The Sun. — London, England, 1840-04-13 00:00:00

ENENING EDITION.. CORN-LAWS. MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL, At the meeting of the Common Council on Tuesday Mr. GEORGE STACEY rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, viz. " That this Court do petition the Commons House of Parliament for a total repeal of the intopresent g raduated scale of duties on the imp ortation of foreign Corn the Kingdom, and the establishment of a free trade in all articles of food." He observed that i t was unnecessary for him to enter at any great length into the question, as the advocates of the re. peal of the prevent system of Corn-laws had already made out such a case as must convince the most sceptical of the toabsolue necessity of such a measure. He trusted that the rtin of the City of London would . come forward and pro mote that mos important object. It was painful to reflect, that after a period of 25 years, during which it was the boast of England that she was able to min- stand put an end to all the evils that afflicted the rest of the world, by restc-is 'peace, that she alone should be shut out from the benefits which it was a en. - lated to confer. Notwithstanding that England had been for twenty-flee years engaged in a most tremendous conflict, in which she had given peace to all the world, her population was now suffer. ing the most unparalleled misery and distress. Of what value were all these exertions, and that lavish expenditure of blood and reasure, if it was to result in this, that the prosperity of the country was to centre in a small body of land owners, instead of being diffused throughout the whole country ? He would not take up their time by entering into any statistical details as to the fluctuations that had taken place in the price of eorn and the injury these laws l.ad inflicted upon the agricultural classes. Enough had been said and shown, not only at the various 1 public meetings that had been held, but in both Houses of Parlia ment, to establish the fact that a more fallacious system never had existed. It was notorious that under the present system the far. mer never could reckon upon any decided course. He found him self constantly subjected to the moat fluctuating, ruinous, and gam bling speculations. It had been said that the gentlemen to whom they ought to look for the greatest amount of intelligence and in. formation on the subject of trade and commerce were the most pro foundly ignorant of it. They had been told that their object In seeking the repeal of the Corn-laws was to bring down the wages of the artizans and labourers to the lowest sum that could support life. How little must the persons wh o ar g ue thus be acquainted with the real working of the system. It was a fact hat whe o n corn was cheapest wages we re highest, and all wlabour h wee rice of ac q uainted with the subject m ust know that the p did not depend upon the price of food, but upon the amount of the supply of labour in the market. Now, although the parties who called themselves peculiarly the friend of the farmer and agricul tural labourer asserted that the object of the Cern-laws was to protect their interests, yet the result had shown that under the present system the farmers of the country were g oing fast to ruin. Even if the ports were entirely open, it wr s quite clear that they could not have corn introduced into the coun try at less than 4s per quarter freight. If there was no other be. nefit, the agricultural interest would enjoy a protection to that amount, which was equal to 15 millions per annum. Now did they find the agricultural labourers better protected and better paid than those of other countries by that amount ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Oil the contrary, it was well known that the wages of the agri cultural labourer was reduced to the lowest amount in which he could possibly support life. It was again urged that if the Corn laws were repealed, a vast number of persons would be thrown out of employment. He would ask, however, was there at present room for a single agricultural labourer more than at present em ployed, and whether the introduction of an additional body would not cause a still further reduction of the miserable pittance the Agricultural labourers at present enjoyed. One of the Hon. Mem. hers who spoke in favour of the Corn-laws in the House of Corn. mons, had adverted to the aspirations of the poet : 11l fares the land to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay. Princes and Peers may flourish or may fade, A breath can make them, as a breath has made. But a bold peasantry, their country's pride, When once destroyed, can never be supplied.—(Cheers Did they call the manner in which they were crushing the agri cultural population, preserving the bold peasantry of the country ? No, they should have gone on with the quotation : Here while the proud their long drawn pomp display, There the black gibbet looms across the way.—(Cheere.) What %sere the crimes tha t afflicted society. were they the crimes incidental to luxury ? No, they were the crimes committed by the men who were struggling for existence.—(Cheers.) They had been tcld that agriculture was the true basis of the wealth and power of a nation—now, how was that evidenced ? Look to an 'lent history, and there they would sec that Egypt which, from time in. memorial had been a corn growing country, had been sunk for ages in poverty and distress from which it was only now recovering throueh the talents and intelligence of the great man who governed her. Was it not to be supposed that . England, with all her power of diffusing the arts, sciences, trade, and manufactures, would have been the proudest of the proud ; and that her merchants would have been. among the great 1 ones of the earth ; but what was the case ? Why, owing to the Ipresent existing Corn-laws, which were kept up only for the pur pose of supporting a small band, the trade and commerce of the i country was crippled and injured. Some time since a great outcry had been raised ag ainst railwa y s, and gentlemen were struck with a larm when it was intim at e d to them that railways were coming near their property; but at the p resent moment what was the , case ? Why, those who were formerly so much against them now, saw that the nearer they brought their fellow-creatures to them, the more they increased the value of their property ? Years back, within three miles north, east, smith, and west of where , he was then standing were fields of corn, but what was \ the case at present ? Why, by the building and other things that j were upon the land, its value was incresseci fifty fold.—(Cheers.) i The Corn-law supporters, in his opinion, were like the boy who i had the goose that laid the golden eggs —th4 were trying to get i everything, and would ultimately get nothing. The agriculturists I complained of the taxes to which they were subjected, and they l complained loudly of tithes. Now, he would venture to say, that the agriculturists did not suffer so much from that as many of the \ inhabitants of that City,—(Cheers.) Those taxes atrected the City of London, and large and populous places, far more than it did the agricultural districts.—(Cheers.) He would not occupy the time -4\of the Court by going into detail on the subject, as there were oth. rs present far more able than himself to do so. He was proud in having been the first to bring this motion under the attention of the Court, and he would leave it to others to discuss it, who were far more able than himself. It had been said in wisot a lamentable situation would England be placed, were she to rely upon a foreign country for a supply of corn, and a war were to arise. Of all the empty fears he had ever heard expressed, that was the worst. 1 hose who advanced such argument forgot that iii the exact proportion as countries became interested in each others' commerce the more difficult was it for them suddenly to cut off all intercourse—a mutual dependence on each other was created which rendered war impracticable. Tile Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving " That this Court do petition the Commons House of Parliament for a total repeal of the present graduated scale of duties on the importation of foreign corn into the kingdom, and the establishment of a tree trade in all ar ticles of food."—(Hear, hear.) Mr. LART seconded the motion. He did not expect that these laws would be totally and immediately repealed, but he was con vinced that some legislation on the subject was necessary, and he trusted that that Court would do all it could to obtain the repeal of those obnoxious and iniquitous laws.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion the happiness of the people, and the prosperity of the nation, as a commercial nation, depended on a full and competent supply of food being furnished to the people. It had been said that if those laws were repealed, poor land would be thrown out of cultivation. He thought the sooner poor land was thrown out of cultivation the better, if for the purposes of keeping it in cultivation the country have to pay a high price for foreign corn. Let the Court consider what the effect of the Corn-laws was. They re stricted intercourse between country and country. He was himself a manufacturer, and knew a person who found that he could pur. chase the article which he manufactured on the continent and send it over here, and sell it chezmer than he could afford to do, manufac turing it himself. The reason was that labour in this country suff_ feted under dearness of bread, which had produeed poverty, discon tent, and disloyalty. It had been found that the demagogues, who profited by agitating the lower classes, were opposed to the repeal of the Corn laws, because they feared the result would be to prevent the discontent on which they worked, and knew that cheap bread convinced the produce satisfaction and content. H e was qu i te the time was now arrived when the Poor-l aws cou ld not b e main tained in cpnjunction with the Corn-laws. How could out-door -relief be denied to men whom the operation of the Corn. laws prevented from obtaining employment, or prevented from obtaining for their wages the requisite amount of the neces caries of life ?--(Hear, hear.) If the labourers could get a larger quantity of bread for their money, a very moderate amount of wages would suffice to keep them in comfort. It was said by some that the repeal of the Corn-laws would produce great distress, and that the national debt would never be liquidated. He would ask in reply whether the nation could exist without commerce and manufactures ? Was this nation, or could it be, an agricultural country ? No. Our trade had in fact outgrown our agriculture. The present Corn-laws were, he was convinced, prejudicial to land, and the sooner they were abolished the better for all interests, He cordially seconded the motion. Mr. HEPPELL said he rose to oppose the motion, not that he doubted the injustice and the impolicy of the Corn-laws—not that he doubted their ill effects upon all orders of society.