The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-08 00:00:00

An Hom. MEMBER asked what was intended to be done with the Irish Lunacy Bill. Sir R. lEEL's answer was not heard in the gallery, but it was followed by some laughter in the House. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was prepared by his Honourable Friend the Member for Devon, who (from the state of his health, as we under Stood) would not take part in the further discussion this session. But if he thought that he could secure a sufficient number of days, he would himself— however unfit he might be—proceed with the Bill. In 1842 a similar Bill was brought in by her Majesty's Go vernment, and the House assented to the principle, and passed the second reading. If, as it appeared, he could not carry the Bill this session, he hoped that next year he would receive from her Majesty's Government the same assistance which in a similar situation he had given to them.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had spoken of the motions of which notice had been given to be brought forward on the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply. Now, he (Lord John Russell) could not say what Gentlemen might think proper to withdraw their notices for the sake of allowing the public business to proceed, and of preventing the ession§ being inconveniently pro tracted ; but he viohld say, that there was one motion, which he knew his Noble friend near him (Lord Palmerston) thought it necessary to bring in upon the question of supply—that was a motion on the subject of the question which had arisen b e t ween Spain and the Government with respect to the sugar duties.—(Hear.) On that question it was the inten tion of his Noble Friend to ask the opinion of the House.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the Bills given up by the Right Hon. Gentleman, so far was he from concurring in the opinion that the Government ware to blame, he thought that so many important mea sures were brought in at the early part of the session, that other business could not be further advanced. LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL. Captain OSBORNE asked what was the intention of the Government with respect to this Bill, on account of which several Irish Members were now remaining in town ?—(Cheers and laughter.) Sir R. PEEL said that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee in the other House, and he was un• able to say When it would reach this House. IRISH COLLEGES BILL. In answer to a question from Sir J. GRAHAM, Captain'OSßOßNE said that he thought the Irish Members would not object to the second reading of this Bill being fixed for Wednesday. THE ECCLESIASTIC AL COURTS BILL. Sir R. INGLIS congratulated the House that this Bill was withdrawn for this session, and he hoped that al the Government had formerly brought in a much less objectionable measure, they would not now accept this Bill from their opponents.—(hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL said that the Government Bill in 1842 v,tts very materially altered. Although the House as seated to the principle, the Government did not think it desirable to proceed further at that time, in consequence of the formidable opposition that was presented to it. The principle of the present Bill was so much the same, that he could not refuse his concurrence in it so far. BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. Lord HOWICK. said, that although the Bill was one of a emninereial character and should be passed, yet there was one clause which was not necessary, and he hoped the measure would not be pressed after a majority of Members had left town. Sir R. PEEL said that no advantage would be taken. IRISH REGISTRATION. Mr. REDINGTON wished to ask what was the in tention of the Government with respect to the registra tion in Ireland, which was in a most unsatisfactory gate ? This and other measures relating to Ireland was mentioned in her speech, but anytkirq.., , impor tant to .land was neglected by the present farliarnent. Sir R. PEEL was suprised that the lion. Gentleman should have said that the subject of Irish rogistn , tion haorbeen mentione I in the ,pe , ch fr)m the Timm!. He was not aware that- it had. It . was true that shortly after the commencement or the session statements had ir'en made of the intention of the Govennient to intro duce the Maynooth Grant Bill and the Irish C011e,, , ,-es RH. The former measure had been carried, and the lat ter was coming on again that night, and would probably wenpy a week. lie thought, therefore, the lion. Mem ty2r had no ground for complaining of the course the Government had parsned with respect to Ireland. COAL TRADE PORT OF ikOND.W.-T LILL. Mr. IffIME wished to know whether the Government would fix to-day or to-raorrow—some day on which the Heine might come to some decision with respcct to the Coal Duties Continuance Bill ? Sir R. PEEL could not fix any day on which the sub jc:et inigfit be brought forward. Lord CLEMENTS aske 1, in reference to an order which had been issued by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire land, what was meant by a superintending magistrate, and whet were the intentions of Government with regard to Ireland ? Sir T. FREMANTLE replied that, in addition to the number of stipendiary magistrates, ten gentlemen had been appointed to the disturbed districts of Ireland, in order that they might concert together to take the most effectual means for ermine the constabulary and di.tri• bitting the force, and Government had thought it ad visable to appoint one inaeL;trate to exercise discre tionary power over the others. Whatever suggestion might be made by the whole of them, would be comma nica.ted to the Government by these gentlemen. lle mighe state that the course had been adopted in con •- formity with a similar plan pursued in the county of Tipperary, when that county was in a disturbed state some years ago. With reference to the last question, what were the intentions of Government, he could only state that Government were determined to exercise all the powers they possessed under the existingconstitution of the country, and lie hoped that with these powers they should be able to restore the country to tranquillity. Lori EBRINGTON asked whether any additional -stipendiary magistrates had been appointed to Ireland, and whether those who were removed from one district to another had been replaced? Sir T. FREMANTLE replied that severalmagistrates had been to the peaceful districts to meet the exigencies of the disturbed counties, but Government had not thought it necessary to supply their places with others, becaum it mould be remembered tisat a short time ago a reduction cif the number of stipendiary magistrates em ployed in Ireland had been contemplated. Mr. BELLEW stated that he believed in that dis trict in the county of Cavan where Mr. Booth had been murdiered, and from which six magistrates had been withdrawn, there had been a public meeting at which a resolution had been passed, declaratory of an opinion that it was net expedient in the present circumstances of the country to support the Goverument. He wished to know if any communication had been received in the matter, and whether a magistrate who had taken an active part in getting that resolution passed had been removed from the commission of the peace ? Sir T. FREMANTLE said he was not aware of an communication having been received, or any step being taken, in the matter referred to. THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP. Mr. STUART WORTLEY wished to ask a ques tien of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting a law that was passed last seseion on joint-stock companies. By that Act it was Provided that all joint-stock companies should be re qiired to effect a registration. This applied to all parties resident in the United Kingdom, but there wore serious doubts whether the Act was applicable to parties who were members of joint-stock companies in the co lonies and foreign countries. He wished to learn from the Right Hon. Gentleman what explanation he could give of this matter ? Also, whether the Act was in tended to bo applied to chartered companies ? Th e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Government was aware of the difficulty to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, and the subject had been brought under the consideration of the highest legal talent. A case had been drawn up and submitted to legal consideration, the opinion on which had not yet been received. Under these circumstances, while the matter was before the law officers of the Crown, he was rrot prepared to say anything further on the subject. THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Mr.:PAKINGTON said, as the Right: Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had suspended for the present the law of settlement, and as some mea sure was indispensably required on this subject, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government during the recess to frame another m easure ? Sir J, GRAHAM said that the law of settlement in some cases worked badly, and required considerable amendment, but, as some interests in the House were op posed to it, he did not see any prospect of effecting any immediate change in it. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he had received a letter from Mr. O'Brien, who had been summoned before that House, and he had also received a petition from the same Gentleman, with a request that he would present it in his place in Parliament. He stated in thak petition that he was partner with Mr. Edwards, solicitor and attorney-at-law in Devon, by whom an action was brought against Mr. Parrot (late Member for Totness). The petitioner added that he had never been consulted in the case, but that the action had been solely, and without his sanction, brought by Charles Edwards. He prayed that he might be discharged at once from further attendance before that House. The petition was then read by the Clerk at the table. Mr. DIVETT said that though he conceived that the prayer of the petition was an unquestionable one, yet as that was a matter not for present discussion, he would move that it should lie on the table. Sir J. Y. 13I1LaER presented a petition from Charles Edwards, Bucklersbury, county of Devon, and Thomas Baker, Limo-street, solicitors, stating, that though they brqught the action against Mr. Parrot on account of his having given certain evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, yet they were not aware it was any breach of the privileges of the llonse, and that the action would not lie without that evidence. It prayed that the House would take these circumstances under considation, stating that they had not been guilty- of any infraction of the privileges of the llouse, and if they 11a$ . it was quite unintentional. DIVETTmoved that David Phillips be call e d t o the`tar. Sir. Phillips C., es then brought to the bar of the Tlouse. 