The Sun. — London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

GERMAN Y. The Senate of Hamburg has placed severe and almost prohibitive restrictions on the transport of emigrants by the agents of British shipowners. The Senate has also requested the Prussian Government to adopt similar restrictive and hostile measures, and it is stated that the city of Bremen proposes to follow up the example set by the city of Hamburg. Our cor respondent laments that the British Consul and Vice- Consul at Hamburg should have allowed these mea a urea to pass without the most strenuous opposition. ITALY- The Milan Gazette of the 22d inst. published the following proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, by Marshal Radetzsky, from his head-quarters at Monza, on the 19th inst. : " The result of the recent judicial investigations and several facts which have occurred recently have con vinced me that the parties whose sole object is the overthrow of social order, not content with the misfortunes they have already occasioned, have again secretly planned a scheme for trampling under foot all respect fo r reli g ion and the laws, and for en dangering the lives and properties of all honourable and peaceable citizens, and for preventing all return of confidence in the Government. As lam responsible to my august Sovereign for the maintenance of tranquillity and good order in this country, I regard it as a sacred duty to God and my conscience to defend your lives and properties from the unworthy attacks of a party hateful in the sight of God, who hesitate before no means—not even assassination—to accomplish their criminal ob ject. The force at my disposal is sufficient, it is true, for the maintenance of public tranquillity, and for the protection of life and property, and, in fine, for the legal punishment of those who shall endanger public tranquillity, but it is not in my power to prevent the abyss which is being prepared in darkness. lam confident that the population par ticipates in my profound horror for the secret machi nations of those wretches. It is consequently in the in terest of yourselves and your families that I request you formally to afford me all the assistance in your power in the accomplishment of my duty by watching attentively the enemies of order, by disapproving of their dangerous projects, and if they should nevertheless compromise the public peace by words or actions, or by personal offence, ,to point them out to the severities of justice. lam firmly resolved to pat an end to their mysterious and scandalous schemes, and if, contrary to my expectations, some districts shall, through weakness, through interest, or through wickedness, not support me in my benevolent intentions, and leave the road clear for the enemies of social order, they shalt bear the entire weight of my severity. I should be in that case compelled (and it is for that reason I warn you) to render the entire district reponsible, and force it to contribute effectually to the arrest of the guilty and of their accomplices. Being con vinced, moreover, that martial law is not disagreeable to good and peaceable citizens, I have resolved to recall all the relaxations I had introduced, and I again declare that my proclamation of the 10th March, 1849, is in full force." APPREHENSION of the CHESHIRE BURGLARS. The daring robbers who attacked the house of Mr. R. Hine, a Quaker gentleman at Hockley, near Macclesfield, have all been apprehended, and on Saturday were brought before the county magistrates at Macclesfield for exami nation. The leader of the gang, Jonathan Bradley, was taken in Congleton, at the shop of Mr. Drakeford, watch maker, to whom he offered Mr. Richard Edmund Hine's gold watch very shortly after that gentleman had re ceived a placard from the police, describing the rob bery. Mr. Drakeford at once gave this man in charge, and the county police in the course of the following day discavered and apprehended his accomplices; The names of these men are Jacob Dean, James Middle ton, Joseph Middl e t on , an d Th omas Rid geway . Hav ing been placed et the bar of the police court, the first witness called was Mr. Richard Hine, sen., who described the attack on his house on the morning cf the 16th instant by men who, when he opened his front bedroom window, demanded the money and other valu ables in the house, presenting a pistol at him as he re monstrated. He afterwards saw thorn at the back of the house break open the back door, and his daughter having been down stairs and told him one of the panels of an inner door had been burst out, he advised his son to give the robbers his watch if they would consent to go away. At the close of his examination he was asked if he could identify any of the prisoners, and they were ordered to put on their caps. With this order Bradley complied very unwillingly, and though his be haviour was bold and impudent in court he partly turned from the witness and averted his face. After looking steadily at them for some time, Mr. Hine said he could not speak with certainty to any of them, though he thought the voice of one of them (Bradley, whom he had before known) was familiar to him. They either wore black masks or had their faces blacked. Mr. R. E. Hine, jun., next repeated the account of the attack. He said, finding they were likely soon to suc ceed in forcing the second door, he again presented him self at the back window, and was received with oaths by the leader of the party, who presented his pistol with an oath, and again demanded his money, threatening to take his life. lie asked this man if he would go away if he gave him his gold watch, and ho promised that they should; but no sooner had he dropped the watch into one of their hats than the leader ordered two of the party to renew the attempt to force the door, telling one of them with an oath he would run a knife into him if he was long about it. Witness demanded what further they wanted, and the leader said they must yet have his money. Reminding them of their broken promises, he dropped six to ten shillings into their hats. They then retired, the leader observing that they might think themselves "d—d well off." The prisoner Jonathan Bradley, to the best of his belief, was the leader, who twice threatened to stab his men if they did ❑ot " do their duty;" and the two Mid dletons were the men who broke open the back door. He had a better opportunity of observing them than the others, because they both held their hats up under the window for the watch, and also for the money, and their faces were then turned upwards close tinder the window. The other prisoners he believed also to be of the party. Mr. SwA.Nwicx, the chairman of the bench, asked the prisoners if they wished to put any questions to the witness? James Iliddlaton—l rfish he had told a little more truth. Bradley—You said I threatened to run a knife into you if you did not give me your watch. How was Ito do that, if you were at the bedroom window? James Middleton—l with to ask if me and my brother wore the parties breaking open the door? .Mr. R. E. Hine—To the best of my belief you were. The prisoner—To the best of your belief ! Are you sure ? Joseph Middleton—Had I anything in riq hand when I was breaking open the door ? Mr. Hine—You and your brother were together, and one of you had a crowbar. Joseph Middleton—He said, gentlemen, we both of us had something in our hands. MAGISTRATE—No, I think not. Both the Middletons (vehemently)—Yes, he did ! Sarah Baddeley, a young woman who had lived with the prisoner Dean, stated that the other four prisoners wore all at his house all the afternoon and evening up to ten o'clock, tho day before the robbery. She believed they were away two hours, and returned about twelve; but they had no cl oc k i n th e h ouse b y w hi ch s h e cou ld tell the time. The prisoners, when they returned, stopped at their house all night. Bradley . placed his eyes sternly on this witness when she was giving her evidence, as if to i n ti m id ate h er . Several Owl. witnesses were examined, one of whom spoke to !eeing Bradley and Joseph Middleton together at a public-house at Alderley, the morning after the rob bery, when Bradley took from his waistcoat pocket a watch like that produced, to tell his companion the time. The prisoners were all committed for trial at the as sizes; but there are other charges against Bradley—one of them being a charge of robbing a master silk-throwster of his watch in the public road; and another, a chEl.rge of stea liao, from a farm-house on the morning after the bur glary above described. INVALIDED SEAMEN AND MARINES. Admiralty, July 10, 18 - 1 The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, taking into consideration t he inco nvenience end expense to which the invalid seamen and marines of the fleet are subject, iu consequence of their being obliged to proceed from the outporta to Lond on, for th e purposeofb„io,.., examined with reference to their claims to pension.; have directed that the following regu lations on this sub; for the f u t u re observed, the same to take effect on and be nd after the Ist of August next;- 1 . When a seaman or marine, serving on board o f 11 03' of her Majesty's ships, is found upon survey to l' ii ° no h longer fit for her Majesty's service, he entitled to it, invalided for injuries, to be provided, if When ' with the usual hurt certificate. him . Invalided for disease, the captain is to direct t° be furnished with a , sealed document (s'agned by the surgeon () containingand countersigned by the captain), of the brief abstract of his case, showing the na turenot; and whether disease, whether caused by the service or wise. This docum the man was of sober habits, or other to the officers, by whomeiit is to be presented by the invalid land, in order that Ul he will be examined in Eng land, particulars of his cltsn:aY be in full poaession of the 2. Seamen or marines tinder the above .bo are claimants for pensions ci rcumstances w or will be examined at the Royal Hospital at Gosport Plymouth, or at the dock yards of Woolwich or Chatham, as m a y first be most conve nient to them, on the Wednesdays in each month at ten A.M., on which drys only invalids are to present themselves for such exarn -Ys po lu t ati r ° Tlymontla will 3. The surveying officers at Goa consist of the superintendent of the rohospital, assiated by the senior medical officer of the same, and at Woolwich or Chatham of the su p erintendent of the dock the senior medical officer of the M e inarin a yari with rmar,, , - a I n the event of the sup erintendent bein g absent o n duty, or other cause, the senior of her Ma j est y 's shi p s an d v easels present is to be directed to perform the superinteMbent's duty. 4. Seamen who are sent home in merchant vessels, and who arrive at any ports in the United Kingdom other than those above mentioned, may be surveyed at Gosport, Plymouth, Woolwich, or Chatham, or in Lon don (at Somerset House), if more convenient to them. The days for surveys at Somerset Houle are the first and third Thursdays in each month. Marino.; sent home from abroad must join their head-quarters, and they will be afterwards examined in the same rcw_in.er as sea men . 