The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-22 00:00:00

NEWSPAPER STAMP RETURNS.

whether he was aware that the affidavit ought to have been
sworn before the day on which the petition was lodged,
Mr. FRESH FIELD objected to the question, and the wit-
ness was ordered to withdraw. After some discussion
the witness was recalled, and stated that he thought
in strict practice the affidavit ought to have been
sworn on the same day that the petition was lodged ;
was aware of the petition being open to the objection on the sth.
The witness then withdrew.
The journal entry of 1807 of the proceedings on the peti-
tion of George Kinderley, in the Penryn case, on the motion
of Mr. Freshfield, was then read by the Clerk at the table.
Mr. FRES H FIE LD said that that entry showed the relief
given in that case was greater than he asked the House to give
on this occasion. Not only was the affidavit sworn thirteen
days before the petition was presented, but the recognizances
were also entered into, thirteen days before the petition was
presented. The Hon. Member concluded by moving " that
the time for entering into the recognizances be enlarged to
Wednesday, the 16th of January."
A Message from the Lords acquainted the House that their
Lordships had agreed to the Municipal Officers' Declaration
Bill.

Mr. WOULFE said the Penryn case proved clearly that a
mere error might be corrected by the House ; but in the pre-
sent case the error was fatal. It was known to the agent on
the sth of December, and he did not apply to the House to
remedy the mistake until the 18th.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
Mr. Plumptre was recalled, and examined by
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, be stated that on
the sth day of December, he had wrote to the agent in
Ireland, suggesting that some objection might possibly be
taken on the ground of the affidavit having been sworn before
the petition was presented, but he had not yet received an an-
swer.—( Laughter.) Upon referring to the Act of Parlia-
ment he thought that the affidavit would be sufficient. His
object in writing to Limerick was, if possible, to avoid all ob-
jection. That letter contained a request that another affidavit
might be sent, if it were required, in order to put an end to all
objection.
By Mr. LEFROY.—When he presented the affidavit to
the Examiner, he thought it was correct, and that it would be
enough to prove to that officer that the sureties were sufficient.
By Mr. G. F. YOUNG.—He was afraid that the letter
had not reached its destination.
By Mr. WOLFE—The reason he had waited till the 18th
before he went to the Examiner was, because that offiur had
applied that day. He applied to him on the 13th, and he
then applied on the 18th for taking the subject into cortsi-
derhtion. He should not have gone before the Examiner
on the old affidavit if the new one had been made out.
The witness was then ordered to withdr...w.

Mr. GODSON said, that all the House had to deal with

was the sufficiency of the recognizances, because there was no
objection to the form of the recognizances, and he trusted they
would not be met by the statement that the affidavit was wrong,
because it was merely a mistake, and not an intentional error

for the purpose of deceptior —therefore time ought to be al-
lowed, and the correction made.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. H. Maxwell)
the other night, that the question was, whether there had
been gross negligence on the part of the person applying for
their favour. He (the Solicitor-General) had at first made up
his mind that they ought to grant that indulgence, and he was
still of that opinion, although he confessed that opinion had
been shaken by finding the party was aware there was a pos.
sible objection. They ought not to infer fraud unless clearly
made out, and be thought this case came within the same
principle as that acted on in the Sligo case and ono or two
others, that it was an oversight which they had it in their
power completely to cure.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought there was nothing is this case
in the stature of fraud; and that therefore the indulgence of
the House might justly be granted.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir W. FOLLETT was of opinion that it wo&d be
much better for the character of that House that they should
not interfere at all in these cases, for they were almost
unavoidably decided in a party spirit.---( Hear, hear.) Still
es the House had granted indulgence in other cases, and
as in the present instance he very much doubted whether there
had been after all a mistake committed, he should be willing
to grant indulgence on this occasion.
Mr. WO ULFE remarked that the witness had stated that,
for the affidavits, to prepare which he had now asked time,
till after the recess, lie had already written, but had to this
hour received no answer. lie trusted that the House
would consider this as a fatal objection, as in his opinion it
must be taken that the latter had arrived.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought that there was nothing in the
evidence of the witness to show that the party was unwilling
to enter into the recognizances. No case, in his opinion, was
more entitled to indulgence than the present.
Sir T. FREMANTLE trusted that though the House had
lost its character for the manner in which it conducted the se
cases, it would maintein its character for consistency.
After a few words fro:n an Hors. MEMBER,
Mr. FRESHFIELD replied.

Mr. M AIME having formed the opinion that the party
applying was not entitled to succeed in his application, he
trusted he should ri•A be considered as hiving been in-
ikenced by party motives, and would, with the per-
mission of the House, state the grounds on which he hai
formed his opinion. The Honourable and Learned Member
for Exeter had stated that he wished there was a rule of the

House for refusing every application of this sort, but as there was
not he had recommended the House to grant it. On that
ground, and no other, had the Hon. and Learned Member for

Exeter rested the tight of the petitioner to succeed in his ap-
plication. Ile (Mr. Manic) was dissatisfied with this portion
of the Grenville Act, indeed he might say with the whole of it,
but it was the law of the lard, and the House wasbound to act
upon it. The Act imposed upon the House the duty--as in the
trial of election petitions—of deciding on all these appilca-
tions for indulgence, upon the evidence adduced at the Bar.—.
(Hear, hear.) It was not fair to impute to this side of
the House exclusively, party-spirit in the decision of these
cases.—( Hear, hear.) In the present instance the affidavit, it
appeared, had been sworn before the petition was presented.
The agent discovered the error on the sth, and he then wrote
to the Irish agent ; but when he received no answer, why had
he not written again on the 10th, the 11th, or even the 13th ?
He should vote against the application.
Mr. GODSON explained.
Mr. PEMBERTON thought that if there was a case
where a slip had been committed, and where the parties
had acted bone fide, the present was that case. The
error here was merely a formal and technicle one. The
complaint here was the parties' a Aveney not being disputed they
had not been permitted to cure a technical error.
It was said that the decision of the House on the Sligo case
had no application—he contended that it had. In the Dudley
case indulgence had been granted, because the error had been
bona fide. In the present case he would grant the indulgence.
Mr. JERVIS felt bound to oppose the motion, for he
thought that, admitting the error to have been bona fide, there
had been a lathes and a negligence on the part of
the petitioners.—( Hear, hear.) Why, the mistake had been dis-
covered so long ago as the sth December.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. ELLIS, the House divided,
when there appeared---
For the motion
Against it ..
Majority —9

.... 59
50

Mr. 0. GORE moved'' That the t;re• for delivering in the
particulars of the qualification of the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Sligo be enlarged to the 7th of January." The Hon.
Gent'eman did not call on the House to concur in his motion
merely as a matter of favour, but as an act of common justice.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. WOULFE,
the motion was agreed to.
On the motion that Mr. Potter, the agent in the Portarling-
ton election petition case, be called to the bar,
Mr. MAULE would consent that the motion for calling
Mr. Potter to the bar should be negatived.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE could not help expressing
the surprise which he felt at the course which the Hon. and
Learned Member for Carlow had taken, after what occurred
the other night with respect to the Sligo, Portarlington, and
Carrickfergus petitions.
Mr. MA UL E, in explanation, said, that, as the parties had
not entered into the necessary recognizances in the Portar-
lington case, he took it for granted that the petition must fall
to the ground.
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. HUME expressed a hope that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would adopt some measure for altering the law on this
subject, in order that the time of the House might not be
wasted, night after night, in this way.
Mr. MACLEAN thought the best course that could be
taken would be to leave questions relating to recognizances
altogether in the hands of the examiners.
The SPEAKER wished to know whether it was the plea-
:itre of the House to proceed to the Orders of the Day ?
Mr. HUME suggested that the ought, in the first instance,
to dispose of the dropped Orders.
Mr. F. BARING was anxious to go on with the Duchess
of Kent's Annuity Bill, and if they would allow him he
would move that the House should resolve itself into Corn-
nltee on the subject.

Mr. BORTHWICK could not conceive that there would
be any objection to the extension of these returns. The Hon.
Member for Kilkenny had moved for returns to the Ist of
October. The Honourable Member for Marylebone had
subsequently- moved for them up to the Ist of November, and
he would now more that they be published up to the Ist of
December.

Mr. BARING said that he had no objection to the
returns being furnished up to the date wished for by the
Hon. Gentleman, further than that the returns were now
ready to be printed, aid if any alteration were made in the
form of them, as would necessarily be the case, if the date was
changed, they could not be printed until after the recess.
Mr. HUME objected to any motion which would interfere
with the returns he had moved for ; the returns were
already prepared, and if the motion of the Hon. Member was
agreed to, time would be lost. Let the returns be laid on the
table, and the Hon. Member could move for such returns as
he wished for.

Mr. BORTH WICK then gave notice that he would to.
morrow move for returns from the date of the last returns.

TITHE ON FISH.
In reply to a question from Captain PE CHE LL,
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that the Commissioners had
made no further progress with respect to the Tithe on Fish,
than to direct the Commissioners to direct how far voluntary
commutations had been entered into.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his motion for leave
to bring in the Pluralities Bill till to-morrow, in order to bring
on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill.
Mr. HUM E, before they went into the consideration of that
Bill, wished to know whether it was intended that the Pension
List Committee should meet before the recess ; if they did
not, much time would be lost, as they must necessarily send
out circulars.

Colonel SIBTHORP rose for the purpose of bringing
'.award the motion of which he had given notice on going
nto Committee on this Bill.

Mr. HUME must object to the Hon. and Gallant Officer
being allowed to bring on a motion which, if he (Mr. Hume)
understood rightly, was likely to lead to considerable debate.
Mr. F. BARING would not press his motion, but he
must at the same time say that the Government were anxious
to bring this Bill on as early as possible.
After a few words from Mr. Warburton, Lord Howick, the
Speaker, and Colonel Sibthorp,
Mr. FIELDEN rose to order. He had a motion on the
aper which he was determined to press. He thought that
the motions on the list ought to have precedence of the
d. opped Orders.
Lord HO WICK—If the Hon. Member Was determined to
press his motion, he should not stand in the way. He would,
therefore, concur in the postponement of the orders until the
motions were disposed of ; and if it should not be at too late
an hour when this Order of the Day came to be considered,
the Hon and Gallant Member could bring forward his mo-
tion. He could assure the Hon. and Gallant Member that
there was no desire whatever on the part of the Government
to throw him overboard.

Lord J. RUSSELL could not then give an answer.

LIMERICK ELECTION.

Mr. FRE S H FIE LD said he had a case to bring on which
he believed should take precedence. He moved that Mr.
Plumptre be called to the bar.
Mr. W. H. Plumptre was then called in and exa-
mined. He was a solicitor, residing in the Temple.
He was the agent against the return for the county of
Limerick. The petition was presented on the 4th of Decem-
ber. Previous to that time he received the names of the sureties.
He gave notice to the proper officer of the names of those
gentlemen ; the recognizances were enured into in Ireland,
and transmitted to the Speaker. Those recognizances
were regular both in form and date. He attended
the Examiner on the 18th to complete the recognizances. No
objection was then made to their sufficiency. A formal
objection was taken to the recognizances, in consequence
of the affidavit having been sworn before the day
on which the petition was presented. The recognizances were
not entered into until after the petition was lodged; it was
only the affidavit of sufficiency that was objected to—the re-
cognizances were pe?fectly regular.
Upon an HON. MEMBER putting the question to the witness,

The Orders of the Day were then poitprned.
DISTRESS OF THE HANDLOOM WEAVERS.
Mr. FIELD EN rose to call the attention of the House to
a petition presented on the 11th of December from the hand-
loom weavers of Manchester. In Manchester alone there
were computed to be at least 6,000 weavers, some of whom
had been visited by persons appointed for that purpose. The
results of the inquiry made by the visitors were, that 876 fa-
milies whom they had visited, containing 3,274 persons, de-
pended for support on the income of 1,740 looms employed.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1837