'tie SMAIC.ER —What is your name ? Mr. Phillips —David Phillips . , S.PEAKETZ—Vhat is your profession ? Mr. Phillips —4 surgeon. S•i!EAICEIZ—ViThere do you reside ? Mr. Phillips— At Ptielil,rsbory, in the county of Dev - m. Min IZEP.!7Are you engeszed in the action of Phil rarrot ? Mr. Phillips—Yes, I am. •.;•PEiIKEIZ,--It is alleged by the petition of the de fenViit, that this action is brought against him for words ie ciitlenee g iven by him before a Sele c t Committee • ofthe ffouse of Commons. Is such the case ? Mr. Phillips-4'ot words used partly before a Committee of the Tlouie, and partly before the board of guardians at Tylltues.. SPEAKER—Is The House to understand that the action is brought against Jasper Parrot for words spoken by him when giving evidence before a Select Committee ?—Mr. Phillips begged pardon, cs he had not heard the question. The Short-hand Writer then repeated the question. Mr. Phillips—The action is brought for what he has stated before the Committee of the House, coupled with what he stated before the board of. guardians at Totnes. The SPEAKER—Did you ever see the declaration in this action? Mr. David Phillips—l have heard it read. The SPEAKER—Are you aware of the statement contained in that declaration, in answer to a question from an Hon. Member of this House, put to Mr. Jasper Parrot ? Mr. Phillips—l have heard it. And that Mr. Parrot's answer is contained in that declaration ?—I have no recollection of the expression. If I may be allowed to address this Honourable House, I would beg leave to say that I had no intention whatever to infringe the privileges of this House. I do not know what they are ; but if I have infringed them I am sorry for it, and I have done everything in my power to prove it ; and all I wished for was for an opportunity to state this, although my character has been destroyed, or attempted to be de stroyed. I made an application to the poor-law guar dians of the union in which I have resided for 24 years, for the protection of my character, but to no effect ; and I have been :deprived of my situation by a statement which Z believe to be false and malicious. Sir J. Y. BULLER—You state that you had no in tention of infringing the privileges of the House by this proceeding ?—Certainly. And you now state that you see you have committed a breach of those privileges ?—Yes. And, knowing that, are you willing to admit that you are anxious to express your sorrow for having taken this proceeding ?—Yes ; but I do hope that this House will institute some investigation into the injury done my character. Are you willing to leave the matter in the hands of this House ?—I am. In what Court did you first commence the action ?—I am not aware. Did you ever write to any person on the subject of the defamatory matter ?—I addressed a circular to the Tot • nes board of guardians, calling upon them to inquire into the matter, and a copy of that circular I forwarded to an Hon. Member of this House, Lord Ashley. Mr. C. P. VILLIERS—Did you receive any answer from the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee ? —None whatever. Sir T. WILDE—Did you ever petition this House on the subject of the alleged slander ?—I have not hitherto done so. Mr. COLLETT—Was this circular written previously or subsequently to the commencement of the action ? At some time before it. In answer to a question from Mr. BARRY BALD WIN, witness said he could not say to what extent he had suffered in his private practice. Sir THOMAS WILDE—Can you point out to the House any other matter in your declaration with refer ence to the evidence of Parrot Witness—l must consult the document. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that before they went further in this case, they should in the first place hare an answer to the question put by the Hon. Member fur Devon. His suggestion was that the gentleman should be again called to the bar, and asked if he were willing to withdraw his action, and to submit himself unconditionally to the discretion of the House. After the answer were received, then the House would be in a condition to proceed, and either to discharge him out of the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to inquire further into the circumstances of the case. After a few words from Mr. DIVETT, Mr. lIINDLEY said that he had always been an ad vocate for the maintenance of the privileges of the House, but he did not think that any gentleman, in giving evidence before i ;omtnittees, should be allowed to make statements injurious to the character of other gentlemen. fie did not think that a Lite Member of that House would make any such statement, and therefore it was but right that the House should give Mr. Parrot an oppor tunity of justifying or denying it. Sir It. PEEL was disposed to agree in the propriety of the course pointed out by the Noble Lord. They had had evidence given to them that the witness was not competent to judge of the privileges of that House, and as he confessed that he did net knew, and meant not to iiifeinee those privileges, lie ,Sri R. P. thought that satisfactory enough ; and if the witness were content to withdraw his action, and express his sorrow for what had occurred, he thought they need proceed no further in the matter. Mr. ROEBUCK said it was very true that the person who had been called did not know anything of the privi leges of the House, and therefore might be discharged on .his petition. The real party offending was the attorney who had advised him.—(hear, bear.) lie therefore thought that the House ought to proceed against the latter person. Sir T. WILDE hoped that the House would observe the broad distinction between the questions whether the House should submit to the courts of law, and what the House might think it right to de in a case of this kind. They must keep the questions perfectly distinct. And considering the state of this question as it stood at pre sent, he thought the better course was, when the person was called to the bar and made an apology, and when he submitted entirely to the pleasure of the House, t discharge him at once, instead of proceeding further with the strong hand. The witness had shown his de sire to submit to the House, and the question now was whether they should proceed against him as wilfully guilty of invading the privileges of the House, when his manner and conduct showed that he was ignorant of those privileges, and that he was desirous of' submitting to the authority of the House. He (Sir T. Wilde) thought it better to accept that submission. He should propose that the witness be asked if he were disposed to submit fully to the House and to withdraw his action ; and having so expressed himself, he proposed further that he should be discharged. The House knew well that no attorney could continue the action after the principal had given it up. His -- decided opinion was, that the House should accept of the witness's apology. Sir R. 11. INIMIS said that, as far as the gentleman at the bar was concerned, he fully concurred in the pro priety of the course advocated by the Noble Lord the Member for London and the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Worcester. That sugges tion was, that the gentleman at the bar having expressed his willingness to withdraw his action, his apology be accepted and he be discharged. But he also agreed with the remarks of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, that he thought the House was bound to proceed much further with respect to the other two gentlemen. It was perfectly clear that the action was brought against a witness who was under the protection of the House, and so far he was perfectly willing to support the privi leges of the House. He therefore hoped that the House would adopt the suggestion now made, and, on Mr. Phillips formally renounaing his action, forgive and dis charge him. Mr. DARBY supported the proposition. Lord HO WIC K said that he had a great objection to calling individuals to the bar of the House and asking if they were willing to forego their actions. He thought the more proper course to adopt would be for the House to come to some resolution, declaring that the party ag grieved by the evidence given before the Committees, instead of asking protection from the courts of law should do so from that House. He ought first to petition that House, and, on consideration, they might either allow Mr. Phillips, or a person in the same circumstances, to proceed at law against the aggressing party, or they might order a committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations in the petition, and to report to the House upon the subject. He was of opinion that they ought to leave Mr. Phillips in the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms until his petition was received and the action with drawn, but he could not agree that that gentleman should be invited to make a concession, a refusal of which would compromise the dignity of the House. He should propose that a resolution of the following cha racter should be come to:—" That this House shall not permit persons aggrieved by witnesses' evidence before the House, or in Committees of the House, to institute legal proceedings against the witness for such evidence given before them without permission of the House, and the person so aggrieved shall be bound in the first instance to ask such permission." He, for one, was not prepared to allow the person in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms to