The Sun. — London, England, 1832-05-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS, For many years, whilst Catholic emancipation was before Parliament, and before the Duke o 4 Wellington and Sir R. Peel had degenerated into supporters of religious freedom, it was a custom for the more prominent enemies of that great principle to attend an annual dinner, t o which the name of " Pitt D inner" was affixed. That the country, which still rung with the eloquence of Mr. Pitt, displayed by that orator in numberless speeches in favour of Catholic emancipation, should be amazed at the audacity of such a monstrous nick-name, so misapplied, was nothing, because the dinner -eaters, being a numerous body, kept each other in countenance, and were not ashamed of any thing. That the country should be indignant and disgusted was nothing, for the dinner-eaters had a body of boroughmongers at their back, and were not afraid of anything. So the anti-Catholic Pitt dinners flourished for a while, until the moral force of public feeling and opinion began to sap the foundations of a political influ ence, at best usurped and unhallowed. Re ligious liberty grew into fashion, the Pitt dinner hypocrisy fell gradually into disrepute, the annual guests were at length confined to old Eldon and other fragments of former times. The Duke of Wellington could not hold his office of Prime Minister but at the sacrifice of his Pitt-dinner pledges. Like a wise man, therefore, hg chose the lesser evil—he gave up the principle, and kept the Ministerial power. Mr. Pitt, besides being a magnificent supporter of Catholic rights and privileges, was also by far the most distinguished and eminent Parliamen tary Reformer that the last century had produced. Upon this branch of his history we insert some passages, letters of the rig ht Hon. Gentleman, and extracts from his speeces, which will for mally prove, what the world was before con vinced of—viz., that if there be one class of politicians to which Mr. Pitt belongs more distinctly, completely, and emphatically, than another, it is the class of friends to Par liamentary Reform. Read his letter to Mr. Wyvill, of November, 1782, wherein he declares his sentiments in favour of Reform to be " inva riable." Read the quotation from his speech of the 7th of May, 1783, upon the motion for re form in Parliament, made by himself, wherein he ascribes the ruin and humiliation of England at that day, brought on as they were "by slow de grees," to something " radically wrong in the Constitution," and speaks with contempt of the House of Commons, for being "base enough to feed the influence which enslaved its members," and thus being " at one time the parent and off spring of corruption." The impudent Con servatives of the present day have for months past been taunting their countrymen with the novelty of this cry for Reform,—that it has been instigated by the " base" press,—that it has been " inflamed by the recent revolution in France," that it is not natural,—that it is not English, but forced, exotic, and destiuctive of all our institu tions. Come we, then, once more to Mr. Pitt. On the Bth of November, 1783, he wrote to tile Chairman of the Reform Association of York. shire (that county so little indicative of British principles or opinions !), that no exertion or per severance on his part should be wanting in sup port of the principles on which his propositions of the preceding year were founded, and that he would anxiously wait for a seasonable moment of renewing them whenever a just prospect offered of doing it with effect: On the 18th of April, 1785, Mr. Pitt fulfilled his promise, enforcing his motion for reform by an eloquent, powerful, and brilliant speech, in one passage of which he effectually anticipated the stupid gibberish of our modern Conservatives, who ask, " what practical benefit can the country derive from Reform ?" If there had always been a House of Com mons who were the faithful stewards of the in terests of their country, the diligent checks on the administration of the finances, the constitu tional advisers of the executive branch of the legislature, the steady and uninfluenced friends of the people,—would" (says Mr. Pitt) " the burdens which the constituents of' that House were now doomed to endure have been incur red ?" Would the people of England have suf fered the calamities to which they had lately been made subject ? Here, then, we have it laid down in terms the most decided, by the first Tory statesman, that there does exist a direct and indissoluble connexion between good go vernment and liberal institutions, and that the boroughmonger system of the days of Pitt, un improved,nai, further depraved in - those of Wel lington, has been the main cause of insupport able burdens, and of overwhelming calamities. Yet this Duke of Wellington,—with the speeches, the writings, and Parliamentary history of Mr. Pitt before him—first gets up in the House of Lords to cram their Lordships and the people of England with the nonsensical as surance that the same borough Parliament, blasted and withered by Mr. Pitt's indignation, is a specimen "of political excellence, too per fect for the wit of man to equal ;"—and then, with this matchless buffoonery upon his lips, in sults the empire by sitting down as Chairman of a public entertainment, advertised in con tempt and defiance of Reform principles, which be brands by the long-ago disgraced appellation of a " Pitt Dinner !!" If all decency be not humbug, if all public honour or virtue be not, like county meetings, " a farce,"—are such pro- ceedings to be endured amongan intelligent people. Why, the very waiters at the tavern must run away and hide themselves, rather than share the acorn that awaits their guests! And on what pretence is it, or in what character that the Duke Of 'Wellington thus drags the name of Mr. Pitt, through the kennel? Mr. Pitt, an eman cipator of the Catholics, was often