The Sun. — London, England, 1840-04-01 00:00:00

EVEN LNG- EDITION --- 16 ,, money deposited in all the Savings Banks in the coun tie.— Ordered. The Earl of ROSE BE RY presented a petition from Linlithgow, prayii:g for atotal and immediate repeal of the Cern-laws. It was almost unnecessary for him to state that he could not support the prayer of the petition in all its extent ; be %cal favourable, however, to a modification of those laws, and he thought it would soon be indispensible t ) modify them, particularly with reference to the scale of deties. He was convinced that by such a plan much might be done for the improvement of the country without being at all injurious to the agricultural interest. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a peti tion from a parish in Cheshire praying for the repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from Durham, praying that a stop might be put to the 0 l ) ium Trade. Also one very numerously and respectably signed by persons in the county of Durham, praying fur the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Ile could not go that length, but had the petitioners prayed r for a modification of the laws, and a reduction of the duty upon corn, he would most willingly have given the peti t' ‘n his support. He had the good fortune to possess a certain portion of land, and he naturally wished agr7 , ,, u t_ te.e to succeed, but be thought the excessive protection g: en to agriculture was the cause of much of (tie di stress ael poverty which prevailed throughout the, country . H e kL. ow that there were many able advi,cates both is that I E.Ase and out of it for a contint:ance of the Corn-laws; but, in his opinion, they ought . to be revised, and the duty rc-4eced, fur his maxim IrAti always been " to live and let i livc." The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, although he bad tot the good fortune to possess the same influence and ?ewer in the county of Durham as the Noble Duke, eeuld not permit it to go forth that there was not a f very cettsiderable portion of the agricultural interest iin that county h ost il e to any alteration of the " Ir 2-14 ws- He wished to as k the Noble e e 7 ixeount opposite whether there was any truth in irziyit he saw stated in the journals of the day, relative to 1 0 certain meeting said to have taken place in Downing e!ecet. From that report it 1 appeared ad that two hundred erns, calling themselves delegates , h taken Downing .l..aeeet by surprise, and had entered to a very considerable e f t into the question of the Corn-laws. He should fknow in what manner that meeting was to be , -viewed, because, at the end of the re p ort, the Noble Vis -1 'VW was made to say that he had received and answered °:il in his private, not in his official capacity. Now he (the Marquis of Londonderry) could Ai,/ conceive how the Noble Viscount could ` five two hundred delegates upon such a ques tion in his private capacity. He wished to ask the Noble Viscount whether the report was correct, whether ie was a true statement of his opinions, as stated by him to the Delegates, whether it was merely the private opinions of Lord Melbourne, or whether those of the Ministers, reseecting the Corn-laws ; and, if so, how was the House tee look at the discrepancies between those answers, and 'ae statements made by the Noble Lord last year? )(to declaration made by the ;Noble Lord last year was I vary strong. He could not say that which he had last =ado was exactly the same, but let their Lordships look at the statement of what passed, and ask themselves if they oeeeld gather from it what the Noble Viscount intended to 413 respecting the Corn-laws, for it was a mystification i 'r.ehieh was unworthy the position he held as first Minister i of the Crown. He thought the question was one of such 1 vital importance that the first Minister of the Crown was ballad to tell them, whether he meant to repeal, or by changing the duty, to alter the Corn-laws, or was deter mined to support them as they at present stood. He, therefore, begged to know whether the statement was cor !, sect, and whether the Noble Lord had spoken in his pri -1 vete or official capacity. Lord MELBOURNE said he could not say whether I the statement referred to by the Noble Marquis was cor- Ireel or noi, as he had not head of it, and therefore could rot vouch for he correctness"; but what he apprehended the Noble M arqu i s re f erre d to was some difference between , wheft he had said in his private and official capacity, not relating to the main subject, but to some opinions he had 1 etated in the course of the meeting with reference to l; foreign trade. He certainly stated an opinion he very 'such held, that they would not by relaxing the Corn-laws obtain a greater facility from foreign countries for the im portation into them of our manufactures.—( Hear, hear.) On which a delegate stated that that declaration would bare u great effect on the country, and wished to know 1 whezther it was his (Lord Melbourne's) private opinion, or i tae opinion of the Government, and he answered that eloerly. lie stated it merely as his own opinion. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then read an extract front the report of the interview in the ! newspaper, to the effect that Lord Melbourne said that the total repeal at present would be most injudicious ; t i ive, all at once was not the way to obtain concessions from e °reign Powers." He wished to know whether that was 1 tie be one of Mr. O'Connell's instalments. He thought i the Noble Viscount should state the determination of the government on the subject. . The Earl of RADNOR, who was heard with great Al i 'cune was understood to say that, in consequence I .e . the lateness of the two laet seasons, there would ae . te famine, if the Corn-laws were not repealed. He 1 !'egged their Lordships to attend to the effect of the Corn , 'laws on the Poor-laws. The object of the Poor-laws was 1 lo produce a free competition of labour, but that ought to t i Ito aceovnpanied with a free trade in food. Although he was favourable to the Corn-laws, yet ho would support a modification of them, if an alteration were not made in the Poor-laws.—( Hear, hear, s The avowed object of the Corn-laws was to keep up the k rice of bread. That was declared to be the object when toy were established, and it was said at that time that if the landlords were not protected in that way they would be rcoined. After some further observations he expressed a 'eope that their Lordships would well consider the subject, =gad be prepared to deal with it when it came before them. The Noble Lord then presented a number of petitions in Iroar of the alteration from Devon, Hampshire, Chester, Loaerk, Somerset, and other places in England and Scot- ;and. We understood him to say that the petition from Somerset was signed by a very wealthy landowner, Sir f Tomas Lethbridge.—( Hear.) The Duke of RICHMOND said the great object of the Corn-laws was that the nation should be independent of any other country foe bread.—( Hear, hear.) On this view of the subject he would refer his Noble Friend ' ( Lord Radnor) to the speech of the President of Hear, hear, hear.) His Noble Friend, iltcs other agitators, stated what he assumed to be the opinions of the agriculturists, and then argued noon them. They put the question to the people, as one of cheap bread, but if they told them that the question was vhether they would have cheap bread and butter, or no employme' o t, or would have bread at a reasonable price And go , ,d wages—( Hear, hear, bear) , if the question was put in that way to the people, they would not be so will -1 s i gn petitions.—( Hear, hear.) 'Was it the fact that th a labouring classes were in distress? Look to the state of the Savings Banks. In November 1838, there were '690,138 depositors, and of these 600,000 were deposits of 71. on the average.—( Hear, hear.) That showed to what class they belonged.—(Hear, hear.) But in No vember, 1839, there was an increase of 40,000 depositors, and the amount of the deposits was 7,' , 00,00CL—( Hear, 12 , nr.) ad that show that the people were in distress ? lie should like to know what were the wages in the parish in the Noble Lord's neighbourhood, from which one of the petitions came ? In his own neighbourhood the wages were 12 , . a-week, and when the men were on task work they earned 15s. a-week. If the Corn-laws were 0 repealed undoubtedly there would not be full employment, as a great deal of land would be thrown out of cultivation. Lei d RADNOR believed that the repeal of the Corn laws instead of diminishing, employment would increase it. ' It would certainly increase it in the manufacturing districts. The' Duke of RICHMOND asked how much able bodied labourers got in the part of the country which the hie ble Lord referred to ? The Earl of RADNOR—Their usual pay is about 9.. a week. The Duke of B UCCLE LTG H said that if they were so well paid, he did not see what complaint-could be made on the subject. Tise Earl of FALMOUTH appealed to the facts of the ca-.c, which were all on one side, to prove that the present system had succeeded in keeping the markets more t,teady than they hal ever been in any given number of years previous to their adoption. He should also say that tho Noble Lord was entirely unfounded in his views es to :he ((Teets which a repeal of the Corn-laws would have on the labourers of this country. If the farmers were depressed they would not be able to employ labourers, or to aive teem any effectual assistance. , The Duke of RIC H MJND presented petitions from \Ve-t Grimston and Shipley, in Susstx, against any alte r:eihn in the Corn-laws ; also a petition from the Board of Guardians of a union in the county of Sussex, and another from a place in he county of Elgin, to the same effect ; I also a petiti on f rom a par i e l t i n A b erd2en against the intro . non nt Ministers to 0 - .. e Scottish Church. Ti,c Bills on th, table were forwarded a stage, and the o Clock, adjourned to Thursday. ANT.LCORN-LAW DELEGATES. using all other means to obtain food for his perish ing family without effect, to have taken food for them wherever he could find it.