be discharged until his petitions were presented, and he had submitted himself to the House. Mr. HUME did not see that they could adopt any other course, and he was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) express himself otherwise. Sir R. PEEL said there was a precedent in point. In the case of Gee, which happened in 1696, an action had been brought against certain parties under the pro tection of the House. He was summoned to the bar, and he then admitted that he had acted through igno rance, and after submission to the House he was dis charged. Sir G. GREY thought the matter should be deferred to another day, and then discussed. Mr. D. DUNDAS thought the principles of fair play and natural justice had been violated in calling an indi vidual to the bar of that House, and then subjecting him to questions without giving him the aid of counsel. He found in a precedent cited by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and in many other cases that were parallel to this, that counsel had been allowed in Com mittee, and that a report had afterwards been made to that House. Why had that course not then been adopted ? Mr. DENNISTOUN—You are speaking for the lawyers. Mr. DAVID DUNDAS—He was not speaking for the lawyers—he was speaking fn- justice. lie repeated, lie was not speaking for the lawyers, but for the men whom the lawyers pro tected. With respect to the case which had been quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir It. Peel), that of Gee, he should. if the House would give him permission, read the petition on that case. The Hon, Member then read the petition at length. He besought the House not to take any steps which might afterwards be accounted rash and unwise, or they would find, in the course of time, they would have a gradual and a growing crop of actions. He hoped that the House, before taking any decisive steps in this matter, woiikl send it before a coer irlie, where the person at the Ler would have the op portenity of being defereled by conneel. That committee would then report to the House ; and in this way they might (ny preve nt irams;sirg t, harassing such actions in future, which were not only to the parties, but destructive to the dig nity of the House. Lord J. RUSSELL said that after what had fallen ream his Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, there could be no doubt as to the course which the House ought to take. He would only more, as an wiendmieit on the motion of the Hon. Member for wer, that the word " to-morrow" be inserted in the resolution Mr. DIVETT said that probably Mr. Phillips was the least guilty of the pirties. But if he were ignorant of the privileges of the House, the attorneys corOd not be se.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was insufferabl THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAI EVENING, JULY 8, 1845. that the other partners in a concern should plead igno rance of what ono partner had done in the business as a ground for their own responsibility. He still thought that the other five persons should be brought to the bar. Mr. HUME said the House was departing from the matter for which they were then assembled.—(Hear.) He thought they ought not to separate without settling the question as regarded all the parties. He hoped the amendment for inserting the word " to-morrow" would be withdrawn. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that after the principal had promised to discontinue the ac • - tion, the attorney would not go on with it. Sir T. WILDE said that the House had sufficient be fore it to deal with the case.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to move a resolution, to the effect that the action was brought contrary to the privileges of the House, but that Mr. Phillips had expressed his regret for the offence, which he said was committed in ig norance of the privileges of the House, and had promised to discontinue the action ; therefore the House would proceed no further. Sir J. Y. BULLER said be had a petition in his band from Mr. Phillips, which expressed his regret for violating the privileges of the House through ignorance, and promised to proceed no further with the action. However, he (Sir J. Y. Buller) could not present the petition at that moment. Sir R. INGLIS thought that the House would not discharge its duty if it did not come to a decision upon the case before it separated. If the House were to be satisfied with the petition of the offending person, that petition ought to be presented by the person himself at the bar. After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. DIVETT withdrew, for the present, his motion, Lord J. RUSSELL, at the same time, withdrawing his amendment. Sir J. Y. BULLER then presented Mr. Phillips's pe tition, after the reading of which Sir T. WILDE moved two resolutions :—First, That an action had been brought by David Phillips for evi dence given before a Committee of that House. Secondly, That the commencement of such action was a breach of the privileges of the House. The resolutions were put without any dicussion, and were carried unanimously. After protracted consultations (in private) between the principal Members who had taken part in the discussion, Sir R. PEEL read from the journals the resolution which had been passed in 1696, in the case of Gee, and, adapting that to the present case, moved a resolution to the effect " That, in consideration that David Phillips, in a petition presented to this House, has disclaimed all intention of violating the privileges of the House in commencing the action, and has expressed contrition for his offence, praying the lenient consideration of the House, and declaring that it is not his intention to pro ceed further with the action, the House does not think it necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence." The resolution was then carried, without discussion or dissent. Sir T. WILDE said that, with respect to the attorneys, it would be wise to give them till to-morrow to consider what they ought to do. Sir H. PEEL thought that Phillips should be called to hear the resolution of the House. Sir T. WILDE said that there was no occasion to do Mr. Phillips the honour of again calling him before the bar. Mr. DARBY was desirous that the matter should be ' postponed till to-morrow. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what was the course they were about to pursue, and the matter could be got through in half an hour. Lord HOWICK entirely concurred in the opinion that they should be called to the bar to-morrow. He thought it much bettor to give the parties an opportunity of making a secession or not, and present a petition. Mr. HUME did not know why they should postpone the nutter, now that the parties were present. He thought that it would lower the dignity of the House, instead of adding to it, by delaying the examination. He thought that they should proceed at once. Mr. DIVETT thought that it would be unsatisfactory that the House should divide on this question. Under all circumstances, it was better that the parties should attend to-morrow instead of this day. Some Gentlemen might dissent with that opinion, but he thought that it was the gen-ral imprssion of the House. That being the case, he would move that the parties should attend at the bar of the House to-morrow. Mr. WAKLEYohjecte,l to the motion, in consequence of the many motions that would be interfered with by renewing the matter to-morrow. They had the wit nesses in attendance, and the lawyer, who was the real sinner, was in the lobby, and why should they allow him to escape ?—(Hear, hear.) The principal had settled the matter as far as he was concerned, more than which he could not do. All the attorney could do was to settle the matter of contempt with them. He was perhaps as unlearned a gentleman in the privileges of the House as the gentleman who was already examined before then. If they called on Mr. Phillips, he would tell them who it was that had advised him. He should like to know what eminent counsel it was that advised him in the matter. The matter was settled satisfactorily with reference to the principal, and he wished that the main sinner should not escape. Mr. SHAW thought the question was merely in what form they should present their petition to the House. He was of opinion that they should postpone the matter till to-morrow, to give them time to prepare it. Mr. GRANGER thought that the proper course would be to call in the attorney at once. It could not be adjourn( d till to -morrow. Lord HO WICK said a few words in explanation. Sir R. PEEL said that if the House came to the de termination of having the attorney examined, it would then be a mere question as to the necessity of a postpone ment. They had got from the principal the assur ance that the action would be waived, and he did not see clearly why they should deal with the attorney. All the attorney could do was to submit in this matter. Then the question would be, what should be the degree of submission necessary ? He would let the House de • cide with regard to the principal. Mr. HUME hoped the Hon. Member would move that all parties be discharged now. Either let them deal with them now, or let them be discharged. Mr. DIVETT said that it was their desire to bring the parties to the bar of the House for the purpose of discovering who were the real parties in the action. Mr. HINDLEY thought that as the principal in the matter came before them and made a submission, which was satisfactory, the sooner they wiped their hands of the matter the better. Sir R. PEEL wished to know, as the declaration had been signed, and as the action had commenced, whether the plaintiff by his own power could do away with the action ? Sir T. WILDE said that it was not in the power of he attorney to prevent a bona fide discharge of an action or its continuance. It was not in the power of the plaintiff to put an end to an action or to continue it. The attorney might go on for the costs. Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought that as the parties were prepared to make amends, they ought to be dis charged. Sir R. PEEL said that he was not the less inclined to call them because they had an assurance of a reparation. He doubted, however, the policy now of dealing further with it. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in future the responsi bility, according to the present resolution, would fall only on the principal and not on the attorney. The attorney ought to be called to the bar now, or the parties should be discharged altogether. If witnesses went before an Election Committee and maligned a man, he would be liable to an action, and why should not witnesses who did die same before other Committees be also responsi ble. The principal had withdrawn under the impression that some redress would be afforded to him. It would be much better to discharge them altogether, or come to the resolution that they were, or were not, guilty of a breach of privilege. Sir T. WILDE said that all parties were equally guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, but they were considering the conduct of David Phillips alone ; and it was most correct that they should come to the resolution that he was guilty of a breach of their privileges. The House must be aware that there had been instances where parties had complained of the ad ministration of the law, in cases where committals bad taken place upon convictions of charges of slander under similar circumstances to the case now under discussion ; but without going to a trial at all, it would be compe tent for this House to commit any party who should be proved to have been guilty of such conduct before a Committee. But what he complained of was, that no such representation of false evidence had been made to this House, and, therefore, he did not think that the question should now be attempted to be got rid of by a side-winded decision.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly a most important question ; but he would now confine himself to the question as to whether the House would have the attorneys or the principal before it.—(Hear, hear.) He did hope, then, that the House would main tain its privileges, which they would not at all compro mise by giving the parties time, and call them up to morrow.--(Hear, hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no di vision took place, the amendment having been withdrawn. On our re-admission to the gallery, Mr. ROEBUCK was addressing the House. He said he did think that nothing could be more simple than for the House to call the parties to the bar, and tell them the penalty they had incurred, they having already ad mitted that they had been guilty of a breach of the pri vileges of the House, and were sorry for it. Sir T. WILDE—The House having now decided as to who the party was that they should call before them, the next question was, whether the party should be brought up to-night or to-morrow. If they were brought up to night the House should act to-night ; but the House must be aware that it could not receive an apology at the bar but by petition—(Hear, hear)--and therefore it would be no use calling up the parties to-night ; and would it not then be less derogatory to the House to ad journ the case till to-morrow than to call the parties to the bar to-night, and decide to•morrow, when those parties would, in the meantime, have an opportunity of seeing what the proceedings of the House were?—(Hear.) Mr. GREENE contended that the party appearing at the bar and apologising, was quite enough to warrant the House coming to a decision. Sir J. GRAFI/CM said that before this discussion proceeded any further, he begged to call to the recol lection of the House to the fact that the case of Stock dale and Hansard was decided verbally by the House. The SPEAKER said that in reference to the case mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet, the mode in which the decision had been come to was correctly stated by him ; and therefore it would be necessary for the House t I come to a decision to the effect that the parties should be called to the bar before they could be called. Mr. BERNAL conceived that three hours and a half of the time of the House had been consumed upon a sub ject which could have been disposed of in a few minutes. ~,_.,._ i Sir R. INGLIS did not feel satisfied with the state ment of the parties who had been before the bar of the House. In their declaration there was evidence, from the cautious way in which it was drawn up, that they knew what they were about. He did not believe that they were ignorant that the step they were taking was in violation of the privileges of the House. He would not allow them to get out of their present difficulty, by agreeing to their dismissal, without a resolution being come to expressive of the sense of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Hon. Gentleman had not stated the case exactly. The party (Mr. Phillips) had stated that he considered the law justified him to prosecute any party whe had given evidence before a Committee of the House, pro viding he had done so from a malicious consideration, and had stated what was untrue. He was of opinion that he could seek redress in a court of justice. Under that impression he had brought the action. He the (Chancellor of the Exchequer) was himself in doubt about the point, and bad'consulted law books some on one side, and some on the other. He would not, there fore, say that Mr. Phillips was aware that he was vio lating the privileges of the House by bringing the action. Sir R. PEEL thought that it was not fair to attribute to' the party under consideration the motive that he brought the action kncwing that he was acting in oppo sition to the privileges of the House. He had stated that he acted from ignorance, and they should give him the benefit of that statemerl He (Sir R. Peel) considered that he had given ample satisfaction.—(Hear, hear.) After a few observations from Mr. V. S3IITH and Mr. COLLETT, Mr. G RANGER said that he considered this a most unsatisfactory debate. They were about to teach the public that they (the House) would take no step to assert their privileges unless the principal and agent in an action were prepared to set them at defiance. Those who were most strenuous in asserting the privileges of the House were now, it appeared, not prepared to act until parties braved their authority. Mr. DIVETT, after a few observations, withdrew his amendment. Lord HOWICK suggested another course to the House. He proposed that a resolution be adopted, to the effect that an action having been brought against Mr. Parrot, which had been considered a breach of the pri vileges of that House, and the party bringing the action and his agents having disclaimed all intention of doing anything in violation of those privileges, and having expressed contrition for their offence, that the House did not deem it necessary to take further proceedings. He disagreed with what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Granger), who had stated that they were disposed to shrink from asserting their privileges. That was not the case. He considered that it was ne cessary to maintain the privileges of the House, but thought thecourse which had been recommended the best in order to° secure that object. He objected to call on parties to the bar to undergo punishment after having intimated their submission. He concluded by moving the resolution. Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the course recom mended by the Noble Lord (Howick), but suggested that the resolution should be withdrawn, and another substituted, exonerating Thomas Edwards and the other two attorneys in the action from all consequences arising from the action, and also that the agents, Thomas Red dell Theodore Pratt, &c., be discharged from further attendance. Resolutions founded on the above suggestions were then drawn up, submitted to the House, and agreed to. COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL. On the order of the day for the further consideration of the above Bill being read, it was agreed to postpone it until tomorrow evening. IRISH COLLEGE BILL. The order of the day for the Committee on the above Bill was then read. Mr. HANDLEY presented a petition from three de nominations of Protestant Dissenters against this Bill. Mr. P. BORTHWICK moved the following clause at the end of the 13th :—" And for the better securing of the students in the said colleges at divine worship, according to the creeds which they generally profess to hold, be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the president and professors, or other governing body of said colleges, who shall be instituted, and in and by the said letters patents, to assign chapels within the said colleges for the use of the chaplains, to be endowed in the same man ner, and by the same authority as the professors ; and that within such chapels prayers shall be read according to the forms of the religious creeds recognised by such governing body, and that regulations shall he made for the due attendance of the students for divine worship at such of the said chapels as shall be approved of by their parents and guardians respectively.' Also to omit clause 14 from the BB'. Colonel SIBTIIORP, in supporting the motion, said he had every respect for the talents and former systema tic consistency of her Majesty's Ministers, but, never theless, he could not continue to place confidence in them if they professed one thing, and acted diametrically opposite to it, as they were doing in respect to this Bill. He deeply regretted that the Bill should have emanated from such a quarter, but he judged of men by their actions, and not by their words, and nothing could restore his former good opinion of those who had introduced this measure while openly professing Protestantism. No modifications could reconcile him to the Bill. He envied no man his creed. lie honoured alike the Roman Catholic and the Dissenter, but he could not, as a humble, though sincere and conscientious Pro testant, subscribe to the principles contained in the Bill. In his opinion, it was calcu lated to increase instead of diminish the difti - culties of Ireland ; and he confessed he would much rather have seen it emanate from a different quarter. He opposed the Bill on the second reading, and he would oppose it again nn the bringing up of the report, and he should renew his opposition on the motion being made for the third reading. There was another Bill, too, of this nature, which he regretted had passed the other House, but he would sit down in the hope that this Bill would meet with a different fate. Sir J. GRAHAM assured his Hon. and Gallant Friend that Ministers were aware, when they determined upon introducing the Bill, that it would prove unac ceptable to many of their supporters, but after the in quiries they had instituted into the subject, they felt it to be their bounden duty to bring it forward at all hazards. The Hon. Gentleman who , had made the motion, had said that he had curtailed the observation he had originally inten.ded to have made on the subject, and he felt indebted to ltiim for having done so, but still he could not conceal from: himself the fact, that the Hon. Gen tleman had gone at length, into matters quite distinct from the question under consideration ; namely, the clause he had proposed, and the clause he wished to have expunged from the Bill.