The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-19 00:00:00

1- V4N THE SPX, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY'I9NS4O. a resolution was passed in the House of Commons, which was afterwards cammunicated to the House of Lords, where it was contested ; but, after a long debate, the House of Lords agreed that the privileges of the House could not be set up in answer to a charge of a seditious libel.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what he would submit for the consideration of the House was, that a joint Commit the of both Houses of Parliament should be appointed, and if that Committee should report that legislation was necessary, the Committee would be able to agree upon a Bill that would have the effect of extricating the House from all its difficulties. He would now read the resolu tion which he intended to propose as an amendment to the motion of the Attorney-General; it was to the following effect : " That the privileges of Parliament were intended solely for the benefit of the community at large ; and as the power of publishing the Reports of the proceedings of the House was essential to the constitutional functions of Parliament, it is expedient that a joint Committee of both House should he ap pointed, for the purpose of securing to both branches of the Legislature the free exercise of a power so essentially necessary." He believed that the course he had pointed out might be adopted without compromising the honour of any individual, and that great public good would result from it. Mr. LEADER seconded the motion of the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury. He had hitherto, with great reluctance, voted with the Noble Lord on this question of privilege, although he had great doubts on the subject ; but the only motive that had induced him to do so was, that ha considered it necessary that the House should have the power of giving publicity to its proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) But on reconsidering the question, and after taking the opinion of several persons better able than himself to form 112 opinion, he had been lei to believe not only that they had failed in obtaining the publicity which they sought, but that they were weakening the authority of the law throughout the country. What was it that really gave publicity to their proceedings—not the papers that were printed by the Messrs. Hansard, but the public press ? Who ever heard of the public reading the !Mite Books that were published by the House? But the public press shortened those reports, and put them in a shape that the publiccould comprehend. Then as to the question of privilege, he would venture to say, whatever might be the opinion on it, that out of that House the majority of the people were against the exercise of the privilege now might to be upheld.—( Hear, hear, hear.) There was hardly a single man, except he was a hanger-on of the Government, who did not say that the House of Commons was wrong, and that they were sure to be beaten. How, be woult: ask, would the House be situated if they had twenty sue ► resolute men as Mr. Stockdale or Mr. Howard to dea with. • This privilege was not supported by the public— it was not supported by many constitutional lawyers, and the Judges of the land had declared it to be no privilege at all, and the House had itself confessed, by the course it had adopted. that it could only assert those privileges by terrifying. For his own part he believed that the only way to maintain the privilege of publishing their proceedings was by legislative enactment. To the adoption of auch a course there was little chance of the House of Lords refusing its assent.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I") However unpopular the House cf Lords might be, they would not act so foolishly as to refuse their coesent to a Bill by which their own privileges would be sustained.— ( Hear, hear ) But supposing that the House of Lords did refuse to give their assent, the House of Commons would not be le a worse situation than they were at present. He was not sorry ;,hat this contest had arisen, as he firmly believed it would compel the House to adopt some course to amend the law of libel. It was, however, his firm belief that if the House persevered in the steps they were now pursuing they would render themselves more unpopular than they were at present.—( Hear, hear.) Dr. LUSHING roN felt great astonishment at the s pe e ch of the Hon. Member for Westminster, because in the statements ho had made to-night he had confessed that his former votes had been given after only a hasty consideration of the subject. In the remarks made be the Hon. Gentleman there were scarcely any reasons stated for the line of conduct he was about to pursue. What had caused se great a change in the Hon. Member he would not pretend to say, but in his ( Dr. Lushington's) opinion it was most unaccountable. How had the Hon. Member disposed of the argument with respect to publicity ? Whv, he had stated that it was through the channels of the press that the public mind acquired its knowledge of their proceed;nge. He would ask that Hon. Member whether i t was not is his experience, that his constituents called upon him to l eut in their hands the valuable documents use, in order that they might printed by the ort;' , r of the H therefrom obtain in'n'nrnation ; but this was not all, for during the recess the 2nformation given by the press was obtained from those pap,-re. There wag, therefore, no ground for the Hon. Member a.'andoninghis former opinions upon the point of publicity, but en he had stated that the whole nation were against the II )119 , , for the course they bad taken. He respectfully denied the tr.:.h of the Hon. Member's assertion.—( Hear, hear.) IL r e p,l4sented as large a constituency as the Hon. Member, and re.'t one single word had he heard from any of his constituents .1 1 the slightest degree inculpating the course the House had pursued ; and if they had offered their opinion against the present proceedings his reply would have been, Are you not in the habit of coming to me constantly for these publi cations, and you, and you alone, cause me to publish these libels, and if you will not support the House of Commons in the course they are now taking, you must be content to forego the information, which will be a great loss to you. ft was not a little singular also that the Hon. Member should have enlarged upon the necessity of the right of publication, while his seconder, the Hen. Member for Westminster, differed from him. He (Dr. Luahington) had hitherto abstained from saying anything on this ques tion, but it had now become so momentous, that he could no longer refrain. Hon. Members opposite had asked what was the course That Hon. Members on that side of .the House pointed out for the maintenance of these privi leges. Now, what he ( Dr. Via.) would gay on that point was this, that if once the Hnntse disclaimed being the judges of' their own privileges' from that moment they conceded the whole q uestioon ( Hear, hear. ) Ho had the highest respect for the Co: its of Law, and also for the House of Lords, as a branch of :he Legislature. But he begged to call attention to one case, nthich was in the knowledge of his Hon. and Learned Friend epposite ; and he would ask, would they be justified in putting confi dence in the decision of the House of Lords as a tribunal of appeal? H, admitted the integrity of the Judges of the Courts of Law, and he would not throw a slur upon the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear.) But he re membered a case which occurred thirty-four years ago, when upon a point of law, 150 Members of the House of Lords came down to reverse a decision which had been come to by Lord Eldon, who was Lord Chanceller, and in which Lord Ellenborough, a law Lord, had supported him. —( Hear, bear, hear.) He remembered the indignation with which both Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough walked out of the House.—( Hear, hear.) There was one case it. which, from private influence or through party motives, by a division of the House of Lords, Justice wa tramj hd on, and injustice was triumphant. ( Louds cries of " Hear, hear.") He considered that the whole of the privileges of that House were wrapped up and bound together, and that if the one privilege in question were submitted to the Cowts of Law and to the House of Lords, they must submit all the others to the same autho rities, and they would no longer have the power of exer cising those privileges for the welfare of the people; but they would be subject in the most essential particulars to a tribunal which would destroy them.