—(Hear, hear.) Why then, it would be asked, should he oppose the proposition for a ' petition against the Corn-laws ? Because he was thoroughly con. vinced that it was utterly futile—that it was positively inane, to pe tition the House of Commons in its present constitution.—(Hear, hear.) After some weeks that House had been engaged in a course of inteference with the law and the judges of the land—after, with petty tyranny, incarcerating the officers of the law—after im prisoning a stripling for acting in obedience to his father's orders— the House had received with derisive cheering a proceeding by which the question of the Corn-laws, so awful in its importance—. was got rid of without placing on record the names of those who voted for and against the repeal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) Me should therefore venture to move an amendment to the effect, that that Court was duly sensible of the many and great mischi e f s arising from the impolitic and unjust restrictions on the trade in Corn, but nevertheless abstained from petitioning the House of Commons from a conviction that it was useless to petition the House of Commons as at present constituted, for a remedy for the evils under which the people were suffering, if such remedy should be deemed, to sairifice any portion of . the interests of the landed classes of the community. It t was his conviction there was nothing • in that amendment but was Court t ctly true. He had felt it his duty to propose it; but if the benefit, should differ from him in opinion, and was however small, would arise from the anti believed that any adoption of the petiticn, willing to vote for it ; but hecould not withhold allowing the Court m an ea o r prirtunity of putting o n record their opinions on the subj ec t. Mr. ANDERTON had gr ea t p l easure in seconding ment, believing that the Hou se o f Commons never wanted the amend_ his reform more than at the present moment. He wa s very g had had the boldness to propose this resolution, and believed that friend if it were carried it would tend more to effect a further Reform in that House than any question that had ever before been dis cussed in that Court. It was im p os sib l e to look at the proeeedin ; g of the House of Commo ns without seein g a refor m in that House was necessary, and the Reform he would effect would be to return those gentlemen for three years instead of seven.—t Cries of " One year only")—for he believed that triennial Parliaments were the only means of saving the country.—(Hear, hear.) He would not take up'the time of the Court in discussing this question, because he confessed he hardly understood it—(Laughter)—but in that respect he did not much differ from the House of Commons—(Hear, hear) for after three nights' discussion they had shirked the question, and had not ventured to come to a resolution upon it, but had left the thing just as they found it, and he hoped that Court would do the same.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Seevesemuch regretted the introduction of the amendment. He was ready to admit great reform was necessary in the Hou se of Commons as now constituted, but he thought th• Corporation of London should not refrain from going into a question because a \ trirusrtraknwo"w necessary ,vould b, in the House of C om mons—a thing which they sup port the amendment on truism—that the Reform sawary for the country—(Hear, that was before the Court, was is . ment of that description ? them never to take up political matter had been disposed of to ear.)—but when a question like he thought it would be better for in questions. laughter, but that was only occasioned, time since in that Court, by one part victory and the other that they distant. He should be inclined to o m m i e ll o h ther occasion, because it contained a (Hear ac i l , not done everything that was nee If so be thrown aside by an amend- It was quite true this ouse by a ruse, amid roars of as a similar scene a short wet. : thinkingtrk they ofeblttaiitnied, which were so sible, the measure being to be brought fii3crs-ved.d again that Session, they might obtain yet an alteration of laws,these r is s luriotes to the commerce of the country to pauperism. He was not, however, But h h ad e infavour vo and as it now stood, and when the amendment , o f , he should move another, for he was not its uh favou r the at of 3 total repeal—(lleac;—but of a moderate fixed duty osa so beneficial p m , motion as b een got rid Many li zuntry 4 to entire repeal.—(Hear, hear.) The commerce of tisase step must be considered to be in au artificial state. Man barked large capitals in the growth of corn, anti they must not by ' ; ) sudden and total repeal be shaken to the foundation, but a moderate fixed duty must be first obtained, th et persons in that line of busi- ness might have an opportunity of righting themselves. As re garded the trade in corn it appeared that article, which had always been the subject of nibbling interference by the Legislature of the country, but not for the benefit of the farmer, the labourer, or the manufacturer, but to keep up high rents that the landowners might support themselves in luxury. At one period in the last century a bounty was given for the exportation of corn to the amount of a million and a-half, for the benefit of the agriculturist, because more corn was grown than could be consumed. After that period there was a duty of 641. on importation, and when co rn was at 445., the bounty on exportation ceased, and the Axed duty came into force. The object of landowners was to increase the prioe of a commodity which was one of the necessaries of life, merely because the number of these customers had increased, and t he quantity of land culti vated remained the same. Why such a monopoly was neither more nor less than if 100 men were ordered to subsist upon the same quantity of land which could only give food to 9.0. It was said that the repeal of these laws would lower the price of bread, and consequently the price of wages. He believed that was a com plete fallacy. The result would be to give some employment to the manufacturing operative, who would consequently have more money to lay out in food, and in that way even the corn-grower would be benefited. The manufacturing interest had outstripped the agricultural, and was now the leading interest in that country. —(Cries of " No, no.") Gentlemen might say no, but destroy the manufacturing interest,and where would the agricultural interest be? It was well known that while the:manufacturing interest had grown up the agricultural interest had gone down. Could they find any where a more stupid, indifferent, ignorant set of men than those who cultivated the ground?—(No, no.) Who was it joined the ranks of the impostor Thom at Canterbury ?—(Hear.) Who were the great bulk of the rioters at Newport ?—(Cries of " No, no ; they were workers and miners.") He had endeavoured, when out of town, to get into conversation with the agricultural la bourers, and he rarely found them acquainted with any thing fur. ther than knowing how to drive their spades into the earth. It was true that these men should be placed in a better situation.—(Hear.) It was argued that certain lands would be thrown out of cultivation if the Corn.laws were repealed. If they were not able to pay the expenses of cultivation they ought lobe thrown out. Would any one say that steam-boats should be prohibited by Act of Parliament from going faster than sailing boats least they might throw the latter out of employment. Such a regulation would be equally preposte rous with that of endeavouring to make common land pay as much as the best land. He trusted the amendment which had been pro posed would be negatived by a large majority. Mr. BOWEN regretted that the amendment had been drawn up in the terms which had been submitted to the Hall. If that amendment had been proposed it was his intention to have met the question distinctly by moving the previous question, t :.cause he differed from the motion in toto. It appeared to him the Corn law agitation had been set on foot by some men of large capital Who, for the promotion of their own interests, had banded together, and had resorted to the most unjustifiable means—unjust in them selves, and unfair towards their opponents. They had sent about men who were paid for preaching their doctrines, and it was really a serious thing that the Corporation of London should join them selves with men whose object, he believed, was to inflict a serious evil upon the interests of the country. It was said that only a small band were defending the agricultural interests. Who were alluded to, he did not know.—(A cry of "the landowners.") His opinion was, that every man who tilled the ground had the bread of his labour—that universal England, except a few overgrown and enormously wealthy men, who had procured that wealth from the sinews of the labourers (he meant the manufacturers), were all in favour of the agricultural interest.—(Hear, hear.) These m a nufacturers had built mills, and c alled u p a popula. tion around them, which, but for them, would never have had existence, and now when the trade, which a long war had thrown into their hands had ceased—when other nations began to menu facture for themselves, they got up the present agitation against the Corn-laws. The competition abroad had interfered materially with the profits of that class. He maintained that it was the working man in the manufactories, that was maintained on the smallest pittance.—(Hear, hear.) What was the object of the manufacturer in agitating this question—was it to give their labourers more food ? No, but it was to see with how small a quantity they would be satisfied, and then to decrease their wages, in order to enable the manufacturers to compete with the manufacturers abroad.—(Cries of " No, no.") The Worthy Deputy opposite had told them that the agricultural labourers were stupid, poor, and ignorant. Now, he believed that they were neither stupid, poor, nor ignorant, cbmpared with the other masses of se eiety : but this he should believe, that they were far more vir. tuous. Let those who doubted this traverse the land on the Sab bath.—(Hear, hear.) Where, he weuld ask, did Burns take his Cotter's Saturday night" from?—(Hear, hear.) Was it from the manufacturers of Glasgow, or his own farm ? He took it from what he saw ; he was the poet of nature, and from nature alone he took nis subject. Let those who maintained that the manufacturing labourer W 24 more vir tuous than the agricultural, go to Glasgow or Manchester on a Sunday, where would they find the mass of the people if they did Would it be worshipping Gcd, or perambulating the fields ing his works, or would it be in the public house or the beer hops, or in congregations met for political purposes.