The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-14 00:00:00

FOICEIC N FUNDS

Austrian, 5 per cent Portuguese t:onds, Spec cent.
Belgian, 5 per cent — Ditto, New Ditto ...
Brazilian Bonds — Prussian, 5 per cent —
ruenos Ayrt.s, 6 per cent — Russiasi Bonds, 3 per cent....
cl,::ot, 6 i .er !cm'
Colonni.a7:, 6 per'ccrt 24% Spanish, 5 per cent 2s7.i
DittG, :624 itiki Ditto, Deterred
Danish, 3 per cent ........ .......
1854 French, reell:ch p
Preach,
5:3 pcerr :ecnt;
Greet: Bonds, ISitlt 5 per ct. i.Exchangc —f —c
nexican, 3 per cent
—f. —c.
Ditto, i pnr cent., 1825 Dutch,_2l4 per cent. ........ .... 52;4
Peruvian ,1225,6 per cent — Ditto, 5 per cent. •.......•.....”101
SHARES.

Eristol and Exeter
Great North of England Railway ... 41
Cireat Wester') Railway
London and Brighton Railway 24
London and Blackwall Railway
London and South Western Railway 42U
North Midland Railway

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE ETENINO PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
(From the Courier.)
The privilege question does not appear to attract
that attention from the people at large which a measure
deeply penetrating their own interests requires ; but we
must not therefore neglect the duty which a journalist
is professedly pledged to perform. Lord John •Rus-
scll's Bill has passed through Committee, not without
observations which deserve considerable attention, and
above all to those which proceed from Sir Edward Sug-
' den. In the explanation which he has chosen to give of
his opposition to parts of a Bill, to the leading principle
of which we entertain such strong objections, he refers
to opinions that have been expressed out of the House,
and observes that he did not object to the retrospective
provisions of the Alinisterial measure. What he pro-
posed to do, he says, was in Committee to introduce
certain words into the first clause, " giving to persons
not the original publishers of the publications of the
House the same remedy with respect to that which had
already been published, as the Bill proposed to give to
what might be published in future by the House." We
are carry that the authority of such a name should be
lent to the enactment of " cx post facto" laws.
(From the Globe.)
The Church, in its collective capacity, still resembles
too much the daughters of the horseleech—" Give!
Give !" is the cry incessantly uttered from every part
of her pale ! This desire for wealth has originated in
a false estimate of its importance. Vast worldly endow-
ineuts, distributed with preposterous in, vality, so far
from adding to the efficiency of a Church, obscure its
tree (;_r), and impair its energies. The wealth of the
has constituted the weakness of our national
Establislnnent. If proof be required of this incontro-
vertible axiom, it is only necessary. to refer to Ireland,
where the most richly endowed church in Christen-
dom has been proved to be proverbially and re-
proachfully inefficient as a machine for the conversion
of the people ; while in Scotland, where the poorest
religious Establishment is found, the clergy have been
:tuccessful in preserving and extending the Protestant
faith, and in training up the successive generations of the
people in morals and religion, and thus rendering them
the best educated and most virtuous of the population.
(From the Standard.)
Lord John Russell's Bill for the protection of the
publication of Parliamentary Papers occupied the chief
share of the attention of the House of Commons last
night. Various amendments were suggested in the
Committee, and each was discussed at some length,
but without any important result. We have already
Lid more than once before our readers the rea-
sans why (in our opinion) the details of the Bill,
ought to he regarded with comparative indifference.
In the first place, we think film, the Houses of
Parliament Call scarcely have too much power
within the law ; while we would resist every at-
t....tript to extend the power of any one branch of
he Sovereignty a single hair's breadth beyjond the law.
And secondly, all the power that the Bill confers upon
he two Houses is the power of publishing what are
called libels—a power which they are not very likely to
exercise wantonly, and which would be at worst very
contemptible in its exercise.

SUDDEN DEATH OF THE MASTER OF GRANT, M.P.
—Letters from Invernesshire this morning announce
the very sudden death of the Master of Grant, M.P.
Itbr that, county, who had arrived the night before at
Cullen House to attend the funeral of his late much-
-1 tainted mother. We understand that Mr. Heiiry
the eldest son of Colonel H. Baillie, leaves
London this evening as a candidate in the Conservative
interest for that county.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13

LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY.
Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from
tie Commissioners of Highways of the parish of
Saint Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, against the
London and Greenwich Railway Extension Bill.
The Honourable and Gallant Member also presented
4 petition, praying for the postponement of the Com-
mittee on that Bill from the 17th of the present
month to the Ist of April, and agreeably to noticegiven
yesterday, made a motion to that effect.

