The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-18 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1840.

ceedings? 1 ney (lid no such thing. They tacitly acqui-
esced in the resolution of the House of Lords, and the
question „at . stli4antially the Carte
with the one now -ander corisideietiOri,
whether it was part of the privileges of the House of
Commons to close the doors of the Courts of Justice
against the subjects of this realm, on any question which
they might consider involved the consideration of their pri-
rileges. Burnett states in, his " History of his Own
Time" that the people flocked iti croWds athose who had
icomniitted be the House Of Corriiiioni; esere
Id okeu upon as martyrs, that the effect of this investiga-
tion was to bring the privileges of the House of Commons
into discredit, and the result to lead to the opinion that
the House possessed no power of committing any one but
ita own Members. Another action of a precisely similar
nature to the one of Ashby and White eras then brought,
and the House of Commons never interfered. Heen-
treated Hon. Gentlemen to recollect that the question now
under consideration was not if their privileges were valid
in point of law, but if they were examinable in Courts of
Justice. It was said to be essential to the exercise of
their authority that they should have the power of pub-
lishing whatever papers they chose with impunity ; but
how was it the people became acquainted with the grounds
of
.the votes, not from reading the cart-loads of papers
which, published under the designation of Parliamentary
Papers, were little more than waste paper, but from the
full substance of these which appeared in the debates.
Surely then if it was right they should publish these
papers, it was also right they should publish autho•
rized reports of their debates; and yet this they
could not do even were they so inclined, for if he were to
draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that there were
strangers in the gallery, even if every other Member of
the House divided against him, the strangers must be
ordered to withdraw. The fact was, that the privileges
of the House of rommons were not privileges of publicity
but privileges of secrecy. secrecy was the essence of the
privileges which were intended to be used as instruments
of defence against the Crown and the Barons, and never
as instruments—if he were not anxious to avoid irritating
expressions, he would say—of tyranny and oppression
against the people. He would not allude to the last and
greatest case of all, in which this question had arisen, he
meant the case of Sir Francis Burdett. He had told the
House of Commons that he would do that which they so
much dreaded, make their privileges the subject of decision
by the House of Lords, and he had done so, in the boldest
manner; he had brought an action against the Speaker
himself. Had the House in that case interfered to stop the
action ? Certainly not. Arid why ? Because they knew
that ever since the case of Ashby and White, the ques-
tion of privilege, like every other porition of the law, had
been subject to the detertninations of the Courts of Juss
tic*. On that occasion the majority of the House of Com-
mons, so far from degrading themselves, had, he thought,
ennobled themselves by offering to the people the example
of the subjection of the highest authorities of the land to
the supreme tribunal of the law. The question had been
argued and decided in their favour.—s(" Hear, hear," from
from Sir Charles Grey) Did the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemean mean to say that the decision of the Court
had any thing to do with the question at issue ? The
question was, would the House of Commons permit a
question of privilege to be entertained in a Court of Jus-
tice ? It was impossible to conceive a case in which the
House of Commons was more imperatively called upon to
interfere than in this case of Sir Francis Burdett. That
case had been tried before the House of Lords, and after
that Sir F. Burdett had again mooted the question by
bringing actions against the officers of the House, and yet
the House of Commons had not interfered. He would
earnestly intreat the House to consider if there was any
distinction between these cases and the present one, and if
not, he would implore them not to enter into a conflict
for the assertion of a privilege which had remained un-
asserted for 130 years. He would ask what would be the
effect of acting on these resolutions, and saying they
would permit no question involving the consideration of
the privileges the House of Commons to be entertained
in Courts of Justice. Would they in all future cases
adopt the high tone they at present assumed, and refuse to
appear to actions ? He would ask what must the effect of
this necessarily be. Why had Stockdale appeared there,
when he might have escaped beyond the jurisdiction of
the House? He appeared there because be knew he was
supported by public opinion. He had recovered but one far-
thing damages in the first action, because they had appeared
to it. In the scond action he recovered 1001. not because
the Jury believed he had sustained any damage, but be-
cause they believed that their assertion of privilege was
contrary to the law of the land ; and in the third, in which
they refused to appear altogether, the Jury gave him 6001.,
not because it was a contest between Stockdale and Han-
sard, but because they believed it to be a contest between
the law of the land and the liberty of the subject on the one
hand, and the despotic authority of the House of Commons
on the other. He bad appeared there only because he
chose to be committed, and he would make an annuity
and an income out of the contest. They should recollect
that a dissolution was not impossible, and if it was de-
sirable to avoid a dissolution on political grounds he would
say there was nothing so likely to render a dissolution im-
perative as persevering in the present course. Did any
one believe that the House of Lords would now recede
from their resolution of 1704, confirmed as it had been by
the acquiescence of the House of Commons for 130 years.
