The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-04 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION• CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. The fourth Session of the Central Criminal Court corn- menced yesterday before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, the PLecordcr, and Mr. Alderman Lainson. The seats on the bench, usually appropriated to the Sheriffs, were occu -1 pied by the Under Sheriffs. The RECORDER briefly addressed the Grand Jury, when the trials commenced, but none of them possessed any public interest. ABSENC'E 01 , THE Suststurs.—ln consequence of there being several traversed cases to be disposed of, the RE colinEß, in the course of the morning, said he hoped that the New Court would sit for the disposal of business, as had been suggested upon a former occasion. Mr. Under-Sheriff FRANCE said that owing to the ab sence of the Sheriffs, whose province it was to attend to such arrangements, he was placed in a very difficult posi tion.i lf the Court wished he would send to Mr. Sergeant Arabia or to Mr. Common Sergeant, but he was fearful that 1 his application would not have the weight of one which proceeded from the Sheriffs. The RECORDER said it would he very advantageous for the public service that both Courts should sit. :-. Under-Sheriff FRANCE said that he would send to the City authorit;e3 he had referred to, and request one or the other of them to sit in the New Court. The conversation then dropped. MISDEMEANGCR.—Thomas Spicer surrendered to an indictment charging him with wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr. Clarkson conducted the prosecution. Messrs ! Philips and Thomas were instructed for the defence. jThis case occupied the Court for several hours, but the 1 details were of a most uninteresting character. It ap.. 1 peared that a Mr. Charles Robert Harris, residing in Perey-street, Tottenham Court-road, had sued another person named Pridmore for a sum of money for arrears cf rent in the Sheriffs' Court, and the defendant put seve ! rni pleas upon the record, and among others that he had i tendered a sum of 21. 183. in payment of the plaintiff's i r' .;an ; and in support of this plea Spicer was cited , and swore that on the 14th of August he went to the plain ' t . s house and saw him, and that he then tendered to him _-. :Ss., and tic refused to receive it. Upon this evidence 5•... Jury returned a verdict for the defendant Pridmore. -neeedings were afterwards taken to set aside this ver- I ..:-: and a rule absolute was granted for a new trial by the 'Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Harris was yesterday 1 I ' -xer.ined, and he swore positively that he never saw the i rean Spicer, to his knowledge in his life, and that he did not at any time tender him the money. wiy:esses were also called, from whose testimony it ap peared that Mr. Harris was at klighgate, superintending some building that was going on there, for several days, I.)6th before and after the 14th August, and that he did not go to his own house until the evening of that day, and con;iderably after the time spoken to by the defendant Speer, at which he alleged that he had tendered the Imoney. _ . .. __ .. _ Taa Jury returned a verdict of Guilty. Sentence was I deferred. The Court rose at a quarter to seven o'clock, The following are extracts from the document referred to by the Recorder in his charge to the Grand Jury : . Total Number of Prisoners within the bounds of i the Metropolis, from the 31st January, 1539, to i the 31st Decomber, 1839 Of whom there were— Executed IZem:Ared to the Hulks at Gosport ... ... Portsmoutlt 177 ... ... Chatham 269 ~ ... Woolwich l'enitentiaty at Milibank i arkhurst Prison l6 illtfuge for the Destitute and Asylum ticuse of Correction for London ... ... Middlesex 1174 -.• E3VX l9 Kent Surrey Fined and discharged Discharged, having served impriEonment 173 .. Whipped Discharged upon, bail 1Z , ..,m(4.4. - 1 for trial at Assizes ~. 1 ... To Lunatic Aaylunas 3 D:ed Acquitted Bills not found . Not prosecuted Discharged, after giving evidence Pardoned 3,444 Remaining in custody, Jan. 1, 1340 :—Males, 102 ; Female,, 25—Total, 127. POLICE INTELMGENCE. BOW-STREET: 1 iINFORSIATIONS AGAINST COPPRE- SHOP KEEPERS.—Mr. Tt9inas Adams, proprietor of the Albion Coffee-shop, in I . ... -- :eiv Compton-street, appeared to answer a complaint pre ; f:irred against him by the inspector of the F division, for permitting persons of notoriously bad character to meet together and remain in Ws house, to which he pleaded no , : 1 Utility. inspector Black stated, that at a quarter past four . o clock on Sunday morning, the 26th January, he found r-renteen men and boys in the defendant's house, the - , ater part of whom were lying on the tables asleep. Constable Thompson, 39 F, who had accompanied the 1.-qoector, proved that he knew two of the company to be ccovieted thieves. '-lr. Itantsa was of opinion that such evidence was too ' ---ak to establish the complaint against the defendant. The defendant said that he only a short time back had - zn the establishment, and had the police pointed out to --.. the persons represented as bad characters, he would Lave instantly turned them out, but as he nas not aware by what outward mark an honest man could be known from 1 1 thief, he apprehended he could not be considered as hay ing been guilty of a breech o f th e l aw . ~y lr. JARDINE—The hour in the morning might have led yon to conclude that they were not very good characters. Defendant—l have often had occasion to take refresh ment at an early hour in a coffee shop, and I o ug ht not on th a t occount be considered as a disreputable character. Ir. JARDINE—But how would you account for the 16 ' othcr persons? Defendant—They did not appear to me to be conduct ing z;lemselves in an improper manner. Al,-. JARDINE—As the police have gives you information by bringing a complaint against you, that such persons ought not to be encouraged to congregate, I hope you will not allow it to happen again, and the case is dismissed. lir. John Rice, coffee shop keeper, 64, High-street, St. Giles, was summoned for having committed a similar offence on the same day. Inspector Black proved that a few minutes after four o'clock in the morning he procured a constable, and found I 33 men and boys at the house of the defendant. On men- Iticming the circumstanc e t o t h e d e f en d ant, he said that he ',7as obliged to open a t th at ear l y h our, as others in the - , rne business, at the opp os i te s id e o f t h e street, were i n j tke habit of doing ; and he expressed a wish that every per so:: in the house should be turned out. William Smith proved that he was frequently employed I be the defendant to stand at the door and prevent any dis ; orderly characters entering the house. 1 Mr. JARDINE said that it wa very serious that two such ( hreses should be allowed to keep open for the reception of sash numbers of persons on Sunday morning. 1 The defendant said that it wculd he very desirable if I ion:e regulation would be made respecting the exact hours ; I.L:t''. persons in his trade were to open and shut their i neuses, for if one person opens at an earlier hour than usual, he must have the advantage over others who are i an:;ious to exclude suspicious charac'ers. Mr. JARDINE did not consider he would be justifiel in i ot-'ering a conviction upon the grounds that the defendant 11::.: 4 a knowledge of the persons in the house being notori (ie.:ly bad characters, although early the hour might be, and therefore the case should be dismissed. MR. GROTE.—A report having been extensively c::cullted that Mr. Grote had applied for the Chiltern Hun we can state, on the very best authority, that he has no in , :cntion, nor ever had, of relinquishing his seat in the Home of Commons. 1 .i.:rEORGE BYNG, ESQ., M.P.—Nr. Byng ~: g now completed the 50th year of his services in Parlie , 1•,: t, as Representative for the County of Middlesex, a gene- Ino '.vish has been expressed to celebrate the event, and to offer ',-• 'ne veteran Reformer a public testimony of approval. A i I, ibiie dinner, to be given to the long-tried and consistent I Frinid of Liberal Government, has been determined upon, and 711. take place at Drury-lane Theatre on the 4th of March. preparations will be on the grandest scale, and the invita . list comprises some of the first names in the county. A PRESBYTERY IN AN UPROAR.—By let from Strathhogie, we learn that on Wednesday last (the : ,th), the Presbytery met for the: purpose of taking Mr. Ed !• zds, the presentee to Marnoch, on trials. Beth the majo , and minority of the Presbytery attended, and also some 1 -,_ i;hioners, with an agent. The meeting being constituted 1 - Mr. Dewar, the moderator, the clerk was proceeding to ; . down the sederunt in the usual way, when one of the mi , i' 7 intimated to him that he must write nothing but what • dictated to him by the moderator, who accordingly dictated i •-e sederunt, himself and the other three members of the mino r* . A very noisy scene ensued, the majority insisting on th e i r i-,- es being entered, and the minority objecting. The clerk .::::.