5. Seam en who may be serving in any of her Majesty's ships and of . who ese claimant, for pensions, o n the ground their having completed 21 years' service, are to apply THE SUN, for their pensions through their respective captains. Those who have been paid off with similar length of service are to apply for their pensions, by letter, to the Secretary of the Admiralty. In both cases the parch ment certificates must be forwarded with their applica tion, when their claims will be investigated. Marines with 21 years' service mast likewise send up their cer tificates of discharge from the corps. By command of their Lordships, J. PARSER. SLAVERY ESCAPED.—"TOOK HER FREEDOM." The following facts are related in Frederick Douglass' paper:—A slaveholder, accompanied by his wife and children, and having with him a female " chattel," was spending a few days at Niagara Falls. Wishing to have a view of the magnificent cataract from the British side, he ventered upon the dangerous expedient of taking his chattel, in company with his family, on British Boil. By some strange, if not inscrutable agency, whether the birds of the air, or the grass be neath her feet, whispered it, we know not, the chattel became aware that she no longer breathed the free air of the model republic; a secret which she kept, with singular wisdom, until the time for action arrived. Her master, desirous to visit the battle-ground, and to see the very spot " where the Yankees flogged the Eng lish," dismissed his family, accompanied by the chattel, to the American side, while he gaud on Brock's monu ment and other famous sites in that vicinity. The slave safely deposited the family, it seems, at the Cataract. This done, she made her way to the ferry, took the small boat, and a few noble strokes of the ferry man's oar brought her in safety over the turbid waters to the Canada shores. She speedily made her way to the door of a respectable coloured man, where she was immediately received, sheltered, and protected. The master soon obtained information of her flight, and ascer tained her new a bode; and demanded an interview with her. The woman very wisely preferred that the inter view should be held with a partition between, he upon the ground beneath, she at the window above. Slave holder—" Jane, what has prompted you to this behaviour?" Chattel—" I wanted my freedom, sir." Slaveholder—" Have I not always treated you well? What should induce you now to leave me?" Chattel— " I want to be fre e, sir." Slaveholder—" Come, Jane, none of this foolishness ; you must go back with me, and you might as well go back at first as last, for go back you shall." Chattel—" Well, indeed, I aint going back; that's a fact." Slaveholder—" What do you think will become of your children?" Chattel—" What will you do with my children? God only knows. I 'spect you'll do with em just what you have done with my other children, sell 'em. My going back won't make no difference ; and I aint going back." Finding tho woman wholly intractable, the slaveholder now he gan to curse and rave like a madman. He cursed the abolitionists, he cursed Canada, he cursed the British, and finally he cursed the Queen. The crowd that stood around listened patiently to his cursing until he cursed the British Queen, when a burly Englishman stepped up and, suiting the action to the word, said to the slave holder, " Say that again, and I'll knock your teeth down your throat." It was fitly spoken, and worked like a charm. The slaveholder, thinking discretion the better part of valour, smothered his rage and shrank away from the crowd amid jeers of derision, leaving his chattel in the uncontested enjoyment of the rights and dignity of virtuous womanhood. THE FRENCH IN ROME. The Pope has communicated "confidentially" to the Austrian Government his views of the French occupa tion of Rome; and the Pilote de Londres, a French jour nal, published in London and edited by the daughter of Madame Tallien, has published the text of that document. Where the child of la Princesse de Chi may could have obtained this document is not stated; but it bears about it the evidence of authenticity. The Pope places his acceptance of the French garrison in Rome, therefore, on the ground of an " imperious necessity;" speaks of the future as an abyss into which he cannot look without a feeling of horror, on whichever side it may be viewed; and proposes the substitution without delay of an Austrian corps for the French in his capital. " It will be requisite," observes the writer, " that before the approach of the fatal day, imposing bodies of Aus trian troops shall suddenly advance from two sides on Rome, menacing the French garrison, and at the same time cutting off their retreat from Civita Vecchia." In conclusion, the Holy Father, or his interpreter, demands, in rather an insolent key, why the British Government has not expelled the Italian refugees—more particularly the Italian committee, now, he says, sitting in London. How the French nation will relish the gratitude of the Pope for replacing him on his " seven hills," remains to be seen; but as regards Great Britain, there is no doubt that the Pope will " take nothing by his motion." There is a curious admission in one part of this docu ment which goes expressly to say, that " The great ma jority of the Roman people is radically corrupted (that is, anti-Papal, we presume) and incapable (query ?) of rendering to his own government the least support." Truly, this is a very flattering account of his subjects, given from authority by him who ought to be the father of his people instead of the Viceroy of Aus tria, whom he unblushingly calls the natural protector of all the states in the Italian Peninsula. In the pre sence of such doctrines as these wo seem to be retro grading to the middle ages once more, and exceeding all the nefarious doings of the Holy Alliance. Whether this document be true or false, there are at this moment no means of ascertaining. If it he false, it is curious—to say the least of it; if it be true, it is most important; but be it the one or be it the other, the subject-mater it contains is well worthy of considera tion; for, as the Italians say, Si non e vero o ben trovato— Gia !—Abridged from the Observer. When made up in I From what when PLACES. ; General Post-office port dis- due, London. I patched. ---- America (by Brit. pkt.) N I Aug. 1 .. .. Liverpool .. Aug. 4 America (by U.S. pkt.) N Aug. 5 .. • •ILiverpool July BO \ America (by IT.S.pkt.)3l July 30 .. .. Southampt. Aug. 7 Africa (West coast)• • N lath of the month Plymouth Aug. 3 Alexandria. .... .... N 19th & 30th of mo. Dover .. Aug. 18 Belgium • • .. .. N Daily • • .. .. Dover .. Daily Brazil .. .. .. If 9th of the month Southampt. Aug. 12 Buenos Ayres • • .. 31 9th of the month Southampt. Aug. 12 California( via Chagres) M 2d & 17th of month Southampt. Aug. 5 Cape of Good Hope N 14th of month Plymouth.. Aug. 3 Constantinople* .... N 7th 17th 27th of mo Dover .. July 30 Central America .. .31 2d & 17th of mon. Southampt. Aug. 5 Channel Isles • • .. N Mon., Wed., & FrLlSouthampt. Tu. Th.S a Chili .. .. .. . M 17th of the month Southampt. Aug. 5 Franco .. .. M& N Twice daily .. .. (Dover • • Twicedaili Greece* .. .. .. N 7th 17th27th of mo Dover .. July 30 Hamburgh .. .. N Tuesday & Friday London .. Tues. Sat. Holland .. .. .. M Wednes. & Satur.,;London .. Mon.Thrr Honduras .. .. . N 17th of the month; Southampt. Aug. 5 Ireland .. .. M& N Twice daily .. .. Holyhead .. Twicadaily India (via Sonthamp.) M 20th of the month Southampt. Aug. 23 India (via Marseilles) N, 7 th& 24th of month Dover .. Arrived Mediterranean (via Southampton) .. M,2oth of the month Southampt. Aug. 23 Mediterranean (via Marseilles) .. .. N 7th& 24th ofmonth Dover .. Arrived Mexico • • .. .• M2d of the month.. Southampt. Aug. 5 Madeira • • • • .. 11,9t1a of the month Southampt. Aug. 12 Malta* .. .. N f 7th,17th,19t1a,27th Dover July 30 ( & 30th of month Naples* .. • • •• N sth 15th 25th ofmo Dover .. Aug. 2 Papal States* .. .. N sth 15th 25th ofmo Dover .. ,Aug. 2 Peninsular.. • • .. M 7th 17th 27th of mo Southampt. Atng. 5 Peru • • • • • • • • M 17th of the month Southampt. ,Aug. 5 Tuscany* .. • . .• Nsth 15th 25th of mo Dover • • ;Aug. 2 West Indies .. .. M;l7th of the mouth Southampt. ;Aug. 20 West Indies (except I _ iavanna & I;Tassau) Ml2d of the month .. * The mails to those c onntries thus marl French packet via. Marseilles. Canivoarne.—Mails to and from Californi are now despatched and due by every Amen I Southanipt. ;Aug. 5 Led (*) are conveyed by via the United States .n packet. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. The following is the official statement of the quantiti corn, &c., received in the port of London from the poi Essex, from the 21st July, 1851, to the 26th July, both inclusive : ins of rte in 1851, DR. LINGARD. It was a good custom of chivalrous days, and it is stil I observed by brave men who fight under respectively hos tile banners, to do honour to an adversary who had dealt his blows as became an honest man. In the hour of victory, the triumphant champion complimented the vanquished on his valour. In the hour of death, the survivors did full justice to the enemy whose arm could no longer wield a trenchant blade. We adopt with alacrity this example set us by belted knights and gal lant soldiers, while wo announce with regret the demise of one who, for being a servant of tho Pope, was not the less true-hearted an Englishman; and who, in support ing a cause which he considered worthy of support, never stooped to mendacity in order to strengthen it. Whatever his opinions may have been, he maintained them with the spirit of a Christian gentleman. He neither stooped to recommend violence by faintly dis praising it, nor instigated to the assassination of those in high places by denouncing them as enemies of God and of his alleged vicar upon earth. If he felt strongly, he also felt, spoke, and act fairly. His very impartiality, perhaps, was the cause of the little honour paid him by his merely political co-religionists. But, be this us it may, his name and reputation belong now to all Englishmen in common. Wo should as little think now, even in our character of Churchmen, of de nouncing the late Dr. Lingard for his particular opinions, as we should, in our position us Royalists, of casting dirt upon Milton for his Republicanism. Over the grave of a worthy antagonist we have no desire to hold in me mory anything but his virtues. If all living Papists, who survive to carry on the warfare of the Court of Rome against the Queen and our Church, were to fuliow the example bequeathed to them by Dr. Lingard, there would be more respect for them than they can now lay claim to. He cared for no boon but that which the British constitution, jealous for the healthy freedom of all, willingly awarded. To obtain more lie would not have descended to suggest to the ear of fanaticism that there were worse crimes in the world than the mere slaying a heretical sovereign. He was not the man to write mock sentiment about his " beloved Sove reign," and put forth anonymous treason betraying a heart that would rejoice in that Sovereign's assassina tion. He was English-born and English-bred; and, whatever political Papists may think of him, there is riot a true Englishman living who would refuse to do justice to the ♦enerable Romanist who now sleeps wit:l,in the grave at St. Cuthbert's College, Ushaw.—Church and State Gazette. DEPARTURE OF THE SCREW STEAM-SHIP CITY OF MANCHESTER ON HER FIRST VOYAGE TO PHILADELPHIA The splendid new screw steam-ship City of Manchester, W. 0. Campbell, commander, sailed hence on Saturday morning, on her first voyage to Philadelphia. She left her dock on Friday evening, shortly after seven o'clock, came to an snchor until the ensuing morning off the Magazines, and at 6 A.I. weighed anchor and proceeded to sea; arriving off the Bell Buoy at 7 15, A. 31 , having run the distance, against a flood tide, in an hour and twenty minutes. She carried no fewer than 179 passengers, with a fair cargo of fine goods, and in this respect, at least, her first trip cannot but be regarded as most successful. She is the largest screw steam-ship now sailing out of the port of Liverpool, and will doubtless make a quick run out to the United States. The City of Man chester lay in the NeNm Dock, and had several hundred visitors, by whom she was greatly admired.—Liverpool BRISTOL ANNUAL GREAT MARKET AND COLT FAIR. —This celebrated market and fair was held on Thursday at the Cattle Market, Temple Meads, Bristol, when there was a very numerous attendance of dealers and breeders from some distances in the surrounding country. There was a good show of horses, more particularly of two-year-old colts, and although the sale was not very brisk, many changed hands at full prices. Beeves and sheep were not quite in as large supply as usual, but the prices of the previous week ruled. Fat beef brought from 425. to 50s. per cwt., and fat mutton from 4id. to 51d. per lb. UTILITY OF THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.—On Sa• tarday a striking incident occurred illustrative cf the superi ority of the electric telegraph over the semaphore system which heretofore formed the sole means of communication be tween the Mersey and Holyhead. Shortly before five o'clock, about 4.45 r. 31., the Royal Mail steam-ship Africa, whose arrival was anxiously expected, arrived off the Head ; and in ten minutes, although the Electric Telegraph officers' quarters at Holyhead are far remote from the mountain whereon the semaphore stands, and not in a situation to enable them to ob serve ships for themselves, the announcement was posted in the Exchange-newsroom in Liverpool ; having traversed a circuit ous route via Chester and Crewe. Some ime elapsed ere the marine telegraph dispatched its report to the rooms. Several instances have also recently occurred in which, whilst the marine telegraph has been rendered valueless by fogs and mists, &c., the electric wires have kept the frequenters of the 'Change au courant on nautical poiuts.—Liverpool Albion. DEATH UPON THE STAGE.—During the perform t et i perform ance of Jack Sh eppar d , a t th e St. L ou is Theatre, on the 6 th a large fiat iron, s us p en di ng a l am p f ro m the ceiling, slipped f o r the its fasteni ngs s t of en hneg head. san Shedfelit ed a to the Mrs. Shea fan .t " 0 my God !" and in a moment fell dead 'upon the stage, which was soon covered with her bl ood. Of course the performance was im mediately suspended and the money returned. Mrs. Shea came to America a s Mi ss K e of Stephen Kemble andmble, and is the granddaughter grandniece of th e f amous M rs . Sid dons. Her husband is at present in New Orleans.— Toronto Chronicle. F s lig 3 '4 wPri Colchester 3B 350 5-10 Harwich Leigh 345, 92 Malden .. 771 13 78 CHELMSFORD, JULY 25.—Prices today were as follow: Wheat, white, old _ 7 3 to —s; new 42s to 48s; red, old CHELMSFORD, JULY 25.—Pri, , to-day were , follow: Wheat, white, old —s to —s; new 42s to 48s; red, old —8 to —s ; new, 38s to 423; barley, --s to —s ; chevalier —s to —s ; grinding 20s to 26s ; oats 18s to 25s ; malt 53s to 55s • chevalier 54s to 56s ; peas, partridge, new 28s to 31s ; old, —s to —s ; white, new, 27s to 29s ; old, —s to —s ; dun, new, 27s to 30s ; beans, tick, new 26s to 29s ; old, 26s to 30s; harrow ticks, new 27s to 30s; old —s to —s; ma zagan, new 26s to 29s ; old —s to —s per qr. COLCHESTER, JULY 26.—Wheat, white 46s to 50s ; red 401 to 44s ; barley OOs to 008 ; beans, mazagan 27s to 30s ; middle and small 30s to 325; peas, grey 28s to 30s, dun 28s to 30s per qr. PERTH, JULY 25.—Wheat, old, Os Od to Os Od; ditto, new, 40s to 445; barley, new, 22s Od to 255 Od; oats, 203 to 276 ; peas and beans, 28s Od to 32s per quarter. Oatmeal, per sack, 34s to 365. Bxavricic, JULY 24.—Wheat, 433 4 d ; barley, 005 Od ; oats, OOs Od ; rye, 003 Od ; beans, 003 Od ; peas, CO, Od average per imperial quarter. STIRLING, JULY 25.—Wheat, foreign, 215 to 233; ditto, home, 21s 9d; ditto ditto new, 203 Cd to 233 Od; barley, per boll of 6 bushels, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 191 Od to 20s Od. Oats, Cupar, OOs Od to 001 ; ditto new, 143 6d to 16, 6d; ditto, Flemish, Os Od to Os od ; ditto ditto new, 00s Od; malt, distillers, 33a Od to 351 • ditto brewers, 35s Od to 37s ; beans per boll, 00s Od to 00s Od; ditto new, 16s Cd to 18s 9d; pease 16s Od to 00s Od; flour, new per sack, 33s to 34s Od; ditto common ditto, 19s Od to 21s Od; oatmeal, per load, 00s Od to Ois Od; ditto new 34s 9d to 36s Od; ditto per peck of 71bs, 10d to 11d; fresh butter, per lb, 8d to 9d ; eggs, per dozen, 7d to 8d ; hay, Kerse, per ton, 80s to 85s Od; ditto, Dryfield, 74s to 755. KELSO, JULY 25.—Wheat, old, 00s to 00s ; ditto, new, 30s to 36s Od ; barley, new, 20s Od to 21, Od ' • ditto old, Os to Os; potato oats, 00s to 00s ; ditto new, 17 s 6(1 to 1930 d ; common oats COs Od to 00s Od ; ditto new, 17s to 18s Od ; peas, 25s Od to 26s Od; beans, 25s to 26 s Od per boll of six imperial bushels. HAWIOE, JULY 24.—Wheat, new, 33s Od to 355; barley, new, 2"s to 22s Od ; ditto old, 00s Od to OOs Od ; potato oats, 17s to les 6d ; common oats, 163 Od to 185 Od ; peas, 223 Od to 24, Od; beans, 23s Od to 24s Od per boll of six imperial bushels. KIRICALDY, JULY 26.—The following are the quotations for grain:— Peat —s Od —3 Od —s Od 36s Od. prices of Beans. —s Od Barley. 279 Od 25s 6d Wheat. First 488 Od Second 458 6d Oats. 26s Od 25s Od 23s Od imperial, le followii Barley. Oats. Beans. First ... 48s Od I 32s Od 28s 6d 37s 61 Second ... 45s 2d I3ls 3d 26s 9d 375 Id Third ... 40s 6d 31s Od 22s Od 36s 00 Total quantity of Wheat in market 306 qrs., 290 sold Do. Barley do. 28 qrs., 18 sold Do. Oats do. 173 qrs., 142 sold Do. Beans do. 26 qrs., 18 sold GrAsoow, JULY 23.—Provisions—Cheese, 34s to 43s Od per cwt ; retail, 5d to 6d per lb. Skim milk, 20s Od to Os per cwt. Country fresh butter, 9d to Os Od per lb. Irish pow dered, in lumps, to 80; country powdered, wholesale, 8d to Od. Country eggs, 8d per dozen ; carried hen ditto, 55 Od per 120, or 7d per dozen. Hens, 2s 6d per pair ; Ducks, 2s Od. FALKIRK, JULY 24.—The supply of grain in this day's market was 320 bolls; wheat at 20s Od to 23 s Od per boll ; barley, Os Od to Os Od ; oats, 13s Od to I7s 6d; beans, 16s Od to 19s0d per boll ; oatmeal, Os to Os per load. Third 1 , 423 Od i 243 Od Oatmeal, per bag of 28011)3 HADDINOTON, JULY 25.—T1 grain at our market to-day : Wheat. I —s Od —s Od 343 Od to ig are the COD FISHING. _An immense quantity of very superior cod has been brought ashore here since the com mencement of the present month. Several boats have now and then landed from 250 to 300 at a time, and takes vary ing from 100 to CO2 have been common. On Saturday one of our fishermen brought to this office a cod measuring 30 inches in length, and having a proportionate breadth. An other informs us that he took 28 fine herrings from the sto mach of one cod.