The Sun. — London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

NOTICE OF MOTION—ACADEAIICAL INSTITU TIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord J. MANNERS gave notice that on the motion for the second reading of the Academical Institutions (Leland) Bill, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. A RRESTAIENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for leave to thing in a Bill to amend the law for the arrestment of wages in Scotland.— Agreed to. Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from Manchester and Salford in favour of a NEW Ten Hours' Fa ZEALAND.ctory Bill. Mr. G. H. HOPE said he was desirous of calling the atten tion of the House to a statemgpt which he made on the 2d of May, in reference to the cireffiistances under which a notice of motion made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Bullet), was postponed. The postpone ment was made by the Hon. Gentleman himself, and not at the request of her Majesty's Government, neither was it the result of any compromise between the Noble Lord at the bead of the Colonial Department and the New Zealand Com pany. A retort of that Company had been pub lished, from which different inferences had bees% drawn. He would state in a few words what occurred. On the let of May, having postponed his motion in consequence of some communication with Lord Stanley, he postponed the motion to which he had alluded, but which, as he had stated, was not the result of any compromise whatever. In order that no mistake might arise, he would read the letter which had been sent by the Noble Lord to the Honourable Gentleman. The Hon. Member then read the letter addressed to the Hon. Member for Liskeard, requesting to know the reason why he postponed his motion, and whether it arose from a previous arrangement. To that letter he had returned an answer that no arrangement had been entered into by the Honourable and Learned Member. After this, he would leave it to the House to decide whether they (the Ministry) were justi fied or not in these proceedings. Mr. CHARLES BULLER, who was throughout very imperfectly heard, so much so, that many Hon. Members repeatedly called out, " Speak out, speak out," was under steed to say, that it was due to the Right Hon. Baronet op posite, and to Lord Stanley, that he should make some ex planation respecting the correspondence which had passed between himself and the Government, and the circumstances which had been alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, in regard to the withdrawal of the motion which he was sorry to say had been attributed to circumstances that had no existence. It was a mistake to say, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had entered into any compromise with him for the withdrawal of his motion. What occurred was this. He had: requested the Right Hon. Baronet to admit of a negotia tion on the part of the Directors. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that he would consult Lord Stanley, but that it was im possible /or the Government to enter into any negocuttion so long as his (Mr. Buller's) motion stood upon the paper of the House. He therefore represented the matter to the Board of Directors, and they agreed with him that it would be hest to withdraw the motion, and leave the Government free to enter into the negotiation. There was no compromise whatever.— ( Hear, hear.) He had thought it his duty to say that there was no breach of faith on either side.—( Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM must corroborate the statement of his Honourable arid Learned Friend. But he must also state his regret that confidential conversation between Members of that House even though they sat upon opposite sides, should be allowed to transpire.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The conversations which he had had with the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard were perfectly confidential, and it was with great surprise he received a letter from the chair man of the New Zealand Company, informing him that the secret committee of the board of directors were possessed of minutes of the conversations between Mr. C. Buller and him self ; that they were about to publish them, and requested him to corroborate or correct them. Now, as he had taken no notes of the conversations, he could neither correct nor cor roborate those minutes. But the lion. and Learned Member for Liskeard had so correctly stated what had occurred, he could nut doubt that the minutes alluded to would be equally faithful. Mr. AGLIONBY said that the secret committee of the board of directors had thought it their duty to report the sub stance of the conversations to the board. He was glad to hear the Right Hon. Baronet hear testimony to the sincerity and high honour of his Hon. and Learned Friend. GAME-LAWS—THE CASE OF JAMES DEANE. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet a ques tion of which he had given notice last night, in respect to the ca. , of James Deane. a man sixty years of age, who was sent to Reading gaol for four months for stealing pheasants' eggs. lie wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it was his intention to lay before the House the documents relating to the case ? Sir J. GRAHAM said that, in consequence of magistrates having cumulated the punishment by adding one• month's im prisonment to the previous sentence of three months' imprison ment, he had advised her Majesty to remit the cumulated por tion of the sentence.—( fear, hear.) Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that it was exceedingly wrong for a man to be imprisoned and fined both tor such an offence as this. It was anything but fair fur the proprietors to profess a wish to reduce poaching. and then to take tile very mersures which were likely to increase the evil. There was melting more monstrous than fur the preservers of game to become the purchasers of it from the public. In :he case which had been cited the poor man had been relieved from his imprisonmen% by the lion. 2.lember for Athlone (Mr. Collett), wine thought that a double punishment was too much, and therefore paid the flee him 'elf. Sir JOHN WALSH said that this man had been con victed for this offence without his knowledge, and certainly without any wish of his. The circumstances, it appeared, were these :—The offender had offered game for sale ; he be lieved they were pheasants and pheasants' eggs, to a young man, who had onla been about a twelvemonth in his service, and who, from being unaoquainted with the game-laws, had asked the other keepers what course he should pursue, and in consequence of their advice, he had again seen the man, who was apprehended, taken before the magistrate, and cerivieted. He (Sir John Walsh); was out . f the country at the time, or he would certainly have interfered. Mr. OSBORNE said that a man had been sentenced to one mouth's imprisonment, but had undergone three months, in consequence of his inability to pay the fine, and he certainly thought that the Government ought to inquire into the matter. Sir J. GRAHAM said the merits cf the case had not been brought before him, nor did he go at all with them. It was quite open to the parties to go into the merits of the case, but tia•y did not go into them. Mr. COLLETT said ho hoped he might be excused for now saying a word or two, as the matter had reference to himself personally. The daughter-in-law or this poor mar, came to his house, and made a statement corroborative of that which appeared in the Times newspaper. Feeling for the poor man, he sent his servant down to Reading wish the money fur his liberation. The poor man was obliged to pick oakum, end had been in solitary confinement. The money was, however, paid, and the man was set at liberty. The Hen. Member then read a letter which appeared in the Times newspaper of that day, and added, that as the payment of the fine had been ascribed to a person much higher in tank, he thought it but right to make this statement. He h:d, on that day, written to the 'limes to the same effect.—( Cheers. ) JERSEY LAW COURTS. Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman relative to an application which had been made to the Comptroller-General, respecting the con duct of the law officers of Jersey. Application was made to the other law courts, and from them the matter had been re ferred to the consideration of the Royal Court, which had de termined it was a matter of civil action. It was not a concern for criminal interference. A secret inquiry, which is peculiar to the constitution of Jersey, was then instituted, and the whole of the results of this inquiry were published in the French language, and it was determined that no punishment should be awarded. The Hon. Member wanted to know whether any steps had been taken by the Government to ask for an ex planation of the conduct of the law officers of Jersey. Sir J. GRAHAM replied that the law officers had not yet had an opportunity of making any defence, and he felt satisfied the lion. and Learned Gentleman would not press his question until the officers had been enabled to explain. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Lord 3. RUSSELL wished to know what step the Govern ment intended to take with respect to the question of privilege that had been brought before the House last night. A report of the Committee had been presented, and it appeared to consist of two parts. The first was with respect to delaying the exe cution on Monday next ; and the second was that the Court had come to the decision that it was proper to proceed by a writ of error in the superior Court. With regard to the first part, that of staying the execution next Monday, the House might go into the subject ; but with regard to the second part, that relating to the writ of error, he begged leave to state that it was the opinion of the Committee that they ought to meet again and draw up a more detailed report, to be presented to the House before any discussion took place upon the ques tion. It was necessary, before the House went into the sub ject, to have the fullest data before them. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir Thomas Wilde) and the Right Hon. Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey) thought this would be the prorr course to pursue. Sir R. PEEL said, as this was a most important question, it was desirable, before going into its discussion, that thei should have the fullest report from the Committee, along witn the reasons on which their report was founded. Before taking any other step, such a course, he held, was absolutely necessary. Sir T. WILDE thought it was desirable to state to the House that, of the two evils, the taking of the course recom mended by the Committee would be infinitely the lesser one. The allowing the execution to take place next Monday, would not interfere with the proceedings of the writ of error. The evil of levying damages, bore no proportion whatever to their taking a premature step before full and explicit information was placed before them. Mr. ROEBUCK thought that, if the proposed levy was allowed to take place, it would prejudice their case when they went into another Court to have it heard. Ile wanted to know how any difficulty of this kind was to be got over. Sir 'l'. WILDE said that the proceedings in the writ of error would be quite independent of the others pending against them. The writ would be unaffected by the execution. When such a course was taken by the House, with the understanding that it was to try the question in a superior Court, no evil could arise from it. He was satisfied that no evil could arise from the execution, if they acted upon the suggestions of the Committee. Mr. HUME said that many of their warrants had been is sued, but few of them had been carried into effect. The war rant ran thus:— °' According to the Standing Orders of the House, the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, these are to re quire you to take into your custody any party or parties who may or shall affect, interfere, or molest the person of Sir Wil liam Gossett, our Sergeant-at-Arms ; and also all Sheriffs, Sheriffs' officers, or other persons who may be assisting in the same. And for so doing this s hall be your sufficient warrant. Dated this 3d day of February. (Signed) "C. SHAW LEFiEVRE, Speaker." Nov, this was a powerful warrant, and he did not think that they ought to depart from the position they had assumed. They might, indeed, waive their own privileges, if they only roost tiered themselves, bat they affected the public, and, therefore, he thought that it was their duty to uphold them. He thought that they had succumbed sufficiently already. For his part, he was inclined to propose that the officers of the House should take into custody all and every person Who M IELLOWES presented petitions from various places i I should attempt to carry th u i t s se .p i iil o ig n ment into execution, and imprison them forthwith. ' finntinedonahire against the proposed alteration in the law -n the Sees of °( waiting for further a-e;:!.. :Dent. Also a petition against the union of report, and asked informationforfurtherdetabyetobreefothreeythdeeyliltnearda,t,edan,onintho_e . Member had talked of Asaph and Ilangor. t tnb i t i: a. : tan , stiT l itohn u , t ,swel l h o e r and t this i l s ret.g h l e t,te , s te a f4i w ,a,acit no wa sa i s i a er i, y e .rh, he (3I the ilueiunrinis-bhe)artp, unhappy POST-OFFICE ABUSES. M r. T . s . DU :\ ro 111:E p r ,- a petition, signed by person to seize the assassin and assist in conveying -160 mercisinas of the tity of London. complaining of the n i t itee in custody until the exac ti mi a f e es fiy o ilivers of the General Post-effiee, llltittt np andshatl kept ' under ttiropieence of an e : l ely delivery of letters ; also, ono- olllcers arrived to convey him to saferprivileges kee or no t e thought ping. The question ou i ght he for a. Committee of pleinire; of :Le abuses of the :'out-office generally, and pray- was, whether they really had an jog inceirv. 