The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-13 00:00:00

The Glasgow and Renfrew Roads Bill was read a
third time, and passed.
The lichen Roads Bill was also read a third time
and passed, with amendments.
On the motion of Mr. SANFORD, the Lords'
Amendments to the Parrott Navigation Bill were
agreed to.
Mr. HUGHES presented a petition from Conway
in favour of a penny postage, and a petition from. Cur-
narvon against the national plan of education.
• • Petitiona.. agolost,.. national -education were also, pre,
sented by Gen. Lygon from Newton ; by Lord In-
gestrie from the Archdeaconry of Stafford, and other
places ; by Mr. Hogg from Beverley ; by Sir C. Bur-
rell from Shoreham, and other places ; by Colonel
Sibthorp from places in the county of Lincoln ; and by
Mr. Sanford from Wellington.
Petitions in favour of a penny postage were presented
by Mr. HOGG from Beverley, and Mr. SANFORD
from places in the county of Somerset.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL presented a petition
from Athlone, complaining of the ruinous state of the
bridge at that place.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the factory
of Messrs. Maudsley in favour of Mr. R. Hill's plan of
a penny postage. Also one from a surgeon named
Wm. Cook, which stated that in December last he re-
moved some furniture from a house in Camberwell,
which he had a perfect right to do—that sometime after
he saw there had been a trial bud for such removal,
and that a person of the same name bad
been convicted of stealing the furniture, and was suffer-
ing punishment for it. Tile case had been twice brought
under the notice of the authorities at the Horne-office,
and he thought he had good reason to complain of the
dilatory manner in which it bad been treated by them.
They, after inquiry, had refused to interfere, and the
petitioner saw no other mode of setting the matter right.
but by an iuvestigation before a Select Committee of
that House. He would refrain from going more at
length into the matter then, as he intended to move
that the petition be printed aith the votes, with the
view of calling the attention of the House to it on the
first supply day.
Mr. F. MAULE believed he was in order in saying
a few words upon the question, as there was a distinct
motion before the House. The petition was from the
friends dun individual who was suff.Ting punishment under
the conviction of a jury of his countrymen. and he doubted
the expediency of the House interfering after the case
had been considered by the proper authorities at the
Home Office.— Hear,-hear.) The Hon. Member for
Lambeth complained, rather unfairly, lie thought, of
dilatoriness at the Herne Office. That was not a fair
charge in the present case, its'a more intricate one lie
had never had under consideration. He thought it
would be dangerous for the House to establish such a
precedent.
Mr. HAWES said if there was to be any opposition
to the motion for printing the petition he hoped he
would be allowed to enter into the facts of the case.—
(Cries of " No, no;')
Sir E. B. SUGDEN did not think it was either
safe or prudent in that House to interfere with the ordi-
nary course of jastice—the proper tribunal in such a
case was the Home-office. The petition, as he under-
stood it, was not even signed by the party aggrieved.
Mr. HA WES said the petition would have been
Signed by the party suffering, who was a Member of the
Royal College of Surgeons, but he had,•in consequence
of the sentence been placed upon the treadmill, which
had produced such an effect upon his mind that it had
driven him mad, from which he was now gradually re-
covering.

Sir E. SUG DEN would, after the statement of the
Hon. Gentleman, withdraw his opposition.

After a few words from Mr. FOX MAULE the
petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. W. MILES presented 'petitions from various
various place's in Somcrsetshire in favor of Mr. Row-
land Has plan of penny postage ; also petitions in
favour of Church ExtensiOn in Canada.
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE EDUCA-

TION PLAN.

Mr. WYSE presented a petition from various Wes-
leyan Methodists of Maidstone (as we understood),
complaining that they had been induced by misrepresen-
tations to sign a petition against the Government plan
of national education, and praying the House to re-
ject that petition, as the signatures had been obtained
by misrepresentation, and to support the Government
plun of national education.
Mr. G ALLY KNIGHT presented petitions from
Various places in Nottinghamshire against the Govern-
inent plain of national education.
Sir E. SUGDEN presented petitions from various
places in Yorkshire to the same effect.
Mr. GRIMSTONE presented a petition from
Bishop Stortfore, against the Government plan of
education.