—(Hear, and laughter.) With respect to the clause itself, he begged to remind the Committee that they made ample provision for the reli gious instruction of the youth to be educated at the college, but the Hon. Mcnnber, by his amendment, proposed to "abolish the clavise which made that provision. But the proposition and of the non. Gentleman was at variance with the spirit principle of the Bill, for the lion. Member wished to establish separate chapels for the separate sects and compel the inmates of the colleges to attend them. He must say that such a compulsory course would be highly injudicious under the existing circumstances of Ireland. As he had already stated ample provision would be made f)r affording religious instruction to the inmates of the c{ alleges, and he still thought it best to leave it for the p trents to see that their children were attended properly to the instructions given to them. He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would refrain from pressing his motiom to a division. Mr. WYSE tho.vght it highly essential that provision should_be made fo r the proper religious learning of all young men who were brought up in public seminaries, but, nevertheless, Pie could agree with the Hon. Member for Eversham, that it was advisable to establish chapels in th ese colleges and enforce the attendance of the inmates. He had, however, a more paramount objecti on to the proposition of the Hon. Member. The II( m. Member proposed to strike out the only part of the Bill! which made provisions for the reli gious education of tb.e pupils, and he for one could not consent to deprive the colleges of chairs for religious in struction. After a few word s from Lord Bernard, Mr. Redington, and Sir V. Blake, Mr. P. BORTH' ffICK replied, remarking that he did not think it necet wary to press his amendment to a division. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn.' On the question i bat the clause stand part of the Bill, a desultory convers tion followed, and Sir T. ACLAN I) moved an amendment to the effect, that the pres is lent, vice-president, and every other member of the govt -ning body of each of the colleges, should make and su' b scribe the following declaration : " I, A B, do solemn .1, y and sincerely declare, that I ace knowledge and re ce i 13 the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament a .s containing the revealed will of God." He was a fir a i supporter of the Bill, but he could not reconcile it to h;:s conscience to consent to a system of education which a - ould not secure that the teachers should be at least profound believers in divine re velation, When tl to Government, with this caution, gave every facility to the natural guardians of the pupils to provide th em with religious education, it could not be said that thi: s was a godless education. Whilst his Right Hon. Friend was taking care that there should be no interference with the religious feelings of the pupils, he should ad apt this amendment, as a means of securing that positiv e irreligion should not be taught. There were many z nen of high scientific attain ments, to whom, however, no Christian parent would intrust the instruction of his children. The object of his t Lmandment was to guard against th© introduction of tgt ich professlrs. His Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) tk !knitted the principle of this mo- tion, when he said that if any professor were found to tamper with the relit ;ions opinions of the pupils, he would be immediately dismissed. But the parents of Ireland had a right to demand that the children of Ire lAnd should be guarde d against such corruption by a precautionary enactme at. If any other Member sug gested a more efficaci. JIB mode of effecting the object which he (Sir T. Acl a nd) had in view, he would wil lingly give way. IIe• would not insert one word that would gi✓e offence or pain to any body of Christians. He found that Dr. Arm Ad stated that there were certain points of belief in whir h many Christians of every de nomination should belie ye. Dr. Arnold said that every Christian should believc that the Old and New Testa- ment contained the rave lation of God's will to man. would conclude by prop osing the amendment of which he had given notice. Sir J. GRAHAM sl id he would be most anxious to conciliate the Irish pt ;c pie, but he would have no objec tion to make any re r s ..niable concessions. Sir R. INGLIS supported the amendment of the lion. Member for Devon& tire (Sir T. Acland). All that was desired was what ev( try man would require with regard to his children in pr ivate life, therefore, he did not see anything in it to viol ate the conscience of any individual. Mr. COWPER e apressed his great satisfaction in supporting the amen, la nent. Lord J. MANNEI referred to the system of educa- , tion in France, supported by the Government of that country, but which had been denounced by the Church as infidel and atheistic. He was not prepared to say that this was the case, yet he believed there was too much reason for the charge. He would, therefore, support the amendment. He believed the Bill would do no good for Ireland whatever. Sir R. PEEL supported the Bill as it stood. He did not believe that infidelity or atheism was an evil to be guarded against in either Ireland or England. The very avowal of such sentiments was sufficient to deter any individual from holding such situations without any such declaration. The state of public opinion on re ligion in this country was such, that no security what ever was required. The test proposed afforded no se curity whatever, for it was wrong for parties to take the declaration and afterwards to put a construction on the Scriptures as alien to their true import as any that might be taught by the professors in France or Ger many, to which reference had been made. He saw serious objections to the amendment, and should, there fore, decidedly oppose it. Mr. P. HOWARD concurred in the view taken by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and should support the Government in opposition to the amendment pro posed by the Hon. Baronet (Sir T. D. Acland.) Mr. ADDERLEY felt obliged to oppose the Govern ment and support the amendment. Lord C. HAMILTON stated he felt himself bound to oppose the amendment, and should support the Go vernment. Mr. GLADSTONE said it was very natural for those who entertained sentiments unfriendly to irreligious education to express their opinions on the present op portunity. He thought, however, that with respect to this test, there was great force in the objection of his Right Honourable Friend, who saw it was much too ambiguous. The Honourable Member for Here ford said that though there was great difference of opinion respecting versions of the Scripture, there was not respecting the original. This was not so. There was great difference of opinion between Protestants and Unitarians, and between Catholics and Protestants. A test, however explicit at first, was subject to cavil, dis pute, and contention ; but what would be the effect of a test which was at the very outset ambiguous. It was a very serious matter for the House of Commons to adopt such a test, although enforced by the opinions of the late Dr. Arnold, whose reasoning on this subject did not appear to him clear or satisfactory. His Hon. Friend had chosen to use language in the test from that em ployed in the Thirty-nine Articles. Besides, he was of opinion that the test would be anything but pleasing to the Roman Catholics of Ireland—it was either too lax or too exclusive ; it would be burdensome to the consciences of many, whilst by Church of England men its provisions must be deemed very lax indeed. The tests proposed by the Hon. Member appeared to him to be opan to the charge of being too loose and too lax, and he must confess that it held out no hope of future advantage; but, on the contrary, it was calculated to excite in the minds of some, if not of all, delusive ex pectations. The test proposed was censurably ambi guous, and not likely to produce those advantages for which tests were used. He hoped, therefore, the Com mittee would negative the amendment of the Hon. Mem ber for Devonshire.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. RE DINGTON was quite certain that if the pro posed test were adopted by the Committee, it would have the effect of turning the minds of the people of Ireland against the Bill, and he could not but hope that the Hon. Member would see the necessity for not persisting in the amendment. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority against it On our return to the gallery we found Mr. HINI)LEY speaking against the 14th clause, and urging upon the Committee the necessity for Parliament leaving religious matters to be dealt with entirely by the Church itself. The clause would retard instead of ad-, vancing the progress s' religious liberty, and, therefore without troubling the House further, he would simply move that the clause be altogether expunged from the Bill. The Committee accordingly again divided, when there appeared— For the Amendment 0 For the clause Majority .