Mr. W. ATTWOOD opposed the motion on the
ground that if the House adopted the proposition, it
would depart from the course usually adopted on pri-
vate bills. He believed the motion was not made with
the consent of the Committee generally.
Mr. W. ATTWOOD thought the motion was a
must unprecedented one ; and if it was pressed he must
divide the House upon it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
Fer the motion
30
Against it
Majority
—25
Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition from
Southwark against the Greenwich Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. HORSMAN, the Kirkcud•
bright Road Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. PRINGLE, the Crichton
Charities Bill was read a second time.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from
the Dissenters of Macclesfield against Church-rates,
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and praying for the release
of John Thorogood ; also petitions from the manufac-
turers of Macclesfield and tJongleton against the mo-
nopoly of carrying goods by railways.
Lord COLE presented a petition from the Grand
Jury of the county Fermanagh, against any alteration in
the Corn-laws, and against the admission of foreho
corn into Ireland ; also a petition from the same
county " against any further grant to the Popish Col-
lege of Maynooth."—(A laugh.)
Mr. PACKE presented a petition from Leicester,
with the same prayer.
Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from a pa-
rish in London, praying for increased church accom-
modation.

Mr. WALLACE presented several petitions from
parishes in Ayrshire, praying for a repeal of the
Corn-laws ; and a petition from the same county
against tile intrusion of ministers ; also petitions froth
John Allen, William Wallace, and another individual,
praying for Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot,
Mr. GREG presented petitions from Halifax, Lang-
ley,
Bathwood Bridge, Whitefield, Cheedles in Cheshire,
and Darlington, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr.
SANFORD, from Somerset; and by Mr. MARK
PHILLIPS from Brierley, in Yorkshire, and a
parish
n Worcester ; also a petition from Joseph Taylor, a

medical practitioner, who considered than quackery was
seriously injurious to the public health, and praying for
a uniform system of education for all persons. intended to
practise as medical men.
Mr. BROTH ERTO N presented three petitions
from Lancaster, one of which was signed by 2,000 per-
sons, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. ELL IoT presented a similar petition from the
Town Council of Warwick.
Mr. WILLIAM EVANS presented a similar pe-
tition from Ashburn in the county of Derby.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the 'town
Council of Leeds, praying tor the benefits of bonding
warehouses in that place.
Mr. TURNER presented a petition from Wallop,
in Lancashire, against the Corn-laWs.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented petitions from
the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry, praying for im-
provement in the leas relating to Grand Juries, and in
favour of the Government plan of Railways.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented two petitions from
Glasgow against the intrusion of ministers into the
Scottish Church.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions from
Cornwall and Finsbury, stating that they believed Lovett
and Collins, who are imprisoned for sedition, are gradually
sink under the treatment t,o which they are sub-
jected, and that it will eventually destroy or so debilitate
them that they may never he able to recover themselves,
and stating their belief that experiment is being made
upon them to see bow much time it will take to starve two
respectable men to death—and praying the House to
institute, inquiries respecting it. Also a petition from
John Russell Chichester, Esq., barrister of Lincoln's-inn,
praying for investigation as to the disposal of the money
awarded to him and many other royalists who suffered
for their allegiance during the American war. The
Hon. Metelter moved shat the petition should be prinzed
with the Votes, and intimated he should call attention to
it on some future occasion.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the Li-
censed Victuallers of some place in the County of Kent,
.praying that beer houses :night be placed under the con-
trol of tha Magistrates. A'so a petition from Edward
Collins, a gentleman residing in the County of Middle-
sex, on the subject of the currency. As it was the
wish of that gentleman that this petition should be
referred to a Committee, he should as soon as the
Committee on that subject should be appointed, move
that Mr. Conine's petition be printed with a view of
Laving it referred to that Committee.
Lord LINCOLN presented a petition from some
Agricultural Association in Nottinghamshire against
any alteration in the Corn-laws,
Mr. PEMBERTON presented a petitien from the
members of the Irish Bar on the Northern Circuit,
praying for tee unconditional release of the Sheriff of
London.
Mr. F. FRENCH presented a petition from the
county of Roscommon, against any alteration in the
Corn-laws ; also various petitions, praying for medical
reform ; also a petition from the county of Roscommon,
praying for an extension of the suffrage ; also a petition
from Tuam, praying the House to adopt means for the
construction of the three great railweys in Ireland, and
that the surplus revenue of Ireland might be devoted
to that purpose.
Mr. Ps. PALMER presented a petition tram Buck-
ieghamshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Sir C. B. VERE presented a petition from some
place in Suffolk, against the Popish College of May-
nooth, and another against the Irish Corporations Re-
form Bill.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented a petition from Irvine,
against the Corn-laws ; also various petitions from dif-
ferent parts of Scotland against the intrusion of Minis-
ters in the Church of Scotland. The Hen. Gentleman
also laid on the table the Report of the Poor-law Com-
missioners to the Secretary of State during the present
year, and he wished to draw the particular attention
of the House to this Report, which wes not the
mere ordinary Report of the Commissioners, hut con-
tained remarks on the measure, which was about
to be submitted to Parliament during the present Ses-
sion. He also presented the first report of the
Prisons' Board in Scotland. That report would not be
in the hands of Members for some time, but he had
directed two copies of it to be left in the library, so that.
Hon. Members could refer to i'.
Mr. EW ART presented petitions from various places
in Lancashire, praying for a total and immediate repeal
of thr.s. Corn-laws.
Mr. HUME presented a pcti..ion, numerously signed,
from Pollokhaws, in Scotland, in favour of Law Re-
form. The petitioners approve of not filling up the
vacant Judgeship in the Court of Session, and notice
particularly the ruinous expens,e of Jury Trials in Scot-
land, which they state to be so great as to cause the
people to fly from them in terror, in place of resorting
to them for protection ; and that such is the dread of
Jury Trial in that country, as to induce the people to
submit to every species of injustice from wealthy neigh-
bours rather than enter a Jury Court. They suggest,
that were a small number of Sheriffs made to hold
ambulatory Courts, assisted by a jury, that
great benefit would arise to the people. ALo
thirteen petitions from Glasgow, from an Associa-
tion of Females in Denning, in Perthshire, from
Linton, in Pecbleshire, from a parish in Devon,
and other places, in favour of a total repeal of the
Corn-laws. The Hon. Member presented petitions
from Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other parts of Scotland,
praying that the Suffrage might be extended to every
man of the age of 21, and that his vote might be pro-
tected by the Ballot.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a mass of petitions from
various parishes in Surrey, Devon, Somerset, South-
ampton, Oxford,Cumberlaud, and other counties, praying
for the extension of religious instruction to the people.
The Hon. Baronet also presented a petition from Essex,
praying the House not to give its consent to the Irish
Municipal. Reform Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented petitions from Corn-
;yell, praying that workhouses might be exempt from
taxes ; also a petition from Aberdeen, praying for the
total abolition of the duty on corn.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented petitions from
Derby in favour of extending religious instruction
Also petitions from Aberdeen against the intrusion o
Ministers.