Mr..WILSON PATTEN presented similar peti-
tions from pari4ms in Yorkshire. •
Mr. LITTON presented petitions from Coleraine,
in favour of Mr. Rowland Rill's plan for a penny post.
Mr. CRESSWELL presented petitions from the
Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool, to the same effect.
Mr. GOULBURN presented petitions from Cam-
bridge, against the Government plan of education.
Lord G. SOMERSET presented petitions from
several places in Monmouth, against the Government
scheme for national education.

On the motion of Mr. WILLIAM EVANS, the
lichen Bridge and Roads Bill was read a third time
and passed.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from the Cor-
poration of Hull in favour of the Hull Dock Bill.
Mr. FOX MAULE brought up a report from the
Committee on the London Police Bill.
Major WOOD presented petitions from St. Mary
Bow and other places against the Government plan for
national education.

Sir T. FREEMANTLE presented petitions from
Buckingham, and other places in Buckinghamshire.

POSTAGE.

Mr. WALLACE had three petitions to present
from Jersey and Guernsey, in favour of the adoption of a
universal penny-postage. They were partly in
print, and partly in manuscript, and he did not
know, therefore, whether the House would receive them.
He would, however, mention that no single Member
could frank to Jersey and Guernsey ; neither of these
places sent a representative to that House. Ifa person
wished to send a frank there, he had to get it signed
by three Lords of the Treasury.
The SPEAKER, said that if the whole or any part
of petitions were printed, it was contrary to the usage of
the House to receive them.

Mr. WALL ACE then withdrew the petitions.
Mr. WARD presented a petition from Sheffield in
favour of national education.

Sir C. STYLE gave notice that he should, this day
fortnight, move for a copy of the correspondence be-
tween the Lords of the Treasury and the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners of Ireland.

Sir W. MOLES WORTH gave notice that on the
2d of July he shnuld call the attention of the House
to the Report of the Transportation Committee.
JAMAICA.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said as the Report on the
Jamaica Bill was a dropped Order, he could not bring
it up to-night, but would do so to-morrow, and move
the third reading on Friday.
Mr. V. STUART brought up the report of the
Committee on the Waterford Hospital Bill.
The dropped Orders of yesterday were then read over,
for the purpose of being replseed on the honks.
RATING OF TENEMENTS BILL.
Mr. PRYME presented a petition against the
Rating of Tenements Bill.
The Order of the Day for going into Committee on
the Rating of Tenements Bill having been read,
Mr. S. JERVIS said his objections and that of his
constituents to the present measure were so strong, that
he felt hound to move as an amendment, that the Bill
be committed that day six months.—(Hear, hear.) The
main principle of the Bill was not that. the rates of all
hous,s were to be paid by the landlords—not that
any general law should be applied to that species of
property—but that the law he directed against one
clsss of persons, occupying hous:rs under the value
of 9/. per annum ; and that the rates, in these cases
should be paid by the landlords, and in three classes.
First, where the rent was paid from year to year—se-
cond, where there was a less interest than one year—
and thirdly, where there was a greater interest than one
year. It was further provided that where the tenement
was unoccupied for any period less than three months
the landlord was liable for the rates during the period
the house remained unoccupied. Now that principle
conflicted with many of the rights and franchises con-
ferred by the Reform and Municipal Bills. By way,
however,
of giving its due re to property
that most oojectioriable and obnox'ous principle of
p
plurality of voting was conferred.— (Hear, hear.)
The provisions were extremely hard upon the holders
and owners of such property. It should, he thought,
be the policy of the House to encourage a spirit of in.
dependence among the labouring classes, but the pre-
sent measure would have a directly contrary tendency.
Had they known they would have been liable to pay
those rates they would not have invested money on such
uncertain security. This Act would have a retrospective
operation, and consequently compensation to these per-
was an injustice to the other rate-payers,
sons had become necessary, which this Bill offered them
by authorizing a reduction in their rates °flit) per cent. ;
this would not satisfy persons thus sAuantne,di,maonrdeob%e•etr ides
of-
fered no compensation to the occurersr who would be
equally aggrieved. This Bill would have the effect of
huddling together various families in one house, and de-
prive the labourer of that boast that every Englishman's
house was his cast le.—( Hear.) There were many labourers
who could afford to pay 9/. a-year rent, and who being ex-
cused from the rates thus received relief without degra-
dation, but now the landlords would charge the rates in
the rent, and more than the rates, to secure themselves
against theemeertainty. No men of Liberal principles
could support a measure which went to disfranchise
occupiers, sad to
their occupiers. It was attempted to obviate
this by giving persons the power to demand being
give to landlords the right of voting for
rated ; but he thought it the duty of the lietise to ems