represented at your " Pitt Dinners" by Bathursts, Eldons, &c., the sworn foes of emancipation. Mr. Pitt, the Parliamentary Reformer, is now to be personated by the Duke of Wel-lington, who doggedly insists, to the disgust even of his own party, that all Reform "is revolution." But the Noble Duke has changed sides mayhap. ‘Ve know that when Mr. Pitt found the borough patrons stronger than the people, and that his election lay between the boroughmongers with office and the people without it, he abandoned the people and Reform in Parliament, and, fatally for his own reputation and for his country, be came an abandoned traitor to the interests of both. So, when the Duke of Wellington found the other day that the tables were turn e d s i nce the days of Pitt, that the nation had become powerful, and the boroughmongers feeble, and therefore that to retain office even for an hour he must affect to be, what he was not, a Parliament ary Reformer, he also deserted his original post. He cried, "My dear schedule-A boys, I disclaim you ; let every man take care of himself: none but a fool will stand out against Reform when there is nothing to be got by it. If the King chooses me for his Minister, 1 will be as s t anc h a Reformer as the best of them. Such was the Noble Duke's wisdom, if cunning which a child may detect be wisdom. We repeat, then, it, what quality does he this day, as Chairman o' th e Pitt dinner, undertake to personate Mr. Pitt ? Is it as an enemy to Reform, or a friend ? In the first instance it is Pitt the renegado—in the last it is the renegado Wellington. In tilr one case he must represent a turncoat,—in the other he must be one. We envy not his Grace the alternative. But, again, it is said by these haters of revolution that they will stand by the ancient ways of the realm,—that Reform is a modern quackery, the work of incendiaries, newspapers, and Frenchmen. If so, whose work was the motion for Reform in 1785 ? And who were they that divided with Mr. Pitt on that memorable occasion ? The division was a striking one, were it only to prove how strong numerically was the feeling on the side of Re form seven-and-forty years ago, the votes against it being 248, and the minority in its favour 174 ! although they now have the modesty to insist that the Reform sentiment is new amongst the people of England. Another piece of intelligence, for which we doubt the Duke of Wellington's historical reading has ill pre pared him, is the list of names composing that mi nority, who voted in the train of Mr. Pitt. The names are given elsewhere, and we need but ask whether " John Jeffries Pratt" (the present Lord Camden) was a Jacobin ?- or Sir Lloyd Kenyon a Jacobin ? or Lord Apsley, now Lord Bathurst ? or Mr. Wilberforce ? or the two Lowthers ? or Harry Dundas ? They all voted for an " extensive and sweeping" Reform, in the year 1785, before Jacobinism was even heard of --they, the least Jacobinical of all mankind ! And yet the Duke of Wellington is so bronzed, or so dull of brain, as to come forward at this time of day, and in the name of Mr. Pitt to throw dirt upon Mr. Pitt's memory, by recalling to pub lic notice the selfish tergiversations which hum bled that remarkable Minister in the dust. Verily, we can assure the Duke of Wellington that Mr. Pitt's reputation as a statesman, tattered and mu tilated though it be, will bear what his Grace's political reputation will not bear. Mr. Pitt's back slidings belonged to a commanding though per verted mind ; the Duke of Wellington's have been those of a disorderly and half-taught apprentice. This invocation of the name of Pitt against reform exceeds in effrontery the abuse of the same name against religious freedom, because the offenders are now warned, by the ill-success of their former stratagem, of the universal ridicule, disgust, and contempt which await them. Any thing at once so futile and so impudent, we have never seen. Has Mr. Pitt no personal friends alive to protest against this impiety to his ashes ? And now, gentlemen of the Pitt Club, "to dinner with what appetite you may."—Times. Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the county of Berks ! Reformers! To you we now address ourselves ! At this instant, when the Bill is in the crisis of its fate—we do not say whether it shall be passed or not, for the affirmative is certain—it cannot be strangled in its birth—but whether it shall come into the world pure and unsullied, or with the stain of dishonour on its front—whether in the last conflict its partisans shall be triumphant or defeated—this question, or these questions, must be tried in your county; and remarkable it is that a county contest should have occurred at such a moment. Do not con ceal, then, from yourselves the importance of your situation, and the vastness of the struggle in which you are engaged ; for through you, and by you, it is about to be tried whether the Bill and the cause of Reform have lost any thing of their popularity through the long and tedious delay to which they have been subjected ; or whether they are still as dear to the people of England, whose representatives you now are, as when they first called forth the applauding accla mations of millions. Reformers of Berkshire, it is an old sentiment to quote to you, " a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether ;" but the third clause of that sentiment has a new and peculiar meaning at the present moment. Let but this last pull be strong enough, and it will be a pull final and altogether—you will never have occasion to pull again—the boroughmongers will be done with—they will make no head again, The two candidates are, Mr. Hallett, a reformer, and Mr. Palmer, an anti-Reformer. We give the latter gentleman that appellation boldly ; for, after all his explanations, the matter comes to this—that he is as much an anti-Reformer as any one else is, or can be, at the present day, and you wish to know no more to rouse