—( Hear, hear.) rhey had been told that certain portions of the land ought to be brown out of cultivation. He thought at first that that was fight; but he was of a rely different opinion now ; for ,e knew that many farmers had brought land into cultivation ..hich had been considered good for nothing, but which now ielded good props. He was of opinion that they ought not in any ray to do away with the Corn-laws. For twenty-five years they ad been in existence, and during that time they had worked well. —(Cries of " Oh, oh.) For there had been less fluctuations during heir existence in the necessaries of life in this country than in 'ranee. He was of opinion that if the law was repealed, in a ery short time a great portion of the amble land of England would e thrown out of cultivation, and lie therefore trusted that that :ourt would not throw it. weight into the scale of those who were favour of a repeal of the laws, by adopting the petition. Mr. TAYLOR said that they had been told to let well alone—that he Corn. laws hail worked well, and that therefore they ought to be allowed to exist. Now, he would ask what was the well that they were to let alone. There had been a dispute in the newspapers and in the Houses of Parliament as to the amount of wages the agricul tural labourer_harl to live on. The dispute was between what was the maximum and minimum. Wasit between Bs. and '2os. ? Cer tainly not, for the Duke of Buckingham, who had denied that he had stated that he wondered the agricultural labourers should corn plain of having Os. a week, had admitted that the maximum was 10s.—(Cht ers.) That was just the paltry pittance of Is. a week mow. Mr. ItaowN objected to the lion. Gentleman going on, as there was no Court, there being no Alderman present except the Lord ;co ? Mayor. Mr. TAYLOR thought that if the Court was good while Mr. Bowen spoke, it was equally so while he was speaking. He had talked a great deal of leaving well alone, and he hoped, therefore, he would leave the Court alone. —(Laughter.) Was 10s. a week, he would ask, enough for a man to live on and keep a family ? He thought common sense and common justice would say it was not. It was the wish of the landlords to maintain the presets; Corn law, and not the wish any more than it was the interest of the agricultural labourers. Let them compare things now with what they were forty yea-ta ago. The same land that now produced 40s. or 50s. an acre, then produced only 10s. an acre ; and thus the come of the landlord was quadrupled, while the labourer's wages were less than they were, although he had to pay twice as much for his bread.—(Hear.) He wondered that gentlemen should in the City of London, and before so many connected with the manu facturing interests, endeavour to maintain the fallacy that if food was cheaper, wages would be lower. That had been tested by ex perience, and it had been shown that wages did not fall with the price of food. He knew the wages of journeymen printers were not reduced when bread was cheaper.—(Hear.) He, therefore, maintained that there was no conspiracy among the master manu facturers to create agitation on the Corn-laws for unworthy pur poses, and in order to cheat the people. A gentleman who had spoken stated that he could not understand the question, and that the House of Commons did not understand it. None were so blind as those that wculd not see, and the majority of the House of Commons had an interest in starving the poor.—( Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") The majority of the House of Com mons were landlords, whose rents, as he had stated, had been rising, while the means of the poor to maintain themselves had been reduced.—(Hear, hear.) It was in vain to expect justice from the House of Commons; and although he agreed, that the Chartists had been very foolish in the means they employed for obtaining a redress of their grievances. yet their object was quite right, and it was useless to petition that House for an alteration of the Corn-laws, until it represented the people. At present the House of Commons only exercised its powers for the purpose of robbery and oppression.— ( "Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") The conduct of the house of Commons had been so well described by a Manchester Alderman that for the information and enlightenment of that Court he would take the liberty of reading it. [The Hon. Gentleman read Mr. Alderman Colxlen's speech at the meeting of the Dele gates, last Saturday, as reported in " The Sun."] He was con vinced there was a deep feeling among the lower classes, that to petition the House of Commons was ridiculous, and the higher classes entertained the feeling that the Corn-laws would only be carried by a pressure from without. That purpose could only be obtained by a great union of all classes of the community except those who were interested in the scandalous monopoly It was such a union that procured the passing of the Reform Bill. The Reform Bill was produced by " pressure from without." He had no difficulty in accounting for the alienation of the working classes front the House of Commons—they had found the Reform Bill a delusion. Englishmen felt that they had political rights, that they were entitled to a full representation in Parliament.— (Hear.) The greatest lawyers had laid it down that the political franchise was the common law right of the people, and Judges had I so held. It was the House of Commons themselves who had nar rowed their own foundations. Parliaments were in former times, and according to the ancient Constitution of the country, annual.— (Cry of " The Corn-laws.") He was speaking of what he con sidered the causes of the maintenance of the dear bread laws. The " Morning Chronicle" had stated that "all that the people were in Government and Legislation they were through the House of Commons." Heaven help the people then :—(A laugh.) But the people had a much broader foundation —they rested on the Monti. ments of their ancient Constitution, which had been handed down from their forefathers. The fact was the House of Commons, as at present constituted, made up their minds to keep up rents et all hazards, let the manufactures and the commerce of the nation perish as they might. The Poor-law he considered an admirable measure in itself—(No, no, and hear, hear)—but he was persuaded it could not be carried into effect under the present Corn_law. He concurred in the principles laid down by the supporters of the amendment, but as a petition to the House of Commons was the usual form—(A laugh)—of expressing the opinions of a public body, he should support the original motion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Le WiENCE said he thought the last speaker had risen to speak about the Corn-laws--(A laugh)—but he had wandered into a great variety of ether topics, which really had nothing to do with thatie felt subject,that the ed House of unreas o nablycomin protracted was the he discussion.—(Hear.) i 1 the people could address their pet s itions, unsatisordily as they were dealt with. This question of the Corn-laws was one between landowner anti manufacturer, not between farmer and menu facturer. It was a fallacy to supp ose that the repeal of the Corn were lower laws would In would lower wages. The rate of wa g es depended not on the price of whe a t, but the demand for labour.--(Hear, hear, 1 ; 8 l i o n , vi i e ,7 bread was higher t han now, wages when bread was lo wer, wages rose to a greater extent than bread had fallen.—(Hear.) Thelabourers were among the best customers for manufactures, and it must strongly influence manufactures, when the labourers had not enough of wages as co m p ared with the price riceof bread, to expend on other articles.—(Hear.) m fr ande o e d , hte s. th u l i s e p t t h i t o t i u n g g h t o a r n s m o t onaltie ex l a lie c was not, however, for leaving corn e ntirel y e su eu ffi n c t i r e y n , t tv p h r i o c t h ee w ti o o u n i , d a r d a d i eti se it tofid.itefedrednuttyfoooftitn3sg.fororm7sa.llwootuheldr e b o e in a liss.poernsle of,s. at quarter. from N t h o e twoforeign tions could go on paying money for any article. Commerce must e b b e ie c c a t r i r o i n ed m o a n de by to ex th eh e a c n o g r e ti lf w tl:e w pr a o s du ti ce of countries. Another was, they had occasioned a drain of the bullion of the Bank of t i, sv, t ee h ur a et t eg, w :rade o ta u nt l g d l aanldiaiys pro prietors ease when a sudden demand was made without preparation, and success th attending regarded therefore the argument went for little, there were no grounds for hoping for any was not unnatural. lie believed if that Courtbu it, and this as long as but vigour they would refrain from repealing those ; they could, until there came a pressure from with w ou s t they must not only show they had justice on their side, ,,t b pre! v s t e g d our 1 to act accordingly. It had been well said wonder was at Ithe great wages paid to the agricultural labourers, but no more than 12s. was paid any where, and the majority were paid less than that. The agricultural labourer must provide for his family as well !as the manufacturing labourer, and, no doubt, suffered as much 1 from the high price of Dread. One great reason urged by the R owe of Commons for not attending to petitions was that they were carried but by a small majority, and, therefore, on this occasion, they should ' avoid affording them a similar excuse. No doubt a great many unjust acts had been done by the House of Commons, hut that was no rea s on w hy they should not petition them, for they had made many laws oft of t) t y vh tl i i c e h he was sure his friend much approved; and bad as the antendnunpltresfus they were now, they were much better than his friend could re collect them to have been. Great improvement had been made ruraernftriiottenrawteitiLuetti; eheetys_lio(tillideatth7etore support i Mr. VS itt.Ls did not understand the whole of the motion of his THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1840. Hon. Friend, especially that part of it which related to free trade I in food. He had not condescended to tell them what food he meant—whether bullocks, or gingerbread, or what. It appeared to him unimportant whether tl .e petition was carried or not. The Court of Common Council were now so odious that no good could result from their petitions. If he thought the poorer classes were adversaries of the Corn-laws, the motion should have his support, but the honourable mover and seconder reminded him of the company of strolling players, who advertised to perform the tragedy of " Hamlet," but found themselves obliged to omit the part of the Prince of Denmark. What was the real question—the real cause of the national distress ? It was the na• tional debt which made the bread of the country so high, and made . . . _ them unable to compote with foreign countries. Why did not gentlemen come forward and tackle that monster, for while it re mained it was as impossible to remove distress as it would be to remove St. Paul's. In fact, the Corporation themselves were taxers of bread. Did they not derive a revenue from corn? They were as much taxers of corn as the other House at the other end of the town. What had taken place during the last fwo years ? Why, the countries to whom we wanted to send our manufactures would not take them. The Prussian League was carrying out the prin. ciples of Bonaparte•s policy for the ruin of this country. Now, if the Corn-laws were repealed, could they compete with foreign coun tries with 20 millions of taxes pressing on the country ? It was quite impossible. He thought a great many unfair observations had been made respecting the character and conduct of the landowners. He regretted to hear the terms in which the aristocracy of the country had been spoken of in that Court. Why, it was owing to their aristocracy that arts and sciences were encouraged, talent brought forward, and charity and morality fostered and encour aged. When he saw their old mansions, their splendid parks, their old servants, and their unbounded hospitality, which he had had thelhonour ofenjoying, he thought it must be that those who as sailed them never had the honour—(Roars of laughter)—he re gretted that such men should be held up to scorn In that Court. It was urged that the manufacturing interest was everything, and the landed interest nothing; but if so, why, instead of petitioning the House of Commons, did they not take possession of these estates at once, and let the landed interest go where it could.