The Sun. — London, England, 1850-04-19 00:00:00

11, I se,•ltud numbered 2,024, of whom 151 were under 1. E. •1s of age, being an eighth of the whole number, le number cf instances where the value cf the ,pe e ie r 7 stolen slid. not exceed ls. wee 270. The sic ' es'.i*:ele.,arceuutiug to 434. Now these figures would thesee-trate the importance of the change which it lees : posed to make by this Bill. The criminal law of tnie country was based upon .the principle, that every party accused of an offence should be tried by a compe tent indge and a competent jury, aid the main object of /se s this Bill was to destroy that bulwark of liberty, so far as th4 l humbler classes were concerned, in order to save the pockets of the middle and higher classes of society. He wouldzemind the House that until an Act passed in the reign of George 11. no judge of .assize was al lowed to try ilitoriminal case in his own county. But it was proposed by th's Bill to take away not merely the security . of a judge, who would be presumably impartial, but to substitute for him two magistrates to try cases in their own neighbourhood and their own parish, although a judgo in former times was not allowed to try a pri soner i soner n his own county. By an old statute of Edward 111. it was enacted that, where criminals were tried at quarter-sessions, the magistrates of the quorum should consist of at least one who was "learned in the law," ' who should act as a check on the ignorance of the lay part of.the bench. But they proposed by this Bill not . merely to take away'the quorum of the quarter• sessions, but to substitute two magistrates of the locality who should be learned or unlearned. (The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter, addressed to the Chair man of the county of Limerick, stating that he was most decidedly opposed to the Bill ; also a letter from a Judge on the Irish bench, whose name, from delicacy, he forbore to mention, who expressed his opinion that the Bill was most unnecessary and mischievous, both in , England and Ireland.) It formed:no part of his (Mr. M'Cullagh'a) duty, on this occasion, that he should enter into any statement: of the objections that might be popularly urged as to the unfitness of the judges who might be called on to adjudicate on cases of a serious nature; but he thought it his duty to remind the House that they were submitting the liberty of the subject to the whim and ignorance of any two gentlemen who might happen to be placed in the proposed commission. It was true that they had the option given to them, but how few comparatively could ever avail themselves of that right who.really were deserving of it, while, on the contrary, the hardened and astute villain would be the only one ivho would be able to take advantage. It was stated that it was of great importance that, in a country like Great Britain, no waste cf public money should be allowed to take ?pl6.ce, and this was , a proposition which he did not mean to oppose, but still that was no argument to legislate for the op presaion of any class of criminals on the motives of pub lic convenience. lie should say let legislators experi , meutalise upon themselves, and not first upon the poorer . classes. Let them repeal trial by jury for themselves first, before they tried it upon other classes. He considered the Bill extremely objectionable, and should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon . his amendment. Sir G. STRICKLAND said he deeply lamented to see the attempts which were continually being made , to do away with trial by jury, which, from his earliest days, ho had been taught to consider as one of the dearest rights of Englishmen. The great objection , which he, entertained to the present Bill was, that it gave to magistrates, at petty sessions, unlimited power • to torture a person under sixteen years by flogging, , without the intervention of a jury. It would be, in his opinion, extremely injudicious to give this unconstitu tionapower at a time when the public indigna tion had almost put an end to the prac tice of flogging in the army. (Hear, hear.) , He believed that the old Mosaic law was humane, it pro vided that the number of stripes should not exceed a certain number, but in this case the number was to be left unlimited, and he insisted that this part of the Bill was most unconstitutional. The . advantage of trial by jury was that it forced the judge who presided over the court so to expound the law that it should be understood by the most ordinary minds, but one of his main objections to this Bill was that , it p'aced authority in the hands of parties who were incompetent to administ e r the law. The , magistracy of this country were perfectly incapable of a-iwiuistcring the.law in the cases contemplated by this Ile, - himself, had for 25 years, had the manage- Eent of the legal business at the petty sessions of the East and West Riding of Yorkshire, and the result of that experience induced him to believe that the country magistracy were totally incompetent to exer cise the power which this Bill would impose . upon them. Be therefore trusted the House would throw out this Bill, while he hoped to see the day when the Juvenile Offenders' Act would be repealed. They were going to entrust unconstitutional powers to the hands of two magistrates which they would not confide to the• judges of the land. They were now under taking the odious duties of convicting crimi nals without the intervention of a jury. If they passed such a Bill as the present they would give a death-blow to the unpaid magistracy of the country. Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to the course that had been adopted of arguing the principle of the Bill on the motion for its going into Committee. Ho was prepared to answer all the objections that had been made to the 1111, and would do so when the House was in Committee on it, but he deprecated again argu ing its principles. Mr. C. HOWARD would give his steady opposition to the Bill, believing its provisions to be inconsistent with the constitution of England. He objected to the summary powers of the Bill. The civil law of France allowed the kings of that country to ascend the throne at the; age of fourteen, while this Bill classed youths of sixteen as juveniles. Mr. AGLIONBY said he would state one single ground for supporting the Bill. It enabled a criminal to be tried and summarily decided instead of remaining in prison three months, as at present. He thought it a merciful Bill.—(Hear.) Mr. HENLEY said he wished to know whether the Bill was to be divided into two Bills. Sir G. GREY said that he would support that part of the Bill which related to juvenile offenders, and would abstain from expressing any opinion upon the other portion of it. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that when the House went . into Committee he would take the sense of the House as to whether the Bill should be divided into two parts, and he should be guided by the opinion of Committee. Mr. LAW said he did not know whether it was com petent for the Hon. Baronet to take that course. The House had already substantially affirmed the question that the Bill should be divided into two parts. If the course proposed were persisted in he should vote against the Bill altogether. The House then divided when there appeared— For going into Committee ... ... 183 . Againet it .. „, 76 Majority for going into Committee --57 The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Mr. LAW moved, pursuant to the instruction which had been given to the Committee by the House to divide it into two parts. He moved that the second part of the Bill relating to adults be left out. Sir J. PAKINGTON said he would be very glad to take the sense of the House on that question. Sir G. GREY said he thought that the Honourable Baronet was setting a bad example in going to a divi sion on this question alter the House, by a majority of 70, had already decided that the Bill should be divided. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that that result was ob tained by a motion of which no notice had been given. He felt the Bill as it stood of so much importance that he could not assent to the mutilation of the Bill. Mr. LAW said that he was very sorry that the Hon. Baronet had alluded again to want of notice. The course pursued had been adopted by the highest autho rity, and his Hon. Friend knew he had given notice of a motion to exclud adults altogether. He was not, there fore, taken by surprise in substance. Mr. AGLIONBY said he must press upon the Coni mittee the necessity of not dividing this Bill as proposed. 'she Committee then divided, when there appeared — For Mr. Law's motion 102 Against it 50 ••• ••• ••• Majority se , „.. —52 Mr.could AGLIONBY said that he considered nothing be more beneficial to the prisoner, whether inno cent or guilty, than that he s i summarily hould be tried, for if innoc en t, h e would be immediately discharged, in stead of being pent up in prison for some mon th s t o the deterioraticn of morals a and character, and if guilty it were far preferable that he should be tried as soon as possible. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he would wish to see a purpose of clause'introduced for the ofextending summary jurisdiction -to county courts, should say that, on the whole, the Bill appearedyteoarbsimof useless, age.e asonly apper taining to youths of 14 then animad verted on the system carried on at petty w here the press was generally excluded, an d wehaesrni.pro c °dings were carried on without the knowledge of the public. Mr. PACKE objected to the remarks of the Hon. anti Learned G entleman ( Mr. Ro ebuck), as far as y e : lased to the pub licit y g iven throu g h the press, for such wa s carried on as fr e e l y and a s openly as at the quarter sessions. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he could no t account for the Ifon. Gentlem an's (Mr. Roebuck's) sneering at him, for during the last sixteen years that he had b een chairman of the petty sessions, he neverkne d w rea a de ny d 'act on the part of his brother magistrates most open publicity, and hoped that bet.o Gentleman re he • would b ecome more conversant 11 a would m a k e suc h swee pi n g allegations again. He then specifying rtarl a n extract from the A ct o f Parliament, that two or more magistrates must meet in the ac customed coast. 