(1 he was the servant of the majority of the Presbytery, and must do their bidding ; and if they ordered him to insert their names, he must do so. He accordingly did se. Thereafter, Mr. Duff (one of the minority) said they could not get on with this clerk, and they must remove him, and he made a motion to that effect, which, being seconded Ir, Mr. Leith, was declared carried. In the same sum mary way a new clerk was appointed, namely, Mr. Bell. Meanwhile, the seven, not recognising these proceed ings, on which their votes had never been asked, had moved that the Presbytery, in respect of the crowd and the interrup t tion to the business, should adjourn to another apartment. The Moderator, however, refused to recognise the seven to have anything to do with them, or to put their motion to the vote. i They, therefore, took instruments in the hands of a notary, in I evidence that he had so refused. They next moved that, in i respect of such conduct, he be removed from his office of Mo derator, which motion the seven having voted for, they declared carried, and, in evid ence t h ereo f , aga in took instruments in the I hands of the notary and of the clerk. The majority then i clemed Mr. Cruikshank, Glass, to be Moderator ; and this being done, again moved an adjournment to another apart ment, Viich, of course, they carried, and went accordingly —the fTur remaining behind going on with their work, and with their newly appointed clerk. The seven having now adjourned, proceeded to receive Mr. Edwards' trial, when they heard two of them, an d d e f erre d the rest till the 1211 February, to which day they adj ourne d ; and, with regard to the minutes 1 of the minority, who held twoneet December, in byLhemselves since the T a last Commission on the 4th found that these I were not meetings of Presbytery legaly held , and therefore' I deciaret:l the minutes of those meetings to be illegal, null, 1 void.—Edinbxrgh Courant. and 1 WIND-BOUND VESSELS. —The weather during the last ten days has been so extremely boisterous that n vessels could put to sea. On Th urs d ay and yesterday, io co nsequence of the wind veeri ng roun d towards the east, n I gri...-t number of vessels have eagerly embraced the opportunity a of gctting away. The New York packet ship CAmbridge I sailed yesterday, having been detained since the 19th ultimo. I The Independence for New York, whose regular day of sailing Iwas the 25th, will sail this morning.—Liverpool Chronicle. , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 3. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wool sack at the usual hour. The Marquis of NORNIANBY moved that an address be presented to her Majasty, praying her to order that the Report of the Commissioners appointed to examine into the causes of the existing distress among the hand-loom weavers, and various other papers, be laid before their Lordships.—Ordered. Viscount DUNCANNON presented a petition from Derby, praying for the total and immediate abolition of the Corn-laws. The Marquis of BU TE presented petitions from Paisley, Rothsay, and Dunfermline, praying for an al teration in the laws regulating Church patronage in Scotland. PRINCE ALBERT'S NATURALIZATION BILL. Viscount AiELBOURNE, in rising to move the committal of the Bill, for the naturalization of Prince Albert, was anxious to address a few words to their Lordships. He was anxious that the Bill should pass with all possible speed, and with as little opposition and diScussion as possible, but from his communications he was so fearful of commencing an argument on this sub ject that he had determined to leave out all re lating to the precedence of Prince Albert, and to re duce the Bill to that which the Noble Duke had said he had imagined it to be, a simple Naturalization Bill, leaving the question of precedence to be settled by the House at some other time.—(Cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM had previously risen, not for the purpose of interrupting his Noble Friend, but merely to ask whether what he was about to state would be likely to lead to a debate, because he had some petitions of the utmost importance to present, as they affected the liberty of the subject ; but he found his Noble Friend had most judiciously taken the course he had inti mated, and therefore it mattered not whether the petitions were presented before or after. He wished to ask his Noble Friend whether be intended to content himself with giving up this point altogether, or whether he in tended merely to postpone it. Viscount MELBOURNE was understood to say that the course to be pursued had not yet been deter mined on. Lord BROUGHAM wished to know whether there was any intention to take advantage of the doubtful state of the Common Law on this subject, and to attempt to accomplish this object by the exercise of the preroga tive, without bringing the matter before Parliament. It was exceedingly desirable that the matter should be settled by enactment, as then the judgment of Parlia ment could be obtained on the subject, as the Common Law on the subject of the exercise of the prerogative, as party precedence was full of doubt and obscurity. The Bill then went into Committee. On the prece dence clause being proposed. Lord BROUGHAM said, that as no precedence had been settled for the Illustrious Person in question by Act of Parliament, he wished to know if it was the intention to take advantage of the doubtful state of the law on the subject to exercise the prerogative of the Crown, as he conceived that would be a course full of difficulty. Viscount MELBOURNE.—Nothing has as yet been determined. Lord BROUGHAM.—I only ask you to tell what are your present intentions on the subject. After a few words from Lord KENYON, the pur port of which we could not catch, The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that un fortunately he had been the person who had first brought this subject forward, but he thought that, as the ques tion had been brought forward, something ought to be done for the satisfaction of the House and the country. He was certain that such was the feeling entertained throughout this country towards the Illustrious Personage on the throne, that every one would be always ready to grant precedence to her husband ; but when the Noble Viscount had stated that the plan proposed had met with the acquiescence of certain other illustrious personages, he thought it was but right that such ac quiescence should have been entered on the Journals of the House. The Bill then went through Committee, the last elaibe having been struck out. The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that the Bill might pass through all its stages. The Report was then brought up, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. Lord BROUGHAM said that a petition had just been thrust into his hands on a subject of great im portance, and to which be begged earnestly to crave the best - attention of the House. It was from certain in habitants of the cities of London and Westminster, and was numerously signed by many respectable persons, tradesmen and others, who felt a deep in terest in the subject matter of the petition. He would best discharge the duty with which he had been honoured, if he stated to their Lordships, in the peti tioners'own words, their prayer, and the prefatory state ment of facts to that prayer, which were comprised within a few lines. After having set forth the conviction of three persons—viz., Frost, Williams, and Jones, now prisoners in Monmouth gaol, they stated that a majority of the Judges who had tried the prisoners had declared that the legal objection taken to the trial had been good and sufficient, and duly urged—not touching the question of time, on which a majority of the Judges held a difference of opinion from the majority who had decided that it was duly urged— that a majority of the fifteen Judges bad decided that the objection to the trial was a good and sufficient one—that three several juries had recommended the prisoners to mercy, and that upwards of 200,000 persons had petitioned the Crown for their pardon. They, therefore, pray the House to address the Crown, in order that the said prisoners may be discharged from custody.—( Hear, hear.) He never in his life time remembered a greater interest,being excited on any matter connected with judicial proceed ings than had been throughout the whole country on this unhappy question—unhappy in all its bearings, but most unhappy in the errors which had given rise to the objection which had lately been decided by the Judges of the land. It was deeply to be deplored, from the bad spirit which appeared to pervade some classes of the subjects of this realm, but more deeply to be deplored from the igno rance pervading other classes, which made them the tools of designing men—deeply to be deplored from the grounds which gave rise to the objection—the errors which seem to pervade the whole prosecution, and which, in the present instance would prevent the law from being executed, and criminal justice almost entirely defeated. As a member of the highest Court known to the law— as a Member of Parliament—he felt himself impere tivelv called upon to watch closely the proceedings of the Executive Government relative to the administra tion of justice. Before he proceeded to advert to the error which most unfortunately bad been committed, and which seemed to prevail throughout the proceed ings, he felt bound to state that a part only of the pro ceedings was stated in the petition. It was true that a majority of nine of the Judges of the land had held that the objection taken at ,Monmouth, but not there decided, was a valid one—but it was not stated that a simi lar majority of nine of these Learned Judges had held that that objection had not been taken in proper time. Upon the validity of that objection he would give no opinion— He had.no right to state that his opinion went with the minority of those Learned personages—he would not, as scale other persons had been, be presumptuous enough to say that the Judges had decided wrong.