your exertions against him. Mr. Hallett is a stanch and well-understood Reformer. In the present case, actions, not words, are wanted. In the latter, your cause has indeed already triumphed on the day of nomination ; for, to say nothing of other speakers, the elements of rational con viction, and the force of eloquence, could hardly ao further than they were carried by Sir Francis Burdett, in support of Reform. You ask us then, and ask each other, how you are to exert yourselves ? We are now come to that, and shall answer the question forthwith. By bodily or personal efforts of every kind, cer tainly ; by the sacrifice of ease and time ; but more—by subscriptions—by liberal pecuniary subscriptions. An example has already been set by the more affluent ; press forward, ye other affluent, who are still behind, and add your names to the list next to these. Let every freeholder, who has the claims of family and children to satisfy before those of his country, and not much to spare, pledge himself at least to impose no expense on the popular candidate, and let asso ciations under this engagement be formed in villages and towns—the parties engaging to con vey themselves to and from the place of election at their own cost. But, fur ther, we addressed these remarks, it will be seen at the opening, to the " other inhabitants of Berkshire" as well as the freeholders. And what, have the other inhabitants of Berkshire nothing to bestow but their shouts, their hisses, or cheers ? Yes, let minor kinds of subscrip tions be entered into throughout the country : we do not say penny subscriptions, but sub- scriptions of - which pence shall constitute the bulk, and not exceed half-a-crown or a crown for each person. By these it will be shown what the bulk of the people of England—that is to say, the strength of the realm—is on the subject of Reform. Finally, men of Berkshire, recol lect what we said above. " A long pull," (that is not required, the effort will be but short) " a strong pull,"— 0 yes, as strong as you please, pull with all your might and main, and "a pull sll together." Upon this last we have again a few words to say. In going near the improve ments which are making in the vicinity of St. Martin's Church a day or two ago, we observed some workmen engaged in pulling down a wretched and decayed old building. They had tixed a rope round a portion of it, and were tugging in cheerful unison with each other. Once," said they, and pulled ; " twice," and pulled again ; " thrice," with a loud huzza, they pulled, and down came the ancient but miserable tablic, to make way fora fairer structure. This was the it pull all together." So pull you, and you will have no need to pull again.—Times. In commenting on our article on the Foreign. office and the state of our Diplomacy, the Morning Herald is pleased to call this Journal a Ministerial Paper. We are not, and never, were, supporters of the present Administration , in the sense expressed by our contemporary. — We are the faithful adherents of that system of policy which Earl Grey has so long and so consistently advocated ; and we have stre nuously, and we hope efficiently, supported him in every measure which seemed to us calculated to strengthen and uphold that system. But we never have been the allies and admirers of that portion of his Cabinet, who, in order to act with their Chief, must necessarily give up many of those opinions and principles on which they have so long been acting in public life ; and who, in that compromise, still cling to their old preju dices, and strive, by every means in their power, to render the contrast between their present and their former opinions less glaring to the public eye. The result of this conflict has been a va riety of half and half measures, both in our foreign and domestic policy, of which we never should have heard had the entire Administra tion been of one mind and acted on one poli tical system : but which have, we are bound to admit, produced a bad effect on the country. Our contemporary also mistakes our animad versions on the means employed by Lord Pal merston to carry into effect the views of a liberal Government, for a condemnation of the principles on which our foreign policy has lately been conducted. On this point we did not, and do not now mean to express any opinion, althoug we feel, in common, we believe, with the whole country, gratitude to Ministers for having so far got through the complicated state of foreign affairs to which they succeeded, and for having, contrary to the hopes and endeavours of th e Opp os iti on ,• hitherto kept us out of war. Our immediate object was to direct the public attention to the machinery . of our Foreign-office, and Diplomatic Esta blishment. The people might as well expect good Government from the representatives of Old Sarum or Gatton, as Lord Palmerston the honest and faithful execution of liberal measures by the bigoted and prejudiced agents of the Castlereagh and Metternich school. They have been the creatures of the same systeiß which has filled the House of Lords with mushroom Peers who so little understand their position, or rather who- have so much keener a sense of their own personal and selfish interests than those of the nation at large, that they would prefer risking the, safety of their institution, to a willing sympathy with, or obedience to, the national feelings and will. " A change has come over the spirit of our dream," and all things mustsympathize with it. That they must do so with a reformed House of Commons, no man doubts. That the sooner they do so, the more it will be for the public interests. Many of our re• luctant and lukewarm Reformers may affect to doubt ; and it was from an apprehen sion of sentiments of this description operating prejudicially in that quarter, that we addressed Ministers with no unkindness of feeling to Lord Palmerston. We repeat, that every hour's he sitation to remove all individuals