pel every one having a right to the franchise to exercise
that right, and not to leave it as a matter of volition
whether it should be exercised or not. These objec-
tions he considered conclusive against the Bill. It had
been said that no place could come under the operation
of this, unless two-thirds of the rate-payers consented.
That might be a partial protection to some extent, but
that seemed to him to make the measure more objec-
tionable. Upon these grounds be would move that the
Bill should be taken into consideration that day six
_ _

Sir J. J. GUEST objected to the Bill.- -
Mr. GORDON said that the course adopted by
the Learned Member for Chester and the Honourable
Baronet convinced him that all attempts to conciliate
such enemies was a most fruitless thing.—(Cheers.)
His Hon. Friend behind him had said he did not care
for Parliament, and that Mr. Scrope's Act would
never come into operation in Merthyr Tidvil. Under
the present system, it a man had five acres of hand, and
covered it with small cottages, he paid no poor-rates,
but if he built only a barn on the land, and employed
the land for the purposes of agriculture. he had to pay
the poor-rate. Tins be conceived to be most unjust,
and the present Nil would go far to remedy this evil.
But his Hon. Friend the Member for Chester had en-
deavoured to excite the feelings of the House, by saying
this Bill would operate harshly on the poor. He begged
to say that the Bill was in favour of the poor, and it
was on that ground that he supported it. He hoped
the House would allow the' Bill to go into Committee.
Mr. G. PALMER said that three years ago cot-
tages were of a very different description from what they
are at present. Now they had up-stair rooms, to which
the health of poor people was mainly to be attributed.
It was well. known that many of them paid no rent at
all to their landlords, whose only chance of getting rid
of such tenants was to allow them to go nut at the end
of the year without paying any thing. If the
landlords were compelled to pay the rates on cottage
property would soon be destroyed altogether, and
the poor would he the greatest sufferers.
Mr. WILLIAMS was not surprised that the Hon.
Gentleman had failed in his attempt at conciliation,
when the principle of tl.e Bill was so wholly objection-
able. It would affect materially the municipal fran-
chise, for in corporate towns a large number of vote's
were rated to the poor under N. And the present. Bill
would disfranchise them to a considerable extent. In the
cottages there was generally seen cleanliness,
comfort, and health, while in large houses, which were
divided -into a number of dwellings there was generally
seen the reverse ; and if that I3ill passed it would de-
cidedly prevent persons from investing their money in
cottage property. The plurality of voting was also a
highly objectionable feature In the measure, and on these
grounds he should support the amendment of the Hen.
Member for Chester.

Lord SAN DON felt great delicacy in opposing any
Bill belonging to his Hon. Friend the Member for
Windsor, but he had opposed the Bill from the very
beginning, believing it to be objectionable in principle,
and he should certainly vote in favour of the amendment.

Sir J. GU EST explained.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS took higher ground than
that of mere selfish interest. He was a proprietor of
tenements if this sort himself; therefore he could not be
supposed to be actuated by private interest in the
support which he gave to this Bill, but he thought
that it was only fair to the community at large
that this property, in common with every other
species of property, should be chargeable to the poor-
rates. The objection of the lion. Member for Coven-
try he considered untenable, because the object of the
Committee had been to adapt the Bill to the circum-
stances of different communities.