11 0E , IttUCK said that two ma 7 ,16 • tra'es meeting at the accustomed court did. not qualify the publicity of their decisio ns through the press, and that was the principal. point of his objectioiti Sir GEORGE G Golitlemem were misßtaLkeYn a's"itsib d theere d that r cut e t entitled the Juve n il e Offenders Act. That Act gave s o o f in t e H A o c e jurisdiction to magistrates in petty sessions in CaSes Ot boys of 14 years of age; aid passed through the House a ui,a,rds with only une-amendment, moved by Lord IX onion. The real. question which they • bad now to deterin;aie was, as to what gas the proper juvenile trenc!ers. The al.-ea:Dent' of the lion. and Learned Gentleman oppeiite was that 14 was the age to which they should , centine their legislation on this question, and, on the other hand, it was deemed advisable to ex trnd the junadiotrion from the age of 14 to 16 years, and that was the agkl in which governors of prisons classed juvenile" offididers from adult offenders. And the distinction war' analogous to the new poor law, which treated the ease of relia given to a child as relief to the parent. Pubetty or manhood was taken to commence at " seventeen" years of age. The Bill had now been in operation two yev.rs and a half, and not one complaint had been made - to him by the juvenile offenders with which it dealt—although complaints were frequent to him from adults—not one complaint had been made to him by the juvenile offenders who came within the juris- TILE SUN, Bill, would do more to deter from crime than they now did by an elaborate criminal discipline. Mr. BRIGHT agreed in all the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield had said as to the degrading effect of whipping, but he objected to the Bili on another ground. The Hon. Baronet proposed that the punish ment should be inflicted by two magistrates—(Laughter) —by the sentence, and at the order of two magistrates. Now let them consider what magistrates generally were, and the class from whom they were selected. They were usually selected because they were the most wealthy men in the neighbourhood, and thorough-going political par tisans. They were not selected for their legal attain ments. Let them take a rural neighbourhood, and sup pose a lad of fifteen or sixteen, brought before magis trates having such a power, being told by the police men that he was a bad lad, and known to go after hares —(Hear, hear)—what would be the consequence? They might all guess. For the sake of the magistrates themselves be would refuse them such a power, and he thought their friends were very unwise in asking it. Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. and Learned Gentle. man (Mr. R. Palmer) supported the punishment because it was cheap and did not inflict lasting degradation. Well, he would show him a sharper and more powerful punishment—torture.—(Oh.) What was whipping but torture? As to publicity, the Hon. Member said he did not insist on that.; but if so, that would take away the only value of the punishment—its deterring influence. Well, but take the thumbscrew, that was far more painful than whipping, and it was as cheap. Cheapness! How easy and cheap it was to inflict pain! But the question of cheapness ought not to enter into the consideration of the matter, the least possible punishment consistent with the prevention of crime was what they should aim at. If he could prevent the commission of a murder by a fine of a farthing, that was the utmost extent he was justified in going. Vindictiveness, and the desire of in flicting pain, ought not to weigh with the Legislature; the great object ought to be to inflict the least possible permanent degradation, and he could conceive of no pu nishment more degrading than this. Colonel THOMPSON said there was no serious in tention of applying this punishment to the children of the rich. Yet Eton boys stole geese.—(Laughter.) He knew it?—(Renewed laughter)—and he knew them to have boasted of doing so. He believed that the public of this country were opposed to the idea that the whipping was a proper mode of correcting a lad of thirteen and fourteen, which appeared to be the basis of the whole system. He saw another danger, which was this, that the effect made upon society by the appearance of an in dividual lacerated by the cuts of the executioner would be decidedly bad. If they legislated in that spirit, let the • responsibility of it rest with those who advocated so re volting a course of policy.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, one of the greatest orators of the House, and its greatest actor — (A laugh)—had told them, with great feeling, that the sufferings of a boy of fourteen and those of sixteen were hardly to be measured. Why, the punishment of the whip was familiar to every school-boy —and many a gallant Eton boy had been subjected "to it, as, indeed, he might look around this House, and ask who had not?—(Laughter.) The question here was not whether . they liked the punishment. No one liked .punishment; but punishment being occasionally necessary, and a crime having been committed, the question was, what was best to be done? The arguments of some Hon. Members would appear to suggest the question whether there was to be an end of all punish ment. He was more for prevention than repression; but punishment he thought necessary to promote either alternative. Mr. PA CKE observed, that the objection of the Hon. Member for Manchester, that it was wrong to dispense with the intervention of a jury, was not an objection which it was very essential to the purpose of the present debate to consider. The punishment would tako place pursuant to the determination of two magistrates exercisieg summary jurisdiction, and if they were men of intelligence, as magistrates generally were, the re sult would not be materially different from that which would have been obtained through the instrumentality of a jury. Mr. HUME observed, that though the Right Hon. Baronet below him, the Member for the University of Oxford, bad represented the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield as being an actor, he (Mr. Hume) knew no man in that House who better acted his part than did the Right Hon. Baronet himself.—(Laughter.) The Learned Member for Sheffield might perhaps attain a still greater proficiency in the art if he had the discre- tion to disguise his real feelings.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) His Hon. Friend had made an appeal to the House which be was sorry to find Was not attended to. The Hon. Member for Plymouth stated that he was prepared to sanction the system of flogging, as proposed, for the class of society to whom it would be applicable were destitute of proper feeling. That was the argu ment upon which the system of military flogging was maintatned, and it was thus that the House had ap proved of 500, 600, and 1,000 lashes. On the ground that they were insensible to punishment, it was settled that flogging was the only mode of governing British subjects. The House had since then become better in formed as to the brutality of this punishment, and the degrading influence which it exerted on the men. Were they about now, as the only means of correcting juvenile offenders, to apply this obnoxious system?—(Hear, bear.) Did it not occur to the House that, instead of degrading men by flogging them, by educational measures they might be turned into better paths? It appeared to him that they were going on a wrong principle. An objection which ought to prove fatal to the plan was this, that within 24 hours of a boy's being flogged, be might turn out to be inno cent. What reparation could be then made to him. He was branded for life.—(Cries of " Question.") Hon. Members cried " Question," and it was very little to their credit that they did so. Ile entreated them not to adopt this system too hastily. Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed himself as being opposed to the system of flogging being carried into effect against criminals exceeding fourteen years of age. Mr. HEADLAND said he could not agree in either of the arguments which had been urged against this measure—either that the punishment of flogging, if good up to fourteen, was bad up to sixteen, or, as was con tended by the Hon. Member for Manchester, that though the punishment in itself was not objectionable, the tri bunal by which it was to be inflicted was highly so. He thought that if the proposed system was fairly contrasted with that which now existed it would be found to lead greatly towards good behaviour. Mr. MUNTZ said he bad a disposition to support the Hon. Baronet's Bill if he could, in order to prevent the contamination of youth which at present frequently at tained, but he was never able to screw up his courage to do it.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He himself had often ' witnessed that many magistrates bad not a great know ledge of law, and some of them not a great knowledge of justice. To such men it might be dangerous to entrust too large a power. He could easily conceive why a pu nishment suited to 14 might be bad at 16. At 14 they were boys, but at 16 he felt very much like a man— (Loud laughter)—and thought the Right Hon. Baronet near him had asked which cf them had not, in his younger days, been subjected to punishment; be could say that he, at h ast, had escaped, and that it would have been a clever fellow who would have laid his hand upon him at 16.