PRINTED PAPERS,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said be should not mace
the qestion of privilege, which stood upon the paper ior
that evening before the Committee on the Printed
Papers Bill, as he thought the House was atieious to
go into Committee on the latter Bill as soon as possible.
On the Order of the Day for the House going into
Committee on the Printed Papers Bill beiog read,
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought it would faci-
litate the passing of the Bill through a Committee if he
stated at the outset, as briefly as he could, the object
of the Bill, and the nature of the amendment ho meant
to propose. After the preamble, seet:nn one provided,
without asserting the right of the House to inter-
fere against a Court of Law, that persons
civilly or criminally proceeded against fur any
publication by the authority of that Hesse, wete
to obtain a certificate from the Speaker of either House,
and, thereupon, the action was to be put an end to.
The second section applid to a totally different /ureter—
namely, the action brought by Mr. Howard against
the messengers of that House for an alleged trespass in
the execution of the Speaker's warrant. ,The two
sections stood upon totally distinct grounds, and then
there was a concluding proviso that nothing contained
in the Act should affect the privileges of that House.
It had been erroneously supposed out of the House
that he (Sir E. Sugdcn) had objected to the post facto
nature o eve Bill, but he had done no such thing.
What he proposed to do was, in Committee to introduce
certain words into the first clause, giviug to persons not
the original publishers of the publications of the House
the same remedy with respect to what had already
been published us the Bill proposed to give to what
might be published in future. He should propose,
also, to extend that provision to Members, because, as
the right of action was not taken away, he did not see
what protection Members would have, who might after-
wards piablish the printed papers of the House,
by handing them over to third parties. He should
also propose to introduce the word " papers," as
there were documents published by order of the Hewes
that would not come under the denomination
either of Reports, Votes, or Proceedings. Ey
this Bill they could stop an action at law, while
their privileges remained untouched and entire ;
and they would have the power of committing
for a contempt of the House parties bringing such au
action, and of sending them to Newgatc if they should
think proper. They h•td the power which was new
given to them for the first time of stopping an action
while the party was still in custody. Under these cir-
cumstances, he thought it would be advisable to make
some provisions for the liberty of the subject, while they
were obtaining a greater power than had ever
been possessed by a House of Commons. He prc-
posed to meet this case by introducing a proviso, eneet-
ing, that when proceedings should be finally put an
end to by the authority of the provisions of the proposed
Act, that then any persons who had been eeinmiited
by either House of Parliament, in consequence of having
been concerned, either in the institution or the
carrying on of such proceedings, should be forth.
with discharged from custody by the House
which had committed him ; and he proposed this
in accordance with the last section of the B;11 now be-
fore the House ; for whereas by that section it was
nacted that nothing in that Bill should be construed
to affect the privileges of that House, so he intt•cduced
this cause to provide that nothing in the Bill should be
construed to extend the privileges of the house. His ,
intention in these propositions was to further the abject
they all h•rd in view, by asserting the greet authority
of the House without at the same tune infringing
on the liberties of the peoele.--(Hear.) He also
proposed to omit the second clause, although he prc-
posed to retain the first, but he drew this distinction
oetween the first clause and the second. He did not !
object to the first clause, which was introduced for the
purpose of staying vexatious actions; but he did obtest
to the second clause, because they could not
know what actions were really vexatious, trnd what
were not so. The law as it at present was,
that if the officers of the House in the execution
of the Speaker's warrant, committed any excess of
authority, the person damnified might recover da-
mages for any injury sustained in consequence of
the undue exercise of such excess of authority. The
House could not take away the right of a subject
