The Sun. — London, England, 1840-07-18 00:00:00

,VENING EDITION. any reason against the general opinion of both sides of the House ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM was aware that the ob ject of the Noble Lord, and it ought to be that of all, was to promote the transaction of public business, but how could that be done if, after two or three hours' discussion of the Bill, it was to be postponed for no other reason but that the majority was on their side of the House?—(Cheers.) Let them decide the ques tion fairly of compensation or not that evening, and then debate and divide upon the third reading on Monday. Bat if they were to have two debates and two divisions, he saw no reason for any adjournment of the debate. Sir CHARLES GREY said the Right Hon. Bare. ' net had not candidly stated the facts of the case. He utterly denied that they had even discussed the impor tant question of compensation at all ; the two or three hours discussion alladed to was wholly wide of that most important question. Mr. WARBURTON thought it was reasonable 4o ask for some delay when they were called upon to decide without debate the important question whether lessees of Church property were entitled to compensa tion or not.—( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that in deciding in this particular instance they were setting a precedent which would affect all property of this de scription. Mr. FRESHFIELD proposed the amendments should be read pro forma, and the discussion taken on the third reading on Monday. Mr. BENJAMIN HAiWES said this was a queetion which would hereafter be debated on prin ciple in cases where much lager property was at stake than in the present case. They should, therefore, have all the information that could be procured, and proceed with great deliberation, before they decided on the subject. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Home divided, when there appeared— For the adjournment of the House lO Against it lO2 Majority On our return, Mr. HUME was appealing to the Hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) whether the Bill ought not to have a fair hearing, and whether it would not be better to adjourn the debate ? If the Hon. Baronet would not move this, he should feel it his duty to do so. Sir R. H. INGLIS said he wished the amendments to be read, pro forma. The Hon. Gentleman could move the insertion of the words on Monday. After some conversation, Ar. HU INIE moved the adjournment of the debate. On the question being put, Mr. AGLIONBY said, before strangers were or dered to withdraw, he wished to state his opinion that 'it was the &AT of the Ministers, in a case like the pre sent, involving a great principle, to deviate from their usual practice with regard to private Bills, and give their opinions on this subject. He hoped they would consider the question before the debate was resumed, nail treat thi as a public and not as a private Bill. Whether the amendment of the Committee was agreed to or not, he should oppose the third reading of the Ell. Mr. BAINES believed that although the present ;Bill was not so good as it might be, yet it was a great 'improvement on ecclesiastical legislation generally. He was, however, surprised at the course pursued by the Right Hon, Gentleman, the Member for the Uuniver sity of Cambridge, because he understood that he bad always contended that there was a beneficial interest in Church leases ; but the course he was now pursuing .seemed to show that he was of r. contrary opinion. The House, on this question, had been taken so completely by surprise, that it had not had time to consider this important principle, and on that ground he should support the motion for the adjournment. It would cause no delay that would prejudice the Bill, for, hav ing alseady passed to the other House, they could af ford to take ample time for its consideration. He was in favour of the Bill, leaL he would urge the friends of it not to press it until ample opportunity had been af forded for its discussion. Lord J. RUSSELL did not consider the request to postpone the further consideration of this vestion until Monday an unreasonable one under the circum stances. His opinion, with regard to the claims of the holdeie of Church leases, differed from that of the lion. Member for Cockerrnouth, and also from that which the Righ't Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke lied given, last.year. lie (Lord J. Russell) maintained that the lessees had no right to expact a renewal of taer leases. That the lessors, en the part of the Church, 11,,d a right to refwe such renewal, and that Parliament was not bound to recognize any such right. Tile Right Honourable Gentleman contended that the lessees bad a dear right to expect and cal calate upon such renewal. "With rogar,i to the right of les,ees undti these eircumstinces to any compensation or indulgenco, it was one of the most difficult questions which Parlia rent could be called on to settle ; and with regard to this particular Bill he should be unwillicg to tiler any opiiden upon it, unless he were acquainted with the whole that hal pasied in the Committeg on the subject.—(Cheers.) Ile knew no principle more Ciportant than the one they were called upon to de ' hide in disposing of this question. For himself he eras decidedly against awarding any compensation to nerFons on account of reasonable or usual expectations. He thouplit that was straining the principle of compen setion to much too great an extent. But that was a question, however, on which there existed much differ ence of opinion. The Right. Hon. Baronet the Mem ber for Pembroke, had last Session distinctly stated that the leisees were entitled to compensation.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Seeing, therefore, the importance and the daliculty of the question, and the great principles in volved it) it. and that this decision on the present ques tien wAuld in all probability become a precedent fist ,i,..l4ing with future questions of the same sort, he thought there was nothing unreasonable in postponing the further consideration of these amendments to Mon day, when there would be an opportunity for ample dis eussion.—(Cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the question they were now called on to decide was by no means a new one. 'lke question had been amply discussed, and he still ad hered to his opinion that it ought to be settled that evening.—(Cheers.) Ile did not recede from the opi cion - he had expressed last Session as to the moral right ,:f lessees to compensation, where the usual custom was to grant renewals, and he admitted to the full extent the existence of the difficulties stated by the Noble Lord But this was a question not of evidence hut of principle, end the House was as competent to decide upon the principle to-night as it would be on Monday.— Ele,r,hear.) Tile fact was, this was a question of iminbers.—(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious for victory, and they were not in numbers suffi cient to secure it to-night, and therefore they endea voured to delay the decision.—(Loud Opposition tr o cheers.) tie had steadily supported the Noble Lord on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, because he considered that under the circumstances that Bill was useful and necessary, but he would defy the Noble Lord to claim his support of that Bill, if he (Sir J. Graham) had not t`esught it proper to waive his scruples with regard to compensation. There was not an argu ment for compensation that could be urged in the pre sent case, that could not have been urged with equal force in support of the claim of the dignitaries in the Church, which it was proposed to suppress by the Ec clesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, to compensation. _(C'heers ) The principle was the same in both cases. He admitted the difficulty of the case ; but having given it his full consideration, and having balanced the inconveniences in his own mind, he had determined that the most proper course would be for him to support that measure. The arguments in sup port of that Bill, and these in support of his Ho nourable Friend's proposed amendment to the pre sent measure, were precisely the same. It was not a questien of evidence, but of principle.—(Hear, hear.) That principle bad been admitted by the Noble Lord and by her Majesty's Government, and, although they were perfectly right in being absent at the discussion of private Bills in general, yet in a Bill like the present; involving a great public p r i nc i p l e , ought not to shrink from the avowal o f their opinions, and acting upon the principle upon which he had acted in bringing forward the Ecclesiastical Duties and Re venues Bill, he was sure the Noble Lord must vote with him to negative the proposition for adjournment. This was merely a minority fighting against the ma jority, by having recourse to repeated motions for ad journment. Me should be sorry to stand in the way of publie business being proceeded with, but if this course were persevered in, the next motion for the adjourn ment of the House should have his support.—(Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should vote for the postponement. The Right Hon. Baronet admitted that this was a most important and difficult question, involving the decision of a most im portant principle, and if . so, was it right that it should be discussed without notice ?--(Cheers.) Was not such the case ?a-(Cries of " No," from the Opposition.) Had notice been given of these amendments ?—(Cheers.) So far from such being the case, he had, when he first came down to the House, left under the impression that they were discussing a private Bill.