Their great mistake throughout these proceedings had
been that they had committed themselves by taking one
step without considering what the next must be, and thus
the whole course had been one series of blunders. But if
a dissolution did not take place, a prorogation must neces-
sarily do so ; and what would be the consequence? that
Mr. Stockdale would be discharged, and might
again commence proceedings ?—(Cries of " Hear.")
He asserted that this action cannot lie. They
let this question go before a Court of Law, they then per-
mitted judgment to go by default, and then you seek to
punish Mr. Stockdale, after he has obtained large damages
by the verdict of a Jury. They now said they repudiate
the protection of that Court of Law because it has decided
against them. They said to that Court of Law that they
would admit their jurisdiction when they had a good case,
but they denied it when they had a bad one.—( Hear, hear.)
Let them not think that they could act so. Why did they
permit judgment to go by default ? The people's right'
were vindicated by this popular branch of judication, and
a jury in a Court of Law had given 6001. damages against
them. He begged to ask them if Mr. Stockdale was then
thrown into a dungeon for six months, did they not think
that a jury would be found to give him damages to
the amount of 6,000/. If the Parliament had assem-
bled at the usual period—( Cries of " Order, order,
an unusual
haarviseenbienenantheevecnatsethahtaadll
her
Majesty's subjects should rejoice in most cordially, Mr.
) ' w order")—which
circumstancech w oul
d
Stockdale would have recovered his damages of 6001., and
had the money safely stowed in his pocket.—( Hear.) He
would then have gone to France, and would return again
after the prorogation of Parliament, purchased a new
work, and brought a new action, recovered fresh damages.
and have gone off again to France.--( A laugh.) Let
them remember that they would not always have a Royal
marriage to bring them together earlier than usual.—
( Laughter.) As certain as they were then discussing that
question, as certain would his prophecy take place. Was
that a discussion that ought to be entertained by that
House ? or was that a desirable situation to place the
House of Commons, or he would say to place a Court of
Law in ? The contest was simply whether they would
proceed according to law or against it. Whose officers were
the Sheriffs? They were the ministerial officers of a Court of
Justice, and they had no more discretion as to levying or
not levying, than the humblest individual in the country
—they were mere machines, executing the process of the
Court, and they cannot refuse obedience to the orders of
that Court.—( Hear, hear.) Would that House call upon
them to disobey such orders, proceeding from a Court of
which they were the officers? What was that House about
doing? They were about to call upon them to disobey
those oaths which they had solemnly taken to observe.
Let them recollect that it was not the order of Lord
Chief Justice Denman, but it was the order of her Ma-
jesty Queen Victoria, whose name was inserted in the
writ, and they (the Sheriffs) had sworn to obey that
writ. They (the Commons) might send them to New-
gate, but they had not the power to dispense with the
obligation of their oaths.—( Hear, hear.) Would that
House, then, descend to act in such a manner? Would
they say they would deal with those men as they pleased,
because they thought they could do so with safety?
So far from acting voluntarily in the business,
they had, in his opinion, paid more respect to the opinions
of that House, than he believed they had a right to do.