from employ ment in the service of the Foreign-office, who are known, by their conversation and connexions, to be hostile to the measures of the existing Administration--we will go further, every person upon whose zeal and fidelity they cannot rely, for the promotion of the great principles of civil liberty, and a regard for the rights and inde pendence of the people, in contradistinction to those of the Cabinets of Austria, Prussia, Rus sia, and Spain, or, in short, of the Holy Alli ance—is either an act of imbecility or of trea chery to what is, thank God, at last, the predominant party in this country—the party of the people. Let any man turn over the dirry leaves of the Red Book, and decide for himself how many of the employb of this corps, in all ranks and grades, entertain opinions and princi ples in unison with those of their employers. Let him inquire with what zeal and fidelity, and with what singular address and intelligence, they have served the . present Administration, in their communications with the continental Courts. Let him look at the suspicious delay which has attended the ratification of the Bel gian Treaty, especially at Berlin and Peters burgh, negotiated with so much apparent good understanding and unanimity by the different parties in Downing-street. If the public do not come to the same conclusion with ourselves from all these premises, let them look at some even of Lord Palmerston's appointments—to the very last announcement in the Gazette, Mr. Welles ley to be secretary at Munich—and then decide whether we have not sufficient grounds for the apprehension and suspicion we have expressed on this subject. We have already stated the grounds on which we condemn the whole system. The idle expense of the establishment is a further grievance, although not of equal im portance, to that of having our interests com mitted to the care of improper agente. We should like to see a Committee of a Reformed house of Commons appointed to examine per sonally into the use and advantage of our mis sions at more than one-half of the courts, at which an extravagant establishment is main tained for purposes of patronage and corruption. Tlieii report on the value of the communications which have been received in the course of the year from Copenhagen, Stockholm, Munich, Frankfort, and several other places in Germany and Italy, will be more amusing than instructive. Reams of paper, where the agents are of dull and industrious habits, containing all the babble of cafes, and the scandal of cities and courts. It is not only necessary to replace the higher class of diplomatists by more intelligent and liberal agents. A measure of scarcely less expediency is to clear the different Mission s o f t h e b rood of Tory Attackgs who will otherwise be reared at our expense to perpetuate the system. No per son need go farther than Paris for an apt illus tration of the present state of things. It has been the common observation in the salons of the capital for the last twelvemonth, that Lord Granville had not a single person at the embassy to whom lie could safely and properly intrust the copying of a confidential despatch. And this species of vermin have no sense of that de licacy and propriety which might induce them to spare others the pain of recalling or discharging them. They stick to place, and the chances of promotion and pension, with a perseverance and shamelessness which is only to be accounted for by their hopes of a restoration of the old order of things, and of their patrons to offic e and power. i i t t h to tl n ie oti r c e e ne t :- e al re o - f —Morning Chronicle. We have glanced on former occasion s at t h e to it stage o f' t h e trans only s h e various objects Charter,jicoo wnannreedcfteieirdi a n c ia ti r o k n s t w h e at on h l a y ve uniformly been thrown out by prejudiced parties when alluding to this subject : lelay. we mean the bargains that have been enterer into between the Government and the Bank Directors. We shall now only refer to the twt most prominent (for we may consider the sus pension of cash payments in that light), the Acts of 1797 and that of 1822. A Ministeria: Journal that has some time since broken ground upon the Bank Charter question has more than once observed that the transaction of 1797 was of itself sufficient to render a change neces sary. It does not appear to us essential to discuss the conduct of the Managers of the Bank thirty-five years since for the purpose of ascertaining whether now, in 1832, the Charter should be renewed; but we are prepared to argue this branch of the subject upon its merits . At the end of 1794 the Directors expressed their anxiety for the debt due from the Govern ment to the Bank to be considerably reduced. They wished it to have been entirely liquidated, but they apprehended that object could not be effected. Early in 1795 they came to a resolu tion to limit their advances upon Treasury bills to 500,0001., and communicated with Mr. Pitt to the effect that he would so adjust his finan cial measures for the year as ,not to depend upon the Bank for aid. At the beginning of 1796 the Directors declared in the form of a resolution that if any further loan or advance of money to the Emperor of Germany, or any other foreign States, should take place, the act would prove fatal to the Bank of England. Fresh advances were, however, made, and fresh demands upon the Bank of England ; to which demands the Directors consented, at the " pressing solicitations" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to ward off evils which a refusal on their part might produce in the then alarming state of the country. The necessities of the Government greatly aggravated the embar rassments of the Bank of England, which were severely felt by those who conducted its affairs so early as 1794 ; and the interim between that year and 1797 led them into further em barrassments, owing to the " pressing