory Government continues in office. For, differing from our contemporaries, we believe that the whole Cabinet share the disgrace, and are equally respon sible for this mean and arbitrary practice. In this instance Toryism only betrays the old sympathy fur Holy Alliance principles, the slavish subserviency to foreign despots, and the remorseless persecution of Liberals of all countries whiCh characterised it in the palmy days of Sidmouth and Castlereagh. IMPErctAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 1. SUGAR DUTIES BILL The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He felt that he would not be 3usti fied in taking the discussion on the Bill to-night, as many Noble Lords had left the House with the under standing that the discussion would come on, on the third reading to -morrow. _ _ _ _ After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, the Bill was read a second time, passed through Committee, and the third reading ordered for to-morrow. LIBEL BILL. In answer to a question from the LORD CHAN CELLOR, Lord CAMPBELL said he should move the third reading of this Bill at five o'clock to-morrow (this day). NG, APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. Lord BROUGHAM moved the committal of this Bill pro forma, and in doing so took occasion to contradict the statement which had been put forth to the public, that he had brought forward the Bill to provide an office for himself. After a few words from the Bishop of Lorinox and the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Bill was committed pro Amine. BISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. The Earl of POWIS moved the third reading of this Bill. Lord VIVIAN said he had just returned from North Wales, and he knew that the inhabitants of that part of the country cared very little whether the union of these sees were maintained or not. They, however, had a strong feeling as to the appropriation of the funds of those bishoprics to the establishment of a bishopric in such a rich place as Manchester. The Bishop of BANGOR denied that the feeling of the inhabitants of North Wales was against the repeal of the union of these bishoprics. He trusted their Lordships would not negative their former decision. The Duke of - WELLINGTON said this Bill with drew the foundation from all those measures which had heen adopted upon the recommendation of the Ecclesias tical Commissioners, upon which recommendation the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor had been proposed. He had stated, on a former occasion, that he had not received her Majesty's sanction to this Bill. This Bill touched the prerogative of the Crown, and ho recommended to their Lordships' consideration the ex pediency of passing such a measure. It was a measure too which very materially affected the revenues of the Church. He felt, that if their Lordships were to fully consider this subiect, they would see that they were establishing a dangerous precedent, inasmuch as hitherto it had always been a rule, of Parliament, that no Bill which affected the royal prerogative should be passed without the consent of the Crown having been first ob tained. He would only say, that if they allowed the third reading of this Bill, their Lordships must take the re sponsibility.' Lord MONTEAGLE repeated his former suggestion that to provide morelargely for the spiritual condition of the working classes in North Wales would do more good to religion itself than the restoration of the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor. If they passed this Bill, how could they resist an application to dis solve the union which had already taken place between the bishoprics of Bristol and Gloucester? He moved that this Bill be read that day six months. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought he had no power to put the question, seeing that this was a Bill affecting the prerogative of the Crown. He would suggest that a Committee be appointed to search for precedents. _ _ _ _ _ Lord BROUGHAM did not see how the disunion of these sees could damnify the interests of the Crown, seeing that in the case of two bishoprics the Crown had a greater chance of receiving the temporalities than in the case of one. The Duke of WELLINGTON explained. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped their Lord ships would acquiesce in the suggestion which had been made by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack. The Duke of RICHMOND would support the third reading of this Bill He believed that if they were to search the precedents they would not find that a Bill had ever been rejected because it had not first received the sanction of the Crown. Lord LYTTELTON apprehended that there was no difference between this case and the case of the bishopric of Sodor and Man, and in that case the consent of the Crown was not first given. The Earl of RIPON said that in that case there was no disposal of the revenues of the diocese. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that in the case of the bishopric of Sodor and Man the power of the Queen making an order in Council was not interfered with ; in the present case it was. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought a Com mittee should be appointed. Lord COTTENHAM thought the case of the bishopric of Sodor and Man was a case in point, and ought to be taken as a precedent. Lord CAMPBELL said that many cases had occurred in the other House of Parliament in which the Speaker had refused to put the question on the reading of a Bill, because the consent of the Crown to that Bill had not been previously obtained. Lord VIVIAN thought the amendment, that the Bill be read that clay six months, might be put, and if carried that would get rid of the difficulty. Lord KENYON thought the opinion of their Lord ships ought to be taken upon the merits of the Bill. Viscount CANTERBURY thought the suggestion of his Noble Friend on the Woolsack deserved the most serious attention of their Lordships, and, was one which ought to be adopted. The Duke of NEWCASTLE could not see why the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack could not put the question on the third reading of this Bill as well as on the second. He thought the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack had been guilty of an unworthy manceuvre to get rid of this Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had found him self in considerable difficulty in putting the question, and he had, therefore, appealed to the House; but he had been guilty of no manceuvre. The Duke of NEWCASTLE disclaimed any intention of being disrespectful to the Noble and Learned Lord. After a few words from Lord CANTERBURY and the Duke of WELLINGTON, The Earl of POWIS replied. Lord CANTERBURY moved that the debate be ad journed. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi sion took place. The third reading was postponed, and the question of prerogative referred to a Select Corn mittee.—The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 1. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. Sir R. PEEL said, with respect to the period of the session at which the Bill was proposed, he begged to observe that the second reading of the Bill was fixed, at a period when it would have been com petent for the Hon. Member for Cork to be in his place, and that he postponed the second reading at the express wish of the gentlemen at the other side connected with Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the second reading was fixed for the first day after the Easter recess. That Bill provided the same general system of registration for Ireland that prevailed in England, and it was important that her Majesty's Government should know whether thy: Home approved the principle. The Bill provided a new franchise, and he must, therefore, perse vere in insicing the House to pronounce its opinion on the principle of the measure, reserving themselves as to details. believed if the Government had abandoned the Bill on - the former occasion, they would have been taunted there with offering an insult to Ireland. He hoped the House would not consent to the motion of the Hon. Member; but that it wGuld allow her Majesty's Government to have the sense of the House and the opinions of Members connected with Ireland, on this Bill. Mr. V. SMITH said he had no doubt that the Govern ment was asked to postpone the second reading of the Bill. But that w.as not the question raised by the Hon. Member for Finsbr..ry ; the question was whether it was fair to ask the House to enter into a discussion which could be of no use ? The Bill had been printed and circulated, and had excited great dissatisfaction in the country to which it was to be applied. Every information with respect to the Bill had been given. The advice he should tender to the Irish Members was that they should not say a word on the subject of the Bill— (Hear, hear)—for, if they should pledge themselves to any part of the measure, and next session think proper to vote against it, they would certainly be " Hansarded" out of their opinions. —(Cheers and laughter.) They had made no progress with the County Courts Bill, with the Poor-law Bill, and there were complaints from the country gentlemen, loud upon this Fide of the House, and, if not loud, deep upon the other, at being kept in town from their magisterial business to attend a useless discussion. Lord ELIOT called upon the llon. Gentleman to state what clauses in the Bill were an insult to Ireland, The object was to increase their franchise and not di minish it. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL had come to the House pre pared to discuss the Bill. He came there not to defend statements made out of the House, but in discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament. The Goternment had ruled that House during the present session with such a'rod of iron that it had not occurred to him that the course that had been adopted would be pursued. The Bill, instead of being a benefit, would be a great injury to Ireland. He thought the best course would be for some deputation to attend the Right Hon. Gentle man out of the House, and to state to him their objec tions to the measure. He thought he should best con sult the interests of all parties if he voted with his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury for proceeding with the other orders of the day. Mr. VILLIERS STUART thought it would be use less to discuss the Bill now. Mr. SHEIL considered that it was to be regretted that the Bill had not been brought forward at an earlier period of the session. The GoVernment had allowed three years to pass without bringing the subject forward. Last year they were told that the registration of arms was of much more importance than the registration of electors. If the Government were really anxious to know the opinion of Hon. Members with respect to this Bill, he thought there could be no harm in their entering into the discussion of the measure. _ . Mr. BERNAL said that they were called upon to do something more than have an amicable discussion. They were called upon to discuss a Bill that they had been told would not pass during the present session. What advantage could the Right Hon. Baronet derive from this discussion, for many of the Irish Members had declared that they would not be present during the discussion, and therefore he could not by any possibility obtain the opinion of the Irish Members? Mr. SHAW thought it would be better not to provoke angry discussions on the subject, when the measure was not to be brought forward during the present session. Lord PALMERSTON thought it more expedient not to proceed with the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, as it was likely to create a _warm discussion, to use the lightest term, and there was no use of raising party spirit, unless it produced some practical and useful result.—(Laughter.) The course which the Government proposed was an unusual one. There were two courses ge nerally adopted ; one was to read a Bill a first time, and, then allow it to stand over, that the sense of the coun try might be expressed upon it ; another course was to bring in a Bill, and to discuss the principle of it 'on the second reading, the details were then discussed in Com mittee, and after being committed, it was allowed to stand over until the next session. Such a course was in telligible, but he could not understand upon what prin ciple the House should be called on to waste one or two evenings in angry discussion upon the details of a Bill upon the second reading.—(Hear, hear.) It was incon venient, and, probably, next session, the same thing would have to be gone through again. Very many im portant Bills had been postponed in consequence of the advanced period of the session to which they had ar rived, and now they were about to devote one or two evenings to what could produce no result. It would be better if gentlemen would suppress their speeches and reserve them for another session. The Noble Lord op posite had spoken of the manner in which the Bill had been discussed by the Irish press. Probably during the recess the Noble Lord could arrive at the real opinion of the people of Ireland on the subject. Mr. COLLETT said that if the second reading of the Bill were proceeded with, he should take no part in the discussion, and would leave the House. Mr. CURTEIS thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought not to proceed with the Bill. While he was speaking there wag a flash of lightning outside the House, and what was taking place within the House was rather ominous of the storm which the discussion was likely to produce.—(Laughter.) Sir R. PEEL thought that the Hon. Gentleman had no reason to complain of a flash of lightning, as he came from an agricultural eounty, in which rain was so necessary. The object of her Majesty's Government in proceeding with the second reading of the Bill, was that they wished to re move some erroneous impressions which were enter tained with regard to it. When his Noble Friend intro duced the Bill, there was only a very short discussion, as it was understood that Hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of stating their opinions with regard to the Bill on the second reading, and removing certain objec tions made to it. If he had postponed the second read ing of the Bill, he would be told that he had offered an insult to Ireland.(No, no.) He said so, because there was a meeting of Irish Members on Saturday to consider what course should be taken with regard to the Bill, the opposition to which was to be led by the Hon. Gentle. man opposite. If he had at once stated that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to read the Bill a second time, gentlemen on the other side would have said that he had acted unfairly by Irish Members by de priving them of the opportunity of making statements in opposition to the measure, and by depriving the Govern ment of the opportunity of considering these objections. At the same time, if he were assured that it was the ge neral wish of the Irish Members that the second reading should not be proceeded with, he would at once give way. If the Irish Members wished the Bill not to be discussed, he would have no objection to give way to their wish, although he would not postpone it in deference to the wish of the English Members. If he understood it was the wish of Irish Members on both sides of the House that the discussion should not take place, he would not press it. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said it was true that he had been present at a meeting yesterday on the subject of that Bill. It had been his intention to have spoken against the Bill, on the ground that it took away the franchise which had been given to Ireland by the Re form Bill. He had not been aware of the intention of the Hon. Member for Finsbury until within the last half hour, and he understood the Hon. Member to protest when there were several English measures of importance before the House, against their going into an unavailing discussion on an Irish subject. Now, he must say that, every session, except during the present, Irish subjects had occupied a large portion of the time of that House; and ho would also say that in general Irish questions had received a fair hearing. Trusting most sincerely that in another session a measure so important would re ceive an impartial and an attentive hearing, he would, as it appeared to be the wish of the House that the mea sure should not be proceeded with, vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Mr. BELLEW had been anxious that a discussion should take place, because he had thought it not im possible that the Government might avail itself of the objections of Members on that side of the House to amend the measure. He hoped that during the recess the Right Hon. Baronet would carefully consider the objections which had been urged to the measure. He had not understood that they were to go into the de tails of the measure on the second reading. It was not usual to do so. He would, however, follow the example of the Right Hon. Member for Kildare, as the English Members did not wish to press the discussion. He hoped the Government would take advantage of the recess, to review the Bill, and to alter its provisions in such a manner as to meet the wishes of the Irish people. After a few words from Mr. Grogan, Mr. Lefroy, and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, . _ . _ Sir R. PEEL said he thought he was entitled to infer that it was the predominant wish of Members connected with Ireland on both sides of the house, not to proceed with the second reading of the Irish' Registration Bill, and that being the case, he would not ask them to enter into the discussion. . The O'CONOR DON said he believed it was the wish, not only of Irish, but also of English Members, that this Bill might not be discussed in the present session. Mr. WYSE said that the greatest hostility existed against the provisions of the Bill, as they were under stood in Ireland. The franchise in Ireland ought to be dealt with, not on political or party grounds, but w ith a sincere desire to give a full and efficient representation to the Irish people.—(Hear.) Lord CLEMENTS said he came down to the House expecting, like many other Irish Members, to have a discussion on the provisions of this Bill, and was much disappointed that discussion had not taken place. lle had come from Ireland under the impression that the Bill would have been proceeded with. Sir R. PEEL said it should be distinctly understood that it was entirely in compliance with the wish of the Irish Members that he postponed the Bill, and from no other motive. After a few words from Mr. M. O'FERRALL and Mr. F. FRENCH, Sir R. PEEL said that the Irish Municipal Franchise Bill, as well as the Irish Registration Bill, would be post poned to next session. The other Orders of the Day were then proceeded with. The second reading of the Railways Bill was postponed to Monday next. UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL Lord ELIOT moved the second reading Of the Unlaw ful Oaths (Ireland) Bill. Mr. MORE O'FERRALL suggested certain amend ments. The present Bill was eminently calculated to' encourage informers—a dangerous race of persons, in any Community—and to implicate innocent persons, as was proved by the recent trials in Ireland, in which police men and informers were clearly convicted of the grossest perjury. Mr. M J. O'CONNELL agreed with the Hon. Get tleman in thinking the Bill a mos t i n j u di c i o us one,sa d calculated to produce the greatest social evils—gam , still if possible than the existence of secret societies. Mr. SHAW supported the Bill in its presentform• Mr. T. B. C. SMITH thought the objections tirge against the Bill on the other side very strong, but ye the objecti, nable clauses were withdrawn, how could tb: Goverment obtain cognisance of those illegal societies. The Government could only obtain cognisance of th' i existence of those societies through informers, an though he thought the greatest caution was necessity in order to prevent the inculpation . of innocent persee'' he considered that the exercise of due discretion, on, lbe part of the Executive, as well as the exemplary pull . ment which such i n f ormers wou ld rece i ve , wou ld be sus cient to prevent the evils complained of. He must stir port the Bill in its present form. Mr. BERNAL thought it very serious that a per'`' should be convicted for h av in g a pass - wor d k now ing , ', in his pocket. He th oug ht i t