The opinion of the Court had been obtained by them ;
they had the Queen's writ, attested by the Lord Chief
Justice of England, ordering them to perform that duty
which, by the solemn oaths they had taken, they were
compelled to de.—( Hear, hear.) Would that House
then commit them? Was there ose Ge-itlernan in
that House who would say he would commit them
for obeying the law on legal orders? But he would
not shrink from the contest with any Gentleman who
would assert so. Every point that was thought necessary
was put to the Jury who tried the case, but in defiance of
all, that Jury found the most exorbitant damages. If
then, there were any offenders in the case, the Jury were
the guilty men. They were the men who exercised their
own opinions as to the privileges of that House. Why
did that House not touch them?—( Hear.) 'Or why should
they ever think of touching the Sheriffs, who acted in
such a manner as they could not avoid? Everything had
been done to mitigate the damages with the Jury, and yet
they were not to be touched, who were the real offenders
in giving such enormous damages. Where was Mr.
Black ? Where was Mr. Carrington ? Or where was
Mr. Kennedy, who on that occasion disputed those privi-
leges in such terms as he would not mention there ?
Why confine their attention to the smaller party,
who were weak and feeble in their conduct on that occa-
sion compared to those gentlemen he had first mentioned.
Where was the Chief Justice, who openly denied their
privileges, and, he believed, strained the law to a great de-
gree on that occasion? Against any of these personages
not one charge had been made by that Honse, and he
blushed to say, because they dared not. Surely it would
have been more mardy for them to call upon the Chief
Justice, and to summon all the offending parties to the bar
of that House than to attack those who had promised to
administer the law of England according to their oaths
and consciences. Lord Chief Justice Denman, who had
dared in an action between two individuals to express his
opinion upon the privileges of the House of Commons, was
the party that that House ought to censure. He begged
to mention a case which he recollected
having read
of, wherein the Chief Justice decided in a cae
directly opposed to the decision of the House of Lords.
1 It was the case of Lord Banbury, which r iced the ques-
tion of Peerage or no Peerage. The House o Lords
considered that under a writ from the Crown, they were
the proper persons to decide who those individuals were
who were fit to sit in the House of Lords, but when the
same question arose in a Court of Justice, they assumed the
right of deciding in that case, and accordingly ruled that
Lord Banbury was a Peer, and qualified to sit in the
House of Lords. Chief Justice Holt considered that it
was a question of law, and decided against the House of
Lords, deeming it a question within the jurisdiction of a
Court of Law. The House of Lords then threatened to
call Lord Chief Justice Holt to the bar of their House.
The answer that Chief Justice Holt then gave, when ho

had been summoned in due course of law to explain was, i privilege was to be carried through the Courts of the i
that a judgment had been given in a Court of Law, country, and ultimately to the House of Lords, who were 1
but it would not be given at any other time or place. to decide whether it wis privilege or not ?—( Cheers.) 1
There was at that time much talk and vapouring in the The Hon. Bart., the Member for Tamworth, in the last
House of Lords ihicy, threatened Chief Justice Holt, Session, had put this question upon its proper footing,
but it all ended in smoke. Thi; difFcuity. wonfd lateen for he said, that if the public were with them, they
in the present case as they went on, so that he advlsed theft? i sthould be sure to succeed ; but, if not, they were sure
to recede in time. Three years ago, before they were in- to fait-a( Hear, hear. ) He (Mr. Wakley) did not wish
volved in these difficulties, he made a suggestion that the to say anything irritating, but when he stated his opinion
question ought to have been then settled by an Act of Par- he would do so candidly and fearlessly ; and he was pre-
".i?tnept.,Eassed by the whole Legislature of the country, pared to make any sacrifices rathef than see—he might
and thereott set dt teat al! dissatisfaction on the pa: tof the call it the prerogative of that House, the privileges or the
people; if they went on in their present course they would powers of that House. determined by the hereditary branch I
be obliged to do it at last. They could not avoid it ) of the legislature of this country. How was this Houle at,
they must ultimately settle the question, and they never the present moment treated by the other House of Par-
could settle it by any other mode than by an Act of Par- liament ? To show that, he would just. state, as far as
liament.—( Hear.) Let them not continue this ignoble his memory served him, what was one of its Standing Gr-
and unworthy conflict with such an individual which never ders. He believed it ran as follows ;--." And be it oh-
could succeed. In conclusion he begged leave to thank , served, that in Conferences with the Lower House no
the House for the attention with which they had heard him. 1 Member of that House be permitted to sit either at Con-
Sir CHARLES GREY said when he saw this House ferences or Committees in our presence, except ii be SCOW
so long engaged on a subject like the present under their decrepid old man, who then by connivance may be allowed
deliberation since the prorogation of Parliament, and made to sit in a corner, but not covered."—(Great laughter.)