—(Cheers.) It was not generally known that under the case of the .Farnham Vestry Bill the House would be called upon to decide upon a principle affecting the rights of large bodies of proprietors throughout the kingdom.— .(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had not shrunk from the avowal of his principles.—(Cheers.) He had not shrunk from stating his opinion.--(Loud cheers.) All he asked was the postponement until Monday of what now turned not to be a private Bill, but a Bill involving the decision of a great public principle.--(Loud cheers.) Mr. GOULBURN asked what would have been thought of his conduct if he had moved the adjourn ment of the debate on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, with a view of discussing the question •f compensation.—(Cheers.) Would the Noble Lord have given *ay on such a reason at that late period of the Session, and would he (Mr. Goulb urn ) have been justified by his refusal in moving repeated adjourn- 'rents ?—(Cheers.) He would deny the principle in volved in this Bill, but every man had considered the I. principle when c onsidering the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill which had been before them since the beginning of the Session. It was quite idle to i give that as a ground for adjournment. How was the business of the country to be carried on if such a course were pursued? The principle involved in the Bill was known when the Bill was first introduced. It had been stated on moving the second reading, and every one knew that the time for stating objections to it was when the report should be brought up. It would most certainly be better to bring the discussion to a close now than to break in upon another day, which might be devoted to the business of the Government, and which would be the result of the course recommended by the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) Mr. EASTHOPE thought the public would be obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his ex position of the merits of the question. Here was a question involving great public and private interests, confessedly one of great difficulty, en which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite avowed he had changed his opi nion, brought forward in such a way that until very recently the principle involved in it had not been gene rally known even in that House.—(Cheers.) It was brought forward through the medium of a private Bill, and the only notice given in the Votes was amendments to be proposed, the House being left entirely in igno rance of the nature of those amendments—those amend ments having for their object the decision of one of the greatest public questions that could be brought under the consideration of the House. Was that dealing fairly by the House or by the :public—(Cheers)--to bring forward such a question through the medium of a private Bill ? He should be sorry to stand in the way of the public business proceeding, but he would incur all the peril of being accused of offering a factious opposition rather than sufer such a principle to be de cided in disguise, and without full and ample discus sion. —(Cheers.) Colonel SIBTHORP said that no such opposition as that which the proposition of the Hon. Baronet was meeting with, had been offered to the measures intro duced by the Hon. Gentleman opposi' e. What was good for Peter, however, was good for Paul. He trusted so factious an opposition as that offered to the measure would be defeated, and that the Noble Lord opposite would not sanction the course pursued by his followers. Sir R. H. I NGLIS was determined on proceeding with his motion. He did not think that there was a want of notice on the occasion, anymore than in the case of any other private Bill ; and he was justified in the course he was taking, by that pursued with regard to the Weaver Churches Bill. Mr. DA RBY said that though the original proposi tion were agreed to, Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have another opportunity, of opposing the principle of the measure on the third reading. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against the amendment The SPEAKER then gave his vote in favour of the amendment. The debate was therefore adjourned till Monday. RAILWAY - BILL. On the Order of the Day being moved for the fur ther consideration of the Report on the Railways Bill, Sir J. GRAHAM said he wished to ask the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he had directed his attention to the last report of the Committee on Rail roads, with respect to taxation, as it now existc , d on railroad passengers. He would also ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, whether, if he had considered that Re port, he was prepared to found on it a measure during the present Session, which would change the mode of taxing passengers. Mr. HAWES wished that a day should be fixed for the Committee on the Railway Biil. Lord SEYMOUR wished to postpone the Commit tee till te-morrow at twelve o'clock. Mr- HAWES objected to the day. Lord SEYMOUR would fix the Committee for Thursday next. Mr. IiENIBLE wished to know what Bill the Noble Lord intended to bring in to-morrow ? The CHANCELLOR of the Exchequer wished to answer the question of the Right Hon. Baronet the Aiember for Pembroke. He had turned his attention to the:Report of the Committee on Railways, and he was aware that that Report recommended an alteration in the mode of taxing passengers. But the evidence en which that recommendation had been founded was not yet .printed, and he could not at present pronounce an opini. - .7n on the subject. He was not, therefore, pre pared to say whether he would feel it his duty to intro duce such a measure as that alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir J. GiitalAM. then ;we notice that that on Thurs day next, on the motion foßWing -Committee on the Railway Bill, he would move as an amendment that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the mode of taxing railway passengers. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to put a question to Ministers with regard to newspaper stamps. The returns of those stamp 3 were now periodically published, and sppeals were made by each newspaper to the quantity of stamps taken out, for the purpose of showing that particular newspapers offered the best mode of advertising. It was of great importance that the should be made acquainted with the num bers published by each newspaper, if such an object could be effected. He believed, however, that some newspapers were in the practice of exchanging their stamps at the Stamp-office to a considerable amount. The returns, therefore, should show the number of stamps so changed, and if they did not do so they would offer hut a fallacious proof of thecirculationot each newspaper. The Right Hon. Gentleman would do much to prevent the ill effects of any misrepresentation which might occur by specifying the proportion of stamps actually used by each paper. He (Sir R. Peel) had received several communications from newspapers upon the subject, and be etas desirous of knowing whether tai© Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed. to make such an alteration as would remove the ground of complaint. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sail that he also had received communications on the subject, but he thought that the evil was more imagi nary than real. Mr. KEMBLE begged leave again to ask the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) what Bills be intended to bring on to-morrow. Lord J. RUSSELL'S answer was not heard in the gallery. Col. SIBTIIORP said that it made no difference to him what Bills the Noble Lord chose to bring on to morrow, for ha was determined to oppose every one of ti.ern.—(Checrs and laughter.) Mr. AGLION BY asked if there was any objection to a return of the instructions given to Mr. Crauford. respecting the inquiring into the regulations of York Castle ? Mr. FOX 'MAULE said that the instructions were only verbal. Mr. LABOUGHERE said that he had been erro nzrously reported in respect to what he had said in the discussion upon the Customs Act. The alteration which he had stated as intended to be made in the duty up-.n mustardseed was (through error) represented to be upon mustard flour. Col. PERCIVAL moved for a new writ for the Western Division of the county of Surrey, in the room of the Hon. W. J. Percival, now a Peer of the realm. ASSESSED TAXES. In answer to a question from Mr. MACLEAN, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the new survey was not intended to increase the rating upon the shops and warehouses of manufac turers. In the case of coach-makers, there would be no increase, except when the dwelling-house was a part of the manufactory. In answer to a question from Mr. MUNTZ, Ti'e ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not with certainty fix a day for the Rating of Stock in Trade Bill. The third reading stood upon the orders for Monday, but it depended very much upon the num ber of questions which might be asked whether it would come on upon that night or not.—(Hear, and laughter: FACTORY INSPECTORS. On the Order of the Day being read for a Committee of SupplY, Mr. FIELDEN moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire further into certain disclosures made to t h e Committee on Mills and Factories, by Mr. Stuart, Inspector of Factories, on the 23d day of June instant, and by Mr. Beal, Superintendent of Factories, the day following, as to their employment in other matter s than those assigned to them by the authority of Parliament ; and to ascertain how far the Inspectors and Superintendents of Factories have been employed by the Government in the capacity of political spies. The Hon Member proceeded at some length to read the evidence giv en b e f ore the Committee , and a l so several letters, for the purpose of showitN that parties were authori se d b y the Government to act as political spies in factories. The Act under which they were ap pointed, and which it was their.ng duty to carry into a bet effcct, did not auth or i ze t h e i r employed in such manner. He w ou ld not hold any communication with men so degraded, and he considered the Government which employed them o n such w were services were equally de graded, and ought to bo scouted by all good and well thinking men If those m en so empl o y e d, how were they to know that the Police, the e poor-law Com missioners, and their Assistant Commissioners--_ An HON. MEMBER—The Commander-in-Chi e f and Officers.