—( Here considerable symp toms of dissent were exhibited by the meeting.) lie did not anticipate any expression of dissent from one resting upon the highest authorities in law and in ethics. Those gentlemen must remember that in Scotland the un employed labourer receives no relief f-om the poor's fur ds, and that any man in the position he had described hid no alternative between being accessory to the commission of murder—to the death of fellow creatures, of a wife and children depending upon them for subsistence, or the be coming a criminal in the eye of the law, though justified, as he thought, by the great princip les of morality and religion. It was thus that the people were thrown out of employment by the operation of the Corn-laws, and being driven to desperation by their sufferings, some of them became the inmates of prisons, and had the brand of crime fixed upon them for life. He knew something of and the feelings and opinions of the people o fScotland ; though he felt convinced that the dcmaad for farther re forms beyond the repeal of the Corn-laws could not now hc! s t o pped, yet that an immediate and total repeal of those 1 laws would greatly tend to render the progress of those reforms safe and constitutional. He had just been in formed by some of his friends now present, belonging to Paisley, that thousands would immediately be thrown out of employment. He asked how, without any means of relief to the unemployed in Scotland, the authority of the law could be maintained? Mr. DICKENS, the Mayor of Carlisle, entered into a detail of the distresses to which our labouring population is now exposed, adding that those distresses were yearly increasing. Mr. BROOKE, the boroughrecve of Manchester, stated various facts which had come under his own knowledge in Manchester, showing the misery endured by the poorer classes of that towu. From a printed document it ap peared that there were 1953 families in which the average earning of each individual did not exceed is. , lid. per week. A large part of that sum must have been spent in pawn-offices. The mill-owners were every day declining, and had greatly reduced their hours of labour. Ha had sold a mill in Manchester four years ago for 32,000/. and he had lately re-purchased it for 10,000/. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he need hardly observe, that in giving his opinion en the present occasion, be spoke merely as a Member of ['ornament, and not in his official capacity. Ile was afraid his opinions would not completely satisfy the gentlemen present. lie was certainly opposed to the present system, as he thought it was attended with many disadvantages, and made the corn trade little better than a gambling transaction. He was satisfied the system was a bad one, and he would never refuse voting for in quiring into it. He would therefore support the motion of Mr. Villiers this tear as he had done last year, but at the same time he could not advocate a total repeal of the existing laws. He believed that such a change would be of too violent a nature, and he did not think it would he advisable to deprive our agriculturists of all protection. His vote would not, therefore, be for a total repeal, but for a fixed duty, which he thought would be a more ra tional, moderate, and just system than the present. Mr. ELLISON, of Dewsbury, said he was a Poor-law Guardian in the centre of a manufacturing population, and he felt convinced that the Corn-laws and the Poor-laws could net subsist together, The CHAIRMAN said in allusion to observations which had often been made, that he thought Government might inquire into the possibility of entering into negotiations with the Governments which bad entered into the Prussian League for the purpose of enlarging our commerce with them. The Chancellor of the ExcueorEa said that the facts which had been brought forward undoubtedly deserved the attention of the Government and the country. It would, however, be very difficult to enter into negotiations with foreign Governments, unless there was a certainty of their being sanctioned by Parliament. Nothing could-be more dangerous than such a proceeding. Mr. Coecers said that the present question was of far too important a nature to allow the Government to remain undecided on it. He thought that no Ministry could any longer stand without being committed one way or the other on the subject ; and that a Ministry taking up the repeal of the Corn-laws would eventually have the support of the majority of the country. The Deputies returned to Brown's Hotel shortly after three o'clock. The CHAIRMAN, on taking the chair, stated that he sup posed all present had been to the interview, and had heard all that passed, and from that every gentleman could form his own opinion. One thing was perfectly clear, and that was that there was only one course to pursue, and that was to go on with their appeal to their fellow citizens over the whole country. To enable them to do that, one thing was necessary, namely, funds, and they would, therefore, allow him to call their attention to the subscription list which was laid before the meeting yesterday. Many gentle men, yesterday, stated that they wished to have time to consult with their colleagues as to the sums which they should put down. It was necessary for them to buckle on their armour and proceed in the course which had already met with such success. Mr. Beaden, a Dele gate from Taunton, was present, and would be enabled to inform the meeting of some extraordinary exertions in their cause that were taking place in the agricultural districts. Mr. Alderman COBDEN said he should not be doing jus tice to Mr. Beaden if he did not state that he had been agitating their cause in Taunton, where he had lectured and spent much money in the glorious work they bad in view. Mr. BEADRN then camo forward amid much cheering. It was true, as had been stated by Mr. Alderman Cobden, that he had devoted his time, and not a little money, in agitating the subject. He had within the last few days delivered a couple of lectures gratuitously, and the result was a Working Man's Association. He had never wit nessed such excitement. It was said by the chairman that they must proceed in the agitation ; now all that he was afraid of was that agitation on this question could not be stopped.—( Cheers.) Lord Bacon said there was no reasoning with a man who had a hungry belly. He be lieved that the people were ripe for revolution; the Go vernment would do nothing for them till they were in a scrape, which he was afraid would soon be the case. It i appeared to him that they ought to get this question continually before Parliament; let detached motions be brought forward ; let one, for instance, be for ascer taining the cause of distress; let others be for other sub. jects, all of which would have a tendency to the repeal of the Corn-laws. Such motions would pester the Govern ment, and something like alteration would be the result. --(Cheers.) As far as he could agitate he would do so ; he was no new convert to the question, but had been its advocate for years. Sir Thomas Lethbridge had told him that he was for a fixed duty; but rather than DO alteration should take place, he would vote for a total re peal. But he was ready to support a fixed duty of 7s. if it was an expiring one. Sir Thomas Lethbridge had got much odium for the courso he had adopted, but he was determined to persevere in his good work. A DELEGATE said that Lord Hatherton was of the same opinion ; if ha could not get a fixed duty he would vote for a total repeal. Mr. HAYWARD said that from the interview they had had that day, it was clear that it was the conviction of her Majesty's Ministers that the great mass of the people were not prepared for a repeal of the Corn-laws. This was their fortress, and how was it to be attacked? Why, by enlightening the people on the subject of the Corn-laws, which starved them. By agitating the question in the manner they were doing, the result would be pressing the people on the Minivers. That was not to be done without funds, and he trusted, therefore, that all should come forward quickly.—(C heers.) Mr. HINDLE Y, M. P., apologised for attempting to ad dress the meeting, not being a Delegate, but he trusted those present would excuse him if he said a few words, as he was intimately connected with the commercial in terests of the country. His object in coming there to -1 day was to know whether they really intended Mr. Villiers to bring forward the motion to-morrow, and to express the strong feeling he had against pressing it forward. A DELF.GATE observed that he had seen Mr. Villiers; that he had passed a good night, his health was much im proved, and that he would certainly bring forward the motion to-morrow evening. Mr. HINDLE Y did not at all desire to interfere with the determination of Mr. Villiers who had taken such a prominent part in this matter that of course his opinions ought to be consulted, but he ( Mr. Hindley) felt that lie would be wanting in his duty to his constituents if he did not come to state his opinions--these opinions might be taken for what they were worth. If the motion were brought on to-morrow, the division would in all probability take place on Friday ; and he heliered that all expected a strong majority against them. It was said they should appeal to the country. The Ministers said the majority of the country were against the repeal, and that ;hey must enlighten the country upon the subject.— ( Ilenr, hear.) Now he would ask, would the chance of enlightening- :he country he so great after the determina tion of Parliament was known or, the subject ?—( Cries of " Yes, yes.") His opinion was very different. He would h i t ill t us i e t s u w c a h , allow that the feeling of passion among the people—the feeling terms—mg psss ionate g on which they not that kind of of • regretil t be a n g d r e a d t e e ' r P cr a a rt n he ' . f m h o e me m n i t g , trade oueht to Y I""tes I) ) ft le efere a n nd his oc;inion a f ar ) oughtpeal to t to b r e e l r s• a s The in g a , Fas eturned to their ter, and the Delegates in the meantimeoriere would be a that if M r . Villiers' motion were postponed till after , ._ of the peoi eonstitueets and agitated the country , it were brought on this week. Another thing to w. , mi y much better chance of the 'notion then being carrileidatblitaititeif The present - , a iu , ,, g d h w t h v e s a look was the state, of parties. nist. , rs were not certain of continuing in office three weeks, l) ' p r r ti e c ei ps"i-teartee, so nicely i c e e i l i y d endeavour e t d o t 121 ought : h i i ' e u l t to be t oo i would offer the highest prize.—( Hear, hear.) Ile begged pardon for obtruding his sentiments on the meeting , but he should deeply lament if they p ers evered in their present determination. The CHAIRMAN said the Delegates were gr eatly obliged to Mr. Ilimiley fur the ex p ress i on o f hi s opinion, but this subject was very f u ll y ~,,„ing, and thocirehasdiscussed by the Delegates last was li, having scarcely u e a s t d i oi dissentient e b n r t o i e u l g ' t h brought voice ( t l i n e te l l ' % l" .. o — pri f e l t lear, hear. hear.) A note hid been re ebnasmeto. c o ls e p e i i v i l i e b i d i, le:F a l 3 n -N i i t n r i g t - at V t the e o i t n u C ' i g t i b i n o t n w n t ( o ,i i:: h t t o o h - e b m e s o t to-morrow, r u t that i e r iv i h , e a: n d d e l i l t e a h ) a w ,c t ( d. llis i ( Hear, hear.) LORD ASHBURTON'S MISTAKES. 