—(Hear.) If there was any one from whom it was more impera tively demanded it was from statesmen and Members of the Legislature, and men who, because they are law makers, were proverbially known to be law-breakers. If there was anything more imperatively demanded from them, it was that they should uphold the Judges, and do their best to inculcate veneration towards them from the people, and not cavil at them iu order to ruin them in public estimation.--(Hear. hear.) He could assure their Lordships, that they would look in vain for respect for the laws if they ceased to make men respect the organs and authorities of the law —they would in vain call upon him to respect those oracles of the law if they ever so far forgot their bounden duty as to cavil, misrepresent, and to slander those Judges when they happened, for purposes of their own and motives of their own, to dissent from their so lemn opinion delivered upon their solemn oaths ; therefore it was that whatever his private individual opinion might be, the law having been expounded, he had a right to hold no opinion at all when those, the venerable organs and oracles of the law, had deter mined wh at i t was. But there was a dif ference of opinion on the point, and out of that arose, a mong t h ose most Learned Judges, an in mtTi ma eh ne Learned t io a n,e shouldr Gentlemen, f einn adt not ueo d cmt e e s ed i n r b, e te tothhpaeareteacsbestldeheede counsel t the take n hose unhappy b y up p t o h n o t f o r r e o the ol eIl d decision. a too not from any doubt of the validity of their objection— that he (Lord Brougham) kne w ; not from anyfear that the objection was doubtful —that he (Lord B), knew ; not because in point of fact, or rather of law, that the objection was not valid—and he had right now to say so, because the Judges of Eng land had determined that the objection was valid ; but they were induced, in the exercise of a most deli cate and anxious discretion—more anxious than most of their Lordships, who had never defended men on trial for their lives, he would take the liberty of saying were capable of forming any conception of. And yet nevertheless, he had known unprofessional men to criti cise and canvass the discretion of men so situated, and which appeared to him almost as bad as to cavil at the discretion of those who administered justice themselves. He (Lord Brougham) did not com plain of the conduct of those Learned and able counsel, but it appears they did in the exercise of a most delicate and difficult discretion agree to postpone ar guieg the objection upon the distinct statement made to them that they and their clients should be put upon the self same tooting after the objection was decided, if the other Judges decided in their fhvour, as they would have stood if the objection TM- SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1840. had been decided in the country. Since then the ' objection had been decided. That understanding, as be was authorised to state most distinctly, was, that they were to be put upon the same footing, provided the objection was sustained and approved of by a majority of the Judges, as if the ma jority of the Judges at the trial being pressed for the deci sion had decided in favour of the prisoners. If the majority of the Judges at the trial had decided, upon being pressed for their decision, they must needs have instantly been acquitted. It was an objection fatal to the whole proceeding —it applied to every one of the witnesses. The Jury were impanelled—the plea had been pleaded—nay more than that, again they could not have been tried. That was the first and principal ground he wished their Lordships to consider, and the other was altogether independent of the former. The Counsel for the prisoner had a right to press for judgment at the trial, and it now turned out, because they knew what the Judges had &u— -lt turned out, too, that two out of those three Judges were in favour of the objection made at the trial, and of the party waiving the objection until after arraignment, and plea pleaded. It consequently followed as a matter of absolute demonstration, that if they had exercised their right of pressing the objection at the trial at Monmouth—it consequently followed as a certainty, that the objection would have been sustained, and the trial at once put an end to. He (Lord Brougham) knew, in point of fact, that that was not an opinion taken up after the argu ments in town, but it was their opinion at Monmouth, at the trial. A stronger case—but infinitely strength ened by the bargain made with the Counsel—a stronger case for absolute acquittal, in the whole course of his professional experience, be confessed he had never known.—(Hear, hear.) He had stated to their Lordships that he should add one word explanatory of his regret at what had taken place. He repeated that it was deeply to be lamented upon such an important question criminal jus tice should have been so defeated. Whose the fault might have been he did not stop to inquire ; but it was due to a most experienced, able, and excellent officer of the Crown, that he should add that his Learned Friend Mr. Maule, the Secretary for the Treasury.—(A Noble Lord—" Tne Solicitor for the Treasury.") He begged pardon, it was the Solicitor for the Treasury he meant to express his commendation of.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He was a Gentleman who had served under various Governments without being offensive to any, and with the good-will of most. In this case he had not served the list of the witnesses at the same time with the copy of the indictment. This was an om'ssion which was easily accounted for ; no doubt it was done in the hurry of business, and without reflection. But the nature of the objection was such that if it had been taken at the proper time, there would only have been a post ponement of the trial. The Counsel for the accused had a , right to take the objection at the time which would best serve the interest of his client. But what if the prosecutor was aware of the irregularity ? (Hear. bear.) It was stated before the fifteen Judges that Mr. Maule was quite aware of it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear")—that the Counsel for the prosecution were aware of it. In fact the Judges were aware, before they went down on the Commission, that the objection would be taken, and they went with the expectation that they should have to come back for a month.—(Hear, hear.) They never dreamed that for the purpose of keeping Members of Parliament lour weeks longer in the country, the risk would be run of allowing j'istice to be defeated.—(Hear, hear.) However, a great error of judgment had been coin ' mitted, which must lead to a complete defeasance of the criminal law in this case. He had several other petitions to present to their Lordships, and he thought it necessary, indeed it was kis duty, to inform them that numbers of his countrymen had done him the honour of sending him addresses, begging him to exert his influence in favour of those persons, and they had also done him the honour of sending him addresses to for ward to the fountain of mercy, which he had done. He believed ho might say that he had presented peti tions to the Queen upon this subject to the amount of about 100—one of them signed by 54,000, another by upwards of 40,000, and another signed by upwards of 20,000. All this showed there was an understatement in the petition, which estimated the number at 200,000. He (Lord Brougham) considered, looking at the cir cumstances of the case, that these unfortunate indivi viduals were entitled to a total release, an extension of mercy it could not be called, because he conceived that a total release was a legal right and justice. The addresses that were presented to the Crown, proceeded on three different grounds. One class prayed the extension of mercy upon the special circumstances of the case—an other upon' the illegality, or as some called it the inexpediency, and others the unlawfulness of the conviction ; and the last proceeded upon a view of the evidence that the matter had not been rightly decided upon by the Judge and Jury. With the first ground he agreed, but he differed from the second, and he felt convinced that he should have the unanimous concurrence of that House, as a Court of Judicature, when he stated the objection which he had to the second and third grounds. He was against all capital punishment for trifling offences, and even for great offences, where the public feeling was against them. He had assisted their Lord ships in putting an end to capital punishment in cases of larceny and forgery. But there were cases of an atrocious nat ure—murder and high treason —in which he considered it necessary that life should be taken away. It was for the purpose of preserving life that lie would take it away—it was sacrificing one life in order to preserve many.