1:e had already Overt notice of a motion they haul, and that it was high time to vindicate. them, petition !rum an I only wished that his Hen. and Learned Friend would Also, a iuii ter for the • . r R. H. INGLIS h the Sioped that the House w ou ld p ause individual, praying for the incloeuro of waste lands ! evay. benefit of the poor. TTIMINGHAAI ire they Acted. and get the fall report of the Committee. BRADFORD, LONDON , AND 13•, 'there were two parts in the report which it was essential to lie BA Y. oe ILW brought under the attention of the House. First, whether the Thf Bradford, London, and Birmingham Railway Bill w2s House would follow out their decision and seize the Lord Chief read a third time, anti vvseel. MESSAGE FP.Oli THE LORDS.seat of j u stice. Messengers from the Lords brought down certain Bins. Justice 2i.,H7113. sAII_,. INGLIS sail, seize him if lie . comes to this House." MAYNOOTIL Sir e- N. that if the lion. Member waited ^ tested, But thongh" here Sir INGLIS presented petitions from Dundee and other I till the Chief Justice appeared at that bar of the House his con rge was .cat likely to he very s,on - plates, disapproving of the Maynooth grant. Justice of England against the attacks of the Learned Lord behind him, once the Attorney-General of Queen Caroline, and the Lord Chancellor that supported and promoted him. The Noble Lord had attacked him because he could not answer the argumits of his Learned Friend—arguments which, how ever they might be disregarded by that House, would obtain for him from the country still greater admiration than his name had already attained. But what was the practice now pursued in the Post-office? They had a false seal, they opened the letter, they took a copy of it , t h e n closed it again, they affixed a false seal to it, and thus sent it to its original desti nation. This was a custom so abhorrent to all honour and intagaity, tile every nation but England had renounced it. M. Guizot hadMeclared that he considered the Post-office sacred, and that the practice adopted in this country would be a disgrace to his. If the law remained as it was, an action might be brught against Sir James Graham by Mr. Duncornbe or Mr. ; a jury might, under the direction of the judge, return a verdict again the Secretary of State, and the most enormous &miles returned against him ; and thus an officer of the Crown, conscientiously discharging the duties imposed upon him by law, might be punished, not for any delinquency of his own, but for the defect of the law. The practice did not exist by statute until the time of Queen AIaCC, but neither that Act, nor those passed in the subsequent reigns, gave the power to the Secretary of State—when then did it exist? He held that it did not exist at all, and he be lieved that common law would so decide. The person isuing the warrant was responsible at law, not the person who carried it into effect. He admitted that the Secretary of State had the power of issuing a warrant for the opening of letters in a house or elsewhere, if they were necessary for the ends of justice ; but he had no power to cause letters passing through the Pest-office to be opened. He agreed with the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench that the power did not exist. If the power was to continue, surely some register should be kept of the letters opened. He hoped their Lordships would accede to the motion, and assured them that they would carefully examine the measure in Committee. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the subject had been nearly exhausted, and there was so much misconception of the law amongst Noble Lords that he was anxious to say a few -words concerning it. It was impossible not to entertain the idea that the law was legal ; and if he could show that it was sanctioned by law he should be warranted in coming to the coneluilon that it was a part of the acknowledged law of the land. The power was exercised in the time of the Common wealth, and the reports of the Committees of both Houses of Parliament bore him out in this view. During that period the Post-office was leased to a person of the name of Bishop, and a provision was inserted in the lease reserving the power of openinge letters to the Secretary of State. Subsequently it 'was leased to a person of the name of O'Neil, and the same power was retained as in the case of Bishop. In each of these c es a proclamation was issued , speci f y in g that the Poste o . had been leased to them, and recognising the se right. In the time of Charles 11., a person named ol C N tan was put on his trial for sedition, and the principal charges were substintiated by letters which had been inter cepted in their progress through the Post-office. He did not say that he approved either of the trial or the verdict of the jury. but neither the judge nor the jury considered !hat that proceedings were illegal. If it had been consi dered a violation of the law, was it not likely that it would have been alluded to on the trial. The evidence on the trial of Atterburty mainly consisted of letters from the Post-office, which were proved at the bar of that House. No objection was made by the prisoner himself, or by any of the learned individeals at that tame, that the Secretary of State was not entitled to intercept letters passing through the Post-office, and to bring them in evidence against a person on his trial. He would ask if that was not the strongest evidence that the power was legally exercised at that time by the Secretary of ;Mete. Another material fact, in support of his opinion, was the care which caused so much sensation at the time, namely, the openinz of the lets of Members of Parliament by the Master of the Post-office. A resolution was passed to the effect that it was a breach of privilege to open any of their letters, except by a warrant of the Secretary of State. What could be a more distinct recognition of the power than this, that it was vested in the Secretary of State for the time being. The case of Hems • worth a!so substantiated his view of the law. On the trial of ileirne Tooke a letter from the Post-office was produced .in ev ia a ,,, afe Now if that was an infraction of the law would not those eminent indieidnals Mr. Erskine or Mr. Gibbs, who were eremite"; far Mr. Tooke, or the judge, or the bench, have taken l intice of it.? Would they hove suffered such an infractions when a b'tter was produced in evidence regaiest their client? He would pass over the Acts cf Queen Anne, George the l st, and George the 2.d, and would cone down to 15.30. He would direct the attention of their Lordships to the statement of the Noble Lord (Denman) in reference to the clause giving the power of ()police - letters to Government. The Noble Lord then recognised the legality c.f the power. Ile a reference to the Acts from Cromwell down to the present times, and by the courts of justice during the list century. this power was rot only legal, but never called in question. Why, those wire) felt aegrieeed by the exercise of this power (Mr. A13271:11 for instance) did not tea. the legality of it by a resort to the courts of law. His Noble newt. sedd that it was an Atiirainable and disgsovefel power. but the effect of the present 'ildi w as to legalise that power. With respect to the ineensis tenciea of the present Bill, they had been so fully pointed out Is' a Noble Lord who had preceded him, that it would be an idle wasste of time to take up the b ir attention any further upon *eel. and he would coticlude y giving his most strenuous opyist. , - -' 'VII to the present 1 1111, believing that the p ower which it drole away with was one which should be possessed by every t_i.lvertarnent. Lord Ith,NMAINT explained in reference to the opinions vtieb les had expressed in leer;) upon the subject, and which had beers a} leaf t• by the Noble Lord who had just sit. down as favzotrableillel the legality of that power. The question of the le, , sality of the power did not then enter into his consideration. • He - never referred to it in a factious manner—it was not a party question. It affected all parties. and he threw the blame squally on all. felo far from approving of it, he had always opposed it as most unconstitutional, and the Noble Duke opposite could bear testimony to the accuracy of what lie stated. Ge was opposed to tits power on con9titittional -grounds when he was Att orne y-Gencind as he still cote - ,i tned the same opinion as he did, IrrrOuld not do otherwise than oppose she class power now. Perhaps he had done more to obtain its abolition when he was in office than any other Attorney-General would have ventured to do. After a few words of explanation from Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Campbell. The rilarq&s of NORMANDY admitted having exercised the power while he was in otilee. hut declared that he never was esttrusted with any power uhich gave him more pain. The question, however, for them now to consider was, net the pro priety of abolishing the power, but the particular provisions of the Noble Earl's Bill. When the question for the abolishing of t,lie power came'before them, he should he prepared to give it his best consideration. He confitoeed that, before he came j2t.t, office. he was ignorant of the existence of this power, but row, he thought it was known to almost all the world. He slid not etaree in the provisions of the Bill, but, nevertheless, he moped Government would take the matter into their serious eitorsisfderation, and see if something emit! not be done, either to do stray with the power altogether, or to limit its exercise. Lord STANLEY briefly explained that the practice of the liorno-ofnee was to preserve the warrants with every instru ment connected with their exercis.e. Eerl FI IZ WILLIAM, while protesting ag ainst the ars gumeent of the Secretary for the Colonies, who treatel the subject as a police question, and that of his Noble Friend Lord Brougham) who regarded it as necessary for the well-l4ng of the nation, should support the second reading of the Bilr, although he objected to its framing and preamble. The Earl of cARNARVON opposed the second reading of the Bill. The Earl of RADNOR briefly replied in a few words. The House then divided, when there appeared : Contents Non-contents Majority against the second reading of the Bill —4l THE RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL (SCOTLAND.) This Bill went through Committee, and the House resumed. Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and Their Lordships adjourned at Ten Minutes past Twelve o'Clock, till Monday. E S LONDON 2 SA.TITIDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1845. were, he was aware, many Hon. Members who were ready to I make speeches, though they were not quite prepared to imi tate the gallant bearing of the Hon. Member for Montrose, yet still he thought that the best decision to come to on the sub ject, was to wait for the report of the Committee. Lord HOWICK thought that the wiser plan would eel , tainly be to follow the advice of bis Hon. and Learned Friend, and reserve the discussion until they bad the full report of the Committee before them. Supposing, as it was stated, that the levy should be made, and the damages taken, it was better to allow this, than to take an inconsiderate step. It would still be in their power to compel the parties who had received them to refund, and to punish the parties who had been in any way instrumental in carrying the execution into effect. This would, in his opinion, be a much better course than to take any inconsiderate step. They _would then hays the advantage of waiting for the report of the Standing Orders Committee, and avoid being committed at present to any specific motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that it would cer tainly be better to postpone the discussion until they got the full report of the Standing Orders Committee, and they would then see what would be the better course for them to adopt. The Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) seemed to think the the full report of the Committee ought now to be laid before them ; and doubtless, if they had had the advantage of that lion. Member's industry, intelligent dili gence, and business-habits, it might perhaps have been ready, but circumstances had occurred that had rendered it impossible. The members of that Committee had been most indefatigable, for in the midst of numerous private engagements they had closely attended to their duties. He should move that when the order of the day were proposed to be read, that it be post- poned till Monday next. After a few words from Sir T. WILDE and Sir R. PEEL, Mr. HUME said that he should move a resolution to the effect, that it should be a breach of the privilege of the House to levy money on any servant of that House executing a war- rant. Lord HOWICK trusted that the Hon. Member would delay his resolution. Lord JOHN MANNERS hoped that the Hon. Gentleman would persevere. Mr. HUME said he was anxious to proceed, and he would now move that it be a breach of the privileges of the House to levy any sums of money on any servant of that House executing vileges which meant, if they meant anything, that the House should possess an unlim itable and irres p onsible power.—( Hear, hear.) The conclusions and dogmas meant, if they really meant anything, that all power and authority should be concentrated in that House. He would ask, was that the view which they believed to be acceptable to the peopleof this country? He (Mr. D'lsraeli) would say the people, but the public was lately the'Parliamentary phrase. He observed no disposition on the part of the public to take part with the proceedings of that House on the present question.—( Hear, hear.) They sympathised with the courts of law, and they looked upon them as the protectors of their rights and liberties. —( Hear, hear.) It was a profound sentiment in the mind of the people to support the law -of England. They had asso ciated the law of England with the security and welfare of public liberty.—(Hear, hear.) The feeling out of doors was one of satisfaction at the decision of the courts of law, and he had only risen to repudiate the idea that the people of this country had any wish to curtail, or war against the just privi leges of the House. He ex p osed the assumption of such pri vileges because lie considered them inimical to popular liberty. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would " suppose a corrupt judge—suppose a corrupt'court presided over by one who had a dark design against public liberty." The same might be said respecting the House of Commons, and the real question was, whether the House of Commons should be invested with a su preme irresponsible power, or whether the dignity of the law, as administered by the judge, should not be respected, upheld , and supported ?—(1-1 ear.) Mr. F. KELLY submitted that the only; course for the House to pursue, was to agree to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, which he had pro. posed at the express suggestion of the Hon. Member for Lon don. That suggestion was agreed to, and then the Hon. Member for Montrose proposed his amendment. The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland also had an amendment, by which he sought to postpone the consideration of the question till next Monday week ; but the question was, should the dis cussion also be postponed till the same time. Having briefly -stated the facts of the Howard v. Gossett case, the 1100. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to say that it was now their duty, and one of transcendent importance, to decide what course should be adopted by the House, by which, on the one hand, due respect would be manifested for the law, and the Courts which administered that law ; and, en the other, by which the undoubted privileges of the House might be maintained. The question ought not to be prematurely discussed, nor without careful deliberation. The question had been referred to a Committee, that Committee had thought it best to consider the questien fully in all its bearings—that Committee had expressed an unanimous wish that it was necessarythatthc question should be postponed, and therefore he considered the House ought to postpone the discussion till the time proposed. He considered it was the duty of the House to accede to this request of the Committee. The discussion could be as well taken next Mon day week as to-night. It was necessary that they should ven ture upon no course without due deliberation. They should not act prematurely, but take the proper and reasonable c ourse suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for London, and moved by the lion. and Learned Solicitor-General.—( Hear. ) Sir T. WILDE said that he considered the course recom mended by the Noble Lord the Member for London the proper cause to take. On a former occasion, when the ques tion of privilege was under their consideration, he bad opposed the course then taken. Proceedings had been in=tituted against the officer of that House, and the matter was brought before the House. A vote was come to, the House agreed to appear and plead, and the consequences were well known to all the Hon. Members present. But now the lion. and Learned Gentleman said, let the execution take place. He regretted the subject had not received in that House the benefit of the talents of his Hon. and Learned Friend. His absence had pre vented that. He (Sir T. Wilde) might say, that when he was consulted on that occasion by Mr. France, his Hon. and Learned Friend took some interest in the question. He ( Sir T. Wilde) advised Mr. France to petition, and drew up a petition for the purpose, when his Honourable and Learned Friend being consulted on this subject advised an exactly opposite course.—( Hear, hear.) '1 he part he had taken had been less disinterested than that of his Hon. and Learned Friend, for he (Mr. Kelly) was the volunteer counsel of the House of Commons. He trusted that the House weuld give them each an unbiassed hearing. If he thought his lion. and Learned Friend could carry his resolution, he would second it with all his heart, for, in his opinion, it was a very proper re solution to be moved ; but when the House was told, that it was rot competent to proceed, and that it was placed in the power of the Court of Queen's 13eneli, he could not suppose that any such power could exist. The answer to his resolu tion would be what the Hon. Member for Oxford had stated, that it would he ridiculous, after the fine had been levi, d, to talk any snore about it, and his reason for suggesting the post ponement was, that it would prevent the exeeution being stayed, and hinder the alternative of bringing a writ of error. He admitted it was a sad step to take to levy the execution. He considered that the present wag the last occasion on which the question could be discussed with the advantages it row possessed. If a future great occasion arose when the House was intercepted in its proper functions it would cut through all that had been accomplished as the scythe levels the standing corn. It appeared to him that t he method hitherto pursuedwas highly discreditable to the House. It was a surrender of the constitutional privileges of the [louse and with it a yielding up of the great principles of the Consti tetion itself--( Hear, hear.) He trusted he should convince the judgment of every Hon. Member that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was false in every particular, and that the warrant that had been issued by the /louse was good.— (Hear.) The judgment of the Court was contrary to law, and compromised the honour and privilege of the House. The warrant. on the face of it, was acted to the Sergeant-at- Arms, to take into costody a certain indivelual, and was per fectly correct. But whether the Queen's Bench was rielit or wrong in its decision, the question to decide was, did it p•• - ects the power to interfere on a Parliamentary warrant. He would say and maintain that Parliamentary powers were only amenable to Parliamentary rules—( Hear) —and he thought the Court of Queen's Bench had greatly overstepped its autho rity in endeavouring to set aside the warrant that had been is sued. He would say that when his Hon. and Learned Friend told the House that it would sustain no injury by levying the execution, it would sustain greater evil by refuting to sustain a writ of error in prevention. Mr. KELLY rose, and said he wished to explain. The question had been put to him whether, if the sheriffs were to sebmit to the House of Commons, and refuse to levy the writ issued by the Court of Queen's Bench, would they be protected by the House of Commons? His answer was, that if the sheliffs refused to levy any writ they would be liable to attach ment and imprisonment until the writs were levied. His Hon. and Learned Friend had accused him of having been the volun teer counsel on the argument that bad taken place, but he would tell his Honourable and Learned Friend that he had a re tainer in that case, and he argued the case a; he would have argued any other case, and there was nothing inconsistent in what he bad done. Mr. DUNDAS expressed his surprise at the observations that had fallen from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman over the way. He felt persuaded that he of all men ought not to have tied his hands and have fettered himself as a Member of Parliament, by receiving a fee in such a case. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said if his advice was required on the question ho would willhigry give it, aotwithstaieling the retainer he had received, but he would have the House to be cautious how they received Isis gratuitous advice. The House of Commons hail acted right when they availed themselves of the only legal measure of letting the Court of Queen's Bench know what and how great were their privi leges. The law officers of the Crown had beer, instructed to defend the action ; but he would deny that at any time the House of Commons yielded to tke decision of the Queen's Bench those privileges to which they were constitutionally entitled. It might, perhaps, be a matter of regret that the Court df Queen's Bench had ever , in any way, been allowed to inter fere; and he would contend that no Court in Great Britain should ever be permitted to decide on their privileges.— ( Hear, hear.) It was now known that the Committee of In quiry had reported as their opinion that a writ of error should be issued into the Court of Exchequer. Now he could not imagine how die Hon. and Learned Member could even con sent to an appeal to the Court of Exchequer; but the appeal would be made if his motion were carried. He (Mr. Dundas) would advise a bold step, and let ns remain as we are---(1-1sar) —and abide by the loss, if any shall accrue. The public would stand by us in the position we assumed, and our honour and privileges would remain untarnished and undiminished. It would be advisable to follow the advice of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, and depend on ourselves for relief as to the difficulty. Ho, for his part, would support the mo tion of the Noble Lord, and only regretted that his Hon. and Learned Friend should have proposed so ungracious a resolution. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it appeared to him inconsistent with the privileges of the House to allow this matter to remain in its present position. He would entirely coincide in the view which his Hon. and Learned Friend had taken. Was the execution of the writ to be averted by pro ceeding to..extremities ? If the House intended to interfere further it would be proper for those who suggested this mea sure to state how far they intended to proceed in that course. It would not satisfy the honour and privileges of the House if they rested merely with the punishment of the irresponsible subordinates. All persons, no matter what their stations were, ought to be proceeded against, who interfered with the privileges of the House.