—Northern Ensign. LON DON, THE LATE DR. LINGARD. The death of Dr. Lingard is a national loss. As a candid, impartial, and comprehensive historian, ho be queaths to his country a work, the labour of long years, which may be pronounced the standard " History of England," up to that point from which Macaulay starts. The strict fairness and undeviating fidelity with which the task is accomplished without the sacrifice of a con viction, the mild and tolerant principles, the large and varied learning at once discursive and profound, the lucid and ample style, render Dr. Lingard's History an honour to his country arid to his Church, and an en during monument to his own fame. It is accepted by all creeds, opinions, and parties, with equal respect and admiration. The unruffled calm of this good man's long and unostentatious life, the disregard of noisy celebrity, the deep love of retirement, th© simplicity of life and manners which distinguished his character, are as de lightful as they are instructive to recall; for they evi dence the temperate nature, the mild and patient spirit, the open and chastened heart, which are the very ideal of a Christian, and the only true signification of a Catholic. That Dr. Lingard should have been able, even in times of bitterness and intolerance, to maintain and assert his own convictions, with out forfeiting the esteem of his controversial ad versaries, that his death should now be mourned as a national bereavement, and a full voice of sympathy and honour swell around his grave, is a high and signal proof that it is not so much diversity of opinions as harshness of imputation that rends men asunder: that truth need never fear discussion: that it is only the perverse inge nuity of systems that can distort and thwart generous and upright natures, which, left to their own development, bring forth fruits of loving-kindness. Doctor Lingard had happily lived far removed from the atmosphere of the Papal Court; and so he died, as he lived, an English Catholic. May we not, Englishmen of all Churches or of none, lay aside our differences for a moment at least, as we stand at the grave of a bro ther of whose memory we are proud? May we not condescend to a little less of theology and a little more of charity and forbearance? In another part of our columns will be found a letter [first published in The Arun.) from the friend and physi cian of Dr. Lingard, replying unnecessarily we think, but with a natural indignation, to an ignoble report of w•e know not what obscure paper. The beloved histo rian had long endured a painful malady with the un swerving fortitude of a philosopher and a Christian, and he breathed his last in perfect happiness and trust ful peace. The latest edition of the " History of England," and we believe the fifth, was published in 1849, by Dolman, and is in ten volumes. " The History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church" had been almost re-written by him. The last work from the venerable Doctor's pen was a republication at his suggestion of a treatise originally written some years ago, entitled " Documents to ascer tain the Sentiments of British Catholics in former Ages, respecting the Power of the Popes." This was issued de circonstance last winter, with a preface by his friend, the Rev. M. A. Tierney, the historian of Arundel.— Leader. WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT. On Saturday, at this court, the Rev. Mr. Caton, of Bryanstone-square, brought an action against Mr. Car penter, proprietor of the Balloon Tea Gardens, Batter sea, to recover the sum of 451., the alleged value of a horse the property of the plaintiff, which was stated to have died from wounds received from a collision with the defendant's pony chaise in Leicester-square, on tha 28to of May last. The plaintiff said he was driving his cab through Leicester-square at the rate of six or seven miles an hour, when the defendant came along on his wrong side, driving at about twelve miles an hour, and before it was possible for him to got out of the way, the shaft of the defendant's chaise cart came against his horse's chest, and wounded it so seriously that it died in a few days. He had given 550 for the animal. The evidence for the defence was that the defendant and a friend were driving to a house in Leicester-square, where they had businets; that the defendant was drawing up at the house, and behind a cart, which was before the door; that he was not at the time going more than one mile and a half an hour when the plaintiff drove against his chaise, injured his pony, and materially damaged the chaise. He asked plaintiff for his name, when the plaintiff said it was purely an accident, and could not be helped. This evidence was corroborated by the defendant's friend, and a policeman w ho was passing. The jury, having deliberated for about half an hour, returned a verdict for the defendant. An application was made for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The judge refused the application, stating that it was a very proper verdict, and, had there been no jury, his decision would have been the same. SEABORNE MAILS. [N signifies that the mails are sent from the General Post-ofilee by the night—and M by the morning—dispatch.] TUESDAY EVENING, IMPLitiaL lA_ 14 EN HOUSE OF LORDS, July 28. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool sack at Five o'clock. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a third tine and passed. MERCANTILE MARINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this Bill. Lord COLCHESTER suggested certain alterations in the details of the measure. After a few words from the Earl of %VALDE GRAVE the Bill was read a second time. EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL. On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this Bill passed through Committee. COPYHOLD ENCLOSURE AND TITHES COM MISSION BILL. On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE this Bill passed through Committee. COMMONS ENCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. VICTORIA PARK BILL. This Bill was read a third time. FACULTY OF ADVOCATES IN SCOTLAND. They Earl of ABERDEEN asked if any communication had taken place between the Government and the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland on the subject of the attendance in their Lordships' House of a member of the faculty as assessor on the hearing of Scotch appeals? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to reply that such communication had taken place, but no decision had been come to. PETITIONS. The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented several peti tions in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several petitions with a similar prayer; also a petition from Brompton in favour of the continuance of the Crystal Palace. The Noble Marquis declared himself warmly in favour of the prayer of the petition. Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions in fa ♦our of the preservation of the Crystal Palace. The Earl of CARLISLE presented upwards of twenty petitions in favour of the preservation of the Crystal Palace; among them was one from the inhabitants of Kensington. The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from Edinburgh with a similar prayer. Lord KINNAIRD presented petitions from Dundee and Arbroath with a similar prayer. Lord BROUGHTON presented a petition in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill. SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL. On the motion for bringing up the report on the Smith field Market Removal Bill, Earl GR NN VILLE then rose to move certain amend ments on the report of the Select Committee on this Bill. His object was to obtain the omission of certain clauses which had been inserted in the Bill by the Select Com mittee, and the insertion of certain clauses which the Com mittee had struck out. He did not mean to impugn the conduct of the Committee, but he must just say one word on the mode of its constitution. It was a Committee of five; and one of the five was either a Whig Member of the House, or a Member of her Majesty's Govern ment, and yet there was only a majority of one against the view taken of the Bill by her Majesty's Ministers. Tee clauses to which he objected were those which di rected compensation to be given to the corporation of the city of Loudon. He thought that those clauses must have been introduced inadvertently by the Committee; and were, as he had already stated, only carried by a majority of one. The Committee then thought that there was no reason for retaining the optional clauses of the Bill introduced by the House of Commons, inasmuch as the corporation of London had declared that it had no interest in Smithfield market, and had declined the option of managing the new market, as tendered to them. Now, he thought that it would be fairer to the corporation that the compensation clauses should be omitted, and that the op tional clauses should be re-inserted. He hoped that no member of the Committee would feel that he was acting unfairly by them when he endeavoured to reverse their decision; for, if their Lordships, on referring a Bill to a Select Committee, were to be bound not to deviate from its report, there was no occasion for having further stages in the Bill. They would, indeed, be stultifying themselves by such a decision, especially in such cases as the present, where the report was carried by a narrow majority of one. The other plea offered against his mo tion was, that the corporation had a charter, and that their Lordships ought not to meddle with the vested interests which they enjoyed under it. Now the corpo ration had stated that they had no interest in Smithfield market, and that they had not claimed compensation in the House of Commons on that account. When he re minded their Lordships that the B►ll had been passed by a large majority in the House of Commons, and that it was the universal opinion in both Houses that Smithfield market, as now conducted, was a public nuisance, he thought that they ought not to pass the Bill in its pre sent state—which would insure its rejection in the House of Commons during the present session—but:that they should adopt his amendment, and restore the Bill to the condition in which it was when it first reached their Lordships. The Earl of POWIS observed that these clauses had been adopted by the Committee after due deliberation. We considered whether the demand for compensation was just, and, upon mature consideration, we thought that the corporation had a claim to it. The judges had been called in three times upon the point, and in conse quence of the opinion which they gave the compensa tion clauses were