—( Hear, hear.) Could any one in that House have any other object in com mitting those parties to the custody of the Sergeant -at- Arms or sending them to Newgate, except fur the main tenance of the privileges of the Commons ?—( Hear, hear.) He would say with the Right Hon. Member for Tam worth that he could not hold his seat with honour to himself or with credit to his constituents if the privilege was not maintained. If he had any popularity in the country, be would stake it upon this case.—( Hear, hear.) He had considered the question attentively, and he was satisfied the House had no alternative but to persist in the course which it had undertaken, et to abandon its privileges. It tvas on that ground he supported the motion for committing this person.—(Cheera and laughter from the Opposition benches.) He knew the question was, whether Thomas Howard had committed a breach of privilege.—( Hear, hear.) It had been seen that he was carrying on the fifth action ; but when he was asked if he had carried on the fourth action with a full knowledge that his father had been committed to prison on account of that action, he answered in the affirmative. Thei efore it could not be doubted that he knew it was against the order of the House to p rocee d w i th the fifth action. On that ground he opposed the amendment, Sir R. PEEL would defend the Hon. Member for Westminster from the charge of inconsistency, although he could not defend his which that Gentleman now now took w as cons i stent w i t h t h e the questi on o f pr i v il ege . The motion w hi c h the Hon. Me m b er h ad seconde d united the important Parliamentary the privileges o f Parliament were principle "that for the ben e fit o f the community at liaartgeee.d ” ed solely W a s it not, then, a sa cre d d uty, a paramo unt for the Members of th a t House to upholdobligation, them ?Hear.) And if the Hen. Gentleman should be told constituents than the cou rse ta k en by Housetho by "' of n his proper, let him read to them the fi rs t passage of the rim lution—( Hear, and a laugh)—let hi m te ll themeg°- that the contest in which the House was eng age d was not for tyrannical power, nor for personal authority, b ut f or the welfare of the community at large.—(Cheers.) Th at part of the Hon. Member's speech which re l ated t to news_ papers, was wholly inapplicable. The Hon. Member had seconded a resolution to the effect that the power of pub lishing such of its reports, votes, and other proceedings, as it might deem necessary for the public interest, was essen tial to the exercise of its functions. The real question then was, should the publication take place by the authority of the House ?—( Hear, hear.) It was vain to contend that the newspapers were the proper vehicles of publica tion. •In fact, they could not publish the necessary documents. They could not obtain all the necessary information..—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Honourable Gtentleman opposite wound up by stating " that it was desirable that Parliament should take measures for securing . to each branch of the Legislature the free exer cise of its functions." Now he (Sir R. Peel) did not think the present the fittest occasion for entering into a full discussion of their privileges. But he could not con ceal from himself that to legislation they must come at last.—( Hear.) The public ought to understand that there was a desire to intrude the jurisdiction of another authority upon their privileges ; and although he did not desire to go into the general discussion at that time, yet he would not allow himself, by silence now, to be prejudiced when they came to the general question of the law. Let not the origin of all this be forgotten by the public. Let it be remembered that these were the facts. It had been pre tended that in the gaol of Newgate the discipline was as good as could be desired. An inquiry was made into the state of that prison, and a book was found in the hands of one of the prisoners, which, under the pretence of being a medical work, was a most obscene publication.—( Hear. ) He had himself seen the book, and he would most solemnly say that it was a most obscene book ; and the Jury, be it observed, were of that opinion. In order to justify the course which Parliament had taken in respect to that prison, the report of the Commission was pub lished, and for that Report the actions were instituted against the House of Commons. He believed that the Report was a privileged publication, even without the order of the House of Commons.—( Hear.) It was of the highest importance to public morality that prisoners in a gaol should not be corrupted there.—(Cries of " Hear, hear. ") The House published the fact that an obscene book was allowed to be in the hands of the prisoners in the gaols of the metropolis; and the Courts of Law declared that not only in that instance the printer of the House was liable to an action, but that in every instance in which anything was published which would give offence to any one, he would he so liable, and the order of the House would not be pleaded as a justification. If then the House, in endeavouring to bring a delinquent to justice, ordered anything to be published which gave a public officer pain or offence, their printer could be cited not only before the Superior Courts of Law, but before Courts of Quarter Session or the Borough Courts.— (Hear, bear, and cries of " No, no.") Yes; so it had been decided by Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justico Littledale.—(The Hon. Baronet then read the decision of Mr. Justice Littledale to that effect.) He must also beg that it should not be forgotten that all the legal authorities in that House had declared that in substance the House was right, and the Judges were wrong.—(Hear, hear.) That should not be forgotten, as the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench struck at the privileges of the Commons of England.--( Hear, hear.) The law authori ties in that House were of opinion that the publication was privileged, and that the judgment of the Queen's Bench was erroneous.—(Cheers.) They had all declared not only that the privilege was important, but that the House possessed it.— (Cheers.) He relied on no extravagant claim of privilege. His Hon. and Learned Friend had attempted to discuss the present question by referring to same atrocities which had been committed in former times. That might have some influence upon uninformed minds. Some persons might imagine that because the House of Commons, some hundred years ago, sanctioned such atrocious and indefensible acts, the present proceedings of the House partook of the same unjust character. He could show that in former periods of our history erra ordinary concessions had been made by the Court of Queen's Bench, and he would ask if that should boa reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the present Judges of that Court? He had found instances in which the Court of Queen's Bench had determined that after the Session of Parliament Members were liable to an action in a Court of Law, on account of speeches delivered in the House ; and the Court of Queen's Bench had decided on that very question whether Members were liable to an action for speeches made in Parliament—on that very question had unanimously decided that Members were liable on these grounds, " that they were the Judges of the lives and and lands of Members of Parliament, and that therefore they were the judges of their liberties."—( Hear, hear.) Ile found that Mr. Justice Jones had actually pronounced the judgment of the Court against Sir John Eliot, who had been sentenced to pay 1000 marks for a speech delivered in Parliament. He found that Mr. Holies had been fined 1000 marks, and Mr. Valentine 5001. far the exercise of the some right. He did not think, however, that it would be fair to refer to these decisions now, but he thought it was equally unfair in his Right Honourab'e Friend near him, to refer to decisions of former Houses of Commons, for the purpose of creat ing an impression on the public mind that there was any extravagant danger from the exercise they might make of their privileges.