-100 The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill. On clause 15 being proposed, Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said, that a 3 the clause first stood, it was liable to very great objection, but in its amended form be should offer it no opposition. The clause was consequently agreed to. Clauses 17 and 18 were passed without opposition. On clause 19 being proposed, Mr. SPOONER, objected to it, because it allowed teachers of all denominations to be elected for profes sorships. In this way, Turks, Jrays, and others might be introduced into the College. He would not detain the House further at that hour, but he must, in conclu sion, enter his strong protest against the Bill. Mr. P. HOWARD did not see any objection to the alause. Ireland was divided into three great sects, the Episcopalians, the Roman Catholics, and the Pres byterians, and they well knew that opposition prevented imposition.—(Laughter.) Mr. HINDLEY objected to the clause, but the result of the last division did not encourage him to press an amendment.—(Laughter.) He should be contented with this expression of his disapprobation. Clauses 20 awl 21 were passed without opposition. The preamble of the Bill was then agreed to, the House resumed, and the Bill was ordered to be re ported this day. EXCISE AND CUSTOMS ACT. The House then went into Cmmmittee on +h ha- OTC Bill, when The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he was anxious to bring tr.p certain resolutions which had reference to the Exci:ic: Act of George IV., where the duty was levied on tvro classes of licensed victuallers in Ireland. The Wiect of the Bill was to give persons the same power under the Act with the re tail spirit dealers in that country. Another question which he had to introduce was of a different character, and related to the importation of spirits from the islands of Guernsey and Jersey. By the Customs Acts of this country goods, spirits, &c., could be imported from the Channel Islands duty free ; but :a countervailing duty sufficient to protect the article was enacted by the same statute. This Act, however, had been found ineffectual in preventing frauds upon the revenue ; and it was with the view of remedying this: evil that the present amended Act was brought in. Wi th respect to the case of Heligoland, it must be known that any spirit manu factured in those islands could not be produced from grain grown in those islands. The resolutions were then repot.' ted to the House. The Charitable Trusts Bill was read a second time. The Land Valuation Bill was r ead a second time. The Earl of LINCOLN moved. for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the Commissioners or her Majesty's Woods and Works to apply certain moneys now in their hands towards discharging incumbrances affecting the Shrews bury and Holyhead road. Also a Bill to facilitate the completion of a geological survey of Great Britain and Ireland, under the direction of t'tie First Commissioner of her Majesty's Woods and Works. Also a Bill to alter and amend an .A et passed in the tenth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled, " an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the managerestnt and improvement of his Majesty's woods, forests, parks, and chases ; of the land revenue of the Crown within the survey of the Exchequer in England, and of the land revenue of the Crown in Ireland ; and for extending certain provisions relating to the same to the Isles of Man and Alderney ; and for other purposes."—Agreed to. The Earl of LINCOLN moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the Improvement of the Sewerage and Drainage of towns and populous districts, and for making provi sion for an ample supply of water, and for otherwise promoting the health and convenience of the inhabitants. —Agreed to.! Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL moved 'for copies of all memorials, correspondence, surveys, valuations, and re ports, in relation to the extension of canal or river navi gation between Lough Erne and. the river Shannon.— Ordered. Mr. CORRY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the constitution and government of tne Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society, and the management of the funds thereof.—Agreed to. Sir T. FREMANTLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the County of Dublin Grand Jury Act. Also Bills to continue the Unlawful Oaths Act in Ire land, and to amend the Fisheries Aet,in Ireland. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH moved for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the criminal jurisdiction of Assis tant-Barristers as to certain counties of cities and counties of towns in Ireland.—Agreed to. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 7. NORWICH AND BRANDON RAILWAY. Three petitions were presented against this line. IMPORTATION OF CORN INTO CANADA. The Duke of RICHMOND moved for a return of the quantity of wheat imported into the United State 3 of America from October, 1843, to October, 1844, which was agreed to. LOTTERIES BILL. On the motion of Lord STANLEY, this Bill was read a first time. DRAINAGE OF ESTATES. The Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading of this Bill, which is to facilitate the drainage of entailed estates, the expense to be defrayed by way of mortgage. In many cases, the owners of entailed estates would not effect the drainage which was required, and those who were willing to do so were reluctant from the ex pense. He was of opinion that the law of entail was a good one. One of the principal objects of the Bill was to give employment to the industrious poor, whose services would be called into requisition at improved wages The Committee, with whom the Bill originated, were unani mously of opinion that it should be passed this session, that the objects which he had stated might be accomplished. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the second read. ing of the Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY hoped that a fair op portunity would be given of discussing the various pro- isions of the Bill in Committee. _ Lord 'I said that the clause relating to buildings had been amply discussed in Committee. The Earl of DERBY thought that the extension of the Bill to Ireland would be productive of great benefit. The Earl of WICKLOW concurred with the Noble Earl, an d t h ou ght it was a very fitting accompani men t to the other Bill on the same subject relating to Ire land. Lord CAMPBELL thought it was very proper to extend the Bill to Ireland; not, however, as an accom paniment, but because it presented in every respect a contrast to the other Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said there was a clause relating to the guardians of minors, but he would intro- duce another provision of a similar tendency that would meet the approbation of the Noble Earl (Wicklow). The Bill was then read a second time. WAGERS AND GAMING BILL. The report on the Wagers and Gaming Bill was then brought up. STANDING ORDERS. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that the standing order of which he had given notice be added to the standing orders of the House:—" That the direc tors appointed shall continue in office until the first ordinary meeting to be held after the passing of this Act, and at such meeting the shareholders present, per sonally or by proxy, may either continue in office the directors appointed by this Act, or any member of them, or may elect a new body of directors, or directors to supply the place of those continued in office; the direc tors appointed by this Act being eligible as members of such new body." The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said this was a question which not only concerned the Members of the Legislature, but every person in the country who had a sovereign in his pocket. The person who had refused to have anything to do with the scheme, afterwards found to his astonishment that he had attended a meet ing in favour of the line, and had not only attended a meeting, but had made a speech, although he had never been near the place; nevertheless, his name had been used, as also had the names of other persons in the country, who were also reported to have made speeches, though they had neither given their sanction, nor had they attended or spoken at the meeting in question. This gentleman advised the bankers of the company not to pay the money which had been subscribed since their names had been so surreptitiously used, large sums of money having been subscribed in consequence of the re port to which he had referred.—(Hear, hear.) He would recommend that the practice should be put a stop to by a standing order, requiring proof of the consent of the parties whose names appeared as promoters of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Parties could have no security unless this were done. Lord BROUGHAM complained that their Lordships were too apt to take the correctness of the proceedings of the House of Commons for granted, instead of in vestigating for themselves. The gentleman whose name was placed in the Bill as one of its promoters did not know of its existence until it had received the royal assent. He deprecated the gambling mania of the pre sent day, and trusted that the public would not fall into the snare of those cheats—he could use no milder term —who were more anxious to propose schemes, that they might take them into the market, than to carry them out. The Earl of FITZIIARDINGE said the case applied to his brother, Mr. Grantley Berkeley, who knew no thing of the Bill until he was sued for 530,0001. on behalf of the company, and his solicitor had informed him that his own expenses, whether the matter was settled or no, would be 4001. Lord ASHBURTON could hardly conceive it pos sible that a person could be sued for the debts of a com pany, and hoped that steps would be taken to prevent its repetition. Lord BROUGHAM assured the Noble Lord that such was the law of the land. Lord ASHBURTON said that there was no Act of that kind which made a subscriber liable to a greater extent than his subscription. Lord CAMPBELL said the subscriber was just as much liable as if he signed and sealed the most solemn instrument of law by which consent was obtained. A message from the Commons was here announced, intimating that it was their wish that his Grace the Duke of Grafton should be allowed to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons now sitting on the operation of the game-laws.