--(Hear.) The effect of the flogging system was to inflict a degradation which was never forgotten, and once imposed, rightlyor wrongly,no reparation could ever be made. Mr. HENLEY said that this Bill intended to decide summarily a class of offences which would otherwise go to another tribunal for adjudication; and that being so he should give his vote against the extension of the punish ment to the age of 16; because the correction of a boy at 14 might be by the rod only, but at 16 the constable might take it into his head to use the cat. The cat would mark the individual, and prevent him from entering the arAttmy. er a few words from Mr. SLANEY, also against the extension of the punishment to the age of 16, Sir R. PEEL would state in two sentences the ground upon which he would give his vote. At present be found that the law established a distinction between the boy who had not attained 14 and the boy who had not ex ceeded 16. In the case of the former the law treated him as a boy, and subjected him to immediate punish ment under the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates. In the case of the boy above 14 he was not certainly ex empted from the liability of corporal punishment, but it was required that be' should be convicted before the or dinary tribunals. It was now proposed to confound these distinctions, and to permit the boy between 14 and 16 to be subject to corporal punishment at the discretion of two magi s t rates . B e f ore suc h an a l terat i on was made, which h e appre h ended was at var i ance w i th t h e principles of o ur present code, he thought that a very strong case of necessity should he made out. He bad heard no such case.—(flear, hear.) As the Bill will Stand the boy between 14 and 16 would still be subject m u s r h t o h u e l r dbe proposed, infliced, not to the summary juri s di c ti on o f two mag i strates; b ut i t was ent f b o u n t ly th t a h t at th n e o y c s o h rp ou or ld alpun h consider him no longer as a c hild, an d t h erefore t h at he shall be exempted from corporal punishment at the will of two magistrates. He thought that that would be a much better state of the law than if they consented to the extension of the punishment without any allegations of absolute necessity. He apprehended there was a growing conviction that corporal punish ment should not be inflicted, except in very grave cases. They found that although an adult might be subject to corporal punishment, yet the principle upon which the judges acted was to select some other mode of punishing them, rather than this degrading one.—(Hear, hear.) But he would say, if Parliament, without any allegations of necessity, widened the discretion of magistrates in respect to corporal punishment, it would then be holding out encouragement to discontinue that milder practice which had made such progress in our criminal tribunals, rather than giving discouragement to the substitution of corporal punishment. He held that the practice of public schools was no analogy, for these kind of offences by the present Bill would not only be visited by pu nishment but by degradation.—(flear, hear.) In hie opinion this measure would be no improvement in the law. Thero would be no practical distinction possibly, but it was important nevertheless to show that the House of Commons was not prepared, without proof' of absolute necessity, to recommend a departure from that course which has hitherto been pursued in 'respect to juvenile offenders.—(Hear, hear.) The Committee then divided, when there appeared — For the amendment l7O Against it B9 Majority against the original clause —Bl Before our re-admission into the gallery we under stood that Mr. BOUVERIE had moved that the Chair- - . man reprort progress. Mr. ROEBUCK asked the Hon. Baronet whether he intended to persevere with his Bill after the Comissittee had thus declared its opinion respecting ? it Sir J. PAKINGT ON said the main object of the Bill was to save youth from the contamination of a gaol. He regretted to say he did not think that the house ha& c9melo_B merciful decibiga upon tiae,quel tion. Reduced, however, as the powers of the Bill were, he would still persevere with it, n 9 juvenile offenders would, if passed into a law, ha saved from the conta mincion of a gaol before they ware declared to be guilty. • Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Her. Baronet did not seem to understand his own Bill, for r.e could only punish these offenders by first imprisoning them. Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the Hon. Baronet would persevere with the Bill ; for it would, in a great measure, save these juvenile offenders from the contamination of gaols before their trial. After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE, Sir R. PEEL remarked that the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford, and others well acquainied with magisterial duties, were adverse to tbisVart of the Bill. A desultory conversation as to whether another divi sion should be taken ensued. The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. The last clause was struck out. Mr. LAWLESS moved that the Bill should not be extended to Ireland. Lord NAAS thought the Bill was particularly appli cable to Ireland. Mr. NAPIER was opposed to the Bill as it was; but if applied to England it ought to be applied to Ireland. Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to the amendment. Mr. LAWLESS said he would bring up his clause on the report. The Bill was then reported to the House. TENANTS AT RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL. The House went into Committee on this Bill. The clauses were agreed to, and the Bill was reported to the House. MARRIAGES BILL. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in fa vour of the Bill. Mr. F. MAULE presented several petitions against the Bill, two of them were signed by 4,800 persons and 1,410 persons. Mr. F. THESIGER appealod to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman not to go on with this Bill, which was a Bill of vast importance. He had been there from an early hour watching it.—(Hear, hear.) He really thought the House would not be justified in going on with the Bill at that late hour. Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped the House would not con sent to a postponement. lie considered that all the ob jections to the Bill were already known, and therefore it was not likely anything novel would be brought forward that evening. He hoped, at least, the House would go into Committee. Sir F. THESIGER must move, as an amendment, that the debate be adjourned. Mr. HUME said the Bill had been before the House so long that he really thought no further delay ought to take place. He hoped the House would go into Commit tee on it. Mr. R. PALMER said that the Hon. Member for Montrose spoke as if no important questions , required to be discussed; but the contrary was the case, he himself having one important amendment to propose at the fit ting time. If the House were determined to proceed with the Bill he would remain, though he considered the Bill could not be discussed with advantage at that late hour. Mr. F. MAULE had also an amendment to pro pose—that Scotland be excluded from the operation of the Bill. Ho regretted the delay which had occur red in bringing on this Bill that evening 'owing to the length of the previous debates, but he was satisfied this was a question about which the people of Scotland were quite unanimous, and they would be much dissatisfied it the Bill were brought on at such a late hour. Mr. FORBES hoped tho Bill would not be pressed forward at that late hour. He, too, had an amendment, similar to the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule)— namely, that Ireland be exempted from its operation. Sir B. HALL hoped the Bill would be postponed for the present, as it was most important in its character. It was said the Bill was brought forward for the benefit of the humbler and poorer classes. He denied that this was the fact.—(llear, hear.) Locking at the expenses of the Bill and the way it was pushed forward, he be lieied the Bill was really intended to put persons in a higher grade is a more respetable position than they at the present time occupied.—(Hear, hear.) He would not mention names, but ho could name those who were to pay the expenses.—(Hear.) Mr. COCKBURN considered the House was in a sufficient state of attention and vigilance to enable them to go on with the Bill. It was too much to ask the Hon. Member who brought forward the 'Bill at that comparatively early hour of the evening —(Laughter)— to postpone the Bill. If Hon. Members opposite were in a condition to go to a division the House would hear nothing about delay.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the House was justified in going on with the Bill. Sir R. H. INGLIS could consent to no arrangement that would forward the Bill. He entirely concurred in the proposition for a postponement of the Bill. Mr. BOUVERIE could not see that anything would be gained - by pressing on the Bill. Mr. S. WORTLEY had been in the House a great many hours, and had not received any intimation of an opposition to the Speaker's leaving the chair. He trust the House would allow the Bill to go into Com mittee; if not, he must really divide the House. Sir G. GREY thought the proposition was reasonable to go on with the Bi►l. Sir F. THESIGER had no wish to oppose the Bill going on a stage, but if there was a disposition to discuss the Bill, then he thought a postponement ought to take place. Mr. GOULBURN had no objection to the House go ing into Committee, but he did object to the Bill being discussed. The House divided, when there appeared— Fur the amendment ... ... ... 89 For going into Committee ... 152 Majority for going into Committee —63 Captain BOLDER() then moved the adjournment of the Houle amidst loud cheers. Colonel RAWDON appealed to the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman whether persistence in a course like this was calculated to raise the House in the estimation of the country. Sir F. THESIGER understood his Hon. and Learned Friend's (Mr. S. Wortley) feeling to be this ; that as there were a great many Members who thought it was too late an hour to enter into a discussion upon the principle of the Bill, he was willing to obey that incli nation on the part of the House ; but he said, " Grant me this stage, and then, on a future day, we will go into Committee and discuss the ♦arious amendments." If that were understood to be the arrangement, there could be no reason whatever for the adjournment of the House. Mr. F. MACKENZIE—Either his Hon. and Learned Friend must gain something or nothing by the course n ow proposed. If he gained something, he (Mr. Mac kenzie) was not inclined to grant it to him ; and if he wou ld gain nothing, why persist further?