The average earnings of these looms did not exceed 332/. 6s.
3d. weekly, leaving an average of 2s. Id. a week to each per-
son, and deducting Is. 2d. a week for rent, fuel, soap, and
candles, the average for the support and clothing of each per-
son per week would be only 104 d. or leel. per day. It was
now five years since this subject had been brought under
the notice of Parliament, and though the distress of
these persons was admitted to be great, no redress what-
ever had been afforded them.---( Hear, hear.) It had
been proved before Committees that these men worked from
twelve to fifteen hours a-day, and they were unable to sup-
port themselves by their labour. The articles produced isy
these operatives were of a description principally consumed by
the rich and wealthy, who could afford to pay a remunerating
puke for the labour that prOduced them, and a great quantity
of these articles were exported to foreign countries, to be ex-
changed for commodities that contributed to the comfort and
luxury of the wealthy classes. Notwithstanding the patient
demeanour of these persons, their grievances remained unre-
dressed. If this indifference continued, he would, at the risk
of being considered factious, take steps that would force the
case of these persons on the attention of the Government. If
some redress was not afforded he would feel bound to get up
and oppose every vote of money that was proposed. That
might be a course open to blame, but if redress was not af-
forded, or some attention bestowed on this subject, that course
he was determined to take. There was not one of these
weavers that did not contribute to the taxation of the coun-
try, and if the situation of these men did not receive at-
tention, he would take every opportunity that the privileges
of the House afforded to force that attention. All
the facts respecting the distress of the suffering classes had
been clearly established before a Committee, of which the
Right Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thomson) was
a Member, and he did think that that Hon. Member had not
done his duty towards those people by not directing the at-
tention of the Government to the sufferings they endured.
One of the reports of a Committee recommended a Bill to be
brought in, which would have the effect of relieving those
distressed weavers. That Bill was brought in by the Hon.
Member for Lanark, and it was met on the part of the Go-
vernment by a direct negative, and was not allowed to pro-
ceed. In the course of the last Session the matter was not
lost sight of. A motion was made in July last for
an Address to the Crown for a Commission to inquire
into the condition of the distressed operatiies in the
manufacturing districts. That Address was voted six
months ago, and yet not a single Commissioner had been
sent forward, though the operatives were dying for want
of food. It showed that the Government were indifferent
to the condition of the working people ; but he could tell
the House that no Government could carry on their busi-
ness who were indifferent to the distresses of the working
people. He would like to know why this inquiry had not
proceeded ? If a vote of that Hoes was good fur any thing
it ought to be acted upon. The Government that would act
in this way could not have his confidence, for he thought after
the vote of the House-that that inquiry ought to have been pro-
ceeded with, and they should have ascertained what redress
could be afforded. Something should be done. They must
either raise the wages of these operatives to a scale that would
afford them the means to live, or they must do what would
had to the same effect, namely, reduce the taxation that.
pressed on the necessaries of life. He thought that they
ought to have a minimum of wages. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving the following resolution :—" That there is
in this kingdom an immense body of. hand-loom weavers suf-
fering unparalleled distress, and that this distress arises from
the unprecedented low rate of wages that the weavers are paid
for their work, and from the heavy taxes imposed by this
House on the food and other necessaries of life, a sufficiency
of wh'ch their wages should enable them to purchase; that the
work which a large proportion co:- these weavers execute, con-
sists of articles indispensably necessary to the personal comfort
and convenience of the higher and middle classes of society,
or of articles exported to fureign countries, and there ex-
changed for luxuries and necessaries, to increase the affluence
and comfort of these classes ; and that it is therefore the in-
terest as well as the duty of the r:presentatives of the people
in this House, immediately to desise and enact such laws as
shall either raise the wages of these distressed weavers to a
scale adequate t. maintain them comfortably, or that shall so
reduce the taxes imposed on the necessaries of life, and to
alter the mode of collecting such taxes, as that no part of the
wages paid to these weavers shall be abstracted from them, by
either direct or indirect taxation on those necessaries "

The motion was seconded by Mr. H. FLEETWOOD, and
put from the Chair.
Mr, H. FLEETWOOD was in communication with a large
body of his constituents on this subject, and he knew that
those handloom weavers who were suffering great distress
at present would receive as a great source of cum. fort
any assurance •f sympathy on the part of the House.
During all the troubles that had taken place throughout the
country, these men were remarkable for their peaceable de-
meanour. Their cas., demanded atten'ion, and they ought
to ace what could be done to reduce taxation upon the neces-
saries of life. There was one point in which he cliff:l.nd
from the Hon. Me.aber for Oldham. He did not think that
they could possibly raise the standard of wages, but they
ought to reduce taxation.
Mr. M. PHILIPS was not in the House when the com-
mission alluded to by the Honourable Member for Oldham had
been agreed to. Knowing the objections to such a proceed-
ing, had he been in the House he would not have been
amongst those who voted for it. There was no •ne more in-
.

terested in the condition of these weavers, or more anxious to

reLeve them, but he differed as to the means of doing so. The
Hon. Gentleman proceeded to refer to the details stated by
the Hon. Member for Oldham, for the purpose cf showing that
he had overstated the distress, and also that the distress was
on the decline. He did not mean, however, to deny, that
great distress prevailed throughout that class of the commu-
nity. The petition stated, that this distress was felt more dur-
ing the present than any preceding year, but this was in a
great degree owing to the commercial embarrassments which
deprived this branch of industry of the American market ; and
this diminished consumption was of course immediately felt by
the classes engaged in this manufacture. He did not see
how they could establish a minimum of wage=. If any such
standard of wages was legislated for, the operatives themselves
would be the first to feel the inconvenience of it, and the first
to wish to depart from it. Much of the periodical distress
was owing to the variation of the monetary system, and
the consequent fluctuations of commerce. The Honourable
Member concluded by stating that there was no class which
suffered so greatly and with so much equanimity, but he re-
gretted that he did not see any direct way of relieving their
digress.

Sir E. WILMOT bore testimony to the distress of the
handloom weavers, and to the patience with which they en-
dured their sufferings. He contended that their distress arose
principally from the system of free trade.
Mr. 11 INDL E Y.—As a commission was appointed to in-
quire into the subject he would not go largely into the ques-
tion. The first cause of the distress of the handloom wearer
was the present Corn Laws. It was a shame to expect that,
with corn at double the price of what it was on the Conti-
nent,:the handloom weavers could compete with the same class
in any of the Continental countries. Though the subject was
a delicate one, be hoped the House would take it into consi-
deration apart from any prejudices with which the subject was
beset. Another cause of the distress was the great improvement
in machinery. Such improvements were in their nature calcu-
lated to benefit the human race, but it was the duty of a provident
Government to take care that, instead of adding to, they should
ameliorate the weight of the original curse, which ordained that
man should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. The immi-
gration of the Irish poor also added to the distress of the hand-
loom weavers. He did not argue against the right of those
people to come and look for a sabsistence in the richer country,
and the people here ought to make them welcome ; but the
effect of their immigration must necessarily be to reduce those
with whom they came to compete to a condition as low as their
own. The immigration of the Irish was likely to be increased
by the operation of the proposed Irish poor law, by the fourth
and fifth clauses of which beggary was about to be made a
crime in Ireland, punishable by imprisonment and the tread-
mill. This would increase immigration, and send over even a
lower class than those who now came to this country. He
would conclude by stating it as his opinion that Government
was pinned to one of two alternatives. Either they must adopt
some fixed rate of wages, or reduce the amount of taxes upon
articles consumed by the poor.
Mr. P. HO WARD recommended the Hon. Member for
Oldham to withdraw his motion, as the subject could not be
well discussed until the Commissioners had made their report.
Mr. DARBY was of opinion that insuperable difficulties
stood in the way of a reduction of the taxes. He thought the
distress of the handloom weavers was owing to the want of
protection, and he did not see why protection should be taken
from the agriculturists because of the manufacturers suffering
from the want of it. It would be better policy to extend it to
the one than to take it from the other, and he was satisfied
that the agriculturists so far from opposing such a proposition
would be most willing to grant to the manufacturers an equal
protection to that which they themselves enjoyed.—( Heir. )
Mr. P. THOMSON would, if the Hon. Member for Old-
ham persevered in his proposition, move the previous question.
One of the propositions of the Hon. Member was a state-
ment of facts which the House, having no knowledge of
them, could not agree to. The other proposition went to re-
commend a species of vague and loose legislature. The Hon.
Gentleman would have it appear that Government was indif-
ferent to the distress which existed amongst the handloom
weavers, and unwilling to endeavour to relieve them, and
that he alone was the person ready to befriend them. He de-
nied, on the part of the House, as well as on the part of the
Government, that any such indifference existed. They were
most willing to attend to, and if possible to relieve, the distress
of those sufferers. But why, if the Hon. Member was their
only advocate, why; instead of vague resolutions, did ho nut
come forward with some specific remedy, or propose some
measure which would lead to a full discussion of the subject ?
He would then find that there would be no indisposition to
consider his proposition, and, if it was deemed satisfactory, to
adopt it.—(Hear, hear.) Now, how could the Hon. Gentle-
man's plan of taxation be managed by any possibility ? It
would upset all the arrangements of the country, as the taxa-
tion was, in almost all instances indirect:—(Hear, hear,
hear.) Even if the House agreed to the proposition, how
could it be carried into effect ? The thing was a mere delusion.
He (Mr. P. Thomson) would admit that it was his duty to
look to the interests of these poor people, and he would not
yield to the Honourable Member for Oldham in a desire to
relieve their distresses, but he was not aware of any specific
measure by which that relief could be effected. Indeed, he
was opposed to the Commission which had been appointed,
because he thought it calculated to raise delusive hopes. The
evil which he anticipated had occurred, but the responsibility
did not rest on him : it rested on the House. As, however,
the Commission had been appointed he would do all in his i
power to render t as effective as possible, and he hoped the
report, when received, would prove satisfactory. Assistant-
Commissioners had been appointed, and they would make •

their communications to the head office as soon as possible ;
but he could not hold out a hope to the House that the report
would be speedily made, as the objects of their inquiry were
scattered through every part of the country. A great propor-
tion of the distress which existed amongst the hand-loom
weavers, arose out of the peculiar nature of their business, as,
from the easy access to it, more people engaged in the trade
than the trade could support. This, and the superior produc-
tion of the power-loom, were the chief causes of the distress.
He denied that the evil was owing to foreign cempetition, for
the same cause was not followed by tho same effect in other
branches of industry. There was also an advantage to the
persons employed in the business of handloom weaving, that
they were not, like other labourers, tied down to time, and
they also had the advantage of taking apprentices. It was
the policy that was pursued, ho considered, more than any
question of price which had reduced the condition of the
weavers. If a different policy hag been pursued trade would
have been extended, and that which was of more importance
than a question of price would have been prevented, namely,
the foreign competitors who had been raised up would not
have existed, and the manufacturers of other countries would
not have been able to supplant those of England in the
market. The effect of improvements in machinery generally
he was convinced, was to increase the demand for manual
labour, and that after a considerable improvement had been
made, although it would be attended by temporary ill effects,
the ultimate result would be a greater demand for hands and
labour. On the whole, he was willing to wait the result of
the Commission appointed, and when the report was made ie
adopt a measure upon it.
Mr. WA KLE Y, having listened with great attention to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of
Trade, could not but express his astonishment at his arriving
at so strange a conclusion as that of waiting for the report of
the Commission. When would that Commission make its
report ? It was appointed in June or July, but it might
last for two or three years in that happy state of incubation,
and the only information they might be able to obtain might
be that they continued setting. He thought the proper plan
would be to take taxes off the industrious portions of the com-
munity, and leave the rich to take care of themselves. Let
them impose a property tax, the most just tax that ever was
imposed—take the tax from the poor and place it upon pro-
perty. The weavers had been complimented for their for-
bearance under their distress. He could not join in such
compliments, for he thought that justice could not be obtained
by the people unless they teased that House by petitions, and
that unless they did so they would never get their grievances
remedied.
After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG and Mr. Hume,
Colonel SIBT El OR P protested against the doctrine that
the agricultural interest enjoyed the benefit of any unequal
tax. They were as much taxed as any other part of the
community.
Mr. M. A TTW OOD said that the prices were now very
different to what they formerly were; but without entering
into the question of the Corn Laws, it must be remembered
that 50,000,000/. now was equal to 80,000,000/. at the close of
tho war.