—Hear, hoar.) The public feeling would be carried with you in the prosecution of such a course. Public opinion would sustain them if they did not flinch from maintainieg unreservedly the dignity of their rights. When a warrant had been issued against the Speaker upon a question where the privileges of the House had been concerned, the House had allowed the Speaker to appear and plead against the action. From the year 1810 until the year 1836, no occasion had arisen in which it had been necessary for the House to decide whether it was right or wrong to pursue a similar line of proceeding. In I S'l6 the question arose to which all their difficulties might be traced. This was the direction to plead to the action of Stockdale against Hansard, which had itself been occasioned by the publication of Messrs. Hansard of the Reprt of the In spectors of Prisons, part of which report had been published by Stockdale himself ; to that action the Attorney. General had pleaded the general issue. Ile had pleaded the general issue under the orders of the House. It had happened unfortunately on that occasion that the Lord Chief Justice had expressed a strong opinion on the right of the House to enforce any such order, or to express any opinios of the conduct of their fellow-subjects which might not be ex pressed by any person out of that House. That eminent per son had, it is true, in the most generous manner, on another occasion, lamented the warmth of expression into which he had been betrayed at a subsequent opportunity, when he gave judgment in the case of Stockdale. Alter that time a Com mittee bad been obtained, and that Committee came to a c eedee of resolutions, which were reported to the House on the tetn of May, 1837, and en the 30th of May the resolutions were adopted. By the law of the privileges of Parliament, it was agreed that the House had the right of carrying these resolu tions into effect to their utmost extent ; and they would render any party contravening them amenable to the displeasure of the House, and liable to punishment for so doing.—(llear.) Only two days after that time, the Attorney-General had taken an active part in the debate, and had expressed himself very strongly on the subject. On the Bth of June, alter that period, the .Attorney-General had come down to the House from the Messes. Hansard, and requested, on their behalf, per mission to plead to the action, and he had recommended the House to come to the decision of allowing them to do so. By the resolutien. it teas decided that any person would commit a breach of privilege by commencing any action in a court of law. Alter this, in 1843, this action was brought in consequence of what had taken place in 1840, notwithstanding it had been said that any one going into a court of law would be guilty of a breach of privilege. The resolution come to on that occasion was that the Sergeant-at-Arms should plead to the action. No-,v, when the House came to this resolution, it was impos silde to say to the House when they went into the Court et Queen's Bench, what view that Court might adept. It was, therefore, impossible that the House should kiiow what view the Court would take at that time of the case of Stockdale anti Hansard, or whether they would take the questionof privilege into consideration at all. The Court hail refused to be fettered by the question of privilege, anti had entered into the whole question. Strong expressions from the Hon. Member for Worcester had induced them to suppse that such would he the case, ar.d his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Govertnuent had warned the House that the court of law might not enter into the whole question, and he (the Solicitor-General) thought, therefore, that he could not censi.itently give his support to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose. They had evidently gone into a court of law with the impression that the court of law might take or have a particular impression of the case, and come to an unfavourable decision. The Court did come to that decision, and he thought that if the House were now to endeavour to carry their resolutions into force, they would do . a warrant. Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion. Lord HOWICK thought it would be better that the House should not pronounce any opinion on this matter, but that it would be more expedient that the debate be adjourned , which he moved accordingly. Sir R. PEEL said that it would amount to the same thing if the Noble Lord would not put his amendment, for the House would not in either case come to any decision on the subject. Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed entirely in the amendment of the Noble Lord, and thought the House should in some degree consult the impression which would be made upon the public, who at this moment were under a great misapprehension re garding them, and which would be much strengthened by the course which the Right Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat down proposed. He could not help expressing his entire assent with the Hon. Member for Montrose, though he could not sup port his motion that if the threatened proceedings wore perse vered in the parties who promoted and abetted them would be guilty of a gross violation of the privileges of that House.— ( Hear, hear.) They were now about to be engaged in a con flict to which they should not lightly commit themselves, but upon which, when Nice entered, they should act firmly and de e cidedly.—(Cheers.) He would support the amendment of his Noble Friend. Sir R. INGLIS said, though ueaccustomed to concur with the Hon. Member for Montrose, he agreed with him in think ing that it was more desirable that the House should now come to a decision on this important matter. Now was the time for them to devide, for it would be idle further to talk about the inviolability of their privileges after they had been violated.— ( Hear, hear.) For his part, he did not think t he y had been violated, ' but if they were to take up their stand against the law of England, now was the time. Mr. ROEBUCK was not at all influenced by tbe observa tions of the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Orford. When Hon. Members talked of haste and the necessity for deliberation, he begged to ask them how long had this measure been under consideration? Every individual Member was now as well prepared to come to a decision as he could be on 11Ionday night. The question went far deeper than it would at first sight appear.—( Hear, hear.) The Hoe. Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite were opposed to the pri vileges of the House, end he could not wonder at it. So long as the House merely represented the aristocracy, none could be more chary of its privileges than the High Tory party ; but the moment it became, in part, at least, a House in which the people were represented, that moment they abandoned them. He saw the Noble Lord cpposite shrove(' his shoulders when he said " representatives of the people," and he (Mr. Roebuck) had no doubt hut the Noble Lord re garded such representatives in a very contemptuous light. (Crites of " Oh, oh.") He would not dwell further on that, but would tell those Hon. Members that he for one was pre pared to pit the House of Commons against tile Queen's Bench from the first hour of its exissence to the present moment. The Queen'a Bench had always been opposed to the liberties of the peoole, and had often been the abettor of wicked and tyrannical monarehs..— (ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") Did they deny this—he was prepared to prove it from the history of this ceenitre.—( Hear, hear.) Might he net refer to the days of Hemp:len, and to cringing favouring juilges, chief jestices, ton, who were stilling to gratify the propensities of the Sovereign at tile expense of justice. In those days the Queen's Bench abetted tile King in his assaults upon the liberties of the coun try, whilst that House manfully stood by them and resisted sucli encroachments. He had no doubt but the Hon. Baronet the :Member for Oxford would have been very anxious for the privileges of that House in the days of John Wilkes—he would then have fought as manfully as anybody for their privileges, not because they were the privileges of the House of Commons, but because he could contend for them in opposition to the liberties of the people. They must now make a stand for their privileges or give them up altogether, and permit the Ilouse to become a mere secondary authority—inferior to the meanest court of justice an the kingdom. —s Hear.) Within the last four weeks a gentleman bait appealed to the British law fur his liberty, but the Court of Queen's Bench yielded with perfect acquiescence to the Royal Court of Jersey, told him he resist submit to the constituted authorities of this realm, and sent back the unfortunate man to be dealt with as the Royal Court of Jersey might think properr. But if the House of Commons dared to interfere, even for the protection of its own privileges, them the Queen's Bench Stepped in and treated as waste paper their rules and privileges. " Who is the House of Commons?" said the Queen's Bench ; " whet are we to know about the House of Commons—the Court of Jersey is a constituted au thority; but who are they—why'should they bring the man to the bar ?" He was brought here by the- warrant of the first officer of that House ; a warrant, worded with all formality and regularly prepared, and to say that such a warrant should not be valid, was to forfeit all their privileges as representatives of the people of England. He (Mr. Roebuck) was prepared to carry the matter out and abide the consequences.—(Hear. ) Suppose there shoild be at a future time a chief justice who would be the pliant tool of a despotic sovereign ; and supposing that House to come into collision with the Queen's Bench, what would ha the result—how was the House to guard against the precedent which Hon. Members opposite were so anxious to establish?—(Hear, hear)—The Queen's Bench would persevere in its course, and it might come to pass that the Sergeant-at-Arms, having no domicile—(The Hon. and Learned Member here let his voice fall to so low a key that several Hon. Members, unable to catch the last word, asked, " No what?" The Hon. Member replied, in nearly as low a tone, " No domicile." The question was repeated by Hon. Members in a distant part of the House, upon which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, with a voice loud and irascible, shouted out, " No domicile," which occasioned roars of laugh ter from all parts of the House.) The Sergeant-at-Arms having ne domicile, the Queen's Bench would issue a warrant against his person, and the catchpole might seize him by the neck—no, he would not say in that House—they would not dare to venture so far—but in its precincts, whilst executing the business of the House, and drag him before the Court. Where, then, was the great bulwark of the liberties of the English people? They would no longer be in a position to be their protectors. They would have lost their independence, and could not be thereafter designated what they were now proud to assert, the representatives of the commonalty of England.—( Cheers. ) Sir JOHN HANMER agreed with the Noble Lord, and would support his amendment. Mr. WARBURTON would support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. Mr. D'ISRAELI said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had described those Members on the Ministerial side of the House as opposing the privileges of the House of Commons, because the House now represented the feelings of the people of England; and then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in describing with extraordinary inconsistency those privileges, so important to the public interest, and so indispensable to the liberties of the public, turned round and said--." Where would you have been if a Hampden had not arisen and vindicated the privileges of that House." But that Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. (Roebuck) appeared to have forgotten that at that time it was an aristocratic assembly that supported the privileges of that House—an assembly not elected by the con stituencies so numerous as those represented by the pre sent House of Commons. He could not understand why the Hon. and Learr4-Gentleman should impute to Members on his (Mr. D'lsraelrs) side of the House, a desire to give up or repudiate the privileges of the House, because that House repre sented the people of England to a greater extent than it had done before the recent alteration made in its constitution, and at the same time appeal to the times of Hampden, when the House of Commons had asserted its privileges.