the matter of a long and anxious debate, he had the fullest , Were Gentlemen who framed such resolut ons as that to
reliance upon the result of their decision. He saw a ! determine what the privileges and the powers which were
clear course to be pursued to bring them out of their diffi- to be exercised by the House of Commons should be ? He
culties, although he might take a more superficial for one never would consent to such degradation—( Con-
view of the matter than others.—( Hear, hear.) At the tinued cheering)—and he entreated of the Government to
outset of the case it was alleged that a great deal go on calmly arid steadily in pursuing the course they had
of difficulty arose upon the argument of whether the privi_ pursu d.—( Cheers.) He entreated that every f !ctions
le ee was one that the House ought, or ought not to sup_ consideration—every private , onsideration—every feeling
port. It appeared to him that there was a material dis- of a violent and agitating nature, should be discarded.—
tinction between the case of the individual who had been (Cheers from the Tory side of the House.) The Hon.
called to the bar and the rest of the parties concerned. Member sat down amidst continued cheering.
Every assembly which had rights and duties to perform, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to answer the questions
that House must have if it existed as part of the institu- put to him by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, and
lions of the country, had the right of protecting likewise to suggest some alteration in the framing of the
itself from interruption. Now, any interruption, any resolutions. The Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him
thing that prevented its proceedings going on in whether it would not be more proper that the House
a right and proper course was in the language should go into the rest of the case of the persons sum-
of Parliament and the Courts a contempt. When the moved to attend at the bar, before it proceeded further
House had made an order, any person proceeding in vie- with the case of Mr. Stockdale. To that question he must
cation of that order was guilty of a breach of privilege, answer decidedly in the negative, because he did not see
and it was not necessary to consider whether that order any connection whatever between the cases. The offence
was right or wrong. He could not, however, go the length committed by Mr. Stockdale he conceived to be the
of saying that if an order of that House was brought to bringing of this action, well knowing the proceedings
the knowledge of the Judges by the working of the ordi- taken by the House. Mr. Stockdale had originated the
nary machinery of their Courts, and that it came before complaint in going to the Court of Law, and he ( Lord
them for their consideration—he could not go the length John Russell) could not see any thing that, in the course
of saying, that in his opinion they were bound the moment of the proceedings against the parties who had been
they saw it was an order of the House of Commons to summoned to the bar as well as Mr. Stockdale,
shrink back and say--" We cannot consider the ques- which would exonerate him in bringing the action
tion."—(Hear, hear.) According to all the doctrines against which a resolution of the House had been di-
that had ever been instilled into his mind, he could not rected. With respect to the other question, whether Mr.
give his consent to such a proposition. He believed Stockdale should be asked or not, whether he had any
the just and true limit to be that the Court thing to say in defence of his conduct, if any Hon. Gen-
should look at it, so as to be able to say tleman thought he should be again called to the bar, lie
"Is this one of the class of orders which either House ( Lord John Russell) did not see what farther could be
of Parliament is competent to issue ?" When a commit- drawn from the examination. The statements of Messrs.