inserted in the Bill. If the reports of your Committees are to be set aside in this manner, of what value are they? It would be a mere mockery to sit in Committee hereafter. With respect to the privi leges of the House of Commons, of which these clauses were said to be an infringement, there was plenty of time, if the House of Commons would not waive the ob jection, to bring in another Bill this session and remove the nuisance of this market. If you take away markets in this way, without compensation either to in dividuals or corporate bodies interested in them, you will do much to shake the security of all private pro perty. The Bishop of OSSORY (we were told) also defended the report of the Select Committee. The market yielded 5,0001. a year to the corporation. He therefore could not understand how it could be said that the cor poration had no interest in it. He had said in the Com mittee that if compensation were not given he should certainly feel himself bound to vote against the Bill. The present would be the only instance in which corpo ration property was ever taken without compensation. It had been said that Smithfield-market was a nuisance; but their Lordships seemed to be unaware how much had been and could be said in its favour. The Earl of LONSDALE observed, that over since he had been in Parliament he had entertained but one impression as to the nuisance of Smithfield-market. He thought that the corporation of London ought to suffer the penalty which it deserved for not having claimed compensation, if it had any claim to it, iu the House of Commons. This market had been voted a nuisance by both Houses of Parliament, and, instead of giving the corporation any compensation for its removal, he would rather fine them 5.000/. a month until they should re move it.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH observed that when he first came into their Lordships' House he had taken the part of the corporation of London on this matter. He recollected well that as he was leaving the House on that occasion the late Earl of Liverpool stopped him and said, " Let me, as an old Member, give you, who aro a y th o i u n n g g to doneo, a little piece of ad v i ce . N ever h ave any with the corporation of the city of London. Its members are the greatest jobbers I have ever known in the whole course of my political life."—(Cheers and laughter.) The recollection of that anecdote would pre vent him from voting on either one side or the other on this occasion. Viscount SIDNEY stated that, as a member of the Committee, he had been of opinion that no case for com pensation bad been made out by the corporation. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the amend ment of the Noble Earl opposite (Granville). The Marquis of SALISBURY considered that Par liament could not fairly or safely abrogate the charter under which the city of London had for so many centu ries enjoyed the advantages resulting from this market, without giving adequate compensation. The Earl of IIAktROWBY supported the recommen dation of the Committee. Lord BEAUMONT said, that when the Committee declared the preamble of the Bill to be proved, the charter was ipso facto abrogated. As to compensation, the erased clauses of the Commons provided the amplest compensation that the city could lay fair claim to. Do not let it be forgotten that the charter was granted for the public good, and not fur the private benefit of the corporation purse. Lord COLCHESTER considered that it would be a dangerous precedent in a constitutional point of view to withhold adequate compensation from any individuel or corporation deprived by an Act of Parliament of char tered rights. Lord REDESDALE supported the compensation pro posed by the Lords' Committee. Lord CRAM WORTII said, that in point of fact and of law, the corporation of London was entitled to no compensation at all. It so happened that the charter, as it was called, under which the corporation claimed, was in reality an Act of Parliament of the reign of Edward 111. Had it been merely a Royal charter the corpora tion chartered would have been long since liable to have its charter abrogated upon scire facia*, as having alto gether failed to carry out the purposes for which that charter was granted, and for having converted that which was designed for a public good into a public nui sance. All that the corporation could ask of Parliament was to be equitably placed in the same position that it was in before the passing of the Act, and this was am ply provided for by the clauses introduced by the Com mons, and now proposed to be restored. Alter a few words from Lord BATIIURST, which were not heard in the gallery, Earl GRANVILLE replied, and their Lordships then divided, when there appeared-- For the motion of Lord Granville ... 59 Against it 15 Majority —44 Sections 37, 38, and 39, were ordered to be restored and stand part of the Bill. The report was then received. THE LAND-TAX. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved for copies of any correspondence between the Commissioners of Land-tax and the Boards of Revenue on the subject of the land-tax froze the year 1845 to the present time. Agreed to. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND. Earl GRANVILLE moved that this Bill be read a second time. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, that when he addres on et oti a foctee, occasion he was induced to hope the Government would reconsider the measure. He believed that, in conse quence of those observations, an alteration had been made in one of the clauses to which he had more parti cularly called their attention; but the Government could hardly be aware of the extent to which the revenue would be affected by the inconsiderate manner in which that clause had been framed. It would involve a loss for the first three years of 120,0001. Then by the Bill future pensions were to bo granted on an average of the last five yeare, to be determined by the Board of Trade. In his opinion it would be better, in framing Acts of Parliament, to ascertain distinctly what were a man's rights, and not to leave them, except in cases of extreme necessity, to any board or any man at hi 3 discretion to determine what they should be. No Bill touching on financial matters should be permitted to pais the House of Commons without the atricteit inquiry as to its finan cial operation. Earl GRANVILLE believed it to be utterly imprac ticable to have introduced a Bill, previous to the difficul ties of working it being ascertained, which would not have required renewed legislation. It was true that Mr. Finlaison had shown it would have been cheaper to have continued the present system than to wind it up, but that continuance was impossible, because it implied not only an advance from the Treasury, but increased contributions by the seamen themselves, and that in crease they rejected. The object of the Government, when they found that the old system must be wound up, was that the seamen should be put as much as pos sible in the same situation as they would have been in had they continued under the old system, either as re ceivers of pensions or contributors, or rather in a better situation. The Bill was then read a second time. The Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill and the Charitable In stitutions Notices Bill went through Committee. The Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amend ment Bill and the Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland) Bill were read a second time, the latter Bill with a view of being amended. On the motion of the Earl of ROSSE, certain returns relating to arterial drainage under the Board of Works in Ireland were ordered. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 28. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, taking into account the number of amendments proposed, and the impossi bility of their being considered this session he had arrived at the conclusion, that it was incumbent upon him to withdraw the Bill. Mr. VESEY expressed his regret that the Right Honourable Gentleman had come to the determination of abandoning a Bill of such vast importance. Mr. E. B. ROCHE urged the necessity of the Govern ment introducing a Bill on the same subject next session. After some further discussion leave was given to with draw the Bill. The House then adjourned till Five o'clock. The House resum®d at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from Oxfordshire in favour of the retention of the Crystal Palace. SimiTar petitions were presented by Mr. Heywood and other Hon. Members. Mr. COWAN presented a petition from the Caledo- nian Railway Company against the Conveyance of Mails by Railway Bill. A PARK AT FINSBURY. Mr. WAKLEY asked the Chief Commissioner of Woods whether measures were in progress, with a view to comply with the wishes expressed in humorous me morials from inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury and city of London, fur the formation of a park at the north east part of the metropolis? Lord J. RUSSELL said he still hoped that they would be able to carry out the measures which had al ready been taken to create a park in Finsbury. In answer to a question from Colonel LINDSAY, Lord SEYMOUR, said he had no objection to lay on the table of the House the report of the architect on the sewers lately constructed in Westminster. Mr. V. SMITH gave notice that he should, early next session, move for a Committee of the whole House to take jute consideration the best method of repealing all the oaths taken by Members, with the exception of the oath of allegiance.