—( Laughter.) Mr. FIELDEN—How were they to knowt hat the whole system of centralization was not intendedo as one system of espionage ? He fully believ e d that t the riots at Todmorden were chargeable upon the system, hateful as it was. The lion. Member concludesdell7; putting his motion into the hands of the Speaker. - General JOHNSON seconded the motion. No harm, but much good would be done by the appoint ment of the Committee. If his Hon. Colleague could prove his allegations, he ought to be allowed to do so. If he could not, then the Government would clear its character from a foul charge. Mr. F. MAULE felt that he would have to rktain the House but a very short time from public business in defending the Government from the charge brought against them by the Hon. Member. It was certainly a very grave charge, if the Hon. Member was able to prove it. But all the proof he offered was some whisper ing heard in the cloisters of the House of Commons, and a private and confidential letter, addressed, upon duty, by the Superintendent of Factories to his under officer. How that letter came into the hands of the Hon. Member, he (Mr. F. Maule) did not know—if through any breach of confidence upon the part of any public officer, he was sure the House would repudiate it at once—if through any other means, he would only say that he (Mr. F. Maule) would much rather that it had been used by the Hon. Member than by him.—(Hear, hear.) He would state the facts of the case. The House was well aware of the duties to be performed by the Superintendent and Inspectors of Fac tories—that it naturally brought them into contact and rendered them well acquainted with the situation of the operative classes. Now, he did not hesitate to avow that the instructions to them were to keep the Government acquainted from time to time with the state of those classes, not with respect to their political feelings, but as to the whole state of the manufacturing population of the country, as to their distresses or their prosperity ; in fact, of every incident they as a body were visited with, and that in ord(,r that the Govern. ment should be acquainted with the wants and necessi ties, with the true condition of a large mass of the po pulation, to which no Government should ever be in different.—(Hear, hear.) That such a proceeding should ever have been tortured into instructions that those inspectors were to be placed in the disgraceful position of political spies, could not have entered the mind of any other Hon. Member of the House ; but it was well known that he was not sparing in heaping his calumnies upon public officers, whose offices he disliked, for the mere purpose of injuring them ; he trusted that it would on this occasion have as little effect as some former ones. It was fortunate he was enabled to state that during the whole disturbed time of Chartism in Scotland there had not been one meeting at which any one illegal act had been com mitted. There had not been one Chartist prosecution throughout Scotland. The Lord Advocate's duty had so far been pleasant that he had not been called upon to restrain any public meeting, or institute one prose cution for Chartist violence—the good sense of the people of that country had enabled them to free them selves from the lures of the demagogues who would have misled them. True there was to have been a meeting in Dundee, and Mr. O'Connor was to have been there, end it might be possible that the superintendent should unite to his officer that " there is to be a meeting, and that Mr. O'Connor is to be present, write me and tell me what happens at that meeting." Could anything be more prudent than that a Government, having such means of information in their power, should desire their officer to keep them acquainted with what was happening under their own observation ? According to the principles of the Hon. Member that Government would' be the best who knew least of the condition of the governed—an Inspector-General of a district ought to rechive no re ports of what was the condititin of his district from his officers ; nor ought Magistrates at Quarter Sessions re ceive any reports as to the state of their county. The Hon. Member professed a great love to the Factory Act. It appeared to him (Mr. F. M.) that he had very little interest in the well-working of that Act while he tried to brand the officers appointed to carry it into effect as spies—political spies. It was very easy to cast aspersions upon the character of gentlemen, but not so easy to remove them again : the impression, once made, often re mained. The Hon. Gentleman then would tiave much to answer to himself for, in putting forth statements — unfounded statements, deeply affecting the character of gentlemen—if unfortunately they made any unforeseen impression, anything like insult was offered to any of them in the discharge of their duty. He begged to inform the Hon. Member that had any one of these gentlemen had been directed to employ himself in the degrading way imputed to them by him, had he been so ordered, there was not one of them but would have refused the commission, and would rather have resigned his office than have so employed himself.—(Hear.) One word with regard to what had fallen from the lion. Gantlctnan as tn, the conviction of Chartists having been obtained by means of spies. if that were so there would have beLn no difficulty in ascertaining it, as all the trials had taken place in open Court, and until the present moment he had never heard a whisper that any of the prties who prosecuted, were connected with the Government in any way as Poor-law Commis sioners, Factory Inspectors, or aoy other public office. He thought that those who watched over the con dition of the working classes were more their friends than those who endeavoured to impress upon their minds that the Government wished to oppress them. They were certainly more their friends than those men who, having large bodies of ope ratives under their control, and taking offence at some law, and endeavouring to prevent its being car ried into effect, shut up their factories and mills, and turn these operatives loose for the purpose of opposing and thwarting that la , v—( Hear, hear)—and by that proceeding running them into those . acts of violence which it was the object of the Government to rescue them from.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He should most certainly object to the Committee, because it could do no good, and no results could follow from such an inquiry. Considering the manner in which evidence was taken before these Committees, from par ties who were not upon their oaths; and who were not bound by anything they might choose to say—who were, in fact, at liberty to assert any falsehood that suited their purpose, prosided they told it consistently and without prevarication—( Hear, hear)—consider lag all that, he did not think that the appointment of such a Committee would conduce to the well working of the Factory Act, or the interests of the working classes. He would leave the question to the public with the full conviction that its good sense would guide it to a true conclusion ; and even upon the Hon. Gentleman's own showing, he was satisfied that the working classes could appreciate as it deserved the attempt to throw a charge upon gentlemen who in their official capacity had never shown anything but a sincere consideration for the prosperity of the working classes, amongst whom SO much of their time was spent. Mr. D'ISRAELI said the Hon. Under-Secretary had admitted that these Inspectors had duties to per form for which they were not paid by any vote of a po pular assembly. The letter to which the Hon. Member alluded, and which was marked " confidential," directed the party " to report weekly any political meetings that might occur in his district, and to act with secresy and prudence, so that he might not be suspected of giving in formation." Was that a report upon the condition of the working classes or as to the state of the harvest (Haar, bear, hear.) He would admit that in troubled times there were few Governments which did not employ spies to ascertain the movements and objects of the disaffected, but he never knew a Government detected in the very act of emplo)ing spies, which had the effrontery, with pharisaical hypocrisy, to assert that it was merely an inquiry into their distress and prosperity, and into the state of the harvest.—( Hear, hear.) The allusion of the Hon. Under-Secretary to itinerant politicians must certainly have been intended for the wandering Ministers of State, who offered their congratulations at torch light meetings, and which were followed by an insurrect;on of the people.