b etter t h at t h e clan' s should be omitted alto,ether. Mr. SHAW thought the word "knowingly" Iva, ti j; best protection that cou ld b e g i ven to t h e accused. he could suggest another word he would do so. Sir J. GRAHAM thought that this measure was ail lutely necessary, and if they rejected these words in clause, they would reject the whole measure. Comil, ing the quarter from which this m eas ure ema nated, t high constitutional authority by which it wa s support e and the causes which led to its continuance, h e e ntreat the house not to reject, it. The object of the Bill , common to both sides, and as it was of importance t b the measure should be passed unanimously. He b ° the Hon. Gentleman-would think twice before he dive the Committee under these circumstances. • Sir D. NORREYS though the Right Hon. Gentlen had• very adroitly confounded a portion of the Cla' with the whole clause. As to the clause itself, the °k Gentlemen on his.side of the House were as much is your of it as gentlemen opposite, but he did not Nul l ' necessary that the. whole clause should be rejccte be cause there were two words which, in his opinion, O °F, to be thrown out. • 11 Mr. ESTCOURT thought that the word" knowlag , operated favourably for the prisoner, because it sh°"o that the mere possession of the pass-word was not 5 11 , cient to constitute guilt, but that something additi ° must be proved. 0 Mr. MORE O'FERRAL thought that this Bill ,0 necessary when it was introduced, but he did not w e , it was necessary to the same extent now. Many canin e persons had been convicted under the Bill. 'He belied there was no necessity for the Bill. He should th e ' fore move that the Chairman now report progress. Oa the question being put, Mr. SHELL said that he thought the possession of 0 , document ought to be made evidence of the crime, not the crime itself. He did not wish to shelter si t societies, for they were the curse of the couat" no matter to what party they belonged. Lord ELIOT said that he believed the measure ‘ / 5 1 necessary, and that he never before heard that secre t cieties did not exist in Ireland. Mr. MORE O'FERRAL explained. Sir J. GRAHAM begged the Committee to re 2 that the Right Hon. Gentleman had said this me it was necessary when the late Government h a d the sponsibilities of office, but now that her Majesty's l°7o Government was in office, the Right Hon. Gentlema ° not think it necessary. Colonel RAWDON said the Right Hon. Barollet.s, hardly justified in throwing all the responsibility o 01? side of the House.—(Hear, hear.) They had come ° iv for the purpose of discussing the Registration Bill , t y they now found themselves engaged in discussing fik Unlawful Oaths Bill, to which h entertained s troaf o i jections.—(Hear, hear.) Yet they were told, called upon to discuss the Bill thus unexpee',Y that if it were thrown out, they must take 0 responsibility. He threw back that aspersild the strongest language the forms of the Pop would permit. They had heard a great deal °to about Ministerial responsibility. He must say tha t ( k the conduct of her Majesty's Attorney-General h e not place much reliance on that responsibility . o f, should cordially support the Hon. Member for lii In reply to a question from Sir D. NORREYS,, a Sir J. GRAHAM said the Government woo' consent to the proposed alteration, because they it would render the Bill altogether inoperative. 1 ,4! Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL could not understand i d if that were the cas e , it was on ly prop ose d th a t they should exist for one year ? After a few words from Mr. V. STUART, , $ Sir R. PEEL begged the House to recollect o° o the present state of Ireland the Government had e, for no new power ; all they asked for was the coa tl s s ti tion of the existing law as a precaution a gaio disturbance of the public peace ; and whilst their Poe cessors took this power for fire years, they °tilt ° for it for one year. The Reuse then divided, when there appeared* For reporting progress Against it Majority against reporting progress The Bill then passed through a Committee. PRISONERS' (SCOTLAND) 81LL.,,f, On the motion for going into Committee on I ..°' sonar's (Scotland) Bill, Mr. WALLACE said he objected entirely to 14 tem of prison discipline now existing in Scotland• eo d minals of all kinds were subjected to the sYsttet solitary confinement, and he believed the greater arose from it. If it did good in any case, it only be in that of young persons• or opinion prevailed very generally throughout Se ° $1) , that the present system of prison discipline i° country was an entire failure, and he thought dl e , e rf ject deserved the serious consideration of the c',. ° 6o: ment. lie hoped the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J ' ham) would state whether he was aware that there, prisoners in Glasgow and other parts of Scotlan,,t were in such a state of debility that the se ntetwo* transportation pasted upon them had never been execution ? Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not think that w t et`'. best occasion to discuss the general question, whe t ' se ° not the system of separate confinement was Mi e r/ system of prison discipline ; but certainly his exP e l oit' of the prison at Pentonville led him to the con e 0 11 . that upon the whole it was an admrtrable s ystel°V highly conducive to the reformation or prisoner , . I case of Perth was an experiment of the If kind on a more limited scale ; and he belie; ' c ol t Honourable and Learned Friend, the Lord Itei'bjec' who had considerable acquaintance with the Ijot would be able to state that it was not a failure.- - 1 tr oy With respect to the convicts u n d er s en t e nce 0 1 e V! portation, that was not the case of prisoners 5u,,,10 long imprisonment, b u t th e case o f p r i sone rs wry oar been recently convicted, and who, on examination bet found to be in such a state of health they could 0 .. , ° i 0 t the execution of the sentence. It was not pec,w, Scotland, but extended to this country. The 0 1 : expense of maintaining such prisoners was no' s oit' one; counties had long been subjected to a id burden. lie hoped the Hon. Gentleman woo object to the Bill going through Committee. „, After a few words from Mr. P. M. STEWARV, The Bill went through Committee ; the Chao to ported progress, and the Report was ordered brought up to-morrow. On the motion of Sir R. PEEL, THE BANK CHARTER BILL. 1 . 1 0 „ The Report on the Bank of England Charter Y' s, further considered, and, there being no amenda 3 e n , Bill was ordered to be r ea d a thi r d ti me . The Education Bill was read a third time and r 4 l', The other Orde rs o f th e D a y h av i ng b een disP°:s6 Mr. M. SUTTON m o ved f or an d o bt a i n ed be I V bring in the following Bills:—Bill to continue relating to the removal of poor persons born in ' d , and Ireland, and chargeable to parishes in Engla n dv, to continue certain Turnpike Acts. Bill to susP e for v„ making of lists and the ballots and enrolments ue Militia of the United Kingdom. Bill to conti° sr, exemption of inhabitants of parishes, towns l4 „ s :4l' villages, from liability to be rated as such, in re,'Yr t ‘, stock in trade or other property, to the relief of The Bills were accordingly brought in and real' time. The House adjourned at Half-past Eight. Dispatches were sent off last evening fr, ° , l l Colonial-office for the Governor of Jamaica, for the Governors of the other West India cololo SIX POUNDS of TEA, and upwards, sent, carriage 11, 74/7.- part of the Kingdom, at the Wholesale Price, on receipt 01 tame, or Post-office order. 50* Black, 2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 4s. Bd. Green, 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4 d., 55., ss. 4d. 65., Coffee, 9d„ Is. Is. 2d., Is. 4d., Is., 6d., 16.8 d., Is. 1 0 "'':1 'l' G. T. MANstILL and CO., Wholesale Tea Dealers, .t LERSBURY, CHEAPSIDE. Agencies will be 'given to re• parties. BIRTHS. At sea, on the 7th of May, on board of the shiP o py the lady of W. Vansittart, Esq., Bengal Civil Servic e ' c tie 6 On the 19th ult., in the Victoria-park, near M 3 ,0 1 ' the lady of Jos e ph St. J o h n Yates, Esq., barrister - a t t o a son. i f On the 25th u lt., a t T orr i ngton - square, t h e lad}fo i ly Johnson, Esq., of a s on . co o On the 25th ult., at the Parsonage, St. Thonnor t od wark, the lady o f th e R ev. Willi am Dee y, 0 , of a dati,g On the 28th u lt, a t H y d e - par k-square, Mrs. " ~JJ of a son. P r" On the 28th ult., at Maidstone, the lady of Captai o Scott, late of the 4th Light Dragons, of a daughter. GeF On the 28th ult., at Belmont-hill, Lee, Kent, 1 $ 111 " Debenham, of a daughter. f On the 29th u lt., a t G oswe ll- s t ree t , th e l a dy 0 Gordon, jun., Esq., of a son MARRIED. i'7,‘ ~.„„r u On the 27th ult., at St. Pancras Church, Eor - „ e V 3 l" Chapman, Esq., of Manningham, Yorkshire, to 11 - 4 . Cogan, only child of the late John Cogan, Esq., Northamptonshire. On the 27th u lt., at Ch esham, J. N. Walker, Esq.,,,''eo9 rye tonville, to Ann, e ld es t d aug h ter o f t h e late Ja`' 4' Esq., of Chesham-vale, Bucks. cog, ' On the 27th u lt. at Ludstone, Salop, • Edmund % o il?' Master of the Royal Grammar School, High 17 .... c :y Miss Lea, of the f ormer p l ace. DIED. 21 der' On the 29th ult., R e b ecca Greenwood, agedvors cousin of Mr. G. Tennant, Westminster Arms, e t o ' road, 'Westminster, much lamented. 1)/P C 2" At sea, on the 25th of May, on board of the s. e. be t, the wife of W. Vausittart, Esti., Bengal Civil Serv lc i lie On the 23d ult., at Cole Muse, Devonshire,,, "."00:1 Maria Georgiana, youngest daughter of the late (.4 Payne, of Nutwell, near Lympstone. On the 27th ult., at Richmond, Surrey, Fran Lep a or% vercr, wife of Colonel th e H on. H enry Edward Butgr.P On the 27th ult., H arr i et S ara h , t h e w if e of , Dixon, of Circus-street, Greenwich. I•l•ll...eMiftmaarliarteaMankn 0 illS (1 1/ 1 I London: Printed and Published by MURDO o' No. 112, Strand, P r i n t er , at The Sun ONc e- '00" Strand, in the P rec i nct of the Savoy, in the Middlesex, Tuesday, July 2, 1844. Swat &Val Neal Sans, , 1; 1 i vorre stair cat * flea, May sam i Yorl the: Baran lieu ato Tan; Zepa tray I Plant PLA Etit ha s i , ever Maus May May Tab b es , Tea Suga Salt is his to tr very