—( Hear hear. ) It might be true that judges hail been and might be corrupt, but the Hon. and, Learned Gentleman should have been the last to assert that Parliament had not been corrupt also. He wres sure the people of England would be able to distin guish between the Parliament of England and one branch of the Legislature. In dealing with this subject, lie did not dwell much on what the House of Commons might have done in former times ' • hut he might state, that every case of tyranny that could be brought against the Court of Queen's Bench, mieht find its parallel in the proceedings of the House of Com mons. He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that it was necessary to try and settle the great issue so long pending. --(Hear, hear.) Ho wondered that any one should say that there had not been sufficient time allowed the House to de cide upon the course it should take. It could not he asserted that the subject came upon them suddenly. Ever since he had held a scat in that House, the question hail been often mooted, and Hon. Members had always evaded the difficulty—had in variably procrastinated the evil hour.—( Hear, hear.) Let the lion. and Learned Gentleman and his supporters try the ease, mad send the Lord Chief Justice of England to the 'rower, and then it would be seen with whom the affections of the people of England rested.—( Hear, hear. ) He was of opinion with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that the time was come when the House should stand forth and try the question between the privileges of that Home and the authority of the courts of law, but he (Mr. D'lsraeli) could not conceive how any one could stand up in that House and assert that they required time to consider how they should treat this question ; or could assert that it had come suddenly upon theist—that it had fallen like a star in the serene at mosphere of Parliamentary discussion—or like a comet, the course of which conld not be ascertained, and the appearance of which was altogether unexpseted. It was by this continual system of procrastination that they were now brought to the extreme paint—like a man in din:lll6es who hail always put off the evil hour. After the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench had been vindicated under circumstances the most igno minious, it was quite impossible for the House to offer the pre tence that the opportunity still remained to try the justice of that decision. '1 he bight Hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) dwelt strongly on the advice which lie gave in reference to the public opinion out of doors. Ile (Mr. Dissaeli) ranted to bully what public opinion? The judgment of the Court of Queens Bench lie Mend was vindicated in the property or person of the chief ofileer of that Court, and the people oil the country would nut refine much upon the qiiestion. They would un dbisne:rriisiiebtias:neibidt:hvituie,ha,rtaieft an h u subject of her Majesty h:d had the daring to put himself in collision with the House of Commons, and had gained the decision and authority of the courts of law contrarye,,astrophtl the would necessary ahl e l r ig e e w ldtoo a u s pkt. n rhi t e: ) , nut lioarinigmeerat3thnyosoirnurfie such a h hsa e es e is o ntti u lbui n irye t i r , : htt;: t d.b h_ ub a te t (eo w linn o edt u ahe l r d e. champions of thos i e lo p .. l4 He (Me. D'lsr ) should - not at all deplore the e 'e a y llueed to r h v y a lithe Hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hear.) of the people e g ni e b s, but he considered those pri er.,fciir Bath declared necessary vileges which tlvi. all gentlemen of his school, hrtn ' eges which (however, like for the liberty might avo i d definitions)—pri so without the benefit of public opinion; and without the advantage of the assistance of that public opinion, he thought that it would be unwise to carry that resolution into effect.—( Hear, hear.) He did not therefore think that this was the proper moment for the House to stop the execution ; and he therefore felt that it was impossible to adoptthe course recommended by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He did not think that they would have public opinion with them in endeavouring by force to carry these resolutions into effect, by the imprisonment of the plaintiff in this action. What, then, were they to do? Were they to postpone the question and allow the goods of the Ser geant to be levied upon ? and were they to suffer him to be the victim of their own supineness? But he did not think that this would consist with their dignity, nor was it any more wise to postpone the decision of this question, and expose their officers to the consequences of their neglect. They could of after this use force to commit the parties who were thus offending against their privileges. The House, therefore, should come to some decision on this point to-night, for, unless they interposed, the execution must take place. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to state what had been the course pursued on former occasions. In the particular case referred to by the Solicitor-General, the House had directed their officer to plead to the action. That was the course on a former occasion, but on that specified occasion the House did not plead. The question was now whether the damages should be levied, and the House should or should not pay the damages. The House had been advised by the Attorney-General to plead to the action. He (Lord John Russell) had proposed to the House that Howard and allthose who acted with him should oe summoned to the bar of the House. The House had not agreed with him at that time and this was the consequence. fhe motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose could not i* his opinion be acceded to, and unless the House interposed the execution must be levied. The Solicitor-General had read the resolutions adopted on a previous occasion, yet the question was whether they were right or not, and it was an im perative duty on the part of the House to come to a decision, and agree whether they , should allow Mr. Howard to levy for the damages under this judgment or not. Sir R. INGLIS rose only to say one werd on the observa tions of the Hon. Member for Sutherland. He observed, that that portion of his speech in which he had spoken of the Hon. Member for Cambridge having taken a brief on this suit as a breach of privilege, was loudly cheered. Now he (Sir R. Inglis) thought if that were a breach of privilege, it was equally se for the Attorney and Solicitor-General to have taken briefs on the other side. Sir R. PEEL said that it was only postponing the evil day to defer the decision of this question, and he thought that it would only be increasing the difficulty by deferring their deci sion till Monday night; and if they were disposed to resist en croachments, this was the day. He did not understand that what they had done, or the allowance of this judgment, was in any way a recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court over their privileges. He had been a party to the resolutions respecting their privileges. On the previous occasion they had acted under advice, and, after eight days, had consented to plead. This they had done when Lord Campbell was Attorney- General, and he would say that the privileges of the House had never had a more zealous or able advocate.—(Cheers.) He had been quite inclined to exert the power of the House, and it was by his advice that they had pleaded the general issue. It was on this high authority that they had consented to plead, and he did not understand the doctrine that this was an admission of the jurisdiction over the privileges of the House. It was a ;doctrine and a distinction which he could not ac knowledge. If they went to the ulterior fact, and cane to the resolution of allowing the Sergeant to pay, they would be un able to go further; but he thought the most advisable plan would be to give a distinct notice to the parties not to carry their execution into effect. By this means they would relieve themselves from any false position, and then they would be able, if they thought proper, to commit those who were guilty of any breach of their privileges. He (Sir R. Peel) objected to the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, for he was not prepared to enter intoany contro versy on the subject. He thought the consequence of his mo tion would be to increase the difficulties by which they were surrounded. But while he admitted that he was not prepared to enter upon this discussion, he was fully prepared to vincli c tte the privileges of the House.—(Cheers) And if the House intended to uphold those privileges, he would tell them that it was absolutely necessary that they should make up their minds not to deal with subordinate officers merely. That course could give no satisfaction. They were, on the one hand, dealing with mere agents—sheriffs and other officers ; and, on the other, with the Court of Queen's Bench. He said that they must deal with higher personages, they must deal with the Court of Queen's Bench itself. The House had, by a resolution passed at a former period, determined to uphold. and maintain their privileges—privileges which were given them not for their own benefit—not that they might be capriciously exercised—but for the interests of a free people.—(Cheers.) If they were pre pared to uphold and exercise those privileges, they must take a different course from that adopted in 1840. They ought to be pre pared to go to the utmost extremity in vindication of their privi leges, but beD>re they did so,they musticonvince their own minds, their own consciences that such a state was absolutely necessary, and that no other resource was left them. They must not only conceive themselves that such was the case, but they must im press the same opinion on the minds of the people of England. The prominent feeling was at present in their favour. Fortu nately the period had not yet arrived when extreme measures were necessary. He should recommend that for the present the defendant should be allowed to try his case at bar, to appeal from the decision of the Queen's Bench, and to-carry the ques tion before a Court of Error. He trusted that he had con vinced the House that he himself had shown no disinclination to vindicate the privileges to which they were justly entitled, but a 3 they had a powerful minority in the House to contend with, he was not willing tha t they should press the question to an issue. But still, if no other means were left them, if no other resources were at hand, he should be prepared to proceed with the question in that House, and to maintain privileges which he believed were essential to the rights and liberties of a free people—privileges which were now invaded by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench—a decision which he believed to be unjust, and which ought, in maintenance of the rights and privileges of that House, to be set aside.—(Cheers.) Mr. BERNAL was free to confess, from what he knew of the constitution of the House, that any report emanating from the Committee at any future period, could not put the House ina better position f, r deciding the question than they were in at that period. He thought that, in the course of the dis cussion, much matter had been introduced which had no re. lation to the subject, and he should, therefore, very shortly recal the attention of the House to the real matter at issue. Ile thought that where there was a choice of difficul ties they should adopt a mild before they pro ceeded to an extreme course, and, therefore, he entreated his [lon. Friend the Member for Montrose to give way to those whose opinions in that House were entitled to some weight, and not to place himself in a situation which he would afterwards regret—a situation which would effectually prevent him speak ing again in that House. Mr. HUME said that the Hon. Member who had just sat down had cautioned him against putting himself in a position which would prevent him opening his lips in that House, yet the Hon. Member had admitted that ke ( Mr. Hume) was right in bringing forward his motion, and yet, that Hon. Member had not the moral courage to support him.