'she Delegates net yesterday at one for the purpose o oaiiirrg on Lord .1. Russell, the Chancellor of the L' xehe. TIC.. and the President of the Board of Trade. NT hen the Delegates had entered the room of Conference I it wz.s found that Lord J. Russell was absent, and 0-0 Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that this absenc e vas owing to a slight indisposition of his Noble Friend. The Chancellor ~f the Exchequer afterwards stated the ) opinion of his Noble Friend or. the present system of morn-lass. It was this—That the system was attended 1 with great inconvenience, and it was his wish that a mode ; rata fix , d duty should be imposed on foreign corn, till it reached the price of 703., and that the duty should then 'i b.,. gradually diminished. SHWORTH, al- A E _ The CHAIRMAN, and after h im. Mr. dressed at some length the two members of the Gavrra want present, pointing out the m an y evils of t he present \ Corn-laws, and the necessity of repcaling them. Mr. 13.kEwsTart said he had, for the last twenty years, been connected as a clergyman, as an overseer of the poor, with a parish containing upwards of 30,000 sou ls, and could speak to the r e l a tive amount of distress v" , w hic h had l taken place at th e diff eren t per i o ds of depression during that time. The distress three months ago, though not so , extended among th e wor ki ng c l asses a s on some former 1 occasions, was accompanied by greater suffering. This he attributed to the fact, that at former periods of distress the middle classes were able to relieve them by subscriptions and other means, while, at present, the distress having retailed those classes themselves, it was found impossible to raise subscriptions to any amount for the relief of the destitute labourer. It had been his lot to witness much of this suffering which resulted from these circumstances. He had seen children around the bed of a dead mother, whose death they attributed to want of food He bad seen fathers of families who had not tasted food for clays ; and he had seen mothers with infants at their breasts, who had not received any nourishment for t,c previous twenty-four hours. Ilad he been in the place of those parents, lie would have felt it to have been his duty, . and he would have bee n warranted, he conceived, i by every principle of religion and morality, after in the House the Board of Mr. BAINES was anxious to make a few observations in reply to a remar k made b y Lord Ashburton, of Lords last ni g ht, on the sub j ect theof Corn laws. Lord Ashburto n was the President of 1835, Trade under Sir Robert Peel in formerly, as Mr. Aterander Baring, and was connected with one of the greatest inercanti!e houses in this and he night have been supposed to have perseve u re n d tr those more enlightened opinions which he formerly held on the subject. Lord Ashburton ryas reported to have said last night in the House of Lords that " Manufactures had hardly cvcr been in such a sound state as they were about two years antecedent to the present period, and yet the Corn-lass were in existence. Nothing could prevent a , counry f rom havin vicissitudes of seasons, but hew could it be t raid that Corn- g laws prevented corn from being ob tained in time of need, when it was known that no less than three millions were brought in last }ear? That was an answer to those who said that in a time of distress corn was not to be found. Whenever the subject ceme properly be fore the House, he should be prepared to show that this country suffered less from the fluctuations in the price of grain, which were inherent in the nature of trade, and could be prevented by no law, than most parts of the Continent, and particularly less than France, where the fluctuations had be :n very great." Before he replied to that extraordinary doctrine, he would observe that it had been stated by several writers, but by none more ably than Mi. James Wilson, the author of a valuable Treatise on the Influence of the Corn-laws, pub lished last year, that fluctuation was one of the most seri ous evils to which the trade of any country could be ex posed, but more especially fluctuation in the price of the chief necessary of life, and that that fluctuation more than counterbalanced any benefit which the agriculturists them selves derived from the Corn-laws. Lord Ashburton felt that fluctuation was a great evil, but attempted to show that the fluctuations in the price of corn in this country were not so great as the fluc tuate ,ns which existed in other countries in Europe, and that they were not so great as existed in the price of other articles of produce and consumption. The fluctuations in this country were very great. The average price for wheat in 1539 was 70s. 6d., while the average for 1835 was 395. 4d., being a difference of 79 per cent. upon the average for the whole year. Had he taken certain parts of the years he could have shown that the difference on many occasions was more than 100 per cent. Even in late periods that difference was as great—in Ja nuary, 1838, the price of wheat was 535., while in twelve months, in January, 1839, it was 795., being in that short period a difference of 46 per cent. He admitted that there were greater fluctuations in foreign countries than in England—he admitted that to the Noble Lord. According to the circular of Messrs. Sturge in 1838 the average price was 565. to 60i., while according to the Report of Dr. Bowring in 1834 and 1836, the average price was 275. 6d., being a difference of mere than 100 per cent.—so far, Lord Ashburton was perfectly right. Again in Hamburgh, in 1835, the price of wheat was 88 marks per last, and in 1838 the price was 160 marks per last ; so that this seemed to bear out the assertion of Lord Ashburton, But what was the cause of all these great fluctuations ?—why the English Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) it was not the fluctuation of seasons, or demand, or in the consumption of those countries, but purely in consequence of the variations in the demand for the consumption of Eegland.—(Cheers.) The time of low prices abroad was exactly the time when England imported nothing. ( Cheers. ) In 1835 Hamburg exported only 3,573 lasts, that was the season of low prices abroad. In 1538 the price was doubled, and the quantity exported was 24,344 lasts.— ( Hear, hear.) That was at Hamburg alone, and it was the same in other places abounding in wheat. In 1835 the imports of wheat were 46,560 quarters, but in 1833 the quantity amounted to 1,000,240 quarters, and in 1839 it was 2,000,638 quarters.—( Elear, hear.) These being the facts was it to be wondered at that there should be fluctu ations abroad ?—( Cheers.) Now, were these fluctuations in foreign countries to be quoted as an apology for the English Corn-laws? Were they not rather a double con demnation of them.—(Cheers.) They were the fruit of those very laws of which they complained. Lord Ash burton was taking advantage of his own wrong, which was against all principle—he was quoting the fluctuations caused in foreign countries by our Corn.laws, in order to justify the fluctuations in England. Our Corn-laws were the great cause—the only cause—of the great fluctuations which had taken place in Hamburgh and Dantzic. Mr. Wilson bad in his pamphlet well laid down three reasons why there should be less fluctuation in the price of the great staple commodity, wheat ; first, the produce of wheat per acre, according to the quantity of land cultivated was greater than any other produce whatever—it was remark ably hardy—it stood the cold of winter, and the heat of summer, thereby showing forth the goodness of God. Secondly, from the same cause—the hardiness of the plant —it was possible to grow it in almost every country and every climate—every country on the Continent as well as in England, and in Africa and America—so that we could receive a supply of wheat from enough of places in case of need. But there was a third cause, which had not been so fully and prominently brought forward as the others. It was the uniformity of consumption and demand, for it was an article of which a man would only buy enough ; he would waste none, nor could they consume more than a certain quantity. There were many articles, such as cotton, to bacca, &c., of which the necessity of growth or variation of supply were greater and more precarious than the article of wheat. In the first place, they were more precarious in Supply ; but in the next place, these articles were much less necessary than that of food; they were affected by fashion and other causes, and the necessity occurring for them was therefore by no means so steady as that for the supply of wheat. Therefore there were the two causes of fluctuation in supply of the article, and demand of the ar ticle, which were the double cause of the fluctuation of price ; and just in the same way the steadiness of demand for the article, and of its consumption, were the double causes of producing a steadiness of price ; and that article, in which, above all others in the world, there ought to be, and would be, in case of free trade, the least variation, was in consequence of the operation of these laws the most fluctuating. But Lord Ashburton said, " Nothing can prevent the country having vicissitudes in seasons." Most undoubtedly not 1 But was not this the strongest reason in the world for opening the ports, and having perfect freedom for the importation of corn? Ile would now just allude to the familiar principle of in surance. The effect of a man's insuring his life and pro perty was, as hail been beautifully expressed, that of spreading the amount of private hardship, calamity, and suffering over the whole community, so that it was scarcely felt by any—this very principle of insurance might be ap plied to the present subject, just as insurance by affecting a good many persons to a slight amount, had the effect of preventing the man insured from being ruined by spread ing Isis loss over a great number, so the sufferings of a particular country, from the vicisitudes of the seasons could be spread over the whole world, and would be lessened to all in proportion as it was spread over the widest extent of country. He would allude to one other observation Lord Ashburton had made in the same speech. He said, " Manufactures had hardly ever been in such a sound state as about two years antecedent to Ow present period, and yet the Corn-laws were in existence." Yes ; but what was the price of corn ? The price of corn in 1935 was 3gs. 4d., and in 1836 but a few shillings