people of this
be at once agreeable to the feelings of the
her Majesty had been told by them that such a grant would
country and available from its pecuniary resources. And
it was not in any spirit of disrespect to her Majesty's com-
mands, or of irrevence towards her recommendation, that
those observations which be should make on the subject matteer
of that grant were conceived or his opposition to it offered
Who did this measure in reality come from ? Ostensibly from
her Majesty, but in reality from her responsible--he
rather term them dangerous—advisers ; from those men w
so loudly professed economy in their expenditure of the pab-
lie money, and put forward reduction as their principle,
but who, he was free to say, practised neither the one nor t le
other in the slightest degree during the period they—
rot.
tunately, he should add—had held the reins of Governmen
No one was more willing to admit the excellent qualities_ t]tl.
the Duchess of Kent, and he had no doubt that she had fnl
filled her maternal duties in the most exemplary manner, but.e
wouldho
he thought that she had, after all, done no more than she
ought as a mother and the country had a right to expect.;
and if she had not fulfilled those duties as she had done, the
country would have had every right to censure her. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that they wer;DZ,.
the proposed arrangement only giving the Duchess of
2,0001. per annum additional ; but he (Colonel Sibtborp)
denied it, and asserted that, if they I
looked to former gran?,
they would find that it would be an addition of 20,0001. I°
contended that the grants for the education and virtual sup-.
port of the Princess Victoria had virtually ceased eV
become lapsed by her accession to. the Throne, and thaw
the Duchess of Kent might now (as far as any reason 11e
of state existed to the contrary) retire into private life; and ,
had no doubt that her Royal Highness herself entertainheadt
the wish. As to precedents, it should be remembered t
in the reign of George the Third the members of
the
Royal family, actually nearer to the Throne than he
Duchess of Kent, were allowed much smaller incomes.
six sons were only given 60,000/. amongst them, and his five
daughters 13,000/. The former certainly had much greater
establishments to support than the Duchess of Kent. The
Hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench had expatiated (?ti.
the limited allowance hitherto enjoyed by her Royal High,
ness; and he certainly must admit that if it was right to
allow her 30,000/. per annum now on account of her proxini
to the Throne, it was mean and niggardly in them to restric_
her to 22,000/. hitherto. It was rumoured that there e
certain debts incurred in the education of her Majesty sti
undischarged, to the payment of which this additional gram.
was to be devoted. If this %sere the case he could
saying that it would have been more straightforward to bar:
brougt forward that matter openly, and he would have been
also as-
one of the first to have aided their payment. It was
serted that there was a sort of private arrangement, that soil
workings were going forward in foreign lands, as well as.a
home, where he could plainly see that Hon. Gentlemen were
acting upon a principle well understood in one part of h r
Ma-
jesty's empire, viz., " scratch me and I'll scratch you.
Laughter.) The grant was evidently concocted and sup'
ported by those who were only anxious to secure power a n
place, " and who (said the Gallant Colonel) I trust in bee‘,„ve„-
will only hold them for a short time."—( Laughter.) It wag
a measure obviously prepared to please those by whose will
and pleasure they continued to sit on the Treasury Bench., A
not help
Sir J. C. HOB fl OUS E —We are going on Saturday.---k
laugh.)
Colonel SIBTHORP—I wish to God, Sir, it may be for
ever !—( A laugh.) If they were going to grant this 30,01 a
he wanted to know where it would go, and to whom it w°n
go? He should now move, " That it shall be lawful for her
Majesty to give and grant, by letters patent under the Great
Seal of Great Britain, to her Royal Highness Maria Louisa
Victoria Duchess of Kent, for the term of her natural life, for
the adequate provision of her said Royal Highness, a certa-;,
annual payment or annuity of 22,000/. of lawful moneys °t-
Great Britain, in lieu of the proposed grant of 30,000/."
Sir S. WHA LLEY said he felt some reluctance to the
grant, and would most probably have supported the Gallant
Colonel's proposition but for the line of argument by which be
supported A laugh.) He assured the Hon. Gentleman
that he was no party to the scratching system of which he
si‘oka, and was quite surprised that a man of his gallantry
should insinuate such motives where a lady was in the case."
(Laughter. )
Colonel SIBTHORP assured the Hon. Member that ho
did not apply the axiom to the Royal Personage alluded l°'
but to those persons who scratched her Majesty's Ministers, ca
hopes of getting something in return.—(Laughter.)
Mr. FINCH (who rose amidst cries of " Question")
sorted that, instead of merely granting an increase of 8,0001.,
they were actually giving an increase of 14,000/. Looking at
the entire arrangement, and the circumstances under which th,e,
additional grant was proposed, he could not reconcile it with
his duty to his constituents to accede to it. He must, there'
fore, give his vote to the Gallant Colonel--(Question.)
A division then took place, and the numbers were as fol-
lows :

Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to recal the attention of the
House to the question really before it. He thought it a mat-
ter of the greatest danger in a branch of the Legislature af-
firming resolutions that might give birth to expectations which
might, from causes unconnected with the question to which
they related, be altogether frustrated. Hopes might be raised
mhich they could not realise under circumstances not at all
connected with the immediate matter. Ha thought the terms
of the resolutions pledged the House to such kind of proceed-
ings, as he was sure were of a nature that ninety-nine out of a
hundred of the intelligent class he gave the weavers the credit
of being, would scareely be able to weave with a serious coun-
tenance when they read them.
Sir C. B. VE RE said that the manner in which the ques-
Con had been put had given an opportunity to open all topics,
however remotely connected with it, and he thought the Hon.
Gentleman would better consult the interests of the people
whom he was desirous of serving by withdrawing his motion.
Mr. FIELD EN replied. He wished the motion to be put
from the chair, and had no objection to its being negatived
withou. a division.
Mr. lIINDLE Y said it was one of too much importance to
be dealt with in that manner, and lie should press it to a di.
vision if the Hon. Member for Oldham did not.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that in case he shoidd move the
previous question as an amendment.
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
peered—

For the original motion
Aga;nst it
Majority

There ap-

-62

BEER AND CIDER IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Air. \VARBURTON moved for leave to bring in.a Bill to
,mend the laws for regulating the sale of beer and cider in
England and Wales.
Mr. P. HOWARD seconded it.
Leave was given.
UNION WORKHOUSES.

Mr. COURTENAY moved for a list of the unions fur
which workhouses have been ordered by the Poor Law Com-
missioners to be built, purchased, altered or enlarged,from
the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act to the present
time, with the number of persons to be provided for, the
amount authorised to be expended, and the names of the archi-
tects and eontracters.—Ordered.
OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS.

Sir S. WHALLEY postponed his motion relative to the
occupation of Algiers by France. We could not hear to
what period.
NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES.

Mr. HUME moved, pursuant to notice, " That every Mem-
ber intending to proposed a Select Committee shall, one day
next before such nomination of Members, place on the Votes
the names of the Members intended to be proposed by him to
be Members of such Committee." He was not aware that
any inconvenience could arise from the arrangement; but if it
did, as it was only an experiment—the House could, upon trial,
rescind it.

Ay es
Nees
Majority
Colonel SIBTHO RP then stated his intention to postpone
the second clause of his motion until the report of the Con!"
mittee on the third reading came before the House. He gin',,
begged leave to explain that, in his reference to the scratch-
ing System, he had not the slightest intention of alluding t!
•her Royal Highness, but to the action and reaction of the
Radical Members and the jobbing Ministers.—(Laughter.)
He then gave notice that, after the recess, he would mote for
the repeal of so much of the Statute of George 111. as grant°
50,000/. to Leopold, Prince of Saxe Coburg, &c.
Sir Matthew Wood's two Bills—oee for the improvement
of the metropolis, and the other for the better regulation of
,
hackney carriages and omnibuses—were read, and advanced
a stage, and the following Gentlemen were appointed a Corn"
mittee in the former :—Sir Matthew Wood, Mr. Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Viscount Lowtilr'
Mr. Herries, Admiral Codrington, Sir Robert Harry Inglis'
Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Wakley, Colonel Evans, Mr. OAP
Mr. George Palmer, Mr. Pendarves, Mr. Barnard, and Mr'
Hall.

Mr. P. THOMSON should not oppose the motion, espe-
cially in the form in which it had been put by the Hon. Mem-
ber; but he could not let it pass without expressing his own
conviction that it would lead to great inconvenience, and that
the House would ultimately be obliged to rescind it altogether.
Sir T. FREMANTLE did not intend to oppose the mo-
tion either, but he thought it would be very inconvenient if
strictly adhered to in all cases. He would suppose, for in-
stance, that a Select Committee was required to be appointed
without delay. In that case the principle of the motion would
interfere with the public business. If, however, it was to bo
taken as the general rule, and if cases analogous to that which
he had supposed should be understood as the exception, he
thought no injury could accrue from at least giving a trial to
the experiment.
Mr. WAKL E Y suggested the introduction of words to the
effect named by the Hon. Baronet. It was necessary, he as-
serted, to make the rules of the House as clear and as explicit
as possible.
Mr. WYSE supported the motion.
After a few words from Sir M. WOOD, the motion was
agreed to.
MEMBERS ON PUBLIC COMMITTEES.
Mr. HINDLE Y moved " That no Member shall be on
more than two public Committees at the same time."
The motion, however, had no seconder, and accordingly it
fell to the ground.

The other Orders of the Day were then gone through. i,
Mr. HUME moved for a return of all the monunlent
erected in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral. at
the public expense from 1756 to the present time, specifrlig
the cost in each case, &c.

The House then adjourned, at Twe!ve o'Clock.

HOUSE OF L ORD S.—Dire. 21.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lose
CHANCELLOR, took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock.
Upon the motion of Lord DUNCANNON the whole Houser
solved itself into a Committee on the Prisoners' in 1010"
Conveyance Expenses Bill.
The Bill passed through the Committee. The House red-
sumed, and the Bill was reported without amendments, an
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
POOR LAW MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from t,WI
gentlemen calling themselves the Secretaries of the Medics
and Surgical Association at (as we understood) Chelrastwarbs
on behalf of the gentlemen forming that Association. f_
object of the petition was to state that there was an ins
uts
ficient and greatly inadequate supply of medical attendants
afforded to the poor under the new Poor-law amendment sY6ts
tem ; and that that attendance was now much more inadequate
than it was under the former system. With reference
its having been diminished by the new Poor-law system, tjeci.
the Noble Lord, had very considerable doubts iiidecei
As to its having been inadequate formerly, and being itia to
quate now, that might be ; nor was it any answer whatever ter
say, that the medical assistance afforded to the poor is bet t
ot
now than it was under the old law. If that assistance is °
now sufficient, an alteration ought to be made.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the comparison lYtte
portant.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE observed that upon corallit risee
the attendance might now be better, and so far it alif -1201-
satisfactory, but still that was no answer to its being tlittate
cient even now. The petitioners went on to :Neal
that, in consequence of the extent. of the medic it
distance to which medical officers were appointte
im-
was impossible for them to render prompt and dance
mediate assistance in many cases where prompt attend
self
was required. That was what he, the Noble Lord himssi,
was entirely ignorant of. Ile had had, he must poor
no experience whatever of the working of the new_ also
Law Amendment Act in that respect. The petitioneros,,,.o.o
complained of the system of appointments of medical tar:yer
made by the Poor-law Commissioners; and the final Pint
of the petition was, that their Lordships would aPrbiest.
Committee for the purpose of inquiry into the PuerJ, in
The Noble Lord differed in opinion with the petitio% sot
reference to the prayer of the petition. He diodieut
think under the present circumstances it would be ell), ar
to engage in that enquiry. There was a Committ!rojori
pointed by the other House to enquire into the 0/7 who
of the New Poor Law Amendment Act, and tha'ebsfore
complained ought to have an opportunity of going.tistiers
that Committee with their complaints. The Pe"
as not
observed that a sufficient opportunity of that sort *rows,
afforded to them by the Committee of the House of Cti' those
inasmuch as the Committee was so composed as not to gllbeard.
opposed to the new system a chance of being imparth'ilie roost
only did not know how that was, but if it were so, roost
only say that it was most impolitic. He was sure thate4 the
persons who had given their attention to the operativi.); the
new system, especially in those parts of the countrytistiteed that
Poor-law was most particularly felt, must be sand that tie
essential good had been done by the new system, a 6Eoll°'
internal management of workhouses was infinitely suf,:ded bat
to what it was under the old system. He felt Perbseneficial
the working of the new system had been most
place—end that it that
that great improvements had taken
with
the change had been most useful.
would be considered universally throughout tne
agree .5
Lord ELLENBOROUGH did not altogether
d with °I
be concurred na
the statements of the pe:itioners. But
rinciples a
Noble Friend in believing that the more the
known, the
more
real tendency of the I'oor Law Act became
would its benefits be acknowledged.
any petition.
at m
medical
The Earl of R ADNOR said, that a
gres ectabla
had been presented to the House froal
rewguld have a
practitioners, complaining that the
the system of comp etiXre'_
•
dency to degrade the profession by men who had
But there were a great many respectable country t.s-
. in eit"
entered into that competition.
Lord
on the table.
debtors
planation, the petition was lai
d a ctition from the
the
Lord BROUGHAM presente
praying forPsome alteration
Zners
confined in Bath Gaol,
ni for debt. The pesTate of
After a few words from WHARNCLIFFE,
laws elating to
stated that themselves anti familiesmisery,
eeanseci
wee_
t destitution and
(lured. TheY f the
the greatest
which they had en tion 0
of the long confinement
and cruel opera d wets
of the harsh
fe aa boned two instances
who had a wt
law. One was that of a person
imprisonme
were .n
uerce

GENERAL POST OFFICE.
Mr. HUME, in the absence of the Hon. Member for
Greenock, moved for the following returns, at his request :
" That return No. 24, ordered in the votes of December 14,
be discharged ; and to move for returns, in detail, of the
number of cases which have occurred, from sth January, 1829,
to sth January, 1837, in each year, of letters, franked or un-
franked, addressed to persons in London, Dublin, or Edin-
burgh, or which have been applied for through the General
Post Offices of those cities, containing money, bills, bank.
notes, or other property, which have been secreted or purloined
by any person in the employment of the Post Office depart-
ment, or been demanded therefrom by private parties as unde-
livered ; with the amount thereof in each case in each year
respectively. Of the names and situations of all persons dis-
missed or removed from the Post Office department, as above,
under the allegation of having purloined or secreted letters,
franked or unfranked, or been concerned therein, containing
money, bills, bank-notes, or other property, belonging to pri-
vate parties, with the amount in each instance ; also, a return,
as above, of all persons who have actually defrauded the Re-
venue department of the Post Office, and been dismissed
therefore; stating, in either case, if the first offence was vi-
sited with removal or dismissal, or if repeated previous thereto.
Also, the nature of the security taken by the Post Office re-
garding the abstracting or purloining moneys or other property
by those employed therein; stating if the parties becoming
sureties are bound to make good and restore private property
when abstracted or purloined by the servants of the public in
that department, or only for their fraudulent acts against the
revenue."