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, casting a hasty glance at the bench behind him, and seeing the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was not there, warned the House against persons who strove to excite the passions of the people. Hon. Members of one party might go itinerating throughout the country, announcing a ►ra tion's regeneration at a shilling a-head, but the poor devils who Expressed their political sentiments in a newspaper were for doing so incarcerated in a dungeon. He trusted the House would support the proposition of the Hon. Member for Oldham, and as the month of July was one peculiarly calculated to afford correct information on " the state of the harvest," he hoped the Noble Lord, the leader of the House, would agree to it also. Lord ASHLEY always objected to a confidential servant of the Government being subjected to the cross-examination of a Committee of the House, for the purpose of extracting from him that which had been communicated to him by his employers. When his Hon. Friend used the word " political spies," he pre judged the question—(Hear, hear)—and assumed that all he apprehended had been fully proved. The cause which he had had for so many years nearest at heart would be altogether lost, if public prejudice was ex cited against the officers employed in the factories, and there was no word so odious in the manufacturing dis tricts as the word spy. He did not believe those gen tlemen had been employed, or that the Government desired to employ them, in any character deserving of that epithet ; and he hoped the satisfactory defence of the Government would reach them, which he was sure would operate on the good sense of the working-classes with the desired effect.—(Cheers.) Mr. HINDLEY felt it his duty to speak on the present occasion. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Oldham in many of his opinions respecting the Factory Bill and central organization ; but, at the same time, he must say, he thought the Hon. Member had not acted judiciously in bringing the question before the House, and he regretted that he should have felt it his duty to do so. He would ask the Hon. Member whether the Government should not obtain information p e t chte their o prethjudicesarvest, r t e h j e n d h i a e r e v s e , s f t e , e o l i r n t g l s i s a t n a d t e generalof the l e v i e t i r i k e n s a r e e s s , the felt it lion. his Member sat on the condition ?--(1-1ear, hear.) It could not be denied that it was their Pouty to or-law do mntot t so. ' he n duty t o se n d persons to investigate the condition of the These might be called Poor-law poor in B e df or d s hire. r spies.—(H ear , hear.) Now he would ask, did the Government send persons on purpose to all the northern districts to attend public meetings, and report their opi nions? What would be the effect ? Why those people, being paid servants, would feel themselves bound to give their employers a quid pro quo, and would feel it their duty to tell the Government that speeches of an I illegal nature had been uttered, whether such speeches had been uttered or no. He would ask the Hon. Member for Oldham, if the inspectors or superin tendents of factories had not acted with due regard to the welfare cf the factory children ? (Cheers.) They might be considered as the guardians of the poor people in those districts, an d if th e Go vernment made any inquiries into the condition of the poor, they were certainly the hest channels through which they could be made. He hoped hi e H on . F r i en d would withdraw his motion , but if he pressed it he would suggest to him the propriety of making it more extensive, and extending it to Magistrates and Poor law C o mmissioners, as well as to factory inspectors. Mr. M. PHILLIPS hoped his Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. If lie thought that the Govern ment had descended to such meanness as to send poli tical spies among the people for th e purpose o f goa di ng them into a violation of the law, he should not support them in such conduct. But no such charge had been brought against them, and he beli eve d t h at no suc h charge could be brought against them. He would urge his Hon. Friend not to carry his motion to a division. He was confident the Government would no t a tt em pt to obtain information in an improper way ; h e ent i re l y ac quitted them of any intention of employing any parties as spies. Every Government ought to be anxious to obtain information as to the state and condition of the people, and they would be culpable if they did not avail themselves of every means in their power. He was surprised at the course pursued by the Hon. Member for Maidstone only a few evenings since, in the debate on Dr. Bowring's Reports. He had stated that it was the duty of the Government to obtain all such informa tion as that obtained by Dr. Bowring from the Con suls, for it could be obtained without expense, and now he blamed them for obtaining info rmat i on f rom t h e Factory Inspectors, instead of sending p ersons spe cially•for the purpose of obtaining it. H e agree d w i t h the Noble Lord opposite that if they wished to injure the operation of the Factory Act he knew no more ef fectual mode of doing it than by throwing out imputa tions of that kind on those who were a pp o i nte d t o ca rry that Act into effect. He wished to see that Act carried out fully and fairly, and would not wish to see it got rid of by a side wind ; but if these imputations were to be cast upon the inspectors he agreed with the Noble Lord that it would be better to abrogate the law at once. Mr. HUME thought that the bringing forward this question was likely to injure the operation of the Factory Act, but as the question had been brought forward something more must be afforded in the way of explana tion. If there was anything likely to do mischief to the factory inspectors it was the leaving them in a suspicious state. Nov, by the statements of the Hon. Member for Oldham they were placed certainly in a ticklish situation. These officers had been appointed to super intend the operation of the Factory Act, and so cautious had been the Legislature on this subject that the in struetions to the Factory Commissioners were the only instructions to any Commissioners which had been di rected to be laid before Parliament. He wished his Hon. Friend had been able to deny that the letter which had been read was a genuine letter ; but here was a letter from a factory officer in London to another in the country, mark e d c onfidential, and asking for secret communications not regarding the factory children, hut regarding the state of the people, and their public meet ings. __ - An HON. MEMBER—And why not ? Mr. HUME—Because it was ❑o part of his duty. —(Cheers.) It created a suspicion that these persons were in the habit of meddling with what did not belong to their department. He asked his Hon. Friend for further disclosures. Was that a solitary letter written incautiously, or were similar instructions sent sent to all the Factory Inspectors? If it were a mere casual letter, although he might regret that such a letter should have baen written incautiously, yet he should consider it as a matter of no moment. But they had no right to employ the Factory Cornelis sioners to interfere in the public political meetings of the people. They had ample means of obtaining any information they might require on such subjects from the Magistrates and the police ; and had such a letter been written to them, he should have considered that the Government had been only doing their duty. But the Factory Inspectors had a specific duty to perform, and ought not to be called on to perform any other. Mr. FOX MAULE said that he had already stated all the instruction s that had been given to the Factory Inspectors. What had passed between the Inspectors and the Superintendent s he was unable to state. Sir ROI3EAT PEEL would be always ready to make great allowances for the exertions of the Govern ment in defence of the public peace.—(Hear, hear.) He wed knew the absolute necessity which all Govern ments must feel of becoming acquainted. with the de , signs of those who might not in the first place have meditated mischief, but who, in times of public excite ment and of great general distress, might, under the influence of agitation, or goaded by poverty, at length be betrayer. into excesses.—(Hear, hear.) Who could say what might be the advaatage of having had previous information in the case of the riots at Bristol, at. Notting- I ,lam, and lastly at Newport ? With such information, all the evils which afterwards followed might probably have been averted. He did not, therefore, hesitates to say-'—and the doctrine was not now so unpopular as it used to be in former times .—but even if it were so, he did not hesitate to say that he should feel it to be his duty to endeavour to obtain in times of popular excitement any information which might enable him to take precautions against a disturbance of the public peace.—(Hear, hear.) He was persuaded that those who might be most disposed to declaim against any attempt to obtain such information, would be the loudest in condemning a Mi nister who, through his neglect, would allow th coun try to be thrown into a state of civil disturbance. The debate only made him feel how exceedingly similar was the conduct of all Governments under certain circum stances. All felt, when the responsibility was placed on them of preserving public order, how absolutely necessary it was to procure detailed informa tion on the state of the country.