—Agreed to. The motion was then put that the order moved by the Noble Marquis (Clanricarde) should be added to the standing orders of the Houses—Agreed to. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti tion from a place in Ulster, which, he said, would be fol lowed by others to the same effect, against the Landlord and Tenant Bill. The Earl of FALMOUTH presented 36 petitions against the Wolverhampton Railway Bill. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from a num ber of ironmasters to the same effect ; also a petition against the Edinburgh and Direct Northern Railway Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented 58 petitions, which, with 65 on a former occasion, made altogether 123 peti tions, against the Cornwall Railway Bill. ASSESSMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Lord KINN A.IRD moved the third reading of this Bill.—Agreed to. BRAZIL SLAVE TRADE BILL. The Earl of ABERDEEN moved ti;e second reading of this Bill. A treaty was conclud9d in 1826 between this country and Brazil for the abolition of the slave trade. The first clause of that treaty stipulated that three years after the expiration of that treaty the sl ,ve trade should be abolished in Brazil, and all parties concerned in it should be treated as pirates. Her Majesty would have the power of seizing and punishing the subjects of Brazil engaged in the slave trade. The Noble Lord then de tailed the various negotiations which had been entered into for the suppression of the slave trade with Brazil, and referred at great length to documents on the sub ject. The object of the Bill, therefore, was briefly this —to remove from the Board c•f Admiralty the restric• tion which had been imposed upon them by the Act of the 7th and Bth of George IV., for carrying out the treaty made at that period with Brazil for the suppres sion of the slave trade. The old treaty had been openly violated—shiploads of human beings had been landed at the capital ; their officers had been unable to carry out that treaty in full force, and had even been ill-treated and slain in the execution of their duties. He therefore moved that the Bill he read a second time. The Bill was accordingly read a second time. DOG STEALING BILL. The Duke of BEAUFORT moved the second reading of this Bill, and briefly described its objects. There was a great anomaly in the law in its pres en t f orm, and that the audacious traffic might be put a stop to, it was ne cessary that the Bill should be pass e d, t h at d ogs m i ght be placed on a similar footing with other property. Lord CAMPBELL considered that the law was quite strong enough at present to protect property in dogs, which were frequently far from valuable, and partially, if not wholly, abandoned by their owners. The Duke of BEAUFORT said the Bill had received great attention in Committee, but he was ready to adopt any suggestions w hi c h t h e N o bl e and Learne d L ord might think proper to make. The Bill was then read a second time. CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of this Bill, and, in doing so, said it would greatly facilitate the trial of prisoners. The present judges were totally in capable of delivering the jails, and nothing could be more ridiculously absurd than the distinction between the practice at the Central Criminal Court, in the circle over which it presides, and the practice in the counties of England. lie considered that a most crying injustice. A suitable expedient was devised to remedy the incon venience, by making a six months' circuitinstead of the present circuit of eight months in one part of the year, and four months in the other. He was morally certain that such a grievous injustice would be no longer tole rated. The country, he repeated, would not suffer it ; and if the class to which the prisoner belonged had either real or virtual representatives in Parliament, it would have been put an end to long ago. The only mode was to in crease the number of judges. This he considered a dif ficult matter, as they would have no employment at any other time than while they were engaged on circuit, as there were no other courts over which they could preside. He wished, however, that two additional judges should be appointed, and that Chamber business should in future be conducted in public, over which they could be up pointed to preside. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND thought it highly desir able that the time which prisoners were unfortunately detained in gaol before trial should be greatly shortened. He considered, however, that if that Bill passed, the county rates would be considerably increased. There would be also the inc onven i ence of bringing witnesses and prisoners to the place of assize. The consequence would be, that instead of paying 701. or 801. for each criminal as at present, the expense would b . e doubled. He hoped that if there w a s any extra charge it would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and not, as at present, out of the county rate. Lord CAMPBELL was not adverse to the principle of the Bill, but the details he considered would not stand at all. There were no provisions made for the finding of bills before grand juries or petit jurors, where the prisoner was to be confined after sentence, or how the sentence was to be carried into execution. His own in dividual opinion was, that there ought to be a new Com mission issued altogether, whose duty would be to take the whole question into consideration. Since Edward the Sixth there was no change whatever, either as to the distribution of the circuits, or the number of the judges. He thought, too, that Ireland and England should be considered joi n tly i n that Commission, and that there should be an i n t erc hange of judges between the two countri e s. H e b e li e ved that English judges would be received in Ireland with favour, and their de cisions would be looked up to with respect. There were two Irish judges whose time was not fully occupied, and who might be brought over here, and the Irish circuits might be more c onsolidated than what th ey were at pre sent. The Bill was in a crude, he would not say an imperfect, state ; and he should, therefore, r ecommen d that it should be deferred, as, in its present state, i would not efficiently carry o u t t h e b enevolent intentions of his Learned Friend ; and if it were improved and extended to Ireland as well as England, it would have a very beneficial effect. The LORD CIIANCLLOR said he should feel it his duty to recommend to her Majesty the establishment of another Commission with more extensive powers than the one with which the present Bill emanated. He had always been in favour of judges going to a central spot to try parties, and that the jury and witnesses should come to th e pl ace where the judges sat; by this, business was promoted, and expense saved. He would, there fore, suggest that the Bill should stand over until it was seen whether the Government would take the . subject under their consideration. Lord DENMAN objected to postponing the Bill, and of appointing another Commission, the re sults of which theT would not learn f years. The time of imprisonment was too long —four months was too long. What compensation was it to a man to discharge him after confining him in the gaol for several months ; or svhat punishme n t was t h at which took into account the time he had been in prison before trial, and made allowances for it? He was in favour of a more frequent delivery of gaols. Through three of the judges of the Queen's Bench being required to go on the Winter Circuit, 400 cases of arrears were on aocount of the judges giving up their leisure time, ultimately reduced to 100. Besides, a more fre quent delivery of gaols would reduce crime, as ignorant men, who plunged heedlessly into crime, would be re strained from doing so by being speedily brought to iustice. Lord BROUGHAM spoke in favour of the Bill. If ' a commission were appoint e d, h e hoped it I " ai t heif e newly constituted, and not com p ose d o f judge'l alistioli, duties were sufficiently onerous w ithout any " holl, After a few words from th e LORD CHANCE L the Bill was then read a second time. ad The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the second re of the Seamen's Fnd Bill.—Ag reed to The Earl of St. o GERMANS moved . the second read, ing of the Ecclesiastical Unions Bill.—Agreed to. „ de , The other Bills on the table were advanced a and their Lordships then adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIO; (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House Of MONDAY, JULY 7. vTTO' ) COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.—(IN THE COL- - a ilir _up c , Fourteenth Clause (Lecture rooms to be assigned for re _.,‘, 0 struction) :—Amendment proposed, page 6, line 20, afte r :real ° therein," to insert " except as her e i na ft er p rov ided :"—Q u f i d e d:' a, vi That those words be there inserted." Th e C o mmittee " MINORITY—AYES, 36. a. V ( ' j. Adderley, C. B. Gladstone, Captain Repton, Austen, Colonel Greenall, Peter Rice, E. t doer i c ic Baring, F. T. Hamilton, George A. Shaw, Fr ppel Barrington. Viscount Henley, J. W. Sibthorpo ~, Bernard, Viscount I lope, Alexander Buck, W. L. Jervis, John Carew, W. 11. P. Lambton, H. Courtenay, Lord Cowper, W. F. Manners, Lord JJ. T STSP ;: tw f h : ene e r ll re,°r , C:ll-111111r15‘' eTcb. it:Prd;'‘ Mordaunt, Sir J. Vesey, Tholak it 7 . Dick. Quintin Morris, David Waddingtot i _. , Dickinson, F. M. Patten, J. W. TELix . ' . B. l l ' East, J. B. Pringle, A. Inglis, Sir . Farnham, E. B. Rashleigh, W. Acland, Sir r• MAJORITY—NOES, 105. A'Conrt, Captain Emlyn, Viscount Mitchell, 7 rr;.Ai li VW Aldam, William Escott, Bickham Neville,R B4 ntlo " Antrobus, Edmund Esmonde, Sir T. Newport, ._... Archbold, Robert Ferguson, Sir R. A. Nicholl, . 10 .,..