—(A laugh.) The value of the agricultural interest in all its branches was 250,000,000/. He would ask them, was that nothing ?—(Hear, hear.) It was said that the agricultural labourers were a low, stupid, ignorant set ; those whom his Honourable Friend had come into contact with might be such, but those he (Mr. Wells) had met with were a moral, religious, industrious, happy class. When the amendment was disposed of it was his intention to move the previous question, being convinced that if they repealed the Corn-laws they would ruin the agricul. turist without doing any good to the manufacturing interests. Mr. Noaass said the effect of the Corn.laws had been to introduce corn from no less than twenty different countries into their ports, but with the system of restrictions which these laws imposed, their merchants and traders were not disposed to speculate in corn, and the bonding system which had grown out of these regulations had brought them to the very verge of ruin. He was astonished to hear one gentleman say, that since the introduction of the present system there had been less fluctuation in prices than formerly. Now the fact was that in the fifteen years preceding the establish ment of these Corn-laws the mean average fluctuation had not exceeded 4s. 10d. per quarter, while in the fifteen years that had elapsed since their introduction, the mean average fluctuation had been not less than 50s. 10d.—(Hear.) How then could the argument be set up that these laws produced steady supplies and fixity of price. With regard to steadiness of supply in one year, they had two million seven or eight hundred thousand quarters of wheat imported, and in the succeeding year not one-sixth of that quantity. They had, of course, in addition to the unsteadiness of supply, an extraordinary fluctuation in price—the money market was deranged—their commerce was interrupted—mercantile spe. eulations were suspended, with all the other inconveniences of such clumsy and improper machinery. The Hon. Mamber for Billings gate had said that if the present laws were to be repealed it would have the effect of reducing the price of labour, especially in the agri cultural districts. Now, what was the fact ? In the year 1834 when the iron hand of oppression ground down the agricultural labourers, causing them to rise up and break the machinery of their employers ; when they did that, they got 11s. or 12s. a week for wages. In the next year, when the price of corn went down, the agriculturists reduced the wages of their labourers from 19.5. to Se. In the next year wheat rose to 565., but there was no advance in the price of agricultural labour. Corn had gone up during the present year, but instead of there being a commensurate advance. in the price of labour, upon the basis laid down by the farmers in 1835, ,he wages were increased to the paltry pittance of Os. a week. What then became of the argument, that the agricultural labourer was better off when there was dear than when there was cheap bread ? And in ..nswer to the argument, that the agricultural labourer would suffer by depression in the home grown consump tion, he had only to say that at the present time the average amount of wages paid to .he agricultural labourer was not as much as it costs many parishes in London to support their paupers, and the expense of keeping felons in the gaols.—(Cheers.) What therefore became of the argument that this was • a healthy system, and ought to be let alone?—(Cheers.) Mr. Bower should have re collected when he quoted the beautiful description of domestic hap piness given by Burns that it was drawn at a time and in a country where no such laws existed.—(Cheers.) He contended that the existence of the present Corn laws was to be attributed to the de fective state of the Reform Bill, that defect being in a great mea sure attributable to the Duke of Buckingham, then Marquis of Chandos. He would venture to say that, under the present law, the fluctuat ons in the price of corn were greater than they had ever been under the old system. He should give his cordial sup port to the original motion. _ _ _ Mr. MAITLAND observed that the Hon. Gentleman who had last sat down had referred to the state of the country at the time Burns wrote his " Cotter's Saturday Night." That Hon. Member would find that the value of cotton manufacturing annually at that period did not amount to much more than 500,0001., while our manufac tories had made the most extraordinary, unprecedented and, he might almost say, unnatural, rapid progress as to amount, in annual value to 37,000,0001. Our progress in manufacturing in cotton goods had gone on side by side with those very Corn-laws that were now so bitterly and suddenly condemned.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He would not argue that it would be politic to impose on Foreign Corn such a restrictive duty is to give the home farmer an undue ad vantage over the foreign agriculturist, but he contended that the national debt to which reference had been made in the course of this debate required them to put the foreign farmer on somewhat the same footing as she home farmer, and that they should not permit the foreign farmer to enter our ports, to enjoy the high prices of our country, to sell his corn, perhaps, to the English agriculturist, wits,' he was not contributing towards the payment of the interest in the enormous national debt.--( Hear, hear.) If they abandoned altogether every species of restrictive duty in foreign corn, they would act most grievously against the first principles of political economy and would err against the first principles of free trade. The statistical details of this question had been amply discussed, and it had, indeed, been said in another ph cc, " give the figures, and I will prove anything."—(lfear, hear, hear.) He should not therfore have recourse to figures, but would simply ob serve that Sir Robert Peel had proved by certain figures the converse of the proposition of those who had advanced them, and have shown that in the manufacture of highly-wrought fabrics there had been an annual increase of eight per cent. He would call upon that Court, and upon every well-wisher to his coun try, to disassociate himself entirely from that party who, in agitating for a repeal of the Corn-laws, had invoked the aid of the Chartists. If the Legislature were to sweep away everything like a fair and proper protective duty, either by means of a fluctuating scale or a fixed impost on foreign corn, they would entail ruin on the agricul tural interests of this country. A great deal had been said about the affluence of the landlords and the enormous rents which they received, but any one at all acquainted with land knew that it was the very worst investment an individual could embark his capital in, What would be the result, if men of stern purpose were to arise, and attempt to carry into operation the violent principles of coercing the Legislature, asserted by the opponents of the Corn. laws ? It was a fallacy to call this a poor man's question. It was incor rect to say that the man who paid 9.loths of his income for bread, was more interested in the question than he who paid only 2-3rds or one-half. So large was the dead weight of labour on the land of the lower grades, that the simulus arising from an extension of manufactures through the repeal of the Corn-laws, would be but temporary—land would be thrown out of cultivation. It wa absurd to say that capital employed in cultivating the poorer lands was thrown away, for lime and other manures would speedily con vert the poorest lands into the richest.—(Hear, hear, hear.) No country could be said to be truly rich till a considerable portion of its capital was invested in thus improving and cultivating land. And who could be insensible to the vast difference in the respective tendencies of the labour in agriculture and in mauufac tures ? Who ',would not acknowledge, when he looked upon the miserable, sickly, feeble artisan, engaged in the emaciating toil of crowded factories. that far happier was the lot of the hale, hearty, agricultural labourer, employed in the healthy, pleasing task of till ing the land, amidst all the beauties and the attractions of nature. M. Pewmess said the agricultural and manufacturing interests only had been spoken of. He thought there was another large portion of the community whose interests ought to be regarded. He was reminded of it by the petition of the inhabitants of the City of London, signed by 37,000 persons, whose interests he thought the Court should take into consideration. When they considered the population of the country was in.. creasing at a ratio of one thousand per day, he thought something should be done to secure sustenance for this larger increase of population. If it were found the manufac. tures of the country could not be extended further, and that the supply of provisions had also attained its maximum, it was evident the Legislature ought to adopt some measure with regard to this im portant question. He looked at it as one which affected the whole population of the country, and if It were necessary increased employment should be given to the people in order that they might obtain the support they ought to receive, this could be done in no other way than by snaking some regula tion with respect to the Corn-laws. He thought a beneficial altera tion might be made which, without injuring the agriculturist; would benefit the manufacturers. The present fluctuation of duty ope. rated to prevent that fall benefit being received by their commercial transactions with other countries, which they would otherwise enjoy. Some said why cot impost corn from Canada? Be. cause it was impossible to ascertain what price would be obtained in this country ; but if they kept the price of corn moderate, in which the alteration would not exceed 10 or 15 per cent., they could send their manufactures to obtain corn to the benefit alike of the manufactures and the population of the country. What he contended was that the Corn.laws ope rated without advantage to the manufacturer or agriculturist. No great interest could be injured without every other class of the coin mutiny suffering in consequence. He should, therefore, regret the adoption of any measure which would at all injure the agricultural in. terest. What he wished was, some plan by which no interest would be injured, but the community greatly benefited, which he was per suaded was possible. Another class greatly affected by the high price of bread was the small fundholders. He should therefore seriously snpport an application to Parliament. Mr. GALLOWAY thought they should discuss this important slues tion before a larger assembly, and wished an adjournment.