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

Noble Lord also, that this tax on what he might call one of the g rst necessaries of life, had hitherto been felt as one of the reatest grievances under which the labouring classes could be oppressed, because it tended to increase to a still higher amount the present very high price of fuel.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard the Noble Lord opposite defend this proposition upon the ground that it was a very low tax ; but that was an argument which cut two ways ; for it argued either in favour of the tax, inasmuch as that another additional penny would not be felt ; or that, because it was so small and trifling, it should be abo lished ltogetheeohich lie (Lord Howick) conceived was not the real argument against it.—(Hear, hear. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure the Noble Lord opposite and the House, that the sole object of this tax was to improve the condition of certain classes in parts of the City, and the fund proposed to be raised in this way could not be ap plied without the sanction of Parliament, and, therefore, no ap prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund would be applied.—( Hear, hear.) Last year this subject was brought before Parliament, and it was then fully discussed. He did not propose now wearying the House with a detail of what was said then ; but, notwithstanding the objections he had heard urged against the impost this evening, he would just call the attention of the House to a few specific remarks illustrative of the uti lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex tract from the work of I's-Ir. Seaford Smith, in which was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of Whiteehapel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some means of preventir ' , the recurrence of fever and other diseases, arising from such causes as a pestiferous atmosphere; and having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and alleys re moved, and wider and healthy and open streets built instead of them ?—( Hear, hear.) A tax for an indefinite period was proposed on coals. Thirteen-pence was the original tax, to last till 1862, one penny of which was about to expire. It was intended that the penny should be continued for the same period as the twelve pence, for the purpose of constituting a fund to build infirmaries for those parts of London called the fever districts. Looking to the purposes of the Bill—namely, the alleviation of the distresses of the poor—and the good which would result from the expenditure of 11,0001. per annum for the mitigation of their ills, he was of opinion that an actual amount of positive good would preponderate. Those were the general principles on which he would give his cordial support to the motion of his Noble Friend, which would be the means of lessening, in some degree, the distresses of the poor in the fever districts. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said the improvements now going on in London were a great benefit to the working classes, but he did not think that the puttinc , a duty on coal could add to their comforts. He was rather desirous that the duty should be taken off altogether. The poor would not derive any benefit from relieving them from a tax of only one penny, for there was not a single poor family in London that consumed snore than one ton annually. Mr. HAWES wanted to know whether it; was possible or not for the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter, to find out a substitute for the proposed tax. What was there at present in the tax that recommended it? A little more in vestigation would have shown that it was a tax on the poor, and not on the rich. The benefit from the tax would result to the rich, whose property it was intented to improve. After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON, Mr. EWA R T said lie ha:l considerable reluctance in opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always c-sndueted hiroselt with unusual fairness. He complained of the manner in which the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House. Neither the Noble Lord, nor the Right Hon, Gentleman near him, had undertaken to defend the principles of the tax. It was a proposition to levy a tax in oppositio:i to every measure of sound policy. He was opposed to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city nr Londo.i the amount of tax was twenty -fire per cent. on the first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places, and the country looked r,ther that all these taxes should be taken off: than iecreAsed. He trusted that the House would act on sound principles, and refuse the Bill proposed by the Government. After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman llustettrxv, who explained, The House divided, when there appeared, For the amendment Against it... Majority —27 On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN- Cf:L N moving the following amendment :—That from and after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny per lost on cot,!s, cinders, and culm, so impo<cd and extended as acoresai shall from time to time when and as received he ut r invested in the purchase of Stock in so•ne of the peaFe Stocks er Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi tie,, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings, to an account to be intituled, " The 7.Tetronnlis Improvement Fond Account ;" and the said Corn roii,ioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly .iividerids or interest of the Stalks, Funds, and Securities so to 1) purchased in their names on the account aforesaid, in like manner for the purpose of accumulation in the mean time, and until the said Fund shall be reputed for and appropriated by Parliament to the execution of Improvements in the Metro polis. A desultory conversation then ensued, after which, Mr. HUME wished to know how the tax was to be ga thered ? The Earl of LINCOLN—In the same manner as formerly. Ti:e clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses .3, 4,5, 6,7, and 8, were then agreed to. The rernalo'nes clauses of the Bill were also agreed to. ' Mr. 11 UME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro duced this session to carry oat amatory improvements in the metropolis? He was well aware there were great difficulties, but the evil in London was a crying one, and required an imme diate remedy. Lord LINCOLN said that no such Bill would be introduced during the present session. The Bill was then ordered to be reported to.morrow. POOR LAW (SCcTLAND) BILL, On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House went into Committee on this Bill. Clause 56 vas agreed to, as was clauses 7, and all the clauses cp to 64. ler. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap- Vieation of this clause cn Scotland. If any Gentleman ha I read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to throw the inhabitants of many districs, especially in the High lands, into a state of positive idleness. He would, therefore, caution lion. Members that it. would have the effect of changing the habits of the whole population. Mr. HASTIE explained that the able-bodied poor in Scot land haul cow the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take a•.vay this poser he should introduce a clause for that purpose. Mr. A GLIONBY wished to know whether the object of the Bill was to take away 'he principle, for he thought that if a working-man were to be thrown into distress he aught to be kept from starving without going into a work house. Till within the last few years, at Maxwell Town, there had been no assessment whatever, and the poor had only been relieved by a voluntary subscription of the heritors. In the county of Kirkcudbright certainly there had been no poor law whatever, and therefore he thought that it would be better for the Learned Lord to settle the point. Mr. P. Bf)RTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re gret that there was any necessity for a poor-law at all, and he trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to the habits and, independence of the people. But he thought that it was cer tainly desirable that the heritors of Scotland and the poor should know whether there was any right whatever to relief in cases of distress. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, stated that the relief was for the poor, and unless they intro duced an express defin'tion as to what was meant by poverty, the able-bodied poor man out of em ployment was entitled to relief. The statute of Elizabeth provided for three things—either that a poor man ahould be provided with sustenance, or removed to his native parish, or to the parish of his settlement; and if the Hon. Member did not move for the exclusion of the section, he would. Mr. EWA TIT said that it mattered but little what was the opinion of this or that Government respecting the law of Scot land ; for he understood the Learned Lord-Advocate to say, that the able-bodied poor man was not entitled to relief, and he agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no other Member did so, he should move that the proviso be expunged. Mr. P. AI. STEWART said there was much doubt at pre sent as to whether ahle•.bodied paupers were entitled to relief, and the effect of this clause would be to increase that doubt. Lord DUNCAN believed that no able-bodied person had ever received relief under the present system. He should eepport the clause, as it would still have the effect of preventing able-bodied paupers from obtaining relief. Mr. P. BORTH WICK objected to the proviso in the clause, and moved that it be omitted. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment 2l For the motion... Majority.. —52 On the re-admission of strangers, we found Mr. HASTIE moving, according to notice, an addition to clause 64, to the effect that it shall be lawful for the parochial board of every parish, or combination of parishes, to allow nut of the funds, raised by assessment or otherwise, for the relief of the poor thereof, such relief to able-bodied persons within such parishes, or combination of parishes, as the board may deem necessary, during the existence of temporary distress, arising from the inability of such person to obtain employment, pro vided always that such relief to the able-bodied has the appro bation of the Board of Supervision. He hoped the Lord- Advocate would not oppose this addition to the clause. The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the proposed addition. He thought it would lead to false expectations on the part of the able-bodied, and it would place the Board of Supervision in an invidious position. Mr. AGLIONBY said that there was no evil found in this country from an excessive provision for the relief of the able • bodied in the time of great distress. Some such means of relief as existed in England ought to exist also in Scotland. It -would be a stain upon the Legislature of the country, if the case of.a man willing to work, and unable to get work, was not pro vided for in a Bill of this nature.--(Hear.) Mr • ROSS said that in Ireland the able-bodied pauper had n o right to demand relief; yet the Parochial authorities lic.d the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He could not see any reason WI the parochial authorities in Scotland should not have the same discretionary power. After a few words from Mr. BA/NE, The Committee divided, when there appeared, For the amendment ... 3l Against it Majority against the amendment —36 The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 65. Clause 66 was agreed to, with a few, verbal amendments. Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70, were then agreed to, without a discussion. On the proposal of clause 71, Mr. - SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso at the end of the clause be expunged. Mr. P. M. STEWART did not think that the working of the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would be prevented by it from obtaining that amount of relief, or that period of relief to which he would be entitled, or to which he ought to be. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would explain this clawe upon constitutional grounds. The LORD- ADVOCA'FP. defended the clause, on the groom; that it would have the effect of affording more real mean.; of defence to the poor man than he ever could have hoped to have had within his means, because it gave hi m the power of cueing in forma paupet is, which he ne7er had before by any previously existing law. In fact, he had slow the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry i n to his ease , because the Act compeped the B oar d o f I nqu i ry to enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each poor man vrlio applied for relief, and if they did not do as, the gate tfre power to the poor man t o en f orce an inquiry into hit case yittiotat any expense, because h e st ill sued in f a A orma e P 1 1 11 . ;e1 c r 10)313Y h c ar. ) ould not but rega r d th e speech of the i Lord-Adv ,,, te that of an interested . advocat e . (C r i es of very glad to firm such provi s i ons as " Oh , oh 1 ") lie 3." appeal against the rule of the Board er.abl?d the poor man to Ip . eris, but then he ( Mr. Aglionby) of Snirrvision in farina pa later part of the clause contained would still centend that the crainst the poor man, and there-- shoultdit b fr e om Eru re c t ic ires o s ut b . y The aforee,lautshe which at o w f as th a e ' elauw poor man was the ono virtually shut clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while he was al owed to sue in forma Pa P eris, or that any att , yrney would undertake a suit fora man without money vherewitli to 'fee him? For these reasons, beli eving that the practical effect t of the clause in connexion with the proviso was to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a shadow of relief, he trusted some explanation would be given by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or modified. Lord DALMENY thought the quarter sessions were not sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor, and believed that the court of supervision would obviate this anomaly, and quoted Dr. Alison to confirm that opinion. Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the c' use as that of legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor. Mr. WAKLEY said that he had hitherto supported the Bill, because he conceived it framed in a spirit of conferring relief on the distresses which he understood existed in Scot land, and because he had been led to believe that no poor-law at present existed to remedy the distress of the labouring classes of that country. But he now believed that the Government were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op press the poor; and as to the clause in question, it was cruel and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its subsequent stages. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against it Majority against the amendment —34 The clause was then passed. On the next clause being proposed, Lord ASHLEY recommended that the term " five years" should be substituted for seven years. The Committee then divided, when there appeared — For the amendment .... 8 Against it Majority —loo The gallery was :immediately after cleared for a division on an amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority Mr. AGLIONBY then made a few observations disap - proving of the 72d clause, which was then proposed. The LORD-ADVOCATE explained that the operation of the Bill would be such as to enable the poor man to receive relief on easier conditions than formerly. Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill did not place the Irish and Scotch paupers on the same equality as Scotch men in Ireland who, if destitute, received relief and permanent relief,: and he thought that the same liberality should exist in Scotland by the operation of the present Bill. After a few words from Lord DUNCAN, Lord CLEMENTS said that Englishmen and Scotchmen were employed in great numbers in Ireland. A good feeling was promoted between them and the natives. He was asto nished that the Noble Lord was desirous of stirring up ill-will between Irishmen and Scotebmen. The poor-law, after all, was merely a public fund, out of which the public should de rive assistance when they stood in need of it. Many Scotch farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland could not get in their crops if Irish labourers did not come over from Ireland to aid them. And if they encouraged Irishmen to come over it was their duty to support them. Mr. LOCKHART said he would give the Bill all the oppo sition in his power, as it had not undergone any alteration from the state in which it had previously been presented to the House. The Hon. Member said something about the number of Irish paupers, and the difficulty of relieving them, but he was not clearly audible in the gallery. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that if the Government passed the Bill in the form which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to wish, it mould be no credit to him or the hospitality of the country which he represented.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Government deserved the warm thanks of every Irish Member for placing the Irish on the same level with the Scotch paupers. He must remark that the Scotch felt no scruple in s-Atling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe rience he felt bound to express his belief that if an Irishman and a Scotchman presented themselves before an Irish board of guardians, such was the generous feeling of hospitality by which they were actuated, that they would relieve the Scotchman in preference to the Irishman. He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in troduce religious differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law. Lord DUNCAN said that if he had made any allusion to religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from his being un2ccustomed to Parliamentary speaking. Sir W. SOMERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the disavowal, and would withdraw any expression of censure upon the words which the Noble Lord had, he now believed, inad vertently used.--( Cheers.) After a few words from the Lord Advocate, Mr. Ross, Lord Duncan, Mr. P. M. Stewart, Mr. Bouverie, and Sir G. Grey, the House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority for the clause The clause was then agreed to -79 Mr. BROTHER . FO I\l then moved that the Chairman re port progress. The galleries were cleared, but no division took place, the Lord-Advocate having acceded to the motion. The House resumed; the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again this day. BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. Cn the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER tbat this Bill be read a third time, Mr. WILLIAMS said if the motion was urged at that late hour he should move that the standing orders of the day be postponed until this day. AftPr some conversation the third reading was postponed until Thursday. SUPPLY. Parliament would be up, and another attorney woe; d found who would carry the action on, unless Parliament met in the vacation, for the purpose of incarcerating those who continued the action—but even if they imprisoned them all, one after another, until there was not an attorney left—when their gaols should be filled with refractory attorneys and counsel, would the action cease ? No ; it would still go on. It had been suggested that the defendant, should not plead, yid those in the other House who' had' detailed' priVileg - e its if . it were the life of Parliament, had expressed their regret and repent ance, of course he meant in their votes, for having in a cer tain case allowed one of their officers to plead. Now, in his opinion, they had shown their wisdom by ordering the Attor ney-General to plead to the action; but it appeared that they had repented them of what they ha d done ; and that another time they would commit all the parties concerned in bringing the action. Of course they would commit the judges and the jury who tried it. They would commit the Chief-Justice, and the judges ; and the Chief-Justice, being a member of their Lordships House, and not being very likely to go volun tarily to prison, they would be at once committed in a conflict with their Lordships. But, suppose there was no plea. The plain tiff would sign an interlocutory judgment, as a matter of course; a writ of inquiry would issue ; the Sheriff would execute the writ, and, on the application of the plaintiff, he would be bound to execute that judgment, unless a writ of error were sued out ; and, even then, unless the judgment were stayed. So that if they refused to plead, the action would go on and ripen into judgment, and the case might eventually be brought be fore them judicially by writ of error. Nen meus hie sermo." These were not his opinions only, they were the opinions of Mr. Justice Patteson and of the Chief. Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the highest legal authorities in all other places except in the Houses of Parliament. Now, he called upon them not to be powerful by halves—not to have their pri vileges piecemeal. If they were determined to stand up for privilege, let them carry it to its fullest extent, and not stop half-way. Let them commit judges and juries, and set Par liament in irreconcilable conflict with the courts of justice—in mortal conflict, at least as far as Parliament was concerned. Yet, in the midst of that tempest, so bootlessly, so recklessly, so senselessly excited—amongst the midst of that terrible darkness there would shine a light, to which all good men would point, to which the eyes of all wise men would be di rected for comfort and safety—not that lurid light which the tempest might extinguish, but that bright, pure, unsullied light which the law, in the administration of justice, derived from those untarnished sources from which justice flowed. He would remind their Lordships of the perils which attended those who injuriously brought on a contest—a hopeless, helpless contest—with the law. They would by this coarse be the only power in the country which was itself to determine in its own favour. Something reminded him that this, however, was not the only branch of the constitution which stood precisely under similar circumstances. He meant the Crown ; and he supposed the Crown was as ancient a branch of the Constitution as either of the Houses of Parliament. He knew that there was great doubt existing in the minds of many that there was a popular assembly named the Wittenagemot existing in Saxon times, and they knew that an assembly from the boroughs was collected after the Norman conquest. But then it was maintained by other persons that this could not be considered as a distinct power; and it was only some years after the passing of the Great Charter by the Barons that they had really anything like a Parliament. Thus, at all events, a Crown existed, at least, as long as a Parliament, and the executive of the country was inherent in the first of these. Yet the Crown never did arrogate to itself the privileges that that House did. If the Sovereign did wrong then the subject petitioned against him, and brought him to the court of law. If the subject en croached upon the Crown, the Crown appealed to the law, and the subject was brought before it. The Crown prosecuted by its law officers, and the merits of the case would be decided on by the judges of the country. Then why, he•asked, should Parliament seek to usurp a power which the Crown itself never dreamt of exercising since the beg inning of time? The Crown had its const;tuted commissions, before whom witnesses were examined, and their witnesses required to be protected. The investigation could not be proceeded with without some degree of protection, but if the Commissioners of the Crown called a witness before them, who slandered his neighbour, or who per jured himself, was that neighbour not to claim equal protection as his slanderer, and if he brought an action against that wit ness for the slander, and he :( Lord Brougham) should like to know if, even at the time, when Jeffreys was Chief-Justice, it would be said the witness must be protected, he must not be harassed. We stand upon the privileges of this House—we advise your majesty to proceed at once on a principle which is inalienable in this House, and which has been exercised from all time. If, teen, the Crown never resorted to this extreme measure, even if a wrong were committed upon it, why should they, sheltering them selves under the shield of their Parliamentary prerogatives, invite a conflict with the