—(Hear, hear.) In answer to a question from Mr. C. ANSTEY, Mr. J. PARKER said tho Admiralty were not in pos session of any information to confirm the report con tained in the newspapers relative to Sir J. Franklin. MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS. The SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter from Mr. Alderman Salomons:— " Great Cumberland-place, Friday, July 25. " Sir, I am advised it is my duty respectfully to inform you and the House that two actions at law under the statute have been commenced against me for penalties alleged to be incurred by me for having exercised, on Monday last, my right of sitting and voting in the House of Commons, as Member for Greenwich, and that, at the trial of those actions, any resolution or proceeding which the House may adopt can be given in evidence in that action. With the greatest re spect, I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your most obedient servant, " DAVID SALOSIONS. " The Right Hon. the Speaker." _ _ Sir B. lIALL rose to move that the electors of the borough of Greenwich should be heard at the bar of the House in support of the right of Alderman Salomons to take his seat as a Member for that borough. This was a simple resolution, based on strict justice, and founded on equity, and he hoped the House would not deprive the electors of what they considered their just rights and pri vileges without allowing them to be heard at the bar. In 1832 the House determined the great importance of the borough by placing it among those in Schedule A which returned two Members of Parliament, and ever since then the borough bad exercised that right. One remarkable feature connected with the borough was that, though there had been several contested elections, there was hardly a single instance in which a gentleman not holding liberal opinions had been elected for it. The Hon. Baronet then detailed the cir cumstances under which Alderman Salomons had been returned at the last election, and the subsequent events in reference to his taking the oaths in the House, all of which have been repeatedly brought before the public. Alluding to the differences between the legal authorities he thought the resolution of last year was most ill-advisedly passed, and he hoped the Noble Lord would not put another such resolution upon the paper, because the time would come when they would be forced to rescind it.—(Hear, hear.) The House had a precedent for rescinding the re solution of last year in the case of Mr. Wilkes. Hon. Members were no doubt familiar with the circumstances of that case. Mr. Wilkes was elected for Middlesex, but as he had published a libel upon the King, and an immoral essay upon woman, he was expelled the House. At the next election, however, Mr. Wilkes was again returned, but upon petition his opponent was seated, and the❑ followed a contest between the House and the constituency of Middlesex, which strongly resembled the contest that was now going on in reference to Greenwich. The result of that contest was that the House was com pelled eventually to rescind its resolution, and allow Mr. Wilkes once more to take his seat. Now the petitioners, whose case ho was now advocating, urged upon the House the fact that the Member was under no legal disability whatever which could prevent his sitting in the House. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government was very fond of precedents before adopting any particular course in reference to eases of this nature. Well, then, he should have them. There were the two cases in the city where Alderman Salomons was twice elected to an aldermanic gown, but the Court of Aldermen refused to let him take his seat; and, in the first instance, Alderman Humphery, and in the second Alderman Moon were seated instead of him. The Court of Alderman, how ever, afterwards rescinded their resolution against Jews, and allowed Alderman Salomons at a subsequent elec tion to take his seat. Now, why could not the Noble Lord follow the example of that now reformed corpora tion? He saw no reason against it, but many reasons in its favour, and in order, as a preliminary step towards giving the Noble Lord an opportunity of retracing his steps, he would move that the electors of Greenwich be heard by counsel at the bar i❑ support of the claim of their Mem ber to be allowed to take his seat. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that any further light could be shed on tho subject by taking the course suggested by the lion. Member, and ho thought it would be a waste of time it they went fur ther. The cases which had been quoted by the Hon. Member were not analogous; and the Hon. Member bad studiously refrained from giving the House any tangible reason for hearing counsel. Mr. ANSTEY was astonished at the course taken by the Attorney- General. If the petitioners had attempted to afford additional information they would instantly have been charged with a breach of privilege for al luding to proceedings in a former debate of that House. In his opinion, one well-considered speech of a learned counsel would afford greater information to the House on the subject than twenty speeches of Hon. Members. Upon the occasion when the House decided against two freeholders, and obliged them to give up their !settlings to two Members of that House, even then the House heard the freeholders at the bar, and offered to hear them by counsel, but now they would violate both the form and the substance by refusing to hear the petitioners at the bar ofjustice. By-said-bye they would have a ge neral election, and then an appeal would then be made not only to the constituencies of Greenwich and London, but to every large constituency in the country, and they might depend upon it, it would not be the two seats of Greenwich and London they would have to consider, but the case would be made one in which every consti tuency would fcol itself affected.—(Hear.) The result would be that the House would find itself in that posi tion in which it would be brought into collision with the people of England and the courts of justice, and they would then be obliged to do that which they had always done iu all such cases —namely, recede from their position and give way to the power of the law. It was to save them from this humiliation that the ad vocates of the petitioners supported the motion before the House. Sir F. THESIGER, said the real question before the House had bee❑ departed from by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who last addressed it. That Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not apply himself to the argu ment of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, who urged that the whole question had been fully canvassed last year, and decided upon by the House. What wa3 the use of heAring counsel at tho bar? The whole ques tion could and had been fully argued in the House, but the only thing that could arise by bearing counsel at the bar would be to hear the case argued on one side. This was ono reason against hearing the petitioners at the bar, but there was another. The petitioners asked to be heard at the bar in defence of their right to elect them own r:pivsoutatives. No Wit ohjecii,d to their doing so. The electors might elect whom they pleased. They might elect a minor or a clergyman, if they liked, but that did not entitle a minor or a clergyman to take his seat in that House, the law being against their doing so. —(Eles,r.) He should therefore oppose the motion before the House. Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Gentlemen, who had a motio❑ on the paper for a new writ for Greenish ; said he had no desire to deprive the electors of that borough of their rights, But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might carry his motion, and if so, the choice of the electors would be set aside. He was anxious to hear the :case of the petition at the bar, because the 1, , gal gentlemen might give them information on the question under consideration. The majority in that House had decided against the right of the people of Greenwich, and they now came to the bar to ask that the whole question would be fairly heard. Could anything be fairer ? The question was not fully and fairly discussed last year, for the House were told that a Bill was about to be brought in to admit the Jews into Parliament. That Bill had been introduced, and Mr. Alderman Salomons hail shown great respect for the House, by not coming down to it until the question had been settled. —(Hear, hear.) The House of Lords had rejected the Bill, on the ground that they would not admit Jews into Parlia ment. There was, then, no likelihood of their altering their decision. Sir IL H. INGLIS rose to order, and observed that the Hon. Gentleman had referred to the House of Lords, which wn a violation of order. Mr. VILLIERS said he would keep in order by con fining his allusions to " another place."--(A laugh.) He had only to add that the arguments used in another Place were such as left little hope of their ever consent ing to admit Jews into Parliament.—(lleac, hear.) So it was desirable that they should consider whether they could not admit Jews into that House, they doing all that the law called upon them to do.—(Hear, hear.) That was what they were called upon by the petitioners to do. He would support the prayer of the petition. Mr. NE WD EGATE denied that the electors of Green wich were so deeply anxious on this subject as Hon. Members had suggested, because from 1,500 to 2,000 electors of Greenwich refused to vote, for they had no confidence in the contest, owing to the previous relations which existed between Mr. Alderman Wire and the Jewish body. It was well understood that, at the elec tion for Greenwich, treating was notorious, and even Alderman Salomons acted in a most extraordinary man ner by drinking beer from a pot when addressing the electors from the hustings.—(A laugh.) He saw no reason that the electors of Greenwich should be placed in a better position than the electors of London. He should, therefore, vote against the motion. Sir J. HANDIER said that when Mr. Salomons was elected alderman, be could not take the necessary oaths. To meet the difficulty Lord Lyndhurst brought a Bill into Parliament, and this passed. The consequence was that Alderman Salomons took the necessary oaths. The same course was now proposed by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that was the course he should support. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said it was the law, and not the House of Commons, that interfered to prevent the Gentleman returned for Greenwich from taking his seat in that House. He contended that on ineligibility hung the whole question, and as Alderman Salomons could not comply with the conditions of the law, he could not sit. Mr. AGLIONBY did not consider that the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) should raise the objections that he did against the right of Mr. Salomons with respect to his seat in that House; and he should say, in addition to that, that the opposi tion offered , was most unfair and unjust.