higher. Perceive, therefore, how the low price of corn tended to what Lord Ashburton admitted to be the soundest state in which he had ever known a manufacturing country. According to Lord Ashburton, the lower the price of corn the sounder the state of manufactures. What, then, became of the Corn-laws, the object of which was avowedly to raise the price of corn ? Lord Ash burton said twenty-five years ago he had been opposed to the Corn-laws, but it was less than half that period since Mr. Baring(now Lord Ashburton)made the folowing brief, but most important and valuable speech (April 25, 1828), on the motion of Mr. Grant for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the Corn-laws, with reading which he would conclude his observations:—" On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. Baring (now Lord Ashburton) said he entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Member for Louth, that nothing could be more idle than the perpetual references made in that House to the average prices of wheat at various foreign ports. It was ridiculous to make references of this kind, when they had just opposite to them, as it were, and had had for the last century, a port, Rotterdam, which had always been, as a corn port, a free one. At that port, the price usually varied from 30a. to 345. ; the same would be the price in the port of London if the Thames were equally free ; and it should be recollected, that this com parison was not without its appplication ; fur the provinces of Holland composed a country of no trifling consumption of corn. They were still populous, and had once been ex ti ernely opulent and powerful as a manufacturing nation ; nor let lion. Gentlemen ever forget that from that opu lence and power they had declined, absolutely, from levying enormous duties upon the corn consumed by their subjects. The same fate resulting from the same cause as irresistibly awaited this country as one day succeeded another. As to the talk about high prices, the danger of our present system arose, not front positive, but relative prices. He owned that he was amazed at the course which so many gentlemen had pursued upon this question. How was it possible that any men, having the powers of reasoning or reflection, could come down to that house day after day, and talk about protection to corn, protection to wool, protection to oak bark—the differ ence, msanwhile, in she price of bread between Great Britain and the nations o' the Continent being as the difference in favour of the latter between 255. and 645.? How was it po-sible that they should expect we could g o on exporting manufactures, as we now did, to the amount of between fifty and sixty millions a-year, there being this fright ful disproportion between the corn among ourselves and our continental neighbours ? Heartily did he wish that some man among them, with honesty in his heart, would come down and tell them plainly it was their duty to consider, not how they might get in their own proper rents for that particular year or so, but how the country was to subsist with its establishments for the next fifty years. But, on the contrary, he declared with pain, that whenever the corn Tiestion came on for discussion, it was argued by them on the most selfish and narrow minded principles that army Legislature ever condescended to listen to. lie was ' himself a landed proprietor : but he disdained to seek pro tection for his interests in that capacity, by means which, being intended for the benefit of one class of the commu nity, must ono day crush them all." Mr. MORRIS thought the Delegates were much indebted to Mr. Baines for the speech they had just heard, lie wished, however, that Mr. Baines should also explain the fluctuations in corn in France alluded to by Lord Ashbur ton. The allusions to the other countries of Europe had, lie thought, been completely answered. Mr. BAINES thought the case of France might be easily explained. The fact was, that France had already Corn laws almost a: bad as those of England. Mr. ASHWORTH theta rose for the purpose of moving a Committee which would take into its consideration the best not means of raising those o Vo v ' , o , Al i d ct lhi b , e tt necessary hley coui(t furCommittee meeting their expenses, proeceil in their exertions. M; E Alsrhll=:vt'met"ltirei gentlemen ' g Mr. G. Wilson l of f \ l l l°l. ton, Mr. J. Tennant of (31as''Ll'eds, Mr. Lawrence 1-1 3 4 - sil,liciieuliiiiolrouagpiiiirc..eletdo,rcNoinasnicsthiensgt Manchester, L. follow . '❑ . cheater, ,Mr. H. Stanfield of Nicholson, and on an a S a fu f r r' ": Ni worth ‘ nle 1 c o . f aLiverpool,il CommitteeNi . amount of p-omised support trout each ass°. day next, the ciation. Mr. Dicesoe seconded the motion. d that the e and above I rR. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN said that they %MC undoubtedly m uch indebted to Mr. Baines for his refutation of the speech of Lord Ashburton, who was formerly a violent opponent of the Corn-laws. The fact, however, was that Lord Ash burton had been celebrated for speak in g one way and voting the other—(llear hear, and laughter) —and he hoped that m i g ht b e th e ca se on the Corn-law quest ion, awl that they might have the benefit of his vot e, as they had n o t his :,peech in their favour.—( llear.) Mr. CoATEs said that it had been erroneously assumed that the working-classes were opposed to agitation in THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1840. favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. They lately held a meeting on the subject in the Tower Hamlets, and resolutions in favour of repeal were unanimously carried. They had accordingly sent a petition, with a prayer to that effect, to their Member, Mr. Clay, which was to be presented that evening. It was signed by 43,767 p erson s, most of them agricultural labourers.—( Cheers, ) Mr. PRENTICE thought that no exertions should be spared in agitating the country, and that anti-Corn-law lecturers should be sent to the various places which elected Members for Parliament. Ho trusted that the deputies who could not afford to put down their 1001. a year would go away with the deterrnina• tion of giving 100/. worth of labour, if they could not give it in money. For himself in North Cheshire he would pledge himself that not a single labourer in that great dis trict should be without information and knowledge of the bearing of the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) As he went forth as an unpaid labourer, he might say something with respect to what Mr. Baring had said. He had said that there was no chance of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Now he was an unpaid labourer when it was said, as Mr. O'Connell observed on Saturday, that the machinery of the House of Commons required to be improved. In stead of endeavouring to repress such feelings, he would wish them success. Mr. L. HAYWARD bad received a letter that day from the Brougham Institution, stating that they were preparing a petition, which they would send up to him next week. He thought that perhaps more good was done by lectures than giving money. He trusted every one would use their utmost endeavours to make converts to their cause. Mr. BEAN, one of the deputation from Nottingham, stated that he would put down his name for 100/.-- ( Cheers.) With respect to what Lord Ashburton had stated respecting two plentiful years, that was true enough ; but he believed there were times when he and his friends were placed in the sam e position as those who now advocated a repeal of the Corn-laws.--( Cheers.) There was a time when he and two or three hundred of his friends were saved while millions were allowed to starve.—( Cheers.) Mr. JOIiNSON, of Derby, had come up in consequence of the statements that had been made to L or d Melbourne when the deputation waited upon him, for after those statements the Anti-Corn Law Association there would not rest satisfied until his Reverend Colleague and himself left for London to inform the League of how matters were going on at Derby, and its im mediate neighbourhood. Last year there was a pe tition got up at Helper, and also in Derby. In the latter place there were 2,800 persons signed the petition, but in the present year no less than 4,798 persons had signed it. The public mind there, with very few excep tions, was in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws ; and, for his own part, he was convinced that the people would never be satisfied until they had obta i ned justice—( Cheers) —and he was sure if they did not obtain it from the House of Commons as at present constituted, they would be in favour of a further organic change. Such was the dis tress of the people in Derby and its neighbourhood, that there there were between 1,100 and 1,200 persons desti tute of the means of obtaining food, unless through the medium of public charity, and this was all caused by the obnoxious Corn-laws.—(Cheers.) Such was the feeling with respect to the Corn-laws, that in the village of Mel bourne, the principal tenant of that Noble Lord had be come a total repealer—(Cheers)—and that gentleman had actually invited himself and his reverend colleague to go over there and explain the bad effects of the Corn-laws. They did go there, and the result was, that a petition against their continuance was got up, which was signed by 467 persons, seven-eighths of the whole population of the place, and such was the progress that had been made there, that they had got up an anti-Corn-law Association.—(Cheers.) At another village, which was the property of Mr. Evans, the Member, every farmer with only one exception, was in faveur of the Corn-laws. — (Cheers.) He had a list of petitions coming from diffe rent parts of Derby and its neighbourhood containing altogether signatures to the number of 8,733 ( Loud cheers.) He thought, therefore, the observa tions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that day were not borne out by the fact that the people of the of the agricultural districts had not a knowledge on this subject.—(Cheers.) At another village called Weston, an attempt was made to get up a petition in favour of the Corn-laws, but it was given up as the parties inter ested in getting it up were informed by the people there, when asked to sign them, that they would not do so, that they were unjust in principle, and therefore they declined signing a petition in their favour. One man, when asked to sign said, that a petition of that sort would not do, as the poor man liked to get a large loaf.—(Cheers.) He believed that such was the feeling now throughout the country, that no person could carry on the Government upon th4rinciple of supportingthe Corn-laws.