powers of the law ? How had this privilege originated ? Was it not first in the commission of a wrong; and secondly in the assumption of a privilege to pro tect it ? He could point out among the illustrious patriots of the country, among the most distinguished of those who had done honour to the bench and to that House, a band which exerted itself as adversary to the principle of privilege, the privilege claimed by that House. Accidentally the Parlia ment being placed against the Crown gave rise to their sup port of high Parliamentary privileges. He must remind their Lordships of the excess to which they carried their privi• leges. Suffice it to say, that a year afterwards, he found these ordinances of the House which had thus entered itself into the power which it had thus used under the name of privilege to declare as it wished, and to act as it thought fit. The very next year, by an ordinance issued by the House of Com mons, without the consent of that House, the Crown was to raise train-bonds, and another ordinance was for the rating of two troops of horse to defend the Par liament and to protect its privileges, and to give the needful protection to their witnesses against the Queen, the Bishops, and the Lords, and the third ordinance was to levy money for the sake of protecting their privileges and to pay the Bills issued by they Commons' House of Parlia ment itself. There were many other cases in their journals and standing orders showing the laws made by the House of Commons in support of its own privileges, to which he would now refer. After the Revolution of 1688 and 1639 they had orders which were still standing, orders communicating to the servants of Members of Parliament of both Houses the same privileges of exemption from actions and arrests as those which their misters enjoyed. Another standing order never modified, though of late years not practised, was that no person should presume to take the goods and chattels of any Member of the House of Lords arid Commons in execution upon any judgment. Another order of the reign of George I. declared it to be a high breach of the privileges of that House if any man presumed to write the life of any deceased Peer or publish his will, and orders were posted on the outside of the House, to the end that all persons should have knowledge of the same. They were so inconsistent and capricious as to prevent all publication of any debate within the House of Commons. Whether the order was strictly complied with by the press of this country, he would leave their Lord ships to consider. There was just as much a breach of privi lege in publishing the speeches of any Member of the House of Commons or Lords, as there was in bringing actions against any officers of the Houses or any witnesses examined before their Committees. He would only have them to consider, be fore they finally resolved, that privileges were originally thought necessary to protect the Houses of Parliament against the Crown. The friends of liberty said that privilege is absolutely necessary, and asked what they would do if the Crown were against them. His (Lord Brougham's) answer was, so much the better for thorn. For, if the Crown was against them, he defied Parliament to carry a high hand with their privileges. He also found an order directing all justices and magistrates, and all others, to do as their discretion suggested to them, i n the suppression of riots and in keeping the streets clear. But, supposing there were not sufficientjustices, magistrates, or con stables, in Westminster to suppress the riot, he should like to know what was meant by all others. He only stated these things to show the inconsistencies of their privileges. men, the land; t o and that they ought of a ll men, a He (Lord Brougham) yeas most sure th a t th ey h a d no thi ng t o fear fro m tfhe all justices b s o ti d c i e e s s o f f show th e mos t w illi ng obedi ence to that law, and they ought to be the very last to shrink ri d of o from protecting their rights, the rights of their witnesses, and the rights of their servants and officers. Their Lordships ought to keep in mind the great maxim that the very belt which bound together the great social pyramid of England was not the apex of the Crown—not the middle region—not the lower region of the people—but that middle region, in which justice was administered according to law, by lawyers and, above all, by lawyers who were no political partisans. It was because they were secured from politics—it was because politics never crossed the threshold of their houses of justice to impede their course, or to tarnish their renown, or interrupt the calm and equable tenour of their way ; it was for that rea son that they were to be safely relied upon by all men ; and it was for that reason that he ought, and they ought, to rely infi nitely More securely upon the protection they were sure to afford, than in any assumption of power under the name of privilege which they might possess. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he considered this a question of the greatest importance, and before he would enter into it, or would say a word with respect to the question itself, he wished to point out to their Lordships the situation in which he stood with respect to it. The Noble Duke presented a petition from a party complainin g that an action had been brought ag ainst him in consequence of evidence which he gave before a 'Committee of that House. It was their Lordships' pleasure that the question of the gaming-laws should be investi gated, and a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of- inquiring ; into the subject. --He (the Lord • Chan ' felt% it to be his 'consequences of that preliminary step, to bring forward the motion which had given rise to this discussion. He wished, then, in the posi tion in which he was placed, and in the character with which he was clothed, to lay before them, plainly and clearly, the real position of this question, what was the nature of it, and what was the authority on which it rested, in order to enable their Lordships to come to that decision which, after consider ing this important question, they should pronounce. His Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham) had quoted and referred to several precedents, which he (the Lord Chancel lor) admitted to be very absurd and very extraordinary. No doubt this House and the other House had, under the name of principle, conducted themselves upon one occasion in an arbi trary and tyrannical manner. The sovereigns of this country at different periods had also abused their power and authority, and he would beg leave to add that when the people them selves had by accident become clothed with power they had, in more than one instance, used a tyrannical, a despotic, and arbitrary power.—(Hear, hear.) The question now was whether, under the circumstances of this case, they ought to interpose their authority in stopping proceedings against a person who had preferred his complaint at their Lordships' bar. The first thing was to consider what were the circumstances and facts of the case. This witness was examined before a Select Committee of Inquiry into the laws of gaming. He answered the question; put to him, and there was no pretence to say that these answers were not fairly and honestly given. It was a Select Committee, not open to the public, but, in consequence of the evidence having, in some way or other, been made public, this action had been instituted. His Noble and Learned Friend, in the course of his speech, seemed to doubt whether they had sufficient evi dence, independent of what was stated at their Lordships' bar, to show that the action had been brought to recover damages in consequence of evidence which had been brought before their Lordships' Committee. That question was investigated before a Committee of their Lordships,, and every member of the Committee was satisfied that the action had been brought to recover damages for evidence so given, and for that evidence only. They had the declaration before them com pared with evidence before the Select Committee, and it cor responded in every word. It was a long succession of testi mony, consisting of questions and answers, so as to render it impossible for any man to doubt that the action was brought in consequence of evidence used before a Committee of their Lordships. It was not necessary to bring the parties bringing the action before the bar, but for the purpose of giving them an oppor unity of explaining to their Lordships what were their motives, and to set themselves right if they thought proper. They did not do so, an:l in consequence he (the Lord Chancellor) made a motion to the effect that they were guilty of a breach of their Lordships' privileges, in order that, after having evidence advanced on the subject, they might come to a decision on that point. It had been said by his Noble and Learned Friend, and very correctly said, and he thought said on former occasions, that no action of this kind could be main tained in the Courts of Westminster -hall. Therefore he (Lord Brougham) suggested that they should allow the action to go on and the law to take its course. His (the Lord Chan cellor's) answer to that was very short and simple. Here was a person:called before a Committee and compelled to give evidence; an action was brought against him, and it entirely failed; but anybody who had any acquaintance with the admi nistration of justice would see that notwithstanding the verdict Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT moved that the House 7,0 into a Committee of Supp!y, in order to vote the sum of 146,291/ to defray the expenses of the militia. The House then went. into Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the grant, on the ground that the service was an incomplete one. The grant was agreed to, and the House resumed. The Valuation (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. The Geographical Survey_ Bill passed through Committee. THE SUN, L'ONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 15, 1845. Lord CAMPBELL—The decision to which he referred was givers in the reign of Richard 11., and the Chief Justice Tres. silian, who presided at the time over the Court, was most de servedly hanged. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Then that cannot be con sidered a precedent.—(A laugh.) Lord CAMPBELL—The judges were asked whether it was possible to impeach the King's Ministers in the High Court of Parliament. The judges, una voce, answered no, and that whosoever proposed such a course was guilty of high treason. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack asked in what reign these decisions were given, and he had stated they were made in the reign of Richard the Second. In the year 1625, in the reign of Charles the First, a progenitor of a Noble Lord in that House (the Earl of St. Germans), along with Selden, Stroud, and Pym, requested to put a certain question to the House. Orders came from the King that the question should not be put, and Parliament was dissolved. These parties were arrested and the Attorney- General instituted proceedings against them in the Queen's Bench. The proceedings were carried on, the question was fully argued before the judges, and they convicted these five illustrious men, on the ground that, though they had spoken in Parliament, they had spoken in an unparliamentary way, and were, therefore, amenable for the words spoken. They were severally fined. He would refer to another case, in which a Member of the House of Commons, Sir William Williams, for putting his name to minutes of the House, by order, was prose cuted, and fined in the sum of 10,000 i., 8,0001, of which he paid. The Noble Lord, having given several other instances of the practice of the several courts of law, the Common Pleas, the Exchequer, and the Queen's Bench, proceeded to say that there had been as yet no instances in which parties had been proceeded against for evidence given before a Committee. It was only in these speculative times that such a course could be conceived of; and he was of opinion that unless. they.in starstly, ptit ,a stop "to , such proceedings, .:and: vindicated -their 'privileges, actions of this kind would be multiplied to an in definite extent. There was no confidence to be placed in the courts of law, as far as their privileges were concerned. For the good of the people, as well as for the independence of the House, they were bound to take steps to put an -end to those proceedings. Unless they did so, their dignity would be assailed, and their usefulness destroyed. —(Cheers. ) The Earl of WICKLOW said, if their Lordships intended to proceed in the way they had specified, it could not fail to lead to serious consequences. He had no doubt that a breach, of privilege had been committed, but it had grown out of a dis regard of the privileges which they possessed. It was a breach of privilege to report their proceedings ; it was a breach of privilege to publish evidence taken before a Select Committee. They had winked at the breach of privilege committed in pub lishing the debates ; they went further, and authorized the sale of printed papers. Such a course was most objectionable, in many cases, to individual s w h o h a d g i ven ev id ence. These re. ports should only have been circulated amongst their Lord ' ships. The case before them arose out of the publicity which had been given to evidence given by a witness before a Com mittee of that House. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack. Not one of the cases brought forward by that Noble Lord or by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) could fairly be applied to the case before them. The majority of the cases which had been cited were materially different from that which then engaged their attention. He looked upon it as one of expediency —of discretion. Would they enforce their privilege? No. Because they were not popular with the country. There'was a deep rooted antipathy to the privileges l i of that House. If they were about to establish a precedent they should take care of its nature. He hoped that the indi vidual would be able to get out of the dilemma in which their Lordships were about to place him. Lord CAMPBELL strongly advised their Lordships to put a stop to the action. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion that Mr. Harlow be committed to the custody! of the Usher of the Black Rod until the further order of the House.—Agreed to. Their Lordships then proceeded to consider whether the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Hardwin, should be also committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod. Lord BROUGHAM said, what might be considered con tempt in 1810 would now have a different construction upon it. The Duke of WELLINGTON said the question was now about tho attorney. The case was a very extraordinary one, and atignt be specially attributed to the attorney. It was this, that the declaration concealed the fact that the evidence was given to a Committee of the House of Lords. It stated that it was given in a room before their Lordships. This was a very important fact, and should have appeared on the face of the declaration. Lord BROUGHAM—ThaI is the special plea-ler's fault—not that of the attorney. Lord CAMPBELL. considered that they would, do wrong to commit the plaintiff, and not his attorney, who was much more to blame than him. Pettifogging actions were brought by pettifogging attorneys, who in duced some party to become the plaintiff. Ile must protest against the doctrine that it was the duty of a solicitor to bring every action which he was instructed to bring. It was the duty of an attorney to examine the cause of action— that there was some reasonable cause for laying it. If they Committed one, they ought to commit the other. in his favour the consequence would be that consider able costs would come out of his own pocket.—( Hear, hear.) Everybody knew that the defendant was entitled only to taxed costs, and these fell very far short indeed of the real costs which the party had to pay. So that the in dividual who was compelled to come before their Committee and to give honest evidence, was to be dragged into a court of justice and go through all this ordeal, anck ultimately, in the event of 'his sucteses, to be taxed with these costs. That was only a part of the ease. Everybody who knew anything of the administration of justice knew how many accidents there were which occurred in a cause. Slips might be made, owing to the fault, perhaps, of the counsel, the consequence of which would be that the defendant would have a judgment against him, and would have to pay the whole costs out of his own pocket. These were the risks to which they would expose their wit nesses. Was it not of importance that they should protect their own witnesses ? And what was of more importance than the appointment of select committees for the purpose of discovering the truth of important matters ? If a witness who was to be examined before any of these Committees knew the risks to which he was exposed, and that he was running the chance of being dragged before a court of justice for the evidence which he would give, it would lead to a suppression of the entire truth, and would induce him to withhold everything that he felt afraid to disclose. His Noble and Learned Friend thought it extraordinary that a man should be interfered with in his appeal to a court of justice. It was strange, considering the high position that Noble Lord once occupied, as head of the Court of Chancery, and considering his great erudition, that he should have propounded such a proposition. Why it was an every-day practice in Chancery ; if any officer in the execution of his duty had an action brought against him, he prayed for an injunction to stop the suit, and it was immediately accorded, while the man who brought the action was committed to prison, and kept there till he obeyed the orders of the Court. But the Noble Lord had said, that even if the House went to ulterior steps, it would be inutile, for others would conduct the suit. But the action could not be carried on without agents, and if any man dared to carry on the action, while its originator was in custody, he would be committed for contempt, and also punished. This was perfectly analogous to the present question ; and the prin ciple was not only applicable to officers, but all persons con nected with the Court. If a receiver, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, was harassed by an action, he could claim and re ceive the protection of the Court ; so also was it in the case of a commission of rebellion. The Noble Lord had asked what would be their next step if the present were adopted, and as serted that the House would never be able to carry itself through triumphantly. Only let the infringers of their privi leges try, and they would soon see if they could be put down or not.—( Hear, hear.) A collision between the House and the courts of law was impossible. If the injured sought redress in inferior courts the courts would refuse to interfere. Why, Lord Chief-Justice Denman, in the last judgment which he deli vered, asserted that his Court was bound to protect the privi leges of Parliament; and had it not been for an informality in the warrant the question could not have been entertained by them ' • and in the recent case in the other House, the Com mons had asserted and maintained their prerogative. He had thus briefly stated what appeared to him to be the fact and merits of the case in its present position and subsequent effect, and he had, he hoped, enabled their Losdships to perceive the exact state of the question, and to come to a right decision. Lard BROUGHAM wished to explain that he had not de nied that precedent gave the power now sought, but he doubted the expediency of the House exercising it. As to the case of Chancery, he was astonished to hear his Noble Friend adducing such an inapplicable principle as that of injunction to the pre sent question. The cases were wholly dissimilar. In one they could apply to a court of justice ; in the other, to the legisla tive tribunal only. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained. Lord CAMPBELL said, that as no other Noble Lord seemed willing to address the House, he wished to offer a few remarks upon a question so important to their privileges and respect. The Learned Lord near him (Lord Brougham) had said that the course they were taking would but render them selves obnoxious to popularity. He however would willingly incur that risk, as he believed that they best consulted the liberty of the subject in asserting their own rights. The Learned Lord had unwisely referred to precedent, and had triumphantly appealed to Floyd's case, but that was not an in stance of privilege, but impeachment. Some of their privi leges had doubtless been found unnecessary, and therefore voluntarily given up. In the time of the Plantagenets, Par liament met three times a sear ; but at Easter, Christ mss, or Pentecost, the Houses frequently did not sit more than three or four days, therefore that and the privilege of giving protection to the goods of Members and their vr vants was abandoned, the latter by an Act of 10 Geo. 111. His Noble Friend had urged that it was only when their pri vileges were obstructed that they ought to be summarily vin dicated ; but, suppose a charge were made against the Lord Chancellor in his Court of bribery and subornation of wit nesses, would not that be an obstruction of the administration of justice ? And the case was exactly analogous t , that now propounded. But Lord Etlenborough had distinctly laid down a contrary principle, and asserted that the privileges of Parlia ment were inherent, and should he defended, even when no obstruction was threeened. And it had actually been held of late, that the same principle held good in all the legis lative assemblies of the colonies, and the privileges had been recently declared as belonging to the Government of Jamaica. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the judges. For the judges he had the greatest respect, and he much regretted that the Noble and Learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, was absent on this occasion. He respected the wisdom of the judges, but he had a greater respect for the aggregate wis.l.om of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But, admitting the doctrine that had been laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord ( Lord Brougham), not only could parties for giving evidence be brought before the judges, but also they could be taken into the borough or county courts. They could be taken into the county courts where they would be adjudicated upon by parties who had never been educated in a knowlege of the law. But a true knowledge of this question was not to be found even in Westminster-hall. What could many of the judges there know of the privileges of that House ? Many of them never had been members of it, and could not be expected to understand its usages and modes of proceeding. The privileges of that House did not exist in any written memorials, but were contained in certain usages and cust oms . There was likewise a danger of judges being influenced by popular clamour to act in opposition to the due interests of the country and the privileges of the House. Lord Bacon says, .‘ A popular judge is a deformed thing ; plaudits are fitter for players than magistrates." There had been times in which that House had been highly unpopular, and when it would have been impossible to get a jury to act impartially on any question affecting that House. The other House had been in the same position, and would have had an equal difficulty in getting a verdict. The Noble and Learned Lord had referred to the ease of Sir Francis Burdett, who had been allowed to appear by counsel, but in that case it should be recollected, and no doubt their Lordships would recollect, that the Crown gave Sir Francis Burdett liberty to proceed. Under the peculiar circumstances, this was thought to be the most advisable course. He would now give a few instances to show that judges ought not to be trusted in matters involving the privileges of that House. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to several instances in which the courts of law had interfered with the privileges of the House. It was once, my Lords, made a ques tion during a session of Parliament whether the Sovereign did not possess the right of prescribing the exact business which Parliament should transact, and also the mode in which Parliamentary proceedings should be conducted. The judges, una voce, pronounced that such right was inherent in the King, and that whosoever denied it was guilty of high treason. The LORD CHANCELLOR —What is the date of that decision ? Lord BROUGHAM said, I have a communication to make, before you order the committal of this person, who has been grievously injured. He has instructed his attorney to dis continue the action. I therefore think that you should proceed no further. The Earl of WICKLOW said, the plaintiff had stated that when he brought the action he was not aware it was a breach of privilege, The LORD CHANCELLOR said in the present case, as far it - appeared to him; the - Attorney wa the most guilty ) The 'plaintiff might know nothing of the privileges of Parliament, but the attorney could not be ignorant of them, and he wished to draw particular attention to the de claration. It stated that certain words were spoken in a certain Committee, from thereports of which they were taken. It dropped the word " Lords," and the mere dropping of that word showed it had been left out intentionally ; because any one doing so would have been guilty of a breach of pri vilege, so that the attorney was the most guilty party. After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, The LORD CHANCELLOR put the motion that Mr. Hardwin, having been guilty of a breach of privilege, should be committed to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod, which was agreed to, and the parties, who were in attendance at the bar of the House, were then taken into custody. COST OF OPPOSING RAILWAY BILLS. Lord BROUGHAM intimated that he had abandoned his resolution relating to the cost of opposing railway bills, and had embodied the object of the resolution in a declaratory Act, which provided that the promoters of railway bills should enter into recognizanees, binding themselves to pay the taxed costs of an opposing landholder, should the House think fit to make an order to that effect. The Bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a se cond time on Thursday. DOG-STEALING BILL. This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. Messengers from the House of Commons brought up the South Wales Railway Bill, the South-Eastern Railway Bill (Tunbridge-wells Branch), the General North of England and Hartlepool Railway, and several other Railway Bills. Several measures lying on the table were then advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'3.—YESTERDAY. LIVERPOOL CUP. 3 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's Winesour—taken 11 to 2 agst Mr. Mo:tyn's Milton—taken 8 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Trueboy 8 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 10 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario—taken 14 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Lightning 20 to 1 agst Mr. Jaques's Extravaganza—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Godfrey—taken 33 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Ironmaster Of the nine horses priced, four only were in any real de mand, namely, Winesou r , Milt on , R owena, and Lothario. Lightning's figure was nominal ; Extravaganza's and Godfrey's parties were select, and the Ironmaster was sent to the right. about—he is more likeiy to run at Goodwood than Liverpool. GOODWOOD STAKES. 12 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Pythia 12 to 1 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Libel 15 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen Mab 18 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Venus—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Parr's Europa 20 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's Agis—taken 20 to 1 agst Sir C. Monck's Glossy 20 to l agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o'Gaunt 25 to 1 agst Lord Howth's Warp —taken 25 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Lothario 25 to 1 agst Mr. A. Johnstone's Rowena 25 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wee Pet 30 to 1 agst Mr. Herbert's Ajax 50 to 1 agst Rowena winning this race and the Liverpool Cup. Very little doing ; Queen Mab and (with a small party) Warp alone in request. GOODWOOD CUP. 5 to 2 agst Mr. Irwin's Faugh-a-ballagh—no backers 11 to 2 agst Mr. A. W. Hill's Ironmaster—taken 10 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Arundo—taken 12 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Stomacher—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr Vane's Valerian—taken Very little done. ST. LEGER. 5 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Weatherbit 13 to 2 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Merry Monarch—taken 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gulley's Old England—taken 20 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa 25 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger 30 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's the Baron 33 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Kedger 1000 to 30 agst Lord Chesterfield's Pam—taken 35 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Ould Ireland The Irish horses and Kedger were friendless. DERBY. 1,000 to 30 agst Mr. Thwes's Brocardo—taken 2,000 to 50 agst Duke of Richmond's Tug Net—talzen 2,000 to 50 agst Mr. Ramsey's Malcolm—taken 15,000 to 225 agst Mr. Oshaldeston's King Charles—ditto. LIVERPOOL RACES. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY AFTERNOON, } OUR O'CLOCK.— The following is a list of the entries which closed this after noon en the race course at two o'clock ; WEDNESDAY. The Croxteth Stakes—Vaudeville, 3 yrs—Corranna, 6 yrs, Erebus, 4 yrs,—Semiseria, 5 yrs—Cinizelli, 2 yrs—Shadow, aged—A-la-mode, 4 yrs—Trueboy, 5 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs— Mid Lothian, 3 yrs—and Lancashire Witch, 3 yrs. The Maiden Plate. Ada, 3 yrs—Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Trimnoir, 3 yrs—Br c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Jack Palmer, 4 yrs —Steam, 3 yrs. THURSDAY. The Queen's Plate. Bretwalda, 3 yrs—Lothario, 5 yrs—B c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—The Shadow, aged—Poussin, 5 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs—Sir Abstrupus, .5 yrs—Pug, 3 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs—Jack Palmer, 4 yrs. FRIDAY.. The Stanley Stakes, for two yrs and 3 yrs olds. Pug, 3 yrs—Pluto, 3 yrs—Birthday, 2 yrs—Lanca shire Witch, 3 yrs—Hope, 3 yrs—lsabella, 2 yrs—Bur lesque, 2 yrs—Andrew Brandy, 2 yrs—Dean Swift, 3 yrs— Lord Harry, 2 yrs—B c by Phoenix, out of L'Hirondelle, 2 yrs —B f by Jereed, dam by Bustard, 3 yrs—Mid Lothian, 3 yrs. The Selling Stakes. Triumvir, 3 yrs—Erebus, 4 yrs—Juvenal, 4 yrs—Ambition, 4 yrs—Br c by Slane, out of Frill, 3 yrs—Sir Henry, 3 yrs— Poussin, 5 yrs—Doctor Wood, 4 yrs. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—T HE ORIGINAL METALLIC TABLET STROP, WITH FOUR SIDES.-Mr. George Saunders, inventor and manufacturer, No. 25, Strand.— This article has been in extensive use for the last thirty years by the first cutlers, who pronounce it to have no equal in producing a fine smooth edge to a razor, so necessary to shave with comfort. They may be had of the following cutlers :—Lowcock, 38, Cornhill ; Lund, 24, Fleet -street ; Davis, 69, and Looker, 42, Leaden hall-street ; Verinder, 79, St. Paul's Churchyard ; Makin, 181, Strand ; Coleman, Haymarket ; Philp and Whicker, 67, St. James's -street ; Warner, 25, Sackville street ; Paget, 195, Piccadilly ; Kingsbury, 152, and Durham, 201, Regent- s t ree t ; Ei ns li e, 46, S t. Martin's. lane ; Robinson, 53, Bishopsgate-street ; Carter, Paris ; Lamprey, Dublin. The fact of their being sold by the above makes it superfluous for the inventor to speak further in their favour.—George Saunders, No. 25, Strand. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Ladies, whether temporarily exposed to the scorching rays of the summer sun, or frequenting the crowded saloon, or close assembly, will find Rowland's Kalydor a most refreshing preparation and auxiliary to comfort, dispelling the cloud of lan guor and relaxation from the complexion, and immedi ately affording the pleasing sensation attending restored elasticity of the skin. The numerous varieties of cu taneous eruptions, sunburn freckles, tan, and disloura tions, are pleasingly eradicated by the Kalydor, and the skin rendered delicately clear and soft. Its purifying and refreshing properties have obtained its selection by the Court and the Royal Family of Great Britain, and those of the Continent of Europe, together with the elite of the aristocracy and haut ton. The high re putation it bears causes unprincipled shopkeepers to offer their spurious " Kalydors" for sale, composed of the most deleterious ingredients, containing mineral astringents, utterly ruinous to the complexion, and by their repellent action endangering health. It is there fore imperative on purchasers to see that the words " Rowland's Kalydor" are on the envelope (an engraving of exquisite beauty, from a steel plate by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon, and Co.) All others are fraudulent counterfeits. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND lIEARIN4I4. No. 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented Spectacles, Telescopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, &c. Patronised by General Sir Edward Paget, Sir sEven Lloyd hlaiston, Frederick Goodfellow, Clayton Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robertson, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, Fox, Price, Lindsay, and Thackray, Major-General Sir H. Elphin stone, P. Fyers, D. Macleod, Hamilton, Turner, Wemyss, and Cock, Lieutenant• Generals Sir Henry Bouverie, Sir J. Macdonall, Sir R. Barton, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir Wm. Eustace, Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir David Milne, Sir George Munday, Sir George Martin, Sir James H. Whitshed, • Sir I). Gold, Rose, Alexander, Curzons, Tompkinson, Hollis, and Price, Vice-Admiral Sir F. Austen, Rear Admirals Brown and Ribouleau, &c. Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, have invented Spectacle Lenses upon a new construction—lmmediately they are placid before im perfect vision, that mist and dullness which appear be fore the eyes is at once removed, every object becomes clear and distinct, so that the most aged imperfect sight becomes bright and brilliant, and is brought to its youth ful, natural, and original state. Also Achromatic Tele scopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, Invisible and all kinds of Acoustic Instruments, for relief of most extreme deafness. Caution—Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opti cians, are not i in any way connected with a p erson o f t h e name, in their immediate neighbourhood, nor i n any part of the country. T o prevent mistakes be cautious, and Observe,—Only to be had at 39, Albemarle -street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Ilets - i CAPTAIN CHAMIER'S NEW NOVEL.—We are re quested to state that Mr. Colburn, of Great Marlboroueh street, has this day published " Count Konigsmark," an His torical Novel, by Captain Frederick Chamier, R.N , in 3 vols., which can now be had at all the Libraries. Mr. Colburn has also just published the following new novels : —2. The White Slave, a Russian story, by the author of " Revelations of Russia," 3 vols-3. Self, by the author of " Cecil," 3 vols 4. Maids of Honour, a Tale of the Court of George 1., 3 vols —5. Jonathan Sharp, or the Adventures of a Kentuckian, written by himself, 3 vole—and, 6. De Hoban, or the Court Conspirator, by M. Eugene Sue, author of the " Mysteries of Paris," &c., 3 vols. THE RECENT CASES OF INSUDOUDINATION IN THE POST -OFFICE.—On Saturday, in consequence of the insubordinate conduct of some parties in the General Post-office, the superin tendent residents of the inland-office, with the inspector of letter.carriers, summoned ft",r attendance in the afternoon, the whole of the letter-carners and sub sorters, for the purpose of reading to them the answer of the Noble Earl (Lonsdale) the Postmaster-Genv:al, to a report recently forwarded to his Lord ship, of the state of the office as noticed by Thomas S. Dun_ combs, Esq., the Honourable Member for Finsbury, in the late debate on the abuses of the office. The following is a copy of his Lordship's reply through the Secretary, Colonel Maberly :—" With reference to your report of the 4th instant, en closing several anonymous notices that have been distributed in the letter-carriers' office, I am commanded by the Postmaster. General to direct you to assemble the sub -sorters and letter.carriers, to in. form them that while his Lordship is at all times ready to listen to any grievance which they have to complain of, when conveyed through their superior officers, he has seen, with great displeasure, the discreditable conduct of some individuals of their body, and that if he succeeds in discovering the parties, he will instantly dismiss them. (Signed) " W. L. NAIIARLY.” STATE OF TRADE. L t. WI. LEEDS CLOTH MA REET, —The business at the Cou.