solicita tions" of the Minister. But, setting these transactions aside, it would have been very diffi cult, if not impossible, for the Bank to have got over the crisis of 1797 without having had recourse to the step that then took place, a suspension of cash payments. Alarms of invasion were constant, and the run upon the Bank very extensive, and, under these circumstances, how could paper convertible at the will of the holder into gold remain in circulation ? The other point to which we shall now allude is that connected with the public pensions and annuities, commonly called the " Dead Weight," which has been so often discussed that we shall here merely state the simple fact, that if that arrangement between the Government and the Bank be disadvantageous to the public, the Directors did not seek for it. The proposition was first made to another Cor poration and refused, and the Bank accepted, when the proposal was made to the Managers of that establishment, only a small share of the advantage. It took only a quarter of the pro posed amount that was to complete the arrange ment, after having been pressed to take the whole; this, be it recollected, and all other arrangements of a similar nature, having ul mately obtained the sanction of Parliament.- Morning Post. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock. M PERU L PA R LIAM EN' THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY t iok his seat, as Speaker, a little after five o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. BERNAL and Mr. SCHONSWAR, and others from the Commons, brought up several private Bills, which were read a first time. CIVIL DEPARTMENTS OF THE NAVY BILL. On the motion of Lord AUCKLAND, this Bill was read a third time and passed. REFORM. The Earl of DERBY presented a petition from B'ack burn, signed by 8,353 inhabitants, praying their Lord ships to pass the Reform Bill, without curtailment of its essential provisions. The Earl of RADNOR presented a similar petition, signed by the High Sheriff of Berk a, but adopted at the meeting of the freeholders of that county. Both of the above petitions were ordered to lie on the table. SLAVERY. The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition, most pumerously, and he believed most respectably signed, from Edinburgh, praying their Lordships to take into immediate consideration measures for the abolition of slavery in the Colonies, as soon as it could be done with safety. The petition was most moderate and tempe rate in its language, and was, therefore, highly de serving of their Lordships' attention. He united with the citizens of Edinburgh, in their abhorrence of slavery, but thought that if Parliament were at once to introduce a measure for the instantaneous abolition of slavery, it would probably lead to results most injurious, if not calamitous, to the slaves themselves, as well as to the security of the lives and property of the white in habitants.—Laid upon the table. BOROUGH OF HELSTON. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Helston, praying that the assessed taxes which were remitted to the yr omanry cavalry of that town might be taken into calculation in estimating the comparative value of Helston, with regard to other boroughs in schedule A. His Lordship thought it very hard that the loyalty of the inhabitants of Hel ston should subject them to disfranchisement. Lord KENYON and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM sup ported the prayer of the petition, which was laid on the table. BOROUGH OF AMERSHAAL Lord KENYON presented a petition from the borough of Anaershatn, complaining that the boundary of the bo rough taken in the Reform B;11 had excluded the manor-house and another building or two, which would have saved it from disfranchisement. Several boroughs which were to be saved were not of tai great importance as Ansersham. The petition having been read, Lord KENYON moved that the petitioners be allowed to prove their case at the bar of the House. Earl GREY did not think that a case had been trade out to justify their Lordships to accede to the prayer of the petition. Lord KENYON said the case only rested upon the statements of those from whom he had received the peti tion ; hut if their case were establisi ed, and it could only be established by a hearing of Counsel at the bar, Amersham would be taken out of schedule A and placed in schedule B. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY was putting the quee ion. when Lord ELLENBOROUGII said as an arbitrary rule had b e eu Ism] down by his Majesty's Ministers, even if the allegations of the petitions were established, no advantage would arise to them. Lord KING said that the same calculations bad been wade, and the same statements brought forward and urged in another place by a celebrated arithmetician dative to Amersham, but as this course had been aban doned by him, they had very good reason to infer that Lieut. Drummond's calculations proceeded upon the right His Grace the Duke of BUCKINGHAM said, the question was not whether the calculations of Lieutenant lrummond were more or less correct, but the fact was, in relation to Amersham, that if the manor which was ituate in the parish were included in the calculation, it would be entitled to representation. Lord DURHAM could nut see any end to a discussion 'do nature upon a petition ; it could serve but only to Cold KENYON explained. Earl GREY said the ou:y time fur eoulidering such a staismat would be in Contralti:4 on schedule A. Thi motion was then negatived without a division. Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a petition fror the town of Stockton-upon-Tees, praying for power under the Reform Bill of sending Members to Parliament. Lord CREY presented a petition from Thurston, an.'