—(Hear.) Mr. F. MAULE was as strongly opposed to the Bill as a ny . Hon. Member could be; at the same time it was only fair to put the Hoe. and Learned Gentleman in the same position in which he would have been had the Bill come on at an earlier period of the evening. He hoped his Hon. and Gallant Friend (Captain Boldero) would withdraw his motion for an adjournment of the House. Mr. PLUMPTRE—The more the Bill was discussed the more objectionable would it appear, and he was not, therefore, willing to neglect any opportunity for dis cussing Mr. WALPOLE thought it would be better to go into Committee and discuss the details, with the understand ing that the House should have a discussion upon the principle on the third reading of the Bill. He hoped Captiin Boldero would not divide tho House upon his motion for adjournment. • Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER joined Mr. Walpole in calling upon the lion, and Gallant Gentleman to with draw his motion. Sir R. INGLIS recommended that the proposition for going into Committee should be withdrawn. Already forty minutes of the time of the House had been wasted in this preliminary discussion, and yet not the least ad vance had been made. - Captain BOLDER() had come down with the deter mination of opposing the Bill in every possible way that the forms of the House would allow. He considered it to be one of the most obnoxious measures ever intro duced into Parliament. Ho declared upon his honour that he had a stronger feeling against this Bill, and greater pleasure in voting against it, than he had ever entertained with regard to any other measure.—(ob.) The House divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment of the House ... 52 Against it ... 147 Majority against the motion ... ... -95 Mr. FORBES then moved the adjournment of the debate. The House divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment .........48 ••• Against it •• • • • ••• 133 ••• Majority against the adjournment —B5 An HON. hinmen then moved the adjoarnment of the Rouse. After a short conversation, Mr. B. WORTLEY announced his determination not to press, at that moment, the motion fur the Committee on the Bill. The debate was then adjourned to Thursday, the IGth of May. The Parish Constables Bill passed through Com mittee. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock. ROUSE OF LyRDS, April 18. Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock. The Marquis of WESTMEATII gave notice of a mo tion on the subject of the consolidation of repayments of advances to Irish Union!, for Tuesday next, as he did not consider the information which he had received from the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne) on this subject satis factory. The Duke of ARGYLE asked if it was the intention of the Government to lay before the House the papers relating to the case of Mr. Ryland ? Earl GREY laid the papers on the table. The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice for Mon day of a motion relative to the importation of foreign Corn. diction of the Act. The summary object Of the Bill was to protect juvenile offenders from the contamination which must result from their being imprisoned with adult criminals. He was, therefore, for those reasons, pre pared to support the Bill of the Hor, Member. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, thought that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, before he came down to make those attacks on magistrates, should have taken up his own law on " footpaths." Mr. LAW (the Recorder of London) thought that stopping the business of the House in this manner, was more serious than the considerations about footpaths to which the Hon. Baronet was referring, and he should, therefore, move, " that the Chairman leave the chair and report progress." Sir JOHN PAKINGTON would only say in addi tion, with respect to the extension of the Act to sixteen years, he considered it a very valuable extension. Mr. LAW said the Right Honourable Baronet argued, that the age of 14 years was regarded, in the classifica tion of crime, as the age supposed to be incapable of committing rape; but although it might not be deemed capable of committing a rape in his own person, he might be chargeable with assisting another in the com mission of crime . Mr. HUME was not disposed to blame any of those parties who carried on the institutions of the country, because to whoever undertook those duties he would give the credit of meaning rightly. But he had often regretted the situation in which the magistrates of petty sessions were placed with regard to the administration of justice. There ought to be no petty sessions without a chairman brought up to the law, and appointed for that purpose. The expense was nothing compared with the importance of the considerations and interests to be determined upon in relation to the due administration of justice. He found that in Worcestershire the petty sessions were often held in places where many of the magistrates had objection to attend. :He considered that they ought to be held in places more appropriate than back pralours, or clerks' offices, or union workhouses. He was rather surprised to hear the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department say that he had not received any complaints from juvenile offenders of the operation of this Bill. Why, who had ever heard of complaints to a Secretary of State from boys of the age of fourteen?—(Hear, bear.) He should, as far as his humble . vote would go, object to the extension of the ju risdiction on this question from fourteen to sixteen years. Mr. BECKETT DENISON—The Hon. Baronet (Sir John rakington) said that this Bill would bring under the jurisdiction of the magistrates at patty sessions an increased number of offenders. Now that was tbe great objection which he (Mr. B. Denison) bad to the Bill. Every person knew that the class of offenders from fourteen to sixteen years of age, formed a very considerable portion of the " rising rogues" of the coun try; and he did not think that such cases ought to be carried to petty sessions. He thought it his duty the other day in quarter sessions, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, to bring this Bill under consideration of the magistrates, without expressing any opinion of his own upon it. He thus gave them the opportunity to express their opinions upon it then or since, but he had not heard one word from them on the subject. He had strong rea sons for believing that if the bill were extended to 16 years it would be.attended with bad effects, and there fore he had strong objections that the age should be ex tended. Out of about 120,000 or 130,000 prisoners tried in the course of the year, 85,000 were dealt with by sum mary jurisdiction; and he found that of those 10,000 were not included in the 80,000, who were confined from 14 days to 3 months, and who would come under the jurisdiction of this Bill. He should also object to the extension of the Bill, because he did not think it had yet had sufficient trial. Mr. LAW, to shorten the discussion, should repeat his motion " that the Chairman do now leave the chair." Mr. M. MILNES considered this subject of great im portance. Ile would refer the Committee to the wisdom of the French code, which considered that boys at 16 years of age ought to be dealt with under special con siderations. It was of importance that they should con sider the question with regard to the time at which the boy becomes a man; and it was also of the utmost im portance to try to rescue him from the association with criminals. _ _ Mr. ROEBUCK would ask the Committee to address itself to the question. This Bill would enable magis trates to inflict a most disgraceful and degrading punish • went on a boy who was already a man. He asked them if they mere prepared to give the magistrates sitting, as the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had de clared, in inappropriate places, without the aid of a jury or the benefit of judicial guidance, power to de grade a maa in time to come by exposing him in the common market place to be whipped? He held that no man had a right to strike even his own child, and if he had a child he should not dare to strike him. If they dared to whip a man at six teen years of age—[An Honourable Member—He is not a man.]—Tbe Honourable Member says he is not a man. lie (Mr. Roebuck) held that they had no right to whip a person at that age, and that in doing so they would for ever degrade him as a man.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that those who valued the adminis tration of justice in this country would support the proposition of the Honourable Member the Recorder of London, a judge who had more extensive knowledge of criminals than any other man in this country. He (Mr. Roebuck) appealed, then, to the Committee , and hoped they would not permit the proposed extension of age. After a few observations from Mr. G. H. VIVIAN, as to the heavy expense which this prosecution of offenders entailed on the Consolidated Fund—an expense which he, in one case, knew to exceed 1001., Mr. LAWLESS ga►e notice that he should, at the proper time, move two amendments—the one, that the jurisdiction be not extended to 16 years—the other, that the Bill be not extended to Ireland. He should do all in his power to prevent corporal punishment in cases above the age of 14 years.—(Hear.) After a few words from Lord BERNARD, stating that in some cases accused parties were taken fifty miles to the county gaol, and back to the quarter sessions, Colonel THOMPSON said it appeared to him that the " knotty " (knonty) point before the Committee was, as to the age at which posterity:should be whipped. —(Great laughter, caused by the Honourable and Gallant Member's "punning" propeniity.) Now he was not for whipping them at all, and by that principle he would endeavour to regulate his vote. The Committee then divided on Mr. Law's motion, that the Chairman leave the chair, when there ap peared— For the motion ... 61 Against it ... 70 Majority against... —9 Mr. ROEBUCK moved an amendment, the effect of which would be to restrict the operation of the Bill, so far as personal chastisement was concerned, to persons of 14 instead of 16 years of age. After a few words from Mr. AOLIONBY and Mr. RUNE, Mr. M'CULLOGU again declared his opposition to the Bill, believing it to be a measure which would spread discontent among the labouring classes. Mr. DRUMMOND declared his intention of voting for the amendment, but he maintained that the Juvenile Offenders Act had not been, as Mr. M`Cullogh insinu ated, unsuccessful. Mr. P. HOWARD would give his determined opposi tian to the Bill. He objected altogether to giving in creased power to the county courts, unless guarded by the check of a jury. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment ... • 78 Against it ... • 84 Majority... ... —6 Sir G. STRICKLAND oppos e d the Bill because it was most unconstitutional. The great objection to it, how ever, was, that it gave the power of inflicting unlimited torture to any two magistrates. The infliction of such a punishment brutalised both these who were subjected to it, and those who ordered it. We ought now to rely on moral, not physical means. He, therefore, would move a proviso to the clause, that nothing in the Act should authorise the magistrates to inflict the punishment of whipping upon any offender whose age shall exceed 14 years. Sir J. PAKINGTON defended the infliction of whip ping. The children of the rich were whipped in our public schools, and their after lives did not prove the punishment had such a degrading effect as was attri buted to it. ' Mr. ROEBUCK hoped t he House would su pp ort the amendment. Because a boy w as at 14'at 16 he was a child a man. The punishment to a be suffered; the punishment to a many was . the Mere pain he was se th r e io d u e s gr d a i d ff a e t re io i n c t e o which he was subjected, a grave and . The Hon. Member talked of boys b e i ng w hipped at school, but the schoolboy, they all knew,gloriseudffienrisnhgo.w-- ing himself superior to merely physical (Hear, hear.) Strike a man with a glove the on indignity be there was no physical pain, but would nct be felt? Were they really reduced so low . that they could not govern their men without ,the w h ip ? Hon. Gentleman said whipping was the spirit of the English law, and that at one time even women were whipped in the market. If they were not to get out of that spirit, God help them. They had got out of it in the case of women:' ho hoped to see the day when they would get out of it with boys also. " The hoy was the father of the min." Why was the boy, therefore, to be degraded? He should have liked to see the man who would have laid a hand upon him when be was a boy.— (A_ laugh.) He knew what he would have done.—(A laugh.) But he would ask if they were to treat the chil dren of the poor in this way? Why not rather endea vour to raise them up, instead of degrading them? But, gently; were there no sons of the rich who committed petty larceny at 1G years of age? He protested against the punishment as a brutal and degrading one. Mr. LAW approied of the limitation as a guide to the magistrates in the infliction of an irritating and painful punishment. Mr. AGLIONBY protested against the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield saying that the House was legislating for the degradation of the poor. They were not legislating for the poor, but for the criminal.— (Hear.) The law would apply alike to both rich and poor criminals , and, therefore, ou his own part, an d th e part of the House .he protested against the charg e m a d e M by the Hon. PALMER agreed with the Hon. Member who had jus and was convinced that the cours e R. a P t A d L o w hi n, Theyni ost merciful that could be adopted.— must not act upon sentimentality— (Hear, propos ed hear.) r. ) w as the and degradation was not the m e,—(llear, hear.) The great e p ( H u n e i a s r h ) m — e t n h t e , b t r u u t e the stigm a n object they should have in v iew d, to inflict a punish ment which should be feare, w hich would be cheap to the State, and which, though painful in its immediate effects, would leave no permanent . The p un i s h men t o f w hipping com bined all these ad vantages; whereas, by being sent o herd with older criminals, the worst of all degradation was thru st upo n a boy. Fiv e m i nu t es ' personal pain, bi the proposed LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL l9, MO. the proposed measure did not give the Admiralty that power. He did not approve of the exist►ng law; he thought the remuneration given was e.iztravag,ant and un equal. He had seen with the greatest pain accounts of the destruction of ships and boat t, without the loss on our part of a single men. He thought that the rne,sures adopt -d in China might have been necessary, but he did not consider the recent military executions on the coast 01136n:co could ;3e classed in the same category. Ile did not believe that Parliament had intended to pay Leid-money in such cases as those which had occurred on the coast of Borneo.—(Hear, hear.) The most dangerous actions with pirates were those cases in which the pirates, were not in ships and boats, but hail entrenched themselves on shore ; 3 et, under this Bill, no cognizance could be taken cf actions against pirates on shore. In most cases of actions against pi rates in the East India seas the ships of the East India Company were engaged, and no provision was made for the remuneration cf their crews. He thought they ought to be placed, in this respect, on the same footing with officers and seamen in the navy. He had the greatest respect for the House of Commons, but he thought such a numerous assembly was not the best tribunal to adjudicate upon the sum to be paid for the destruction of pirates, and yet, under the present Bill, they were called upon so to adjudicate, because the Admiral l / 2 , was to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum to be paid, and he was to move a vote for that amount in the House of Commons. He thought that the remuneration to be paid should be left to the decisio❑ of the Crown. He should in Committee move certain amendments in the clauses, and he should likewise propose an additional clause placing the officers and crews of ships of the East India Company on the same footing as the officers and crews of the navy. The Earl of ELLESMERE believed that hereafter Sir James Brooke would be ranked among the heroes of civilization—(Hear, hear)—and ho regretted that the Noble Earl should hive attempted to draw a distinction between his achievements in the suppression of piracy in Borneo, and the achievements of those who had de stroyed the pirates which infested the seas of China.— (Cheers.) Were we to risk the lives of fellow-country men in the seas of Borneo by neglecting to use those means which Providence had placed in our hands for protecting them from pirates? If we were, it would be better at once to give up all attempts at colonization or civilization in com merce. He could not hear anything like an attack upon the character of Sir James Brooke without start ing up in his defence, although he had no personal ac quaintance with him. The Earl of . ELLENBOROUGH explained that he considered the attack upon the Dyaks of . Borneo was more within the category of national war than of an etteck upon pirates. He had endeavoured to prevent when in office the taking possession of Labuan, and he believed that he was right. He believed it would be useless to this country, but not to Sir James Brooke and others, who were speculating. in Borneo.—(lronical cheers.) ie had read with great alarm the proposition of Sir James Brooke to establish forts in Borneo, and he warned the Government against taking possession of any part of Borneo. We had already colonies enough, and ho felt that the occupation of any part of Borneo would lead from war to war and conquest to conquest. Earl GREY held in his hand papers received yester day from Singapore which proved th e pirati ca l c h a racter of the expedition which Sir James Brooke destroyed. One of the witnesses whose evidence was contained in these papers had been plundered by these very pirates, and had had his ship burnt. This was ono case, but there were several cases in which persons had been attacked by these pirates not only for their property, but for their ht eels. They were attacked and plundered by this very fleet which Sir James Brooke bad destroyed. The merchants of Singapore had presented to him an address, stating that the operations of these pirates had been destructive of commerce. Five years ago commerce could not be carried on in unarmed ships, but in consequence of the operations of Sir James Brooke unarmed ships could carry on their commerce uninterrupted.—(hear, bear.) To this pi ratical tribe every warning had been given, and it was not until they had refused all their warnings that they had been attacked. The Noble Earl had said we had not lost a man. Would he have been la tier pleased if we had lost several of our brave sailors and soldiers?— (Hear, hear.) Did he mean to contend that because their men were armed with bows and arrows we were not to use 32-pounders. With regard to Labuan, it could not. be considered as an ordinary colony; it was occupied for the same purposes, and, in the same manner as Singapore. So far from the colony laing a com plete failure, as the Noble Earl had said, the marshes had been drained; within the last year there had be en no fever at all, and, aceording to the reports of the surgeons, the colony was as healthy as Singapore, and, within the last few months, there had been no death in Labuan, and only two persons on the sick list. It was only occupied for commercial purposes, in the same way as Singapore. At the period when we had first occupied Singapore, an ob jection of precisely the same character as that advanced by the Noble Earl in the present instance had been made to the policy of that measure, and precisely the same prophecy had been put forward as to the inevitable failure of the settlement. But could any one deny at present that the formation of that settlement had been of great advantage to British commerce. in the East, and had contributed very much to the spread of the seeds of civilization in that quarter of the world? Labuan was a settlement of the same description. It was intended that it should afford a depot for our commerce, and yield a valuable supply of coals for our steam-vessels. The 'Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen as we under stood) had expressed a strong opinion in favour of the policy of occupying that settlement, and he (Earl Grey) had entirely agreed with him upon tho subject. The Noble Earl, however, said that the settlement had proved to bo a complete failure. Now it so happened that he (Earl Grey) had on the preceding