—(Hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended that the locus standi tozally depended on the principle of taking the oath, and he was astonished that any Member who knew the usage of the House should offer any objection. Alderman SIDNEY was fully assured that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had a right to exercise his pri vilege as a Member, to take his seat and vote, and he would go further and say, the Baron Rothschild. The House then divided, when there appcared— For the motion ... ... 75 Against it ... ... 135 Majority... .. ADMISSION OF BARON ROTHSCHILD. Mr. RAIKES CURRIE said, on Friday night he presented a petition, agreed to at a large meeting of the electors of the city of London, held on Friday last, of which he was chairman, praying that the oath of abjura tion might be swept from the statute-book, and that they might be permitted to be heard by their counsel at the bar of that House, in support of Baron Rothschild's claim to take his seat as their representative. After, however, the decision the House had just come to in the case of the petition of the electors of Greenwich, and as be must confess that he did not agree with the prayer of the petition, that the oath of abjuration should be swept from the statute-book, he did not think it re quisite to persevere in asking the House to come to a decision upon it, and he would therefore with draw his motion, that the House should take the petition into its consideration. At the same time he would press upon the Government the necessity of doing something in the matter. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government, at the close of last session, got the House to pass a declaratory resolution on this subject, accompanied with a recommendation that the subject should be considered early in this session. That was an intimation that the Noble Lord was pre pared to legislate on thp subject, and stake the existence of his Government upon it. He would, therefore, press on the Noble Lord the necessity of bringing forward that question now, or, at all events, in the very commence ment of next session of Parliament.—(Hear.) Mr. ANSTEY rose to discharge a duty, which he considered the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had neglected, and to move that the petition be taken into consideration of the House, in terms of the notice oa the paper, and that the House hear counsel at the bar, in terms of the prayer of it. The petition was different from that of the electors of Greenwich, as it prayed that the House should hear counsel at the bar, provided they refused to rescind a resolution passed by the House last year, preventing Baron Rothschild from taking his seat. Mr. Alderman Salomons was differently placed, he had already taken his seat in that House, and he could not now be heard, except by himself, in his proper place; but Baron Rothschild appeared in a different form, and those who returned him urged the case on different grounds. He had not yet taken his seat.—(Hear.) He was waiting for the decision of that House upon his case, and he craved, and he (Mr. Anstey) could state, was now desirous, that he should be heard at the Bar by his counsel. It was his (Mr. Anstey's) intention to press this motion to a division. He had pledged himself to the electors of the city of London that he would leave nothing untried whieh could by any means forward their case, and he would not, therefore, be prevented by the solicitations of less timid friends of the cause, from fol lowing out that course. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government, in his speech on the previous motion, said that this was similar to a person who refused to take the oath of allegiance, but here such was not the case, for they had decided last year that the seat for the city of London was full, and that they could not issue a new writ. Baron Rothschild did not refuse to take the oath of allegiance. He took that oath, and he took the oath of abjuration in the form binding on his conscience, and ho would, therefore, move that the House bear counsel in behalf of the electors of the city of London in support of the petition presented to this House on Friday last. Mr. AGLIONBY said he was present at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, and a more or derly and unanimous meeting he never saw. He thought the electors of the city of London had a right to be heard, and although he did not agree with the state ment of the petition, that the oath of abjuration ought to be swept from the statute book, ho trusted thet the House would not think it disrespectful to it, for the elec tors of the city of London to ask it to rescind its decision of last year, and bear counsel in favour of the petition. Mr. RAIKES CURRIE agre ed that the meeting al luded to was most numerously and res p ecabl y atte nded. The business was carried on in the most re gular manner, although he admitted, that aft e r tw o r esolutions haul unanimously, expressing thatthe feeling s o f the m be e e e n tin p gr se a d n , d fully agr eed when a petition was about to be proposed upon them, his Honourable Friend the Member for Youghall Anstey) made his appearance with a counter petition, which no doubt would have given rise t o great discussion. Just, however, at that juncture, Minerva came to their aid, in the shape of his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockerinouth (Mr. Aglionby), who knowing that the Hon. Member for Youghall car ried a gun ot no inconsiderable range, and of no incon siderable bore—(Laughter)—instead of showing fight, the two made up the matter, and • a compromise took place, the result of which was, that the petition was al tered from the terms of the resolution which preceded it to the form in which it had been submitted to the House. —(Hear.) He must say that he did not think the peti tion a proper and fair echo of the resolutionseand that it would be useless, after the fate of the petition of the Greenwich electors, to ask the House to divide upon it. Mr. NE WDEGATE said from what he had heard, it appeared to him that the one-halt of the meeting of the electors of the city of London held upon the subject did not know what the other was about.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But even though they did, the citizens of London were but a small body of the constituency, and should the question come before the country at a general election, they would see a far different expres sion of feeling upon it. Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said while the Honourabl e Member for Northampton (Mr. R. Currie) might ma k e a very good chairmen of a meeting, he did not think ho had on this occasion done his duty as a representative of the people.—(Cheers.) hid it not been for his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Youghal, he took at present occupied, a n d h e ten d ere d hi s lsave to say that this qu e stion would not have stood in that Honourable and L earne d Gentleman for t t h h e a u position i t the bold, manly, way and spirited s t an d he had taken. He mr. Osborne) l present at th e Ci ty meet i ng, an d o he told the House that the opinion of the city ot Lon don was invariably carried out by the country. He did not imagine the question of conceding to the Jews that to which they were entitled would be carried during the present session; but this he would say that unless the Noble Lord at the head of the Government took up the matter in sincerity, a re form of the House of Lords would be called fur. It was not his (Mr. Osborne's) wish that that question should be agiteted, bet if it were, they would raise a devil that might not be so easily laid. He hoped the Noble Lord would take that circumstance into consideration, and bring for ward a measure early next session, for the abo lition of all tests and Parliamentary qualification. The question should not be delayed session after se3cion, and the farce gone through session after session of bringing for ward resolutions of promises to pay which were never performed.—(Hear.) JULY 29, 1851. ilia J OLIN TYRRELL—As one of the Hoil. Alerts hers for Middlesex constituents protested against some of the views he had advanced, and begged to remind hitu that although now loud in what he alleged to be 'a question of religious liberty, he was silent as a mouse during the repeated and protracted discussion on the Papal question.—(" No, no," from Mr. Osborne.) The Hon. Gentleman was voting in direct opposition to the wishes of most of his constituent=, but it was his (Sir John Tyrrell's) belief that he had not the most distant idea of again presenting himself to a Middlesex consti• tuency.—(" Oh, oh!" and expressions of dissent from Mr. Osborne.) He took the liberty of saying that he consi dered the House had suffered itself to bo drawn into a discussion totally irrelevant to the question raised by the petitions presented for consideration. Mr. HOBHOUSE denied that the Hon. Member for Middle.ex had ever been as the Hon. Baronet stated, a platform orator. The Hon. Baronet might cavil with the sentiments of the Hon. Member; but he had no right to express himself deceived with them, for they were precisely those which he entertained when he repre sented Wickham. His Hon. and Gallant Friend was determined again to seek the suffrages of the electors of Middlesex, and he believed he would be returned as their representative. He (Mr. Ilobhouse) was quite prepared to give his adhesion to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal, as be felt anxious they should hear all the arguments that could be adduced on a question involving as it did the rights and privileges of the people of England. If the Hon. Member for Greenwich were disqualified from sitting in Parliament, why did not the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, as he had so repeatedly threatened, move that a now writ be issued. It was much better that a new writ should be issued than that things should re main in their present state. Mr. ANSTEY briefly replied, when the House di vided— For Mr. Anstey's motion ... . 