„''' Baillie, Colonol Fitzroy, Henry Packe, C. 1 1 .:„. t Baillie, 11. J. Flower, Sir J. Peel, sir R° Baring, W. B. Bellew, R. M. Blackburne, J. I. F F r o e r i s n te a r n , u 3 e l , a s tth ir e T w . p r i e u e i l i ,lo g n e a , th e a, 4 c tr , Gaskell, J. M. Polhill, Fred Blake, M. J. Gill, Thomas Praed, W. Boldero, H. G. Gladstone, W. E Pusey, E. rniliP ~,..g. Borthwick, Peter Gordon, Captain Redington, w Bowes,iJohn Gore, Roberti Ross, D. R. Tic Bowles, Admiral Goulbnrn, H. Russell, J. D. o. Boyd, John Graham, Sir J. Bright, John Granger, T. C. Broadwood, 11. Grimston, Viscount S SS m meYin i i t t l h t7T .Tr: . S O,t i . r. i' d : Q: Brotherton, J. Halford, Sir 11. , Somerset , .^", ir lir„. Browne, W. Hamilton, W. J. Bruce, Lord E. Hamilton, Lord C. S Si la m n e s r ti Till eld e, ' ' 'f ;', ll . . C. Bunbury, Thomas 'Torbert, Sidney Stuart, Lora . Burrell, Sir C. Hindley, Charles Stuart, Lor d J Butler, P. S. II• 14 ' Hohnes, W. A'Court Sutton, ..„ . 5 ... Cardwell, Edward Hope, Sir John Tennent, J.,.,.: Chapman, Benjamin Hope, G. W. Thornhill , , U g . Chelsea, Viscount Hotham, Lord TrelawnY , '" Clements, Viscount Howard, P. H. Tuite, 11. '" z nii Clerk, Sir G. Hughes, W. B. W a kleY, 1 1 1/. Cockburn, Sir G. Jennyn, Earl Warburton , Corry, henry Lawson, Andrew Wawn, J. I :: nr d C. Craig, W. G. Lincoln, Earl weposlef, 7; Fr. Cripps, William Lockhart, William Wortley, . I. L. :4 — . Denison, E. B. M`Neill, D **cal W yse , Tb° ll Duncan, Viscount Manners, Lord C. TBLIrs,7 t Duncombe, A. Martin, C. W. Mackenzie , Dundas, David Meynell, Captain Young, JOl'll PARLIAMENTARY BUSINE SS, MONDAY, JULY 7. The following Bills were read a third time and P 08641 St. Helen's Railway and Canal. Aberdare Railway. fle t° The Lords' amendments to the f o llowing ° ll5 agreed to : Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway. Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway. F t U NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL —. t o: London and York R a il wa y,—C omm itt ee P e t V additional provision, postponed from Tuesday nesday, July 9. • Manchester and Leeds Railway (No. 2),—Secon d re Friday, July 11. ' l Gravesend and Rochester Railway,—Report, e a July 9. Bth SPORTING INTELLIGENCE' TATTERSALLS,.—YESTERDAY. • JULY STAKES -(THIS DAY.) 4 0 2 to 1 agst Lord Albemarl e 's S mugg l e r Bill--- 6 2 to 1 agst Mr. Brooks's Moonbeam—taken .04 Moonbeam was all the rage, the odds, 3 to 1 O I L decij the close, wh en a p o i n t l ess was t a k en , g i v i n g her t,,,Jr call of Lord Alb emar l e ' s . M r . G u ll y ' s two a re dew" to run. LIVERPOOL C 7 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's Winesour—taken freely 8 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Trueboy—taken • 8 to 1 agst Mr. MoEtyn's Milton—taken 9 to 1 agst Mr. Johnson's Rowena 10 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's The Ironmaster-'' to° 20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning—takell 1) 6 The leading favo ur it es an d Ironmaster had stroolboor„. in fact, were the only horses really in force? To '0 although priced at 9 to 1, having but few friends• cie fir,to ceptances, given bel ow , amount to 25. J o h nn y, ho to b out of training, a n d Willi am -l e• G ros i s repor ted broken down ; both, th ere f ore, must have b ee n le 0 mistake. GOODWOOD frTMEDS. 5 to 1 agst Kent's lot—taken 10 to 1 agst Mr. H. Johnstone's Pythia 12 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel—taken 18 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen Mah—taken gig 18 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o' 20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning 20 to 1 agst Mr. Ramsbottom's Pineapple—tA ell 20 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Venus—taken 20 to 1 agst Sir C. Menck's Glossy h o 10 ) 22 to 1 agst Lord Stradbroke's Bo ar di n g Se- -° 22 to 1 agst Mr. Parr's Europa 22 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 25 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wee Pet—taken 25 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario--," 25 to 1 agst Lord Howth's Warp 35 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's Coal Black Boge 40 to 1 agst Mr. Cuthbert's Queen of Tyne.—ta. 110 The prices in the aggregate agree very nearly Wi t last quoted ; the investments were moderate. GOODWOOD CUP. 2 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Faugh-a-ballagli—tak e LO 11 to 2 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's The Ironmaster -4 '" 10 to 1 agst Colonel Anson's Arundo fr f 16 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Stomacher—takes ST. LEGER. 5 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Weatherbit 10 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Annandale 20 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa 22 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger THE DERBY. 20 to 1 agst Mr. Forth's Sting sre ll' 50 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwiek's Bro. to Merry , - ( 1 1 .101 50 to 1 agst Mr. Osbaldeston's Ki n g Cha - rles- - Sell 50 to 1 agst Lord Albemarle's Smuggler Bill--0:40 A match is made for this day, at Newmarket , 4di e : Panther and Hartshorn ; thi s , w ith th e propo sed P e rac (should it fill), and the July Stakes, will make thre They will commence late. (RECEIVED THIS DAY.) NEWMARKET JULY MEETING* 7 4-010 NEWMARKET, MONDAY "' Handicap, T. Y.C. 3 f 4)c * lj i Hersey, S yrs, B s t 71b—P au l tons, 3 yrs, Bst 5 , '• 11. 6sq, r 4 yrs, 7st 101b--Lyons, 3 yrs, 7st 81b Julian, 3 Yr s ' ler P July Stakes.—Probable starters—Titbit, Sulunose i The Little Vulgar Boy, b c by Emilius, out of n ifO S Moonbeam, Pawnbroker, Garcia filly, D u blin colt, tt - tt id. man. Lord Orford's filly and Col. Peel's colt have P INTELLIGENCE EXTRA. NEWMARKET FIRST OCTOBER MEETING' TUESDAY.—Duke of Bedford's Prologue, Bst 1- 31 .n1, 4 re , Dir. Payne's Collingwood, sst 131 b ; ; 200, "sst TnunsnAy.—Duke o f Bedford's Captain Phebus; ‘ ,oo,li against Mr. Payne's Collingwood, sst 131 b ; SECOND OCTOBER MEETING, 1845 w tea Duke of Bedford' s O a kl ey, B st 1 0 1 b, agst Sir J*"'" Bishop of Romford's Cob, 7st 101 b ; R. M. ; 200, hi" 4f_ q ADVERTISEM ENT .]—T HE FOLLOWING BX'l,ie NARY CASE, AS CONNECTED WITH HOLLOWAY ighk CANNOT BE MADE TOO PUBLI C !—George , 1-7tero High-street, Vauxhall, well known at Hill's P ° ., 4 — Vauxhall -walk, wh ere h e f ormer ly wor ked dar l 7 ) lO years, but for the last five his health has beef se that he c ou ld d o no thi ng , b e i ng great l y emac i s te he t s idt fering from a diseased liver, and also the drop* 1 0 1 y an affecti on o f th e s pi ne . H e was i n th e llesPvieS Winchester for five months, and afterwards i n „ yo minster Hospital, for three months longer. Te,,,„ oto from almost a dying state he has been restorea to 6' 1 1 11 comparative health and vigour, in the short sptl it i l is i l f weeks, as to astonish all who know him, onuo - ffely N Holloway's pills, which may be had at Professor to way's Establishment, 244, Strand, and of all reoP ec medicine vendors throughout the civilised v4 orld• i [ADVERTISEMENT.]—To th e L a di es .---It that ho t versally acknowledged by every one o f taste thsficio i ever beautiful a woma n may b e , if h er h a i r is of either in quantity, quality, or colour, one of hergrto charms is wanting. A comp l ete rem Ay for gloss,,t e to be found by v i s iti ng t h e esta bli s h es mt of s d Sons, and choosing eith er h ea d-d re:ssa t h at surpt - r , tare herself, fronts, bands, or ringlets that ass ist It I t splendid plaits th a t, enc i rc li ng the thin ha i r , gig the appearance of a luxuriant growth. The Para are so admirably , contrived that the nearest insP ee rd ti confounded ; the transparency of the web, adreittt d 0 skin of th e h ea d to b e seen through, they Ing'Y Rs 0 scribed as being as light as a feather.—Address w 1 and Sons, 119 and 120, Bi‘lopsgate-street, Lee d° ll l, e have lately invented th e D e pi nqu it ory f or oleausi t4 skin, parting of fronts, &c. BIBTH,N. On the 2d inst , at Seaside House, Aberdour, t lady of Davidson Beatson, Esq., of a son. 0 110 0 On the sth inst., at Tuffnell-park-road, U p per 0 the wife of Mr. `V. H. Ebbs, of a son. ii° l3l On the 6th inst., the lady of Ramo n d e Bertodan- n r Es n O q., of a daughter. the 6th inst., at Dulwich, the l a dy o f Thomas Steel Esq., of a son. , bo yi j On the 7th inst., at Milt on . s t ree t , D orse t- squ are t " of Edward Maitland Reid, E sq. , o f a son. ___...--•••"*- . MARRIED. If On' the 3d inst., at Barming Church, John Brenc— Adeline, third daught er o f C . G . Whi tta k er , Esq" ° ming-place, Kent. • DIED. s'nee rl At Woodville, near Dublin, on the 29th of June , -1 1,jeo lamented, Mary Anna, the beloved eldest daughter of bran General Sir Hopton Stratford Scott, K.C.B. a nd goo' daughter of Joseph Davie Bassett, Esq., of iv a ter Devonshire. On the 3d inst., at Leicester, Sarah, wife 0 041. ' Turner. of On the 4th inst., at Ramsgate, Percy Thomas, son Edward Lonsdale. On the 4th inst., Mary Ann Margaret, the Wife Of John Markham, of Gower-street North, New .road. The o: On the 4th inst., Catherine, wife of Mr. Evan of Alderste-street. On the 4 ga th inst., at Hanover-crescent, Brighton , - AfilttL n eS, wi O dow ofJohn Graham, Esq. I ,IOW the 4th inst., Mary Ann, the wife of Mr. . FLet- On street. the 4th inst., at Little Hampton, Sussex, Owen ti vii Esq., aged 71. w hole On the 4th inst., at Newick, Sussex, Colonel Ne late Royal Artillery, aged 78. b tr il a te On the 4th inst., Stevens Dineley Totton, Eatlq of Lincoln's Inn, aged 84. London : Printed and Published by MURDO Y`-', / . 0 , 1 1 No. 112, Strand, P r i n t er , a t Th e S un Office, ." D er strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in, the C" 1 . Middlesex, Tuesday, July 8, 1845. One o. days, at at 7,7} 1% 3 4%, 7: a * Obs of these ,rieket Konths the c av ' t Star u --________ rrn That at ,heir'i hest, "e Lg , fro .oe in or l'r° P The rietA; may b e o A ceorai lG Aanels ~t 1 keel ; 1 "i Dorcelat a ci dra , ,; 'pee, 041 gat i nd • th et„ reatli4V and Inc flgusen, boxes " alPhab e gara ltar i4 rin gB ea Deg l stan d Spa rs if e ttl In a ., : ,"E 00411 Gol d 1r . 0 4 n._ SI Tt 1; 1; 1141 )11 .1 ' A a t he , c elo Y til l 'f /nal Pry th e Per trd .Pt r ch ' th t trl tie , t 1 r 4 ext,ezeiftE t ' ew Asc or t 4 1 413,1 on, S T , dt Ai (),