---„, has been comparatively flat this week, and the supply of goo," was small, both on Saturday and Tuesday. Prices r enal " about the same. The principal demand was for beavers , fan % cloakings, and shawls. There was but a small business done fine and middle cloths. In the warehouses a little improve' ment has been observable. kst MAINHICSTRR TRAWL—There was a very healthy Mar yesterday for goods generally, with a tendency to ra t. higher prices, particularly in shirtings for the east, and in t, mestic cloths. The demand for yarn continues still buoyant.' and higher prices w e re obt a i ne d f or some numbers, for wine large contracts have been made. n mbing BRADFORD MA RlCET.—There is a good demand for „er, wool at former prices. Short w o ol s are much sought e" ce i but do not realise higher p r i ces . I n th e yarn market Inlet are a little higher, but not so much as might be exP e ' from the production being very meagre. In the e%V o t trade there is a fair business done, but the Tees ° a yarn being higher, is on ac coun t o f th ere b e ing a better deu l t o f for pieces made altogether of worsted. For the better kilo r, pieces there has been a good sale. The attendance of tae chants has been numerous. Worsted goods are much m ore request than the mixed ones.— Leeds Times. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—BRUSHES.—NEW INVENTIO —The Triple Hair Brush, One stroke of this i s e c i b u y , to the effect of one penetrating, five small-tooth CO_. r r a 7 and one even-cut brush ;to be had in four sizes, rio 4 ss. Gd, ; No. 8,7 s. 6d. ; No. 9,9 s. 6d. ; No. 10, 115. The Double Anti Pressure Nail Brush, divide the quick from the nail no pressure being r io quired, and thoroughly cleans and polishes the 1 10. 1 15 is a tenth part of the time of any other method ; Pre, 4 bone, No. 1, 25.; No. 2,2 s. Gd.; No. 3,3 s. 6d.; I `, T "" e q 55.; and of all sizes and prices in ivory. The ' t - he Tooth-pick Brush, which entirely enters betweell,",cl interstices of the closest teeth ; marks, brushes, No. 1, hard; No. 2, lsss hard; No. 3, middliegi No. 4, soft. The narrow brushes, No. 5, hard; I sT u ll o ; less hard; No. 7. middling; No. 8, soft, at is. eileu' 10s. per dozen in bone; and 2s. each or 21s. per dc‘ in ivory, the hair warranted never to come out. . 1 Medium Shaving Brush, between the usual badger !l it and bristle brush, being a selection of the stronwast' h in which does 11; only from the badger skin, in a variety of sizes, '' b otl . l -5 bone and ivory. The above articles are the iairen ti 7t, of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate - str, en London, and, being protected, any one 'imitating will be proceeded against. DIED. •11 81°' On the sth i ns t., a t T un b r id ge-we ll s, Ch ar les 0 1 'ace, Esq., ag e d 42. r 6 Al" On the 6th i ns t., a t Ch ar l es - s t reet, B er k e lerscl°" Ann Baker, aged 82. 1* Tor On the Bth i ns t., a t th e Ff ry th , near W rex ham ) 11 ping, widow o f th e l a t e J . T opp i ng. On the 4th of May, at Meerut, in India, James son of C. Sparkes, Esq., of Aberdeen-place, aged 38 . 13er ° 0 0 On the 6th in s t., a t L aure l C o tt age , Sunningb"-Arie Eliza, the wife of Q. C. Brooke, Esq., late of the 4th Guards. r P o ti i: 4 l On the Bth inst., at M arga t e , A n d rew J am es Fr 3e i On the 9th inst., Ch ar l o tt e , re li c t o f M r . Saugl e New 13ond-street. O D° On the 9th inst., at Limehouse, Mr. J. Wallen- titer 0 On the 10th inst., Lo u i sa Bl anc h e , e ld es t dauglit 0 Rev. G. Sanby, Vica r o f Fli x t on , S u ff o lk, age d 14. 6 , i03 On the 11th inst., a t B ow hill-t errace , B r ixton, Lewis. of oijSu i 'l Lorn:on : Printed and Publi s h e d by MURDO v 'O3 No. 112, Strand, Pri n t er , a t Th e Sous Ofncey „ offutrand. Strand. in the Precin e t o f th e S avoy , in the Bllddle‘ox, Tuesday, Ju!y 15, 1845. S i o n c lqa at 7,, I tliC Acto 1,3 .o r 21?tiieo A 2. Ri ~ r t il T 11 li ( I in 01 . t , 1 4 i l'iltl'rile'sti(l Nis giii, ei lla To TII Zti4oaells, N Ilitr t i • rQ 7 STSAIPS 'ACT. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER. the House went into Committee pro forma on the above Bill, and it was ordered to be reported this day. TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, this Bill was ordered to be read a second time this day week. TURNPIKES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This Bill was ordered to be read a second time. . UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS BILL. • The several clauses of this Bill were agreed to. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL. The report on this Bill was received. The Criminal Jo; isdietion of Assistant Barristers (Iretkind) Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported this day. ART UNIONS BILLL (No. 2). The report was ordered to be received this dayY The second reading of the Games and Wagers Billiwas post poned to Friday next. Several other orders were also postponed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 3d and 4th Victoria, o. 109. The other orders of the day were then disposed of; and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 14. • Their Lordships met shortly after Five o'clock thht evening. Several Railway Bills were brought up from the Commons and read a first time. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. This Rill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn• mitted. COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the Mike of WELLINGTON, this Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed. IRISH POOR-LAW. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presebted two petitions complaining of the present mode of adminiStrering the poor-law in Ireland. The NOBLE MARQUIS at the same tiare moved for a return of the number of children under the age of fifteen at present in the workhouses of Ireland, distinguishing orphans from the other children, and that the report of the Commissioners ap printed in 1836 to inquire into the state of the poor-laws in Ire land be reprinted.—The returns were agreed to. LIVERPOOL AND BURY RAILWAY. Lord STANLEY presented severgt petitions in favour of the Liverpool and Fiery Railway Bilhe WASTE LANDS IN AUSTRALIA. The NOBLE Loan laid on the table a Bill for regulating the sale of waste lands in the Australian colonies. The Pill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. IRISH COLLEGES BILL. The NOBLE Loan also appointed the second reading of this Bill for Monday next. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. The Earl of DEVON said he had conferred with some of the Members of the other House of Parliament with respect to the Bills which the Government had intended to introduce, and he had come to the conclusion that it would not be for the public benefit to introduce the Bill with respect to the shorten ing the form and reducing the expense of leases. He had come to a similar conclusion with respect to the Bills for re gulating distresses and ej ec tm en t s f or t h e non - payment of rent for land, the Tenure and Leases Bill, and the Grand Jury Bill. These Bills, from the late period of the session, could not re. ceive that consideration to which they were entitled. They would be carefully considered during the recess, and would be then proceeded with. Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the Noble Lord that it was necessary to postpone some of the measures he had enumerated. enumerated. But with respect to the Bill for amending the laws relating to grand juries, which had been sent down to the Lower House, he thought it might be passed during the pre sent session. Surely there were enough of Irish Members to pass the Bill before the session closed. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the Irish people had had sufficient time to consider the subject. He thought that the customs and feelings which lawful habits had en gendered and strengthened should be respected. He hoped, therefore, that time would be given to the people of Ireland to express their opinion on this subject. The Earl of WICKLOW thought that both those Bills should go together, and he was of opinion that his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies should withdraw his Bill. Lord CLARENDON then begged leave to move a resolu tion, that it is res.lved that in reference, not merely to existing treaties between Great Britain and Spain, but with respect to the commercial enterprise carried on between her Majesty's Government and the colonies, that the Hemse is of opinion that the subjects of the King of Spain should be permitted to im port the p ro d uct i ons o f all their territories, paying nut higher duties than other colonies pay on like articles. The resolution was ordered to lie on the table. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. The LORD CHANCELLOR then ordered John Harlow to be called to the bar, and asked was he present. John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHA NCELLOR—Where do you reside? Join' Harlow—No. 9, Leicester -square. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Have you brought an action against Thom- . s Baker ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR —For what? John Harlow— For false and malicious language used by him before the House of Lords. 5 he LORD CH INCELLOR—For language used in giving evidence before a Cummii tee of the House of Lords? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CEIA NCE LLOR —Have you anything further to say on that subject ? John Harlow—l will only say, that I have been very mull injured in my business, by being ointed out in the streets as being a g :mbler, when I know that such is not the ease. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you aware that a com plaint has been made to this House of your conduct, in bring ing this action? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CIIANCELLOR —And that a complaint has been made, that it is a !maul' of the privileges of this House ? John Harlow—l was not at all aware that it was a breach of privile;e, when Vsc action was commenced. And I hope that your Lordships will give: me an opportunity of seeking redress, when I have been so materially injured by the statements which were made. Lord CAMPBELL —The question which I beg leave to put to you is, do you still mean to go on with the action ? Lord, I am not at this moment prepared to John Hsrlow—My say that I will. Lord CAMPBELL —Are you, at this moment, prepared to i say, that you will not? John Harlow—No, ray Lord. Lord RADNOR—Are you prepared to say that you have been injured in your business in consequence of the statements which have been made ? John Harlow—Yes, my Lord. LORD CHANCELLOR—Withdraw from the bar, but do not leave the House. Here the witness withdrew, and Peter Hardwin appeared at the bar of the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR—What are you ?—I am a solicitor. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you the attorney em ployed by the last witness for the purpose of bringing this action against Thomas Baker ?—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—For defamatory words?— For defamatory words, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Are you not aware that the were spoken as evidence before a Committee of the House Peter Hardwin—The report states that the words were used before a Committee of the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR—And that was the founda tion of the action ? Witness—Yes, my Lord. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you wish to stv any thing further, as you are aware that a complaint has beet; made of your conduct in that respect? Witness—l have only to observe that instructions were laid before Counsel, and it was according to his directions that this action was entered into. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Is the action going on? Witness—lt is at present pending. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Do you intend to proceed with it ? Witness—l have not had instructions to do so. Will your Lordship allow me to say that I have every reason Co believe that Baker's information, on which the action has been founded, is false and— The LORD CHANCELLOR—That is quite immaterial to the present question. Mr. Peter tlardwin, you may withdraw from the bar, but you must not leave the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose and moved that John Harlow was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House. Lord BROUGHAM said that in rising to address their Lordships on the important question before them, he could not help remarking that during the four years which he had, by the favour of his late most gracious Majesty presided on the woolsack, no case of a similar kind had oc curred. He thought this a matter of great gratification to himself, and he entertained a sense of grateful feeling to their Lordships that during the whole of those four years, although occasions had frequently arisen for it—yet, in no one solitc.ry instance, was he ever called upon to interfere with the strong hand of power to uphold the privileges of that House. That he, presiding in the highest court of law— taking his station among the judges in the court of last resort, had never been called upon to interfere in a case similar to the pre sent, out of the ordinary course of law, was to him a source of the greatest gratification. This principle which he now con tended for was not a new one which he advocated when he entered those walls—be had occasion to assist in several cases where the same was upheld and vindicated. In the celebrated case called emphatically, and justly " the Parliamentary Privi lege Case, ' wherein Sir Francis Burdett raised the most important question concerning its limits ever yet pro pounded, he had argued its merits in every stage, and even on a writ of error before their Lordships' bar, and in presence of the Judges of the land called in to give their advice. He then enjoyed and exercised his right of appear ing as Counsel against the exorbitant pretensions of the other House, and he was not called to answer at the bar of that House, nor menaced with imprisonment, for doing his duty to his client, as the attorney in the present case. No; he was suffered by their Lordships, as their Lordships now re fused to suffer Mr. Hardwin, to discharge that duty to his client, and for half a day together to treat with scorn that affected privilege—that assumption of power—without risk or inter ruption. If the House of Lords had any right to commit an attorney for discharging his professional duty, then sure he was the Commons' House of Parliament, who, from the time when Lord Holt called the Sergeant-at-arms a hawk sent out to seize its prey, had been quite aware of and alive to its pri vileges, and abundantly prone to vindicate them, had the same right to have committed him ; but with all its disposition at every stage of its existence to stretch its privileges, and worst of all to question those of the rival House of Parliament—not withstanding all these propensities, he was suffered to argue that case fully, freely, and unintimidated, and yet take a seat in that House whose affected rights he was treating with disdain. He would begin by admitting, wheever might deny, he was not there to deny the privileges of both Houses of Parliament ; not only of one House, but of both, for whatever belonged to the one belonged to the other. It was the privilege of Parlia ment, and not of either House. No ; he did not venture to deay the existence of these privileges; but just let him see what those privileges were, and what were they for? Why they were to remove all obstructions to the exercise of the functions of Parliament—to liberate the Members of either House respectively who might be constrained from attending their Parliamentary duties ; to inquire, and for the purposes of inquiry to call all persons before them, treating those persons with the same respect and courtesy that they received in all courts of justice ; to examine those who were called before them, and if refusing to answer, or if prevaricating, before them, committing such persons for contempt. They were not, however, to punish for perjury, because that was not a ground upon which the summary proceedings of commitment could not be taken, there being a punishment awarded for such offence by the criminal and statute law of the country. All these privileges were absolutely necessary for the proper exist ence of Parliament, and fur the clue and proper performance of its functions, - and he was willing and ready to admit that they existed under the law of the land. But then he was asked to concede to that House the power, and the same power was claimed by the other House of Parliament, of declaring from time to time what these privileges were—of declaring from time to time. as occasion arose, what act amounted to a breach of any given privilege—to punish parties so de clared by a vote to h ive committed a breach of the privilege— taking with their own hands the judicial powers of, and making themselves the only Court of Appeal in the kingdom, and having done this, declaring what should be the law in a case for a breach of the law, in which they themselves were the pro secutors and the agrieved party, and judging and adjudicating, without jury, upon an offender whom they themselves prosecute for an offence declared by them against a law made by them and only by them, and still made by each without the consent of the other or the Crown, and then, last of all, condemning a party for injuries done t o themselves, upon a law made by them selves and for themselves, and taking into their own hands the lawless and anomalous power of putting into execution the sen tence which they themselves had passed. No, they had no right to such powers as these ; and he, therefore, entered his protest against them in the name of the Crown, and on behalf of the people of England, whose most sacred rights " and liberties were invaded by such powers. They stopped an action legally commenced in Westminster hall, alleged to have been brought for injuries sustained by one of their fellow subjects. Sir Francis Burdett brought an action against the Speaker for taking him into custody when he refused to obey the laws of the House. That raised the question in another form. But here was a case in which a civil right attached to a civil individual, in which that right was vested in an individual—in which that right arose out of a wrong and grievous wrong committed against that individual— in which, as they were informed, he complained that his cha racter had been falsely and foully slandered by persons—that he had been greatly damaged by that slander, and that for that damage he had sought redress as by law he was entitled. What were their Lordships called upon to do? To pronounce the bringing of the action breach of privilega. They had examined him at their bar. Thee had done an act of no ordinary nature. They had gone the length to ask him to disclose what the case in law was when from the statement of the opposite party it must appear that he had a different can se of action to that stated in the declaration. It was an action for words spoken by a witness, in giving his evidence. How would any of their Lordships, who had brought an action, like to state in the presence of arm adversary why he brought his action , what evidence he meant to adduce, what he meant to do, what to prove ? They bad done all this; but he should say no iziore then on that point. He protested generally, reserving to himself the argument when the proper Hive should arrive. —(Hear, hear.) Now they said this wast a breach of privilege. Go on with the action if they liked, anti for ought he knew he intended to go on with it, but the t they should send them both prisoners to Newgate. This seas what they were about to do. This was one of the instance s in which they stood in a different position to the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as the other House did not examine a man on oath, as that House had no judicial character at all, N vitilst they were judges in the highest Court— the very Court bet fore which this action might be brought by a writ of error, and yet they, the Court of last resort, tell the parties to procem I with the action at their peril, laying the foundation on vv•ai ch they, as a Court of Error, might be called upon to dec id e. At your peril go on—we are the Caurt of last; resort. But there was another most material particular in whi , .c,h that House differed from the other, which hi could well be, eve ; but he could well imagine that a person most consistently • saying in the other House of Parliament— these are our pr iv ileges and, we will not allow an action to be brought, that w e will stop it main forte, by main force, be. cause that ac' inn was brought to trial—to judgment— and that judg trtent is carried by an appeal in the last resort. In all civil and criminal suits, the appeal lay to them. If evid slice was rejected, if a sentence was improperly given, if a judge t charged a jury in violation of the law, then a writ of error lay • with the aggrieved parties, and they could bring it for trial before that House. They were judges in such cases whether t' bey would or no. They were to act ex neces sitate. But it eras said that unless witnesses were protected, unless they knee r they were to have protection, there could be no security of tl tt lir evidence being obtained. Why, they were protected. Th s- y were protected iirtheireorning to the- House, in their rernaini e g there, and in their leaving.' For all pfirpOses of securing evid e.lnce there was no illegal interference whatever. There was no c. ise for apprehension. It was their bounden duty to protect 1+ a witnesses. But he had yet to learn that it was at all nece ss try to exempt witnesses from the ordinary operations of tl se law after they had given their evidence. To no such conclu si ,ons did he come. But it was said, what was the use of bri ti t ling witnesses before them, if they were liable to be cr. lied to account before a court of justice ? Did that prevent, them from speaking the truth. If they slandered they were liable to damages, but if they spoke the truth the law v could afford them its protection. But let them see the fallacy of the argument. In a Committee on Satur day a witness h a d been examined respecting a line of railway. Nothing could i tie more false than the testimony of that witness, who seeing that • witnesses were present that would be brought forward to confr K mt him, admitted that he had given evidence on a former °eel is ion that he could not substantiate there. That subject, howeve would come, in all probability, before their Lordships to-mo r row. But this perjured witness, whom it was held to beso nevi v ssary to protect, was liable to be punished for the evidence he le ad given ; and if so there was an end to the doctrine of protet stion. The Clerk of the Committee, the short-hand writer , or even the door-keepers, might indict that witness, and th'e douse had no power to stop the proceedings. The result of si ,h proceedings would depend upon the truth or falsehood of wh tt he had sworn. What was there different in the present case to tihe one he had referred to? They were both the same. WiL et her the case was a civil or a criminal action, or whosoever originated it. Nothing was so plain as that a pers. a T 1 giving false evidence was liable to be indicted al the suit of any one. But it was said the cases -w ere different, that the one suit had been instituted by a 1?? ivate party, and the other would be instituted on behalf of the • Crown, though a private individual was moving in the c.l se. If so, then, it came to this, they had no privileges again st an action from the Crown, but only against theruhject. He I , ad been led to think that their privileges were only in their hare. Is to be used for the benefit, and on behalf of the people. Bi a according to this doctrine, it now seemed their privileges I were omnipotent only against the people, and impotent against • the Crown. But let them look to what must be the necessare e results. He meant the logical results of such a course. In v t first place, the advocates for privilege said that the punish a 9 ent for perjury was sufficient to protect the slandered indiv ; but the law said that there should be another mode of n roceeding. '1 he law said the punishment was for the protection ei' . the public, and the action t-as to give the slan dered individur reparation. Bet the advocates of privilege said there should be t Lc, reparation, there should only be punishment. Now he prayed ethem to consider what must be the consequence of this legally judicially. He entreated an answer to his questions. Th s . y ; committed the plaintiff and his attorney. Did that put an. end to the action? No such thing. The action remains 1. —the action went on. The plaintiff and his attorney and h is co unse l m i g ht b e comm itt e d, an d h e f oun d that a respectal tl e gentleman, whose name was not mentioned, had given an tit inion which placed him in great jeopardy. Why he had gi vs in an opinion on which the action had been brought. He h 1 given a sound opinion—a lawyer-like opinion —such an opini at m as he was bound to give to those who sought his professional a lvice. But according to the advocates for privilege, he wa s liable to be brought to the bar for that opinion. Now suppose all these three several persons to be committed, woul that stay the action ? No, not an hour. 30 . Pocket Edition (500 pages), in an envelope, price 25., 1 0P °St y N MARRI A 61 its Hindrances and Obligations. " Of griefs concealed, and disappointments keen, . Which young and gentle—the matured and sage, The lonely and the mated—all sustain." 