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIA-
MENT.
Mr. WARBURTON moved for leave to bring in " a Bill
to amend the laws relating to the qualification of Members to
serve in Parliament." The Hon. Member stated that the
principle of his measure was to reduco the qualification for
county Members to the same amount as that of borough Mem-
bers, and to admit various descriptions of property to qualify
for either or both.—Leave given.
DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY.
On the motion of Mr. P. THOMSON, the dropped Order
of the Day for the Committee on the Duchess of Kent's An-
nuity Bill was read.
_

On the question that the, Speaker do leave the chair being
put,
- - •

Colonel SIBTHORP complained of the conduct of the
Hon. Secretary for the Treasury towards him as regarded the
o
amendment which he had given notice of on this Bill, and
said that he believed it to be the intention of her Majesty's
Government to throw it altogether
over.
"smooth n
device"t hat
ground,
f ie
though he had been requested by the
Hon. Secretary to postpone his amendment, for the conve-
nience of the Government, he should not do so, as they would
not promise him a day for its discussion. They deserved not
the slightest indulgence at his hands, and they should not
have it.—(Laughter.) He would do his duty. If the public
were satisfied so would he be.
The Speaker then left the chair, and the House resolved
itself into Committee.
On clause I being put,
Colonel SIBTHORP came forward to propose his amend-
ment. He said that when the Hause of Commons was called
on to grant a sum of 30,0001. a year to " her Royal HighneFs
Maria Louisa Victoria, Duchess of Kent"—( Laughter)—he,
as one of the guardians of the public purse, felt it to be his
duty to express his opinion on the subject, and to inquire
wherefore was that sum granted. It came down to that
House as a recommendation from her Majesty, on the advice
of her Majesty's servants in the Goverement ; and no doubt

children, and had now suffered an imprisonment of two
hundred days for a debt of 71. ; the other was that of
a person with six children, who had been imprisoned
for a similar number of days for a debt mot exceeding 71. 13s.
The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Reverend
Charles Aldridge, who stated that he was a Clergyman of
the Established Church; that he was canonically or-
dained by the late Bishop of Sodor and Mann, and that
for more than two years he had been a witness to the
great good and benefit conferred upon that diocese by the
Personal exertions and superintendence of the late Bishop.
The petitioner referred to a statement made in that House
by a Right Rev. Prelate, stating that no injury would
result from the union of that diocese with Car-
lisle, and proceeded to say that from his experience
lie was of opinion that it would be productive of much mis-
chief. The Noble Lord presented a petition from the licensed
spirit-dealers and victuallers of Glasgow, signed by 700 per-
sons, praying for an alteration in the law relating to licences.
DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER.
Lord MELBOURNE said that he had a few words to
offer to the House in reference to a subject which, in
some degree, was connected with the motion, a notice
for which he saw in the Order Book, with respect
to the production of the accounts of the net proceeds of the
Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, for a certain number of
years. It had been certainly stated, on a former occasion,
that there would be no objection on the part of
Government to the production of those accounts, but
that they since found that this information had
never before been laid before the House ; and, unless it was a
voluntary act of grace on the part of the Crown, it would be
an insult to the Sovereign to call for the production of them.
lie had already stated that it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government to introduce new regulations
with respect to the Duchies of Corn %all and Lancaster ;
to do away with the present system of secrecy as regarded the
accounts; to remedy any abuses that might be poitited
out, and to lay those regulations before the House.
The whole management of the Duchies was to be laid open
to Parliament. Therefore, upon all these grounds, he put it
to his Noble and Learned Friend if be would persevere in the
notion ?

Lord BROUGHAM could assure their Lordships that there
was no man in the universe who was less disposed than he
was to turn a deaf ear to such an appeal as had been made
by his Noble Friend. He would not persevere in his motion,
as it was stated to be both unfitting and disrespectful to the
Crown.—( Hear, hear.) He had another reason for not per-
severing in his motion—he knew that it would be ono
of the most futile attempts that possibly could be
made. Even if he was backed by his • Noble Friend
and those associated with him in the Government, and all
those who supported him, he could not for a moment stand in
the face of opposition which was about to be mode by the
majority of that House ; therefore, as he could not hope
to succeed, even with such backing, it would be madness
in him to go on opposed, not only by the majority,
but by his Noble Friend and his supporters. In order to
vindicate himself, he must state that he was not the only
one who laboured under the mistake of supposing that
his motion was neither unfitting, or at all disrespectful to
the Crown; for he had applied to all those whose office led
them to have connection with the question, and they had stated
that they saw not the slightest objection to the papers. He
had therefore done nothing tending to show any disrespect to
the , Crown. Those Noble Friends who were implicated
in his conspiracy were his Noble Friends the Chancel-
lor of the Duchy of Lancaster ( Lord Holland), the Lord
President of the Council (Lord Lansdowne), and his Noble
Friend who presided over the Woods and Forests department.
No more were his Noble Friends accomplices with him. Ho
held himself free from the guilt of a principal offender in any of
those three principal charges. He ventured humbly to defend
his Noble Fliends—or at least boldly to defend himself—
against the imputation, and he asked their Lordships whether
his Noble Friends or (said the Noble and Learned Lord with
great vehemence) whether I, at least, my Lords, do not
stand acquitted from any such accusation. We are
charged, my Lords, with voting hundreds of thousands
a year by way of the Civil List for half a century,
and the question with us now is, what is the amount t
of the Crown revenue from other sources—what amount
the Crown derives from those revenues which are with:
held from the direct control of Parliament, which are
not voted, but held independent of vote. My Lords,
when I expected that this question would come
before us—and we all knew that it would come before us— I
naturally and simply thought it was the fit and natural course
to ascertain at first what amount of revenue the Crown en-
joyed independent of Parliament.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
But it now appears, my Lords, that the fitter and
more natural course is to vote the money first,
and to ascertain afterwards whether the money be wanted.—
(A laugh.) But we are told that this preposterous course has
the example of the House of Commons—the very best pos.
sible exsmple—the very best example in the world—( A
laugh)—the example of the Guardians of the public purse—
whose voice is the voice of the free people in the
people': own House.—(Hear, bear, hear, and a laugh.)
But, my Lords, I hope we will not see the voice of the people
stifled in that House, by any collision between the Chair and
the Treasury Benches—(Cries of hear, hear, and great
sensation)—by the defeat and perhaps the final neu-
tralization—the total and ultimate defeat of every victory
which has been gained in the House of Commons by the
representatives of the people against the representatives
of rotten boroughs, and the nominees of the Crown. A cloud
has passed over the representatives of the people ; and
when your Lordships are asked why you take .E 0 much
care of the Commons—why you are so watchful of
the purse of the people—so much more watchful
than their own representatives—l have no other an-
swer to suggest to you than that the people
may awake, and may ring a peal in the ears of the present
guardians of the public purse, to which even your Lord-
ships may not feign deafness. Nor do I know that its
echos may cease to the latest existence of this country—l
will not say to the latest existence of the country—but to the
latest period of the life of the youngest public functionary
in the country. —( Murmuring and great sensation.)
Lord EL LENBOROUGH was quite aware, that within
the last four or five years there had been numerous in-
stances of that House asking information respecting public
expenditure, which the House of Commons had either
not been asked for, or had refused ; and it was necessary
that they should obtain all the information possible to
be acquired in any cases to enable them to legislate
safely. On these grounds, therefore, he did not think that
the Noble and Learned Lord was justified in withdrawing
his motion. There was, however, an objection to the
motion, which was, that from the nature of the thing, it ought
not to be a motion, but an address.
Lord BROUGH AM slid it had been changed into that.
Lord ELLENBOROUG H then said in reference to the
Noble Viscount opposite stating that a Bill was about to be
introduced into the House for the regulation of the revenues
of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, it was absolutely
necessary, from the merging of the revenues of the
Duchy of Cornwall in the Crown, that an Act should
'be passed, because the Crown could not grant a single lease of
that property, until as Act was passed, enabling it so to do.
One of the first Acts in the reign of William IV. was an Act
upon the subject ; therefore the subject must come before
the House ; and he, the Noble Lord, would say, that as an
opportunity would be granted to the House, so the House ought
to take advantage of that opportunity, and make an entire
change in the Duchy of Cornwall. He thought that an end
ought to be put to the payment of fines upon the renewal
of leases, and that all leases should be granted at annual in-
comes. It was morally ruinous and injurious that a Prince
of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, on coming into possession of
this property, should at the age probably of nineteen, have to
receive 90,0001. or 100,000/. There was no probability of a
Prince of Wales coming into possession of it for at least
twenty years ; now advantage ought to be taken of that
circumstance to place the property upon an entirely new foot-
ing. He did not object to information on the subject. On
'the contrary, he wished to have it ; and his objection to the
noble and Learned Lord's motion was, that it would afford no
iiisformation—valuations ought to be taken.
Lord BROUG HAM was satisfied that his motion would
have afforded as much information as would have been neces-
sary for his purpose, but lie was disposed to withdraw it, chiefly
from she hopelessness of its being agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished to address a few
words to the House on this subject. As the House did not
usually sit on Wednesday, he did not think that the Noble and
Learned Lord would then have brought forward his motion ;
and, consequently, he had made an engagement for that
evening, which prevented him from being able to stop
to hear the whole of the Noble and Learned Lord's speech.
The Noble Viscount opposite had stated yesterday that he (the
Noble Duke) had made some objection to a similar measure on
former occasion. It was time that he had taken
an objection to a provision, not having been made
in some measure at that period for the office " of the
First Lord of the Treasury, and the other great Officers of
state, who, in his opinion, ought to be made independent of
au annual vote in the Committee of Supply in the other House
of Parliament ; and he felt an objection to this measure on
the same ground. He likewise professed to feel a very strong
objection to the system which had been established in respect
to pensions being granted during the pleasure of Parliament.
It was his opinion that a sufficient provision had not been made
for those pensions. The Noble and Learned Lord had gone
into considerable detail in respect to the inconvenience likely
to result from the long period of time for which
Pensions were now granted. He (the Noble Duke) wished
them to consider that, and see how the matter stood.
Those pensions are not granted to persons who have not
elven great services to the country. There were many
ofticers upon the list who had been put there for their ser-
viecs in the late war. Legislating, as they all hoped they were
for tjte next fifty years, he would ask were they making a suf-
ficient provision, whereby the Crown could reward such services
by givitig a power to grant 1,200/. a year? But there was
~nother objection he had to the Bill. He objected to that clause
b4'7 which the Crown was called upon to state to Parliament
`an grounds upon which the pension was granted. There
Ivere man y well-founded claims upon the authority of the
Crown which a Minister could not successfully defend before
parliament. He could then state names which he was confident
their Loreistips would consider as well-founded claims
l'Pon the bounty of the Sovereign. Besides, Parliament ought
to be inform ed'w[2at the Sovereign was called upon to give
111) upon ente eirg into this bargain, in order that the public
might consider ei.tietber there was not some claim upon their
generosity. Every !ndiwi dual in the country having large pro-
perty had the power of acting generously. Was it right, then,
ghat the only individualin the country. wbo was to be denied
e liberty of acting upon such feelings, without its being
tigtgged be fore :the public, should be she who filled the
Throne
Lord MELBOTRNE said, that notwithstanding what had

