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

.-..t mearIMINIMMIBIO aboutb, 3 t per ton. The whole of the goods at present were 'Light to Aberdeen from Dundee in casts. There was as much " ~, „ pofTap, 51.50,0001. or 300,0001. The exportation of flax manu tli" .ftt Aberdeen was nearly 500,000/. per annum. I he . e: . : at ' Were principally to France Germany, England, the Unit t a eg. and to the Brazils These goods were now sent to in - le by cart or ste am.carri . age at very considerable expense sn . the 1 4 aP!of Money as well as in time. The witness then went into „t'lnUte detail of the traffic, showing that the advantages . "wertieen to be derived from the completion of this railway were t le r> gre ~,i . at. '4e Committee adjourned at four o'clock. t Thr oe Com mittee Group 88, eke eiirer.est atinn to which the subjoined schemes are submitted met at half.past 12 o'clock ; Mr. Colquhoun in d L it . 1 ar, viz --he Waterford and Kilkenny, Wexford, Carl .w, an ,°!ip,ltilkenny Junction, and Kingston and Waterford (Carlow ---", Wexford) Railways. obittWATERFORD AND KILKENNY RAILWAY. oT_aLsor. stated the case for the promoters of the Bill, the ....'_"'__ rw.hich was to give Waterford a railway communication , st7il:lloublin. The line commenced at the south side of the rive 4 ,, T r oss . ed the Nore by a viaduct so feet in height at Thomastow n n ee , ans:1;0 chantedinin at Kilkenny ; the whole distance being 31 u m . 0 _ If r o i l _ 1111 . The scheme embraced a branch line to Ke : f ~._e vs and 20 chains in length. The works, generally speaking, 4 not of an expensive character, and no engineering difficulties ottLOinltemplated. The peculiar feature of the project was wooden 1 111:2.. 4 ti0n of the Proprietors to adopt Payne's patent . othe 1r0,' .. t . n . : same. time making provisions for the substitution experiment pr o ,_'' , ~ without an enormous outlay, should the large ores failure. As the traffic was not expected to be very for e Addition 111 ors` Wal f ProPosed to lay down a single line, leaving room he re quire I. The another, should the convenience of the . Po 0.. 1 . . ch ided ` a ' s The estimated cost was 250,0001.; but this s 111 lro q ta r ii o.rPlus sufficient to defray the expenses of putting down 9oo . 141 :„ tillt: if T ", ece ssary. the cost of which was calculated at / on th s . .`',e Promoters were ready to make any arrangement in re itt tia nt i * it i h r ttog or Dublin. projected railways, to insure a direct commu. 5314.1.'411N applied to be heard in opposition to the railway, as lat e ,, .. ior the shareholders of the Leinster and Munster line; . but, tti",7114 discussion, the Committee were unanimously of opinion i ftas the. Whole Company did not oppose as a body, he had n li a "•: h ods in the Committee. k r. ~, r oPPoon to the project was offered. Mr. A. t 0 genii, land agent to the Marquis of o . rmonde, and . . called o pr o , .. ' , ages of the Kilkenny Provincial Bank, tot tile : th e fertile nature of the district, the were advantagesexpec_te e d . terib m 4l- orn a more easy communication with the seaport of and in. IW hitagu and t h , general sanction given by the landowners an ti tt n on the line of railway to its formation. _ted 1 111 2 t ine. the engineer, stated the cost of construction, ,' ll tien ° , -- h - wiecourse proposed to be taken across the hilly country 'Matt - " t two termini, and observed that, excepting theriver Note , the two thw s (lhe one crossing Nter..4"rd t enni rius), g Th the works were o a f nd th t the e most others imple leading eh to e. 0 N t , ittee......,........................,.2.adj011t1ied to half- pa st eleven o'clock to.morrow. t i All LIAIIENTARY BUSINESS. Itiet Vitu t . ollo v . InimsnAv, MAY 29. E,‘" , So e e .__ - .g Bills were read a third time, and passed :- - ztert c ?n, and Weymouth. eter --eties eiht c . Railway(Ely tee, tediton Railway. and Whittlesea Deviation). rdlll,and Glasgow Railway Bill,—Further proceeding to thf'ng resumed ; amendments proposed, and r s tanti. " °elect Committee on Standing Orders. l. .41_ 1 g Ord, _____ ip a 4 , •lers C ommittee,—Resolutions reported ; 47 1 the Bap.!! lip case of the Claughton cum Grange (St. he reporst s) Church Bill, amendments on considera- Ilii°Pted I : , the a mendments are of such a nature as not to " 3. the House without the re-commitment of the T hat.. po ll , i 'lr ewis) e l l' , the case of the Claughton cum Grange (St. ad the in , nrch Bill Amendments on consideration of re jPted bt,;lendrnents are of such a nature as not to be 4 -,44 'Lie Rouse without the re- commitment of the Bill." t it ,,,,!lan c i - i T in the case of the Sunderland, Durham, and "toot 'don Railway Petition, the Standing Orders Ci t . Thti'Ube dispensed with." 04s e h ri i i re j 'n the c ase of the Birkenhead, Manchester, and 0 . unction Railwa 6. 14 t not y (No • 2) petition, the Standing t • be dispensed with. " t ot e i t triol jltian*,etlio 0 the c ase of the Chester, Manchester, andLi fitnot t o )2 1 . Railway pet i t i on, t h e S tan d ing Orders Port t o ulsPensed with." lie on the table. . 418 di lt N GI June al NAT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. aVEnc l Windermere Railway,—Third reading, Mon ,,kt ti'ettenb:`4oll Ra ilway —Second reading, Monday, June 2. D . ,"'ntt e ; lll ,, a,nd F arringdon-street Extension Railway,- 4 1 ,74114 4 ,: i5 n Bill, Friday, June 6, at twelve. 4 4 op a" and Rawick Railway,—Report to be consi- Or% 11 m 7 4 .Y, June 3, k ah t ! e 3 tha • : "1311 P ' ail waY,—Report to be considered, Tuesday, ir'll3to n 2 ' j une , and Dorche s t er R a il wa y,—Third reading, (14 1/44 it oad. R allways (N ott i ngham to L i ncoln), — Thi r d read ,June 2. t z erani and Gloucester (Worcester Deviation) Rail.pe:lnaittee on Bill, Friday, June 6, at twelve. 4414 04 11 11 „ c l ,nd Rochester Railway,—Committee on Bill, kveildr o a ' 0, at twelve ion Jr -Un j o u 2 llct ‘ Railway,—Report to be considered, -i g _ _ ktelwes, and Hastings (Hastings, R ye, and Ash -11417‘ " 11 ) Railway, —Second reading, Monday, June 2. a1,,,et°41 tw elv lnitteee on Group V. adjourned till Saturday, I he )1, ). % j011 t ,,,.. RAILWAYS. *ob - 7, io r ,",, l ng Bills are appointed to go into Committee on ti - ctlli --'` 6 , at twelve o'clock : !% : 14 ; 44 4141 A , at" rringdon-street Extension Railway. I kti kit A, at al 'ttochester Railway. ;-otri i i i . le et l4 4 o _ Gloucester Railway (Worcester Deviation). ' 4 'l ' t te "'tainittee on Group P is appointed bv the el°l ° l L 4S tlect* n to meet on Wednesday, June ° 4, at itistead° of Monday, June 2. 14 . I 'o 71 1 ;7 "... s" f 14 11! 44 ,t1P, ITO R OF THE SUN. fi t l i " Pro w , n ,:- et-, ° ~,- .. e public have taken some interest in the „. hi Willi at t 4 %,,, b ." 11 r? y, late chaplain at Antwerp, I . beg . garettins,,""°B42,' - "'Alio e of London has this morning signi_ ,_ l4 tdshi' 4 . 4 4 thii to Nens P e Mr. Harvey to the cur acy of i M t a h r: Tiar,,eytolvtll issu e . - as Toon Ys he has taken possessiooof Mt ! . fromloti wiiiihelairie: %missi on to the Rural Dean to license 1 the t Ptreele.,. fit 4 41 iti - .3' thi s th t •e 'c character . is relieved I, i , gre en. gr o4 ev ,_. a Mr. Har ' , dim)! of Antwerp. t he -"eii 'n • '44 , b. '. uci l has been cast ~.D on it during ek.. te tao , Infer te! his removal from the cha the last "Nte nt 4 w al to be drawn from this cir P c . u . your very k ey 2Tervain ttltogether unjustifiable.—l am, Sir, , - TA. 6 ,184 3 ' . me !ance is, that JUST' i 4„ 4CA T kinvaß.TisEmENT.l (',l ( );sleT a il lilt , IPLOMAS AND THE "‘ . — lt ON -„ 7 BP ONSIBILITY WHICH THEY (I . B l k, ' 0 Piri HEIR HOLDERS. "it noth b ' - EDITOR OF THE SUN. th,, doet uellan 1r ' li kd °N) o b tai 3' and Tawell, it will be remembered, had k i ,N, ha To, eli L nd a knowledge of poisons; and I subm,lt 1.:: 1 p be, . -a. a dipicirna t 'and acted professionally, it 'es '''tUe i 'n 'P °Bl, iblie to have convicted him. Doctors i l!ltiti as t b„ ° _, their N I uti 1 -uy or todiplomas neither responsible to them- R' , ith- 4 too t 40 t h e public. In this truly important ,_ lll joi 'Ne e doubt but that all trip. and eminent physi- , Nrell,kett2l.ll.(l therefore do not make a trade of "advice,' 1 4. lid 0;1 Morison in exposin. and bringing to light the 4, . "eter of medical dipl,mas.—l am, 1 10_tist o A Sir, yours, kiit tb " et ti that . A HYGEIST. IN . e 'fors, poisons are medicines—they only serve to '°f monopolies. All poisons should be pro- 11 . 1 4 t 0 , 48 I .., -----•''----.._ra•-.........,._,.............----- t 4ttl tro; r tttl d aYs' 44r 111 LONDox.—The best account of r bi t , 5 . 16 1 wt sports at EpSom will be given as usual in Bell's Lie, eiilthe s u ... a POrtrai Pric e " Merry Monarc," and anen -Itt,sitrae to ;!_eY P. of Bell's L i /e, e, s h ape nce. P u b. Itc.it Of a„, "d by all the Saturday a ft ernoon railways. En -111%, NI e a t ire is in progress. , r ttla h m il Alty. s ILthe -,5c001., -n it the to ' TH E SECOND'S RESTORATION.- I: g bih. 's to ~ rirsiversary of the Restoration of Ring Charles po t . Was Usher le Year 1 660 to the throne of these realms, the it, cl t , ,' i .. , %I t t ired -4"s tratt on "ny the ringisag of merry peals and other C,,, Mitt -: / thilst 8. At toe o'clock the Park and Tower guns ri'let si ts,g i ti the numerous vessels in the river were decked tf.% el4e t e nttr a t "M"ar manner to the Queen's birthday. The I t _ - 1 1 h; l'ore anneals nt. Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Ex -Nit li to scarlet robes in honour of the occasion ; and, tist,,of r, cu., 4 b ",. -v allao. — " ra i a great number of the Members of the ..:,,, Its It o the hs..osyaltEtexnedheadn Divine Service at St. Margaret's t: f tk 20i.,Exchange the following notice . was posted e ds, „"e It oyai "S Charles the Second's Rettoration , The 1) • Etcha nlite Will remain closed until 12 o cloc k N th t ti o tt tin t g the „ I k t ic 4 tt ' t, ll retreaattBTinagire of the Beresina by the Irl•ench 'his p,' tlslan tt ,. ‘ranscOw in 1812, they threw into . that - 1-., s ome ti me at ani talnlition, and even a part of thetr b a e r n 4 1%2 . 4 ao r t t .'ne Past the Russian Government has e t° tira,ells , an d kha n up these abandoned articles. Three loads s• rars'44 -raultrenades have been sent to Dantzic and ..,,,_ th, to n f 4, 470 t 7, Proj: i tl ies " W erj r . On the 16th instant, while a pore i,littv, 4 Nil o'' e being melted, a grenade, which from ) but, If ' hen 4 charged, b4 g and - wotnded gr s e ix ' workmen, -' vaZteport .e Of their wounds were dangerous. Legitimist a xtp iti la at present current in the 4 ho - r .,‘ O f the marriage of the sister of the tio 4 44 NviielUa. With t he on of the Duke of Lucca. „ api p lOt lituTTE SLAVE.—The author of Revela its un- Nt:teicia," (a work, which notwithstanding I tha kte u 7 44 Y, is now allowed to contain the naost r c e o . m . -__ 40 Ilt yet published of the Russian empi_ ch ) a l l s i IllleL t lein e tve to the world a work of fiction, of lii tt;l Aced erived from actual occurrences, w . or or real the de N art p It is entitled "The White Slave , %Ottn,mtlionselttlklt Girl ;" the scene is laid in the Russian h. 'tg.e.period only a few years removed from kvateNitc mist its avowed aim is to throw .. light e..si _ on_ elinritiotiolind.prospects of the immense white-slave iav7 tfaokt ,_,, ussia,the description of manners,customs, % %i e k n i t ° Prejudices, and phraseology of all. classes‘Will Pi ef !Le tl i j e. which work out the proposed object, om.. ent7,4 (rem.' reader to gather from it a more e been Nyeted b3,114t singular empire, than could have it tie vq, coulp arc o serious work. „ In r tin t s he res r p e e r e s t ian V t h Or Brier, tO "An astasi us, o ci p eNe b•.... eing to the imperfectly known Russia oe il kN kid 4 1 ‘„ t cI ,,Y, what they were to cont ernPra n and 1 Tn, "I'4eY--a living portraiture of me i tk u 'atioe, itsll -; al 01, XEW MONTHL Y MAGAZINE numbers tiln_ l lll 4o ‘ 3 of the most varied and interesting .. at ,tl.te Periodical that we have recently pernseP NOten wit ii ; 011 , 0 of Ingoldsby's inimitable Legends,. l ik -"" ‘voirn, called " The Brothers of Birching %ci f but es ). of St. Thomas A'Becket. Miss Strickland_ t,;.lourt ,!ta article on the costume and characters of lyetti,:tlibla of George II , which will be found full of y; niformation for all who are interested in her . Willitee 139.1 Costuria6. The "Literary and Familiar Ilje tn o , ri t eel sot Thomas Campbell" comprise a 1 4t Pe, I, interesting particulars respecting the Bard ofvariet), 41111 e r it 'til the pen of an intimate friend. " A Peep f tilipstr)t3ll Acadenly is a clever and caustic notic„e by e on exhibition. " Cheriier's Love Dream, N. .o . n ll,' "te • . '),Ydney Sinythe will charm all poetical do klr ' h tow' egin4l the " Sketch of ' Lives of Lords .El o e q *- h I w ill be er s d with rest satisfaction by )1 0:: 4 jet aye tead perused '-L ife g of the latter, as it kltitildittira4c,neyi)aepoorrsec'svtoioinisissa6nd additions to that work. a spirited sketch by Peter i lil Of XLealled , r, `` The Satevepl 2 Chaser," the continua ,,,ripeil h . 4. . roll ° , , 1, 4 ' lo l a re 8 amuseinge " Robertses on their .ekt„the ' Mr. Maxwell's "Lights and Shades," " itaier3l,ll/11-'letion of the interesting narrative of "An P the Orouooko." 1116. THE SIITN IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 30. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. MAYN 00 TH. Lord KENYON presented 130 petitions, signed by 9,742 persons, against the proposed grant to Maynooth ; and 62 petitions, signed by 6,523 persons, against the permanent en dowment of that College. Lord FITZHARDING also presented petitions against the grant. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented a large number of petitions to the same effect, and said he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petitioners. The measure, he thought, would have the effect of shaking the foundation of the connexion be tween the Church and the State. The Marquis of CLEVER, ‘`,,ND presented a petition from the Governors of Christ's Hospital, praying their exemption from the effects of the Charitable Trusts Bill, at present before the House. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE presented a similar petition from the Foundling Hospital, and supported its prayer. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from mem. bers of the Free Church of Scotland against the grant to May nooth. LORD CAMPBELL presented a petition from Dudley, complaining of the working of the 20/. clause in the Debtors' Bill, and praying its reconsideration. LORD CL ARE presented a petition from Limerick in favour of the grant to Alaynooth, and LORD RODEN presented petitions from Armagh, Maiden head, Guernsey, Windsor, Gravesend, Belfast, the counties of Down and Leitrim. and various other districts. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented several petitions from Ireland in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Lord KENNA IRD presented a petition agai nst the grant from a body of persons who were opposed to State endowments. The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented petitions against the grant, and regretted he could not agree with the prayer of the petitioners. The Earl of ELDON presented several petitions to the same effect. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented forty-seven peti tions of a similar nature. The Bishop of CASHEL presented petitions from severe places in Ireland against the increased grant to Maynooth. The Bishop of BANGOR also presented a petition against the grant to Maynooth. The Bishop of ST. ASAP EI presented a petit:on against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Lord COTTENHAM presented a petition against the grant to 'Maynooth. The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition against the grant to Maynooth, and expressed his concurrence in the prayer. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of LoN- DoN presented similar petitions from numerous places. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from Clifton, St. Clere, Kingsbridge, and various other towns in Cornwall and Devon, against the grant to Maynooth. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented 168 petitions, signed by 22,356 individuals, from various parts of England and Scotland, against the grant to Maynooth. The Earl of DE% ON presented several petitions from Stockport, Bolton, Manchester, and other places in the north of England, in favour of the Calico Print Works Bill.: Lord PORTMAN presented a petition, praying the pro ceeds of the income-tax to be applied to the support of the poor. Lord DACRE brought in a Bill upon the game-laws, and moved that the second reading be taken on Monday fortnight. Lord BROUGHAM, in reply to a question from Lord Ash burton, said that he would take the second reading of the Bill to amend the Insolvent Debtors' Act of last year, espe cially in respect to the 201. clause, now, and wait for a further stage any discussion upon its merits. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the Bill should be read before any further proceedings were taken. CALICO PRINT WORKS BILL. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Calico Print Works Bill. Lord BR OUG HA Mprotested against their proceeding, year after year. to legislate in a wrong direction. They were doing all they could, by their legislation, to injure the working classes. They were treating them, in fact, with great cruelty, under the guise, false garb, and outside of humanity. It was held, by those in favour of the Bill, that if a man worked at night he did not perform his task so well as if it were performed during the day; it was, therefore, not intended so much to re lieve young persons, children, and females—which was a very humane, reasonable, and judicious measure—as to make the work in which they were engaged better—to make the patterns better and more accurate than those produced in the ordinary hours of work. He took the same objection to this Bill as ho did to the former one. In the preamble, which set forth that it was expedient to limit the hours of labour of children, young persons, and children in factories, he would substitute for the word expedient. "inexpedient," as he considered it inexpedient to regulate the hours which thepeople should labour, and that it would be better for the Legislature to regulate its own business and to let other people's alone, especially where their inter ference was not justifiable. Labour was the capital of the workmen, and it was contrary to justice and sound policy to interfere with what ought to be left entirely free. It must not be supposed that by preventing children working after nine o'clock at night, they alone stopped the labour of the children, both men and masters were equally retarded, and the greatest abuses would be incurred. He objected to the Bill generally, on principle, but the part which hr considered chiefly ob noxious was the interference with female labour. If humanity were to be the order of the day, he would ask, why did they allow painters to meddle with white lead, which reduced them to paralytics—steel-workers to pursue a trade from which con sumption supervened—or horse-jockeys to lay up for them selves the most noxious