Mr. PRYME objected to the Bill, not on behalf
of the landlord, but the occupier. The present Bill
was certainly somewhat less injurious than that oriai- •
nally proposed, but he thought the principle of the Bill
so objectionable that he could not agree to it, however
modifi,d it might be. He bad last night obtained leave
to bring in a Bill, but some factious gentlemen having
got the House • counted out, he was unable to
do so. The object of that Bill was to prevent a man,
who was once exempted by order of the Magistrates,
from beicg rated again, in respect of the sante occupa-
tion, without an order of Magistrates to the Cnntrary :
that would obviate the objection which his llon. Friend
had to the present system.
Mr. BRISCOE felt a great anxiety to give relief to
the labouring: classes, and therefore should support this
Bill. He considered the present law one of great hard-
ship and asperity, as under the new Poor Law the Over-
seers and the Magistrates no longer possessed the power
of relieving poor persons from the payment of the rates.
This was a question involving the welfare of millions,
and the House was little aware of the discontent exist-
ing among the labouring classes on this subject. Many
poor persons who had hitherto been exempt were now
called upon to pay rates ; and a clergyman had related
to him an instance in which a poor woman had been
obliged to pay away two shillings which he had given
her out of the Sacrament money, to a rate collector, to
prevent an execution being put into her house. He be-
lieved. this Bill. calculated to increase the value of cot-
tage property.
Mr. SLANEY supported the Bill. The object of
Mr, Poulett Scrope's Bill was to make every species of
property rateable, and this was in accordance with that
principle. The difficulties in the way of collecting the
Poor-rates at present were very great, and this Bill was
calculated to remedy them. The measure had been
tried in many of the parishes in the neighbourhood of
London with success.

Mr. I'. SCROPE said that his Act had nothing to
do with the rating of property not previously rated, but
merely provided that rateable property should be rated
at its full value. He had considered this subject, and
was satisfied that the proposed measure was deleterious
to the humbler classes, as the present system gave them
a better class of houses at a lower rate. He should give
the B:ll his cordial opposition.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee
Against it 94
Majority
The Bill was consequently lost.
CUSTODY OF INFANTS.

The House then regolved itself into Committee on
the Custody of Infants' 13d1. _ _

Clause 1, after a few words from Sir EDWARD
SUGDEN and Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, was
agreed to with some verbal amendments.
On clause 2 being proposed,

Sir ED WARD- .StiGDEN proposed that the
clause should be struck out of the Bill. He objected
to it upon principle, because he firmly believed its effect
would be to loosen the obligation of the marriage, and
cause separations that otherwise would never have taken
place. He considered the present Bill an unnecessary
and unwise piece of legislation, as he believed the evils
intended to be put an end to by it would correct them-
selves, in consequence of the moral state of society.
He would venture to predict, if the Bill passed, his
Learned Friend would find that it would cause far
greater evil than it effected good.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said the boasted law of
_

EN;land interposed only. on the side of the strong.—
only on the part of he who had all the power of society
to aid him, while the weaker party was trampled upon
and abused by that same law. He was contented to
meet his Right Hon. and Learned Friend on his motion,
as it at once struck at the principle of the Bill. • The
law now interfered in the case of children who had

property and were made wards of ,Chancery ; why
should the law be partial ? He did not seek to extend
his Bill to Scotland, because by the laws of that country
the Court of Session had the power with which
he wished to arm the Courts in England. The existence
of that power in Scotland was a practical illustration of
its necessity in this country. He trusted the House
would not take the same view of the Bill as his Right
Hon. and Learned Friend.

Mr. LANGDALE was of opinion that the enact-
ments then before the House, if carried, would prevent
many re-unions of parties who had unhappily separated.
They took from the fathei the power of granting to the
mother free access to the children, which of itself fre-
quently led to re-union. He thought they had done
good by the first clause, but as be thought the others
would prove injurious in their working, he felt bound to
vote with the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon.
Mr. W. COWPER, supported the Bill on the
ground that the hardships which had been suffered under
the present state of the law required a change.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For the clauses..
Against them ...
Majority for the clauses . . —3B
The clauses were then agreed to. The Bill went
through Committee, and the House resumed. The
Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
BOROUGH WATCH RATES BILL.

49

On the Motion of Mr. BAINES, the House went
into Committee on the Borough Watch Rates Bill.
The different clauses of the Bill, with some verbal
anundments, were agreed to, and the House resumed.
COPY HOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the motion of Mr. JAMES STEWART, the
House resolved itself into a Committee, for the purPose
of further considering the Report on this Bill. The
various clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
SEWER'S BILL.
The Sewer's Bill went through Committee.
ELECTOR'S REMOVAL BILL.