41 Against it ... 77 Majority against ... ... —36 The motion was consequently lost. CASE OF MR. SALONIONS. The order of 'the day was read for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the following resolution pro posed by Lord John Russell on Tuesday last:—" That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House, during any debate until he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form ap pointed by law." Mr. ANSTEY reminded the House that to this reso lution be had proposed to add by way of amendment the words, "And that this House, having regard for the religious scruples of the Hon. Member for Greenwich, will use its undisputed privilege on his behalf by forth with making siren alteration iu the form of the oath as will enable the Hon. Member to take the same." The proposals they had made had been one by one rejected, they were net in a position to renew them, and they were obliged to aoaept the resolution of the Noble Lord, the Prime Minister. The effect of the oath was the sub stance of the oath, and that had been accepted by the Hon. Member for Greenwich, apart from the mere so lemnity of the es th. They had Acts of Parliament that declared how snitch was form and how much was sub stance. These Acts were the Ist and the Bth of Geo. 111., and though they applied to the oath of abjuration, it was remarkable that in neither of them were the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," to be found. In the case of Pease these words were struck out, and were not subst,i toted by others implying faith in the Christian religFeen, or that that religion was the true one. So, also, in the common oath, the words "So help me Godr did not mean to imply a belief in the existence of tb F, Deity, but an invocation of his divine interposition ha attestation of the truth of a statement under oath. ne the oath of abjuration was to be taken at ell, it m tat be taken under the 6th of George 111., c. 23, which did not propose the objectionable words, "So hi rip me God." 'They were supplied, how ever, at the e ble, to meet the common form of swearing persons in thie country. If the argument were to be held good that the mere substitution of one word for another was i ramaterial, provided only that the words " true faith" were retained, then it might follow that the Hon. Member for Greenwich might have been sworn "on the tre e faith of a Jew," which would have amounted to a solemn declaration of Judaism, or unbe lief in Chrievianity. There was yet another observation that he woul cl address to the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Her Majesty's Ministers had set up the difficulty of their position as an excuse for the conduct which they im pliedly adopted. Yet, what was the line of conduct of the great leaders of the opposite party, when under cir cumstances which left them at liberty to express their real opinions on tho subject? What did Lord Stanley say when he was consulted on the matter in his capacity of privy councillor, and a meinber of the Cabinet, and when he was not acting as the mere leader of a faction? Did he say that those words were part and parcel of the con stitution; tb at they amounted to a profession of Chris tianity, and that to change them was to change the re ligion of the state? No, he did not. He (Mr. Anstey) held in his h and a paper relating to civil disabilities in Jamaica, what correspondence on the subject. It ap peared that on the sth of May, 1829, when Sir G. Mur ray was Colonial Secretary, Sir J. Kemp, the governor, requested the opinion of his AttorneteGeneral as to the effect of a lacal Act to extend certain privileges to the Jews, which, had been mentioned in it. By a clause in the anada Act, any religions form, or mode of religious worship, was appointed not to be altered, except after certain specific conditions had been observed. The question was well considered by the Duke of Welling ton's Cabinet, and also by that of Lord Grey, and Lord Stanley, In transmitting the decision of his Government, said ho could see no reason why the difficulty should not be removed by an enactment of the province. The pre sent Earl of Derby thought these religious distinctions of so small import in that instance, that he said it was not worth while to trouble the Imperial Legislature about them, but that the difficulty might be readily disposed of by the local assembly. If Jamaica received that much attention, would they deny it to the city of London, or even to the borough of Greenwich? He (Mr. Anstey) believed that, in 1833, the Earl of Derby understood the question iu its true sense, and that he was wrong now in 1851. Why did they swear Jews in courts of law upon the Old Testament? Because, as Jews, the Old Testa ment was binding upon their consciences, and they did so on the authority of the common law. Following that precedent, and the example of the courts, they swore the Hon. Member for Greenwich on the Old Testament. There had been decisions, even in the illiberal and iron times of Jewish lawyers, that the binding books of the Jewish gospels were contained within the Pentateuch. They swore him three times as a Jew, and in doing so made an assertion of their opinion that his form of oath ought : to be accepted. But on the main points of the question they had not heard a single argument. The Honourable and Learned Member for Abingdon bad assented to opinions which last year he disputed. He should like to see them take an opposite course, suspend the Standing Orders, and send the Bill up t the Lords again. If the Noble Lord could not as sent to a resolution which went in favour of the Hon. Member for Greenwich, why did the Noble Lord bring forward a resolution which destroyed the Hon. Member's position ?—(Hear, hear.) If they send the case before a court of justice, they would, probably, abide by the decision of that court. The difficulties which might ap pear to be in the way might be easily overcome. When it should be shown to a court how inconsistent the House of Commons had been with itself—when it should be shown that it had in one instance, by its resolution, declared the seat for th e b orough of Greenwich to be full, and in another resolution that it was not full, he thought that the decision of court and jury would be in favour of regarding the oath taken by Mr. Alderman Salomons as most binding on his conscience, and us all that could be required from him by law. He trusted on those grounds that the amendment which he proposed would meet with the support of the House. He did not think it necessary to offer any further obser vations to the House on the subject. He felt that he had done his duty—(Hear, hear)—he was not speaking against time, and should conclude with repeating his in tention to press hiss smeodreent. Mr. HEADLAM had not taken any particular part in this question before; but now that the question had assumed a different aspect from thet which it before ap peared in, he would state shortly to the House the views which he entertained on the subject. In the first place: he did not think it possible that the House could extri cato itself from the absurdities and inconsistencies whicl existed on this subject, under the present law. To des with the oath of abjuration in the manner proposed r • the Government was utterly impossible ; and under thos , circumstances, to compel Members on the most Belem) I occasions, whether Christians or Jews, to take that oath in the manner prescribed by the forms of the, !Wive, was most inconsistent, and calculated to impair the solemn sense which the oath might have under other circumstances. He contended it was improper first to place in the hands of a Jew, who came to the table of the House to be sworn on the Old Testament, and then to require him to swear on the true faith of a Christian. ' It was most unjust, he maintained, to attempt to retain those obsolete oaths formally, and making them the means of interfering with urea's rights and privileges. He must say, in expression of his opinion, that if the evils apprehended and expressed by some , were ten times as great a s th e y were , th ey wou ld n o' justify them in maintsinieg those laws. He was per , fectly willing to admit that it was a most difficult thin( to say what was the construction of the statute on all question. He had now, however, very strong opinion ! himself on the subject —a subject on which very grew misconception prevailed, in consequence of their having admitted the Hon. Member for Greenwich to swear on the Old Testament at the table of the House. The Gil' Geo. 111. prescribes two things. First that the oath c,f abjuration should be taken, and, secondly, the menu eL in which it shall be taken. When the statute enaceed that the oath should be taken it did riot enact hoes' it was to be taken, but left it to common law; and ir, the case of Christians, it resulted merely from what was the practice iu this country. Such was in accordance with the decision of Lord Hardwicke. The statute then enacted teat the oath should be taken in ac cordance with common law. 'Thus, in the case of Christians, it was enacted that they should take the oath in accordance with common law, and the othe r words of the statute, that they should take it "on the true faith of a Christian." Now those words, be believed, were introduced by the 10th Geo. IV., in cee sequence of the position in which the Roman Catholics then stood. Ile could nut find cry authority whatever that those words could possibly be loft oat by the au thority of the House of Commons. As the law stool when Mr. Pease, the Quaker, presented himself at th®' table of the Hauso, there was no st a t u t or y en actme" that enabled him to come to the table; but there eras et ' Act which bore the form of affirmation, and he wee the enabled to comply with the requirements of the lace, th© House baying drawn up a n ew f orm to ena bl e him to e so. There was no distinct statutory authority on t he subject, and they should so frame th e l aw as t o adminis ter the oath in the manner most binding on a naan's con'