diseases, in order to contribute to the pleasures of those humanity-hunters. The Bill he considered fallacious in principle, and, as snail, should protest against it. The Marquis of NORMANBY thought every dictate of humanity, morality, and experience contradicted the argu ments of his Noble Friend, who, with his accustomed ability, had opposed the Bill. The testimony of both masters and workmen had been satisfactorily evinced as unequivocally favourable to the measure. Petitions had been laid on their Lordships' table from every class of factory labourer and pro prietors, praying for the interposition of the Legislature, and to confirm the views of these authotitative parties, he would refer to the report of Mr. Tremelier, in which the benefits that had accrued to the female colliery miners had been ably and satis factorily established. The Earl of RADNOR concurred with his Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) in protesting against the constant meddlinc , of the Legislature with the private affairs of the people. The system now to be interfered with had existed with advantage to the factory population, and he foresaw nothing but evil in attempting to change it. Lord CAMPBELL agreed with the general principle of the 13i11, but considered the second clause as unnecessary, if not prejudicial. There was no analogy between the cases of col liery female labourers and those working in factories. The former custom was productive of immorality, but the latter of industry. A woman of forty years of age, with a large family, would, he conceived, devote the hours from which she was now debarred, to the discharge of her duties as a wife and mother. Nevertheless, he regarded the principle of the measure as -ound, and its enactments beneficial, and should give it his cor The : I support. , se of BUCCLEUCH wondered that the Noble Lord Du ' Rro . ugham), after assenting to the preamble of opposite (Lora _ should now enter his violent opposition a similar Bill in 18 . .5:, beard nothing in the course of the to this measure. He has . and should, therefore, move discussion to change his views , that the Bill be now committed. greed Lord BROUGHAM exp l a ined that in 1 g.. 13 he had a to the general principle of the measure, apart froth the inter ference with female labour. The Bill then went into Committee, and after receiving a few verbal amendments was reported. POST-OFFICL REGULATIONS. On the'motion for the second reading of the Post-office Regu lations Bill, Lord RADNOR expressed his entire concurrence in the prin ciple of the measure—a measure which had been rendered the more necessary, by the unseemly . disclosures made last session of a system as unjustifiable as it was disgraceful. Nobody really knew what the law of the case was. Some thought the right of stopping letters was vested in the Crown. But be was never able to ascertain that it was any part of the preroga tive of the Crown to open the letters of individuals. If such was the prerogative of the Crown it must have been a practice as ancient as the establishment of the Post-office itself ; but be never knew that it was authorised by any court of law. It was a secret mode of proceeding, and tnerefore no one could set about disputing it, for no one knew when it was practised. He could not help also remarking on the immorality of the prac tice. He was not one of those who believed that the State had a conscience, though there were some who kindly gave them credit for one. It was, he contended, a betrayal of confidence. They obliged the public to use the Post-office, and that being the case, they should guarantee inviolability to anything com mitted to it. The copying of Mazzini's seals was most disreputable. It was a farce to talk of the morality of the State after that. But if anything was necessary to prove the danger and immo rality of the practice, it was the case of the letter-carriers, who had merely copied the example which had been set them by their betters, and had merely been dismissed without any further punishment being inflicted. He spoke from the re ports only which he read in the newspapers of the circumstance, but he believed they were correct. By a reference to the Acts, the 9th of Queen Anne, and the Ist of her present Majesty, he found that the power of issuing warrants for detaining and opening letters was assumed as vested already, rather than granted, to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the Secretary of State for England. The power of indemnifying the Post master-general for obeying these warrants was merely given by the Acts ; but that was a very different thing from giving authority to the Secretary of State to exercise such powers. If the question were tried in a court of law, he had no doubt but it would be found that no such Power existed. Whether the mode new proposed to re• medy this state of things met with the approval of their Lordships it was not for him to say, but if they ac ceded to the main features of it, it would be very easy in Com mittee to regulate the details of the Bill. The Noble Lord then read extracts from the reports of the Committees in both Houses which had been appointed to inquire into the practice of opening and detaining letters, and commented upon them as he proceeded. There were two lists of warrants issued from the Home-office. In the first list, embracing a period of 86 years, from 1712 to 1798, one hundred and one warrants had been issued. In the other, from 1799 to 1844, comprising a period of forty-five years, three hundred and seventy -two wa rrants had been issued. Now, that was, he considered, very remarkable. In the first period there had been an annual in crease of li per cent., and in the other of 8 per cent. Of these eight, moreover, only two were warrants relating to sedi tion. The rest were criminal warrants, in respect to which public feeling was not much enlisted as they presented the least temptation to abuse. Lord STANLEY felt it to be his public duty to oppose the Bill. The Noble Earl had proposed to himself two offices. The first was to define the law and define the conditions under which the Secretary of State should have the power of opening er detaining letters at the Post-office. .The second office was to alter the law in such a manner as to impose new restrictions upon the exercise of the power. Now, he would venture to say that the Noble. Lord, when he attempted to define the law, left the law just as undefined as he found it. He also imposed restriction on the exercise of the power, which restriction ab solutely rendered the law itself imperative. Now there were no political considerations connected with this question, it only tended to modify, instead of abolishing the power; for all they had to discuss was simply whether it was necessary to confer on the Secretary of State the power of detaining or opening letters at the Post-office. It was admitted by the Noble Earl that the power, under certain circumstances, must still be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, but they were now called upon to inquire in what manner that power could be amended or modified. Now he (Lord Stanley) would not enter into a discussion as to the origin of this power, nor would he venture to say that the power was one of the prero gatives of the Crown ; but this he did say, that the Act of Anne was not the Act which gave the power to the Secretary of State. The Act of Anne was the first Act which made it a misdemeanour, and rendered persons liable to a penalty for opening a letter passing through the Post-office, without the warrant of one of her Majesty's prin cipal Secretaries of State. Previous to that Act no criminal proceedings could be taken against any person for detaining or opening any letter passing through the Post-office, but that Act made it a punishable offence to open any letiers without the person had a warrant from the Secre tary of State giving him full authority to do so. He had read with great attention the Bill of the Noble Earl, and certainly its provision appeared to him to be most unsatisfactory. The LONDON, SATURDA MORNING, MAY 31, 1845. clause defining the law' Made no allusion whatever to the ques tion of special or general warrants, and certainly after the doubts which had beers raised upon this point the 'Noble Earl ought to have stated, clearly and distinctly, whether it was necessary that a general or a special warrant should be issued. It had been admitted by the Lord Chief 'justice that general warrants could only be used except where a system of espio nage was carried on by the Government, and he asked the House whether they were willing to establish such a system as this, in preference to at once defining distinctly and clearly whether a special or a general warrant should be used. Now, let them look to the second clause, but before directing atten tion to that part he must protest against the doctrine laid down by the Noble Earl, that although the House might have to alter every word of the Bill, yet if they agreed with the prin ciple it enumerated they ought to support the second reading. Well, then, the second clause enacted that in case any credi ble information should be given to the Secretary of State, that the safety of the Sovereign or the Government was likely to be endangered, or the peace of the country likely to be dis turbed, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to issue his warrant for the detention or opening of letters, &c. Now, he was at a loss to understand the real meaning of this clan's'. Information was to be given to the Secretary of State? W hat information? Ought it not to be, "If information shall hef given to the Secretary of State of the acts and proceedin g s of any person or persons likely to endanger the peace of the country. then, &c." The Earl of R ADNOR—We can alter that in Committee. Lord STANLEY—Of course they might, but he was dis cussing the Bill as it stood, and not a Bill which some other Noble Lord might subsequently bring in.—( Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the doctrine that the safety of the Go vernment, or peace, or security of the realm were the only con siderations which should render it necessary or expedient that this power should be applied. The Noble Earl excluded al together the majority of the cases where the exercise of this power was necessary for the detection or punishment of crime. —( Hear, hear.) But what did the Noble Earl mean by the peace or security of the realm ? Did he mean the internal peace, or the danger of involving this country in foreign war ? Now he would not conceal his opinion upon this part of the question, and although a great deal had been said about the rights of hospitality in this country, he did not think, under existing circumstances, that a foreigner should be allowed to use our Post-office for disturbing the peace of foreign States, and thus involving thia country in a foreign war? When the Noble Lord said that the information must be signed, he evinced an ignorance of the spirit of the original en actment, which disentitled his counsel to all weight or consi deration. Why, a more effectual mode could not be adopted for preventing the forwarding of all, except perhaps anony mous, communications. With respect to the provision of sending back the letter with a mark that it had been opened. a more absurd proposition could not be advanced. It would tend to give a clue to the operations of Government, frustrate the object as well as the spirit of the power previous) , conceded, and render nugatory the best efforts of the State. As to the provision for allowing the party whose letter had been opened to bring his action at law for damages, and requiring the Secre tary or Lord-Lieutenant to give up the information, or a cer tified copy of it, would be ineffectual to repress any abuse, and be faaught only with difficulties and absurdities. He would suppcse a wrong letter opened by mistake, an invitation to dinner, a tailor's bill, or other communication equally unim portant.—( A laugh.) Well, the Postmaster was to notify that the letter had been opened by warrant of the Secretary, and that no necessity existed for its further detention. The Secre tary was to give up the information, together with the name of the informant, and the convivial friend or the tailor allowed to bring his action for the violation of his secret.—(Laughter. ) Ile admitted that the power .vested in the Secretary of State was obnoxious and open to unquestionable abuse, but he thought, also, there was a sufficient security in the character of the country, sand in the honour of the individual Members of both parties in Parliament. Relying on this as surance, and wholly doubting the expediency of the Noble Earl's proposition, he should move that the reading of the Bill be postponed till that day six months. Lord DENMAN considered that the measure was of too vast importance, both as regarded the interests of the com munity and the character of that House, to have been dealt with in the flippant manner adopted by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He would not pursue that course, nor adopt the see-saw opinions contained in the report of the Select Committee—a report evincing only the different views of each individual member. In 1657 the Post-office was first established, and in the 12th of Charles It. the same in stitution was placed on a more satisfactory basis; but it was not till the reign of Anne that a provision was made for the delivery of letters in the universal method subsequently adopted. He had heard with surprise the Noble Lord state that the detached suggestions which he had thrown out when the subject was first brought before Parliament were to he received as the opinions of the Chief Justice. A Noble Lord doubted whether every letter which was to be opened ought not to be described. Why, it was absurd that every letter could be pointed out ; it was likely that instead of the particular letter being at once discovered, others might be opened. Was he, therefore, to be held up as a patron of espionage, because he gave that view of the subject—because he said that letters might be opened under the Act of Parlia ment, the powers contained in which he condemned as incon sistent with the liberty of the people, and which was intended to cover State delinquencies.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted, therefore, that the Noble Lord, who could not have heard the debates which had taken place in that House on the subject, would not attribute to him that he was an advocate of the sys tem of opening letters. It was not fair thus to deal with any one holding the public office he did, and who, of all men, de tested the practice—( Hear)—an odious and hateful practice which the feelings of all men must especially condemn. Before they came to a decision it would be well to consider what would be the course which juries would adopt with respect to the question of opening letters. They were apt to be car ried away by their feelings. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated in the House of Commons that he had no objection to their regulating the power which the Act gave him over letters passing through the Post-office. He ( Sir J. Graham) treated the power as a most odious one, and one which he would wish to get rid of. Then, why should not the practice be in the hands of Parliament if it was to be exer • cisod at all ? In the time of Charles 11., no Act was in force giving the Government this power, but a declaration was issued by the King, giving his Government the power to open the letter or letters of an individual passing through the Post-office. When that Monarch was carousing with his courtiers, nothing could he more entertaining than to open the letters of the nobility and gentry. But he did not think it was fair to invest the power of opening letters in the present day in the hands of an officer of the Crown, over every other individual in the land. It was a calumny upon them that such a subject should have been so frequently brought forward. They had all felt ashamed of the disgraceful pro. ceedings which were carried on under the system.—( Hear.) Mr. Mazzini only discovered by an accident that his letters had been opened. Had he not made this discovery, it was not un likely that it might have remained in secrecy for a number of years. One hundred years back the power might be rendered available for the purposes of obstructing an election, or of de feating by secret means the Government then in power. From the memoirs of Lord Malmsbury it appeared that the practice was then in use. In a letter from Mr. Canning to that nobleman, he expressed his surprise that his letters had been opened. Mr. Fox, writing at the commencement of the French war, said he should have his letters directed by an other hand, and sealed with another seal, as they would be opened at the Post-sffice. The same expressions were made use of by Mr. Berke and Horace Walpole. In the work to which he bad alluded, it was stated, that the Minister of Catherine 11., of Russia, was in the habit of writing letters with various signatures, which he knew would be opened at the Post office, and which would have the effect of injuring his enemies and serving his friends. But he (Lord Denman) conceived that the power in this country was utterly useless, and derogatory to the high character of the nation.—( Hear, hear.) The Committees which had been appointed to con eider the subject, had not reported as to any benefits which were derived from the practice. Information so obtained was likely to be fallacious, and they were liable to fall into their own snares. So almost invariably was information obtained from spies, and the money paid to them for their information was as invariably thrown away.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore called upon them to assent to the second reading of the. Bill which his Noble Friend had introduced. God forbid that the scenes of 1842 should be ever again re peated. They had not, however, been met or put down by the system which had been reported to of opening and detaining the letters of those who were supposed to be implieated in those disturbances. The unhappy men who were engaged in them were defeated by the firmness of the Government, the temperance of the police, and the good spirit of the coun try. The present Bill might be open to great objections, but it would prevent many of the abuses which had sprung up during the existence of the system. If it would only put an end to the hateful practice of interfering in the concerns of foreign Governments it would have a beneficial effect. It would confine the system to our own country. He did net see why they should lend themselves as police officers for other States.