—(No, no.) He wished a total repeal, but thought at present the safest plan was to obtain a moderate fixed duty. It had been said this was not a poor man's question ; he should like to know who were so much interested in it as the poor ? All classes were deeply interested in it, but the poor of all classes especially. Everything was regulated by supply and demand,and it was a com plete fallacy to suppose that the price of corns had:any effect what ever in the price of labour. If these laws were not repealed, he was firmly convinced that the best interests of the country would suffer. He believed that there was a difference of at least 60 per cent. between the price of food in this ceunkv and on the continent. The exclusive advantages :which England enjoyed from her ma chinery were hers no longer, and flo,erce,igalnly:coamppoeotritmicealnh,saqdueensotiromno,uasnldy increased within the last few years, hy which the manufacturing superiority of England was almost annihilated. He thought the had his best support.—("Question.") ") repeated what had been m. - asserted, rici that of men than the • a more ignorant miserable set um they than present the n t received rewa rd werewhich upon 9s—how could they, la. bourers did not exist. le,s i er ,a egi r r) t lo t i c eu u dn. l d a s r particularly acatoictt How could they a week, educate themsels e •e y ; it w l a r s . questionosnT was A th c even upon their own maximum of given them more as a charitable for pittance, labour. The national debt they were entitled to receive but not one of them had been referred to by several gentlemen, or their families ? In fact the wages had pointed out the ) Aftor some furthar obser and the national debt.—(Hear, hear.. that he could not consent ag it e t s an th c e e y , vations, Mr, Stacey concluded by saying . n. most remote connection between the Corn-laws to any alteration in the terms of his motion. by a large majority. to introduce instead Mr. STEVENS then moved as an ame ndment, The question was then put, and the amendment was negatived of the words " a free trade," the words " a mo d e rate fixed duty." • nm ent of the An attempt was then made to move the acljour After a short discussion, the amendment was carried by a large majority. Court, which was negatived. The motion for the petition in the amended t er ms was then agreed to, and the C our t adjourned. ESSEX.--On Monday last a meeting of the no bility, clergy, gentry, and inhabitants was held in the County Room at the Shire Ball, for the purpose of forming a Branch of the London Diocesan Board of Education. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 11. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack shortly after Three o'Clock. PRINTED PAPERS BILL. The Printed Papers Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that imme diately after Easter, he should move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider what regulations it was expedient to adopt respecting the publications of their Lordship's House. ISLAND OF GUERNSEY. Lord DENMAN presented a petition from Messrs. Ladbrook, bankers, London, complaining of the state of the law in Guernsey and the adjacent islands, and stating that, owing to the delays in the courts of law, they had been for a long time unable to recover the sum of 4001., due to them from inhabitants of the island of Guernsey on bills of exchange, and that from the same cause three years had elapsed in an undefended cause without their being able to obtain any thing, while the expenses were most ruinous. His Lordship begged to call the attention of the Government to the subject. MEDICAL REFORM. Lord DENMAN and the Marquis of NORMANBY pre sented petitions (the former from physicians and sur geons of Nottingham) praying for medical reform. CORN-LAWS. Lord SYDNEY and the Earl of CLARENDON presented petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The Marquis of NORMA. NBY presented petitions in favour of Church Extension. Several Bills on the table were ad vance d a s t age . The House then adjourned to this day. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL U. The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past Three o'Clock. Mr. DUNBAR presented a petition from the Minis ters, Elders, and Congregation of Elgin, against the in.. trusion of Ministers into the Church of Scotland. Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from some parish in Roxburghshire, against Lay Church patronage ; also a petition from certain inhabitants of the same county, praying. for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. Colonel RUSH BROOKE presented a petition from some place in Suffolk, praying for Church Extension. Sir C. BROOKE VERB presented a petition with a similar prayer. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Hawick, in Scotland, praying for a repeal of the Corn laws ; also similar petitions from a person residing at Dudley, from the Catholic congregation of Chester, a petition in favour of Jewish emancipation from an in dividual residing at Kennington, and a petition from a place the name of which we could not catch, in favour of Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions from the in habitants of Lincoln's Inn, the inhabitants of Rother hithe, and the inhabitants of Clare-market, praying for a repeal of the existing Corn-laws. Mr. LOWTHER presented a petition from York, pra:s ing the House not to assent to any alteration of the Clergy Reserves in Upper Canada. Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from Glasgow in favour of the Copyrights Design Bill. Mr. HODGSON presented a petition from Swansea complaining of the working of the Municipal Corpora tion Act. The petition was ordered to be referred to the Committee now sitting on the subject. Col. T. WOOD presented a petition from Staines, praying for Church Extension. Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that immediately after Easter he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to emend the laws relating to Parliamentary Elections in England and Wales.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would defer, till after Easter, the motion of which he had given notice for Tuesday next, to introduce a Bill to amend the sixth and seventh George IV., entitled the Clergy Reserves Bill. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN hoped the Noble Lord would not exclude from the motion of which he had given notice, a clause to amend the laws relating to the registratioc of voters. Lord.'.. RUSSELL said that in bringing forward Lis motion he would state his general views as far as regarded Ireland also. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would move as an amendment to the motion which had been made last night, relating to the payments made to Roman Catholic Clergymen in the British Colonies, that the returns should be extended to all classes of Clergymen, and to all denoMinations of Dissenters in the British Colonies. The lion. and Learned Gentleman then gave notice of a motion with regard to the petition of Mr. Bradshaw, in Ireland ; also that after Easter he would call the attention of the House to the state of the occupiers of land in India ; also that on the first motion, that the Speaker do leave the Chair for going into Committee on the Irish Registration Bill, he would move that a Select Com mittee should be appointed to inquire into the law with respect to the registration of voters in Great Britain and Ireland, and to report on the practicability of assimilating the law in both countries ; also that, on the motion for going into Committee on the Irish Registration Bill, he should move that the House should go into Committee that day six months. Sir H. INGLIS wished to ask if there would be any objection to lay before the House the opinion of the Judges on the Clergy Reserves Bill (Canada). Lord J. RUSSELL could not then answer the ques tion. He would take time and consider the subject. Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that on Thursday, the 7th of May, he would call the attention of the House to the subject of Church Extension. Messengers from the House of Lords brought down the Printed Papers Bill with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House was desired. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Bill, with the amendments, be printed, and taken into consideration on Monday next (this day.) Mr. HOPE complained of some returns, relative to Epping Forest, which had been moved for, and which were calculated to throw imputations upon the character of a noble relative of his, Lord Douglas. After a few words from Mr. Wallace and the Lord- Advocate, the subject was dropped. The Report upon Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill was postponed till Monday next (this day.) BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. In answer to Lord HOTHAAI, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he proposed on Monday to bring on the amendment of th e P r i n t e d Papers Bill, and as far as he understood those amend ments he thoaght he should move that they be agreed to. He should next take Lord Seaton's An nuity Bill, and then the Admiralty Courts' Bill. SUPPLY. The Report of the Committee of Supply was brough up and agreed to. CHINA. Sir ROBERT PEEL having given notice that he would this day move the production of the Order in Council directing reprisals on vessels belon g ing to China, the necessity for such motion was abrogated by the return of the Paper itself, directinc , the reprisals, and ordering a Commission for the in stitution of Courts' of Admiralty and Vice-Admi ralty. He begged to ask whether, as the commission was not yet prepared, there would be any objection to lay a copy of it on the table as soon as it was ready ? Lord PALMERSTON replied in the affirmative. Sir R. PEEL apprehended that the Order in Coun cil contained positive instructions to all her Majesty's vessels of war to seize all vessels belonging to the Em peror of China or to his subjects, not only on the coasts of China, but in all other parts of the world. Then, in the event of seizures taking place, he begged leave to ask what would he done w ith the property seized ? He apprehended that the course would be to detain the vessels and not proceed to adjudicate upon the property in the Admiralty Courts, which adjudication would de pend upon ulterior events. The main question which he wished to ask, was whether the order in Council gave inst ruct i ons t o a ll her Majes t y' s vessels of w a r t o seize all vesse l s b e l on ging to the Emp eror of China in whatev er seas t h ey m ight be found. Lor PALMERSTON replied th at the Order g ave full autho r i ty to an y of her Majesty's ships of war that might fall in with Chinese vessels to detain them. Of course the O r d er in Council would apply Practically only to such of her Majesty's ships as were on the coasts of China. Any vessels so detained would be held in safe custody until the demands of her Majesty's Government were satisfied. If those demands were complied with, they would of course be released ; but if the demands were refused, and the vessels were condemned by the Courts of Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty, the proceedingiwould be disposed of ac cording to the orders which the Commission might think proper to issue. Sir R. PEEL said the Noble Lord assumed that the trade of China was carried on only on the coast of China, and in ordinary circumstances that was perhaps the case ; but under new circumstances exceptions might occur. He now begged to ask if the usual pro clamation as to the distribution of prize money had been issued. Lord PALMERSTON said there had been no such proclamation. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there had not been a declaration of war, properly so called, but only an attempt to obtain reparation. Sir R. PEEL did not wish to go into the question of war, which he had purposely avoided. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Honour able Baronet had asked him whether there was an in timation of bringing clown a message from the Crown respecting China. He (Lord John Russell) then begged leave to reserve his answer, but he had no wish to refuse information on the subject, and had to observe that there might be news from China which would make it incumbent to bring down a message, but he wished it to be understood that as far as matters had proceeded at present it was not intended to advise the Crown to send down a message. In answer to Sir R. PEEL, Lord PALMERSTON intimated that the Com mission would be produced as soon as it was prepated. CALL OF THE HOUSE. Mr. GR A.TTAN intimated that on Monday he should move a call of the House on Lord Stanley's Bill for Irish Registration. Sir R. PEEL and Lord J. RUSSELL expressed them selves to the effect that this did not rest with the dis cretion of individual Members, but an order of the House must be obtained for the call—not like closing the Galleries, which any Member could do at pleasure. The House then adjourned at a Quarter past Four. ELECTION COMMITTEES. LUDLOW. The Committee met . again on Saturday at 11 o'clock. Sarah Merrick was recalled, and, in reply to ques tions from Mr. Cockburn, stated that on Monday, the 3d of June, prior to this election, she went to Coleman's house, and saw Mrs. Coleman, who informed her that she had the money for Mr. Merrick, if he chose to take it, and would vote for Mr. Clive ; and afterwards took her into her bed r.o , ria, and showed her some money, but what amount she could not tell. There were a great many sovereigns. Mrs. Coleman said the money should be given to her husband after he had voted. Witness informed her husband of what Mrs. Coleman had stated, and subsequently returned and told Mrs. Cole man, by desire of her husband, that if the money were not sent to him immediately, it would be unnecessary to say anything more upon the subject, as he did not wish to be bothered further about it. While conversing with Mrs. Coleman, Mr. Coleman came in, and having informed him of the nature of her business, at the request of Mrs. Coleman she was desired to wait a few minutes. Mr. and Mrs. Coleman having retired, the latter in a few minutes returned, and put into witness's hand 3.5/. in sovereigns, and three .51. notes, inclosed in a piece of brown paper, saying she would lend it to her. Witness replied— " Very well," and went home and gave it to her husband. —[The piece of brown paper, with three country bank notes and a quantity of sovereigns, was here produced and identified by the witness as being the money she re ceived from Mrs. Coleman.] She was desired to tell her husband not to vote until the morning, nor to come to Coleman's until after the election had concluded. On being cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant MERE wETHER, the witness stated that she handed the money to her husband, and they had kept it ever since, be cause although having paid away several sums subse quently, they had not had any occasion to touch this money. She also stated that on the polling day she saw Mr. Coppock exhibiting the money from the bal cony of a house in Ludlow, but did not hear what Mr. Coppock said. He had previously been to her house and saw her husband, but she did not hear what passed between them. By Mr. HORSMAN, a member of the Committee. — Her husband, although the money was given to him to vote for Mr. Clive, voted for Mr. Alcock. He had always been a Reformer. Her husband knew the money was given for his vote for Mr. Clive. By Lord SANDON—She did not at the time think it was a singular thing that Mr. Coppock should ex hibit the money in the way he did. She gave it to Mr. Coppock, having taken it out of her husband's drawer, in which it had been locked up. She had no particular reason for handing it to Mr. Coppock, although she would not have given it to any person who might have chanced to have asked for it. By Lord HowlcK—lt was by her husband's desire that she gave the money to Mr. Coppock. By Mr. HoRsMAN—Mr. Coppock and her husband came to the house together upon this occasion. Mr. Coppock accompanied her into the bed room— (Laughter)—where she gave him the money. Her husband went into the kitchen. By the CHAIRMAN—She bad made a mistake in say ing she had kept the money ever since she received it from Mrs. Coleman, because it certainly had bee❑ in Mr. Coppock's possession. By Mr. HoitsmAN.,...When she received the money from Mrs. Colcfnan, she did not promise that her husband should vote for Mr. Clive, although undoubtedly that Was the understanding. Her husband chose to vote for Mr. Alcock. Mr. TALBOT then addressed the Committee, and contended that a case of bribery had been clearly sub stantiated against Mr. Clive by means of his agents. Mr. AUSTEN contra argued on behalf of Mr. Clive, and the Learned Counsel having concluded his address, The Committee adjourned at a few minutes after four until twelve o'clock this day, when the decision will be given, and the whole proceedings terminate. CAMBRIDGE. The Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition of Mr. Milner Gibson, against the return of Mr. Manners Sutton for the borough of Cambridge, met on Saturday. Sir Cans. LEMON, Bart., Chair man. Messrs. Austin and Cockburn were counsel for the i petitioner. Mr. B. Andrews and Mr. Sergeant Wrangham were Counsel for the sitting Member. At the sitting of the Committee Mr. ANDREWS objected to the proceedings. He contended that after the General Committee for Elections had made one selection, they had no power to do so again. The Committee decided that their powers were valid. Mr. AUSTIN then opened the petitioners' case, and entered into many cases of bribery and treating of a very gross kind ; which he said he would be enabled to prove, and bring home gross bribery not only to the agents of Mr. Sutton, but as having been committed in his presence. We think it better to give the facts, as they are proved in evidence. He then called Mr. Gunning, the Town Clerk of Cambridge, who pro duced the poll book, and proved the agency of Messrs. Fisher and Twiss for the sitting Member, and that Messrs. Cooper and Cannon acted as agents for the petitioner. Samuel Long, a harness-maker at Cambridge, had been principally engaged by Messrs. Swan. Remem bered the election of 1837. When he voted for Mr. Sutton, had no interviews with him on that occasion. Also remembered the election of 1839—had no inter views with Mr. Fisher, nor did he ever speak with Mr. Sutton in his life. He had been ap prehended and held to bail for bribery—the trial was about to come on in March last, but he had made no communication, either directly or indirectly, with Mr. Cannon, until he saw him in London about six weeks ago. Upon that occasion he gave him a state ment of the circumstances of the charge. He told Mr. Cannon that he had seen Messrs. Mitchell and Fisher during the election in the presence of Mr. Sutton. Told Mr. Cannon that Mr. Mitchell, by Mr. Fisher's desire, had given him forty sovereigns for the purpose of bribery, but upon his oath there was not a word of truth in the statement. He met Mr. Can non by appointment,and not being upon oath be thought he was at liberty to make any statement to him that ha pleased. He believed he might have made more state ments than one to Mr. Cannon—he made them as often as he asked for them. He told Mr. Cannon that he was well acquainted with Mr. Sutton, and was the ge neral agent for the Tory party, and had frequent private interviews with the agents for that gentleman. The witness was examined at great length as to the com munications he had made to the solicitor .for the peti tioner, in which it appeared that the witness had given him a detailed statement of the bribery in which he was engaged, all of which he now stated to be entirely false. When taken into custody he tore up a paper on which were the names of several voters, in whose handwriting he did not know. Mr. COCKBURN—Did you give 9/. to Mr. Smith ? Witness—l am not bound to answer that question. Mr. COCKBURN—Why not ? Mr. ANDREWS objected. The witness was indicted, and he ought to be informed by the Committee that be was not obliged to criminate himself. Mr. Cociatuati did not think the witness required any caution. The Committee inquired whether the witness had not pleaded Guilty ? Mr. Cocksuari said, Yes. Mr. ANDREWS said a motion was now pending to withdraw the plea of guilty, and enter a plea of not guilty. The Committee cautioned the witness that he was not bound to answer any question criminating himself. In answer to Mr. COCKBURN, the witness said the effect of answering the question might criminate himself. Mr. COCKBURN—Did you give nine sovereigns to Mrs. Smith ? The Witness—l decline to answer the question. Mr. COCKBURN submitted that he had a right to an answer to the question. Mr. ANDREWS objected, and after argument, The Committee said that enough had been got from the unwilling witness, and thought the question ought not to be pressed. The Witness was then recalled and said when he was apprehended he had between 16 and 17 pounds upon him. He got it in different places—some of it from the Messrs. Swan—could not say how much. Mr. ANDREWS again objected. There was no proof that Long was in any way an agent for the purposes of Mr. Sutton, any evidence in the case was the other way. Mr. COCKBURN contended that he had a right to treat the witness as a hostile one, and cross-examine him. It was the practice to allow proof to be given of agtncy after the examination of the witness. While th, Committee were discussing the question the Speaker was announced to be at prayers, so that the decision c ould not be given till to-day. FEROCITY of A BULL.