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The question was, whether they were justified in maintaining the privileges which they claimed ? If that privilege was an extravagant one, there were many Members of the House, jealous enoughof its authority, who would be the first to disclaim against them. He would rely on the authority of judicial decisions at very recent periods, for the possession of the privilege for which they were contending. The doc:rinc had been laid down in the case of the Kin.. v. Wright, by Judges of the highest eminence, who had gone the whole length of maintaining the privilege which they had been asserting. The decision in that case had been a most important one, and the case of a very strong nature. Mr. Horne Tooke had brought an action against a printer for a libel. Application had been made by criminal information against the defendant. It had been said that the Judges had not a ",ecided in that case on its merits, in consequence of some technical objections, but he (Sir R. Peel) looked to the doctrines they had laid down. The action had been brought connection , printer, with whom the House o f Com mons dno against for reprinting a Rep or t o f t h e House which hail containcel conEssedly a libel on Mr. Horne Tooke. Lord Kenyon Led said on that occasion, that the inquiry made by the House of Commons was a proceeding taken by one branch of the Legislature, in order to enable them to proceed further, and to make regula tions fur the benefit of the country. The Report, he con tinued to say, having been adopted as one of its proceed ings by those who were the guardians of its Constitution, he could not say that such a report was a libel, and he was therefore of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged. —( Hear, hear.) That opinion of Lord Kenyon he ( Sir Robert Peel) thought, was a complete vindication of the present proceeding of the House. Mr. Justice Grose had said on the same occasion that as the publication had pro ceeded from one branch of the Legislature acting for the safety of the State, he saw no case on which the Court could decide for the plaintiff. Mr. Justice Lawrence had maintained the same doctrine which Lord Denman had maintained on Saturday last, namely, that the publication of a trial in the newspapers was just and privileged, on the ground that the public were interested in knowing what might have passed during the trial. On what grounds, he (Sir R. Peel) would ask, was that exemption made from the law ? Was it by any statute ?—( Hear, hear.) The Judges had given that decision on nothing but these grounds, that the public was interested in knowing the proceedings which took place in Courts of Justice. When the Court had given that opinion, did they say that they were violating the laws of the land ?—( Hear, hear. ) If the Courts were justified in refusing a complaint of libel under such cir cumstances, was not the House of Commons to protect its own authorised printer?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Justice Law rence had gone on to say that it was important that true accounts of public bodies should be circulated, and that the country would be deprived of that advantage if the printers in such cases were punished. The defend.. ant in that case had not been authorized to publish the proceedings. yet he was justified in doing so. He wished to know if a revolution had since taken place in the Constitution ?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Here they had Judges maintaining, some thirty years ago, that an authorised printer, who had published a true espy of their reports, Was protected in doing so because the public had an interest in knowing what passed within the walls of Parliament, and yet the same Courts, with equal unanimity, had lately denied that they could authorise their own printer to say that Newgate required reform because obscene books had been introduced into it. lie relied on the solemn judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench some forty years ago, giving protection to unautho rised• parties for publishing correct copies of their proceedings, and he was surprised that it should now be said that every inferior Court might summon Members of the House, because the character of private individuals had been assailed. He would ap peal to the people of England whether enough had not passed to justify the House of Commons, which hat} exercised for 200 years the privilege in question ; which had struggled for it at times when Courts of Law were corrupt, and power was despotic—he would appeal to the people of England, and ask, if after a lapse of 200 years they could see without apprehension the course pursued by the Court of Queen's Bench, a decision which would place in the hands of the Judges those privileges which they had already shown a disposition to overturn. (Cheers.) Not a word had been said in justification of the Judges, but there were complaints made against the mode in which the House had proceeded. It had hitherto been left to the House of Commons and the House of Lo•ds to vindicate their own privileges.—( Hear, hear ; hear.) The House had pleaded, against his advice, before the Court of Queen's Bench, trusting to the decisions which had been given in the case of Burdett against Abbott, and in the case of the King against Wright. It was not an unnatural presumption on their parts to think that the Court which had held the doctrines that it did in those cases would hold them still. They had foand however the unanimous decision against them, not only in the individual case, but in the very existence of the power they were claiming.—( Hear, hear.) They found that individuals had a right to bring actions against them. What then was the House of Commons to do? Would it be sufficient to resort to the Judges assembled in the Ex chequer Chamber? He ( Sir Robert Peel) did not think so. and he was not sorry for the delay which had taken place on this occasion. It had been said that the public were unanimously against them; he doubted that. Public feelin g he should observe, was of the utmost importance, but it was often difficult to become acquainted with it, as that opinion was often of a comp l icated nature. It was not to b e j u d ge d o f by those who would look merely to one side of the question , and he di strusted public opinion if that w ere its nature. lie knew th at l ast year the public opinion was that it was the sale of its papers, and that m s m ucT not be justified.—t Hear monstrous of the House of Co h be a e d n n t o h w e a r n es a u d it m o is f si on of.anto oapsesnumpatinsnhocponfoldr thheear. Court) He wo ue u e ld n,s as ß k e i n v c h h at ,it h se a l d f the discussions on the subject? 'They that the sale constituted no part of Queen's libel.—( Hear ) Suppose they had appealed to the Judges in Exchequer, should t hen and suppose the d ec i s i on was against them, they should thus have shown no desire they to vindicate t e h a e Y O pr i vi l e ges you to their own authority;the House of Lords. Suppose, however, that such decision were also against them, how much would their other privi. legcs be endangered by that proceeding ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) They would thee have shown that they had no privileges which they did not hold by the preca • rious tenure of the consent of the other House. Extrinsic authorities would thus be the exclusive Judges of their proceedings. They had, however, taken a different course —a course personally painful to many Members of the House. They bad visited with severe punishment parties who were not morally guilty. They had thus vindicated their authority on the principle that they had no other mode of defending those privileges, except by making Ministerial officers liable for the execution of the orders which they had received, precisely in the same manner ha which, in case of a conflict between two Courts of Law, their innocent officer would be punished by one Court for oheying the order of another. It was impossible to take into consideration the moral conduct of the indivi. duals in question, if they were to maintain their privileges by their own authority, and there was not one subject on which they might not . have to maintain their rights in a similar manner. He considered that it was not the privi lege of publication alone that was at issue, but every other privilege in respect to which there had not been a series of legal adjudications. They had shown that they had the power to commit ministerial officers, but he doubted whe ther they had at present a full and effectual means of assert ing their rights, or one suitable to the dignity of Parlia ment, and he would repeat that he thought they should have recourse to legislation, although nothing but a con; viction of the imperfection of their present powers would allow him to resort to such a remedy. He would not, in that case, think it inconsistent with the dignity of the House of Commons to take that course which had been fol. I,wed on other occasions, and to attempt to give them. 