—( . Hear, hear, hear.) and therefore he did not agree with those w ho said, that in no case ought there to be an exception to the rule of abolishing all capital punishments. But upon the third point there could not be any doubt. It was absolutely necessary for the administrat ion of justice that every investigation should be carried on, firmly and deliberately ; and he held it to be an intolerable pre sumption in any class of men, be they ever so power ful, or ever so numerous, to sit in judgment upon a Jury, and to say, had we, who have read the evidence in a newspaper, been in the jury -box, we would have arrived at a different conclusion from them—from the twelve men who, on their oaths, with the assistance of an ex perienced and enlightened Judge, and with the incalcu lable benefit of having seen and heard every witness give his testimony upon his oath. He held it to be intoler able to object to the verdict of a Jury, directed by a Judge who had heard the whole of the arguments. He should have given an imperfect opinion if he had con fined his observations to one point ; and he was bound to say that he had never put the case before one depu tation without finding that a calm statement of his objec tions found their weight. He trusted, therefore, that in consideration of the extraordinary importance of this matter, touching neither more nor less than the inter ference of the people with the administration of justice, their Lordships would excuse him for having detained them so long in stating au opinion which he believed was the unanimous opinion of all whom he then ad dressed.—(Hear, hear.) He cared not, the matter might be misrepresented elsewhere. He set a due value on popular opinion and excitement where he thought it was applicable—in cases of exped.ency, of right and interest to the public, in which the people were entitled to judge, but not in questions touching the administration of justice by sworn Judges and sworn Juries. He would, therefore, after having troubled them so long, present those petitions, which were all of the same nature, to the House. The Marquis of NOM , ' ANBY said that their Lordships would readily suppose that if he arose merely for the purpose of offering his individual opinion upon a subject of that nature, in opposition to that urged by his Noble and Learned Friend, with so much force and with all the authority of his name, he should do so with the greatest hesitation. But he had had an opportunity of appealing on the question to that party to whom his Noble and Learned Friend had alluded in the course of his address—be had liad an opportunity of referring to the Learned Judges who had given on the matter their deliberate decision. He would be able to refer to that decision not only in general terms, and in a matter which might be supposed a loose one, but as his Noble s ftn n o e u in ga , e had pwoht oti ohoadopo F t communi catedthe esnudtb,oj subject, h n citro t , the course s c h o ian u at r e s rn e etfico o ro : referred dhf the r e a t h e t pre sided at the Commission at Monmouth, and he obtained his permission to give the House the substance of those communications which had passed between that learned person and other parties on the occasion. But before he would urge on their Lordships' notice all the weight due to that authority, that they should not listen to the prayer of those petitioners, he would say a few words on that to which his Noble and Learned Friend had alluded, viz., the unfortunate conduct of the parties who had conducted the trial. His Noble and Learned Friend stated that he knew not where the blame of the proceeding rested, and he bad afterwards alluded to a person for whom he (Lord Normanby) en tertained the highest respect, he meant the person who had prepared that prosecution, and on whom, no doubt, it was intended to make that blame rest. He would say on behalf of Government, that it was impossible for Government to trust the prosecution to any other than to the Learned Gentleman who had conducted for so many rears and for so many Administrations public prosecutions of a similar nature. As to the time at which the objection should have been taken, all he could say was, that those who had been trusted with the conducting of the case were convinced that that objecti o n of itself could b e of no force or weight. So much for that unfortunate error, which, from a per son of all the experience and character of the Hon. and and Learned Gentleman, must be considered as such, and which he most deeply regre tted, but which did not oper a t e with any degree of hardship upon the prisoner, but was occasioned by the desire to furnish him with som e information which it was thou g ht he ou g ht to have on the first ' opportunity ; and let the result to that objection be what it might, it was not complained the parties had suffered any substantial injury from it. All that was urged by his Noble and Learned Friend was urged upon the day after the decision of the Judges by those two Gentlemen, with intense anxiety, and they stated verbally that the very objection now made was considered valid by two of the Learned Judges who presided at the Special Commission at the time, and urged that it ought to have been decided at Mon mouth. He informed Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Kelly that he was anxious to receive any representation they chose to make on the subject, and should feel it his duty on receiving such, to refer it to those Learned Persona whose conduct were involved in the represen tation they made. He told them at that time the sub stance of the communication with the Learned Judges, as far es he was at liberty to do so. He would now read to their Lordships the communication received , from the Lord Chief Justice on the decision of the Judges on that occasion :—" My Lord, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the arguments on the three cases of the Queen v. Frost, the Queen v. Jones, and the Queen v. Williams, closed this day be fore us, that the Judges after consultation, have come to the following determination. First, a majority of the Judges, in the proportion of nine to six, are of opinion that the delivery of the list of witnesses was not good in point of law ; secondly, a majority of the Judges, in the proportion of nine to six, are of opinion that the objection to the delivery was not taken in due time ; but all the Judges agree that if the objection had been made in due time the effect would have been the post ponement of the trial, in order to give time for proper ing and delivering another list. I shall have the honour of waiting on your Lordship if you wish any thing fur. ther." The result, therefore, of the determination of the Judges was that the conviction was right. He stated that communication to Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Kelly. 'They on that occasion used, he believed, the word " bargain ;" that was one of the points to which he immediately directed the attention of Chief Justice Tindal, who distinctly de nied that any thing of the nature of a bargain had taken place. He would only say that Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Kelly were in complete misunderstand ing as to the nature of the point on which the Judges were then deciding, but that he never saw two gentle men more convinced that they were really right in their recollection. They,in accordance with his recommenda tion, forwarded to him a memorial of considerable length on the understanding that it should be referred to the Judges. In it they stated that when the objection was taken, John Frost, in the open Court, discharged them from further interfering in his defence, he insisting that he had a right to have the decision of the Judges upon the objection at that time ; it went on to state that it was after much persuasion that he allowed them to appear for him, and Chief Justice Tindal said the prisoner would not be prejudiced by the adjournment of the question, but he would be placed in the same situation as if the point had been decided at the Special Commission. Upon receiving the memorial he con sulted with the Chief Justice, and he put the question to him, whether Mr. Justice 'Williams and Mr. Baron Parke would feel themselves bound by the opinion of the Judges, although they were in the minority, and lie reported that as a matter of course, upon the trial of an indictment they would feel themselves bound by the decision of the majority of the Judges. Therefore, the whole came to this—whether in this particular instance they should establish and confirm a wrong which could never be repealed. The decision on the point in no way depended on their discretion, and the Judges had decided the point against the prisoner. With respect to one statement in the memorial, the Learned Counsel for the prisoners, it appeared, according to the state ment of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, laboured under complete misapprehension. The Learned Judge stated that he had said distinctly at the time, that he could make no distinction whatever between that and the other cases tried at the assizes. He moreover stated that all the Judges entertained doubts, and if the law had obliged them to come to a decision at the time, ' which it did not, that it was clear that on this point the Learned Counsel for the prisoners ivere la hourin,g under misapprehension, and that they could not have pressed for an immediate decision, they were vet prepared to come to a decision withont much further consideration, and without hearing the conclusion of the arguments offered by the Counsel for the Crown. It was therefore clear, said the Judges, that the statement which had been relied on so much, that two of the Judges who were on the Special Commission had de cided against the point, made no difference whatever. The law must be taken from the majority of the Judges when they had consulted together, and in their opinion there was no ground whatever to entitle John Frost to a free pardon. Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in answer to that part of the memorial of Sir Frederick Pollock which related to what fell from the Bench at the trial, said that he had explained the position in which they stood to the Counsel for the prisoners, that the Court would reserve the point to consult the Judges on the subject, and if the Judges decided in their favour they would be in that case entitled to stand in the same po tion as they would have stood if the point had been de cided in their favour, they would be in that case entitled to stand in the same position as they would have stood if the point had been decided in their favour at the trial, so that their Lordships would seethe point was reserved for the decision of all the Judges, and not of the Judges only who sat on the Special Commission. Mr. Baron Parke also stated that on the Special Commission he had said, in answereto the Counsel for the prisoners, that the point would be reserved for the opinion of the Judges, and if the opinion of the Judges were in their favour a par don would follow as a matter of course on a recommenda tion to the Secretary of State. These were the obser vations of two out of the three Judges who presided at that time, and as far as Mr. Justice Williams was con cerned, what he had stated showed that he did not con template anything peculiar having been pressed upon them. After reading these opinions of the Judges, ho, together with his colleagues, were of opinion that the conviction was legal. We were also of opinion that the prisoners had had no substantial injustice committed upon them ; but, taking into consideration the decision come to by the Judges—looking upon the question whether the extreme sentence should be carried into execution or not, we could not help yielding, to a certain extent, to all those differences of opinion, and upon that ground it was that we determined that the extreme penalty of the law should be carried into effect. In stating this, however, he must be allowed to say that it was that consideration, and that consideration alone, which forced us to come to that conclusion. If it had not been for those differences of opinion, and all the communications which had taken place as to the misconception of the prisoners' Counsel, which threw doubt and difficulty and hesitation upon the case—if they had not taken place, the opinion of my colleagues and myself was, that never were lives more justly for feited to the laws of the country—( Hear, hear)—and there would not have been the least hesitation, looking at the atrocity of the crime, at the influence of the character of the person, and the numbers involved in this criminal design, there would not have been the slightest hesitation in withholding any recommendation to the Crown for the extension of the prorogative of mercy, and we should have felt it our imperative duty to have allowed the law to take its course. He had felt it necessary VS make these explanations, and after them he trusted their Lordships would consider that no ground whatever had been made for their addressing the Crown, praying her Majesty to grant a free pardon, and that justice only could be done by inflicting the extreme secondary punishment of the law, by transpor tation for life.—( Hear, hear.) Lord WY NFORD then rose, and made a few ob servations, but in so very low tone, that it was with great difficulty we could hear a word lie said. We understood him to say that, upon no grounds, in his opinion, were the prisoners entitled to a complete ac quittal. If they had a free pardon, Chartism would increase. It was quite clear it would be a dreadful failure of justice, if that were not done,which it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to do, with re gard to these prisoners. He agreed with the course which the Noble Marquis (Normanby) had taken, but he could not excuse those who had had the conduct of the cause, in acting as they did, when they knew what was the effect of their o bjection. Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned Friend had totally mistaken him in thinking that he in tended to cast any blame whatever on Mr. Maule ; he had intended to throw all the blame upon the Crown Counsel, who were to blame in persisting that there was nothing in an objection that had been decided by the majority of the Judges to be a valid one. It was denied th the t prisonersth e wouldhad h held e h o e u e t any e fi ted i p t e s w t a h s a t u t e he re r c t a u s e e e t o e f that there should be a difference between the statements made by the Learned Judges and the Learned Gentle men who were Counsel for the prisoners, but he was bound to adhere to the statement made by the Learned Judge ; he would, however, state his opinion—nay, his conviction, that no case could be found wherein a Judge had refused to give a decision when called upon by a party. The prisoner's case might be compromised by his objection, without being decided upon at his trial. The prisoner might object to be c onvicted, and be m he ig a ht d fat e a m l a e nd that ne,sh neualdol•hejeccdtn decided he evdat the e th m ou o g m h e t n m t ; might this case two out of the three Judges had little or ne • doubt as to the objection, acrd the prisoner having a tight to press for their decision, had it been then given, they would have been acquitted ; they were now to suffer because the Judges had not decided when the objection was taken. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the usual course had been pursued upon the present occasion. The Learned Chief Justice reported that, when an objection was taken before a Judge who presided at the trial of an indi c t ment , if he the three J u d ges b e i ng had any doubt upon the matter h e d ec id e d aga inst the prisoner, reserving to himself th e opportun i t y o f being set right by the Judges. E ven i n t h e ease w hich bad occurred, two of i n favour of the objection, but having doubt s upon t h e ma tter, reserved the point for the conside ra ti on o f t h e i r b re thren. Of what use would it be to res erve a po i nt at an y time unless the opinion of the maj or it y of the Judges were to p revail ? Lord BROUGHAM pr esented several petiti ons with a simil ar prayer. H o would not detain the House further than reiterating that the three prisoners were now to suffer almost the last punishment of the law be cause the Judges had not decided a point of law at the trial. SOCIALISM. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petit on from the President, Vice-President, and Members of a Literary Institution, praying the House to take measures for putting an end to the atroci ous doctrines of Socialism. Ho would take that opportunity of staring that on his road down to the House that night, he had been most earnestly re quested by the Most 11..verend Prelates the Arch bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Loudon, to postpone his motion until to-morrow. They were very anxious to be present at the discussion, he would therefore postpone his motion. _ _ _ Lord VI .. YN FORD hoped that the Police of Lon don would be more active than the Police of Bir mingham, and put an end to the propagation of such doctrines by prosecutions. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti tion from the comity of Southampton to the same effect. As Lord Lieutenant of the county he had advised the Magistracy to proceed against those insti tutions whenever they committed any violation of the law. He trusted the Government would approve of his conduct on that subject, and that they would feel it their duty to make the same repre sentations in other parts of the country. The Noble Duke concluded, by moving that the petition should lie on the table. Several petitions having then been laid on the table of the House, The Marquis of NORM ANBY said that, as the Noble Duke stated that the Government seemed to have approved of the course he had taken on the subject, he (the Marquis of Normanby) should say for his part, that nothing was more judicious than the course which the Noble Duke had recommended—that of advising gentlemen to prevent their servants from sharing in those doctrines, and of informing Magistrates on tho subject that they might know how to proceed against them. Nothing, he should repeat, could ba more judi cious, and he should be very happy to receive from the Noble Duke any communication he might have to offer on the matter. MINORCA. The Earl of COLCHESTER wished to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice respecting cer tain proceedings of the French Government with regard to the Island of Minorca ; he wished, first of all, however, to offer a few observations on the course he had intended to pursue, and the motives which influenced him. The Island of Minorca had many natural advantages, pos sessing, as it did, one of the finest harbours in the Medi terranean, and being situated between Spain and Africa, and commanding, in some measure, the trade of that part of Europe. He had thought that their Lordships should, on these accounts, have their attention called to any attempt on the part of France to seize on the Island. But, as he had since understood from her Majesty's Go vernment, that some of the papers on the subject could not be given, and as he had also learned that they would lay all the others on the table which it would be ad visable to make public, he begged leave to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice. The motion was then withdrawn . , and the House ad journed at a Quarter past Seven. HOUSE OF COMIIION,S FBI. 3. The SPEAKER took the Chlir at the usual hour. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from Leitrim, praying for extension of the franchise in Ireland. Mr BARNABY presented a petition from Hog!cy, in the county of Worcester, praying for Church Extension. Mr. VILLIERS presented two petitions from the county of York, praying for the total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. NEELD presented a petition from Chippen ham, praying tor Church Extension. Air. BAINES presented petitions from Stanmore and other places in Essex for the abolition of Church rates, and the discharge of John Thorogood. Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from the county of Tyrone, praying for the extension of tte elective franchise, and for municipal reform in Ireland. Mr. BROTHERTON presented two petitions from merchants of Manchester, in favour of the Designs and Patterns Protection Bill. Mr. W. COWPER presented a petition from Hert ford, praying for the abolition of Church-rates, and the discharge of John Thorogood. Sergeant CURREY presented a petition from Ire land, praying for the extension of the elective franchise. Mr. REDDINGTON presented a petition from Galway, praying for municipal reform, and extension of the elective franchise in Ireland. Mr. PRESHFIELD brought up the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented petitions from Kent, praying for Church Extension. Mr. J. M. O'CONNELL, presented a petition from the County of Kerry, praying for the Extension of the Election Franchise in Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a number of petitions from the counties of Wexford, Clare, Antrim, Kilkenny, Down, Tyrone, Waterford, Donegal, Limerick, Ar magh, and Queen's County, praying for the extension of the elective franchise, and for municipal reform in Ireland. Mr. DE HORSEY presented petitions from New castle-under-Lyme, and several other places, praying for Church Extension. Mr. A. WHITE presented a petition from Sunder land against the Corn-laws. Mr: WILBRAHAM presented a petition from Congleton, in Cheshire, praying that the House would appoint a Committee to examine Mr. R. Owen as to the means he had devised for the amelioration of the condition of the human race. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from Monmouth, praying for Church Extension. Mr. D. BRO WNE presented a petition from Aglish, in the County of Mayo, for a further Extension of the Franchise in Ireland, and also for Corporate Reform in that country. Mr. SOMERS presented petitions to a similar effect from Sligo and other parts of Ireland. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from the Socialists of Bolton praying the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the principles of Mr. Robert Owen. Though he (Mr. A.) repudiated the principles of the petitioners, yet, as the petition was properly worded, he considered it his duty to present it. Sir H. FLEETWOOD presented a petition from Preston to the same effect. Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition from Exe ter, praying for an extension of Church accommodation. ... _ Mr. h \VA RT presented a petition from a place in Ess,x, praying for the liberation of Mr. Thorogood. The Report on the Bristol Port Improvement Bill was brought up. _ Mr. 13A KII:Y presented petitions from certain pa rishes in the county of Cork, for an extension of the elective franchise in Ireland. Mr. F. SHAW presented a petition from certain in habitants of a parish in Suffolk calling for further Church accommodation. THE PRIVILEGE CASE. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN presented a petition signed by 599 members of the bar, 27 of whom we•e Queen's Counsel and Sergeants -at-Law, stating that the petitioners had heard with alarm of the recent pro ceedings of that House, in committing to the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms a plaintiff for bringing an action in the Court of Queerils Bench and the Sheriffs, for executing the judgment of the Court. The • Hon. and Learned Member stated that no document ever came before that House entitled to greater attention, because every one knew the reluctance which the Bar felt in coming forward, except on very great occasions, with any petition, and this petition was signed by men of every grade of political opinions.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioners prayed that the parties in custody might be discharged. He begged to move that the pe tition be printed. The SPEAKER—Does the Right Hon. Gentleman intend to found any motion upon it ? Sir E. SUGDEN—Certainly I shall, Sir. The petition was then ordered to be printed with the votes. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from several in habitants of London, stating they had heard with ex treme regret, notwithstanding the opinion of the Judges, that Frost, Williams, and Jones, were about to be tran sported for life. The petitioners considered that they ought to receive free pardon, and, therefore, prayed the House to address her Majesty on the subject. The Hon. Member stated that he coincided with the views taken by the petitioners, and as he intended to call the attention of the House to the subject, he begged to move that the petition be printed with the Votes. Ordered. Mr. M. O'FERRALL brought up the Navy Es timates, which were laid on the table. On the motion of Sir T. FREEMANTLE leave of absence was given to Lord Francis Egerton, Mr. John Stuart, Sir Hugh Campbell, Mr. R. Trevor, Sir S. Canning, Mr. Wilson Jones, Lord Lowther, Mr. Dawson Dinner, and several other Hon. Members. On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, leave of ab sence was given to Mr. Maher. On the motion of Colonel CONOLLY, for Mr. S. Maxwell. On the motion of Sir R. HERON, for Mr. Fa zakerley. THE NEW ACT FOR THE TRIAL OF ELEC TIONS. THE FIRST ELECTION COM MITTEE UNDER IT. The SPEAK bithen said, I beg to lay before the House my first wak rant, for the appointment of an Election Committee under the New Act.—( Hear.) The warrant was read by the Clerk, and was as fol lows : " Pursuant to an Act passed in the 2d and 3d of her present Majesty. for the Amendment of the Juris diction for the trial of controverted Elections, I hereby appoint Thomas Green, William Milnes, The O'Con nor Don, W. Orde, E. Strutt, and J. Young, Esqrs., the Members of the General Committee for the trial of disputed elections, during the present Session. C. S. Lefevre, Speaker." Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask, if any of the Members for whom I , iave of absence had been obtained should hereafter appear in the House, before the period of leave had expired, whether they would not then be liable to serve on Committees? Lord J. RUSSELL said that was the rule of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Leave of absence expired when they re-appeared. Oa the moot on of Mr. R. STEWART, leave of absencsi for a month, or till Easter, was given to Sir R. Fergussen, to Mr. Fitzgibbon, Mr. L. White, and Lord Duncan. On the motion of Col. CON OLLY, leave of absence was granted to Sir Robert Bateson, on account of illness. The SPEAKER then proceeded to read the names of the Members, according to the provision of the New Act for the trial of controverted elections, in order that Members exempt from serving upon Election Com mittees should state their ground of exemption upon their names being called. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on his name being called, said he was sorry to be under the necessity of claiming exemption upon the ground of the pressure of his public duties. He would be most will►ng to take his part in the labours of the House ; but he could de clare conscientiously that he could not sit upon Election Committees without neglecting the duties of his office. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that Sir John Campbell be excused from serving upon Election Committees. Sir GEORGE CLERK begged to ask whether the excuse required was to be a permanent one, in the case of the Attorney-General? as, if so, it would of course become a precedent for excusing every person holding the same office. Or, was it on account of some peculiar or temporary pressure of public business the Attorney-General desired to be excused ? If that was the case a limited time ought to be stated. Mr. GREEN thought that it would be a more con venient course if, at present, the names of Hon. Members claiming exemption should only be set down, and that the discussion should be taken to-morrow. Sir G. CLERK said the Act was imperative, and the exemption must be decided upon at once. Sir E. SUGDEN thought this question one of great importance. He admitted that the business of the Attor ney-General might be a sufficient excuse for his not serving on Committees. But there were many Members of that House who were practising at the bar, and if the Attorney-General employed in his private practice the time which they were compelled to devote to the business of the House, that would give him an unfair advantage over them. His Honour able Friend the Attorney-General had an opportunity of stating his objections to the Bill, whilst it was in preparation ; and it had been suggested that Gentlemen practising at the bar should be exempted. But the Attorney-General was of opinion that they had no peculiar claims to be excused. It was his impression that if the House compelled practising barristers to attend upon Election Commit tees they would find it impossible to attend to their business at the bar, and the result would be that the Courts would not be able to sit. It might be said that other barristers might be found who would do their duty in their absence, but he (Sir E. Sugden) thought there would be a great difficulty on that point. It would therefore be an advantage, not to the bar, but to the pubic generally, to excuse members of the bar altogether. If they were forced to sit on Committees, it would be the means of excluding them altogether from being Members of that House.—(A laugh.) He thought there ought to be either a general exemption of the whole bar, or no exemption at all. Sir R. PEEL was ilecidedly opposed to any attempt on the part of the gentleman at the bar to excuse them selves from sitting on Committees.—(Hear.) If he compelled gentlemen of the bar to enter the House, he should then certainly feel very much disposed to grant what was asked ; but as they had the option of coming into the House or not as they pleased, ho thought that they were bound to serve. He believed that %vim one Member was serving on a Committee °the, gentlemen at the bar might be found to supply his With respect to this individual ease he was grieved at the necessity for the application ; he could not consent to its being understood that the At torney-General was always to be exempt, but if the exemption was allowed in the present instance it must he stated that some peculiarity rendered it necessary, and when that no longer existed he should move that the Attorney-General fall into the general ranks of the profession and be called upon to serve, and his support must therefore depend on the specific excuse offered. He should be sorry to establish the precedent that future Attorney-Generals should be excused. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he only asked the favour on account of the peculiarity of his present circumstances, and be did not ask it for the whole Session, but if the House would grant it until Easter he should be satisfied. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Attorney-Ge neral be excused until Easter. Sir F. POLLOCK asked whether it was the in tention to move for a similar exemption for the Soli citor-General. Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not know whether the Solicitor-General would require it, and that he only asked it for the Attorney-General. Sir R. PEEL said he had asked whether or not the leave of absence for Lord Francis Egerton would ex pire upon his return to England. The words of the Act of Parliament expressed that every Member who should have leave of absence should be excused attend ance during such leave. He thought that instead of the House giving Lord F. Egerton leave of absence, until Easter, it should only have been given until his return, otherwise such a practice would be a great inducement to Members not to take their seats ; he, therefore, thought exemption from serving on Elec tion Committees should be only during the absence of Members from England. Mr. Thomas Freemantle, Mr. Goulburn, and the Speaker, made some observations, which were inaudible in the g.dlery. Sir ROBERT PEEL'S opinion was that the dura tion of the period during which leave of absence was granted, should be always short, but to be renewed if necessary.--( Hear, hear.) It was then agreed that the Attorney-General should be excused attending Election Committees until after Easter, Mr. MAUNSELL moved that Mr. W. R. Cart wright be excused, he being sixty years of age. Agreed to. The SPEAKER then proceeded with the names. On the motion of Mr. ELIOT, Sir Rufane Donkin was exempted, we believe, on account of age. On the name of Lord J. RUSSELL being called, the Noble Lord rose and said, Sir, I beg to state that, during the period of my holding the office I at present hold, I cannot attend Election Comm ttees, without great inconvenience to the public service. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER likewise obtained exemption, on the same ground. Lord PALMERSTON likewise was, for the same reason, excused. NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT. Mr. Baron ROLFE and Mr. Justice MAULS, brought the Bill from the Lords for naturalizing Prince Albert, which On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, was read a first an 3 second time. SOCIALISM. Lord ASHLEY gave notice, for Thursday, of an Address to her Majesty, praying that the appointment of Mr. Fair to the Registrarship of Marriages in Bir mingham be eancelled.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BAINES gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a Bill respecting first-fruifs and tenths. LORD MONTEAGLE AND THE COMP TROLLERSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER. Mr. LIDDELL gave notice, for an early day, that he would move for a copy of the warrant pensioning Sir J. Newport, and of the appointment of Lord MonteAgle to the Comptrollership of the Exchequer.—(llear.) Mr. EW ART gave notice of a Bill for equalizing the duties on East and West India rum. EDUCATION. Returns were ordered of the manner in which the Education Grant for 30,0001. for 1839, has been expended. Likewise (on the motion of Sir J. Graham) of Post-office appointments—(we did not hear what dates.) ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL stated, in answer to Sir R. In glis, that he should move, on Friday, the adjournment of the House to Tuesday. HIGH TREASON—CASES OF FROST, JONES, AND WILLIAMS. Mr. GODSON asked if the Government could in form the House if it were not true, that two out of the three Judges, who had tried frost, Jones, and Wil liams, had not agreed that the point of law should be decided in their favour ? Mr. F. MAULE said he really could not answer the question.--( Hear, hear.) All that the Noble Se t/try for the Home Department could be officially aware of was, that the whole of the Judges had decided that the conviction was good. Mr. GODSON said he should move, on Thursday, for the production of the papers, memorials, &c., in the Home Office, respecting the affair.—(oh, oh.) HANOVER. Lord CASTLEREAGH asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lay before the House a statement of the sums received by his late Maje=ty from Hanover. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said he possessed no means of answering such an in quiry.—(Hear, hear.) PRIVILEGE —MR. T. B. HOWARD. The SPEAKER then said, the House is aware that an order was made for the attendance of Mr. Howard —will they hear from the Messenger what has occurred ? Thomas Styne, the Messanger, who had received from the S ergeant t h e or d er, was th e n called, and being examined by the Speaker, stated that he had gone to Mr. Howard's residence, and that he was told Mr. Howard was at Hull, where, however, he had not been abl e t o fi n d hi m ; an d h e h a d b een unsuccess f u l in his search ever since. —(A laugh ) He had called again repeatedly at the offices of Howard, but without VF,N )' NG 1.4 1 ,D 1 7 r lor s:!ccess. .t-Ie had th.s tne soe, who toA Ilia) that has father would be in tom, as soon as "this business was over."—(A laugh.) The - Messenger wa, then ordered to withdraw. Lard JOHN RUSSELL, who spoke in an almost inaudioic toile, was understood to say that the House could not well take any further step; in respect to Mr. Howard, until there was some proof that he purposely evade 1), , ;m4- wish the nmico, Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that the House, at presnr, had heard nothing more than the statement of the Messenger as to his own endeavours to serve the notice. It would be still in the power of the House to compel How trd's attendance by the Speaker's warrant. Mr. HUME would take the liberty of su:gesting that means should be taken to offer a reward for Ho ward's apprehension.—(Laughter.) since he, (Mr. H.) came into the House, he had seen a warrant which had been served upon the Coroner, ordering him to at tach the property of the Sheriffs.—( Hear, hear.) Nov he, (Mr. H ) thought that if the authority of the House would be set aside in that way, and they were ony to stand there for every body to laugh at-- (A laugh)—it would be better for them at once to dis charge their warrant. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it might he advisable not to take any further proceedings at pre sent, as it did not appear quite certain that Howard was evading the notice. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH said it was quite clear that Howard's wife and son were trifling with the House. They knew very well that Howard was not at Hull when they made the statement to the messenger. Sir ROBERT INGLIS agreed with the At torney-General, that there was not sufficient proof that the notice was evaded, or that the party was acquainted with the decision of the House. But he was sure that no one would agree with the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that the mere fact of the House having ordered a notice to be served upon the party, rendered it imperative that the latter should attend, without proper service of that order having been effected. Lord HO WICK thought it was necessary that the House should know how the case actually stood. Al though there was no legal evidence that Mr. Howard was evading the order of the House, yet from what had occurred, there could be no doubt that he was well aware it had been issued. He (Lord Howick) con ceived that the messenger ought to have the power to compel his atteadance, and that the Speaker should issue his writ for that purpose. If that also should be evaded, then the House ought to address her Majesty, to offer a reward for Mr. Howard's apprehension. Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with his Noble Friend that if the House were satisfied that its messen ger had been trifled with, the latter should be armed with the power to enforce the order of the House. Mr. WAKLEY said that as he was coming into the House, the document which he held in his hand was served upon lion —( Hear, hear.) It was an order to attach the property of the Sherffs, and it was served upon him by Mr. Howard's son. He would not sa y at at that moment what course he should take respecting it. He thought it right, however, to inform the House that Mr. Howard was in town, and in his office for four hours on Saturday, and if due diligence had been used, the order might have been served upon him. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN begged leave to ask what course the Hon. Gentleman meant to take in respect to the warrant which had been served upon him? Mr. WAKLEY said he had rather not state that at present. The document had been served upon hint, not as a Member of that House, but as Coroner for Middlesex. Lord JO H N RUSSELL thought it was prudent of the Hon. Member for Finsbury to take time to consider what course he should take ; but at the same time the House had a right to expect from him that he would take no steps upon the warrant until he informed the House what his course would be. Sir E. S'ft;DEN hoped the House would not ask the lion. Gentleman to pledge himself as to the course which he would take, upon a warrant issued to him, in his official capacity, by the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. KELLY agreed with his Right Hon. Friend , that the House ought not to require such a pledge frail the Gentleman as to what he should do in his eapaciti of Coroner, in obedience to the warrant of the Queen'l Bench. Mr. GOULBURN thought the discussion upon th. g subject unadvisable, and the House would not be justl fled in requiring from the lion. Member for Finsbury any pledge upon a matter about which be bad stated that his mind was not made up. Mr. HUME thought there could be no doubt tha t Mr. Howard was evading the order of the House.--' —( Hear, hear.) The House should not allow it s order so lightly to be treated.—(Hear.) Minister s should be ready to move that a warrant be issued for. the apprehension of Mr. Howard. Sir E. SUGDEN said he should object to that; He believed the Hon. Mcrobcr for Kilkeuuy had said that he had lately seen Mr. Howard. Mr. HUME—No, no. Sir E. SUGDEN--I beg your pardon.—(Hear) Mr. HUME--I beg yours.—(A laugh.) Sir E. SUGDEN—I really must beg the 1 1 °"' Member's pardon.—(A laugh.) Mr. HUME—WeII, then, Sir, I beg to know what I did say.—(Laughter.) I quite contradict what the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman states of 0 1 speech. Sir E. SUGDEN said he had always found that th e person speaking was the individual least likely to knov l what he said.—(Laughter.) Of course, after what O ° Hon. Member h a d sa id, h e must retract w h at h e had stated. But then he did not see what justificati on there could be for the course proposed. Sir R. PEEL suggested the best course would be t° call before it the son or wife of Mr. Howard—the partil that is to say, who had m,sled the messenger by sending him to Huil.—( Hear.) Mr. HUME acquiesced in the suggestion. Sr E. SUGDEN and Sir R. INGLIS objected to callin g tie wife. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. V. FRENCH could see no Wojection to it. Sir R. PEEL was understood to say that the calliri% the son would be sufficient. Mr. WAKLEY said that he dined yesterday' i° the company of a gentleman, who told him that 10 knew Mr. Howard was keeping out of the way. 11 ,.„ e ° did not like t o p u bli s h t h at gent l eman ' s name, but - would give it to the Speaker.—(llear.) The subject then dropped. NEW TAXES. Mr. J. ELLIS asked if. to meet the deficiency to the revenue, the Chancelkr of the Exchequer meant t° propose any new taxes, and if so, what they would b e ' —(Roars of laughter.) No answer was given. PRINCE ALBERT. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the 1 1 ° se resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill far grant° . ° Prince Albert an annuity of 30,0001. Sr It. A llbNertG, s bLlnSuisiebe asked if hadifthe alrealy eper b Report were een true Prince If so, his S erene Hi g h ness wou ld h ave j ust r ight complain. Lord J. RUSSELL sa id t h ere was no ground for the report. P e rh aps one or two persons m i g h t hat e ia been proposed. B u t, un d ou b te dl y, no individuals . ba appointed but with t h e appro b at i on of his S e rena Highness, and w o uld b e appo i nte d d ur i ng hi s S e rene Highness's pleasure.—(Hear.) Colonel SIBTHORP then rose to move t he following p ro vi so :—" Provided n ever th e less, and b 0 it enacted, that i n c ase hi s Serene Highness Prince Albert o f S axe C o b urg an d Gotha s h a ll survive her Maj es ty, suc h sum or sums as may ftY b granted by Act of P a rli a m en t, by lifer way (, to , . r e , nuity, to his Seren e Hi g h ness d ur i ng his natural se shall altogether and wholly cease and determine, in C 9 his Serene Highness shall reside for a less period th ug six months cons e cuti ve ly i n eac h year w i t hi n the Ueit,,, e j Kingdom of Gre a t B r it a i n an d Ireland, or shall to, himself in marri age w i t h any f ore i gn Princess or 1.004" person who shall not be a Protestant, or shall cease t „„ ° profess and adh ere to t h e P rotestant religion as by 18,-, established w ithi n t h ese realms. " In referring to tat l i case cf Prince Leopold, the Hon. Member stated tb : between th e t i me of his marriages with the Princ-is Charlotte and with the daughter of the King of Frail a period o f 27 years, he had received the sue" k ° 1,134,000/. from the British purse ; and he would ' ls :j what was the country benefited by it ? The ge Pe il f ,i. opinion o f t h e country was that never was money SO cessarily paid away ; and what was there, he asked, to Prcr, vent Pri nce Alb ert from follow i ng Prince Leo pel example. He said cavendo tutus. He a pp o ared q , an humbl e an d , h e h oped, a safe guardian of the P°l:3 iO . purse. H e b roug ht f orwar d hi s mot i on from Ile he t respect t o th e S overe i gn , f or no :man wished mere i v honour of her Crown and her own happiness ; ba t moving this necessary precaution he oely discharg e , his duty to the country. He would be no ta wn i n gl4 oB site around the Crown, and be would t e ll the 't e Lord he fancied he should not be l ess i n f avo ur °I 'to high personage for doing his duty. His object o , s h ie secure the residence of his S erene Hi g h ness ia e country. With regard to the n ex t p o i n t o f his ruar'' a d with a tot eign Princess, he sh ou ld not h ave sa id a 11 " by if the Noble Lord had informed the H o use I v - he had omitted the words res p ect i ng t h e ' t he testant religion, in the declaration from ,of throne. Referring again t o t h e oase of the 10'"i*eti the Belgians, the Hon. Me m b er sa id , that he rece;ere a larger sum from this cot ntry than the n ation ° be aware of, and he wi s h e d t h e Ch ancellor of the l‘iethe quer would furnish him with the details. Il e - t io' King of the Belgians), who once professed to he a L e ro testant—to whom w as h e married ? and to whom "po other members of his family about to be allied t he thought this a sufficient reason for the adoption °' he dame, and he would ask the Noble Lord if, wh en h 0 proposed that re, o l ut i on of 50,000/., he believeuwido it would be spe n t i n t hi s country ? There Wa ll 3 . 20 difference (the H on . M em b er said) between t he e bot of the King of Hanover and his Serene Highness' p l o the argument adduced in support of the propo sition bat were unable to ca t c h. H e cou ld not see ° vi I