---( Cheers.) Mr. BRADLEY, the Delegate from Nottingham, was one of those who thought that even if wages -were high, and the country was in a state of prosperity, that the Corn-laws were iniquitous.—( Hear, hear.) Distress existed in Not- I I tingham to an extent that he could not pourtray to the meeting. The homes of the poor in Nottingham were daily becoming more wretched, and he had that day asked one of the Members for Nottingham how they were to eon. tend with the unemployed population, and he had just re. ceived intelligence that he had been appointed overseer of the poor.—( A laugh.) He should very much like Lord Melbourne to tell him how he was to administer the Poor law. He did not pretend to say whether the present Poor laws by themselves were good or bad, but of this he was quite sure, that as connected with: the Corn-laws they were cruel—( Cries of " Hear, hear")—and he had found that the poor would suffer any privations rather than sub mit to the rigid provisions of the Poor-law.—( Hear, hear.) For that reason not one 1-10th of the miseries said privations of the poor came before the Poor-law Guar ' dians. Many poor persons were compelled to remain in their miserable houses on Sundays with their children, be cause neither children nor parents had shoes to walk to Church in. He believed the country was fast verging to a state of desperation, but he was one of those who would wish to see that day put off to as remote a period as possi ble.—( Hear, hear.) If the principles of free trade were adopted he believed the horrors of war would never be known again. He was a member of a Peace So ciety, but he had repeatedly told his friends, that, unless they became the advocates of free trade all their efforts for the accomplishment of universal peace would be vain.—( Hear, hear.) He sincerely trusted that the strength of the agitation now afloat would be such as to show their rulers the repeal of the Corn-laws could no longer be withheld.--( Cheers.) The CHAIRMAN hoped that Delegates would not leave London with the notion that the debate in the House of Commons upon Mr. Villiers' motion would close on Fri day night. It was impossible to say how long it might be kept up. Mr. SIDNEY SMITH observed that they were deter mined the question should not be burked in the House of Commons. —( Hear, hear.) He hoped that the mo tion of Mr. Villiers would not be the only one that would be brought before the House this year. If the subject were constantly brought before Parliament, the public attention would be kept alive, and the most impor tant facts in support of their cause would be disseminated from one end of the kingdom to the other. Agitation was going forward, and if every one would go home with the impression on his mind that all were to work, they could not fail, for they had the best side of the cause, and they must conquer. They must convince their neighbours and the country that they were in earnest—success would then be certain. The Rev. Mr. BREWSTER had contributed something to maintain order and law in Scotland, and he could assnre the Delegates that nothing was better calculated to con tribute to that great end, than a continued agitation under the influence and control of that great, enlightened, and patriotic body.—Adjourned. taond:\TEl Ladyo h nli etvagDE3llloolknitpeoauEgasuseneLlna Monday l ihne e (eiir i a l y e sae s faar s otz o De f asi tvstil.,3niatunioc:feialrackifu;, postmark returnedl dti:3n,yislcaktors df a letter are sometimes the most important features of it, where they have afterwards to be inspected in a court of justice, and points of evidence turn on either the one or the other, such for instance as notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange, sent by letter posted a (lay too late, and not addressed inside as well as out, so that evidence of the address is lost, by the destruction of the envelope, as well as proof of the time when the letter would be received in the ordinary course of post. Again it frequently happens, that to serve a particular purpose, a letter is dated from one place and posted at another, evidence of which would be lost by destruction of the envelope. These points may be worth the consideration of the public. Where envelopes are used they should be preserved with the enclosure. THE LATE MURDER AT CLYDEY.—The horrid murder of Shadrack Lewis, in the parish of Clydey, in the comity of Pembroke, has, as would naturally he supposed, created the most intense interest in the neighbourhood where this most dreadful crime was committed. We arc happy to state that, through the indefatigable exertions of D. S. Davies, Esq.. of Pentre, the Chairman of the Cardiganshire Quarter Sessions, and the other M ag i s tratesac p ti e n r g son s s vi h th ave h b it e n we ,. to- to gether with the assistance ren dered them b y Mr. Dozing, one of the metropolitan po lice, and Mr. Pugh, the chief officer of police in Carmarthen, three ap prehended ; and from the evidence there is little doubt of their being the actual murderers. We learn that a great btleefm.oreent,haendfact, hisw h h o a l , :ad conspired together to get rid of the many more will, ere long, be taken into custody as accessories Unhappy victim, in consequence of his being emrloyed to pro for cutting and stealingintgimgbiC:relf—e'C' engine -room. itaientnic,reiaagn:.tinst several patties tect l t u tl the s iN i T y d "o,efeCko;lonel Colby, of Fynone, and other gen rhampion s e te rc a e rn ive t a n t g o the body of the fireman obstructing its operation, the end of e the engine the beam striking and crushing his head at every stroke. He 7vileoan twitch it7ba,Y whichft:o Y i o : r‘ W k' a ti s (l) t t l hC y e s o ens ioned by Ile was a stranger, temporarily employed, about thirty years of ace —even his name was not known. He was in liquor at the time. —Sheffield Mercury.—[This is only one Of quite dead, his brains being smashed about the the innumerable cases of loss of life from drunkenness tha occur daily.] The Marseilles and Paris Journals before us con tain accounts tending to show that the feeling of the Emperor of Morocco was hostile to France, but nothisig to prove that he contemplated an actual declaration of war. A MOST SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. Twelve months since the lady of a General Officer came to Londo n t o h ave a can cer cut from her breast, which operation would n o doubt have cost her her life. By mere chance she tried Hollo wa y' s Ointment and his External Disease l'ill, which i n a f ew mon ths completely cured her. These wonder ful Medicines ought always to be used to l gether in all cases of s a b n u d i d t e g e s r , e r n, s a t d b viceey will I 2th Lancers Cancer, B a d B reas t s , Bad Legs, and al dangerous Wounds s ill never fail to cur e. The y are sold by all resp ec t a bl e Medicine Vendors thro u g hout the Kin g dom ; or, at the E s t a bli s hment of the P ro p rietor, 13, Broad-street- On Monday last agi , t . er , oog r p ati ei s the arrived i n Chepstow from Monmouth, to remain (luring the present A ss i zes . It is expected they will be removed altogether from Monmouth in the ensuing month Merlin. OVERLOOK ER'SCRUELTY.--- On Monday week, at the Magistrates' Office in Halifax , a yo un g lad, attended b y his p arents, comp l a i ne d of the cruel treatment of an over looker, named Balmforth, at Crossley's mill, Lilley-lane, for having ill-treated him by beating him, &c. A boy who was in Court was called on, who had witnessed the assault, and, after being sworn, testified to the facts, eter which the Magistrates deemed him 1: ) ,. t o pa y. Mr. llalph gave him a reprimand after wa r ds , and told him they should neither allots him or any one else to use boys in that W. M URD E State for the Foreign Department, ard it was clot true Ft that negotiation had been broken off. Mr. HUME wished to ask when the returns respect:g ing the commercial treaty with Austria might he expected, as they had been moved for and ordered some time ago ? Mr. LABOUCHERE was not able to answer that question without first consulting the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr. HUME gave notice that he should to-morrow make a motion on this subject, as the course now adopted was really frightful. —( Laughter.) Sir E. KN AT CHBU LL wished to ask the Hon. Mem ber for Bridport if lie could inform the House, whether it was the intention of the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp ton to bring forward hit motion on the subject of the Corn laws, or not? Mr. WARBURTON said that the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton regretted excecdirgly that, owing to in disposition, he had been prevented from bringing forward the motion that night, but it was his intention certainly to bring it on to morrow night. CHINA. Lord SANDON said that he should withdraw a notice of motion with respect to China, upon the assurance of her Majesty's Ministers that a Committee should be appointed on the snhjeet. The notice for the appointment of that Committee had been standing on the paper from day to day for weeks past, and yet the Committee had not been named. He wished, therefore, to know when the Govern ment intended to name that Committee ? Sir JOHN HOB HOUSE understood that the Com mittee was to be appointed to-morrow. He begged , however, to remind the Noble Lord that the proposition d not originate with the Govcrument, but with the lion Member for London. THE KING OF HANOVER. Mr. HO RSMAN seeing the Hon. and Gallant Member for Sl to what he had in his place, wished to put a question to him relative been represented to have said the other night. It had been stated that an application had been made to the Kin° . of Hanover to give up that part of St. James's Palace which he had occupied previous to be coming King of Hanover, and to that application an answer had been sent refusing to givo up the apartments. From the statements it appeared that the Han. and Gal lant Member stated that he was instructed positively to deny the statement. Now he wished is know whether such were the fact ? Col. PE RC E VAL said that be did not on that occasion state that any such application had been made to the King of Hanover. What he stated was, that no application had been made by the Duchess of Kent, and upon the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies stating that it was new to him, he (Colonel Perce v al) when the Noble Lord sat down, read the authority to the House on which he made that statement.