day received a report from Sir J. Brooke as to the progress of the settlement. It was undoubtedly true that the settlers had in the first instance great difficulties to contend with. He believed that in almost every case in which a settlement had been made on land which bud been in a state of na ture, disease had broken out among the settlers. Labuan had been no exception to that rule. There had been a marsh in the immediate vicinity of the town, and in con sequence of that circumstance a good deal of sickness had prevailed among the settlers iu the autumn of 1848. But that marsh had since been drained, and last year there had been no fever at all in the settlement. He had received a report from a medical gentleman in the island, stating that it was at present as healthy as Singapore, or any other of our possessions. Then, again, he found that in the year 1848 there had been a great deal of sickness among the garrison at Labuan, which had con sisted of a detachment of only 48 men from a Madras regiment; but that the detachment having been lately relieved after having been several months in the island, it appeared that there had not been a single death among them, and that there had been only two men on the sick list. The Noble Earl had said that the settlement was making no progress. Now, in reply to that statement, he (Earl Grey) should observe that it had never been expected that any great num ber of Europeans would establish themselves in such a place, although it had been expected that merchants from China and other parts of the East would settle down there. Let it be remembered that in those barbarous countries it was impossible that trade could be carried on unless there was some place where large quantities of goods could be deposited. In consequence of the amount of disease which had pre. railed in Labuan in the year 1848, traders had at first been unwilling to settle down there; but as there had been no such amount of disease last year, that unwilling ness had been remov e d ; an d h e h a d just rece i ve d a com munication from Sir J. Brooke, dated the 2d of February last, stating that many traders had fled to the island on account of the security which it offered, and that they were busily engaged there in building houses for them selves. Then, the Noble Earl had stated that no coal company had yet been established in Labuan; but he (Earl Grey) believed that that was owing to the general disturbance in all commerce which had taken place in the year 1848. A beginning had, however, already been made towards the establishment of a coal company in the island. Ho found that there had been actually furnished there to her Majesty's navy very nearly 2,000 tons of coals, which the engineers in her Majesty's service had reported to be of a very excellent description. And what had been the price of these coals? It had at first been arranged that they were to be sold at the rate of Its. per ton at the pit's mouth. But as there would have been considerable expense and inconvenience in re moving them from that to the coast, the contract had been altered, and it had been arranged that they were to be brought to the ships at the rate of 20s. per ton, while the parties selling them would be liable to a pay ment, in the shape of duty, of 2s. 6d. per ton; so that the real cost of each ton to the public would only be 17s. 6d. Now the contract price of coals at Singapore was 335. 6d. per ton, and there would therefore be a considerable saving effected by the very first purchase of coals at Labuan. He saw it stated in the newspapers that an additional coal field had recently been discovered in the island in a much more favourable position for shipment on bard our vessels than any that had yet been known, and that would no doubt tend further to diminish the price of the article. Before he sat down he could not help referring—and referring with great regret — to one observation which had been made by the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl had said that that settlement could sot be of any advantage to the country, whatever it might be to Sir J. Brooke and other speculators. Now he (Earl Grey) confessed that he had not expected a re mark of that kind in that House.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Noble Friend, the Noble Earl on the cross . beuches (the Earl of Ellesmere) upon that point, and he admiral the character of Sir J. Brooke more than that of almost any man he could mention. His self-de votion, his entire disinterestedness, his refusal to accept fang advantage whatever for himself—(Hear, hear) — the fact that he had been governed only by the highest motives of charity and of Christianity, were, in his opi nion, matters beyond all doubt. lle had himself, that very day, seen a letter written by Sir J. Brooke so long ego as the year 1846, in reply to a request of certain• persons that he should join them iu a speculation by which ho might become one of the richest commoners in England; and in that reply Sir J. Brooke stated that he saw no objections to other parties entering upon such speculations, but that for his part he was fully determined in keeping himself' aloof from them, lest he might endanger the success of the higher objects he had in view. That was the answer of Sir J. Brooke to that application, and he (Earl Grey) thought it Ras also an answer to the charge that bud just been advanced by the Noble Earl..—(Hear, bear.) He believed he was justified in stating that so far from having made a profit by what he had done, Sir J. Brooke had very largely sacrificed his fortune as well as his time in endeavouring to carry out his benevolent objects. And more than that—he grieved to say that from the accounts he had received on the preceding day he greatly feared that Sir J, Broke had; by his PIRATES lIEAD-MONEY BILL. Tho LANSDOWNE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, entered into u short explana tion of its provisions. Lord COLCHESTER considered that the payment of head•money for the capture of pirates had tended to the security of commerce, and to the preservation of human life, particularly in the West Indies. He wished NO know particularly what wei c the provisions of the present Bill with regard to head-money? The answer of the Noble Marquis was inaudible in the gallery. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, that with re gard to the money to be paid for pirates recently cap tured the money had been already paid. He thought the Admiralty ought to have the power of adjudicating oa the subject of head-money; and ho complained that labours, very seriously endangered his most valuable life. It was difficult for him to describe the grief with which he lisd received information to the effect that the state of Sir J. Brooke's health was such that his medical advisers had enjoined on him, and es a matter of aleieltite necessity for the salvation of his life, that he should immediately retire to Penang, while they heel sidded that if that did not produce an immediate improvenwnt in his condition he should re turn to England. The fact was that Sir J. Brooke had never quite recovered from the fever he had taken at Labuan in the year 18.18; and his recent exertions against the band of pirates had further impaired his health in a manner which seriously endangered his life. In con clusion, be (Earl Grey) should observe that he could not but feel great pain a: finding that at the very time when that most generous and public-spirited man was risking his life and fortune fir objects of the greatest benefit to humanity, he was accused in that House of being a mere selfish sp!culator, who only sought to pro- Mote his own interest, at a very heavy expense to the country at large.— (Llear, hear.) The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that ell that he had stated with regard to Labuan, he had stated on the authority of a blue book which had been presented to the House a few weeks ago by the Noble Earl himself. With respect to the coal of that island, he should remind the Noble Earl that there vi as a great difference in the prices of different qualities of coals, and that coals which cost 335. a ton might be cheaper than coals which cost only 20s. It was his impression after having found it necessary to inquire into the subject, that for the pur pose of steam navigation the coal of the East, as far as it had hitherto been discovered, was so inferior in strength to the coal - of England, that it was, in fact, practically dearer, although sold at a much lower price. lie had, further, been led to the conclusion that there was very great danger in supplying the coal of the East for steam navigation, because it was peculiarly subject to spontaneous combustion. He remembered having once asked a commander en board a steamer what coal he used, and on being told that it was the coal of Calcutta, he had told him to take carp, for he would be on fire before he came back, and that commander had told him on his re turn that those words had been realised, for the vessel had actually taken fire by the spontaneous ignition of the coals. It was well known that during the war in China 500 tons of coals had been lost by spontaneous combustion at Hong-Kong. He was , convinced that it would be cheaper to export, on account of the Govern ment, coals from Wales to the East, than to purchase the coal of the country. The Noble Earl had compared Labuan to Singapore; but it should be remembered that Singapore was on the high road to China, while Labuan did not possess a similar advantage, and could not pos sibly be expected under any circumstances at present in existence to enjoy an equal amount of prosperity. He had not intended to eater into any matter connected with Sir J. Brooke beyond what he should find absolutely neces• sary in treating of the particular measure before the House. He could candidly say of that gentleman that be thought him a gallant romantic Englishman; but he be lieved that in his romance there was danger. Sir J. Brooke appeared to entertain the idea that by using his .own influence, and the influence of this country, in the East, he would perform great services to humanity. ,But his (the Earl of Ellenborough's) opinion was, that in that attempt he would fail, and would do great injury to humanity. He was convinced, that however benevo lent might be the motives of Sir J. Brooke, that gentle man was so blindly devoted to his own ideas that it was to be feared his efforts would be productive of much mis chief: He should say more, and express his belief, that when the naval force of this country was brought to Labuan, it would be used by Sir J. Brooke for carrying out his own purposes, whether those purposes were good or not. Notwithstanding that gentleman's most perfect purity cf intention, he (the Earl of Ellenborough) could not help thinking that his efforts would be productive, not of good, but of great injury to humanity, and to the interests of this country. Earl GREY said that her Majesty's engineers had, after actual trial, reported the coal of Labuan to be of a very good description. After a few words from Earl WALDEGRAVE, The Bill was read a second time. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in fixing Thursday next for the Committee on this Bill, observed that there had only been 500 of those pirates killed in the attack, and not 1,000, as stated by the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough.) The Earl of ELCENIBOROUGH—But there had been 500 more killed in the jungle. He wished to take that opportunity of asking whether the Admiralty had ex pressed any opinion with respect to that attack? The Earl of MINTO said, that the Admiralty had merely expressed their sense of the services of the men engaged in the attack. It was not their practice to ex press any opinion with respect to the policy of such pro ceedings. _ _ The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Thurs• day next; and the House adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. NEWMARKET CRAVEN MEETING. BETTING ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT. The betting on the Chester Cup and Derby on the course was marked by two or three important fluctuations. For the Cup Essedarius was in great force throughout the day, the last odds taken being 14 to 1. 14 to 1 was offered apt Miss Ann, 1,000 to 60 agst Cossack, and 20 to 1 agst Chautrey. Ghillie Callum went back to 9to 1 iu the morning, but came again at night, and was backed at 7 to 1, the takers offering to go on; 6 to 1 was laid against Bolingbroke, and 8 to 1 (taken freely) against Mayors; offers to take 8 to 1 about Clincher, and 1,000 to 60 about Voltigeur. The general prices at the close stood as follows: TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES. 3 to 1 agst Ilardinge 7 to 4 agst Piniford 5 to 2 agst Beehunter DERBY. 6to 1 agst Bolingbroke 20 to 1 agst Mildew 6 to 1 agst Ghillie Callum 20 to 1 agst Pitsford 7 to 1 agtt Clincher 25 to 1 agst Knt. of Averse: 8 to 1 agst Mayors (t) 30 to 1 agst Penang 15 to 1 agst The Nigger 33 to 1 agst Nutshell 15 1 agst Voltigeur 50 to 1 agst Deicoon 18 to 1 agst The Italian 1,000 to 10 agst Cariboo THURSDAY'S RACES. Handicap Sweepstakes of 20 sm. each, and only 5 ft if declared, to go to the second horse; for four years old and upwards. A.F. (7 Subs., four of whom pay 5 ft.) Mr. W. Stebbirtg's Westow, 4 yrs, Bst 121 b (Rogers) 1 Mr. Wigram's lieraun, 5 yrs, Bst 51b ...(W Boyce) 2 Betting-2 to lon Westow, who won in a canter by four lengths. Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, for three yrs old colts Bst 71b, fillies Bst 21b. Horses which have started twice before the ume of closing this stake allowed 41b, thrice or more 61b. D.M. (3 Subs.) Duke of Richmond's Hamm Scarum, 7st 101h(Flatman) 1 Lord Clifden's Warner, Bst 71b (Pearl) 2 Betting-3 to lon Harum Scarum, who made the greater part of the running, and won by a length. Match, 100, h ft. First half of Ab. M. Lord Clifden's 13cauforr, 2 yrs, 6st 131b...(G. Brown) 1 Duke of Bedford's Mahristta, 4 yrs, 9st 6th (F. Butler) 2 Betting-5 to 2on Beaufort. Won essy by a length . Run in 51 sec. Subscription Plate of 601., for three yrs old bat 121 b, four Bst 71b, five 9at, six and aged 9st 31b. The winner to be sold for 300 soya. if demanded, &c. D.M. Mr. Batson's Beauclerc, 5 yrs .(Sly) 1 Duke of Bedford's Sobraon, 4 yr 5........ (F. Butler) 2 Mr. Freeman's Impression, 3 yrs Lord Clifden's Le Beau, 3 yrs (G. Brown) 0 Baron de Veauce's Philosopher, 6 yrs (P. Price) 0 Mr. Barne's Tufthunter, 6 yrs (Pearl) 0 Mr. Daley's Cayenne, 4 yrs (Rogers) 0 Mr. Greville's Clarissa, 4 yrs Lord J. Scott's Defaulter, i yrs (A. Day) 0 Lord Exeter's Ghio, 3 yrs ' (J. Mann) 0 Captain Lowther's Bastinado, 3 yrs (llockeray) 0 Betting— 5 to 1 agst Sobraon-5 to 1 agst Beauclerc —5 to 1 agast Philosopher-6 to 1 agst Ghio-7 to 1 agst Le Beau, Tufthunter, and Defaulter, and 8 to 1 agst Bastinado. Impression taking the lead at starting, fol lowed by Ghio, Philosopher, and Beauclerc, made play, at a good pace to the cords,where she ran out, and Beau clerc taking up the running, won by a length, Sobraon beating Impression by a neck. The winner was claimed. Run in 1 min. 47 sec. Sweepstakes of 100 sous. each, h ft, for three yrs old; cults, Bst 71b; fillies, Bst 41b. D.M. (8 Subs.) Lord Exeter's Nutshell, Bst 41b Colonel Peel's Longinus, Bst 71b (Flatman) 2 Colonel Anson's Chieftain, Bst 41b.... (J. Sharp) 3 Betting—Eren between Nutshell and Longinus. Nut shell made strong running all the way at a good pace, and won by hall a length; Chieftain beaten 011 Run in 1 min. 48 sec. Swiepsiakes of 10 soya. each, for three yrs old, 7st 71b; four, 84 121 b; five and upwards, 9st3lb; mares and geldings allowed 31b; the winner to be sold for 200 sovs. if demanded, &c. ; if entered to be sold for 150 sovs., allowed 71b; if for 100 sovs., 121 b; if for 70 rms., 161 b; and if for 40 Boys., 211 b. D.M. (3 Subs.) Mr. Drinkald's Dulcet, aged, 7st 121 b Mr. Ford's Telegraph, 5 yrs, Bst 51b (Bartholomew) 2 Mr. Greville's Bullfinch, 3 yrs, 6st (G. Mann) 3 Betting—Even on Dulcet, and 6 to 4 agst Bullfinch. Won by a neck. Run in 1 min. 54 secs. Sweep;takes of 50 sm. each, h ft; for three yrs old colts, Bst 71b; fillies, Bst 31b; winners extra. Crite rion Course. (6 Subs.) Duke of Richmond's Officious, Bst 61b (Flatman) I Mr. Newton's Fulcor, Bst 71b ... (Rogers) 2 Betting-7 to 2on Officious, who took the lead, kept it, and won easily by a couple of lengths. Run in 1 min. 17 sec. Match, h ft. T.Y.C. . . Duke of Bedford's St. Rosalie, 83t 31b received. Mr. Payne's Farthingale, Bst 7lb paid. The weather was delightful, and the company nume rous and fashionable. LATEST BETTING. DERBY. 11 to 2 agst Bolingbroke 20 to 1 agst Pitsford. 13 to 2 agst Ghillie Callum 22 to 1 agst Nutshell 9 to 1 agst Clincher 22 to 1 agst Kt. of Avenel 9 to 1 agst Mayors 28 to 1 agst Penang 20 to 1 agst Mildew—t. No change in the 2,000-Guineas Stakes or Chester Cup. ENTRIES FOR FRIDAY. Handicap, T. Y. C. St. Ann, i yrs, 83; 121b—Westow, 4 yrs, ist Grasshopper, 4 yrs, Est 131b—Farthingale, 4 yrs, Bst 31b—The New Era, 4 yrs, 7st llb—br c by Mus out of Virago, 3 yrs, sst 12Ib—Telegraph, 5 yrs, 7st 131 b Irish Jig, 4 yrs, Est 131 b. LATEST BETTING. TIIE PORT STAKES. Even on Lady Evelyn. Tiresome and Glanca have been scratched. TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES. 6to 4 agst Pitsford (t), I sto 2 agst Beehunter 5 to 2 agst Hurdin SONERSETSHIRE STAKES. 3 to 1 agst Halo. • 12 to 1 ags. t E r sse r 25 to 1 agst John ~ c f o 13 to •1e g tt Pc:.p-o'. day 1000 to 20 asst o%qetlel% (I) 13 , )y .Vesta 1000 to 10 ogst isedaricuistEsTEß CUP. DERBY. to 2 ngst Bolingbroke 20 to 1 agst The RAW 13 to 2 agstlh I Ghillie Callum '22 to 1 agst Nutshell 9 to I ugst rd.avors (t) 22 to 1 agst Pitsforci 9 to 1 nit Clinelwr 22 to 1 agst ICo i g h 14 to 1 *gat Voltigeur Avenel 16 to 1 agst The Nigger 28 to 1 agst Penang 18 t.) 1 agst Mildew 50 to 1 agst Deicooh PARLIAMENTARY DIY ISIO Ni Co ) (From the Yotes and P rocee di ngs o f t h e H ouse of - THURSDAY, APRIL 18. ILL LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL Order for Committee rea d ; M o ti on ma d e , and tz l2 1 .. : 0 1 proposed, " That Mr. Speak er d o now l eave the cli,r fo t, Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word .01 0 to the end of the Question, iu order to add the worktoty House will, upon this day six months, reso l ve itself 7:. t tbl said Committee," instead thereof : Question put, " "r - 60 0, words proposed to be left out stand part of the 0 1 ' The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 133. o.coUnt ' Adair, Hugh E. Foley, John 11. N ew ry, ,-- Lord Aglionby, If. A. Freestun, Colonel Norreys, ,-,, Alcock, Thomas Frewen, C. 11. N orr eys, Sir iw o lot Baines, M. T. Greenall, Gilbert O'Brien, Sir, Baldwin, C. B. Greene, Thom as P a l m er, Rnuu'a c jj Barnard, E. G. Grenfell, Charles W. Palmer. It?,, lin Barrington, Viscount Grey, Sir George Patten, J. " I ; e rt Bellew, R. M. Grey, Ralph W. P ee l, Sit Ito nn Blackall, S. W. Guest, Sir J. Pi n ney, W __,h i' ,i, Booth, Sir R. G. Gwyn, Howel Pl ow den, w . ;'. Brainston, T• W. Hale, It. B. Pl u mptre, J . Broadley, H. Hamilton, Lord C. Power, Pr',,, Bromley, Robert Hawes, B. Pugh, DO: Brooke, Lord Hayes, Sir E. PuseY, Ph ui Pprd Brotherton, J. Hayter, W. G. Rendieshat n • Brown, W. Headlam, Thomas Rice, E. R• 1d Busfeild, W. Heald, James Ri c hards, " e t Cola Carter, John B. Heneage, G. 11. W. RomillY. , .010 Carew, W. P. Hervey, Lord A. Rushout , Ow -ha ..,,, j,,,,,,- Caulfeild, J. M. Hill, Lord Marcus Russell. Cavendish, G. H. Hotham, Lord Russell, B. ~,. Chatterton, Colonel Jervis, Sir John Russell, F. 1 , • rg , Childers, J. W. Jocelyn, Viscount Sanders, ~..G. . „,e ° 110 1 Christostier, It. A. Keogh, William Seymer, 0".,, Clive, Henry B. Lacy, H. C. Coke, E. K. Langston, J. 11. Compton, H. C. . Legh, G. C. I r. Cdrbally, M. E. Lewis, George C: Somers, .•„tsSi Cowan, Charles Littleton, E. It. Somerset, 1, if. Crowder, It. B. Lushington, Charles SomervilleLb Seymour,Sl Smith,an ey, j l . 0 1 : 1 !" -ert . '‘ ' Dalrymple, Captain Lygon, General Sotheron, 3.' Davie, Sir H, Mackie, John . Stafford, g. A U. Dawson, T. V. M'Taggart, Sir J. Denfpon, J. E. Meagher, ThomaS ThompSon , r, I. Divett, Edward Mangles, R. D. Tollemacileso. Drunilanrig, Vie. March, Earl of Verney, Si r . oat Drummond, Henry Marsh l ,ll, J. G. Villi e rs, VIS c , Duckworth, Sir J. Maule, Fox • Vivian, J C°'.,,,61 Duncombe, 0. Mines, R. M. Watkins,..at tale • Duncult, John Mblgund, Viscount Wilson, 3fa,,,ba Dunne, Colonel Morgan, 0. Y o ung, Sir iv — Egcrton, W. T. Mulling& J. R. Elliot, J. E. Mundy, William TE 1 . 