Mr. G I liSONmoved the Order of the Day for the
House going into Committee on this Bill.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE wished to know before the
House went into Committee on this Bill, seeing the
Attorney-Gotten! and Solicitor-General in their places,
whether her Majesty's Government gave their sanction
to this Bill. He was perfectly convinced of the hard-
ship upon an individual elector, who changed his residence
on the l At of August, being precluded from voting till the
November twelve-month following, but one of the prin-
cipal topics made use of in the discussion on the Reform
Bill, was the great nuisance of out-voters. Now, this
Bill legalised out-voters. and was therefore opposed to
one of the principles of the Reform Bill. Another ob-
jection to thu Bill was, that it enabled an individual to
retain his vote fur fifteen months after be bad legally

precluded himself from voting. He thought this Bill
ought to have been opposed by her Majesty's Govern-
ment on the second reading.—(Hear, bear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the Bill met with the hearty support of her Ma-
jesty's Government—(Cheers)----as it was calculated to
remove the most vexatious questions which arose before
Election Committees. If any amendments were moved
in Committee, be would give them his best considera-
tion. He admitted there was some difficulty with re-
spect to out-voters, but would sooner risk those evils
than defeat the object of the Bill.—( Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had been
trying for five years to eff'et the object contemplated
by the present Bill, to which he gave his warmest sup-
'prt.—(Cheers.) The evil with respect to out-voters
was a mere trifle, for not one voter in a hundred would
be affected by it. He trusted the Bill would pass una-
nanimously through the House.—(Cheers-)
Sir F. POLLOCK regretted that the Bill was con-
fined to one class of voters—(Hear, hear)—and did
not include freeholds. if a man exchanged his pro-
perty in a county, he saw no reason why he should not
still have a vote.—( Hear, bear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted the Hon.
Member who had brought in this Bill would not be
seduced into giving up or adding anything to it.—(Hear,
hear.) The register ought to be the register for the
year.—(Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. V. SMITH,

Mr. GIBSON said he had fully considered the
question, and put the Bill into the form which he
thought best, and had heard no suggestions to induce
him to alter it.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then went into Committee.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. HODSON proposed to add the words, " Pro-
vided that no elector shall be entitled to vote, unless he
shall, at the time of tendering his vote, be a rated in-
habitant of the said city or borough."
Mr. GIBSON could not agree to the amendment.
Mr. BROTHERTON also objected to the amend-
ment. A person might remove from a 101. house to a
201. house, and yet not be a rated inhabitant, because,
from the manner in which the rates were laid in sonic
places, he might reside for nine months in a house with-
out being rated.—( ilear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the Com-
mittee would give no countenance to such a proposition
as that before the House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER believed the lion. Member's
amendment would carry out the object which he had in
view, which was to throw out the Bill. The question
was whether when a person had paid his rates he should
be considered as a person of sufficient property, stabi-
lity, and respectability, to he entrusted with a vote
without further inquiry during the year. The third
question put at elections was the cause of all sorts of
difficulties both in counties as well as towns. At the
Devonshire election, when the Noble Lord the Member
for Stroud contested the county,• he (Mr. Buller) had
put the third question to a voter, who stated that he
had changed his qualification, but the returning officer,
after sonic consultation, to his surprise determined he
had a right to vote. Ile was glad to see on this occasion
that the Government bad abandoned the doctrine of
finality by their support of this Bill.
Toe SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his sup-
port of this all was nothing new, as it had always met
with his approbation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had in-
troduced a similar provision into a Bill introduced by
him five years since.
Mr. VVAKLEY had listened attentively to every
thing that had fallen from the Members of the Govern-
ment, and had heard nothing new—they had not
thrown the doctrine of finality overboard. Indeed, it
had until recently been a question among lawyers whe-
ther persons having changed their occupancy were not
entitled to vote if he occupied a house of equal value.
The man who was placed on the registry was so placed
in virtue of a right which he had acquired by having paid
his rates the year previously, and no one had any right to
deprive him of that which he had already acquired by
acting in conformity with the law. If he became poor
ten to one it was that House which had made him poor,
by enacting bad laws. The poor man, who wanted pro-
tection, stood more in need of a vote than the rich one.
He would put it to the lion. Member whether he
would press this matter to a division ; his party to-
night was a very small one, and on this occasion he
thought he would find that " discretion was the better
part of valour." He hoped this measure would pass
unanimously.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, Mr. Hodson consenting not to press his
amendment.
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. GIBSON on his legs; moving that the Report be
brought up tomorrow.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that a
more distant day should be named, or advantage would
be taken elsewhere by those who would not oppose the
Bill here, to say that the ineisure had been smuggled
through the House.
Mr. GIBSON postponed the bringing up the Report
to Monday:
The Committee on Prisons (Scotland) Bill was post-
poned" till to-morrow.
SUGAR DUTIES.'