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Gallant Colonel here begged leave to read the follow ing passage from the letter of Sir F. Watson which he had received last Friday—" It has been erroneously conceived that the King of Hanover's apartments at St. James's have been required by the Duchess of Kent ; but in fact, her Royal Highness did not cnly not express a wish for them , but even observed that they would not suit her ; and further, her Royal Highness is notpleased with the manner in which her name has been used upon the subject." The Gallant Colonel then continued—" I may be permitted to state that the assertion I made was not that no application had beenmade to the King of Hanover, hut that none had been made by the Duchess of 'ent.—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear.'') The very conclusion of the letter I read shows that some application had been made, or her Royal Highness would not have been displeased. The Hon. Member seems to think that I have received since Friday some fresh infor mation. That I consider at least as part of his question. And I am prepared to say that I have heard front a Mem ber of the Government that an application was made to the . King of Hanover, by the First Commission er of Woods an ° Forests, for the use of the apartments in St. James's, on be half of her Majesty, and that it was refused. — ( Hear, beer' hear) —and that another application was made to the sam e effect by Lord Melbourne—which was also ref used.--• ( Hear, hear.) I stated that no application had H b r, een made by the Duchess of Kent.—(lronical cries of " e a hear," and " Oh, oh.") I do not understand the, triumphant tone of Hon. Gentlemen. — ( Hear, bee" The letter itself, I repeat, intimated that some application had been made." PRIVILEGE. The Order of the Day for the consideration of this subject having been read, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he understood the Sergeant-at-Arms had a statement to make as to the action of trespass. He moved that he be called in and heard. The Sergeant-at-Arms being called to the bar, said the Assistant- Sergeant and four messengers had been served with notice of declaration in actions commenced by T. 1 3 . Howard : and he produced the declaration. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that it bere t° by the Clerk. The declaration was then read, which stated that it wal an action of trespass, brought by Thom as Burton H 0 a nd against Edward Allen Gossett , Wil liam Bellamy, aa others, for entering the plaintiff's house, and creating at noise and disturbance therein. The damages were laic t 1,0001. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the e lr sence of his Noble Friend it became his dut y to Prej. pose a motion to the House upon this aubj ec a From the verbiage of the docu ment which he, just been read, it was difficult to discover either what teas, the exact form of the action to be brought, or what it t at of which the plaintiff complained. It did not appear tfity he questioned the privileges of the House, or th e Ice an of the warrant, but what he said was, that there of excess of violence on the part of the officers °i t ; „ House in the execution of that warrant. The ourable and Learned Member for Ripon, vo" °— he did not then see in his place, bad, he believed, re ceived a letter from Mr. Howard on that subject, and he himself had received one purporting to come from Mr. Laurie, Mr. Howard's solicitor, in which he stated that the complaint was of excess of violence on the part of the officers of that House. The question was, what course ou g ht the House to adopt ? WlleFe there was an absolute breach of the privileges of the House, it was not only right bu t the House was called upon to interfere in a suns narY manner, but in this case the action was brought, not to op pose the orders of the House , but t o com p lain of what E the officers had done in the execution 'of t heir duty. r.ehno in this case the House had a right to interfere. If i n f Court of Chancery a complaint w as made a g ainst seY °f the officers of the Court for any excess in the execution be their duty the Court would not allow an action to brought, as it was considered that such an action vvould a breach of the privileges of the Court. The Court di• rected an inquiry to be made, and if the complaint were well-founded they punished their officer, and directed eoa,l_, pensation to be made to the person complaining. No don the House might do the same if they thought fit ; ndoubt $ they might ir.quire and award compensation. Such power undoubtedly belongeel to the House ; but under ge present circumstances the question was whether the We ought to exercise this power. He believed that as no eo°_„' . plaint was made of the power, but only of the excess d the part of the servants, that the best course they c ° ' d ' s „ pursue would be not to order the Attorney-General to but fend the action on behalf of the House of Commons, t that means should be given to the defendants to al , Pe a , r to ° the action, and he did not doubt but they would be ah` e 6 show that they had done nothing but what the cir c , u h - :t stances of the case demanded. It would be shown ' 0: they bad entered the house with the consent of the inra a c o of it ; that there had been an exchange of civilities bet y the officers and the inmates of the house during the time w hey remained there that they had not entered the house a- be Mr. Howard had for a long time evaded the orders of t, House for his attendance ; and upon such evidence bert given he had no doubt the verdict would be for the d a c ` t a te e dants.—(Cheers,) This he thought would be a b course to pursue than letting judgment go by default, sink, fering the execution of a writ of inquiry, and then sor„i.• an order on the Sheriff not to execute th e writ a ,facial. Under all the circumstances of the ca sc ' fal e thought the more dignified course for the House to Pu — ,. would be to let their servants appear to th e actioo• (Cheers.) He should therefore move that leav e be g il t : r to Edward Allen Gossett, William - Bellamy, and th e °l-e defendants, to appear to the action. The question having been put, n of Lori! HOW IC K said he should not occupy the tit at the House by entering into any lengthened Argu--„cy against the course which the Learned Att(,)r-nia General had thought it proper to recommend the Il e i ac t to pursue, because he was perfectly sure, after whart,,,o occurred, that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman' s ld sition would be carried by a large majority. But he nce. not let such a step as this be taken in entire Bile :s it, co (Cheers.) Hecould not, without protesting 143,,95ating let the House make a concessio n e v e n more htlowiThere than any which the House had ever yet taken• of th could be no doubt that if their officers had been e Igu'..o'„er excess in executing the orders of that Home. "bso course for those who had been agrieved would Ivi c ," to t of to apply to the House itself fors edress. Th e ' ( :.i'ou e l Chancery would not permit its processes to be qui p, an. in a Court of Law.—( Hear, hear.) The 11°11"joubt Learned Attorney-General had said that he had a° oec ro ti the Court of Law would decide that their ° had only done that which 411 S required fr i r l y: a n in the proper exercise of their duty. The 'l d . ' o h * Learned Attorney-General had said he was e" n " -e0 ' l ' that, but he (Lord Howick) was conifi'dc.a.t of e ° l3 : u neb thing, after the decision of the Court of Quee"' a , e eet b r in Stockdale v. Hansard, a decision directly in."7,,r t ly 9 ' of every previous decision of that Court, partictl.-eoce the case of King and Wright. fie had no on cc ot whatever in the judgment of that Court. 1 0 the r o es case the whole argument against the House of C° fr t ieen 'a was, that they had submitted to the Court of ' 4 14 a si Bench, and that when the judgment of that C!' fli a pronounced against them, they had no right to the But the situation in which they were placed Was O ",Lk, 00 natural consequence of the course which the H bro u ght a former evening, in allowing that Bill - to be bear. ) which was then before the other House.--( 1 " r :ore t °° The exercise of their privleges and their right s ' ' o f 1. 814 ' important to be at the discretion of the Court 3 lo tion the ro w For the consequ.. ,, ices that might result from that had been made by the Hon. and LeaairldnettleAretrore b e General, he would not be respon;ible, wo uld give hi , negative to the motion. id salt 9 a Mr. O'CONNELL protested against any tilejoto ha ing from the assertion of their rights. The ne c k.", decided by an overwhelming majority upon t ',.! a d be": sity and importance of this privilege. It war decided that the Sergeant might,in of the House, break into premises. Bet sinea question being opened how long the officers relu _ ll5 , t l i o the house, the jury might held that two minutesd"so under thee here the proper time, and that five minutes was excess, w i l e og , Jury might have the damages left to them byt n ur , e 0- 15 ! arid might fine for 1,0001. ; the Sergeant of e° it , 13 11 ' n ot pay that sum, and the House would have to Pai ' to the w as not the House in all this virtually leaving •Iviicges. Courts of Law to adjudicate on the extent of its pr ‘ _ , , cb t he —( Hear, bear.) This was a tlegrada•ion to w°l_.. br oit. Court of Chancery, or Queen's Bench, would not,. r s`_` o t he —( Hem, hear.) The whole mischief had a riseu t_ c t i : s l o tt I bowie having shrunk, in the first instanc:a 1....t...‘ti10r.) shrinking, from the bold assertion of its privileg e. eily for a He might be told that there ought to be a rem NGTON. 