• another from Dumbarton, praying that the Reform Bil, might be passed into a law ; alco a petition from Rumsey, in the county of Northampton, praying the House to givr their sanction to the system of education introdutxd into Ireland by the Government. Earl GREY presented a petition from Ross, praying their Lordships to take into considerationt the Criminal Laws. Earl RODEN moved for certain returns respecting the Irish schools, which had been laid on the table of the House of Commons to be laid on their Lordships table. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM gave notice of his in tention on Tuesday to present a petition from the magis tracy and gentry of Queen's County, Ireland, calling the attention of the House to the state of that country. As it was of great consequence, and as the discussion upon this petition might involve not only the consideration of the Queen's County, but the present state of the whole of Ireland momentarily becoming worse and worse, he thought it right to give this notice, and also to move that their Lordships might be summoned for that day. Lord MUNSTER took the opportunity of explaining his conduct upon the subject of the Reform Bill now be fore the House. He did this in consequence of the state ments that bad gone abroad respecting the part he had taken. Every person knew that he entertained liberal opinions; but he confessed himself alarmed at the extent of the present measure ; he had not voted that night, however, to oppose it, for fear of giving a false impression to the country of the opinion of one to whom he owed every thing. It was untrue that he had unhandsomely intrigued, and sapped the mind of the Noble Earl. He could not have done so, even If he had been unworthy enough to have stooped to such a practice, situated as he was for six months before, and thirty-six hours after Ministers had resigned. (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. B. CARTER presented a petition from Bristol, relative to the Bristol Compensation Bill, which was re ferred to the Committee on the Bill. On the motion of Mr. SCHONSWAR, the Bill for regu lating the Rates of Pilotage in the Humber was read a third time. Mr. BULLER moved the third reading of the Exeter Improvement Bill. Mr. WARBURTON said he bad received instructions from a gentlemen, who represented the wishes of a great portion of the inhabitants of Exeter, to oppose the third reading of this Bill, in consequence of the amendments which had been made to it in its progress through the Committee. The Bill originally proposed that six of the Corporation should be allowed to be on the Board to have the care of the improvements in Exeter ; but instead of limiting the number to six, the Committee bad introduced the whole Corporation, amounting to fifteen persons, which would have the effect of giving such an influence to tbat body, that the inhabitants had chosen rather to lose the Bill for a time than to have it with a Board of Commissioners so formed. There was another point to which he had to allude. A line of road bad been cho sen, and inserted originally in the Bill, but in the Com mittee, without any notice whatever to the inhabitants, it had been altered and a new line introduced, which would run entirely through the property of the Corporation, and would cost the inhabitants 20,0001. The Hon. Member conciuded by moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the amendment. Mr. SANFORD suggested that it would be better to postpone the Bill, in order to allow time for the inhabi tants of Exeter to meet and express their wishes by peti tition, instead of rejecting the Bill, which would be the effect of the amendment. Mr. WARBURTON bad no objection to withdraw his amendment, if the suggestion of the Hon. Member was acceded to. After a few words from Mr. Buaxe, the amendment was withdrawn, and the third reading postponed until this day se'nnight. On the motion of Mr. BULLER, the Exeter Railway Bill was read a third time. Mr. A. JOHNSON presented a petition from the Pres bytery of Haddington, against the proposed system of edu cation in Ireland. Lord W. LENNOX presented a petition from King's Lynn, in Norfolk, in favour of the plan of Irish Education. The Noble Lord, in supporting the prayer of the petition, said he trusted that the proposed measure would be attended with great benefit to the country. Mr. WEYLAND bad a petition of a direct contrary nature from the same place. Lord W. LENNOX then presented a petition from the county of Flint, in favour of Parliamentary Reform. Also a petition from Holywell against the Registration Act. Mr. DIXON presented a petition from the Corporation of Harnmermen of Glasgow, in favour of Reform. Also, a petition from Dumbarton, praying the House to atop the Supplies till the Reform Bill become law. The Hon. Member also presented petitions from Reading and Bever ley, praying for an amelioration of the Criminal Code. Mr. HUNT presented a petition from a person of the name of Timmins, of Preston, stating that he had been imprisoned for debt in Lancaster gaol ; that he there found the deputy gaoler was one of his creditors, that he endeavoured to exercise the influence be had over him to give a note of hand for the full payment of his debt, or he would oppose him before the Commissioners ; that in consequence of his refusing to give the bill, he did oppose him. Such conduct the Commissioners repu diated, but the Magistrates of Lancaster commended it. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the House would institute some inquiries on the subject. The Hon. Mem ber thought the course of conduct pursued by the Magistrate of Lancaster in allowing such abuses to exist highly blamabk, and trusted the Members for Lan caster would do all in their power to remedy the abuse, otherwise he should feel it incumbent upon him to move for a Committee to inquire into the case. Lord STANLEY was not cognizant of the whole cir cumstances as he wastancescoiane informed,ctedwith the Commissionershiscase,butbelieve had not d,atleast so far mad e ay H n e remarks kne knew the e o f A t s a t t r u a r t e e stated shad b i y the ostit Hon. Mem ber. instituted in q uiry into the subject, but what conclusion they had come to he could not say. Mr. HUNT gave notice that on the 22d of June be would move for copies of letters written by J. Hume, E-q., to Lord Althorp and the Attorney-General, relative to the prosecution of W. Cobbett ; also, that if Lord Milton did not bring forward his motion on the Corn Laws before the 26th of June, he would on that day bring forward a motion for their total repeal. O'CONNOR DON presented a petition in favour of the new system of Irish education, and one from Ros sere3, against capital punishment for minor offences. Mr. EWART presented a petition from a person in Liverpool against the theatrical monopoly. Mr. WEYLAND presented a petition from certain members of the Established Church in Ireland against the Pluralities' Bill. The petitioners complained that by the Bill the Archbishop of Canterbury had power to dispense with every clause it contained. Lord TULLAMORE presented petitions against the Irish system of education. Mr. L. LEIGH presented a petition from Ilininster and its neighbourhood in favour of Reform. Mr. MARRYAT presented petitions from Grenada and St. Lucie, praying for protection to the West India colonies, and that no further interference might take place between the master and the slave, until a full inquiry into the whole question had been gone into. The Hon. Gentleman entered into a long statement on presenting his petition, but in so low a tone of voice as to be in audible in the gallery. On the question that they be printed. Lord HOWICK said, if Honourable Members would read the printed papers before the House on this subject, it would render such questions and observations as had fallen from the Hon. Member unnecessary. In them would be seen the reasons why Government had declined to give the Crown Colonies a more popular system of legislation. It would also be found that wherever it was prac !icable Government had established Legislative Assemblies. As an instance he might mention Newfoundland, also in St. Lucia and Trinidad, the assemblies had not been formed—Councils had been instituted, consisting of the most eminent and influential of the inhabitants, and their duty was to suggest such improvements in the laws of those colonies, as to them seemed proper. Government had also been charged with appointing per .ions to Judgeships who were unacquainted with the French language. Phis charge was totally hnfounded. Government had taken every care to appoint none to those situations but those w(-11 aequaint.d with French. But as they were obliged to take those persons from the two small islands of Guernsey and Jersey, it now a difficult !natter to select proper persons ; especially asthe salaries were so small in those islands, that gentlemen high at the har would not accept of them. He would add nothing Ctrther, but beg of lion. Gentlemen to read those papers before they brought such charge. against Government. Mr. HUNT wished to ask the Noble Lord who had just sat down whether Information had been renelvild from the Island of Jamaica to the effect that the Assembly had refused to grant the supplies, and to vote the usual salary for the Governor-General. Lord HOWICK said, information had been received, but not quite to the effects spoken of by the Hon. Member. Amendments to the usual Bills had been moved, but nothing definitively settled when the last des patches were made up. The NOBLE LORD, in answer to a question from Mr. Burge, said there were several other of the islands which had refused the supplies. A Message from the Lords brought down the Tower fratnlets Small Debt Bill, the Civil Department (Navy), and other Bills. The Sheriffs of London appeared at the bar with a pe tition from the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen against some parts of the Bill now before the House for amending the laws relating to cruelty to animals. The petition having been read, Mr. Alderman WOOD said the Magistrates of London would not have interfered with the Bill now before the House, but that it repealed the present Bill, which en abled them to issue numbers by which drovers who mis conducted themselves were easily known and punishe f. The new Bill would destroy that protection, and ap point in its stead constables and inspectors, who were to be paid out of the poors rates. He wished that the Hon. Member who brought in the Bill (Mr. McKin non) would consent to refer it to a Special Committee, with the view of making auch alterations as would render it more effectual. Mr. MACKINNON said the Hon. Alderman bad mis understood his Bill, the object of which was to prevent cruelty to animals in every town in the kingdom, and so far from repealing the present Bill, it was re-enacted in the 3d clause. Mr. LAMB considered it advisable that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that some pasts might undergo improvement. Mr. WILES said that on Friday last he presented a petition signed by the Lord Mayor and several Aldermen, praying the interference of the House to amend the exist ing laws. Mr. PORTMAN would take the first opportunity of opposing the Bill, unless the Hon. Member would con sent to refer it to a select committee. After a few words from Mr. Alderman HUGHES, a conversation arose between the SPEAKER. and Mr. Alderman WOOD relative to the privilege possessed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of presenting their petitions by the hands of the sheriffs. The SPEAKICIL was of opinion that the Court of Aldermen did not possess that privilege, although the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen and the Court of Common Council did. Mr. Alderman WOOD declared that that privilege had always been exercised within his knowledge. The conversation then dropped, and the petition was ordered to be printed. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. STANLEY said that on Friday last he called the attention of the House to a breach of privilege, in the unauthorised furtberation of what purported to be a report of the Committee upon Irish tithes. He had since taken steps to ascertain bow that report had found its way into the newspapers, and this morning the Commit tee had before them Mr. Sheehan, the proprietor of the Dublin Evening Mail, who said that he had not re• ceived it from any Member of the Committee, but declined to state from what quarter he obtained it. He (Mr. Stanley) by desire of the Committee, now moved that Mr. Thomas Sheehan be called to the bar of this House to morrow. Mr. HUME asked whether the report was a copy or merely an abstract of the report of the Committee. Mr. STANLEY said the Committee bad agreed to no report, and bad only drawn up a draft of a report, part of which had been published in the paper in question, part left out, and part not quite correct. Mr, HUME cautioned the House to choose some line regardidg publications, for at present no one knew what ought and what ought not to be published according to the rules of the House; and it was important that the House should not unnecessarily interfere with the publica tions of the day. After a few observations from the SPEAKER in which he stated that every unauthorised publication of what transpired in that House, or in the Committees, was a breach of privilege. Mr. STANLEY observed that it might turn out that a copy of the draft of the report had been furnished by some inferior officer of the House, and it was necessary that the House should only have officers in whom they could place the utmost reliance. He understood that one Member of the Committee had not received a copy that was sent to him. Mr. RUTHVEN was sorry the Right Hon. Gentleman thought the subject of sufficient importanceto bring the party before the House. He did not make the observations on account of making any kind feeling towards the Paper in question, for no one was snore opposed to it in politics than he was ; but he thought that equal justice ought to be dealt oat to all parties. Lord MILTON considered it absolutely necessary that some understanding as to the course to be pursued should be come to, otherwise the House would be considered as conniving at such transactions. Such violations were greatly injurious to the public service, as no Com. mittee could deliberate safely or fairly if documents like the present were to be divulged before they had been agreed to. After some observations from Mr. HUNT and Mr. O'CONNELL, On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, Mr. Sheehan was ordered to attend at the Bar to-morrow. CORN LAWS. Mr. BEST wished to inquire of the Noble Lord opposite (Milton) whether it was his intention to bring forward his motion on the Corn Laws this evening, or whether he intended to postpone it till some fixed day. Lord MILTON had no hesitation in answering the Hon. Member, at the time he gave notice of his motion for that day, he had intended to have brought it forward, but he was net aware that on that day orders would take prece dence of motions. If however the Orders of the Day were got over in anything like reasonable time, he should have no objection to bring it on this evening.—(Hear.) Supposing, however, that could not be accomplished, he would bring it forward on the earliest possible day. If the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer would give up the Orders of the Day on Monday, he would bring it forward then. Lord ALTHORP would not consent to give up the Orders on that day, as the Scotch Reform Bill was then appointed to be proceeded with. After some further observations from Lord Milton, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Heathcot, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Gore Langton, the motion was fixed to come on on Wednesday the 6th instant. (LEFT HITTING.) POLICE INTELLIGENCE. 130 W-S TREE T. A female, about twenty years of age, tall, fair, and good looking, who had been three months in prison, under the sentence of Mr. MINSRULL, for re fusing to swear who was the father of her illegiti mate child, appeared before the same Magistrate yesterday, and an assistant of the overseers of St. Martin's parish, again called upon her to affiliate the child she had in her arms, that the parish mi g h t come upon the father for th e expenses of its mainte nance, &c. The young woman burst into tears, and requested to be sworn on the Holy Bible. She said, that she and her babe had suffered dreadfully during the winter months, in a prison without fire, LL tLev p e r r a 3;,W whe ts in t and but where on one was o ccasion. tioat because she refused t o comm i t per ju ry. She again declared to God, as s h e h a d d one before her former committal, that she kn ew not who the father of the chi xr. ldiwmNSHasi. She u Female—l met th e person in Bow -street, and went to a house at th e corner of a court (Broad court) at the top. I h ave never seen him since. Mr. MINSHULL--I will send you for three months more, unless you tell who and where the father is. Female—For Uod's sake, don't, Sir; for the poor infant's sake don't Sir. Oh, Sir, you don't know what I have already suffered. I would tell who the father is if I could. I would not have lain three months in prison, if I could have done what I am required. (The woman clasped her hands, and im plored for mercy.) Mt. MlNsttum, ordered her to be taken to the workhouse, to consider if she would do what he was confident she could do, if she pleased—swear who was the father of the child ; and, in case of her per sisting in the refusal to do so, he should commit her again. DIED. On the 2Sth inst. in Ilarleyford.plaee, Kennington, aged 56, Mrs. Sarah Warter, the wife of Mr. Joseph Warter, of High= street, Southwark. PBIN TED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO Y O U N 0, A T Tux SUN OFFICE, 112, S TIIAND, LONDON.