fallen from theiNoble Duke opposite, with respect to the
present arrangement not conducing to the comfort or dignity
of the Sovereign, he was still of opinion that it was,
under all the circumstances, the best and most convenient
that could be adopted. No inconvenience had been found to
result from the arrangement of the Civil List which had been
made in the beginning of the last reign, and he certainly
could not see that any would arise if they followed that pre-
cedent as respected the present. The Noble Duke complained
that the sum which had been granted for pensions was insufficient
for the purposes of generosity and charity. They differed in
opinion on that point. The Noble Duke had adverted to the
number of claimants that were entitled to rewards at the
hands of the Crown. Ho had feelingly alluded to
the widows and families of naval and military officers,
and to others for whom provision ought to be made
by the country. To a certain degree he concurred in the
sentiments of the Noble Duke, but he could not go to the
full extent with him as to the standard of charity and super-
annuations which he bad set up in his own mind. For his
own part he was of opinion that there was nothiug so dan-
gerous to the country as too enlarged a system of pensions
and superannuations.—( Hear, hear.) The finances of the
country could stand it no more than those of a private
individual.—( Hear, hear.) He knew that this allowance of ,
1,2001. a-year was a smaller sum than had been granted un-
der the former system, but it was less uncertain. Ho
believed, in his conscience, that, small as it was, if that
sum were properly administered, and its proper administra-
tion could only be secured by the publicity e.tablished by this
Bill, it would be found sufficient for all its purposes.
His opinion was that what was given was sufficient, and the
restrictions were only those which would secure a more
liberal and useful administration of the funds. He was
rejoiced that the Noble Duke opposite had no intention of
obstructing the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of RIPON said, that although the Bill professed
to be a temporary measure, terminable with the life of the
Queen, yet it proposed to fix permanently upon the Civil List
the charge for the Duchess of Kent.
Lord BROUGHAM thought it right at that time (lest
there should be no future opportunity) to observe on the clause
in the Bill, which gave to her M.:jesty the authority to grant
pensions not only to the amount of 1,2001. a-year in
every year, but to lay over for accumulation, to the :increase
of future pensions, the surplus which might remain in any year
above the pensions granted in that year, and the said sum of
1,2001.,—the clause had come up in such a state that
it was difficult to say whether her Majesty would have
less power than was intended to be given her—whether she
would hare any power at all—or a great deal more power, in
granting pensions than the House of Commons suspected
were given her.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked what did the Noble and
Learned Lord wish to be done with the clause?

Lord BR OUG HAM—To make it clear, if that can be
done. —( Laughter. ) _ _

Lord 'ELLENBoROUGH considered that consistently
with the known privileges of the House of Commons, the
House of Lords might add words, in order to make the
meaning of the Bill more clear.
The Bill went through Committee, and was reported with-
out amendments.—To be read a third time to-morrow.
UNIVERSITIES.

Lord RADNOR said that when he formerly brought
forward the question of the absurdity of the statutes of the
Universities, he was assured that they would undergo a rigid
investigation by the authorities of the respective Universities.
They had sat all during the long vacation, but the whole of the
Reforms which had been made were of a most ridiculous nature.
The absurdity of making a young man swear to observe sta-
tutes of which he knew nothing, and many of which never
were and never could be obeyed, still existed. It had been
proposed to abolish an obsolete custom, by which two masters
were appointed to instruct the fellows in the (Mounting of the
Litany ; that proposal was opposed by no less than sixty-eight
persons. A question had arisen as to the illegality of their
proceedings, viz., whether they ought to have originated
with the Hebdomadal Board or the Convocation ; but he
wished to refer to the question of the total illegality of sta-
tutes being passed by the University of Oxford without the
consent of the Crown. The code of statutes by which the
University was governed had been passed by the Convocation,
and was received in 1636. About 1631 the Earl of Pem-
broke, and subsequently Archbishop Laud, Chancellors of the
University, being anxious to get the statutes framed into one
code, set about the task with great zeal, and their object was
accomplished. Very few new statutes were drawn up, but
the old statutes were arrarged and embodi-d in ono code.
Charles the First then sent down officers, who were received
with great solemnity, to give his sanction to the new code. On
that occasion he apprehended that the University gave up the
rules of its former Charter granted by Elizabeth, and adopted
ie their stead the Constitution given by Charles. That was the
opinion of many lawyers. If, then, that was the code by
which the University was governed, the question was—did
that code give a power of changing the statutes to the Univer-
"city ? He found, on the contrary, that there was a statute
forbidding change ; and in a letter, written by Archbishop
Laud, on the subject, it was declared that the statutes were
passed, and sanctioned, and adopted, in posterum perpetuo.
The statutes passed in 1636, and for 120 years after that time
there were only seven alterations. In 1789 some doubt or
dispute arose as to the enactment of new statutes, and, upon
the opinions of Mr. Justice Blackstone and two other Barris-
ters, it was supposed that the University had power to make
statutes. Many of the Colleges asserted most strongly that
they had not the power to do so, and that Parliament had
none. But in the Senate last year a new statute was passed
to repeal some chapters of two statutes, one of which related to
the Regius Professor of Divinity having the appointment of
the select preachers for the University. In fact, it was the
practice to repeal a whole chapter, and to put a whole chapter
in the addenda ; and the same thing had been done with re-
ference to the Regius Professor's appointment of preachers.
Upon technical grounds, then, he contended that the Univer-
sity had violated their statutes, and in this opinion he was borne
out by that of many other persons, as well as by that of the
Attorney-General himself. With respect to the case of Dr.
Hampden, the proceedings adopted he could only consider as
decidedly wrong, both on the principles of law and justice.
That gentleman was living quietly at Oxford as the Regius
Professor in that University. A great stir had been made
among out-lying voters with respect to him, a great number
of whom, although no doubt but few of them had read the
works they were going to condemn, went up to the Convoca-
tion at Oxford to pass that statute by which they pronounced a
decision that some of Dr. Hampden's writings contained such
theological opinions—for so, he supposed, he must translate
res theologicas—that the University could no longer place that
confidence in him which the situation he held ought to insure.
That statute was passed without Dr. Hampden having ever
been heard in his defence--( Hear, hear)—and the Warden
of Merton College had absolutely concluded one of the speeches
which he made upon the occasion by asking " where was the
accused, and of what was he accused ?" One of the effects of
this statute was, to exclude Dr. Hampden from sitting at the
Board of Heresy in the University ; and he must say that if
there was a regular and an irregular, a legal and an illegal,
way of doing that which had been done to that gentleman, the
University had adopted the most irregular one. He ( Lord
Radnor) wished to repeat, before he sat down, his opinion
that the University most distinctly required the Royal assent
to be given before it could proceed to alter any one of its sta-
tutes. Every individual who took a degree at Oxford, of
whatever nature, swore to comply with the statutes of the
University. The Noble Lord then read an extract from an
anonymous publication, and from an article in a former num-
ber of' the Quarterly Review, for the purpose of showing that
by altering any of the statutes of the University any of the
members thereof would be guilty of perjury, and concluded by
moving for copies of the protests made by Dr. Hampden on
the Bth of November, 1836, and the 28th of January, 1837.

The Duke of WELLINGTON ruse and said—l think it
my duty to resist the motion of the Noble Lord, although, in-
deed, I know not to what person, in point of form, that motion
ought to be considered as addressed.—( Hear.) But, my
Lords, it appears to me that the object of this motion is to
bring the subject under the consideration of this House, with
the view of prosecuting the University of Oxford for the trans-
action to which the speech of the Noble Lord referred. But
that, my Lords, is a step which this House ought not to take.
—( Cheers.) But, if this House were to take such a step—if this
House were to act with a view to the prosecution of the Uni-
versity, and if, after that step was taken, and that prosecution
entered upon, an appeal should be made against it, I should
like to know in what situation the Noble Lot d would stand ?
—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, I cannot help observing that the
last part of the speech of the Noble Lord is a complete answer
to the first, because, if the Noble Lord be correct in his asser-

tion that the University has no right to make any alteration in
its Statutes, why can he blame the University for not making
such alteration ?—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord has entered
at some length into the Constitution of the University of Ox-
ford, with a view to show, that as a Corporate body, it has not
the power to alter its Statutes.- I think, however, that there
is no Corporation in existence which has had the power of
making Statutes during a longer period of time than the Uni-
versity of Oxford. So far back as 1634 that University agreed
upon the adoption of a course with respect to the alteration of
one of its Statutes ; and so lately as 1836, a Royal letter was
sent to Oxford upon the subject of that Statute, contain-
ing the prohibitionary clause adverted to by the Noble
Lord, and which he pretends has the effect of preventing
any alteration, although the words of the Statute in ques-
ticn contain an express power of enacting, interpreting, and
altering the University Statutes, forbidding, at the same
time, any alteration of those which were conferred by Royal
authority. The Noble Lord pretends that those words re-
ferred to the whole of the Statutes from 1634 to 1836. But
it is well known in the University that the prohibition only
extends to those which are called the " Caroline Statues,"
to those directed by the King himself to be carried into exe-
cution, and containing very different words from any of the-
other Statutes of the University. This prohibition has cer-
tainly been always so understood in the University, and has
so been acted upon from 1634 until now. The Noble Lord
stated that in 1640 a Statute was passed, with reference to a
Professoi ship of Arabic, by Archbishop Laud, at that time
Chancellor of the University. But surely it was understood
then that if a Statute could not be altered or interpreted but
by the Queen's consent, the Archbishop would not fail to ask
that consent. But it so happens that that Statute was not
confirmed under the Great Seal. There were also other
Statutes passed, and by those well acquainted with the Statutes
of 1634, and no doubt had ever existed as to the power of the
University of Oxford to alter their Statntcs until a later period.
I believe there must have been some doubt expressed in some
quarter as to the right of the University to alter its statutes;
but be that as it may, nothing could be more clear or just
than this opinion appeared to be, and on it I rely ; and this I
must say that the Noble Lord and the publie in general
having called upon the Universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge to alter their statutes it is rather hard now to say that
they have no right to do so—to say that these statutes are

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1837.

things which, although they may have become obsolete, must
not be altered, because there are certain words in a certain
statute containing a prohibition to that effect. So far then as
to that part of the speech of the Noble Lord, and now I will
advert to what he has stated of the case of Dr. Hampden.
His late Majesty was pleased to advise the appointment of
that gentleman to the office of Regius Professor of Divinity in
the University of Oxford. No doubt some of the theological
opinions of that gentleman were not considered in the Uni-
versity as exactly consistent with the Articles of the Church of
England ; and he had published certain works, in which it was
stated that sentiments prevailed of such a nature as to induce
several members of the University to petition the governing
body to address his Majesty, in the hope that ho might
be pleased not to confirm the appointment. The appoint-
ment was made, however, and shortly afterwards Dr.
Hampden published a protest in explanation ; and I will here
take the opportunity of stating that, in proportion as Dr.
Hampden, in that explanation, professed to remain in the
same opinion with respect to those points which had been ob-
jected to regarding him, in the same proportion those who re-
fused to approve of his appointment were justified in with-
holding their approbation.—(Hear, hear.) I think that, as
Dr. Hampden refused to explain his opinions upon those
points, they had some justification for the course they adopted.
—( Hear, hear.) Everything was done that could be done
to induce him to explain his opinions ; and I must say that I
think the Convocation acted in the most consistent manner
they possibly could in taking that notice of the transaction
which they felt it to be their duty to do. The University of
Oxford, and all who had had any influence on the question,
have since that period done everything in their power to put
down any further discussion with respect to this affair, with
the exception of the single instance of the present Vice-Chan-
cellor of the University having put up in his own College the
notice to which the Noble Lord has adverted. The Noble
Lord has adverted to the fact of that gentleman having, in
his capacity as the Head of a House, excluded students from
attending the lectures of Dr. Hampden, and held out as a
perialty for so doing, the refusal of their testimonials for holy
orders. Now, I certainly do not approve of the course taken
by the Vice-Chancellor.—( Hear, hear.) In my opinion, the
real point under such circumstances to be looked at is this ;
that the ordination for which the necessary testimonials were
to be refused did not rest with, and could not be conferred by
the Head of a House.—( Hear, bear.) That ordination could
only be conferred by the Bishops of the Church.—( Hear,
hear.) And whether the student who was a candidate for
orders had attended the lectures of Dr. Hampden, of the
Margaret Professor, or of any other person, it was the duty
of the Bishop alone to consider, when that student came be-
fore him to be ordained, whether he was qualified or not—
(hear)—and not the duty:of Heads of Houses or any other
persons whatsoever. It was solely the duty of the Bishops,
and, I must say, at the same time, that the Vice-Chancellor,
in adopting the course which he did, had the very highest
sureties for what he was doing..-. 4 Cheers. )
Lord BROUGHAM said, with reference to the Noble
Duke's observations upon the explanation of Dr. Hampden,
that that gentleman expressing his intention to remain the
same with respect to his opinions,was no more a proof that those
opinions were what they were represented to be by others than
his (Lord Brougham's) assertion that the report that he had
the other day abruptly quitted the Queen's table was a false
one, was any argument in favour of such a report.—( A leugh.)
Now he would take that opportunity of protesting to their
Lordships that that report was a pure fiction of the brain—a
pure dream of the imagination.
The Earl of WINCHIL SE A concurred in what fell from
the Noble Duke, that the University of Oxford acted with
great leniency towards Dr. Hampden. They had an impor.
tant duty to discharge. They were entrusted with the educa-
tion of the rising generation, and they were bound to take
care that the young men under their charge should not be im-
bued with religious opinions at variance with those of the great
majority of the University.
Viscount MELBOURNE said if there was anything un-
orthodox or schismatic in the opinions of Dr. Hampden it
was certainly a matter not very easy of detection. The opi-
nions which had been objected to were not upon leading
points of orthodox belief, but upon extremely nice, diffi-
cult, and abstruse points, with which he would confess that
he was but little acquainted, and of the nature and tendency
of which some persons whom be had an opportunity of consult-
ing seemed to have been very little better informed than
himself_ He believed there was nothing in his writings that
militated against the doctrines of the Cnurch of England.
The Noble Duke intimated that Dr. Hampden gave an ex-
plenation of the doctrines he entertained, which explanation
was not satisfactory to the majority of the University. He
was appointed to the Regius Professorship, because he was
considered the most competent person to fill the chair, and in
his inaugural lecture he entered into an explanation of his
opinions, and he believed those opinions were found to be
perfectly consistent with the doctrines of the Church
of England. The Noble Duke said those opinions were con-
trary to those of the majority of the University of Oxford.
He (Viscount Melbourne) would not admit that the opinion
of a majority of that University ought to be decisive in mat-
ters either of a religious or of a civil character. The refor-
mation took place in opposition to the opinions of a great ma-
jority of the University of Oxford ; the opinions of Mr. Locke
were opposed to a niajce-ity of the same University ; so that, if
such a majority had prevailed, every thine free, and noble, and
generous in religion and politics would have been lost to the
country. He did not mean to deny the competence of that
house to call for the production of the paper moved fur by his
Noble Friend. He concurred in much of what fell from his
Noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor), and as his object was
sufficiently answered by bringing the matter before the House,
he would suggest to him whether the better course would not
be to withdraw it.