--On Monday last, a young man, son of Mr. Larkins, of Wendy, in this county, went into a field adjoining the house, for the purpose of getting out a bull, and when approaching it, the animal ran at him, and ought him under the chin with his horn, by which the young man's cheek was turn up, and his eyes nearly torn out. H e afterwards kneeled upon him. His features could scarcely be discerned, and his life was for some time in great danger. A dog which the young man took with him, seized the bull by the nose; which enabled his friends to release him, who immediately shot the beast.— Cambridge Chronicle. SPIRIT of th, JOURNALS. (From the Globe.) We wish it to be clearly understood, that, in defend ing the Government from what we consider (and Sir Robert Peel as good as confessed) a mere party oppo sition for mere party objects, we have not for a mo ment meant to deny the serious sins of omission with which all parties in this country may well reproach them selves, as regards China. Had Sir R. Peel, in the devotional peroration of his subdued speech, instead of taking freedoms with the text of our Liturgy, con tented himself with praying God to turn from us those evils which WE most righteously have deserved, we should sincerely have joined in the prayer. Had Sir James Graham proposed to solemnize a day of na tional humiliation for years of national eagerness and presumption of enterprise—we could scarcely have opposed it. We do think that British impatience of restraint and discipline has been much to blame in our relations :since the trade was opened with so peculiar a people. What we do not think is, that any acts of the Government could have altered the con sequences of the conflict between British anti-monopoly and Chinese monopoly—British determination to serve customers wherever they could be found, and Chinese apprehension of all intercourse between their and our subjects. The mere increase and enfranchisement of our trade must have brought on a crisis ; nor do we even think that the cautious policy of the East India Company would have long staved it off. (From the Standard.) The question of the Church Reserves in Canada is stated with equal perspicuity and candour in _the petition of the University of Oxford. The claim of the Church is not weakened by the authority of the law, now confessed to be clearly in its favour ; but were the subject still open, reason and justice to the majority of the British nation place it upon an immoveable foundation. The majority of the British nation, including the population of Ireland, are attached to the doctrines and discipline of the united Church of England and Ireland. A still greater majority, in cluding the members of the Church of Scotland, are attached to the principle of an Established Church- The people of the United Kingdom generally are in. sited to emigrate to the Colonies, with a view to extend the scheme of British society in a form, as nearly as cir cumstances will permit, representing the social state at homes and therefore likely to preserve these depen dencies in their political connection with the parent nation. (From the Courier.) We were not deceived in the estimate which we yes terday formed of the character of Lord Denman's opinion of the Printed Papers Bill, although we certainly did not anticipate the Learned Judge's acqui escence in the clause for putting a stop to the actions now pending. This, it will be perceived from the terms of his amendment, will be its undoubted effect :—" That all actions now pending against the printer of the House of Commons in respect of any publication by order of the House, shall be, and the same are hereby stayed and defeated." Now, it seems very difficult to reconcile this amendment with Lord Denman's observation in the in troductory speech, that when he considered the means adopted by the Commons to relieve the embarrassment which has been created by their own resolutions to authorise publication by sale, he saw much to complain of in every point of view, " for it certainly did introduce a mode of paralyzing the proceedings of a Court of Justice through the medium of a communication between other parties, to which, he believed, their Lordships would agree with him they ought not to be exposed." What ever inconvenience may have arisen to the House of Commons, it is perfectly clear it ought not to be re moved at the expense of the injured. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT On Friday Thomas Brewer was opposed by Mr. COOKE, on the part of three creditors, and, in person, by Mr. West. He was supported by Mr. Woodroffe. The insolvent, an elderly man, had been a pin-plate worker. He had been arrested by his brother-in-law, a person named Hatred, and there was upwards of 100/. in Court for the creditors, arising from the sale of his property, and a note had been made by Mr. Commisioner Law that the petition should not be dismissed. It was admitted to be a friendly arrest or execution by Hatred. Mr. CooKE said the execution was then not out of hatred. _ The insolvent remarked that it was not out of ill will. He (the insolvent) had married Hatred's sister last Christmas-day. Mr. COOKE—Then there was some love in the family.—(A laugh.) In answer to a queston, he said he got no fortune with his wife. Mr. COOKE—What, no fortune with your wife Insolvent—None, except herself—and that was for tune enough.—(Laughter.) It appeared that the insolvent had been married " three times." Mr. West, the opposing creditor, and undertaker, had buried his second wife in February, 1839. Mr. West said, on the first of April, 1839, the in solvent wished him to be one of the executors to his will, and he wanted to know what property the insolvent intended to leave by his will. Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—WeII, what property had you to leave ? Insolvent—Oh, nothing at all.—(Loud laughter.) It was proved that the whole property had been sold, and the petition was sustained for the benefit of the creditors. Mr. Commissioner BowEN said the provisional as. signee would divide the money in Court. The insolvent was ordered to be discharged. " A FISH OUT of WATER."—William Plaxton was opposed by Mr. Cooke, on the part of Messrs. Wills and Johnson ; he was supported by Mr. Woodroffe. The insolvent had been the master of the vessel " The Mary," trading from London to Quebec, of which the opposing creditors were the owners. He gave his evidence in a very rough manner, which he termed " seamanlike," and he was threatened to be sent to prison fora month until he knew how to conduct himself. It appeared, according to the insolvent's statement, that his " log-book" had been lost, and, on some further questions being put, he exclaimed—" You are too fast —go to larboard." An account was shown him, which he said he had not delivered to the owners. Mr. WoonaoFFE told him to look attentively to it. It might be his account, although he had not signed it. Insolvent—Oh ! do you think that I am so light in the top-garret as that ? Mr. Commissioner BOwEN told him he must go to prison. Such conduct was not to be tolerated. The insolvent begged pardon, but said he answered as a seaman. Mr. COOK said he was more like a horse-marine. Insolvent—Am I ? Some further questions were put, which he answered in the same manner ; and the Learned Counsel declined to put any more questions to him. Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said he would adjourn the case ; a month's further confinement would, perhaps, quiet him. Mr. WOODROFFE remarked that the insolvent had not been drinking. It was his usual manner. The COURT was about to adjourn the case, but Mr. CooKE called a gentleman who had been pro fessionally concerned far the owners, and twice, in the course of the examination, the insolvent said, " I deny that!" Mr. Commissioner BOWEN declared that he could not suffer such conduct, and he should adjourn the case for three weeks. The case was accordingly adjourned, to give the in. solvent time to amend his manners. SOUTH AUSTRALIA.—We have referred, in our South Australian intelligence, to the irruption of the natives on the Murray River, and their depredations on the flocks re cently conveyed to the Colony. From a letter, dated Novem ber 10, which we saw last night, from a gentleman residing in Bernard-street, North Adelaide,l it seems that the affair in the first instance wore a very formidable aspect, the natives coming down the river in canoes to the number of 600. The settlers retired tewards Adelaide, but it seems the natives were speedily repelled, and order was restored. This hostile display on the part of the Aborigines, is deeply to be lamented.—Aus tralasian Chronicle. WELLINGTON FESTIVAL ARREARS.—TIIC winding up of the affairs of this " great festival," as the Noble Duke emphatically called it, we regret to observe, is not likely to be accomplished so amicably as might be desired. The con duct of the Town Council of Hastings, in reference to the late application for cash, gives anything but satisfaction in Dover ; and by a portion of our County Press this conduct is viewed with great indignation. One Contemporary, at the close of an article on the subject, reiterates, " Again, we say, we trust, for the honour of the Cinque Ports, Hastings will stand alone in this disreputable refusal to bear its fair proportion of expense ; for what a sorry figure would the whole body cut, if it went forth to the world, that, having united to do honour to the greatest man the world ever saw, they afterwards united to do dishonour to themselves by leaving their creditors in the lurch."—Dover Chronicle. SIR ROBERT PEEL ENTERING BUCKINGHAM PALACE BY A BROKEN WINDOW.—A writer in the number of the Quarterly Review just published, says, in speaking of the Tories, " Though they may have been juggled out of power, they will never descend to be juggled in. They will not enter the palace by a back door, and still less by a broken window; they will come, when they do come, on leading principles of public policy." This is equiva lent to saying that they will never enter the palace again, for where is the Tory who has the manliness to say, or the in telligence to discover, what the " principles of his public policy" are ? Neither Sir Robert Peel, nor Lord Stanley, nor Sir J. Graham, nor Sir F. Burdett, nor Lord Lyndhurst, nor any oilier apostate in the ranks of the Tory party can venture to state on what principles they would conduct the Government of the coun try were they in power. The only intelligible principle of ac tion with the recognised leader of the Tories is the principle of expediency. We may therefore take for granted that if Sir Robert Peel should deem it expedient to sc ramble into the palace by a " broken window," as the Reviewer says, h t, is would not scruple to do so, and under those circum C h, obsequious followers, as sheep follow a bellZeer, same ignoblestanhd with amazing alacrity mount the breac h b y t route. Only fancy the Bishop r ts e h t t N s -o , r a t n li d y brethren, in pontificalibus, girding up following Pantaloon.