'mites that full power which might be essential to them, He did not think that the power sf the House of Commons in that instance was imperfect, but if he should feel called on to give up the money to Stockdalc, he would give his vet- on the occasion without pain, although he admitted the right of Mr. Hansard to be unquestionable. His opi_ nien on the case had been uniform and unvarying from the first.—( Cheers.) He Was fully aware that extreme ne cessity alone justified them in proceeding by enactment ; but if he were told that they had no other remedy against the actions which might follow at the end of the Session, zarl that they had no means of protecting themselves for the present, except by consuming the public time day after day in their own defence, he would say that the time was come to defend themselves by enactments, reserving to themselves, in case those enactments should fail, the right they were now exercising of vindicating their privileges by their own proper and intrinsic power. --(Cheers.) Mr. WAKLEY said he should like to know from his Hon. Colleague whether, after the speech he bad heard from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he was disposed to repeat his former opinions. He believed since the House of Commons was in existence it had not been engaged on a more important question than that which was then occu pying their attention, and no question he believed bad ever been discussed, so far as the majority of the House were concerned, with more patience and forbearance. lie did not thank, however, the same could be said of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had heard the House taunted with its not daring to seize upon the Judges or the Jury, While the House had been sitting on the examination of a great national question he did not think such conduct just or appropriate. He had heard his Hon. Colleague and the lion. Member for Westminster say that public opinion was against the majority of the House. He did not know, however, from whom these Honourable Gen tlemen had received their informatian.—( Cries of " Hear, hoer.") His occupation obliged him (Mr. Wakley) to travel through various parts of the county, and he had heard every man say, " Support your privileges--( Hear) —and do net, above all things, go before the House of Lords." lie wi-bed to know if his Hon. Colleague were willing to abide by the decision of that House, whose Members might almost all vote on the occasion by proxy ? He remembered that the Hon. Member had supported a motion against that manner of voting, and he was surprised to hear any popular man make the proposal in question. Since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, he did not for his part know any question on which public opinion was so uniform as the present. He wished to allude to the course pursued on the subjeet by the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite, the Member for Tamworth, whose speeches on the question had made him the most popular Member of the House, and had rendered him the object of universal ad miration. What was it that prevented persons violating a l a w? Why, inflicting punishment. !confess (said the Hon. Member) that I am not surprised an application was made to you the other night to let one of the Sheriffs out on the ground that he was in danger from a certain malady. N:ght after night, on coming to the House, I found there was a great bustle in the passage. At last I inquired the cause of it, but I was interrupted by a cry of " Make way there I—make way there I—dinner for the Sheriffs ! dinner for the Sheriffs 1"—( Shouts of Laughter.) Then a Sheriff comes and says.—" I am overfed—( Renewed laughter)—l have a short neck too, so let me out." This is not the course to maintain your privileges —you must put them on a lower diet—out of humanity put them en a lower diet, and feed them as they ought to be fed.— ( Laughter. ) It is not rig ht that men who have vi o l a t e d the law should be allowed this manner to indulge their appetites. I hope they do not do so at the public expense. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that such a punishment ought to be inflicted as would have the effect of preventing a repetition of the offence; and the House could not stop, unless it was prepared to sacrifice its privi lerees and the independence and rights of the people.— ( Hear, hear.) Mr. SHAW wished to observe, that when he inter rupted the Right Hon. Baronet, he was m:rely desirous of stating that no Court of Quarter Sessions could enter tain this question by way of civil action. While on his legs, he would ask the Hon. Member for Finsbury not to press his amendment. The real question was, whcnher the House could or could not maintain the position it had ion raised re t assumed, that in no case cool I a C ourt o f L aw ca ll i n p En rj o vii . Gentleman egesThe wases a one d ied e r i deserving i o the g of ge gu amend ment questi o o its fn the i consideration, but it ought to be separately discussed.— ( Hear, hear.) With respect to the motion before the House, lie would ask whether it would not be an act of cruelty to send a boy 19 years of age to gaol, because he had obeyed his father's orders, there being no other mem bsr of the family capable of conducting the business. Mr. PRYME contended that the action for which the party had been summoned was the same as that for which it was proposed the committal should take place. He would ask the Right lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, whether, if a bey were brought before him in that Court over which he presided with so much ability, for picking pockets, and that boy stated that he had done it by command of his father, would he deem that a sufficient excuse ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should support the motion. Sir E. SUG DEN said that the young man had been called to the bar only because he had served a notice in the fifth action, and referred to the past votes of the 1 - home in support of his assen:on. Mr. FRE SHFIE LD observed, that if the de cision which the Judges had come to was contrary to law, why had the House not ap pealed against it. The course which the House had catered upon was one which could not have any effect. They might stop the alministration of justice, but they could not stop the bringing of actions. If another action was brought, then they would have to commit another man, or another boy, or it might be another woman.—(hear, hear, and laughter.) Let the House declare, by some Legislative measure, what they consi dered to be their privileges, and then he thought they would be more cautious in their proceedings.—( Heir.) Me. GOUL B URN gave no weight to the objec tion made, that they were going to punish for an act done in ore action, when the act was done in another. It ap prared from the evidence giver at the bar, that Mr. Howard, jun., had acted while he was perfectly aware of the resolutions of the House, which was a gross contempt of the II)O31. Sir E. SUGDEN denied that Mr. Howard, jun., had admitted doing anything in the action for which he was to be punished. Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had most dis. tinctly admitted having acted against the privileges of the House, the resolutions having been within his cognizance. Mr. WYNN contended that if the young man had had notice that bringing or carry ing on the actions was a breach of privilege, it did not matter what acti-A he had been concerned in. He thought the objection had no weight. Mr. LAW said they only proceeded to punish the son, a young man of nineteen years of age, because they found they could not so punish the fAther in such a manner as to stop his proceedings against their servants.—( Cries of " Di vide.") Those Members who came down to decide without hearing evidence might attempt to cripple the exertions of one w h o was most anxious to perform his duty.—( Cries of " Order.") The Hon. Member then contended, that from the evidence of Mr. Hansard it ap pearcd'that it was not the party before the House who had taken the steps for which punishment was to be awarded, but another party who was not yet before the House. The young man had stated distinctly that he had nothing to do with the fifth action. They were, he trusted, not about to commit the agent after having punished the principal—not to punish the ton after having punished the father, for acts done before the father was imprisoned. Such a course would cast ridicule, or something worse, upon the proceed. ings of the House. Mr. SANFORD, having read the evidence of Howard, junior, contended that if he were not punished, all the proceedings of the House upon the question were nugatory, because it appeared that all the steps he had taken were taken after he was aware that his father was in custody for a breach of the privileges of the House in his connection with these actions. Sir E KNATCIIBULL did not think the House had had sufficient evidence before them of the acts committed by the young man, upon which to act. Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to him that all the actions were p ar t s o f one ser i es of similar transac ti o ns ; that all was one and the same offence • and unless the Right Hon. Baronet was prepared to show that a party was not to be allowed to plead guilty at the bar, there was no weight in his argument. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that T. Howard, jun. be committed to the custody of the Ser geaat-at- Arms, trusting that the young man would soon see the error he had committed, anda pologise to the House. Sir E. SUG DEN said there was no evidence—(ol4 011)—no evidence to show that the young man bad really committed the breach of privilege.—( Oh.) Mr. O'CONNE LL sl,ggested that the young man be called in, and have an opportunity afforded him of express ing regret for what had occurred. Lord J. RUSSELL begged the Learned Gentleman t) recollect that the last time the House bad accepted an apology from Mr. Howard, sen., the next day there ap peared a contrary declaration from him in the papers.— ( Hear. ) The proper course for the young man to pur sue would be, when committed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, to petition the House, and express his regret for having in curred their disapprobation.—( Hear.) Mr. F. KELLY (amidst cries of " Divide," and " Question,") said nothing had been proved against the young man--(" Oh, oh")—and he called upon the No ble Lord, cr the Attorney-General, to declare distinctly the apt for which this youth was about to be committed. The House divided, and the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority Mr. Pearce was then called in awl examined by as SPEAKER. You are clerk to Mr. Howard, of Norfolk-street ? Veg. Were you engaged in that capacity in serving notices or writs on Messrs. Hansard ?--Yes. In what actions?—The two last. Do you know the cause of those actions 7—Libel (after a long paus,) Bythe SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Did you know that your principal, Mr. Howard, had been committed for conducting an action for an alleged libel, published by order of the House—the same alleged libel on which tho other actions have been found,cl?—Yes. Did you serve the notice of the writ of inquiry ?—I did. Did you know at the time it was for an action which had been voted by this House a breach of its privileges ? YeR. By Mr. L A \V—Did }au know at the same time that the Court of Queen's Bench had held that a similar action was maintainable ?—Yes. And that in that action damages had been recovered by the plaintiff?—Yes. By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Did you know that this Flotty-;e had voted that decision a breach of its pri‘iiiges ?—( Cries of " Oh," from the Opposition.) Mr. LAW objected to the question, a 3 implying an affirmation of a non-existing fact. Question withdrawn. Mr. GODSON—What wages do you receive?-- ( Loud cries of •' Oh. oh.") Mr. HUME—I object to that question ; you may just as well ask him how much bread he eats.—( Hear, hear.) The witness having beet ordered to withdraw, Mr. HUME said he did not think the question of how much wages the individual had, had anything to do with the subject before them. Mr. GODSON said the question had been put by him for the purpose of ascertaining what amount of wages his family had to depend upon, and what was the real quan tum of cruelty the House was about to inflict. He should certainly press the question to a division. Mr. HUME would withdraw his objection to tLe question. Sir EDWARD SUDDEN thought the question might be pat with the qualification that the witness should not answer it unless he liked. Mr. Pearce was then recalled, and on the question being put by Mr. Godson, he said ho would rather not answer it. —( Cheers). In answer to a question from Mr. O'CONNELL, the witness stated that he had served the notice of inquiry by direction of Mr. Howard, jun , who acted on behalf of his father. Mr. Howard desired him to serve the notice and he had done so. He thought he had received the instruc tions from Mr. Howard himself. He had been several times at Newgate, and had been there on Saturday last. It was not on the subj-ct of the action, it was on other bu siness of the office. Young Mr. Howard acted as the conducting clerk at the office, in the absence of his father. No person intervened between himself and young Mr. Howard ; they were the only two clerks in the office. The entire business of the office had been done by young Mr. Howard since his father had been in custody. By Mr. L AW—I have no ether employment whatever, and I would be liable to be dismissed at a moment's notice, and terown out of employment, if I disobeyed my em ployer's commas is. Have you any family ?—I have a wife and son, without any other means of support except my exertions. I was never bred to the law ; I have been a military man all my life. Would want of employmr_nt be your total ruin 2—lt would ; and my wife, who is solely dependent on my exer tions, is allied to the first nobility—not only the first, but the very highest nobility, being a descendant of Roper, the first Lord Teignham, whose peerage was dated 1656; and she multi perish if it were not for my personal exertions, from my imprudence in marrying her when a military man. --( Hear, hear_ ) In answer to a question from Mr. KELLY, the witness said that he understood the action was brought, not for the purpose of bringing the privileges of that House into dis cussion, but merely for the purpose of recovering damages for a libel. He had merely acted as the clerk of Mr. Howard. Mr. O'BRIEN—Is the House to understand that if Mr. Howard directed you in future to do anything con tr:lry to the privileges of this House, that you would do so? Mr. KELLY ohj:Tted to the question ; and the witness was ordered to with raw. Mr. O'BRIEN said his object in putting the question, was to allow him the opportunity of exculpating himself. Mr. GORING said the witness could not possibly judge of what the privileges of the House wore. Lord HO WICK objected to asking the witness any questions as to his future conduct, because he feared it would have precisely a contrary effect to what his Hon. Friend the Member for Limerick meant. All they had to d, was to judge of the facts as they came before them, and leave the witness to make any apology he thought proper afterwards —( bear.) Mr. O'B I:1EN sail he would withdraw the question. Mr. W. ATT\VOOD hoped there would be no marks of arprobation or disapprobation, while the witness was under examination.—( Hear, hear.) The witness was then recalled, and Mr. O'BRIEN asked him if he had anything to offer to the House in ex culpation of his conduc►. The quest on N6S objected to, and the witness was again ordered to withdraw. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that Mr. Pearce had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the llousc, in serving the writ in the case of Stockdale v. H .r,sard. Sir E. SUGD EN said the H use could scarce go lower than it had already gone.—(oh I) He hoped the que3tion would not be pressed, or their cells would not be large etv , ugh to contain their victims. They might depend opt' it that there would bc plenty of clerks found throughout the metropolis to con duct cases similar to the present, and they would find themselves engaged in a warfare with the lowest class of persons in that metropolis. He should give the motion his most decided negative. Lord MAHON did not know to what lower depths of degradation the House meant to go.__(" Oh.) So f .r r,s his observations among some hundreds of persons of all grades and parti,.s went, the public opinion of the coun try was decidedly against their present proceedings.— ( [tar, hear.) He was most anxious to see all the privi leges possessed by the House previous to the 13 , h August 1835 preserved - to it; but he objected most decidedly t 0 the present arbitrary stretch of power. Instead of adopt ing legislative mea,aires, as the Noble Lord had intimated a short time ago, he had resorted to vindictive measures. Was that House resolved to set their privileges above all law? If they win', the country would not support them. lie had heard no answer to the arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Exeter, who, in the course of the debate on the privileges of the House, bad Biked what would be the result if a murder was committed in the course of the execution of the Speaker's warrant, or would th• Courts of Law take cognizance of it? He caraestly hoped that the Noble Lord would return to the course, at one period indicated by himself, of settling this question by a Declaratory Act. They should not any longer be called upon, night after night, to commit persons for breaches of privilege, which, bad such an Act existed, would have been prtivented by it. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the statements of the Noble Lord had been answered over and over egain. The Noble Lord seemed to suppose that were they to go back to their position in the year 1835, they should he perfectly secure in these actions. Had he forgotten that the Judges had laid down an opposite doctrine. They did not say it was on account of the sale that the House was not entitled to publish these p• oceedings, but that for any publication containing a libel the person libelled might proceed against the House. He would mention an instance to illustrate the matter, which;occurred that day. The Hon. Member for Pembroke had this evening asked him respec - ing papers regarding the Hill Coolies in the Mauritius, and which he was going to lay on the table of the House.—( Hear, hear.) The papers would refer to the treatment and general condition of the Hill Coolies the Mauritius, and in what manner they had been treated by their masters, and by the captains of ships, who conveyed them fro:n India. He was asled to deny at the Colonial-office whether he wished cautious extracts from those papers, or that they should contain everything, and his direction was, that a full and complete statement should be given with re spect to those people—( Hear, hear)—andhe thought he should not have given the House fair ground for legislation, whether or not this importation should be permitted, unless he laid those facts before them. He did not know whether among the statements there might not be some reflecting on indivi duals, and extremely disagreeable to their feelings. What would be the consequence if they revoked their reso. lution of sale ? If the Right Honourable Member for Pem broke, having these papers in his possession, was to send them to some persons to ascertain their °pit lons ? that would be a publication according to the Court of Queen's Bench, and his Right Hon. Friend, in thus endeavouring to obtain the means of coming to a fair conclusion on the subject, would render himself liable to those actions, and to indictment for a publication of libel. So little did the Noble Lord, who had paid mere attention to this question than many Members, seem aware of the position they were in. Then he asked the House, whether the Noble Lord, agreeing, as he did, that the publication of the proceedings was necessary, had stated in what way they could proceed to assert them. He said that he (Lord John Russell) had receded from his declaration respect ing a Declaratory Act. His declaration was, that although they possessed the power, this exercise might be attended with such public inconvenience and; he thought a Declatory Act ad visable for the general benefit of the country. That opinion was not changed, but he was determined to preserve, in any manner that he could, the privileges of the House, and without, receding from that opinion he could not see that it was likely to be passed in the manner he then supposed. The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth had suggested that the Bill might be brought into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor. He found, upon consideration, there were various objections to that course of proceeding, and he determined if he adopted the course o' a Declaratory Bill, on doing so with the greatest con sideration, and giving it the greatest chance of success. He would not allow their privileges to be weakened by any course adopted to maintain them.—( Cheers.) Therefore he would say he was still in favour of a Declaratory Bill ; and if le saw a fair chance of carrying such a Bill, he would even himself pro pose it. He was not now prepared with a Declaratory Bill, being uncertain what might be the opinion of persons of great authority in the House of Lords. In this state of the question, he would not say that the ancient mode of asserting the privileges of the House by commitment should be abandoned. They had been told their proceedings would be mere waste paper unless they went on with them, and when the case before the House was that of an attorney, who evidently made it his trade and the main object of his pro fession to bring a series of actions, bringing their privileges in question, he did say if they did not proceed they would incur the contempt they had been told they should incur in such a case. He might be told with great truth that it was a painful thing to commit an individual in so low and unhappy a situation as the person at the bar, and he must say the person chiefly to blame was the attorney who employed his man to commit an offence against the House.—( Hear, hear.) It was not the fault of the House if the man was obliged, or thought himself obliged, to pursue that course. He was sure that not the smallest Court in England would allow a servant accused of an illegal act to be dismissed from the bar because his master had told him to do it, and if this were the case in the inferior Courts, surely it would be so in the Courts of Westminster. The House was often told that they were bringing themselves into contempt, and he should be glad on every account, on account of the part he was obliged to take, an account of the waeto of time, and of the public inconve nience, if some mode could be adopted for maintaining their privileges and settling the question. But he was persuaded if they now declared they had no power to commit, and yielded the authority, by no other proceedings could they obtain a re cognition of them.—( Cheers. ) Mr. GORING said Mr. Pearce had done nothing which proved that he was in any way cognizant that he was commit ting a breach of the privileges of the Home. Mr. INGHAM said he thought the Noble Lord was mis taken as to the opinion of the Judges. Judge Patteson had said that every !Member enjoyed the right of communicat ing to any person any document published by the authority of the house ; and why ? Because the criterion of a just privi lege was this—the right of doing all that should enable them to perform their duty in that House. This right had been admitted by the Judges in the case of Stockdale and Hansard. They said the question was not sale or no sale, but one e indis criminate c:rculatien. It was, therefore, overlooking the judg ment to say they denied the privilege of publication. They al lowed this so far as was necessary to the exercise of the func tions of the House.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. ANDREW WHITE said his constituents supported him in the view he took of this case, namely, that the majority were right. The House then divided on the motion, when the numbers were— For the motion 135 Against the motion slajority _ _ —B2 The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved that Thomas Johnson Pearce should appear at the Bar as having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and that he should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at• Arms. Sir E. SUGDEN would take the same course on that oc casion as h- had on others. He thought it was now time for the House to proceed by legislative enactment, and he thought it unfortunate that the public time should continua to be wasted.—(Hear, hear, hear.) As long as the question continued in its present course, he would not cease to move the adjournment of the House from that time till morning. —(Ironical cheers from the Milfs terial benches.) He was surprised to see Hon. Members con ducting themselves in a manner which would seem to show that they forgot they were acting as a high tribunal. He thought that in the discussion they should not let the world seo that they were moved by passion. —(Ironical cries of " If ear, hear," on the Ministerial benches.) Ile declared that for himself he was not acting from passion, as there was a great difference between such a feeling and warmth of expression— ( Hear, hear.) He assured the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who continued to manifest such appearances of excite ment, that he should not have remained upon his legs nine tenths of the time he hod occupied the House, if he had been heard without interruption. They were mistaken in supposing that he had lost his temper. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority for the motion On our return to the Gallery, we found Mr GORING presenting a petition from Mr. France, one of the Under Sheriffs for the county of Middlesex, which stated the situation in which the Sheriff had been placed in the cause of Stockdale and Hansard, and stating his readiness to pay all due respect to the authority of the House, and to obey its reso lutions under the protection of the House. COUNTY CONSTABULARY ACT. Mr. FOX MAULE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the County Constabulary Act. It was not his intention by this Bill to alter the principle of the one at present in existt ence, but to amend some of its details. The Bill at presen in existence had proved of great service in thirteen counties in which it had been tried, and he felt no doubt that it would shortly be generally adopted. His object was, in introducing the present measure, to give greater efficacy to the one already in existence, whereby an effective Pollee Establishment might be secured in counties during the present disturbed time. Sir E. KNATCHBULL did not rise to oppose the motion, he rather rejoiced that an opportunity was afforded for the Ilonse to discuss a measure which altered the whole constitu tion of the constabulary of the country, the Bill for which had certainly been introduced at too late a period of the late Session.---( Hear, hear.) He rather approved of the alterations proposed by the Hon. Gentleman, so far as he understood them then ; but he thought the time was too short for any one to say that the measure had yet been beneficial. Mr. L. HODGES was sorry to hear that his Hon. Friend did not intend to make any alteration in the main principles of the Bill, for the expense was found to be too great. He intended to take an opportunity of laying a Bill for the improving the Constabulary in the country on the table of the House. He did not intend to make it compulsory, but he hoped his Bill would cork at a much less expense than the present one, Mr. HUME protested against the principle of the Bill, be cause the rate-payers had no confidence in the Magistrates who at present had the management of the whole rates. The rate payers ought to have the power of choosing those in whom the trust was reposed of expending ths money. When the Bill came into Committee he would be prepared to propose clauses which lie trusted would be agreed to, and then the country would be satisfied, for the rate-payers would, through their own Board, have a control over the expen diture of their own money. Lord G. SOMERSET approved of the proposed alterations, and he could assure the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the Magistracy were actuated by as honest motives in laying on any impost, as the Members of that House i❑ taxing the people. After a few words from Mr. PA YINGTON, Mr. LANGDA LE, and Lord HENN IK ER, Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said some measure of this kind was absolutely necessary. In the altered state of the country, the present rural system of constabulary was of no more effect than the old " Chlrlies " were in the towns.—(Laughter and hear, hear.) Ile would further ob,erve that the maintenance of an active police in the towns had a „g reat influen ce on t h e preservation of property and pea c e i n t h e country. He wished the a dministration of the police were left in the hands of the Government He regretted that party feeling should have been endeavoured to be excited on such a subject as this, on which of all others party spirit should be discarded—( Hear, hear)—and he was sorry that the high sounding names of " constitutional principle," and " British liberty" should have been employed to create ill-feeling against a measure directed against thieves and cut-throats.—( Hear, hear.) It was desirable in the highest degree that the system should be universal through the country, otherwise it could not be effectual. The countles who did not adopt it would be worst off, for to them would be driven the vagabonds expelled by the vigilance of the police in the rest.—( Hear, hear. ) But he thought some allowance from the Consolidated Fund might be permitted to counties. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Mr. INGHAM moved for " a return of all the towns or bo roughs which have petitioned to be incorporat e d according to the provision of the Act 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 76, stating the date of the petition, whether such petition was opposed or not ; the result ; and whether, in case of the Charter being granted, the district comprised is such Charter was either larger or smaller than the precinct of the petitioning town or borough." Also fur a " return of the incorporated towns or boroughs to wt,ich either Courts of Quarter Sessions or Commissions of the Peace have been granted from the passing of the said Act to the 31st day of December, 1839; specifying the respective grants to each town or borough, and where Courts of Quarter Sessions have been granted; stating the names of the Re corders of each borough, and the dates of their first appoint ments as Recorders of any corporation ; and, in every case of commissions of the peace being granted, stating the number of Justices in each commission, and how many of the Justices, if any, who have at any time been appoiMed as Justices of such Boroughs, since the passing of the said Act, were at the date of their respective appointments members of Council of the several boroughs to which such commissions have been granted. Return, from every Borough levying a Borough Rate under the said Act, of the amount of such Rate for the last year, for which the accounts have been made up, and also of the amount of rate levied under any local Act or Acts now in force in such boroughs respectively for the same period ; and, also, Return from every of such boroughs of the amount of Rates levied under the local Acts, if any, in force in such borough, for the year next before the year in which the provisions of the said Act came into operation in such boroughs respectively. Mr. F. MAULE said the Home Office had no power to en force the returns. Mr. INGHAM said the law now compelled the borough authorities to make these returns. Mr. F. MAULE said the Home Office would take eve ry passible trouble to pro cure the informatthey on. But would be obliged to trouble officials th roug h the country, as they often were, for a deal of i n f ormation, for furnishing which they justly t o b e pa id , only there were no funds for thye object.—Returns ordered. CANADA. Colonel SIBTIIORP then moved for returns of the ex penses of the outfit, as well as other expenses, immediately and particularly connected with the mission of the Right Hon. C. P. Thompson, Governor-General of Canada—Agreed to. Mr. GODSON postponed his motion for papers relative to the cases of Frost, 'William ! , and Jones. MERCHANT SEAMEN. Mr. INGHAM moved the appointment of a Select Com mittee on the 4th and 6th Will. 4, c. 62, (the Merchant Sea f _r ';. Cl 7 P,, 4. Arm man's Fund Act), to consider the state of the funds, and how they can be most effectually maintained and administered fur the benefit of the Seaman.—Agreed to. THE CONVICTED CHARTISTS. Mr. LEADER hoped the House would allow him to pre sent a number of petitions praying for a free pardon for Frost, Williams, and Jones. The Hon. Member then presented peti tions from Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Camprey, Stroud, and several other places. to that effect. Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. GODSON presented peti tions to the same effect. Mr. FOX MAULE wall sorry to interfere in a case like the present, hut it was quite clear that if the Hon. Member entered into a lengthened statement of the case of these persons, he should be obliged to reply at some length, and looking at the state of the House, and the late hour of the night, it would be impossible for them to enter satisfactorily into such a discus sion.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. LEADER said it was only twelve o'clock, and he thought two or or three hours would be sufficient for the purpose. If the Hon. Gentleman would afford him n opportunity on Thurs day next, and it was understood the prisoners would be de tained till then at Portsmouth, he had no objection to postpone the motion for an address to her Majesty till then.—(Cries of " Go on." ) Mr. HUME really did not think his Hon. Friend could go on at that hour, although he (Mr. Hume) was anxious to second the motion. He did not think the opinion of the House could be ascertained when the attendance was so thin. Mr. LEADER said he did not come to ask the Government for an act of mercy but of justice. He supposed, howe7er, there was no alternative, but to postpone the motion till Thurs day. The Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill was read a mend time, and ordered to be committed. THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA. Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE moved that the resolution of thanks to the Army in India be discharged, for the purpose of moving in its stead a vote of thanks, which would include Major- General Wilshire and the other officers engaged in the recent brilliant affair of Kelat.--Agreed to. Adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'Clock. CORTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Mr. ORD reported from the General Committee of Elec tions, that they have receive.l the Panels as drawn and num bered by the Clerk of the House, and hare, in compliance with the 47th and 48th sections of the Act to amend the jurisdic tion for the trial of Election Petitions, appointed Thursday the 12th day of March for nominating from Panel No. 1, Select Committees for trying the merits of thepetitions complaining of undue elections and returns for the boroughs of Ludlow and Ipswich ; and that they have appointed Monday the 16th day of March for nominatitr , from Panel No. 2, Select Commit tees for trying the merits of the petitions complaining of endue elections and returns for the Boroughs of Totnes and Cambridge, and that they have given notices to the parties accordingly. Report to lie on the Table. DEVIZES. TO THE EDITOR OF 2112 - • - Sta,--Throughout the ►illages of Wiltshire petitions in favour of Church Extension have been privately circulated for signature, and yet there is not one church in ten that is filled. Many of the clergy who have headed the petitions with their signatures do not preach more than once a week, and scarcely any of them do more than the bare duty which they are compelled to do by the Bishop. The following statement is from personal knowledge, and if it leans it is in favour of the Church :—ln ten churches there arc—Four not quarter full, four more not half full, one more half full, one more, perhaps, sometimes, full. We do not want more churches, but more active minis ters pith less of pomp and pride, and more of Christian humility. February 17. A PLAIN MAN. PARLIAMEN TARP REFORM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. ROCHDALE, FEE 17, 1840. SlE,—The Members of the Electors' Association have, ever since the first election, marched in the ranks of Liberalism, but from the paltry proceedings of the last two or three Sessions of Parliament, have become convinced that nothing but a very extensive Reform in our Representation can save this country from anarchy and confusion. We have therefore hoisted the banner of Radicalism, trusting the justice of our:principles will induce all lovers of their country's rights and liberties to lock to our standard. I hope you will gi%e insertion to the address, thereby conferring a favour on, Your's most respectfully, THOMAS LIVSEY, Secretary. We have received the address, which, owing to its length we cannot find room for. It describes the des titution of the working classes, and the enormous debt. caused by lavish expenditure in unjust wars, recounts the gagging Bills, the Six Acts, and the other acts of the Tories on the plains of Peterloo, the vast expenses of Royalty and Government, of the Army and Navy, and proposes as a remedy for all, Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot, and, in fine, draws the following conclusion " We believe a Parliament, elected on the above prin ciples, would enact measures to put an end to all sine cures, pensions, &c., except upon a very scrupulous examination the receiver shall be found to merit them ; to discharge the standing army, except such part as may be necessary to maintain the arsenals at the sea ports, in readiness for war ; to abolish tithes of every descrip tion ; to abolish Church-rates ; to totally repeal tl.e Poor-law Amendment Bill ;to repeal the Constabulary Police Bill, and place the appointment and control of constables in the bands of the people, locally ; to cause an equitable adjustment of the debt, called national ; to pass an efficient Factory MIL ; to abolish all internal taxes, whether direct or indirect, and to impose, instead. a property tax ; and to cause a most searching and rigorous inquiry to be made into every branch of the public expenditure. " TO THE NON-ELECTORII. " Gentlemen,—We have in the above laid before you our principles, and stated the abuses and misgovern ment this country at present labours under; if the above principles be satisfactory to pit], we request that you will heartily co-operate with us, in doing your utmost to bring them into practice. " JAMES SCHOLFIELD, Chairman." On Monday the Annual Meeting of the Man chester Chamber of Commerce was held. J. B. Smith Presi dent, in the chair. The Secretary read a very lengthy report from the Board of Directors. It entered into a detailed state ment of the steps taken by the Directory with reference to the following subjects : Equalisation of the duties on sugar and coffee ; the duty on raw cotton ; the Manchester and Birming ham Extension Railway; timber duties ; the penny postage; steam commnnication with India, via the Red Sea; cultivation of cotton in India ; Mexico ; the Prussian League ; and the interruption of the trade with China. It stated that " The present juncture calls for increased exertion on the part of this meeting to emancipate our commerce from the etters with which its energies are bound." The report was adopted, and the following gentlemen appointed directors for the ensuing year :—Henry Ashworth, John Anderson, Henry Bannerman, James Burt, Richard Birley, W. R. Callender, Richard Cob den, Robert Gardner, Holland Hoele, Henry Hilton, John Hyde, James Heywood, Rupert Ingleby, James Kershaw, John Lloyd, Philip Novelii, Benjamin Pearson, David Price, Richard Roberts, Leopold Reiss, J. B. Smith, John Spencer, P. F. Willert, and James Wood, Esqrs. THE NEW PORTABLE ALARUNI size of a small Snuff Box, can be placed on the Dressing-table and set to ring at any hour that may be requirei. Prise Three Guineas. T. COX SAVORY, Goldimith, Silversmith, &c., 47, Uornhill (Seven i•ors from Gracechurch-street), London. N. T 3. A Pamphlet, containing Drawings, and a detailed list •f the Prises of Silver Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, Clocks, &a., may he hall gratis, or will he forwarded post free, answer to a post-paid application. On the 7th inst., the lady of Edward Hamilton Flinney, Esq. of a son, still born. On the 14th inst., at Liverpool, Mrs. C. Cosey, of a son. On the 14th inst., in Molesworth-street, Dublin, the lady of Henry Gilpin, Esq., of a son. On the 15th inst., at Lower Clapton, Mrs. Boult, of a daughter. On the 15th inst., at Dorset-terrace, Clapham-road, Mrs. Cunningham, of a son. On the 16th inst., in Upper Bedford-place, Russell-square, the wife of William Harrison, Esq., of Gray's-inn, of a daughter. On the 16th inst., at Sheerness, the lady of Captain Areng• Cross, 73d Regiment, of a (laughter. _ • MARRI RD. On the lith inst., at St. Luke's, by the Rev. Ugent Wade, M.. 1., Warren De La Rue, Esq., to Georgians, youngest daughter of Thomas Bowles, Es, of the Island of G uernse y. q. On the 13th of November, at St. Peter's Church, Colombo, Ceylon, Stephen Vertue, jun., Esq., to Eliza, fourth daughter of Charles Edward Layard, Esq., late of her Majesty's Civil Service. On the 12th inst. at Paris, Mr. A. J. B. F aseoppret D e Thulus, to Mary Ellison, eldest daughter of the late Henry Voysey, Esq. I DIED. On the 18th inst., at Leamington, Willi am , thi r d E ar l o f Mansfield, K. T., aged 63. On Friday, the 14th inst., at his house in Montague-streets Russell-square, John Oldham, Esq., of the Bank .f England, aged 61. On the 17th inst.. in Honduras-place, Downham-road, Kingsland-road, Mr. G. A. F. Tyrrell, aged 34. On the lstn inst., at Harewood-house, Yorkshire, the Countess of Harewood. - - On the Ist inst., at Florence, the Hon. Mrs. Alcock, the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Alcock, and aunt of the preseul Viscount Doneraile, aged 70. On the 10th inst., at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Lieutenant Cun ningham Douglas, late on half-pay of the 18th Regiment of Foot, aged 46. On the 13th inst., at Hampton -court Palace, Mr.. Ann Seeker, aged 73. On the 1 - th inst., Elizabeth Miller, the wife of Mr. John Backhouse, of Great St. Helen's. London : Printed and Publisheti YOUNG+, No. 112, Seranul, at Th e Sun Offiee, Ne. 112, Strand, iN t" e county of Alieldletex.—Weducaday, February 19, 1840. _ , Ace , 1 ,~ .*