1786*

FOR Ttt ADESMEN'S BILLS.
I❑ Lord Chamberlain's Department
Lord Steward's Ditto
Master of the Horse' ....Ditto
Master of the Robes' ....Ditto

£43,8,0
tl,ooo
2,200

I 937-S.

X 42,000
t-6,000
39,0.10
5,50)

IL I 18,200

:1:172,500

More in
1837-8 by
£53,300

FOR SALARIES. SUPERANNUA-
TIONS, Ric., TO SERVANTS 6F
HOUSEHOLD.
In Lord Chamberlain's Department
lord Sttivard's Ditto
Master of Horse's Ditto. ...
Master of Robes' Ditto

£47,!42
29, It
12,791
I,OSO

Z1P,41:3
36,381
27,650
73t1

40,294

• See Civil List Report of

i £90,166 I £131,260
15th March, 1202.

X 94,594

N. B. In the bills for salaries for 1837 there are some ser-
vants excluded, which were charged in another account in
1792, to the amount, it is supposed, of 6,0001., which will re-
duce the difference to that amount.
By which it appears that the sum expended in the years
from 1786 to 1792 in Tradesmen's Bills and Servants' Wages,
to the Royal Household, amounted to 209,1661. This sum
at that time would have maintained 10,064 agricultural la-
bourers' families, at the rate of Bs. a week, or 201. I6s. per
family per annum, being the average wages of agricultural
labourers in- Devon and Wilts, according to the evidence before
Parliament.

The sum proposed to be expended in the year 1837-8 in
Tradesmen's Bills and Servants' Wages for the Royal House-
hold amounts to 303,7601., which would maintain 14,600
agricultural labourers' families all the year, at the average rate
of their earnings of 83. per week in Wiltshire and other places.
A comparative statement of the charge on the people of
England for the Royal Family, and that part of Pensions
which were on the Civil List in the last year of William IV.,
and in the first year of Victoria; is also annexed :
Comparison of the Civil List, and other charges for the
Royal Family, in 1836-7, under Will. IV., with similar
charges to be incurred in 1837-8, under Queen Victoria:—
CIVIL LIST Or WILLIAM IV. CIVIL LIST OF QUERN VICTORIA.
CLASS. £ CLASS. £
1. Their Majesties' Privy 1. Her Majesty's Privy
Purse llO,lOO Purse
2. Salaries to the House- 2. Salaries to the House-
hold, and Superannu- hold, Superannua-
ations, &c.
3. Tradesmens' Bills 171,500 0. Tradesmen,' Bills
4. Royal Bounty, Special 4. Bounty, Alms, and Spe-
and Secret Service, cial Service 13,201
Alms 23,9.0, 5. Pensions to the extent
5. Pensions 75,000 of 1,200/. per annum...
6. Unappropriated Monies 8,0.10

Total .£510,0101

PAID FROM CONSOLIDATED FUND
IN 1856-7.
It ,yal Family, viz. :
Duke of Cumberland 21,000
Duke of Sussex 21,000
Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge 6,000
Prince George of Cumberland 6,000
Four PI ince,ses, each 13,00)1 42,000
Duchess of Kent and Princess
Victoria 22,000
Duchess of Gloucester
Primo Leopold 50,0001

206,000
Balance against the Public by
decease of William IV 62,000

~X 778

Exclusive of Palaces

The public will see that the
more expensive by the Civil L
Reforming Ministry than at any

Total £385,1.00

TO ME PAID FROM CONSOLIDATMD
FUND IN 1837-8.
Royal Family, viz.
Duke of Cumberland 21,r00
Duke of Sussex
Duke of Cambridge 21,000
Prince George of Camin idge 6,000
Four Princesses, each IN,OOO/ 42,000
Duchess of Kent
Duchess of Gloucester ...... 7,000
Prince Leopold.. 50,000
Queen Dowager 100,000

308,000
Secrct Service
Pensions 75,000

Total £776,000

and other expenses.
expense of Monarchy is made
,ist settlement under the Whig
y prior period.

LORD BROUGHAM'S PROTEST
AGAINST THE CIVIL LIST BILL.

LAst night Lord Brougham entered upon the Journals of
.he House of Lords the folio sing

"PROTEST

AGAINST FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE CIVIL LIST BILL.
" Dissentient,

" Firstly,—Because it is inconsistent with every sound prin-
ciple of legislation to make provision for so important a branch
of the public expenditure as the Civil List, by an arrange-
ment which is to last for the life of the reigning Sovereign,
inasmuch as through a period of time most justly desired and
reasonably expected to be of long duration, the whole circum-
stances may vary to which the terms of the arrangement must
be adapted, and the sum now allotted may be found either too
small or too large for the appointed purpose.
" Secondly,—Becauso such variations are more especially
likely to happen through the changes which may take plsc.e in
the relative value of money, and all articles of consumption, by
the fluctuating supply of the precious metals, the increased
powers of machinery, the improved skill in other respects
Lrought to bear upon manufactures, the progress of agricul-
tural improvement, and, above all, the improvement of our
legislation upon the importation of foreign corn, which would
at once lower the price of all commodities, and give an entirely
different real value to the nominal sum now allotted, as neces-
sary for the expenditure of the Court during the period of the
Sovereign's natural life, upon an assumption altogether gra-
tuitous, that prices will undergo no change.
" Thirdly,—Because the arrangement is also framed upon
an assumption, if possible, still more gratuitous, that the habits
of society will remain fixed, and that one generation after
another will pass away without undergoing any change in the
opinions and tastes which must always form the standard of
the establishment required to support the Royal dignity at any
given time ; while, if the object of the arrangement be to fix
these opinions and tastes in their present frame, or in one
more antiquated, and to arrest their future course, it must be
confessed that no attempt can be conceived more visionary
and chimerical.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would not have
risen to say one word upon the motion, were it not for an
observation which fell from the Noble Viscount the First Lord
of the Treasury. He felt assured that the Noble Viscount,
in the observation made by him, did not mean any disrespect
to certain persons who waited on him relative to the appoint-
ment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship. Ile
said they appeared totally ignorant of the subject. He would
not say whether he was ignorant of theology or not, or whether
he was more ignorant of it than the Noble Viscount professed
to be ; neither would he now allude to the peculiar opinions of
Dr. Hampden. These opinions were announced in several
publications, and he believed they gave dissatisfaction in va-
rious quarters. They were, however, of a character totally
different from the opinions which produced the Reformation,
and from the opinions of Mr. Locke. The question was,
were the opinions maintained by Dr. Hampden consistent
with the doctrines of the Church of England ? Upon this
point he would abstain from any observation now. He
would not attempt to go into the subject. He felt it his duty
certainly to make some representations to the First Lord of
the Treasury upon the appointment ; but he appealed to those
Ministers who were in power previous to the present Ministry
—he appealed to the Noble Duke (Wellington), and to a
Noble Friend of his who had just left the House—if he ever,
upon any occasion, stood in the way of any man's preferment
in the Church. Nothing but a sense of duty could induce
him to remonstrate against this or any other appointment, but,
having with him the great majority of the University, many
also of the ablest Divines, he did not feel that his conduct
ought to meet the ridicule of the Noble Earl ( Radnor). For
his part he did everything in his power to soften the matter in
the University. The Noble Earl read a passage from a Re-
view. What right had the Noble Earl to assume that this
Review was the organ of the Church? What right had he
to assume that certain sentiments must be the sentiments of
the University of Oxford, because he found them expressed in
this Review ? Similar sentiments might be entertained in an
Oxford Newspaper, or in some Church Magazine, of which
there were many; but were such publications therefore to be
called the organs of the Church ? The Church had very dif-
ferent organs, and he hoped they would adhere to them.
The Earl of R ADNOR, in reply, said it was generally un-
derstood that the Rreview froin which he quoted, spoke the sen-
timents of the Church. The truth was, that the doctrine laid
down in the Review was adopted in practice by the University.
The doctrine was, that by an oath, the person bound himself
to God, not to man. With respect to the alterations made in
the statutes, he thought that getting rid of the oath was a
great advantage, but the subscription, as now insisted upon,
was more objectionable than it was before, because persons
even under the age of twelve were called upon to subscibe,
and that as to matter of faith, not merely as to matter of
opinion or reason. . _ _

" Fourthly,---Because all experience bath shown that the
Civil List arrangement is only held binding upon one of the
parties to it—namely, the country—being always departed from
as often as it is found inconvenient for the Crown, and uni-
formly employed to preclude all revision of its principles or de-
tails, as often as these are found disadvantageous for the country.
" Fifthly,—Because the last time that a Civil List was settled
upon a 'loyal life of long probable duration, to wit, in 1760,
before nine years had elapsed Parliament was called upon to
r2consider the arrangement, and about half a million was paid
to defray the arrears of the Royal establishment—and in eight
years more above six hundred thousand pounds were again
required to supply a like deficiency, not to mention various
other similar applications during the remainder of the same
reign ; All of which clearly shows that what is constantly
treated as a compact between Prince and People, when the
interests of the latter are concerned, is as invariably deemed to
impose no obligation whatever upon the former party when his
interest requires the compact to be disregarded.
" Sixthly,.—Because that which experience has proved to
have been unwise and improvident nearly eighty years ago
ought to be still more jealously regarded at the present day by
those whom the Constitution has appointed to be as well the
guardians of the people as the councillors of the prince ; for
the public debt has, during that long interval of time, been
increased nearly tenfold—the peace establishment been more
than quadrupled—and the sums raised from the country are
above five times as large, and weigh upon its industry and re-
sources with a pressure against which even its increased popu-
lation, capital, and skill, can with the 'greatest difficulty main-
tain a struggle.

The motion was withdrawn, and some Colonial Returnshav-
ing been laid on the titble, their Lorthhips adjourned at Ten
Minutes to Nine.

Yesterday Mr. Hodgson had the honour of submit-
ting to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, at Bucking-
ham Palace, Mr. Parris' Portrait of her Most Gracious Ma-
jesty, of which her Royal Highness was pleased to express
the highest approval.

We are happy to hear that some of our largest
American houses have, within the last few days, given out or-
ders to the manufacturers to a considerable extent; and it is
confidently anticipated that the spring trade with the United
States will be a brisk one.—Birmingham Advertiser.
NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF TIIE TIMES OF
GEORGE IV.-Queen Caroline is, we hear, represented in
these pages in truer portraiture than she has ever yet been. Be-
sides the private history of her late Majesty, these memoirs,
we are told, will contain remarks on many of the leading cha-
racters of the times, bringing hidden things to light which will
excite great surprise.