05j. 1. Sir Farnham, E. Naas, Lord . Pakington,,,, , ai n Fitzpatrick, J W. Napier, Joseph Miles, VT''' Floyer, John Noeld, Joseph MINORITY—NOES. 76. Armstrong, Sir A. Gibson, T. M. Muntz, G. F ';o Bass, Thomas Grace, 0.. D. 0 Connor, ii . Beresford, William Graham, Sir Jamas Packe, C. /6, Bernal, Ralph Granby', Marquis of Pechell, Sir .o. Blackstone, W. Greene, John ReptOrl, 1 :),,7 . /. k Blewitt, Reginald Raiford, Sir Henry Robartes , ' - el Breniridge. Richard Hall, Sir Benjamin Salts*. Colon , Bright, John Harris, Richard Scholeficid, co Broadwood, 11. Henley, J. W. Scully. F r ,-, Bulkeley, Sir It. Henry, Alexander Shaft°, it• ''... Clifford, 11. M. Ilildyard, T. B. Smyth, .T. 1 -,/ , Cole, 11. A. Hodgson, W. N. Crawford, W. S. Houldsworth, T. Cubitt, William Howard, P. H. 3 T T S Thhi el a n i ii nek s l i o e nip n y re : s3 l; c l 7 t . .. o t i . Denison, Edmund Hudson, G. Disraeli, B. Hughes, W. B. Edwards, Henry Hume, Joseph Vy se • , H•„ Estcourt, J. B. B. Jolliffe, Sir W . G. Wall, C."P• i l. Evans, William Keating, Robert Walruslch d ie Evelyn, W. J. Law, lion. E. C. Willcox, 13 3.'„ h a Fagan, William Lawless, Cecil Williams, ",,... Ferrer, James Lockhart, A. E. Wortley, J. '' Fergus, John Lockhart, W. Forbes, William Lowther, Colonel Tilll l l ti. Fordyce, A. D. Masterman, John M'Cu11ag".,,,,.6. Fox, W. J. Milner, W. M. Strickland , Galway, Viscount Mostyn, E. M. MARRIAGES BILL.SIP/ Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and c , air:m proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the ti,p,, s t Debate arising;' Motion ma'e, and Question put, Debate be now adjourned." The Home divided MINORITY—AYES, 83. oo ' Anson, Viscount Farnham, E. B. Monsell. W _.,. • Arkwright, George Ferrer, James Naas, 14 °''' ~ 11 Bagot, William Fellowes, E. Napier, Jo s i Bereslord, William Fergus, John Neeld, Jos e 9 Bernard, Viscount Forbes, Wm. Oswald, A• A Best, John Fordyce, A. D. Sold, Palmer, ~,,t vi d, Blackstone, W. S. Grace, G. 1). Palmer, ib"elc Boldero, H. G. ' Greenall, G. peel Freda, , W. P• Bramston, T. W. ' ' Gtoeftb Thbmas Plowden* j. f. Bruce, C. L. C. Grogan, Edward PlumPtr e ' f ille Buller, Sir J. Y. Gwyn, Rowel is" 1 Portal, -.',. e ,, C., Burrell, Sir C. ' Hale, R. B. Renton , .°- l ifs I tich ar ds, BlOS Carew, W. P. Hall, Sir B. Chatterton, Colonel Plalsey, T. P. B us hout, Car t. Christopher, R. Hastie, Archibald Seymer, 't o nal Clerk Sir G. Mayes, Sir E. SibtherP, Col Clive, H. B. Heneage, G. H. Cocks, Thomas S. Henley, J. W. Colvile, C. . Cowan, Charles Hildyard, R. C. S SS t itn a la n nel t °e o ny n '',l i ° 7 ll R Hildyard, T. B. T. Tenison, .. Davie, Sir Henry Hodges, T. L. Tyrell, Sir , Deedes, W. Hodgson, W. N. Verner, Sir V A ile - f Divett, Edward Hope, Alexander Villiers, ce Douglas, Slr C. Hornby, John • Walpole, r Y. Duckworth, Sir J. Jones, Captain wem prosile ' Duff, George S. Lockhart, A. E. West, F. B• it* Duncan, George Lockhart, W. WilloUghbf ' Duncuft, John Mackenzie, W. F. Dunne, Colonel M•Ncill, Duncan rtLif Du Pre, C. G. Manners, Lord J. Inglis, SIT o'f. Edwards, Henry March, Earl of Thesiger, Sir MAJORITY—NOES, 152. Ear l • Adair, Hugh E. Freestun, Colonel Mu/grit"' r Adair, R. A. Frewen, C. IL ' hunts, a• i ) . Aglionby, H. A. . Galway, Viscount Norreys, Si r • Archdall, Captain Gibson, Thomas M. Ogle, S. C.... Armstrong, R. B. Glyn, G. C. Parker, Jog Ardndel, Earl of Goddard, A. L. Patten, J o . ;V i tt Bagshaw, John Goulbarn, Henry Peel, Sir .-',' A.' Baines, M. T. Greene, John Pelham, nisiosS Baring, Sir F. T. Greufell, Charles W. Pilkingto u, . 0 0 Baring, Thomas Grey, Sir G. Power, Nic: Barnard, E. G. Hamilton, Lord C. Price, Sit 101 Barrington, Viscount Hamner, Sir J. Rawdon, C° f. , Bassakl. •T. Harris, Richard Ricardo, ./.iii Bellew, E. M. Hatchell, John Ricardo, 09 "" Berkeley, H. F. Hay.ter, W. G. Rice, E. li:al 'lo Berkeley, C. L. G. Headlam, T. E. Robarteo,,,,4 Blackall, S. W. Heald, James Romillf, t‘ uh :i Blake, Martin J. Heneage, E. Romilli , ' ir 1-.• id e• Ar d- Blewitt, Reginald Henry, Alexander Rom— m ...' doS Booth, Sir R. G. Herbert, H. A. Russell, ~ c. Boyle, Colonel Heywood, James Russell, F• toil Bright, Jahn Heyworth, Lawrence Salwey ,. ,"/V tiroadwood, 11. Hobbouse, T. B. Seholeflelo,A. Brocklehurst, John Hollond, Robert SialleY , ,* A. tel 11.1171: ; p i re tiet, Brockman, E. D. Howard, C. W. Smith, a • Ai ti ar Bromley, Robert Howard, Sir R. Smith, 3 ji ot 0. Brotherton, Joseph Iludson, George Smith , J° /0 it Cl if, Carter, J. B. Hughes, W. B. Smyth, - -12 0 ir Chaplin, W. J. flume, J. Sornervillo.o. 1, ~ Caulfeild, J. M. Jervis, Sir John Spearnte,: r dP: • • Christy, Samuel Johnstone, Sir:J. Stuart. r i d lo Clay, James Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, l' c 's, Clifford, H. M. King, P. J. Talbot, ~,.,C*, Iltil _Cobden, R. Lawless, Cecil Thickno .P colv" Cockburn, A. J. Lewis, G. C. Thompson' Ald, Coke,:Edward 'X. Lindsay, Colonel ThorupO u 'i., i Copeland, Ald. Locke, Joseph ThornelYL, f;:i$1 1 Crowder, R. B. M'Naghten, Sir,E. Tollenta i ' d : COY Denison, Edmund Mahon, Lord Townshen go , 1,. Duff, James Mangles, U. D. Walmslef,csool Duke, Sir James Marshall, William Watkins. T. Dundas, Admiral Martin, Samuel Wawn, ' / A ' j. 1 : Dundas, Sir David Masterman, Jonn Westheo“' ON Ellis, ,John Elliot, John m h a a u th ie e , so F n o ,.Colonel w W i l i ll u c ti o in X , t l3 L oo pa Evans, William Melgund, Viscount Wilson, ~ t tletr ' Fagan, W. Milner, W. M. Ferguson, Sir R. Mimes, R. M. Wwyuldo,RJl:e. Mime; Sir E. Moffatt, George Foley, J. H. Morgan, H. K. Forster, Mathew Morris, David Fox, W. J. Mostyn, E. . . IMPORTANCE o r BEING ABLE TO DESPI S E nwr t —I know of no principle which it is of more imP ° o oosls fix in the minds of young people than that of the la d , terinined resistance to the encroachments of ridice t i o if o od up to the world, and to the ridicule with which o perdit enforces its dominion, every trifling question of ° t he 0 11 appearance: it is to toss courage and firmness 10 ' e o p, to combat with the mass upon such subjects as th o • . io a learn from the earliest days to insure your prinoiPt r fe r o o2, the lierils of ridicule: you can no more exercise I° t ria li if you live in the constant dread of laughter, tha n d ;,o . , o enjoy your life, if you are in the constant terror 6t . n pinie you think it right to differ from the times, and I ., v e r V stand for say valuable point of morals, do it, howe . „' 0100 however antiquated, however pedantic it may aPcise t oli i it, not for insolence, but seriously and grandly,— as s oit 00 wore a soul of his own in his bosom, and did not Det,,igi was breathed into him by the breath of fashion: ic o,e• o 'o o call you mean, it you know you are jest ; hypocri t h o lb • te . are honestly religious; pusillanimous, if . you feel t . to iill op e firm.: resistance soon converts unprincipled wit u l l fet io bil . respect; and no after-time can tear from you tae a ; o or which every man carries within him who has ro ll ja g P 04 / and successful exertion in a virtuous cause.-- S P -- ff-to •fl Ok • CF.A Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, at the --- s ett i tr ,), C 1 0 Court, yesterday,_ suspended for three months , •••,: il l 0 of S. R. Kemp, a bill-broker, of Abchurch- lane , m :1,1 protection. ta 4 ca. fr [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Dreadful Bad Lelo, l " t ist 441 Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—Extract of * I's, $ lll John Eastman, Esq., of Buenos Ayres, dated AP ri 1 , 0 11 , 1 01 0 i "To Professor Holloway. My dear Sir,—Ye g f, we e It Ointment ate in very great repute here, and Inenl.otif. J i " cures have been performed by their use ; -one in rooefil!: will relate. A Portuguese farmer, who had bee ° ;,bieP 4r the house with sore legs for more than fi ve years , b " 0 dered him incapable of following any' kind of g'°,., r ',' o llrilf perfectly cured by the use of your Pills and Oin t " . o3 - oil PO' can follow the plough and attend personally to th e d a t rinus farming operations." Sold by all druggis" s A n n o. fessor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand,L°P— _ tni t" EIRTHS. i r i leo. i On the 13th inst., in Montagu•square, the • -11 l Hood, the wife of G. Hall, Esq., of a daughter , poOP A On the 14th inst., at Thundersley, Rayleigh' or E. v wife of the Rev. W. llowlett, of a son. wife - a h/ On the 14th inst., at Totteridge, Herts, the - ~ v Ryley, Esq., of a daughter. SAW - , On the 14th inst., at Downside Parsonage, n e ar ;0 j, wife of the Rev. C. R. de Havilantl, On the lith inst., at Burgate-house, 0 Brymer, Esq., of a son. eS, li On the 15th inst., at Woodbury-vale, Green - l en P tel Windsor, of a daughter. of ansaonnt.s, the wire OP On the 15th ins - ., at Cheltenham, the wife of Barnett, of a daughter. - ' ..''' " ,1 b MARRIED. tie , fs li , ), On the 16th inst., at Clifton, Charles Montitg„ r o G'oucester, to Maria Haythorne, eldest 'datig do Latcham, Esq., Clifton. L l olv.i, DIED. V' lov On the 14th inst., at Sussex- square , Brig.htell'ab re,t,o , ' Elizabeth, the only daughter of Mr. George 3 1 0 130 3 ' of Savoy-street, Strand, and Victoria•road, Vila' ag rt. ed 23. ; otil On the 16th inst., at Southampton, Major ~-in ofe late of the 3 lth Regiment. it *"^vlace' On the 17th intt., in Stanhope street, pa r "" .- e f den -town, R. Nell, Esq., aged 44. • e lef - fOli` 1 1 :i - . I.lu. London: Printed and Published hy 111URDl oce . .4.-„d No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Stox 0 the Co. 'strand, in _the Precinct et' the tievoyi in Mohlleset. Friday, April 19, 1850. SCOTTIS P, LPORT of the G "ERAL c licio. The , The THIRTY. vIRTY was held The The Itanag ooclety's affaiesr,l lit, That chit] ally pas' extent o za, That the C 2,167,50 eXteat o , That the A 300,437/ , from th 4 4th , the y, That the Year 184 . which h 11 7,6211 li the That the • deaths been ex 1p Tile / I/ 1 11, ilo n ,t,h. T he op t er 3 , ' fq` J et t'l] alr , r egor T 11 1 ' 1 44 ° 1 11 1 ;1 'stet Leo ~'thtl cart t lUil.l tsar ' , Li, N t r 4 r . l Christ 94 4 q r e e tl e e il li 4 ltiPltr w 44 le Wo( -14 1: 114 1t 0 ' I,:;oti t ° H 4 Wls C 4 4 ,kk tlex Y , , Es, e ia' l 4 . "al] a' b 4,, It, ;,' , ler , r E, inm 4, T Yti \\,,ser,lts( 11 Et th Wk 4k ' ' 4 ot] 10 4 ‘,,,r e j°te. o n r n ' 4 eo, 've,l Lo IsZl)o,'