on any action for an excessive exercise of the warrant
of the Speaker, supposing such right to exist, and it
none existed the House should prove it he'ore a jury. !
The Right Hon. Gentleman said he thought it might
conduce to the convenience of the House to bear from
any Member a general statement of the views he took
upon the Bill previous to going into Committee.
Mr. PEMI3ERTON said he thought there should
be some statement made as to the objects intended to
be cff,cted by the Bill. He did not object to going
into Committee ; he was willing, indeed, to sacrifice
somewhat of his own oeinion to the bringing this [nat-
ter to a satisfactory conclusion. But he thought
the House should know distinctly whom, and
what, the Bill was meant to protect. It had not
been stated that the Bill was intended to effect
more than a protection to actions brought upon alleged
libellous publications by the order of the House. Bat
the language of the Bill was such as to exclude any ac-
tion brought to question any act done by authority of
the House. And, as the Act now stood, it would ap-
pear that it might prevent an action for workri
and labour in printing the proceedings of the House.
He wished to know to whom the protection was to be
extended. Was it to be confined to the officers of the
House, and were the booksellers and others, who would
be induced by the liberal discount allowed by the
House for the purchase of its papers, to be left subject
to actions for all parties ? When it was stated who it was
intended to protect, then they would know what to de.
in Committee, but until that was known it seemed to
him impossible for them to determine in Commit-
tee whether the clauses were well framed or not.
He thought every useful purpose would be answered by
extending the protection of the House to its own officers r
who, in the event of the House cancelling a work,
would immediately obey. Worded as the Bill now
stood, it was impossible for any man to say bow far it
might go. Under the words used in the Bill, even an
action for work and labour done upon any publication
ordered by the House might be stopped. He hoped, before
they went into Committee they would hear how far it
was intended to go, and what purpose was intended to
be effected by the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He also
objected strongly to the second clause, although he
agreed that legislation was necessary.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The object of the Bill was i' stated fully when he moved for leave to bring it in.
He did not think that that was the proper stage for
them to discuss the wording of the Bill it would be
more advantageously done in Committee. Ho ad-
mitted that the intention of the frarn,gcs of the
Bill was to confine the protection to persons pub-
lishing under the authority of the House. On
going over the Bill since, it appeared to him
that there was some doubt whether it might lso inter-
preted to extend further, and to include parties who
purchased these papers for the purpose of reselling them.
He should be satisfied, however, it it carried the pro-
tection as far as he intended.—(Hear.) At the same
time he thought it a very important subject, but
it would be for the Committee to decide whether
any alteration should be made in it.--(Hear, hear.)
It was, he feared, extremely difficult in drawing up a
Bill like the present, to introduce words which would
not be open to great objection. It would, however, be
far better to discuss these points in Committee.
The House then went into Committee, Mr. BIRNAL •
in the chair.
__ _

Sir R. GLIS admitted the inconvenience of dis-
cussing these matters before going into Committee, but
he thought his Right Honourable and Learned
Friend the Member for Ripon was perfectly jus-
tified in calling the attention of the House to
the matter. He did not think they would be jut-
tified in adopting the first clause of the Bill unaltered
He agreed that it was desirable to extend the protect-
ing clause much further than his Noble Friend
seemed willing to do, and not to do 80 could
only arise from a desire of keeping up the copy.
right. When the second clause should be brought
forward it would be the best time to enter into the dis-
cussion ; but when he was told that it was essential to
the due and effectual exercise and discharge of
the functions and duties of Parliament tint
there should be no obstruction to the publication
of such of its Votes and Proceedings as either Hone
of Parliament should think it fit and essential to pub-
lish, he asked bow long that had been, and bow far it

at
alc
z'..l-w, •