—(Cheers.) The Learned Solicitor-General had shown them the evils, explained the difficulties of their position, and, after all, he had sat down without telling them what to do. Were they to allow themselves to go on in error, to get deeper and deeper into dif ficulties until they would eventually find themselves inevitably anti irrecoverably committed. The House then divided. The numbers were— For the adjournment Against it Majority . — 4 6 ACADEMICAL INSTITUTIONS (I REL AND) BILL. On our re-admission to the gallery we found the House in discussion on the subject of proceeding with the Irish Acade mical Institutions Bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied that he could say that the Government did not propose any material altera tion in the Bill in consequence of the memorial of the Roman Catholic Bishops, which, however, they thought worthy of a full consideration, but the Government were de termined not to depart from the principle of the Bill. Lord JOHN MANNERS begged leave to suggest that the discussion of so important a measure might be postponed, with out inconvenience, to next week. Sir R. INGLIS objected to proceeding with the discussion at that late hour. In answer to a question from Mr. SHEIL, Sir R. PEEL said that it would be left open to the Catholic community to provide professors if they pleased, but there would be no interference on the part of the Government. Mr. OSBORNE said that as an Irish liberal Protestant he would support every measure which would promote the educa tion of his countrymen, but he greatly regretted to see in the memorial of the bishops a demand that the professors of weateria medics should be Roman Catholics. He deeply re. gretted that whilst he laboured himself to enlarge the liberties of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, he could see on their part a disposition to restrict the liberties of others. Sir W. JAMES would like to know if this Bill advocated what Mr. O'Connell called the voluntary principle.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Order.") Sir J. GRAHAM said he had had some experience in Par liamentary business, but he should say he had not heard any thing like the course pursued in reference to this Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He had every disposition to answer questions, and he had answered several, and all he could say now was, that this Bill had been framed with a view to establishing a national system.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. B. HOPE—This had been called a system of acade mical education, but not religious. Now, ho would wish to know if this was to be a system of academical education, or such a system as Ireland could afford.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and "Don't answer.") The question was then put that the Bill be read a second time. r Lord JOHN MANNERS ,said he never in his life rose in that House with greater reluctance upon any question than he did in rising to propose the rejection of the Bill now before the House, as proposed by her Majesty's Government; but the nature of the measure was such as obliged him, however pain ful to himself, or wearying to the House, to oppose it, and state his reasons for doing so. He had heard this called a measure for giving education in Ireland. Now, he should say he thought education a very different thing. He never could call this an educational measure so long as it contained such a clause as the one he now held in his hand, and which was to the effect that no religious test should be applied to any of the pupils, or any of the candidates for the privileges or offices of the colleges. He knew not what might he the feelings of Hon. Members on this or the opposite side of the House, on this part of the` subject ; but this he would say, . that he was as anxious as any Member of the House to see ample justice done to the people of Ireland; but he felt bound to say, after the de claration he had heard from the Right Hon. Baronet the Se cretary of State for the Home Department, of his determina tion to adhere to the principle of the Bill, he had no other course open to him but to move the rejection of the Bill. He knew he would be met by the assertion that the measure was founded upon the systems of education in force in foreign countries ' • but he would contend for it that nothing could be more mischievous than the systems that had of late obtained in France and in Prussia. In fact, the volcano on which France at present stood ought to warn this country in time not to imi tate the example of that country. He would ask was he not warranted in opposing this meaoire when he saw the names of fifty of the bishops of the Anglican Church express their oppo sition to the measure, because they looked upon it as a system of education which threatened to rend the country to pieces. Whatever might be the effects of such a measure in this coun try, he would say, that it would produce results far worse, and more deplorable, in Ireland,. He had heard of one instance of a person being promoted to a high office for endeavouring to alienate the Roman Catholic people from their religion in Ire land, and of another instance in Spain, where the Order of Isabella was conferred upon an individual for doing the fame in the Basque Provinces. Now, he would be far from advocating such acts, but he had no doubt, that it this Bill would not have that effect in Ireland, it would prove to be worse than useless as an educational measure. Ile well knew in what the diffi culties of . Ireland consisted, and he was aware how religious differences in that country had compelled many to take parts in them that they could have wished to avoid. He might be told, that before Honourable Members rose to oppose this measure, they ought to be prepared with a better one. Now he had no objection to say he was prepared with a Bill ; but before he submitted it to the House he would say, that however it might fail in attaining the object in view, he could not conceive any measure so bad or ineffec tual as the one now before the House. He would like to know what probability there was of this measure ever being HOUSE OF COMMONS. MY 30. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. This was the last day for receiving Private Bills, other than Railway Bills. kir. SIUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham, pray in that the Bill for the improvement of Duddeston &c. ugg_hknot pass into a law. The York and North Midland Railway Bill (Bridlington Draucto., was read a third time and passed. The York and Scarborough Railway Deviation Bill was read a third time anti passed. Lord BARRINGTON presented a petition from John Temple Leader, Esq., a Member of that House, against the Richmond Railway Bill. The reports were received on the Newea.stle and Darlington Railway (Brantilin,g Junction), end the Newcastle upon-Tyne and .IN.orth Shields Railway (Tynemouth Extension), and ordered to be engrossed. The report was also received on the Newcastle and Berwick Railway, and ordered to be engrossed. On the motion of Mr. MORRISON, the time for receiving the report from the Committee on the Agricultural and Com mercial Bank of Ireland was ordered to be extended to Wednes , day, the 4th of June. RAILWAYS. The Ely and Huntingdon Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. IT. HINDE it was ordered that there should be laid before the House the evidence taken before the 15*.leet Committee on the Newcastle and Berwick Railway aad the Nor4umberlaod Railway Bills, relating to the atenoco:lerie principle of traction, and that the same should be printed at the expense of the promoters of the Newcastle and Berwick Railway. On the motion of Mr. DIVETT, the Bristol and Exeter Railway Branches Bill waa read a third time and passed. The Dias, Beetles, and Yarmouth Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The Hull and Selby Railway (Bridlington branch) was read a third time and passed. r. Sli A RMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition against the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill. Mr. NI ASTE lIMAN presented a petition against the West minster Improvement Bill. Air. W. P EN postponed the third reading of the Th.elsburn, Darwen, and Bolton Railway Bill until Monday next. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, it was ordered that the further proce , dinus on the consideration of the report of the :listen and Peterborough Railway Bill should be resumed. On the motion of Mr. GROGAN, the time for receiving to a re_port upon the Dublin Pipewater Bill was extended to the beds 11lune. TlT — Sbeffield and Tinsley Canal Bill was reported, as was alas the Brighton, :Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer branch). Captain FITZNIAURICE prevented a petition against the "Brighton Railway Extension Bill SPOON :It broeght in the Dinnine,ham and Glouces ter Ualway Bill, which was read a first and ordered to he read a BloonA GooLn AND DONCASTER RAILWAY. The Goole and Doncaster Railway Illi was read a second satisfactorily carried out in Ireland? Had they not seen that it would net be deemed a meastire of real benefit to the Ro man Catholic people of Ireland? That it should have the sup port of the Protestant people of Ireland would appear to him a most unnatural proceeding. To think that those who had opposed the present National System of education, should support this proposition, would be a thing he could not be lieve. He had no doubt it would be looked upon as an evil of far greater importance to Ireland than even the Maynooth Bill. These were his reasons for taking the course he had in regard to this measure—a course which he had felt it his imperative duty to pursue. He would not weary Are House with any further observations, and in the few he had offered he hoped he had endeavoured to be as calm as the nature of the subject permitted.—(Hear, hear.) If he could consistently support this measure he would; but he could not help saying that he felt justified in his opposition by all that he had heard in that House upon the subject, as well as by the expressions of the leader of the Irish people in reference to it, and in which he, as well as the Protestant people of England, fully concurred. These expressions were to this effect, that a system of education should not be enforced unless it bad the father's sanction and the mother's blessing—(Hear, hear) —that religion should be the basis of all education, and if it were not it would corrupt more than it would en lighten. The same authority proposed a scheme of education which he (Lord John Manners) con sidered far preferable to the Government Bill, and that was, to have separate colleges for the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and the Presbyterians; and as for Trinity Col lege—and here let him request the attention of the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon—as for Trinity College, he could see no reason for any change in that. Now, that was the plan which he (Lord Manners) would wish to see carried into law, and if it were, all objections of a religious nature would be obviated ; but if they separated secular from religious edu cation, it would he worse than useless, and prove not a blessing but a curse. It would be a measure which future statesmen would tremble at, and future ages deplore. He would beg to move the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord ADAIR seconded the motion. Mr. ROSS said, he cordially approved of the measure pro prosed by the Government, and he could not see upon what grounds the Noble Lord opposite assumed that it would prove a curse instead of a blessing. In approving of this measure lie (Mr. Ross) could not shut out from his mind the fact that up to this time it had always been the practice in Ireland to set one day of the week apart for religious instruction in all the schools, and he had yet heard no reason why that should not be continued. He believed that Mr. O'Connell did not represent the Irish people.--( Hear, hear.) He believed that he had greatly ex aggerated matters, and he felt assured that the Roman Catholics of Ireland viewed this measure,:not with dislike, but approbation. When Mr. O'Connell characterised the Bill as iniquitous, and that education apart from religion had led to crime in France, he answered by a denial of the fact. He asserted that where education had existed crime had diminished. He called upon the Government, in conclusion, not to give way to the clamour that had been raised against the measure in Ireland. Cheers. ) Lord ADAIR thought it would be better to establish Catholic Colleges in the south of Ireland. He was opposed to the measure altogether, and one of the material grounds of that objection was that it gave to the Minister of the day the power of the appointment of the professors. Lord SANDON could not think that voting for the second reading of the Bill pledged any Hon. Member to adopt its details. He was anxious to see the Bill go into Committee, in order that such alterations might be made in it as were re quired. He believed that it was a measure in the right path fur the future legislation of the people of Ireland. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who spoke in so low a tone of voice as to render it difficult to bear him at all, said that he was one of those who thought that no personal question of re ligious feeling or belief ought to be discussed in that House. His Noble Friend had truly stated, that under the present circumstances of Ireland it was impossible, with the least prospect of success, to propound a mea sure generally acceptable to the people of that country for the endowment by the State of the clergy of a portion of the people. He could well understand a scheme such as that which had been suggested by his Noble Friend the Member for Newark, who advocated a scheme of separate edu cation for the different sects prevailing in Ireland. He could understand founding a Roman Catholic College in the South of Ireland, and he could understand founding a separate College for the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland, but, for his own part, he for one very much feared that, so far from removing religious differences, no scheme could be propounded more certain to produce the effect of perpetuating those differences. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark had referred to the proviso at the end of clause one, which had reference to the formation of the proposed colleges. Now, the pi inciple which that proviso went was that upon which the University of Lon don had been established. Considering the great diffi culty which attended this question, it was absolutely necessary that they should be perfectly explicit upon it. It was the intention of her Majesty's Government, in pro posing these colleges, that no religious tests should be applied either to officials or to students. There was no novelty in this, none whatever. Let them look to Scotland, a country respect ing which no disrespect for religion could be alleged. There was no country in the world where religion was mere venerated. In the colleges of that country no religious tests of any kind were imposed. Attendance at Divine worship was not re quired, nor upon theological lectures; and yet the parents and guardians of Scotland sent their sons and young men to the colleges of Edinburgh and Glasgow, perfectly satisfied with the system that was pursued. Two Noble Lords who sat opposite would bear testimony to this. What then was the course pur sued at Oxford? When he was a member of that University, a student matriculating there was not examined as to what he knew ( Hear, hear) but he was called upon to subscribe to what he believed. He was bound to say that for the two years and a half that he was a member of Christ Church, Oxford, he never was called upon to attend any lecture on theology or on divinity. He never received any re ligious instruction whatever, and he did believe that through out the whole time that he was at the University he never heard one sermon.—( Laughter.) The Noble Lord the Mem ber for Newark himself must know that this was a common thing, although he (Sir James Graham) did not know what the taste of the Noble Lord was when he was at college. The effect of this would be an interference with the election of the professors. Something of the same kind had occurred with respect to the appropriation of the regium donum, and the appointment of the professors at Belfast. There were at that, place a congregation of Unitarian Presbyterians and of Or thodox Presbyterians, and in that case there had been felt to be a necessity for the appointment of two professors. If he were to follow the same plan. there would have to be a profes sor for philosophy, theology, and anatomy, of different opi nions; and then he wonid have to meet the difficulty by the appointment of three professors of divinity, to obviate the in convenience. Now he thought that the introduction of such professors would destroy the very utility at which these academic institutions aimed. There ought to be every care taken that parents and guardians sbould have the power of securing the principles of those in whom they were so deeply interested, for he believed that no greater evil could occur than that the spirit of proselytism should be let loose. It had always been an opinion of his that great injury would arise from the alienation of the Irish people from their national religion, for he feared that it would only end in that infidelity which was worse than any other evil. The supervision of the parents and guardians would be one means of security, and the power of removal which was held by the Crown, or, as it was, in fact, the removal under the ad vice of responsible Ministers, who held seats in that House, would be a complete guarantee that these means of education would not be perverted. The visitorial power of the Crown could not, he believed, by the prerogative, be delegated to any one but the Keeper of the Great Seal, unless it were by statute. This facility was liable to abuse. According to the rules which he believed were observed in Trinity College, he be lieved that no attendance was compulsory on the Divinity Lec tures, and he thought that some provision ought to be made for religious instruction; he therefore intended that oppor tunities should be allowed for the residence of teachers within the colleges, though he would not provide halls or other facili ties for the teaching of any particular theological opinions. There were several Gentlemen opposite who received their early education at Trinity College, and, from their principles and appearance in that House, he felt assured that no test of religion bad been enforced on entering the college, or on taking the honours which the college conferred. He would now refer to the question of the professors chairs. A memo rial had been presented, requesting that certain chairs should be held by Roman Catholics. The first chair referred to, was that of history. He saw no reason why there should be any restriction or exclusion, and, therefore, he should not agree to any departure from the principle of the Bill. The next chair was that of moral philosophy and metaphysics. He saw no reason why any rdvantage should be given to any particular creed. The same rule applied to logic and geology ; he did did not conceive that any rule of the kind should be permitted. Then came the question about the removal of professors. He considered it the best to place the power of removal in the hands of a responsible Government, not under the authority of any other power. While the Government had the power of removals, they had no objection to allow a visitorial power, vested in parties in whom con fidence could be placed.—(Hear.) While they objected to favouring any religious party in the appointment of the pro fessors, they had no objection to allow halls and lecture-rooms for the use of lectures, providing parties were found who would endow them for the purposes of religious instruction. To that extent he had no objection to go, and that in Committee pro visinn should be made to that effect. He did not think it neces sary to add more at present, as he had referred to the leading objections urged against the measure. Great advances had been made in the education of the lower classes of Ireland within the last few years, attributable to the influence of that excellent establishment, the National System of Education. Great social and educational progress had been made, and the pre sent measure was only an extension of that plan. The Hon. Mem ber for the University of Dublin had objected to that system, but against his objection he ( Sir J. Graham) could place the authority of the Hon. Member for Belfast, who had stated that, so far from evil having resulted from that system, it had been of the greatest benefit to the people of that country. The children of the National Schools of Ireland, if placed in con trast with the National Schools of this country, would appear in a very advantage ous position. The best possible effects had been produced upon the poor of that country by the system, and the present measure was only to extend to the upper classes what had been already extended to them.—( Hear, hear.) This measure would be found the only measure calculated to satisfy the claims of Ireland as regarded education, and was attended with such principles as would realise the most happy results.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. ROCHE said it was incumbent on him to join with the Noble Lord the Member for Newark to oppose the second reading of the Bill. it would be unnecessary for him to say that the proposed measure of education was a difficult subject for any Irish Member to deal with. He would be ready to give his assent to a measure for what was called a mixed question of education. He would go as far as any man in the desire to spread proper notions of religion and education among the people. He considered that religion should be a main ques tion in carrying out any mixed system of education. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said you must leave to us the ap pointment of the professors, because I am determined there shall be nothing savouring of proselytism introduced into these colleges. I will not permit any professor to remain in office who endeavours to proselyte any of the pupils under his care. The Right Honourable Baronet did not understand what was very weil apprehended in Ireland that he had fixed the terms of his holding there. He contended that if the Right Hon. Gentleman carried out his own question he would be carrying out his own proselytism. They required in Ireland that those professors should not be the mere nominees of the English Government. They ought to be re sponsible to public opinion in Ireland, and not to any Govern ment in England—tube exposed to the prejudices and the ideas of the Government of the day. Ile would be most anxious to lend his assistance to the support and spread of information and education in Ireland, but he was determined that there should not be any means 'of poisoning the fountain from whence the youth of Ireland drew their first draughts of knowledge.—(bear, hear.) Ile would con tend that the power sbould not rest with the Ministry to dismiss a man because he should not meet their views on an abstract question of politics. He was not prepared to say that people in Ireland were proof against a bribe, especially when it was offered in the shape of 5001. or 8001. a year.—(Hear , hear.) They might be tempted, for they were not proof against temptation, any more than general human nature. If you give us these colleges the professors must be as inde pendent as the professors of Oxford and Cambridge Ur& versities were ; dependent, then, he would say, let the grant be refused alto and if they are not to be as unfettered and in gether, and, in doing so, nothing more than a curse would be withheld. He would rather have a system of education sepa- rate, as indicated by the Learned Gentleman opposite, than that hinted at by some Gentlemen on that s ide of the House. He, for one, agreed in the opinion that the days of ascend ancy of all sorts were numbered. What ascendanc cou ld there b e in giving one college for Protestant; and another for Catholics? Education ought to be free, and the divisions of the day in politics and religion should at least be excluded from the lecture room.