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of
Ways and Means,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved a resolution for the coutinuation of the present
duties on sugar, and said that it was not his intention to
propose any alteration either in the duties or draw-
backs. _ .

Mr. EWART lamented that no alteration was to
take place ; he had hoped the duties would have been
equalized, and during some subsequent stage of the
measure be should bring the subject belM.e the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that for sixteen years ❑o subject had more occupied
the attention of the House than the equalization of the
dudes on East and West India sugar, which had been
frequently introduced by a gentleman whom he should
rejoice to see again a Member of that House. That
question it had been Lis good fortune to settle, and he
canied a measure respecting the bounties. The Hon.
Gentleman should not say that little had been done
when he recollected what had been done in the last
four years. He should be ready to listen with that at-
tention to any proposition which the Hon. Member
might bring forward on this subject, to which every
proposition emanating from his Hon. Friend, was
entitled.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS said that unless some as-
similation of duties took place more especially with respect
to Brazilian sugar, we should be driven from the foreign
markets. Last year 48 ve:sels left Liverpool foram Brazils
and had ❑ot been able to find return cargoes direct to

this country. With the oppressive Corn-laws crippling
our encrgies, we should be soon driven, by rival manu-
facturers, from the foreign markets, if some alteration did
not speedily take place.
Mr. E WART said the question was how the mer-
chants of this country were to procure returns ? This was
the question involved in the Corn-laws. the Sugar-laws,
and the Coffee-laws, and to this subject he should feel it
his duty to call the attention of the Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that as a matter of revenue and of advantage to
the consumer, the equalization of duties, would be at-
tended with advantage ;. but the Hon. Gent. would have
to contend with the Colonists, who would say that they
were entitled to a preference, and the more important
opposition still of those who disapproved of encouraging
the slave trader. It should be remembered that the
Brazils were the principal market for slaves, and he
did not think that House would determine to 'give this
stimulus to the slave trade, by encouraging the cul-
tivation of sug,iir.
Mr. THORNELY was as much opposed to the
slave trade as any one, but did not think that
prohibitory enactments could possibly put it down.
The cotton and tobacco imported into this country was
all the produce of slave labour. He would ask if it was
true that foreign refined sugar was now imported into
the West Indies for their own consumption, in order
to enable the colonists to export the whole of their own
produce to this country, to be sold at a monopoly price ?
He thought that unless the Government here introduced
a more liberal system with respect to foreign countries,
they would put the manufactures of this upon a prohi-
bitory footing.
The resolution was then agreed to, the House re-
sumed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-

morrow.
Mr. C. BULLER obtained leave to bring in a BM
to establish a Court of Appeal from the decision of tl:e
Revising Barristers, which was read a first time and
ordered to be read a rccond time on Friday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine
o'clock.

DOVER, JUNE 10.—A very extraordinary fish
was caught on Friday last by some of our fishermen, but
at present they arc unable to determine the genus to which
it belongs. It is about two feet in length, and from the
neck to the tail is of the fiddler" species. The head is im-
mense, and the mouth of such dimensions that a calf's head
of no ordinary size would have found an easy passage. It
has flippers resembling the feet of a mole, with each toe
complete, and on either side what fishermen dencrninate
pockets, with a tail terminating in the shape of a dart. It
has been called by the several names of the Sea Otter,
Monk, and Angler.
PAISLEY, JUNE B.—Boy BIT BY AN ADDER.
—On the 20th ult., a boy of the name of Platt, when ga-
thering sticks in the Linwood Moss, felt himself smartly
wounded on the upper pixt of his foot, and. .on looking
down, found that he had unfortunately set his oopon
adder—his foot instantly swelled to a great f
size, t u
and
with difficulty he reached home. Although he had im-
mediate medical aid he was confined to bed for a week,
and sick three days The swelling, which reached to
his groin, is now nearly gone, leaving a blackness of the
skin as if from a severe bruise. and he is able to walk
about and attend his work. This is the only occurrence
of the kind which has taken place in this neighbourhood
these many years —Glasgow Chronicle.
There is no truth in the alleged intention of Mr.
Goring to retire from the representation of Shoreham.