—Bolton free Press. darting through the fractured window Ike so many Harlequins of thEcTretleoroseang(al COUR UESTS. TOWER HAMLETS. " PINTS OF Loa" AND PINTS OF PORTER.—Get ting into debt is easy and pleasant enough, but getting out again frequently proves the very reverse ; and the same may be said of law, for when people enter upon a law-suit, before they have half reached the goal they wish to arrfve at, they generally regret very much that they ever essayed to travel a road so beset with briars, bram bles, and quagmires. Some people, however, are so enamoured of law, that they will wrangle at a debt, no matter how just it may be, in order that they may e n j o y (strange enjoyment) the excitement of legal proceed ings ; of this latter class of persons was the defendant, in a case which came under the cognisance of the Corn missioners of this Court. The plaintiff, a jolly-looking publican named Travers, summoned a red-headed disciple of St. Crispin, for the sum of 9s. Gd., the amount of a score be had run up at his house. Boniface said the defendant occupied a " stall" in the vicinity of his house, and when he chose to work, carried on an extensive cobbling concern ; but, like most of his fraternity, he had a much greater liking for " Hodges' best" than for the lapstone and leather. Owing to his predilection this way, he was very often " hard up," and on such occasions he (Boniface) sup plied him with the usual quartern of his darling beve rage, on the understanding that he was to pay him on the first opportunity. Things went on in this way until his score amounted to 9s. Gd., which he refused to pay—a summons was in consequence taken out against him. The plaintiff here handed a bill of the amount to the Commissioner. Amongst other items set forth in this document were sundry slices of bread and cheese, with onions, and no less than five half-pints of " dog's nose," a beverage compounded of gin, beer, and spice. CommissroNEß (handing the paper back to the plain tiff) All seems fair and straightforward enough ; pray what have you to allege against the payment ? Defendant—My lord, I objects to the dog's-rase. COMMISSIONER—Upon what ground ? Defendant—'Cause I never had more nor two half pints on it ; and as for the bread and cheese and ingins, I nows nuffin about it wotsumever. The COMMISSIONER put a question to the plaintiff as to whether he was quite certain that the defendant had the articles he objected to, who replied that he could swear that he had, as he always put every thing down as he had it. Defendant—l beg pardon, my lord, but there's a pint o' for I wishes to argee. COMMISSIONER-.—l think you know a great deal more about pints of porter than " pints of 10t.," as you call them ; but what is it ? Defendant—Vy, I've heerd say as onybody wot trusts for licker, there arn't no law to rekiver the money► 'cause it's again the statty. COMMISSIONER—That is not the law, and if it was, there is something else we have to take into considers- tion here, and that is equity. The cobler pulled up his stockings, and intimated that as one " pint of lor" had been overruled he s hould not bring forward another. The COMMISSIONERS adjudged the defendant to pAY the debt and costs at 3s. per week. Commisstorma—Let me advise you to leave of dog's•nose, and stick entirely to leather, or you will never become a rich man. Cobbler—lmpossible, my lord , carn't help root's bred in the bone. CommissioNErt—You should turn teetotaller. " Couldn't stand it," gravely exclaimed the cobbler, shaking his head as he retired to make way for thri next suitor. THE MARE ETS. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST WE Per Quarter.' Czrlisle Morpeth Penrith --- Sheffield-- Winchester ...- Per Bushel. Cardiff— Carmarthen— Cowbridge.-- Swansea NllcaL s. to a 39 OS 32 38 66 30 40 56 :33 66 3. 68 78 28 40 s.d. s.d. s.d. s.d. l 00 9 0 0 0 40 0 0 9 4 0 0 5 0 l 0 0 11 0 0 0 5 6 S 4 94 60 7.0 Barley. to s. 60 4t Oats, Beans. F. to s, S. 41 - pease. 43 -- 22 34 2:1 '2B __ .... 38 ;2 48 40 44 35 00 00 0 0 0 n 0 0 00 00 0 0 23 27 Is. d. s. d. 00 44 00 29 00 40 34 40 42 45 s. d. g. d. 00 00 56 00 50 53 56 60 Per 8011. Baroardcastle Durham Richmond 5t0ckt0n.........., 7 6 S 120 1 3 • 0 0 b 0 II 6 16 6 8 0 9 3 7 0 8 8 9 0 120 , 126 166 71) 90, 6 9 8310 0 11 0 1 . 20 19 0 7 0 90, 5 0 8 0 9 0 lib 130 16 6 9 0 99. 6 0 8 0 7 6 80 WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET. , Norfolk and Suffolk -s. 675. to 71s. fine 75 1 : - Lin. and Cain. -- Yorkshire -s. 48s. to 58s. fine ,L -- white , -s. 70s. to 763. fin e n.'77: ...- Foreign, Red -s. 645. to 6135. fine e" n fi t i l , e e 7: 6 :: 'White Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk - Lincolnshire -s. to • .. i , sei. - Yorkshire Wold ~ fine 33.• - Foreign -s L s : to to 7 383 2 1 40 3 , to 4 4 • fine Beans, New - Old 469. to 48s. se, Oats, Potato -g• to 139''' fine fine " 6 --- Poland -s. -s. to 3'2 9 . - 3 0, fine 381- s. - Vriezlanst and Small -5..-s. to • , 3s. fine - lvs;:aling ..- .... 13d. tor 14ct. per Stone. Shelling Malt Rapeseed -1. Os 251. Os. 261. Os. per Last. NEWCASTLE CORN EXCHANGE, Red. White. Wheat, Northumberland s6s 70s 7ls. 764. - Norfolk and Suffolk.- ......... .. 723. 75i 734. 78s. - Berwick and Scotch fits. 651 ....... -s. 68s. - Foreign 6ss. 715........ 695. 755. Rye, Norfolk and Suffolk .--- Foreign 324.33s -s. -1. 1, Barley, Malting, Norfolk and Suffolk... 3S s . 44 s -9. -4. S. 5 - Grinding and Feeding ?Os. 32s -6 S -3 ' . Malt, Norfolk and Suffolk 6.3s 736 -s. --a• cr Beans, Small 36s. 405....... -g• " -s : ~.° - - Tick 42s. 445. - 3. - 7 Pease, White 42s. 435..... -g• - 7 - Gray . . s. s -g• '''."' Oats, Northumberland, Potatoe 3os. 31s -g• --- 7 -- -- Feed 28s 293 --g• -- 7 i - Foreign Flour (per sack) sls. 531....... - "-a' Wneat, R, EVENING EDITION kberdeen Berwick Coldstream Cupar (Fife) Dunbar Elgin Inverness Kelso Kirkaldy Perth Tho First Second 'third First Second Third Wheat. id to 80 50 45 46 50 48 65 48 68 82 64 64 72 4a 62 62 67 60 ^4 size of the HADDIIs Wheat. 763 Od 661 Od Od ,verage DALKI IWheat. 72s Oa 66s Od 49s 62 - , oatm'da'' 37 to 40 - ... 4I 40 _ r .... rola _ - .... ..... 43 •' Beans. 44i u" 40 3 u" :3is 0 Bea l l!' 44s ." Oci 42i a s, Oci SCOTCH MARKETS. Barley. 28 to 31 , 20 26 24 26 26 31 26 49 35 37 34 :IS 2b 27 138 401 measure val 4G[ON CC 11,,rley. 40s Od 36s 6d 33s Od 3ITH COR Barley. 1 4h 13,1 366 Od 26s tfcl Oats. 20 to 25 17 90 17 18 18 22 23 27 22 26 24 25 18 21 :tie; throughout the )RN MARKET. Oats. Pease. 31s OA 42s Od 29s ed 40s Od 27s Od 313 s Od 3/. 4s. 2,1. o.l2ths. .N MARKET. Oats. Pease. 32s Od 44s 6(1 271 4.d 4.9. s Od 23s 4d 3es 0(1 CORNWALL MARKI (Calculated at 24 gallons to the bi ETS. ushel.) untrY. (Calculated at 24 gallons to the bushel.) _...-- Wheat. ---- Barley. L ........ ......—•/ °°3ts. e .. g B. d. to s. d. S. d. to s. d. , S. , i . to - 3 Truro 0 7 0 0 4 0— 0 q oq, Helstone St. Austell 0 9 4 0 4 6 3 Bodmin 0 8 6 0 50— g 3 ,g', Uskeard 8 6 9 0 3 9 40— , 3 `,,: Launceston Camel ford 8 0 , 0 ( 5 0 2 ' 5 .' Penzance lull An inquest was held a t th e s i gn o f the • •V ° de t ' h teer, Sutton-on-Trent, on th e 2 d i nstant, t o uching the e of a new-born female c hild. It appeared from the eyicieUnen that the mother w as : a s i ng l e woman, and had lived tirwr e iar rrea n three years as servant w i t h a f armer of Edw i nstow c, a on man, and who was also the father of the child in quest:„ the i Tuesday, the 31 s t u lt ., t h e girl got up about s i x o 'clool `„'" 11; morning, and attempt e d to d o h er work, b ut was soon tak e- fler upon this her master insisted on her being sent home maste r mistress wished to ha ve a me di ca l man sen t for, but he r ca rt would not permit it ; and she was accordingly placed in e l even without springs, and drawn towards Sutton (a distance w as miles), when, after having gone about a mile, the born in the cart, but di e d b e f ore it reac h e d Sutton. Ve% cir " Died by the visitation of G o d." We understand till_ cumstance has caused great agitation in the neighbo urh°' Nottingham Review. or sl. _P a - --- - r4 ---- -- ------ ;rio • PLATE SUITED FOR rRESENTA , I. by add r.ll • lns it Committees or private individuale requiring splemlid articles of PLATE fur presentation, may, paid letter as under, have drawings sent for their appr• _ b , is desirable letters should state g alloon • expended. t the sum intoodid to O . COX SAVRY, Silversmith, &c., 47, T Cornhill ( Seven d oors frog Graceikurell- street), London. -;. B llt TH S. On the 10th inst., i n Chester-place, Beigrave- are , the squ lady of Stephen Ram, Esq., of a son. D.a. , of On the 11th inst., the lady of George John Lloyd, Thorn Cottage, East Brixton, of a daughter._____.--. MARRIED of On the 9th inst , at Stey • g S MARRIED . e James L.eonard, Craven-street, Strand,i London nin E ' s 3 'its': Fanny,' elsitst daughter of William Whitter, of Ste ning E; 9 On the ith inst ,at C Y am Celt Ar leshire, Mr. A. M'Ewing, to Miss • Ann Harvey, P "n' gY On the llth inst., at St.neras Church, Middlesex, N., liam Thomas Stare Daniel, of Lincoln's-inn, barrister-a 11: to Sarali,only daughter of the late Rev. A. W. Trollope,l):,,ar,, formerly rector of Coins Engaine, Essex, and for many ) - head Master of Christ's Hospital, London. Av 1317 c On the I Ith inst., at Kennington Church , Mr.• - Gracechurch-street, to Jane, eldest daughter of G. Clements, Esq., Kennington-green. DIED. second so 1 1 Captain Thomas Coles, 16th Native Infantry, On the 3d of January, on his passage home from Madnraos,, Charles Coles, Esq., of Clapham, aged 33. d J On the 17th of February last, at Cinnamon-hil l, of Jamaica, Samuel, second son of E. M. Barrett, Esq._ e _...e___ J On the 9th inst., at Stoke Goldington, Bucks, th aged_ i , On the 10th isist., at Croydon, Surrey, Captain It •P" 'a Griffith, R.N., aged 42. e ldest On the 9th inst., at Torquay, Eliza Jane Deverenx, child of Sir Lady Cockburn, aged. On the 19th inst., Martha, the wife of the r,e, Jo).in Hag gift, curate of Denham, Bucks, aged 77. in the Island i Fisher, Esq., of Ilighburv-park, On the 10th inst., Mrs. Fisher, sen , w; ;tow of the late Henry Westmorela nd. On the 11th inst.., , aged 65 at napton, J,;hn Maddox, Esq. At Rowlar.:','s-row, Steprie:i-green, Sarah Lavender, wide% ' t of ale fate Samuel Lavetidei, -- Esq., o f Widon Worcester, 1 r . aged 96. at Ai'..inthorpe , , i On the 12th inst„ in Holborn, Mrs. Hays, formerly of ti ) 1 4 Potteries, Staffordshiraged 65 e, . __,—_ ,„„,,,,,.. i London: Printed and Published by INIIJKD O VOUN 6, of No. 112, Strand, at The Sun. Office, No. 112, Strand_ in tie county ot9liddlcsex.—Monday, April 13, 1840. to 23 39