— ( Hear, hear.) He had no doubt but the Noble Lord opposite had been influenced by the best intentions in the course he had adopted 1 but when he heard some people state that there was no great harm even It the individuals on account of whom the letters had been opened were shot, he thought their interference was extremely dangerous. On the same grounds, the Pope, the King of Naples, France , and t he Emperor of Russia, might claim their interference. They might even by this means be playing into the hands of their enemies, and betraying the interests of the country ; for in Spain and Portugal it was not easy to kno v who was in pos session of power. He did not believe that Sir Robert Peel, even, would forget the cheers which accompanied the announce ment that the Alien Act was gone. He did not apprehend that it was necessary to enter into any defence of the motives which influenced the present Secretaries of State, but they ought not to forget that very unprincipled men were once Ministers of State in England, and such men might again be in office. Even if they did not abuse their trust they had suffli tient evidence during the summer months, in the affair of the Derby stakes, that their underlings would do so. From the report of an eminent individual, with respect to the individuals employed in the Post-office, such persons were not proof against the temptations which were thrown in their way, and the ex perience which he himself had enabled him to confirm that statement. The year 1844 was memorable as being the first year when letters were opened for a foreign State. It was a perfectly new and extremely dangerous practice—a thing ut terly unknown to the people of England. He himself had not known that there was any statute on the subject till after con siderable difficulty he found that Oliver Cromwell had been the originator of it. It was to this brutal and hypocritical tyrant, whose existence night and day had been haunted by an appre hension of the evils which his crimes had provoked, that this un-English practice was to be traced. The Noble Lord then read extracts from Hume, descriptive 'of the character of Cromwell, and hoped that the Noble Duke, whose character had in every respect presented such a contrast, every one of whose victories was but a march to peace, would signalise his career still further by lending his influence to destroy and abo lish for ever so disgraceful and unconstitutional a power.— ( Hear, hear.) He would call upon him to add to the mea sures which had lately been introduced for the conciliation of Ireland, a measure which would put an end to this abominable practice. Lord BROUGHAM did not concur in the severe attack which had been made on the character of Cromwell. He con tended that, with all his faults and failings, he had proposed and effected many salutary commercial changes. The Isloble Lord had also been guilty of a misdemeanour, he had introduced the seria mista jocis, and alluded to the correspondence of Gramont, in the times of Charles 11., the Merry Monarch. His Noble and Learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice had made three charges against the Secret Committee, which lately sat upon the Post-office. The first was, that the Committee in their report had not defined the state of the law on this subject. Now he found, by the first page of the re port, that the power had existed ever since the establishment of the Post office, and had frequently been recognised, and this he thought was a sufficient charge. The second charge was, that the Committee had specified or suggested no remedy or refor mation whatever in the la..'. All the Committee thought it was better to leave it for the Legislature to determine what alterations should be made in the law. The third charge was that the Committee did not state what had been the utility of the power. Now, in answer to this charge, he could only state that, in one part of the report the Committee said that the exercise of the power had frequently led to detection and punishment of crime, as well as to the recovery of property. With regard to the Bill itself, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite, who had certainly made a most admir able, and, he might add, a strictly legal speech against the measure. Lord CAMPBELL little thought, a few years age, that he should have had occasion to defend his Voblo Friend the Chief Justice of England against the attacks of the Learned Lord behind hire, once the Attorney -General of Queen Caroline, and the Lord C - lancellor that s upported and promoted him. The Noble Lordlitd attacked 117..n1 because he could not answer the arguments of his Learned Ff.end—arguments which, how ever they might he 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 tick a copy of it. then cloetl 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 integrity, that every nation but England had renounced it. M. Guizot had declared that he calsidered the Pont-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 he brought against Sir James Graham by Mr. Duncombe or Mr. Mazzini ; a jury might, under the direction of the judge, return a verdict against the Secretary of State, and the most enormous damages 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 Anne, 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 waist 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 elsewh e re, if th ey were necessary for i 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 w as so much miseonception 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 conclusion 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 ou t i n t hi s v i ew. D ur i ng 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 opening 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 cases a proclamation was issued, specifying that the Post office had been leased to them, and recognising the Fame right. In the time of Charles 11., a person named Coleman was put on his trial for sedition, and the principal charges were substantiated 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 that the 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 individuals at that time, 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 State. Another material fact, in support of his opinion, was the case which cawed so much sensation at the time, namely, the opening of the letters 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 also substantiated his view of the law. On the trial of Horne Tooke a letter from the Post-office was produced in evidence. Now if that was an infraction of the law would not those eminent individuals Mr. Erskine or Mr. Gibbs, who were counsel for Mr. Tooke, or the judge, or the bench, have taken notice of it? Would they have suffered such an infraction when a letter was produced in evidence against their client? He would pass over the Acts of Queen Anne, George the Ist, and George the 2d, and would come down to 1830. 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 owning letters to Government. The Noble Lord then recognised the legality cf the power. B . y a referen ce t o t h e A c t s f rom C romwe ll d own to the present times, and by the courts ofjustice during the last century. this power was not only legal, but never called in question. Why, those who felt aggrieved by the exercise of this power (Mr. Mazzini for instance) did not tes• the legality of it by a resort to the courts of law. His Noble Friend sa;d that it was an abominable and disgraceful power, but the effect of the present Bill was to legalise that power. With respect to the inconsis tencies of the present Bill, they had been so fully pointed out by a Noble Lord who had preceded him, that it would be an idle waste of time to take up their attention any further upon them, and he would conclude by giving his most strenuous opposition to the present Bill, believing that the power which it done away with was one which should be possessed by every Government. Lord DENMAN explained in reference to the opinions which he had expressed in 1830 upon the subject, and which had been alluded t. by the Noble Lord who had just sat down as favourable to the legality of that power. The question of the legality 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 affectel all parties. and he threw the blame equally on all. So 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 he stated. He was opposed to the power on constitutional grounds when he was Attorney-General, and as he still ente - tained the same opinion as he did, he could not do otherwise than oppose the 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 Chanc..llor, and Lord Campbell, The Marquis of NORMANBY admitted having exercised the power while he was in office, but declared that he never was entrusted with any power which gave him more pain. The question, however, for them now t o cons id er was , not the pro priety oiabolishing the power, but the particular provisions of the Noble Earl's Bill. When the question for the abolishing of the power came before them, he should be prepared to give it his best consideration. He confessed that, before he came into office, he was ignorant of the existence of this power, but now, he thought it was known to almost all the world. He did not agree in the provisions of the Bill, but, nevertheless, lie hoped Government would take the matter into their serious consideration, and see if something could not be done, either to do away with the power altegether, or to limit its exercise. Lord STANLEY briefly explained that the practice of the Home-office was to preserve the warrants with every instru ment connected with their exercise. Earl FI fZWILLIAM, while protesting against the ar gument 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-being of the nation, should support the second reading of the Bill, 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 —46 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. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mall 30. The SPEAKER took the Chair ;ho;tly before Four o'clock. This was the last day f or rece i v i ng P r ivate Bills, other than Railway Bills. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham, pray ing that the Bill for the improvement of Duddeston &c. might not pass into a l aw . - The York and North Midland Railway Bill (Bridlington Branch), was read a third time and passed. The York and Scarborough Railway Deviation Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord BARRINGTON presented a petition from John Temple Leader, Ecq., a Member of that House, against the Richmond Railway Bill. The reports were received on the Newcastle and Darlington Railway (Brandling Junction), and the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Shields Railway (Tynernouth 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. H. HINDE it was ordered that there should be laid before the House the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Newcastle and Berwick Railway and the Northumberland Railway Bills, relating to the atmospheric 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 was read a third time and passed. The Disc, Beecles, 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. Mr. SH A RM A N CRAWFORD presented a petition against the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill. Mr. AI A STE RIMA N presented a petition against the West minster Improvement Bill. Mr. W. PATTEN postponed the third reading of the Blackburn, Darwen, and B olton Railwa y Bill until Monday next. GRRaiOllayAN y Bill should b e resumed., the tim e f or rece i v i n'e On the On the motion of Sir G . GREY, it was o rdered that the further proceedings on the consideration of t he report of the SYst" and motion of It ir. Peterborough the report upon the Dublin Pipewater Bill was extended to the 6th of June. The Sheffield and Tinsley Canal Bill was reported, as was also the Brighton, :Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer branch). Captain FITZ MAURICE presented a petiti on aga i ns t th e Brighton Railway Extension Bill. Mr. SPOONER brought in the Birmingham and Glouces ter Railway Bill, which was read a first and ordered to be read a second time. GOOLE AND DONCASTER RAILWAY. The Goole and Doncaster Railway Bill was read a second time. PETITIONS. Mr. FELLOWES presented petitions from various places in Huntingdonshire against the proposed alteration in the law of settlement. Also a petition against the union of the Sees of St. Ast.ph and Bangor. POST-OFFICE ABUSES. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by 400 merchants of the City of London, complaining of the exaction of fret' by the officers of the General Post-office, under the pretence of an early delivery of letters ; also, com plaining of the abuses of the Post-office generally, and pray ing for inquiry. Ile had already given notice of a motion for a Committee of inquiry. Also, a petition from an individual, praying for the inclosure of waste lands for the benefit of the poor. BRADFORD, D LONON, ILWAY.D AN BIRMINGHAM RA The Bradford, London , and Birmingham Railway Bill was read a third time, and passed. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. Messengers from the LordsYNOO brougTH.ht down certain Bills. MA Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Dundee and other places, disapproving of the 11laynooth grant. NOTICE OF MOTION—ACADEMICAL INSTITU TIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord J. MANNERS gave notice that or, the motion for the second reading of the Academical Institutions (Ireland) Bill, he should move that the I3ill be read a second time that day six months. ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. T. DUNUOMBE moved for leave to bring in a Bit to amend the law fcr the arrestment of wages in Scotland.— Agreed to. TEN HOURS' FACTORY BILL. Lord PA LAIE RSTON presented a petition from Manchester and Salford in favour of a Ten Hours' Factory Bill. NEW ZEALAND. ' Mr. G. H. HOPE said he was desirous of calling the atten tion of the House to a statement which he made on the 2d of ' May, in reference to the circumstances under which a notice of motion made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), 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 head of the Colonial Department and the New Zealand Com pany. A report of that Company had been pub lished, from which different inferences had bees drawn. Ile would state in a few words what occurred. On the let of May, having post; oned his motion in consequence of some communication with Lord Stanley, he postponed the motion to which he had alluded, but which, a; 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 lion. Member for Liskeard, requesting to know the reason why be 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. CH ARLES BULLER, who was throughout very imperfectly heard, so much so, that many Hon. Members repeatedly called out, " Speak out, speak out," was under stood 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 lion. Gentleman said that he would consult Lord Stanley, but that it was im possible for the Government to enter into any negotiation so long as his (Mr. Buller's) motion stood upon the paper of the He therefore represented the matter to the Board of Directors, and they agreed with him that it would be best 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, heir. ) Sir J. GRAHAM must corroborate the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend. But he must also state his regret that confidential conversation between Members of that house, even though they sat upon opposite sides.—(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 Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard had so correctly stated what had occurred, he could not 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 bear 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 case of James Deane, a man sixty years of age, who was sent to Reading gaol for four months for stealing pheasants' eggs. He 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.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that it was exceedingly wrong for a man to be imprisoned and fined both for such an offence as this. It was anything but fair for the proprietors to profess a wish to reduce poaching, and then to take the very measures which wore likely to increase the evil. There was noth►ng more monstrous than for the preservers of game to become the purchasers of it from the public. In the cue which had been cited the poor man had been relieved from his imprisonment by the Hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett), who thought that a double punishment was too much, and therefore paid the fine hi►naelf. Sir JOHN WALSH said that this man had been con victed for this offence without hi: 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 only been about a twelvemonth in his service, and who, from being unacquainted 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 convicted. 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 month'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 of the ease 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 theey did not go into them. _ Mr. COLLETT said he hoped he might be excused for now saying a word or two, as the matter had reference to himself personally. The daughter-in-law of this poor man 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 Beading with the money for his liberation. The poor man was obliged to pick oakum, and had been in solitary confinement. The money was, however, paid, and the man was set at liberty. The Hon. 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 rank, he thought it but right to make this statement. He had, on that day, written to the Times to the same effect.—(Cheers.) JERSEY LAW COURTS. Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to putii - cluestion to the Right Hon. Gentleman relative to an appiication which had been made to the Comptroller-General, respecting the eon 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, whieh 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 au 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 Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not press his question until the officers had been enabled to explain. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Lord J. 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 mee t again and draw up a more detailed report, to be presented to the House before any discussion taken place upon the ques tion. It was necessary, before the House going into the sub ject, to have the fullest data before them. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir Thomas Wylde) and the Right Hon. Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey) thought this would be the proper course to pursue. Sir R. PEEL said, as this was a most important question, it was desirable, before going into its discussion, that they should have the fullest report from the Committee, along with 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. He wanted to know how any difficulty of this kind was to be got over. Sir T. 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 shall be your sufficient warrant. " Dated this 3d day of February. (Signed) "J. Sit awe LEFEVRE, Speaker." Now, 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 consi • dered themselves, but 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 should attempt to carry this judgment into execution, and imprison them forthwith. The Hon. Member had talked of waiting for further information before they deliberated on the report, and asked for further delay before they made an: , mo tion, but for this he saw no necessity. Every Member of that House had a right to act as an officer, and on the unhappy occasion when Mr. Percival was shot, he (Mr. Hume) had been thc person to seize the assassin and assist in conveying him up stairs, and had kept him there in custody until the officers arrived to convey him to safer keeping. The qUestion was, whether they really had any privileges or not. He thought they had, and that it was high time to vindicate them, and he only wished that his Hon. and Learned Friend would lead the way. Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the House would pause before they acted, and get the full report of the Committee. There were two parts in the report which it was essential to be brought under the attention of the House. First, whether the House would follow out their decision and seize the Lord Chief Justice on the seat of justice. Mr. HUNIE—" Seiz2 him if he comes to this notice." Sir R. H. INGLIS sa id, t h at if the Hon. Member waited till the Chief Justice appeared at that bar of the House his cou rage was not likely to be very soon tested. But though' here were, he was aware, many HOF. 7,7. make speeches, though Ley w. c no;: qu;.te pre m._ _ tate the gallant bearirg of the i tor:. lienawr for Montr. s still he thought that the rest. com were ject, was to wit for the re:-. r i , ;.ft con;; Lend HOWICK tht,ugt wiser . plan wood cer. tainly be to follow the advice Of his Ho cte3. Friend, and reserve the discussion until the) Lat. the lot, repo: 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 hay? the advantage of waiting for the report of the Standing Orders Committee, and avoid being committed at present to any specific motion. The SCLICITOR-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 reuort of the Committee ought now to he laid before them ; and doubtless, if they had had the advantage of that Hon. Member's industry, intelligent dili gence, and business•habits, it might perhaps have been ready, but circumstances had occurred: , hat had rendered it impossible. The members of that Committee had been most indefatigable, for in the midst of numerous private engagements ttey 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 F. PEEL, Mr. HUME said that he should move a resolution to t; e effect, that it should be a breach of the privilege of the House to levy money on any servant of th a t 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 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 morn 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 same 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 io be engaged in a cen diet to which they should not lightly commit themselves, but upon which, when once entered, they should act firmly and dc. cidedly.—( Cheers.) He would support the amendment of his Noble Friend. Sir R. INGLIS said, though unaccustomed 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 fur them to decide, 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 they 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 the observa tions of the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. 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 Monday night. The question went far deeper than it would at first sight appear. —( Hear, hear.) • The Hof. Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite were opposed to the pri vileges of the House, rnd 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 opposite shrugged his shoulders when he said " representatives of the people," and he (Mr. Roebuck) had no doubt but the Noble Lord re garded such representatives in a very contemptuous light. (Cries 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 the Queen's Bench from the first hour of its exissence to the present moment. The Queen's Bench had always been opposed to the liberties of the people, and had often been the abettor of wicked and tyrannical monarchs.—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear.") Did they deny this—he was prepared to prove it from the history of this country.—( Hear, hear.) Might he not refer to the days of Hampden, and to cringing favouring judges, chief justices, too, who were willing to gratify the propensities of the Sovereign at the expense of justice. In those days the Queen's Bench abetted the King in his assaults upon the liberties of the coun try, whilst that House manfully stood by them and resisted such 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 House to become a mere secondary authority—inferior to the meanest court of justice in the kingdom.--, Hear.) Within the last four weeks a gentleman had appealed to the British law for his liberty, but the Court of Queen's Bench yielded with perfect acquiescence to the Royal Court of Jersey, told him he rcust submit to the constituted authorities of this realm, and sent back ti:e unfortunate man to be dealt with as the Royal Court of Jeraey might think properr. But if the House of Commons dared to interfere, even for the protection of its own privileges, then 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 ; " what 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 should 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 he 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 loud voice and irascible, shouted out, " No domicile," which occasioned roars of laugh ter from all parts of the House.) The Sergeant-at-Arms having no 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 Eng!and.—( 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 deseribed those Members on the Ministerial side of the Horse as opposing the privileges of the House of Common., 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 Learned Gentleman should impute to Members on his (Mr. D'lsraeli's) 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 had 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 was 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, he did riot 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, might 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.) He 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 be asserted that the subject came upon them suddenly. Ever since he had held a seat in that House, the question had been often mooted, and Hon. Members had always evaded the difficulty—had in variably procrastinated the evil hour.—( Hear, hear.) Let the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and his supporters try the case, and send the Lord Chief Justice of England to the Queen's Bench, 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 House 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 them—that it had fallen like a star in the serene at, mosphere of Parliamentary discus-ion—or like a comet, th course of which could not be ascertained, and the aypearance of which was altogether unexpected. It was by this continual system of procrastination that they were now brought to the extreme point—like a man in difficulties who had always put off the evil hour. After the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench had been vindicated under c i rcums t ances the most igno minious, uoipteirmtupnoistsyiblsetiflolr remainedthe Ho " ut to tr tooffe r the pre tencjustice thatit was q opportunity the of that decision. 'f h e Ri g h t H on. Gentleman they the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) dwelt strongly on the advice which he gave in reference to the public opinion oat of doors, (Mr. D'lsra e li) wante d to know what public lie judgment o f th e C ourt of Queen's opinion? The Bench he found was vindicated in the property or pe rson o f t h e chief officer of that C ourt, and the would not re fi ne much upon the sj'"eopie 1 0 , f the country un derstand that an humble. subject of q ' he i r 11.1aje heawdould ha daring to p u t hi mself in collision with the House4sy t y l of Comt d the and had gai ne d t h e d ecision and authority of the courtsotnolns, in his b e h a lf. T here was not a man in the country thatwould had believe th a t t h e alleged privileges such as tlwyw been de scribed were necessary to the liberty of the subject, but on the contrary they would look upon them as injurions.—( Hear, hear.) He (Nlr. D'lsraeli) should not at all deplore the catastrophe alluded to by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, the champions of those privileges, but he considered those pri vileges which the Hon. Member for Bath declared nece ssary ev for the liberty of the people—privileges whichlhiotro er wl_rit all gentlemen of his school, be might avoi d d ep ri;cges which meant. if they m,./ n t any , should potseßs — aii irre , r ) yvt hear.) . The con(queiona .and dogrnrs Ts - snb- meant anithir.a; that r , ..;! IrGlNer eoncePtrated thet the vierN peoplrof th ip 'le to t RAG tl:e t It the I,t,bl;r, ' the Par . :. • tp.: disposition o!, ioe ft,t Uouse }•7zaw. Ile °bort( ti !n t h the . . oroceedings 01 . that :• •i- - mil the present questien.—t Hear, hear.) They sympathised ssith tte courts of law, aid they looked upon them as the protectors of tlseir 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 entirts of law, and he had only risen to repudiate the idea that the people of this country had airy wish to curtail, or war against the just privi leges of the House. He exposed the assumption of such pri viierses because he 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 respectiog the House of Commons, and the real question was, whether the House of Commons should be invested with a su preme irresponsible power, or wise :her the dignity of the law as administered by the judge, should not be respected, upheld, and supported ?—( Hear.) Mr. F. KELLY submitted that the only coarse 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, :mod then the al n. Member for M on t rose proposed his amendment. 