ment for contempt or breach of privilege was made out Hansard in their petition were that they were served with
by order of either House of Parliament, the Judges would a legal process at the instance of John Joseph Stockdale,
say, "We cannot inquire into the matter, inasmuch as for printing the papers of that House. If they had made any
Parliament is competent to inquire into the matter." false statement in that respect, it would have appeared
Supposing in times of revolution and dissension, such as from the examination of Mr. Stockdale himself, but so far
occurred in the 17th century—supposing the House of from that being the case, Mr. Stockdale avowed at the
Commons made an order arrogating to itself the whole bar that he had brought this action, knowing the
functions of the State, and directed the execution of an orders of the House, and having received the notice
individual, if the Courts at Westminster Hall, were still from Mr. Hansard. and with a knowledge of the
permitted to exercise their functions, they would be in- resolution of the House, and boldly avowed t that
titled to say, " This is an order of a class which the he did so for the purpose of trying the right of the
House of Commons is not competent to make ? It is House of Commons. He (Lord J. Russell) had stated
therefore an order which we cannot regard." It that he intended to move resolutions which should state in
was part of the duty of the Court in which he the first place that Mr. Stoekdale has brought an action,
( Sir C. Grey) had the honour to preside in and thereby was guilty of a high breach of the privilege
India, that it was not permitted to decide upon of that House. His Hon. Friend had suggested a change
any orders made by the supreme authority under in that resolution, and with that change oe had proposed
which the revenues were collected. It happened to him it to the House ; but upon further consideration, be thought
that an individual was brought before his Court charged that it would be better that the resolutions should state the
with a violation of the law, but it was contended that the fact with respect to Mr. Stockdale. He should then pro-
offence had been committed in the collection of the re- pose another resolution, declaring him guilty of a high con-
venue, and it .was therefore a case in which they were tempt of the privileges of the House, and if that resolu-
not authorized to interfere. There might be a breach of tion was carried, he proposed further another resolution
the privileges of Parliament from very different motives with respect to his commitment.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
—there might be a breach of their privileges from negli- He ( Lord J. Russell) would therefore beg to withdraw his
Bence, from mistake, or from error : in that case the dif- original motion, and move that John Joseph Stockdale,
ference would be, that the party had not been guilty for having prosecuted the Messrs. Hansard, &c., had corn-
of contempt, but of a breach of the privileges of matted a breach of privilege.
the House through error. It was to that part of the case Mr. LAW submitted that that motion could not now be
he wished particularly to call the attention of the House and put. They had been debating on the original motion of
Learned Members opposite, and if it were correct, all the the Noble Lord. A new case had then sprung up, and
difficulties of the case, and all the awful visions of the even now he did not apprehend that the motion suggested
Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench appearing at the Bar by the Noble Lord opposite, gave the true reason on which
of that house in his robes, and all the difficulties of deal- the House should act. He therefore trusted that, if the
ing with the Sheriffs and the Jury, with which the Hon. Noble Lord asked for the amendment to be withdrawn, he
and Learned Member had attempted to alarm them, van- (Lord J. Russell) would state the case fairly, arid put it on
ished, and were comparatively of no weight. In that case its proper footing.
the Judges were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the Sir E. S hiG I) EN said that if the Learned Recorder
House, but they would be guilty of it through error, were to withdraw his amendment the Noble Lord might
although it might be presumption in him to bring such a bring forward his amended motion, and then the Learned
charge against the Judges of the Queen's Bench. That Gentleman might move his amendment.
breach of privilege would comprise the Sheriffs, the Jury, Mr. O'CONNELL said that much embarrassment
and the other ministerial officers. The Hon. and Learned would occur in consequence of the willingness of the Noble
Member opposite had stated that they dared not call the Lord to consult the wishes of the other side. The House
Judges to their Bar, but there was evidently a great dis- was in the power of the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
tinction between the parties ; and if he ( Sir Charles Grey) Law). A second resolution could not be moved unless
thought it necessary to call the Judges to the Bar, he the amendment were withdrawn. The question was, was
should have no hesitation in voting for emotion to that effect. there to be a compromise with the Hon. Gentleman. He
lie conceived the Judges should have acknowledged at (Mr. O'Connell) thought that in discussing the original
once that the order was one which the House was at li- question they should net enter upon a new discussion.
betty to make. So long as the House took this view of 'ormer resolutions had declared that what Mr. Stockdale
the case—so long as they said that these proceedings of had done was a breach of their privileges ; those gentle-
the Judges were a breach of their privileges, they should men did not propose to rescind those resolutions, and it
They was useless to consume time in discussing their propriety.
consider that
tt,hhaotwtheevyerw. werefundamentally
w release
themselvese rr o nwithout d
iffi .