SPAIN AND THE BRITISH LEGlON.—Colonel
Evans has announced his intention of bringing forward the
subject of Spain immediately after the recess. As the affairs of the
Peninsula must form a subject of deep discussion to Parliament,
Members of all political parth s would do well to peruse the
memoirs and correspondence of Colonel Char:es Shaw, lately
published, is which they will find an impartial account of the
true state and working of parties there. The many sugges-
tions' b
thrown out for the benefit of the soldier and the good of
the service are also well worth of consideration ; indeed, no
one can rise from the perusal of the work without enterini, into
the soldier-like, chivalrous, and even romantic feelings of the
gallant anthor a ( Seotchman), who we observe, speaks strongly
to the high character of his Irish brethren in arms.
Much may be exiiected from the forthcoming
" Memoir of the Court and Times of Louis the Fourteenth,"
not only on account of the known talent of the writer (Mr.
James, the author of " Darnley," " Richelieu." &c. ), but from
the great interest inher nt in the subject. The reign of " Louis
le Grande" was one of dazzlinc, brilliancy. What gorgeous
scenes in the salons of Versailles—what fantastic fetes in the
gardens—what rivalry of wit and emulation of beauty—what
intrigues and revelries may we not expect to be disclosed in
pages devoted to the illustration t i the proudest and gayest
era in the history of France.

" Seve;itilly,—Because the course, obviously recommended
by every rational view of the subject, would have been to pass
the Bill for a limited number of years, when the whole matter
might again have come under the consideration of Parlia-
ment ; and this would not have been so great a departure from
ancient usage as has been made upon former occasions, and
even in the reign. of Charles 11., when the devotion of all men
to the throne, and the dread of change, appeared to have
reached their greatest height.
6' Eighthly,—Because the unexampled haste with which
this measure has been carried through both Houses has pre-
vented the information from being in possession of either,
which it was absolutely necessary to hare before it could be at
all known what the revenue of the Crown will be after the
grant is made. In particular we are entirely ignorant of the
sums actually derived from the Duchies of Lancaster and
Cornwall, and only are aware that those revenues are very
considerable; that they are managed at a heavy cost; and
that as the law now stands, and as this Bill leaves it, the
larger portion of them may be anticipated at any time, by way
of fine, to the immediate profit of the reigning Sovereign, and
the impoverishment of the future heir-apparent, for whose
support they are believed to have been given, but whose ex-
penses being always defrayed in by far the greater proportion
by the country, the revenues in question ought to be placed
under the management of responsible functionaries, and ad-
ministered for the public benefit.
" Ninthly,—Because the like haste has been shown in
passing this Bill's provision, regarding pensions, before the
Committee now engaged in considering that subject has made
any report ; and when it is impoQsible to foretell how far its
inquiries may bear upon the policy of the proposed arrange-
ment.

" Tenthly,—Because ample time might have been afforded
for considering the whole of this important measure, and for
passing it into a law, with all the requisite information before
us, in such a mature form and at such an early period, as
might have testified the respect justly due to the Sovereign and
satisfied the duty we owe to the people, if the Parliament had
been assembled at such a period as the other interests of the
empire seemed plainly to require; more especially if, as early
as it has been summoned in past times when the work of war
was in hand, and required supplies of men and money, it had
now been called together fur the more blessed labours of peace
and conciliation, to retrace the steps of oppressive injustice,
to save the remote dominions of the Queen from the horrors
of civil warfare, and to spare the mother country the hard ne-
cessity of bearing a part in such a conflLt.
(Signed) " BROUGHAM."

Lord Hillsborough and his newly married Countess,
daughter of the Gallant Viscount Combermcre, will occupy
during the season the spacious mansion in Hanover-square
formerly in the occupation of Sir George and Miss Talbot.
The Duke and Duchess of Sutherland, the Mar-
quis of Stafford, and the infant Ladies Leveson Gower, left
Stafford House yesterday, at three P. M., to pass the recess at
Oatlands, 'tear Wqbridg,e.

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

EX PARTE MARSHALL.

This case came before ilieCO;;Jtii:npetition of two gen-
tlemen, who were the executors of a person who perished at
sea, two or three years ago. That individual by his will gave
certain legacies to charities at Mexico, upon the death of two
persons. Those individuals were now living, but a proposi-
tion having been made to enable those charities to receive the
gifts before their death, and the charities being much in want
of assistance, the present petition was for the purpose of hav-
ing a reference to the Master, to inquire whether it would be
proper for the executors to accede to the proposal.
His LOLDSIIIP ordered the reference as prayed.
RESLOP V. MEDCALFE.

The arguments in th;s part-heard case were resumed, bu
had not concluded when our reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor did not attend his Cour
to day, having been subpoenaed as a witness in the trial of
" Duncombe v. Daniel," in the Court of Queen's Bench.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY).

(Before Lord DENMAN, and a Special Jury.)
LIEEL—DUNCOMBE V. DANIELS.
This was an action for libel. The declaration charged the
defendant with publishing two libels, to which he pleaded_lat,
not guilty; 2d, a justification of the first libel; and, 3dly, a
justification of the second libel.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated the case. He said that it
was almost unnecessary for him to state what was so generally
known, that Mr. Duncombe, the plaintiff in this case was a
gentleman of high rank and respectability. He was the eldest
son of a gentleman of ancient family and large fortune in the
county of York, and had sat in Parliament for :many years,
first, he believed, for the borough of Hertford, and now for
the borough of Finsbury. It was with the greatest reluctance
that Mr. Duncombe felt himself compelled to appear before
them in the character of a plaintiff; but he had no alternative,
for if the charges which had been brought against him were true,
be would no longer be fit to hold the high trust which bad been
placed in his hands, or to occupy the station he did, in society.
The jury might very well conceive that the charges of which
Mr. Duncombe complained had no reference whatever to his
political principles or public conduct. These were fair sub-
jects of animadversion and condemnation to those who might
differ with him in opinion ; but when he was followed into pri- '
vote life, and charges affecting his honour as a gentleman,
such as the commission of the grossest frauds—in short, being
a swindler—were brought against him, be felt bound to ap-
peal to the laws of his country for redress. He was sorry to
inform them that the defendant in this record was a member
of the profession to which he (the Attorney-General) had the
honour to belong ; and knowing that, he stated, unfeignedly,
that he was much surprised at the manner in which these
charges were brought forward, and he was still more asto-
nished at the manner in which it was attempted to defend
them. He must say, that the conduct of Mr. Daniels
in this transaction was not such as might be expected
from the station which he held in society, and still less from
any man of good feeling. The rank of Mr. Daniels rendered
it the more necessary that Mr. Duncombe should appeal to a
jury, for it was not an anonymous slander which he had ut-
tered against him—he had thought pi oper to enter the field of
publication, and to give to the charges whatever weight his
name and rank might carry with them. He (the Learned
Gentleman) thought that the most expedient course he could
adopt, was to state shortly to the jury the real truth of the
charges which had been brought against his client. The first
libel accused Mr. Duncombe of having by false documents
knowingly imposed on the Vice-Chancellor of England, and
fraudulently obtained an injunction for the purpose of defeating
the claims of a just creditor. In the second, he was
charged with having fraudulently obtained money from,
aid swindled his private friends. They should now hear the
truth with respect to these allegations. In the year 1834, a
person named Bentley held a bill for 9003, on which Mr. Due-.
combe was liable. Mr. Duncombe entered into an arrange-
ment with him, by which it was agreed that he was to hand
over to Bentley a bill of exchange for 1,000/., of which Mr.
Duncombe was the drawer, and that Bentley was immediately
to return the 9001. bill. Bentley received the 1,0001. bill,
and not only did not return the other bill, but, on' being ap-
plied to for it, refused to give it up, and subsequently en-
dorsed it to a person named Surr. The 1,0001. bill became
due in November, 1834, and having been dishonoured by the
acceptors, Mr. Duncombe became liable. An action was
brought against him, and believing Surr to be the bona
fide
holder of the bill for the full amount, he consented that judg-
ment should be taken against him by Surr for the 1,0001.
Bentley shortly after left the country and became, a bankrupt,
and it was not until about the beginning of July last that he
knew the real nature of the transaction which had taken place
between him and Surr. He then learned that Bentley had
Landed the 1,000/. bill to Surr, not for the full value, but as
an indemnity for two bills of exchange which he had accepted
for the accommodation of Bentley. Surr having become a
bankrupt, and the bills of exchange having been dishonoured,
Mr. Duncombe learned that the total amount for which the
indemnity had been given by Bentley was not more than 3501.
Surr was not, therefore, the holder of the 1,0001. bill for its
full value, and beyond the 3501., the amount of the two bills
of exchange for which the indemnity had been given he had no
further claim upon Mr. DuncOmbe. Mr. Duncombe, as soon as
he came to a knowledge of these facts, thought that by appealing
to the Court of Common Law in which the action was com-
menced, that he would get the proceedings stayed in paying
the three hundred and fifty pounds fur which alone be was
liable. He never thought of defeating Surr's claim on the bill
for the three hundred and fifty pounds, but he thought that by
applying to the Court, and paying the three hundred and fifty
pounds, satisfaction might be entered on the record. On
consideration, however, he found that a Court of Common
Law only looked to the judgment, and after judgment could
give no equitable remedy, and that his proper course would be
to apply to a Court of Equity. He accordingly filed a bill in
Chancery on the lath of July last, stating these facts, and
praying the Court to stay judgment. On the same day (the
18th of July)—he begged of them to bear the date in mind„for
it was most material—Mr. Duncombe made an affidavit, which
he would take the liberty of reading to the Court. (The
Learned Gentleman here read the affidavit, which was a mere
recapitulation of the facts already stated.) The bill in Chan-
cery praying for the injunction contained some facts, which
were not mentioned in the affidavit, and which were inserted
on the suggestion of Counsel. Amongst other things that
were stated was this, that Surr being requested to desist from
the action, he alleged that he had given full value for the bill.
That was not the ground oa which the injunction was
prayed. The fact was, that the injunction was prayed for on
the ground, that Surr had no lien oa the 1,0001. Bill, nor any
equitable judgment beyond the sum of 310/. ; that sum being
paid, he was fully satisfied. The Bill of 1,0001. as he had be-
fore observed, had been improperly held over by Bentley, and
Surr had only a claim for 350/. —when that was paide'his claim
was at an end. A brief was prepared on the 18th July, which
ho now held in his band, and which would be submitted to the
jury. It consisted of a faithful copy of: the bill in Chancery,
aid a faithful copy of the affidavit. That brief was left on the
evening of the 18th July, at the Chambers of Mr. Knight
Bruce, with instructions for him, at the rising of the Court on
the following day, to move his Honour the Vice-Chancellor,
for an injunction on bringing into Court the sum of 350/. The
affidavit having been sworn on the 18th, on the 19th instruc-
tions were given by Mr. Duncombe's Solicitor, that the usual
course should be pursued, which, where it was material
to have an office copy of the affidavit, ought to have'
been furnished. The office copy was made by the So-
licitor himself, and not in the office. For that reason the
affidavit was filed at the sitting of the Court on the 19th, but
it was retained for the purpose of obtaining an office copy,
and then being filed in the regular course of such proceedings.
The copy was made, and the affidavit actually filed, a few
minutes after one o'clock; and if things had proceeded in the
usual course, the affidavit would have been filed before Mr.
Knight Bruce had made his application ; but it so happened
that that was her Majesty's first levee, and Mr. Knight Bruce
being one of her Majesty's Counsel, wished to attend, and left
the Court early, and between twelve and one o'clock he made
his application to the Vice-Chancellor. He stated the nature
of the application, but out of delicacy would not mention the
names of the parties, but handed up the brief which he (the
Attorney-General) now held in his hand, folded down to the
place where the affidavit was set out. His Honour perused
it, and at once granted the injunction on paying into Court
the sum of 350/. That sum was paid on the same day, and
nothing more took place on the subject until Friday, the 21st.
On that day Mr. Jacob, of the Chancery bar, appeared before
his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, to move that the injunction
be dissolved. He contended that the affidavit was not suffi-
cient ; and a discussion arose as to whether, upon the affidavit
so stated, Mr. Duncombe was entitled to the injunction or
not. In the course of that discussion an objection was made
which proved fatal altogother to the application, and it was
this—that at the time Mr. Knight Bruce had moved for the
injunction the affidavit had not been filed. The gentlemen
of the Jury would please to observe that there was a
rule in the Court of Chancery which, in the laxity
of practice, was sometimes departed from, but which,
when urged, was considered inflexible, namely, that no
motion for an injunction could be made until the affidavit
had been filed. The: Court was soon satisfied, by the officer,
that the affidavit had not been filed for some minutes after the
order for the injunction had been obtained; and his Honour
at once stated that it was unnecessary to continue the discus-
sion—that the objection was fatal, and discharged the order
for the injunction with costs, on that ground, and that alone.
The following day, the whole of the money that could be
claimed, namely, 1,000/., was paid into Court for Mr. Surr's
use. Now, if these were the facts, what blame could possibly
attach to Mr. Duncombe ? He had been advised that he had
an equitable claim to relief beyond the sum of 3501. He made
an affidavit, all the facts of which were strictly true, and about
which no imputation has ever been made to the contrary. He
knew nothing of the time when the motion was made—he
knew nothing; of the time when the affidavit was filed—nor
did he know anything of the rules and I rartices of the Court.
All that he left to his legal adviser ; and a hen the injunction
was dissolved, then the full amount of LOON. was paid. He
would now proceed to state to them the facts of the other
case, and of the ether charge against Mr. Duncombe—and of
which, they would find, he was equally innocent. It happened
that in the month of February or March, 1837, he bad occa-
sion to borrow a small sum of money. He applied for the ac-
'commodation, not to any personal friend, but to a gentleman
named Keely, who was in the habit of advancing money upon
certain terms. Keely agreed to lend him 180/., from that day
until the Ist of April following, upon receiving a douceur of
20/. Accordingly, Duncombe gave his cheek to Keely,
payable the Ist April 1837, for 2001. Now, where money
was lent on such terms, the day of payment was seldom