4.d By R. J. CULVERWELL, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Lice fob the Hall, and twenty-three years Resident Practitioner in__. lle i g .64 o Also, companion to the same (72 Engravings), price Is., by Pm ON CHASTITY—its Abuses and Diseases. " Whereon doth binge the dignity of man, The health of offspring, and domestie love!" h gl lll ' These publications are free from empyricism and maws ,s t bs mentality—they abound is stern truths, and are addressed to telligence ef the times. ee t 91 Sherwood, 23, Paternoster-row; Carvalho, 147, Ele. e „ b ot, Hannay, 63, Oxford-street ; Mann, 39, Corahill ; and the Au` dell" Arundel-street, Strand.—At home daily till Two : Evening' till Nine. 1,0) DR. CULVERWELL'S GUIDE TO HEALTH AND LIFE, ADDRESSED CHIEFLY TO YOUNG PEOPI" New Edition, with additions, price Is., by post Is. 64„."niD. W HAT TO EAT, DRINK, AND Av v MEDICAL TABLE-TALK. On the Errors and Extravagances of Early Life, such " ; #4 rate feeding and drinking, snuffing, smoking, precocious o.,„ or bi strained indulgences, mental and bodily excesses, late hours, "'oaf/ excitement, and other outrages, exhaustive to the animal e on 010 0 also, per contra, the value of careful living, fresh air, earlY o ,4l; and out-door exercise salutary occupation, and good ment a l t g o red t / ment, whereby the most shattered constitution may be re' health, ant life preserved to the latest period allotted to By R. J. CULVERWELL, M.D., M.1.C.5., n Sherwool. 23, Paternoster-row ; Caryalho, 147, Fleet-street: , nay, 63, Oxford-street; Mann, 39, Comhill ; and the Author,, 9. Arundel-street, Strand. At home, daily, till 2 ; evenings 11 FOURTEENTH EDITION of the SILENT FRIEND on Frailty, with Coloured Engravings. 3S• Just published, price 2s. 6d., free by post (in a sealed envelope' u TOE SILENT FRIEND; a Medical li r °r ; sn the Infirmities of the Generative System in both se!, e ' r stie s ' on the loss of the reproductive powers, with means of rm" si or, The baneful effects of solitary indulge- ce, neglected syPh ils l.4o4 toms, &c., are fully pointed out. Illustrated by Engravings ; by observations on Marriage, with plain directions for the reW si att ; certain disqualifications. By R. and L. PERRY and Co., C ur ' $ Surgeons, London. Published by the Authors, and mar beT„ their residence, 19, BERNERS-STREET, OXFORD-STRE 0 , , Sold by Strange, 21, Paternoster-row ; Hannay and Co.,o;piso" ford-street ; Gordon, 146, Leadenhall-street ; Parkiss, C ° street, Soho ; and all Booksellers. %e t • "We regard the work before us, the Silent Friend,' a° a 0 embracing most clear and practical views of a series of WID oe tr 4 hitherto little understood, and passed over by a majority of Meal profession, for what reason we are at a loss to know. however confess that a perusal of this work has left such a fa v r do o ,,' impression on our minds, that we not only recommend, but c o in 0 1 ;1 wish every one who is the victim of past folly, or suffering fr o d er got, cretion, to profit by the advice contained in its pages."—Age 31.1 cte/l.d The CORDIAL BALM of SYRIACUM is exclusively dire, the cure of nervous and sexual debility, irregularity, we a r.,?o,ol of appetite, indigestion, consumptive habits, and debilities ai -, " in 0 , excess, &c. In bottles, price 1 Is., or the quantity of four 's" bottle for 335., by which 11 5 . are save d . Th e d ye -p o und eas e be had as usnal. t ; ' The CONCENTRATED DETERSIVE ESSENCE, an 01 :nr,;4 title remedy for searching oat and purifying the blood from ai blotches en the head, face, and body, ulcerations, and those e f r oli t affections arising from improper treatment or th e effects of rto removing secondary symptoms, and all eruptions of the 5 1,115 * Ils. and 335. per bottle. 6/9 d 4s * PERRY'S PURIFYING SPECIFIC PILLS, price 2s. 9 • n fis and lls. per box, are the most effectual remedy for strictureg,;, i is ee, mation, irritation of the bladder, &c., without hindrance to I„ e 9sP e , Consultation fee, if by letter, IL Minute detail of cases Dec r A Messrs. Perry are in daily attendance, for consultation , an ' 9 , 0 1 ,7, ridence, 19, Berners-street, OxfordAtreet, London. from 11 b "jay 5 till 8. On Sundays from 10 till 12. One personal visit is ° C 8 sary tneor.st a prmonont cure. LAMERT ON DEBILITY, NERVOUSNESS, AND BL DISORDERS ARISING FROM EXCESS, &c. "He, who in pleasure's downy arms Ne'er lost his health or youthful charms, A hero lives, and justly can Exclaim, in me behold a man!" Zs 65., Just published (in a sealed envelope), Tenth Edition, price sent by post, free, to any address, 3s. 6d., SELF-PRESERVATION : a P o pular Ess a 4oel those concealed disorders, originating in youthfu l f i t i tioo., and terminating in Nervous Debility, Local and Goo ,110°0 Weakness, and all those Sinkings, Anxieties, and Treinora, actg.; afflict the Weak, the Sedentary, and the Delicate. With , dry Observations on Marriage, and on the Anatomy, PhYs' ° " 4 oo Diseases of the Reproductive Organs, with plain Directions perfect Restoration. By SAMUEL LAMERT, Consulting Surgeon, „ I T 9, BEDFORD-STREET, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LOS P : o ne , fs t fl Matriculated Member of the University of Edinburgh, •"„ t iats Member of the London Hospital Medical Society, Lice" fr Apothecaries' Hall, London, &c. rp/ " The various positions of Lover, Husband, and Parent , ey e.- herent privileges of mankind, are frequently marred and Pr „nor) through the follies and frailties of early indiscretions. To sue ll ;,,stlS! others, this Essay addresses itself; and by its perusal Mull . (1 0 to may be satisfactorily adjusted that admit of no appeal e ir '' most confidential friend."—Stafford Gazette. 11 0 % 1 "Long experience in the treatment of a class of diseasec neglected and most imperfectly understood by the great b 0 . 1 „ / .0 medical profession, has enabled the writer to prove that t"'„ ase r ' e concealed causes of Nervous Debility in existence, where thauce3l4,j routine practitioner would never dream of finding them ; d fo, t , to certain habits, forming the most secret, yet deadly, a rt springs of domestic misery, and premature mortality." — ” 1 Journal. Published by the Author, and sold i n L on d on by S. Gil jgege ,l;. 52, Paternoster-row; Stolle, 23, Tichborrie-street, Quadran ,w ,.„nco ,s ' 7 street; Hannay and Co., 63, Oxford-st ree t ; N o bl e, 114, _ lane Gordon, 146, Leadenhali-street ; and by all Bookseller s ' At home every day till Th ree. and from Five till E1f1,,..'"%110 WEAT HER PREDICTIONS. All 00, delight in this foreknowledge should purchase, wi til° ,,r6 ll .s of time, GRIMSTONE'S WEATHER ALMANACK, whose r , tions of the weather, from his publication to the present cl a i' v co t been checked by many proprietors of newspapers and othern,, o de , The " Times " h as eu l og i se d it s correc t ness an d pec uliari printing ; see page 57. The "J o h n B u ll" p u bli s h e d its usu` f inaS 0e Dec. 22, 1844, g i v i ng it , i n d ee d , 336 correct ' daily predie,"- 4: 1 '7, I copy, pages 52 and 54. Also, " The Sun," the " Globe." the the " Post," " H era ld," " Ch ron i c l e, " " Satirist," " r un ,o;. t many others, have noticed the correc t ness o f thi s un ique Nc"..", r b,',,, Amongst the great variety of matter is an interesting .„ ; 51; his Royal Highn e ss P r i nce Alb er t w hil e a t th e C o ll ege of Pen , t c 8 01 !" useful Chronology, Royal Family, both Houses of Parliain o e c 131, ,, mary of Population of the British Empire, Population A come versaries, and cities ; a Calendar, containing Sundays, festive"ceini versaries, phenomenons, chronological events, moon's age' tides, gardeners' monthly calendar, a column for the weatberfovie: day ; pages 3to 25. Stamps, assessed taxes, &c. ; a list of , Copies of 31 letters, from ladies and gentlemen of the d e slV.:,. respectability, cured of ophthalmia, gutta serene, cataract, aer 0; 0 nervous deafness, headache, and spectacles left off, som e „ a f r---0 3 63. ' hem upwards of 20 years, by using Grimstone's Eye Sn, 41, ations in French, Italian, and Spanish ; pages 59, 60, 01 : 4, 1 8 "„ Read page 54, the Medical Report in the " Forceps," Feb. ' of 01 4 proving the great advantages arising from the constant use of i „e oar streei t is stone's Eye Snuff having been the cause of clearing many green eye-shades, and other human disfigurements. of Iv ' only fashionable snuff of the day sold under the authorilL,Olo e , Lords of the Treasury and Royal Family. Grimstone's "; reef Almanack is a beautiful pocket size, with a steel engraloter l " - , senting a bird's eye view of Oxford-street, &e., bound in blue, with gilt edges. uci I s °° ll Sold, at 3d. each, by all the London wholesale publishers fo re'. sellers. Wholesale only by the proprietor, W. GRIMST OIO, Snuff and Cigar Merchant, 434, Oxford-street, London. Copy of one of thq above Letters : St. Martin's-le-Grand, General Post-office, Inland DOI" f October,9, 1844. 114 Sir,—For the last three or four years I have been labouri i %:ele,,, - • a nervous deafness, so much so at times as to be almost ble ° o r in I "d t . hearing. After trying several very eminent aurists, from WI!. friefia rived scarcely any relief, I was induced at the solicitation ° I of }•o to try your excellent Eye Snuff. I accordingly procured oovocilt, 4s. 4d. canisters, after takin g w hi c h I f oun d cons id e rable lu c e ol n much so that I sent for two more, w hi c h, h av i ng used, '` ci t s lroo jy hearing completely restored, and I have not been deaf since. a A ryl mention that the time I commen ce d t a ki ng your Eye ar April last, and have continu e d t a ki ng it s i nce. —l am , Sir, .7°,01m dient servant, W. H. et ° To Mr. W. Grimstone Any quantity of Eye Snuff can be forwarded through w" Gen 4, Post, by sending money orders. A. 2s. 4d. canister, with me wW cost 35., and so on in like proportion BIRTHS. On the 10th inst., at Frederick-street Mrs. Jolis cl ifOry Taylor, of a son. , of Vl' On the 11th inst., in Torrington-square, the lady e mund Barlow, Esq., of a daughter. e On the 11th inst., at Ebury-street, Eaton-square , the bte, of J. Worlledge, jun., Esq., barrister-at-law, of a dailg 0 0, On the 12th inst., at Tottenham, L a dy M a dden, of a 130 1 ‘ 6 ' • hil , l On the 23d of June, at Laurel Cotta ge , Sunning the wife of C. C. Broae, Esq., of a d aug ht er , „„ • MARRIED. -1-' 10t;fp On the Bth inst., at Aberdee n , J ames Keith, -'e Lachine, Lower Canada, t o S usan , d aug h ter o f the George Angus. t h e On the Bth inst., at St. G eorge ' s, Hanover-square, , , he Robbins, Esq., to E m ily A gar , youngest daughter , ot , J. On IV. S. Cruttwell, Esq., 83d Regiment. e I the 12th inst., at Frome, Mr. John Rockley, garden, London, to Mrs. Edwards, relict of the 181 ' Edwards, of Frome, Somerset.