1 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 31. HATTON-GARDEN POLICE COURT. DISCHARGE OF MRS. J kRVIS. The examination of Richard Gould, alias Arthur Nicholson, and of Mary Ann Jarvis, charged with the wil ful murder of John Tcmpleman, at Lincoln Cottage, Focock's-selds, Islington, was yesterday resumed before Mr. Combe, the Magistrate. The first witness examined was— Mr. Wilcoxson, bootmaker in Tottenham-court-road — He stated that, to the best of his recollection, between twelve and one on Tuesday, while he was up stairs, his daughter brought him a half a sovereign to change, and he was to take 7s. 6d. out of it ; and he gave half a crown in change. The pair of lace-boots produced witness be lieved to have come out of his shop ; he has no doubt about it. (The boots were those taken from the feet of Gould.) The boots have witness's shop-mark, the figures 8-92. The 8 is the size ; the 92 refers to the cost price, but 92 are sold at 7s. 6d. One of the servants of the shop seeing that 92, would sell the article for 7s. 6d. The laces are of cotton—in general in other shops they give leather laces. The policeman first came to him on the subject on Saturday, the 21st, and showed the boots produced. This caused him to recollect the trans action. Gould wished to ask him if he could swear positively to the boots Witness—l said before I could not swear positively, but that I had every reason to believe so. Miss Ann Wileoxson—ls the daughter of the last wit ness, and lives with him. Recollects Tuesday, March 17, between twelve and one. Witness was in the shop. Re members taking up a half-sovereign to her father. She took it up from the counter. Mr. Wills asked her to take it up to her father for change, and said she was to take 7s. 6d. out. Does not recollect who was in the shop. Did notice a person there ; but witness cannot recollect whether a male or a female. John Wills is the foreman of Mr. Wilcoxson. OR this day fortnight witness was in the shop. Has no recollection of taking the half-sovereign ; nor has any recollection of seeing the prisoner Gould. John Walter recollects the day in question, and that Mr. Wills sent up half a sovereign by Miss Wilcoxson, but does not recollect what it was for, nor who the person was who had purchased the article. Professor Graham, of University College, gave the same evidence as to the analysis instituted by him into the stains on the bag as he gave on Monday before the inquest, and the result of the analysis being that the stains were not blood, nor produced by blood, but by iron paint. Ann Tomkins, the reother of the prisoner, Mrs. Jarvis, repeated the evidence she gave on Monday at the inquest relative to the bag found at Jarvis's house. Mr. COME asked if there was any further evidence against Mrs. Jarvis ? Mr. Inspector Miller—Na, Sir. Mr. COMBE—Then I shall discharge you, Mrs. Jarvis. Mrs. Jarvis then left the Court, accompanied by her mother. In answer to a question from Mr. COMBE, she said she , had previously, in reply to a question from Mr. Combe, stated that she had not seen her husband. Mr. COMBE said that he should commit Gould for trial on Tuesday next, on which day the case would be com pleted. Gould asked if he could be tried at the next Sessions. Mr. COMAE—Yes, they commence on Monday next. Gould then said that if he was not committed before Tuesday he should not have time to prepare his defence, and asked how he was to get the depositions. Mr. COMER said, he would commit him on Saturday if he wished it, but as his trial would not come on before Friday or Saturday, Tuesday would be time enough. With regard to the depositions they would be sent to the Clerk of the Arraigns, Mr. Clarke, at the Old Bailey, and the prisoner was entitled to them. Gould said that now it was explained to him he would as soon be committed on Tuesday as Saturday, but that if he were committed on Tuesday and tried on Wednesday or Thursday, he should not have time to prepare himself. He subsequently asked how he was to obtain a copy of the de positions given before the Coroner, as many of the witnes ses had given a totally different account of the same trans action at the Inquest and in this Court. Mr. COMBE at first said he could not tell him how he was to obtain a copy of 'those depositions, a; he blew no thing about the evidence given at the inquest, but after having made inquiry ho told the prisoner that he could obtain a copy of the depositions taken before the Coroner by applying to Mr. Clarke, the Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey. Gould said that even if he should be deprived of pro• fessional assistance he should have no difficulty in rebutting the evidence against him. Gould asked Mr. Combo bow he was to act to get his witnesses ?—for instance, he could prove that at the time Mr. Wills and Miss Wilcoxson were speaking of, he was at a public house. Mr. COMM said he had no power ; the Court had the power, and if he made known his distress to the Court, they would afford him the means of enforcing the attend ance of his witnesses. He was then remanded to Tuesday. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. (From the Globe.) The remark of Mr. Hawes last night, that while " he admitted the Atli, bravery, and humanity of Sir John Col borne, he thought that Parliament was too prone to bestow honours upon mere military service, and objected to this whilst the services of other men who had exerted them selves far more advantageously to the country were left wholly without reward," is one which will often invite re petition, and appear to many persons, whose opinions we respect, to require remedy. It appears to us, however, that there are several reasons why military services, though they may seem of a coarse nature, will always command more marked public rewards than arc afforded to others. In the first place, they are indispensable to the safety of States': and they do not carry their own reward with them, like many other pursuits of utility. In the second place, they admit of a less disputed estimate than some other merits ; the performance of military service, and the possession of military reputation, arc matters of universal recognition, unaided by cliques and coteries. Every one who has ever done anything professedly for the public, of course takes the highest possible view of his town merits and services ; and it would be difficult for the public to know where to stop in rewarding the host of claimants. But military ser• vice cannot be mere pretension and charlatan erie, as a vas deal of civil service would become, were it rewarded indefi nitely. (From the Courier.) From a short conversation which took place in the House of Lords last night between the Marquis of Lon donderry and Lord Fitzgerald, it will be seen that the second reading of the Irish Corporation Bill is not likely to pass. without a struggle. Lord Fitzgerald, on presenting a petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin against the Bill, took occasion to say that he should vote for the second reading, and that he considered that the House of Lords hail committed itself to the principle of the Bill by sending down their amended measure to the House of Commons last year. Now, if it is con sidered that the principle of this measure is the establishment of useful institutions in Ireland calcu lated to promote its local interests, and not repugnant to the general prosperity of the empire, we can have objection to the admission of this principle, nor to its practical application in the present instance. But if the principle of this Bill is, under the guise of conferring or extending Municipal Corporations in Ireland, really to invest a party in that country, the Roman Catholic party, with a monopoly of the powers, influences, and privileges, to be created by this Municipal Corporation Bill, then we sly, that such a principle has never been admitted by the House of Lords, and we earnestly hope and trust that it never will. The expediency of allowing the present Bill to pass the second reading appears to us to de pend on this:—Whether it be such a Bill as may be so amended in Committee as to be deprived of its noxious ten dencies. If it can, the usual and natural course will be to allow it to go into Committee in order to consider its de tails seriatim, with the view to make such alterations and amendments as may allow the House of Lords to give it their sanction. But if the Bill is so vicious in its prieci- ple as to render itimpossible to divest it of its cv by any alteration or amendment, then we agree w Noble and Gallant Marquis Landonderry that it is the duty of the House of Lords boldly to take its stand against the dangerous and insidious innovation, and at once to reject it. ,uality ( From the Standard.) The motion of Sir James Graham, on the subject of the Chinese war, which stands fixed for this day week, has ex cited an extraordinary alarm in Downing-street. Well as Ministers are accustomed to defeat, they feel that their power of endurance in this respect is nearly exhausted, and they can hardly hope for escape in the contest before them. Beaten as they were upon the second readin,, of Lord Stanley's Bill , by the u naided strength of the Conservatives, they must look forward to a more powerful opposition upon the Chinese question—for it is not to be expected that the economical Radi cals will commit themselves and the country to a long, and expensive war, without even the hope of ulti mately saving their " squeezable" allies. While the hope existed that, by voting black is white, or any other more disgraceful compromise with conscience, the Ministers could be permanently retained in office, the Radicals acted consistently with their profligate character in setting truth and shame at defiance. The division on Lord Stan ley's Bill has, however, taught them that the Cabinet in now doomed, despite of all they can do ; and they will not volunteer in further disgrace without any prospect of a beneficial result. They have discovered the secret, that union, which gives strength to honest parties, may some times constitute the weakness of dishonest factions, and will always, in the judgment of an upright people, destroy those factions, when combination necessarily involves a sacrifice of principle. TAKING NOTHING BY A MOTION.—One of our Paris letters, dated Sunday, March 29, contains the fol lowing :—" Among tic French officers executed in 1815 was, as will be remembered by most of our readers, General Mouton Duvernct. The National a few days since asked was " the Marquis de Castelbajac, now commanding the first subdivision of the third military division, and about to be raised to the rank of Lieutenant-General, the same who in 1815 (at which epoch he was Colonel of the Chasseurs of the Pyrennes) con- 1 demned the brave Mouton Duvernet to death ?" In a letter to the editor of that paper, published in its number of Sunday, the Marquis de Castelbajac avows that he is " the same person who in perfo- mance of a duty did that which the National indirectly imputed to him ;" adding something about the " safety of anonymous assailants in newspapers. The National rejoins in a spirit which it might have been supposed had become ex tinct with its much regretted editor, Armand Carrel, that the paragraphs in the National relating to M. de Castelbajac were necessarily anonymous, but that the writers of them were always ready to answer for them in any manner whatever." On Saturday a notorious horsestealer, himself Henry Kirby, and who is known by a number of othero names, underwent an examination on a charge of horsestealing; 1 at Badminton, Gloucestershire, before his Grace the Duke of I Beaufort, and was fully committed for trial. The SPEAKER took the Chair, a few minutes before Four I o'Clock, when a great number of petitions, chiefly on the ! subject of the Corn-laws were presented. But in conse quence of a " Call of the House" standing the first of the (Mors of the Day, the galleries were not opened until ten minutes past Four, when we understood the Order was dischare - ° ed. Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from an indi vidual possessing property at Bankside, praying for the insertion of a protecting clause in the Greenwich Rail way Bill. Mr. JAMES presented petitions from Cumberland signed by 6,000 persons ; and from Scotland, signed by 2,000 persons, for the repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. GREG presented 63 petitions to the same effect from places in Lancashire, Devon, and Glasgow. Mr. WALKER presented similar petitions from Bury and Lancaster. Mr. SOM ERS presented a similar petition from the borough of Sligo. Mr. BRISCOE presented a similar petition from the Operatives of Westbury. and another petition from the same place, which we understood to b , 3 against the repeal of the Corn-laws, and in favour of a change of the cur rency. Mr. NEELD, Mr. C. WADDINOTON, and several other Members on the Opposition side presented a great num. ber of petitions against the alteration of the Corn. laws. Dr. LUSHING TON presented a petition, signed by 43,657 inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets for the repeal ' of the Corn-laws. ' Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented a petition in favour of the repeal of the Corn-las from 3,1)25 men o Gloucester, and another from ,059 women of the same place.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear.") Ho also pre sented 60 petitions from the various trades of Bristol, and from 70,000 inhabitants of that city. Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from dealers in beer, in Lancashire, praying to be put on the same foot ! as the tavern keepers. Sir J. DUKE presented a:petition from Bost - on, praying that the beer trade should be thrown open. Mr. THORNE L Y presented petitions in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws from Wolverhampton and its vici nity—one of them signed by 5,000 persons. Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition from the city of York against the Corn-laws. Mr. MILNES presented a petition from York against the alteration of the Corn-laws. Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented petitions from va rious parts of England, Scotland, and Wales against the repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. LIDDELL presented several petitions in favour of the Corn-laws, from places in Durham. Similar petitions were presented by Captain Percival, Colonel Rushbrooke, and Mr. Begg. Mr. H. HINDE presented a petition for the repeal of the Corn-laws and all other taxes —( Laughter)—also for Universal Suffrage, &c. He did not concur in the prayer. The HoN. MEMPER also presented a petition from New castle, for inquiry respecting the dismissal of three persons from the Post-office, for refusing to deliver letters on a Sunday. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from a place in Ireland,complaining► of the oppressive conduct of landlords towards tenants, who voted contrary to their dictation. Sir JOHN HOB 1-1 0 USE'presented 22 petitions, one'of which was signed by upwards of 10,000, in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. DRINKWATER, Mr. DARBY, and a number of other Hon. Members on the Opposition side, presented petitions against alteration of the Corn laws ; and also petitions in favour of Church Extension, and some others against the grant to the College of Meynooth. Lord SANDON presented a petition from merchants of Liverpool, against the equalization of the duties on East and West India produce, which they said would be ruinous to the West Indian Colonies. The NOBLE LORD presented also several petitions from the Society of Friends and others, praying this House to pass a measure to put an end to the trade in Opium. LUDLOW ELECTION. Mr. ORD brought up the list of Members selected to try the merits of the petition against the return for Ludlow. They were, Sir T. D. Acland, Mr. Wrightson, Lord Howick, Lord Sandon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. B. Baring, and Mr. Horsman, Chairman. The Committee were sworn in, and directed to mee 'orthwith. IPSWICH ELECTION. Mr. ORD brought up the Report of the Ipswich Elec .ion, and the following Committee was appointed and sworn in to try the merits of the petition : Mr. Wilbraham, Honourable F. Spencer. Mr. Wode house, Sir J. Pollen, Mr, G. Evans, Lord Henniker, and Chairman, Lord Eliot. BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY JUNCTION RAIL. WAY (TAIVIWORTH APPROACH) BILL. The amendments to this Bill were agreed to. Mr. GEORGE WOOD brought up the Report of Public Petitions. WAR IN THE EAST. Mr. GOULBURN gave notice that on the 9th of April he would move that there be laid before the House copies of any communications between the Government and the East India Company, showing any arrangements made for paying the expences of the army now preparing in India.—(Hear.) PENSIONS. Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion for a return of all the pensions granted since 1792 for alleged public services. CROWN LANDS AND COLONIES. On the motion of Mr. S. O'BRIEN, certain Returns were ordered regarding the ;sale of Crown Lands in the British Colonies. CORN-LAWS. On the suggestion of Mr. HUME, it was agreed, that, for the convenience of the House, and in order to the pre sentation of the hundreds of petitions regarding Corn-laws, the time for presenting petitions exclusively on that subject should be extended. Lord ELIOT presented twenty-six petitions from East Cornwall, in favour of the Corn-laws, signed by mechanics, as well as agriculturists. Mr. CLAY presented several petitions from artisans in Spitalfields, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition, signed by upwards of 20,000 of the operatives of Dublin, praying for a repeal of the tax upon bread, which they said was not required for financial purposes. Also a petition to the same effect from Darlington, signed by 1,73 individuals. Also from Newtown, in the county of Down ; and from various other places. Lord WORSLEY presented a large number of peti tions from the county of Lincoln, in favour of the Corn- laws. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Glasgow, pray ing for the immediate abolition of the Corn-laws. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from St. Giles Camberwell, against the Corn-laws, as detrimental to our commerce ; also similar petitions from various other places. Mr. WALL presented four petitions praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. One of these petitions was signed by 4,688 persons, residing in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Sir E. KNATC ['BULL presented two petitions from parishes in Kent, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. General LYGON presented a petition from Bewdley, to the same effect. Mr. MACAULAY presented five petitions from Edin burgh and other places, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. B. BARING presented a petition in favour of the existing Corn-laws. Sir M. WOOD presented six petitions praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Lord LINCOLN presented twenty petitions from parishes in Nottinghamshire, and fifteen from parishes in Derbyshire. against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Sir C. BURRELL . presented two petitions to the same effect from parishes in the county of Sussex. Lord DALMENY presented five petitions, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. Lord HENNIKER presented a petition in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. G. MARTIN presented a petition against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. HUME presented petitions from Aberdeen, from places in Wilts, Devon, and Middlesex, from the Sunday School teachers of Torrington, from Fortarshire, from places in Lancashire, from Arbroath, and from other places, against the Corn-laws. The number of petitions presented by the Hon. Member was twenty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented petitions from various places in the county of Edinburgh, praying for a total and immediate repeal of t')e Corn-laws. Sir J. TYRRELL presented thirty-five petitions from parishes in Essex against any alteration in the present Corn-laws. Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from a place in So mersetshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. BARNEBY presented a petition from a place in Hereford to the same effect. Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Ux bridge, from places in Devonshire, three petitions from the parish of Lambeth, and one from Drury-lane, in favour of the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. GILLON presented several petitions from places in iitirlingshire to the same effect. Mr. B. 'WOOD presented a petition from Swaffham, in Norfolk, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. BROA DLEY presented a petition from the West Riding of Yorkshire, in favour of the present Corn-laws. Mr. PAKINGTON presented several petitions from parishes in Worcester against any alteration in the Corn laws. Mr. BROTHER FON presented petitions from Stock port and Heaton Norris, praying for the release of John Thorogood; a petition from the Directors of the Fife and Kinross Association for the Suppression of Itremperanee on the subject of the Opium Trade with China; two petitions from Eccles for the repeal of the Corn-lows, and one peti. tin from Stockton. on-Tees, praying. the House to rejoct any motion for the alteration of the Corn-laws. PRIVILEGE. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from Brid port, signed by the Mayor, two Allermen, seven Council men, and four Justices of the Peace, stating that they con sidered one of the most important functions of the House was the right of printing and publishing its proceedings, and of enabling the public to purchase their rep4rts at a cheap rate. The petitioners viewed with regret that the House had not asserted and maintained the privilege in question with properfir mncss and dignity. A Conservative MEMBER inquired how many signatures were attached to the petition ? Mr. WARBURTON said the number of signatures were altogether 150, but it was important, not so much on account of the number as on account of the static) , of the individuals who signed it.—(lronical cheers from the Coa -1 servative benches, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial.) SULPHUR. Mr. HAWES, seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place. wished to ask hint whether the negotiations for a treaty with Naples relating to the trade in sulphur had been broken off unox pectally and without the chance of a favourable result ? Mr. LA BOUCHERE replied that despatches had recently been received by his Noble Friend, the Secretary EVENING E ,rIIOI4T.