—( Hear, hear,) There was another question, however, as to the means used of obtaining such information, and those means might sometimes be blameable. The letter to which re ference had been made directed a public officer to ob tain information as to any proceedings in his district relative to the assemblages of th e wor k me n, or of Chartist?, er of any other parties who might disturb the public peace. Now it might be doubted whether it was wise to confide that duty to Factory Commis sioners ; and perhaps some other expedient might have be employed on the occasion. That, however, was but a question of prudence. His doubts did not arise as to the propriety of obtaining information, hut as to whether the particular instrument through which it was obtained had been well c hosen. The gentleman in question might not have been blameable in the course he had pursued. He might have q uestioned certain parties as to what had passed at public meetings, without being liable to censure. He (Sir R. Feel) thought that the distinction shoield have been drawn between getting information from parties, and emplo)ing those parties to mix with the wounlodt havet hink recoursethnt any t to Government people and encourag e them to acts of disaffection , in order that informa tion as to their i ntentions might thereby be . Ile country did proc ee di ngs so blameable as that to whi ch he had just allud e d. H e was aware that impu t a tion s of the kind had b een th r own out against Viscount Castlereagh and L or d Sidmouth, but he was persuaded they bad been wholly unfounded. He believed that a spy or an in former had never been employed in this country in the mann er t o which he alluded. With regard to the motion then before the House, he thought that Parliament could lo nothing more foolish than to concede to it. He would be ready to make every allowance for the conduct of those who were responsible for the public peace. At the same time, he should say that he did not think Hon. Gentle men opposite could recollect, without some little remorse, the course they had taken on former occasions—in the year 1820, for instance, when there had been some danger of a disturbance of the public tranquillity, and the same necessity as at present for taking precautions for the pre servation of the peace. He remembered that at that pe riod the conduct of the Government was denounced by the Opposition night after night, because, in the exe cution of their duty, they had taken means to se cure the tranquillity of the country, and had endea voured to obtain that information which Honour able Gentlemen Opposite had lately endeavoured to acquire through d oubtful instrumen ts, namel y , the Factory Commissi oners. Hon. Gentlem en o pp osite bad since had the exp er i ence o f o ffi c e—(A laugh)—and he hoped they would p ro fi t b y t h a t e xperience , and that they would hereafter take the same course with respect to t their political opponents was mto ' d ing to allowth with regard to them; w disaffected,ee feat, by all legitimate means, the designs of the ready t and to provide for the safety of those who . d were to their e obey the laws, and who, while they rename loyal haincdh thathe ( w S aa ir R. Peel)_ Sovereign, thou g h t t h emse l ve s entitled to protection which _ G overnmen t should, u n der receive s circumstances, alw a y s afford.—(Hear, hear, h ear. ) rethaart Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he would not have taken any part in the debate had not the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Fielden) con f oun d e d two things entir ely d i st in ct, namely, the att em p t to o b ta i n c ertain informat ion, and the means by whi c h i t was soug ht to be acquired. T h e Hon. Member for Manchester had said that be did not believe that the Government had intended to goad the people into insurrection, but he . ( Lord John Russell) did not believe that any Go vernment i n t hi s c ountry could make such an attempt, and th a t th e present Government was , in that re spect, on a footing with all others. The question, how ever, as to the prudence of obtaining information was a very different on e .-. 4 H ear .) The Honourable Gentle man who had b roug h t f orwar d the motion had confounded the two things, and bad used very unnecessarily the term " political spy." He thought that term was too in discriminately made use of through the country, as it was applied to any party who might, under any circumstances, give information as to what might have occurred at a public meeting or elsewhere. The present case was that of a gen tleman who had been verbally desired to give general infor mation with respect to the state of the country. 'Cho Gentleman might, perhaps, not have strictly con fined himself to his instructions on the subject. He thought that it was a properly legitimate source of in formation to the Government. Look to those gentlemen who were especially employed for the purpose of observing what occurred in particular districts. It was frequently found that exaggerated statements of the amount of num bers at public meetings were sent forth. On some occa sions of that kind the Government had learned, from per- II ME CIRC LIIT—II F.RT sons of sound practical information, that a meeting which S.C3 upon C:the was represented as formidable, wa s c o m p ose d on ly o f a icor , acid t can- list at s utinteresting i few boys.—(Haa..r, hear.) It also occurred frequently eater that the Lord-L: gave' cf the, eutenant and the Magistrates special jury case on stoen o, rli nisi information to the Government ; and so far as nocity evemeg. gr . portion Gould understand thr. Bon. Gentl e m an , th ose f une tioaarics should be considered as political spies.--( Hear, bear.) There was another m vans of obtaining information which was open to the stron6 , est objection. He meant the sys tem which was followed in 1817, when persona were ein. ploycd who, not having- any official employment, made themselves acquainted with the parties, and represented themselves as friends of the confederacy.—( Hear, hear.) Those men, being themselves of the very worst character, were the most dangerous intstruments a Government could. employ.—( Hear, hear.) It might be that such men, in-. stead of doing what the security of the State might re quire, should, for the sake calf obtaining a larger reward, in cite their confederates to the most pernicious course.-- Hear, hear.) In the trials which arose out of the occur ' ences in 1817, it was proved that such persons were so em ployed,and that they incited' people to violence assuring them at the same time that th..ty would be supported by similar risings in other parts of tl re country. It was quite a dif ferent thing for a person b ping officially employed by the Government in a particular duty, to inform the Govern ment of what.he observed fat the district in which he was engaged, and for a person to be sent as a pretended con federate into a secret soCiet y to obtain a knowledge to incite them to more dangeroul 3 designs. Sir R. PEEL explained,. He had only intended to say in reference to the case tal Thistlewood's conspiracy, that circumstances might oc cur in which a GoWernment could not refuse to receive tb c information of a person who had insinuated himself into a confederacy.—(Hear.) Mr. WAKLEY said no • person could deny that a Go vernment had a right to c btain information as to the actual condition of the country by any means that came within its reach. He was krurprised to hear the Right Hon. Baronet near him ( Sir R. Peel) say that the cha racter of a spy was not at pr esent so unpopular in this country as it used to be. Sir R. PEEL—What I. said was, that the character of a spy was not so much in iiisfavour with the Noble Lord opposite, and his friends, a ; it used to be.—(Laughter.) Mr. WAKLE Y believe• i that the character of a spy was as unpopular in tin Is country as it ever was. He believed, notwithstandin g what had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet, that a. spy was just as odious in the present day as formerly—(t rear)—and he trusted, not withstanding any sophistry, th at such a character would be always held in detestation. He had yet to learn, how ever, that where persons wer a employed by the Govern ment, and had the Government t money in their pockets, they were entitled to do acts eta air than those which belonged to their office. He thought that the course which had been adopted on the presen t occasion, though with the best intentions, was one that .was pregnant with danger, which the public would not sr enction, and propriety justify. Mr. BROT HE RTQN th ought that the Hon. Member for Oldham ought to have bad a better foundation for making the serious charge he had done, than the copy of a letter the possession of whi ,ch was rather mysterious. Mr. MUNTZ begged of his Hon. Friend, the Me m b er for Oldham, to withdraw his. motion, as he felt bound t o say he had not produced an i ground far t. He believed that no man would deny the t he was as anxious for the in terests of the working-clasu as as any man either in or out of that House, but he d:id not t think that the motion of the lion. Member was at all cedet lated for their interest. He for one thought that it was the d uty of the Government to take care to have information of: .all that was going on in the country, and he had no he sithtion in saying the right Hon. Baronet at the time he (Ik tr. Muntz) was agitating, had a knowledge of all that he was doing.—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion, in the present instance, the Government had not committed themselves, and therefore he trusted the Hon. Member would withd. , ,ew the motion. Mr. EWA RT thought i t very unfortunate that the Go vernment had employed 1:11 a superintendants of factories in the way they had been, because it must necessarily damage their characters E:s factory superintendents, and break that confidence which. ought to exist between them and the working public. Mr. SLANEY rose, E taaMst loud cries of " Oh, oh," " Divide.")