very scrupulously observed, and the lender was not much
surprised to find application made for a little further indul-
gence, on such terms as he might prescribe: When the
30th of March arrived, Mr. Duncombe did wish to have.seine_
farther accommodation. He had a sum of 2001. at, hislititsk-,
mand, but there was a creditor of his named King, who ilea --
e-ry pressing, and he asked Keely to allow the sum of 2001.
to stand over for a few days, explaining to him that early in
Apr.l he expect!d to receive a sum of 500/. that was due him,
and then he would pay Keely. After some negociation Kcely
consented to that, and by that means Mr. Duncombe was
enabled to pay his creditor the sum of 200/. which he owed him.
On the Kith May an arrangement was come to between Mr.
Duncombe and Mr. Keely entirely to the satisfaction of
the latter, and on that day Mr. Duncombe paid Keely a
sum of .£lOO, . and then Keely reminded him that besides the
remaining 1001., he had a demand of 401. upon a former
transaction against Mr. Duncombe, which made the sum of
1401., and that on receiving the sum of 101. by way
of bonus, he would be contented to remain without
payment until the month of August following. Mr. Dun-
combs agreed to these terms, and on that day gave Kcely a
check for 1501., which check was paid before it became due.
So that Keely instead of being defrauded of one single shil-
ling, received back the whole of the money he had advanced
with 201. for the first accommodation, and 101. for the second.
He would ask the jury what pretence there was for saying, as
had been stated, that Keely was the persor.al friend of Mr.
Duncombe, and that Duncombe had swindled him out of a
suns of 2001.? They would hear how these most innocent
facts he had just detailed had been mixed up with the most
malignant falsehood, and by which charges were brought against
Mr. Duncombe, which, if true, would render him unfit to appear
in decent society. The Jury were aware that Parliament had
dissolved about the 18th July, and Mr. Duncombe having re-
presented the Borough of Finsbury in Parliament was again a
candidate for that distinction. He was engaged in a canvass
daily at his Committee-rooms—he had attended a public
dinner at Higbbury Tavern on the 20th July, and was living at
his chambers in the Albany. Monday, the 14th day of July
was the day appointed for the nomination of candidates, and
Mr. Duncombe was about to set out for the hustings that he
might be again put in nomination for the Borough of Finsbury,
when a letter was put into his hands signed " W. S. S.
Daniels" in the shape of a manuscript letter. That letter
was printed and published on the same morning in the Morning
Post, and thousands and thousands of copies of it had been
circulated and perused before Mr. Duncombe had the slightest
notion that such a letter was in existence. So that a letter
which was intended for private information and explanation,
was first printed in the newspapers, and then a manuscript
copy was addiessed to the party himself. The whole of that
letter would be read for them by the officer of the Court, but he
( Attorney-General) would now call their attention to some
of the passages it contained, The Learned Gentleman then
proceed-A to read an extract from the letter which purported to
be in reply to a circular addressed by Mr. Duncombe to the
electo's of Finsbury, and the writer went on to allude to cer-
tain acts alleged to have been committed by Mr. Duncombe,
which appeared to the writer to be destructive of his (Mr.
D.'s) character for simple truth and common honesty. The letter
then referred to the proceedings before the Vice-Chancellor,
. . .

in which it was alleged that he had obtained an injunction on
an ex-parte statement, but when the creditor had an opportu-
nity of being heard, the alleged charge of fraud, which, it was
stated, had been distinctly sworn to by Mr. Duncombe, and
which had rendered him liable to the consequences of
perjury, was disproved, and it was further ascertained that
the affidavit had not been sworn at all—that a petition
document had been submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, who
therupon, with great indignation, dissolved the injunction,
restoring the creditor to his just rights, and condemning Mr.
Duncombe to all the costs of the proceedings. Now he (the
Att,rney-General) begged to call the attention of the Jury to
that statement of Mr. Daniels. It alleged that Mr. Dun-
combe had most fraudulently handed up a false copy of an
affidavit, although he would not swear to it, in order to escape
the penalty of perjury; and that, upon a comparison of the
fabricated copy with the genuine original, the fraud was de-

tected, and on that ground the Vice-Chancellor had dissolved
the injunction. If that statement were true, nothing more
scandalous or abominable could be attempted in a court of
justice—and that that should have been done to impose on the
judge, and defraud on the just creditor. It would be for them
to judge how far these statements were true, from the facts he
(the Attorney-General) had stated, and which he was pre-
pared to prove. The letter then proceeded to ask Mr, Dun-
combe to explain satisfactorily that attempt to imposo
on one of the highest legal tribunals of the country,
and the partially successful fraud on a bone fide creditor,
which appeared to the writer to be unbecoming the character
of a faithful representative of the people. Again, they would
see the charge of fraud was repeated, and it was alleged that
there was a fabricated copy of an affidavit to make a charge
which could not be supported. He (the Attorney-General)
had already read the grounds on which Mr. Duncombe thought
he was intitled to the interference of the Court, and he would
now come to the second charge of defrauding Mr. Keely.
The writer then went on to state that he had the previous
evening attended a meeting of Mr. Perceval's (the Conserva-
tive candidate) friends at Stoke Newington, when an elector
closely connected with the Dissenters, mentioned publicly that
he (Mr. Duncombe) in the latter end of March applied to a
friend to cash a check on his father's bankers for 2001., pro-
mising that it should be paid on the Ist of April. That his
friend cashed the check, and on the 31st of March
he intimated to him that his father's account was very
low, and that it would be an accommdoation to him if

he did not present the check until the 4th of April.
That ore' the Ist of April he caused another check for 2001. to
be presented, and on the 4th, when his friend presented his,
it was dishonoured, and he still remained a creditor of Mr.
Duncombe. Now the statement which Mr. Daniels adopted,
and vouched for, clearly represented Mr. Duncombe as having
defrauded his friend of 2001., and to leave no doubt on the
mind that sueh was the conclusion, the writer stated further
that the man who thus cheated his creditor of his just demand,
and endeavoured by falsehood to obtain the assistance of a
Court of Justice, was totally unworthy to represent the indus-
trious, honest, and independent electors of Finsbury ; and
that he (the writer) would endeavour, by the publication of
that letter in the Times, Chronicle, Post, and Herald, to give
his sentiments all the publicity he possibly could. That was
the shallow pretext on which the character of an honest man
was calumniated ; and if he wished to have any explanation
given he should have called upon Mr. Duncombe, stated what
his doubts and impressions were, and have obtained at once an
explanation. Instead of that he publishes his calumnies in
the Newspapers, and then he sent the manuscript letter to the
object of these calumnies. Mr. Duncombe, as he had before.
stated, was about to set out for the hustings when he received
that letter, and when he arrived he saw a placard, which he
noticed for the first time,. on which was inscribed " Where's
Tommy Duncombe ?" In his usual good-humoured way Mr.
Duncombe replied, " Why, here he is." Mr. Duncombe
subsequently noticed the letter of Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Da-
niels did not venture to say one word of the false and fabri-
cated affidavit; but he said that he bad a Mr. Wilkinson there
who could state the particulars of the other charge about Mr.
Keely. Mr. Duncombe asked where was Mr. Keely—let him
be brought forward. The answer of Mr. Daniels was " No;
here is Mr. Wilkinson." Upon which Mr. Duncombe:
did what any honourable man would have done under the cln.
cumstances—he gave the charge a flat and peremptory denial,
and said that Daniels was a liar and a slanderer. If Mr.
Keely had been there the matter would have been at once de-
cided—but that was not a time before 20,000 eager electors
to enter into accounts and compare a bill in Chancery with
affidavits, and to examine checks, bills of exchange, and pro-
missory notes. The thing was impossible—Daniels knew
well it was impossible, and his object merely was to
stab the character of Mr. Duncombe, who did what a man of
honour would htive done in such circumstances, by repelling
the charge with scorn and indignation. The nomination pro-
ceeded. Mr. Perceval was proposed on the one side, and Mr.
Duncombe and Mr. Wakley on the other. So much for the
first letter which was the subject of the present action. Had
Mr. Daniels then retracted and apologized for the state-
meets he had made, no proceedings would have been taken.
against him by Mr. Duncombe. On the evening of
Monday, Mr. Daniels sat down and penned a letter to
Mr. Duncombe—he did not send a manuscript copy to
that gentleman, but publishes it in the newspapers, so that
on Tuesday morning it would be read by the population of the
metropolis ; and in a short time by the inhabitants of the em-
pire. The whole of that letter would be read by the clerk—in
it Mr. Daniel claimed a right to consider Mr. Duncombe as
guilty of the charges which had been made against him
before the electors, as he had not disproved them, and saidl
that he (Mr. Daniels) should treat the terms which Mr. Dtne-
combe had applied to him on the hustings as "the fra•otie
ravings of a convicted swindler, and a baffled bully." Mr.
Daniels had refused to meet Mr. Duncombe, when a friend of
that gentleman applied to him on, the hustings for that pur-
pose. And now, what could Mr. Duncombe do ? Was he
not bound to appear in a court of justice, if he would not for
ever have a stigma attach to his character. Mr. Duncombe
might have proceeded criminally against Mr. Daniels, and
thereby prevented him from entering into the truth of his
libels. But Mr. Duncombe disdained that mode of pro-
ceeding, and he brough t a civil action against Mr. Daniels,
thus daring him to prove the charges which he had made, for
by that mode of proceeding the law permitted the truth of the
charge to be pleaded 'and proved as a justification. The
learned Attorney-General then referred to the pleas of the de-
fendant The first was that of " Not Guilty," thereby not of
course denying that he had written the letters, nor (consi-
dering who were his counsel) denying that they constituted a
libel, or that they were confidential communications. This
plea might therefore be well dismissed from consideration.
Then there was the plea of justification, to which he (the At-
torney-General) earnestly begged to call the attention of the
Covet. The libel respecting the proceedings in the Court of
Chancery, imputed to Mr. Duncombe that he had a false affi-
davit handed up to the Vice-Chancellor. The defendant ate
first attempted to justify that allegation; but by an amend-
ment he had changed his ground (a practice that was now, tlhe
Attorney-General observed, too prevalent in that Court), and
now merely rested on a verbal representation that the eAdavit_
supported not all the allegations of the bill, and it was Stir.,
prising that Daniels, himself a member of the professw.n to which
lie (the Attorney-General) belonged, should have cast an im-
putation upon Mr. Knight Bruce—one of the h'.ightest orna-
ments of the Chancery Bar, and of unimpeacht!nle honour and
integrity—for in an application for an injuncticai, which must
be suni orted by affidavit, that affidavit did rest enter into all
the allegations of the bill ; and whether thu injunction was
granted or refused did not depend upon what, was stated in the
bill, but neon what was contained in the affidavit—and a gen-
tleman, of much less experience than Mr. Knight Bruce,
would look to the affidavit and, upon his honour and responsi-
bility, state to the Court what the affidavit did really contain.
And, in this case, the affidavit handed up to the Vice-
t Chancellor by Mr. Knight Bruce, would 'be producyd in
Court, exactly in the 85111? state as when his Honour received.

S Ty Ar.

_~ ~
t`'~~

~;IM