—Hear. H preferred a separate s ystem of education to such a ( n educa ) tion. e They r would write for t h e m the history of their country. An Hoar. MEarnErt—Who will read it? Mr. ROCHE—The people of Ireland wo uld read it. They refused to give them a free and unshackled education, an d they would refuse to receive a scheme filled with such imperfections as the present. Mr. ROSS explained. Sir R. INGLIS said he would repeat wh at be bad already said, that the present was a gigantic scheme an . God' less e ducationin doing so he begged to say, in a' i swer to the charge of the Right H on ourable Gen ' man the Secretary o f State for the Home Departtrien!, that he regretted the Right Hon. Baronet had declared hi? determination to stand by the whole of this 13ill—that shoud. have been left for the Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet lad nailed his colours to the mast, and. therefore, every on° wil l voted for the second reading of the Bill voted for Governmenta, power, Governmental nomination, and Governmental dismiss!' wofeoreffiteeeursntaesdthweiythtehpopuegehittiopnrotpeearil elluecacotiuelnd,naoetdhelp it if _ l r h e fr r a a nkl avowed he would rather see the people a id not Ile thrown upon their own resources. He believed they did not take thrown any the same view of it as he did. He never said the w thing aggress i ve in the system, but it was a negativ of religire He would wish that in any scheme of education for land , i 11 , _ colleges in that country should be based on the same principle as that of Oxford, where Protestantism was made an in the education of youth. He was quite ready to adenli between religion and certain schemes of education, g „ I : s t s hat u the ence might be observed ; but he should be glad t o "`"- that n ot same systems were established every where. ile c° d biro agree with the proposition of the Noble Lord bellin __ for ( Lord J. Manners), that there should be separate collegdelaen. Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and Church of Eng l i a l j o inct a Sir J. GRA HAM explained, but in so low and in' . - - 0 tone that it was impossible to reduce his statements into a telble form. ~..t me.' Mr. REDINGTON was in favour of the Goreregir— • •on • d etilL eati position, but he thought that the principle of ono l e ct it" was of great value, and the Legislature ought not to neg . _ Air 'tee e" e l e ment n i that er .. He would support this Bill as a memure of nil odor . cation, and he thought it wise to leave the e , a ll ment of a theo chair open. Notsvithstanflintto. that had been said l both l by Protestants and Rowan 11 1 t hat on this question, he should say that his opinion via;/...... there should be Roman Catholic professors a 5 Well a _ 'l ' .. - 19 testant. being vested in the Crown for the present, for he was ' O OO He approved of the appointment of the pairs instances of abuse of the power vested in the local an o th tiva o f He thought that in Ireland some scheme for the ed c a .. , pi es , the people was required. He considered that the p a rer", bee n sure was only a small reparation for the injustice th t . ea vi l we it done to Ireland.—( Hear.) Trinity College was left c a ro" was, the door of that College was still closed to R01va.", 3 to thi lies, and, until it was opened, they would not do justic i of Mr. MON CKTON MILNES, the O a" people of ireland.—( Hear. ) On the mot' o n and t he was then adjourned to Monday' die rend o f, The other orders of the day were then p House adjourned at half-past Twelve j ................ ' c l oc k to gondol. rrADVERTISE T a f) MEDICAL - IPLOMAS fe, , TEO c PERFECT IRRESPONSIBILITY W.- CONFER ON THEIR HOLDERS- ou.N. TO TH F. EDITOR OF THE .„bered , h it SlR,—Both Bellany and Tawell, it will be rrne' - d sab° l (like doctors) obtained a knowledge of poisons; Sod Dally, that had Tawell had a diploma, and acted PO! PO W would have been impossible to have' convicted hits, to th:f; are by virtue of their diplomas neither respoe4 inwor selves as a bad yor to the public. In. On? t,rtnotlYnfevibieYiti:o,, question I cannot doubt but that all true au" - cians who cure, and therefore do not make a trade of lig ht urs, will join Messrs. Morison in exposing and briog'' o , s . s V,;., nature and character of medical diplornas•-I a f ore l '' e to A- iv soy a ° , be Pi" 1-Tygeists deny that poisons are medicines—; they support the worst of monopolies. All pois °°- hibited. ----z---,...--.--",,,,,re.6. MARKET INTELLfj'j laillf ..asie 3 • • cr'o GOAL ranacra Of • t ...-1 , ilastin?, a , Prices per ton at the close of the inarte„ ; - , - 155;, ~, - W 6 a, - , 48 6cl; Carr's Hartley 17s 6d ; Chester sl at Tie . 6 173 6 " Hartley, 17s 6d; o;d's Redheugh, 1 6 s; s arvlan i .h e ilaon , Hartley, 14s ; West Hartley, 17s 3d ; W es 's 456 6 ; - 165 9c1 ; Wylam, 15s •, Wall's-end, gorthumberlancl, " ge ttora, 02 0 17s 3d ; Braddyll's Hetton, 18s 6d ; Last ip 6d; ' 11 (41 911 ' Haswell, 18s 9d ; Hetton, 1856 d ; Morriaon, ' 5 .d ; lie Nay -17 s 9d) Shotton, 18s ; Stewart , I •` a 1, 17 5 ' i v e st 17 ; Brown's Deanery, 1" 6d Eden 14artlePe° aSsi i i s ; Tees , moor Tees, 17s 6d ; South Durham, 179; aa. Hetton, 16s 6d; Hartley,l79.—Ships2,.._ 0 ‘cav 30.) o f • rrie d, ' (From the London New Price Current, f _ . i . ',, L , e v ienti. ~. SuGAr..—For West India Muscovado therei:ll7 check 901 buyers for all purposes, but business was mate V antitY 1 0 the small and inferior assortment at market, the w eek ' amounted to 200, making the total sales .i, per C wt. aa f hhds and tierces, and the advance in prie" ' compelled t061;;,1 REFINED.—To-day the home trade wereecvit for n dol 69s to 70s for brown, and 71s to 7 ' 29 lumps , ; all offered has been Ss 3d per cw • the Br' Crushed Sugar is held for 335 to 0 _, a exreadad ..,,,,r MAuarrius Th ' l'veries havedagfai early ala the zaaa . eue 1 e 0 n rivals. Same merchants have dispos 200 which b rule s lin r ief g? they had. has taken place p Ease INDIA.—A P further advance ao6rdtotßo is t ol a t b i ro-r of 750 11105, a!, FoREIG N. —lll is afternoon a floating Ca. ~ i reoin bereuen eagerlyPeirwrehtased. I;0 Mot.", SSES. —Some parcels of fine .:4CV4 10,,b—lr' wept, sold at I9s to 20s, Demerara 165,6 d te, 17s, St. ' A Pl ° 15a 6d to 16s; Bengal I6s 6,1 per cwt. itli ti 6- f f""` COFFEE.—This afternoon Mocha. was wanted; it , 0 b .1. at auction sold at steady prices. Thu comnio . ".:aSk ca 'le , India are wanted, hut owing to the advanced r e ,.. - . 1 10' 111 ova et.:(s);ofetvb,:cafi.orany we::,..bi_o,:: nets was checked. West India. sold at the foga' . s , s ad refrained market is firm for Ceylon. f l r n orn ipo o r ff te e r r s in h g a a v n e y m a a t n piufebsltiecdsafiler,toersse dtbill_llope;a:4l:Wejli TEA .—lmporters ° It s ° shown on the part of the trade generally to pure bsl:treiics green, but we have still no improvement to notice 1 6 ' .10 0 „ l as manifest reh ed firmness, Rust, BRANDY, AND HOLLANDS.--fjolders • yeePaie dto Is atr t rates insisted upon, but only a limited business baton, s" 0 l a n n e d ss, w a il n l not sell i b o u o t f at f7till rateseaeeare4tl3y, acted. Demerara has met with a fair deman d, str a eltfa iavc a e s o4 2s 6d to 2s 10d. Calcutta is wanted, but the Inc- Aii r - o os holders to tell at former rates checks business. a „, an e aef' desire has been manifested to purchase Bral; . aa of (' , c, d to former terms large parcels have been dispose d e • on at!: ad „ i° several parcels have been taken for eapOr tat! _,hot s, earns Is 9d, and fine fit for home consumption letet",,;ilofyiaa 2s 9d per gallon. English Corn Spirits lOs 2d ,P e sj e t ati s ot ' 0 5 Sriczs.—This afternoon Pimento at ane ii n Ging rates, at a decline of id. per lb. China preservraiover. a sses' all taken in at is per lb. Cinnamon was rathe met /t ith e t COCOA.— This afternoon British Plantation t , 04 0 t,, s tion, and 342 bags at public sale were all sold bussess d ,PZeet ar a sar fr a leS Fay IT.—ln Currants there has Peen r e " _ e nding, a- 0 0 ' - If last week's quotations, but importers (Lama - / wills 0 1 0 - has checked further operations. ix Valene_i a ket a go t e es 1 .; have been considerable at 40s ; Denias in 3 * h oa hag ssis' at 30s ; for Chesme Raisins 39s per cwt In d sta rna fused. For the common descriptions of r e . IA alter, there are buyers at 38s, and very little offertnit,.. sa g e _ ., 90 RlcE.—This afternoon Bengal Rice was lon boo _r e , oo but further advanced rates being asked c heoltcv aa olvaa fa 3,410 bags at public sale were all taken is at ' ear eace th ei former rates of 6d to Is per cwt. d oi spg d for do , SALTPETRE.—The market has Still 1 1 , I , Rean e et te Rough, and prices are drooping. For Eliq o oed $ t o o 1 , "" reduced rates having bean taken has oeli par eals ol d mand, and at 27s 6d to 28s per cad se ver . .„. r . t O 6 ' C r disposed of. OlLS.—This afternoon 100 hhds Ceylo? ? r rO s il 'itall '. 4 te i s n, ° at/ at 28s 3d to 28s 6d per ern for fine ; Son'6 . n i c at giffer, r e ' ae ar;.p cellent request, and 100 tuns at auction sT erot is e„." itia lt, ' at 261 to 30/ les for low to fine quality; ,is for P r „ta tuns at public sale selling at b4l to 8 ' _ a ao.a., 851 15s for Headmatter. A* P 146 . °1 $t P o American Tallow went at 37s 6d to 3 9 1 ,. n , o f Ibra i ' 39i 4 , 3tl TAaaow.—This afternoon at public lid, aTal irde.,ssttli; to 365; 13 casks of African, 40s; 50 a ijialted 385 t° Jr s ' . 40s 6d ; 50 casks of North American s and taller 389 casks of New South Wales 375 to 40 9 ' 0 0 to 36s 6d per cwt.....................,...„ / al I,er 4 ------ 0 ' ila i syG , oa COEBURN'S NEW MornrulS . ,„est'lt per ,O, JUNE is one of the most varied ancl 1 11 ' c rec eo e tyl,eg it inaa of this favourite periodical that aye b riv c't 9b , i f 13 ° 0; 1'5 It opens with one of Ingoldsby's i" i bb i e rs ' strie r , 3 of full of wit and whim, called '6 The Bro' Afts6,_4sotc„ of ton," contributes an article on the costunr b u o foo t " e a ill or the Court of George IL, which wil l : „tere s A fol li ,iett a lay of St. Thomas Al-lecke. _ , -, 1 cli: a faki ber desirable information for all who are; o 7 l ./ ar e y I r l a o' Majesty's Bal Costum& The Li t , e oo lo she fed Reminiscences of Thomas Campbell' do g, l 0 A, O t' of the most interesting particulars resP e fr e joad• ic r iouroy Hope, from the pen of an intitnatend ~,,,,,,,,00etioi into the Royal Academy is a clever 3 fpirel plea p ciao" the present exhibition. " Chenier 9 ; h oe ; or da _. b y the Hon. G. Sydney Smythe, will, , ,of I.lsfgetioPoi it readers ; and the " Sketch of the I:ileetit syttioter,wori,. and Stowell" will be perused with ar, c f 10 coat ve to' all who have read Mr. Twiss's Li re ° 'on 9 t° ll pi • v e to' lt' etc til l contains many corrections and s alted lin e on o'4 ' Besides these papers we have a spir, fcer t _ On do ; Prig ins," called "The Steeple C!,';berin 0 1 ' Aii tion of. Mrs. Trollope's amusing ~, ,In . ii t s alive of Travels," and Mr. Maxwell's -:` ( 9 ',7 p arrs' . o f with the completion of the interesting _ u o _ Excursion up the Oronooko." •T test S ce ;titi l ' ef , (F : ...._!lhe .al 1 0 a so BELL'S LIFE IN LONDON• ...... 0 tott „ 0 ri p the four days' sports at Epsom will be six{givr;"vronarnnce. pe accompanied with a portrait of " yell's f,(fe, r i t agsP • graving of the Surrey Cup. Price of ~day .. ger0 000 ......... - lished in time to send by all the Saturl Y ' ___....--- 1 1 ' largement of Bell's Life is in progress- -- _ aesr. - --- - - - --------‘" a the 1 ‘ atol l ' 8 0/ rfi 43. ;r, 0 L .iiscg AI vf.i '0 o Tory WO • twin On the 28th of Mav, at Cli .1 , a _ a a o f „ !lid' Clutterbuck, A atoe , the one still-born, the other living. Villa' nea r aon. a JO On the 28th f I,IaY, at Askaw ...,„ a., o f ft • ~,, 0 , ~ IeOIMIT, --'5(l t le la ia vicar of li..cmpstol . Vedic'''. dleaex, the lady of T. M. C , gaga' , wife of the Forster, Esq ,of a daughter. the 28th ei llaY' 0 WV' At Hampton Court Palace, on . On the 28th of May, 14 gla' liter. of th of a &tug ladY f lail , Alfred Montgornerv,•Esq" 'Atop/ the J. C' '. On the 28th of .111ny, at Dna 3irs' Alfred Spalding, of a son. _place , a v(0110,, of a son. • l am yrov ' ALAillg, PJ , p i !' h Ca le , , l asi •or vitt,,,.rc t e p at c Apo On the 28th of Ky, in Bloomsbury On the 31st of March. at the („eon oft the late of t daughter P c ' ' al to Catherine 'Moult, younsen at taal Artiller)- Shute, ~..1110 Robert Boyea, M.D., General J. A. Bigga , of the - 1 - e y Itober late itol 'lac La 9 o f the On the 27th of INlay, at da. „ 4 atet: -est ' - , , eter• f Liverpool, to Frances, youllia, a „ a. lien , La. Tozer, Esq., of A Iphingtot v it. A ter e t a lan , a, -------- a911'.72'• o ft, ona• a c Ota 0 0, th 3rev rri ath 1° 'ea t ''-`h of May Elizabeth .A,,e_aea , /41 On the :....),.. Assistant-er, of .1 , Coonbury Arr. On the 25th of May, at the late relict Of t" pad Robert Fool ek. Elizabeth, , a _ c ac On the 25th of May. Mr. W. C. Tidy, Su'rgeon, of Cambrioa Lo dge, ' tow ' ' OA' of On the 26th of May, at ~,,a_.,.t ni n l , Ari e ssq. A, late Richard r ie." lipa a las, r a g. .., daughter of the , Winkfield. _..c,_,r, , On the 27th of May, at . Jeremiah Fil Lit' S l. o' • he late ... _ v, II Richardson, of Londonastreet,,_,Gmredelein`v_ieu.rl vriinee'6 - youngest daug'uter of "-0 1()C1, Lanelon: Pruato i ter a t 7 . e . . , the So. 112, Strand , 1 - ! 2 ' I' _; . 1 ...„ sa-fey'l 1, - ''---------- • ---- d -------- Euv. t :sho a t 1 o. 4 te 0 00 Strani , in the Tf2CIIIC! 01 _ % , . 845. Middlesex, Saturday, 19,073; i - -- C F Th safe To Atiet, sing Itiq kt 4