'The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland also had an amendment, by which he sought to postpone the coo-Perm ien of the qimstion till next Monday week ; hut the colesticn was, sheuid the dis cussion also be postponed till the same time. (laving briefly stated the facts of the Howard v. Gossett case, tie. Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to say that it ws now their duty, and one of transeendant importance. to decide what course should be adopted by the House, by which, on the one hand, due respect would be manifested for the lasso 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 question fully in all its hearings—that Committee had expressed an unanimous wish that it was necessary that the 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 r quest 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 course suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for London, and moved by the Hon. 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 cm. se to take. On a former occasion, when the ques tion of privilege was under their consideration, he had opposed the course then taken. Proceedings had been instituted 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 Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, let the execution take place. He regretted the subject bad not reee;ved in that House she benefit of the talents of his Hon. and Leartied Friend. Pis the-,:co bed pre. vented that. He (Sir T. Wilde) miglit say, that whin he was consulted on that occasion by Mr. France, his ! I n aid Learned Friend took some interest in the question. H. 's:s T. Wilde) advised Mr. France to petition, nod dress lip a petition for the purpose, when his II Gnoti r thl e and Learned Friend being consulted on this subject advised an exactly opposite course.—( Hear, hear.) The part he had taken had been less disinterested than that of his Hon. and Learned Friend, for he (ilir. Kelly) was the volunteer counsel of the House of Commons. He trusted that the House would give them each an unbiassed hearing. If he thought his Hon. 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 not competent to proceed, and that it was placed in the power of the Court of Queen's Bench, 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 be ridiculous, after the fine had been levied, to talk any more about it, and his reason for suggesting the post ponement was, that it would prevent the execution 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 was the last occasion on which the c,uestiou could he 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 the , method hitherto pursued was highly discreditable to the House. It was a surrender of the constitutional privileges of the House and with it a yielding up of the great principles of the Consti tution itself---( Hear, hear.) He trusted he should convince the judgment of curry Hon. Member that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was false in every particular, and that the warrant Viet had been issued by the House 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 direted to the Sergeant -at- Arms, to take into costody a certain individual, and was per fectly correct. But whether the Queen's Bench was right or wrong in its decision, the question to decide was, slid it prg_ sess the power to interfere on a Parliamentary warrant. He would say and maintain that Parliamentary powers were only amenable to Parliamentary role:—( Hear)—and he thought the Court of Queen's Bench had greatly overstepped its autho rity in endeavouring to set aside the wartant that had been is su,d. 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 refusing 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 submit to the House of Commons, and refuse to levy the writ issued by the Court of Queen's Bench, would they be proteeted by the House of Commons? His answer was, that if the sberfffs refused to levy any writ they would he 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 oa the argument that bad taken place, bot he would tell his Honourable and Learned Friend that he had re tainer in that case, and he argued the case as he would have argued any other case, and there was nothing inconsistent ins what he had 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 rec&ving a fee i n .nogg a case. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had s^id Uhl.; &civics was required on the question, he would willingly give it, notwithstanding the retainer he had received, but .re would nave the House to be cautious how they received his gratuitous advice. The [lnure of Commons had acted right when they availed themselves of the only legal measure of letting the Court of Queen's Ilensh know what and how great were their privi leges. The law officers of the Crown had been instructed to defend the action ; hut he would deny that at any titnethe House of Commons yielded to the decision of the Que., n's I?euch those privileges to which they were eons'itutionellv ei%titled. It might, perheps, be a matter of regret that t.', C .11' ' , f Queen's Bench had ever, in any way, been 'Morro fere ; and he would contend that no Court in Gre..; '‘,11.a1,1 should ever be permitted to decide on their pr;vileges.— (Hear, hear.) It was now known that the Committee of In quiry had reported as their opinions that a writ of error should be issued into the Court of Exchequer. Now he could not imagine how the 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 us remain as we are--( Ili ar) —and abide by the loss, if any shell 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. He, for his part, would support the ?no 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 t c a o k in e c u i . de N in va te view s h thee which xeeu his execution nuf on. an thoewritd toL e b a e rn a e:f F erte r d icd had hn, pro ceeding to extremities? If the House intended to interfere s fu u r r t e h t e u r s i t t a w te o h u u l d w b f e ar p t r h o e p 3 er for those , i .tn dedt n whoproceed suggested in es t t ed ita t t hi s course.rnea. It would not satisfy the honour and privileges of the House if they rested merely with the punishment of the irresponsible subordinates. All persans, no matter what their stations were, ought to be proceeded against, who interfered with the privileges of the House.—Hear, hear.) 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 m. intainiee 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 litre of proceeding. In 18* 6 the question aroee to which all their difficulties might be teesed. This was the direction to plead to time Isamu of Stockdale against Hansard, which hat itself been occasioned by the publication of Messrs. Hansard of the Re, art 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. He 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. en 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. Ater that time a C m _ mittee had been obtained, and that Committee came to a i eerie3 of resolutions, which were iAt t ne o itoga t ;fey h s ca e otanhfr H dre yp o t u ihran s eerg e lsyie o atlwt n mn; eot t esut i no : l e ndt et n of May, 1837, agreed 1 into that ho a 7 :l3 , fft eyhaenettell the oeo e tu n lhsae:i t . rh h oa e ufdt Int 3 thh O oee t s h t Parliament, it rieet w s ro ' u: e ldu r ae e s; gth p e u m nish am m e e n n a t b f l o e r to so th de e in dis . p_lea ( s i n i r eearl athney House, contravening e, c a o n n dl v ia e b n l i e n to Only two days a ft er t h at time, the Attorney-General had taken an active pa r t i n t h e d e b ate, and had expressed himself very strongly on the subject. On the Bth of June, after that period, the Att orney- G eneral had come downes from niis i i n t l n i e to i Me )l s e s a r d s . t l e l a t n i s. re a rd a , ct e i n o t il l requested, e t i o r behhe House .t 1 f, I er , ra(rtudeshteedh la had recom m ended the t ltu r s e e so t ( l i u r i o o a n i e , i t t o w t a h s e (cileecc. tidedisin, hat o f allowingany l person,, .. teem would to commit du so. a breach of p r i v il ege b y commencing After this, in 1843, t hi s action was b i r y ou a o c h i t on i in n e a on c s o ,. ur gu t e o n f e l e aw o . f what had taken place ;in 1810, no t w i t h standing 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. Now, when the House came to this resolution, it was impos sible to say to the House when they went into the Court of Queen's Bench, what view that Court might adopt. It was, therefore, impossible that the House should know what view the Court would take at that time, of the case of Stockdale and Hansard, or whether they would take the question of privilege into consideration at all. The Court bad refused to be fettered by the question of privilege, ressits and had entered into the ehole question. from the lion. Member for Worcester suppose - that such would be the case, e Friend at the head of the Government that the court of law might not en t e r and he (the Solicitor- could not consistently give General ) t h ong . his saw: M nntrope. the 1-lon. Member fo . r li cie into a court of law wit i might take or have a come to an unfavourable that decision, and he t hought . endeavour to carry their resolutions S i tr n o d n u g ce e f them to had and his Right Hon. bad warned the House e r n! into the whole question. ht therefore, that he rt to the proposition of They had evidently gone pression that the court of law Articular impression of the case, and l decision. The Court did conic to that if the House were now to into force, they would do eAnt, if lie tv be