--He said he could not agree with the Hon. Members who bad precede xi him. They, in a time of dis order, would not be satit fed with the information given by the Magistracy or the p: trochial clergy. There was no regular police force—wbe. :e, then, could they find any chlrinel for obtaining the i nformation so good as officers whose motives could not t e suspected, and who were so eminently qualified to afford it. He thought the explana tions offered quite satisfacetory, and hoped the motion would be withdrawn. Mr. FIELDEN then rost to reply, but was interrupted by The SPEAKER, wh.o said, that having moved an amendment, he was not c -.titled to a reply. Mr. FIELDEN said a few words in a very low tone, when Strangers were ordere d to withdraw. The House divided. and there appeare For the amendment . ll Against it Majority We understood tho Co nmaittee of Supply was post poned on account of the Taro - .,ness of the hour. On our re-enterinc, , the gallery, we found Mr. W. ATT WOO ;_-) e xpressing his hope that the Noble Sccrezary for the Colt )Lies would not press the third reading of the Poor-law Co., -omission Bill that night, or fix it for Saturday. It had pass.ld its other stages without dis cussion. Lord JOHN RUSSE . Li. said the present Bill only prolonged the Commission 'or another year, and he under steed all opposition was wit! !drawn. After a short desultory cc , nversation, Mr. W. ATTWOOD ai ;in rose to speak, and being met with cries of " Spoke, poke," he said if such was the objection to his proceeding lie had only to more that the House do now adjourn. Loyd PA LMgIZSTON s i:d it was quite obvious that no public business, or bthz;ness of any sort could be c ;riled on, if any Hon. Get tleman, because he was pre vented from making three c.r four speeches, against th e rules of the House, moved the • adjournment of the House. Mr. M'LE AN said the Bill was one of the greatest im portance to the country, and ac, ding to the Noble Lord's own admission it should have be en brought is at an earlier pericd of the Session. Lord J. RUSSELL wished', to have bad the Bill passed at a tine when there was a fulll attendance of Ministers. If it was not road a third time to- night it could not be brought forward for some days, other bi .ssness being fixed for next week. Mr. WAKLEY said no one objected more to the Poor_ lax Bill than himself, but as the subject was to be fully discussed in the n,!xt Session, he hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw his opposition. Mr. W. Arr WOOD felt it his duty to persevere in his amendment, The House divided, when there L•ppeared— For the motion For the amendment Majority On.our return, Mr. FIE LDEN moved that the debate should be ad journed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should have no ob j,rction to take it this day (Saturday), but could not post pone it longcr. Mr. ELLIOT said, when the third reading of the Bill was moved, there was a good attendance on the opposite side, but that the leaders had since all left. There were, however, a sufficient number present to discuss the Bill, and he should therefore object to the adjournment. Mr. D'ISRAELI supported the adjournment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Bill met with the support of the great majority of both sides of the House. The attempt was, therefore, vain to defeat by delay the passing of the Bill. At this period of the session it was impossible to avoid bringing on business at a late hour of the evening. Mr. WOLVERLEY ATTWOOD denied that the Bill was approved of by a majority on his side of the House In reply to a question from an HON. MEMBER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he bad no objection to take the Bill on Tuesday, but that the House must sit on Tuesday morning, in order to enable Orders of the Day to have precedence. After a few words from Col. PERCIVAL, Mr. WILLIAMS said that he was opposed to the Bill, but he felt convinced that nothing could be obtained by delay, and he hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw his motion. _ _ Mr. WAK LEY earnestly and cordially urged the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion if it were only to get rid of the notice out of the paper. Lord INGESTRIE thought the Government had no claim on the Members on his side the House after the ob struction he had offered to the Bill of the Noble Lord, the member for North Lancashire. He thought they had been wasting their time during the whole of the early part of th e evening, and if they could do nothing better, they had better shut up shop, and go into the country. He should have no objection to the postponement to Tuesday. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the adjournment of the debate to twelve o'clock on Tuesday, which was agreed to. INTELL [GENCE. 'FORD, FRIDAY. this assize are of the here was not a single 4bfuger had disposed , inezi on Thurs. CROWN COURT., Before Mr. Ban.'" John Page , " an•ed 29, and l'. v illiam remple, ag e d 25, were indicted for being armed with guns - in the night time rzpoli the premises of Sir Henry Metlx, Ba rt., at Cheshunt, in pursuit of game. The prisot.c., Page was also ickdietl I for feloniously assaulting and beating one of the keepers. Mr. Dowling and Mr. Marsh conauctet Ithe prosecution. It appeared from the evidence that on the .night of the 10th February, the keepers hcerir;g guns flt?‘lin ono of the preserves, went in pursuit of the parties, rum upon going into the wood, they found rcveral m, to, who im, - nediately commenced an attack upon them, and a 4violent struggle en sued, during which one of the keepers was most severely beaten. The prisoners were clearly proved to have been some of the party concerned iu the outrage, and it was stated that they were connected with a desperate gang of poachers, who have for a long time infested this neigh bourhood. The jury found the prisoners guilty. Mr. Baron GURNEY then sentenced Page to be trans ported for ten years, and Temple to be imprisoned end kept to hard labour for eighteen months, a portion of the time to be passed in solitary corsnement. CUTTING AND WOUNUING.—Thomas Arnold (16), was indicted for feloniously stabbing Witham. Barker, with in tent to kill and murder him. In other counts the intent was laid f;o be to do the pro secutor some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Wordsworth defended the prisoner. The prosecutor deposed that he was a labourer, and resided at Hitchin; lie had known the prisoner from a child ; on the 20th of June the prisoner was playing at bowls, and witness was looking on, and they had some words about betting on the game, rind after they got up the yard they had a fight, and the prisoner called out for his knife, and pulled a knife out of his pocket, and ran at him ; the people advised him to put the knife up, and he did so, and they had another round or two, and the prisoner suddenly cut him down the face with the knife ; he did not see the knife when, he cut him, but the prisoner Is as the only person near him at the time. Cross-examined—The prisoner is 16 years o'd, I am 32 years old. I fought with him notwithstanding. I did not knock the prisoner down, or strike him before he struck me. Did not hit him before we began to fight. Got him down, and we both fell together, but he cut me while we were both standino. up. I believe we were both in fault, and I may have said so to several people. I did not kick the prisoner while he was down. Mary Gray deposed that she heard a. scuffle about twelve o'clock on the night in question, and she heard Barker say, " Put up ysur knife, and I'll fight you" ; the prisoner put up his knife, and witness per suaded him to go home like a good boy. Prisoner snatched away from her, and went back to Barker, and they had one more round, and Barker fell on the top of Arnold, and struck him several blows, and then kicked him on the head, and said he would kill the —. Wit ness told Barker he should not kick the boy, and Arnold crawled away, and shortly afterwards he stabbed Barker in the face, and she saw the blood run from the wound. It bled a great deal. Did not know what became of Ar nold afterwards. Cross-examined.— Arnold offered to take Barker home ; Barker kicked Arnold several times, and he called out for help ; did not hear Arnold say he was afraid Barker would kill him; Barker did threaten to kill him. Johnson, a watchman, proved that he found the pri soner cashing himself at a pond, and took him into cus tody ; Barker was with him, and when he saw the prisoner he said he would kill him, and made a blow with his fist at him, and fell in the attempt to do so. Mr. Mon3ell, a surgeon, - st :ted that the wound on the prosecutor's check was half an inch deep in the middle, and about five inches long ; there was also a wound in his which was rather deeper than the other, and about the same length ; the wounds were severe. Crass-mc.rnined.—The prosecutor went out in two days; was viid 2e. 63. for his attendance on that night, and the case was afterward; placed in the infirmary of the town. Mr. Wonnswonnt addressed the Jury. The LEARNED JUDGE summed up the evidence, and the Jury found the prisoner guilty of assaulting the prosecu tor, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Charles Jeffery, aged nineteen, was indicted for felo• piously and maliciously stabbing George Brown, with in tent to kill and murder, or to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. MARSH defended the prisoner. The prosecutor deposed that he was a labourer, and re sided at Hitchin. On the 20th of June, about eleven at night, he was standing in the alley where he resided, and while he was there the prisoner came by and asked him what he did there ? And he said it was no business of is, and he had better go on. He pushed the prisoner on, and he stepped back arid told him that he was an old --, and he would rip his -- guts out. They separated at that time, but shortly afterwards he went into the priso ner's mother's house, and as he nas coming out he met prisoner. He asked him why he struck him? and at the same instant he made a thrust at him, and he afterwards round that he was wounded. Cross-examined—He was not drunk ; he bad not been drinking at all that day ; the servant of the house near where he was standing came out and told him to go away ; he had always told the same story. Mr. MARSH here requested that the deposition made by the witness before the Magistrate should be read. Upon this being done it appeared that the prosecutor had told a somewhat different story at that time. Cross-examination continued—H e had sworn positively he was not in liquor at the time. Mr. Thomas Smith deposed that he resided at Hitchin, and on the night in question he accompanied the prose cutor, and wnen they met the prisoner be immediately rushed towards Brown, and the latter exclaimed that he was stabbed. Cross-examined—The prosecutor was not in liquor at the time; he appeared to be afraid that the boy would do bins some injury. Mary Anne Brown, the daughter of the prosecutor, proved that she heard the prison:a make use of the threats that had been mentioned against her father. She advised him to go home and be quiet, and he said he would not, hut he would go and get his brother to knock her father's head off. Cross-examined_The prisoner was crying very much, but he did not complain of her father having ill-treated him, Mr. Smith, surgeon, of Hitchin, proved that he was called upon to attend to the prosecutor, and he found that he had received a fractured wound in the groin. It wai about half an inch deep, and was on a very dangerous part of the body. He saw the prisoner the same evening, and he told him that Brown had knocked him down twice, and he admitted he had stabbcn him, and said he would do it again under similar circumstances. Cross-examinede:-The prosecutor appeared to me to be labouring under the effects of liquor. Mr. Manso having addressed the Jury, and called Spen cer, the constable orllitchin, who gave the prisoner a good character. Baron GURNEY briefly recapitulated the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict of guilty of assaulting the prosecutor with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. John Lee, (27) was indicted for the manslaughter of John Lee, now deceased, by stt iking him with his fists, and casting and throwing him to the ground, thereby giving him divers mortal wounds, bruises, and ruptures, of which he languished and died. Mr. WORDSWORTIT defended the prisoner. John Halsey proved that he knew the prisoner, and the deceased also, who were drinking together on the Bth of Mly, and about four o'clock in the afternoon, a quarrel took place about a bet which ultimately led to a fight, and they had several " ups and downs." They fought for half an hour, and the deceased began it. He chucked up his cap, and said he would fight any man on the ground, and he did not care which. They had both been drinking. Iu the last round they both fell to the ground backwards, and when the deceased got up he was insensible. Cross-examined—The deceased struck the prisoner several times before he could get off his jacket. Thomas Austin gave similar testimony. Crass-examined—ln the last round the deceased ftll with his head against the ground, and it rebounded like a ball. He was insensible directly after that fall. Mr. Saunders, the surgeon who was called in, proved that he saw the deceased about six o'clock the same even ing and found him insensible, and he continued in that state till ten &clot kat night when he died. In his opi nion the deceased died of a concussion of the brain. Baron GURNEY here expressed his opinion, that the evi denee was insufficient, and directed an acquittal. Mr. Baron GURNEY then directed that the two pri soners who had been convicted of cutting and stabbing, should be placed at the bar, and his Lordship, addressing them, said it was really dreadful to see the extent to which the offence of stabbing now prevailed. Upon the slightest quarrel the knife was immediately resorted to. It was ne cessary, for the protection of society, that the most severe punishment should be inflicted upon parties who were convicted of this offence, and, but for the fact of their being very young, he should have felt it his duty to trans port them for the longest period. The prisoners were then sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour, with periods of solitary confine ment, for twelve calendar months. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSIO:11 -7 -110USE. Inspector M'Lean, of the City Police, complained at the desire of Mr. Harvey, the City Police Commissioner, against the course pursued at the West London Union, in Smithfield, with regard to the reception of destitute per sons at night. Mr. Thwaites, the Relieving-ofificer of the City of London Union, in Cannou-street, attended on the occasion. The Inspector said that the Commissioner's object in causing a representation to be made to the Lord Mayor was, that his Lordship might urge the officers for the ad ministration of the poor-law in the City, to provide a pro per place for the reception of helpless persons who wandered in the streets at unseasonable hours, without having any place in which to rest. One of his officers had fund a miserable person in the street at three o'clock that morning, and, according to the directions of the Commis sioner, had taken him to the Relieving Overseer in Can non street, who stated that the only place of refuge to which he could send the man, was the workhouse, at Peckham. It appeared that the man's feet were blistered with walking, and that he had been refused admission into one of the City Unions some hours before, and Mr. Thwaites suggested the propriety of having the case stated to the Lord Mayor in order that it might be ascertained whether the West London Union had turned away the object ithout relief. The LORD MAYort—l agree with the Commissioner that there ought to be a place in the City to which the desti tute found at night within the Cannon-street district should be taken by the police, and that it is improper to consign to station-houses persons not charged with any offence. Mr. Tip,vaites the Cannon-street relieving officer, said that the policc'inan who brought tile poor person to Can nen•strcet at the very unseasonable hour of 3 o'clock, stated that the man had at i 2 o'clock applied for refuge at the West London Union, where there was accommodation, but was refused admission. lie (Mr. Thwaites) had no alternative but to send the applicant to Peckham, distant as it was, as the union to which he belonged had no work house nearer to London. Inspee'or M'Lean said that many poor people.who wan dered in the streets at night were unable to walk, atter the fatigue of the day, as far as Peckham, and that the misery of having no home to go to in London was peculiarly felt by them when the weather was rainy. Besides, the want of victuals for a day or two was sufficient to deprive a man of the power of walking to such a distance. Mr. Booker, the relieving overseer of the East London Union, said that it was the invariable practice of that Union to take in any poor person who appeared to be with• out a home. The Lorto MAYOR told the Inspector that if a memorial wa s drawn up, stating the particulars, and given to him, he should himself present it to the Court of Aldermen on Tuesday next, and urge the Court to adopt some plan to remedy the existing evil. rtiE SUN", LONDON, SAT UR DA Y, t t.l Lir is, i. 840. EDUCATION. Lord J. RUSSELL stated, in answer to a question from some Hon. Member, that the vote for the Education Grant would be proposed in conformity with an arrangement entered into with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and therefore he did not anticipate any long discussion on the subject. He thought the Committee of Supply would probably come on en Monday, when that vote would be taken. The Drainage (Ireland) Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Pilots Bill was read a second time. The Report on the Prisons (Ireland) Bill was brought up, and a verbal amendment agreed to on the motion of Lord Morpeth. The Parliamentary Boroughs Bill, the Friendly So cieties Bill, and the Assessed Taxes Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. Mr. P. KELLY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of the punishment of death in Ireland. Mr. F. MA ULE said that he would not consent to the introduction of the Bill unless its provisions were framed in a different manner from the form of the Bill which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had brought in for England. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he was a zealous supporter of the principle of the measure, but he most humbly an d earnestly prayed the Ho n . an d Learned G en tl eman not to press the Bill for England and Ireland in the present Session. After a few words from Mr. Elliott, Mr. Pigot, and Lord Morpeth, leave was given to bring in the Bill. Mr. KELLY subsequently brought in the Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time en Wednesday next. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and I the House adjourned at Ten Minutes before Two o'Clock. EVENING ED ITI ON. PRICE OF SUGAR. EFFECT OF MONOPOLY. Table showing the ex-duty price of \Vest India Sugar it; Mincing,-larie, and comparing the same against that of Foreign Sugars: London, July 17, 1840. Per Cwt. The Gazette of ibis evening will quote the average price of British Plantation Mu.wovado Sugar, exclusive of duty at s7s. 3d. _ _ _ Th - e actual quantity of West India Sugar sold on ac count of the importers of the week ending the 14th inst., according to the returns made upon oath by the West India Sugar Brokers, in conformity with the Act of Par liament, and on which the ;above price is computed, con sisted of 897 hhds. 89 tre. ar'd 150 brls. As the price of West India .sugar, and the duty of 255. per cwt. on it approximates w the duty paid price of Foreign Sugars—namely, 245. per cwt. for the Sugar, and 665. per cwt. for the duty—so the price of the latter has a tendency to advance, because the holders perceive that the British consumer will preseietly compete in the open market, with the foreign, in the purchase of these Sugars; indeed, those Foreign Sugars ( Have nnah Whites) which are peculiarly adapted to the use of the refineries, and on which the duty has in several instances been paid, have already advanced sa. per cwt ; but as the difference of price now between West India and Foreign Muscovado Sugars, taking quality for qu lity is about 335. per ewt., the latter stand little chance yet of being cleared for home use. When the duty-paid prices of both are, however, assimilated, then the Foreign will surely rise in price, in the same proportion that the West India may rise. There is really no guessing at the price Sugar will command in November next—for the stocks of British Plantation and of Foreign Sugars added together, will not furnish a supply at all adequate to the demand in this country for them. It three months ago the high duty of 665. per cwt. bad been reduced on the free labour foreign Muscovado Sugar to a level with that on West India Sugar, there would at this time have been many cargoes afloat destined for Eng land. The declaration of the Chancellor of the Excbee quer to the deputation who waited on him from the grocers and the refiners, that he had no intention of making all alteration in the Sugar Duties during the ensuing yearn however, had the cfFect of setting at rest any incipient spe culation with the Manilla proprietors. If the West India monopoly were abolished, the average' ex-duty price of such Sugar would be about 245. per cwt. It is now 575. The difference between what the price actually is, and what it ought to be, is consequently 335. per cwt. The object of forcing the British community to make this enormous sacrifice of money, equivalent to a tal of six millions sterling per annum, was doubtless a desire on the part of the country to alleviate the sufferings of slavery, and to encourage the free labourers. Will these objects be attained ? Will indiscriminately heaping mend into the laps of the West India proprietors render tee situation of their labourers one jot the better. Those who think it will know little of the real character of the West Indians. Again, will admitting slave labour Sugar into British consumption diminish slavery and the slave trade ? on the contrary, will not the extended demand, and a consequent advance in their prices, stimulate the slave owners in exact more labour -from their unhappy victims, in order that that increased demand may be satisfied ? and 0 11 not the additional toil, and the barbarities attending it, shorten life, and occasion the vacancies so w ady to be filed up by the kidnapped from Africa ? Had the Government of this country been entirely composed of Jamaica planters and merchants, they could not have devised a measure better calculated to fill their ossu pockets at our expense than that fostered and maintained by the present Ministers, and known to the nation as 3 wicked monopoly, which does not, as is professed, discou rage slavery and the slave trace, and which does not afford the least aid to the free labourers in our own colonies. WHEAT, FLOUR, AND BREAD• The following is a comparison of the present actual relative prices of wheat, ibut, and bread between Lon" don and Paris : WHEAT.--Tito highest current market quotation f°,, r the best wheat, or, as it is termed, of the " first quality'' , - in Paris, according to the last report of the corn-market in that city, is 35 francs for the hectolitre and a half , • which, at the present course of exchange in Paris ee London, at one month's date of 25r. 20e. money, per pound sterling, corresponds with (a very small fraction more than) 535. 6d. per English imperial quarter. The highest price of the best Essex, Kent, and Suffolk white wheat in London being 81s. per imperial quarter shows that the best white wheat is dearer in London than in Paris by 27 5 , 5-, l f d. per imperial qu ar t er , being fifty-one and a quarter per cent. ; and that the same money which can buy in London no more than eight bushels of the best white wheat, will procure in Parrs - upwards of twelve English imperial bushels of the " first quality" of wheat. It may be observed that the above comparison is made on the current market price in Paris for the first quality, and not on that which tray be demanded for a very small parcel of extraordinarily excellent wheat, which must be of course rather higher' and almost arbitrary. Some little fine new wheat bag appeared at market. [Nothing can be finer or more promising than the general appearance of the wheat in France. The har vest has begun, and almost every market has declined in the quotations, and little doing.] FLour..—Th e highest current market price of floor of the " first mark," in Paris, according to the fates; accounts from the corn market in that city, is 68 francs for the sack of 159 kilogrammes, which, at the present" course of exchange in Paris on London, as above, cor responds with 425. II d. (or, more exactly, 425. IN' and 9-10ths of a penny) f or t h e E ng li s h see k of. 280Ibs. The highest quotation in London for the best " town made" flour being 625. per sack of 2801b5., shows that the best flour is dearer in London than iP Parts by 19s. Id. per English sack, being 44i per col" and that the same money with which no more than 2801bs, of the best flour can be obtained in London , will purchase in Paris 4041 English pounds of the fines t quality of flour. BREAD.—The present assize price of bread of the best quality in Paris, or the price fixed and ordered bY the French Government for the first fortnight of the month of July, is 821 c. for the loaf of two kilogrammes, which, at th e actua l course of exchange in Paris on London as above, is equal to ratherless than 7d. I.loth of a penny per English 41b. loaf ; or exactly 7d. an d nine and a half hundredth parts of a penny. T he present highest curren t pr i ce o f t h e b est, so c alled , fdlrpriced bread in London being 10d. for the 41b. loaf , although in some instances more is demanded, shows that the 41b. loaf in London is dearer than in Paris bY very nearly 3d., exceeding 2d, and 9-10ths of a pearl' being 40?,-(1. per cent. ; and that the 10d. which can purchase in L on d on b ut 41b s . o f the b est b rea d , W III , procure in Paris five English p oun d s t en ounces and 1-7th part of an ounce of the finest quality of bread GOLD WATCHES, £B. Bs. each, High! e l: flashed Horizontal Gold Watchet, Jewelled in four holes, w"; enamel dial, hand to mark the seconds, &c. Eight Gule g i each. These elegant little Watches will be found ext.loll4 time-keepers, and a printed warranty is given with fixes term° on which they will always r. ertive cz. - .ly attention required. T. CCY... SAVORY, Watchmaker, Jeweller, and Silversmith, 47, Cornhill (seven Doors from Graceehurch-street), London. N.B. — Second-hand _Patches purchased in exchange. SHEFFIELD MADE PLATED DISH CO VERS.—A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Goldsmiths, No. 14, Cornhill, Landon, opposite the Bank of England, submit for selection, in their show-rooms, a very lame variety of CHEF' FIELD SILVER-PLATED DISH COVERS, from Fs teen Guineas the set; they have sliver edges and handles, au silver shields for engravingt ae cr.:at or coat of arms. Double Dome Pattern. I The Melon Pattern. Size. :t s. Size. aee d 1 Plated Dish Covers, 20 in. Er 13 fi !Pl:..tetl Dish Cover, 20 in. 117 1 „ Dish Cover, lit in. 4 7 6 1 1 j SI /2 Dish Cover 18 in. 4 14 2 „ Dish Covers, 14 in. 512 012 Dish Covers,l4 in. Per Set £ls 1;_ Per Set £l6 17. Plated Currie or Hash Di s h ee S even G u i neas the Set. .41 Prii:e Current, Stamped as a Newspaper, containing drawings and every information relative to the purchase of silver or She(' field plate, may be had on application, or will be sent into the ountry, free of postage, in a:::: , ver to a pail letter. MARRIED. At Sheerness, the Rev. P. Smith, of London, to Elias, daughter of W. B. Basden, Esq., of her Majesty's ship Ocean . • At Camberwell, J. T. T r i n i mer, E sq., of Peckham, w Harriet, daughter of William Woolley, Esq. DIED. On the 17th inst., in Grosvenor-place, Harriet, wife of the Rev. Charles Gore, of Burrow -court, Somersetshire. On the 17th i ns t., i n W e lb ec k -street, Henry weyiand Powell, Esq., of Foxlease Park, Lyndhurst, Hants, late of the Gfer:adier Guards, aged 53. On the 16th inst., at Barnstaple, Mr. John Wood Deane , jun., of the Accountant's Office, Bank of England, aged 22. On the 15th inst., at Swakeleys, near Uxbridge, T. T . Clarke, Esq., aged 67. On the 10th inst., at Millport, Scotland, the Hon. Miss, Joanna Sempill. Th e deceased lady was the second (laug ht er of John, the thirteenth Lord At Evershot, Dorsetshire, Meliora, wife of William Lockyer Martyr, Esq. London : Priuted and Published by AIIIRDO YOUIN 6, No. 112, Strand, nt Tic Sun Offi ' ce No. 112. StracidA the county of Illiddlesex.—Saturday, - July 18, UV. r the 11l LANI Angus such P deliver Victue Article Sam may be No of Tree Agent Ever aiiralty for place, sons, en sum o f th e c o , ----._ TU JohnJ B y si on i am Captain Prederi, Charle s Captain p ....Arp tit , Tem / Prom ata w i outlay,, *act :_ Ruildini abroz Waxes, ftri w , Of all Passe ng Prei g h t dicais /leliinl Fall 1 Dorary ( -____-__' _ T" J o h n Nt N, B . E. R. `( Albert William E. F. c Christoi 1 61.1cii tON'. Au nt Ge ' 31 2% 1111 Per s J'l7, Da —__ VA.