So it seemed that they had but to argue gravely, and
eulty from the folds of law which were wound round them. when they came to the point not to act at all. —( Hear, and
No man certainly had a right to publish anything that a laugh.) When topics of liberality and popularity were
might be considered injurious to the characters of others, talked of on the other side, he (Mr. O'Connell) could not
unless there may be grounds recognized by the law— help congratulating Hon. Gentlemen on their client.—
grounds of public expediency and general utility, which ( Shouts of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition, and
might be justly looked on as of greater importance than " Hear, hear, hear," from the Ministerial side. )
the characters of individuals. The Judges themselves ac- This British subject, forsooth—this so much injured man—
knowledged that the House have the privilege of publics- had been indeed convicted, by twelve jurymen of his
tion for the use of its Members. The Judges had in effect country, of publishing an obscene work This was the
admitted the whole case. He defied the ingenuity of any man who was under the protection of the representatives of
man to point out a mode by which the publication could be the religion and literature of England.—( Laughter from
limited to Members of Parliament only. The venera- the Ministerial benches.) If this mar, indeed is now com-
lion -due to the Judges from their characters, mitted, it is not the world that is to be dissolved, but Pat-
and high stations, could not prevent him from saying that liament.—( Laughter.) Having discussed the question
it was absurd to establish a privilege which was to extend so often, he for ene thought that the time was now come
to the House of Lords, to six hundred and fifty-eight to act.—( Cheers. ) Why, they talked much of the Court
Members of the House of Commons, as well as to the of Queen's Bench, he ( Mr. O'Connell) said that the Hon.
various officers of the Crown, and yet to expect, at the Gentleman, the Recorder of London, was in fact interested
same time, that the proceedings which might follow that in the question, for he ( Mr. Law) might have every one of
privilege should not reach the public. The Right Hon. the members indicted before him for slanderous libels if
.
Baronet concluded by saying that there was but one course
the doctrine of the Honourable Gentlemen opposite was
which they could adopt, and that was to accede to the mo- held to be just.—( Hear, hear.) And let him suppose
tion of the Noble Lord. that a Judge filling the situation of the Learned Gentleman
Sir E. SUGD EN rose to call the attention of the Noble had introduced politics on the Bench—( Loud cries of
Lord (Lord J. Russell) and of the Attorney-General to a a Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—Suppose
point connected with the case. He wished to know
whether they considered this a proper time to ask Mr. Stock- a Judge who, while trying prostitutes, indulged in political
dale what he had to say in his own vindication, or whe---' e • •
lectures (R Renewed cries of " Hear, hear")—suppose a
Judge who, while trying a pickpocket, censured the
ther they intended to give him an opportunity of defending Administration
himself. He ( Sir E. Sugden) wished to know what was
empire—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—could anything
the proper stage at which this opportunity might be af-
be committed without hearing what all the parties might more indecent take place? He (Mr. O'Connell)thought
forded him. Why, he would ask, should Mr. Stockdale
that a' it was impossible that there could be.—( Cheers. )
have to say in succession ? Let them be called to the Asfor the decision of the Bench, really it was a
paltry one. In fact, it was ridiculous in every
bar, and let the House then decide on what it might think the way.lt was a paltry judgment, devoid of rea-
proper measure for puoishing them for violating its rights.
so
He believed no body could feel any consideration for Mr. n and sense.—(Hear, and derisive cheers from the
Opposition.) If his professional reputation were worth
Stockdale, but still he could not vote for his committal. anything, he would boldly affirm that there was not a par-
Though he looked upon this as a very high offence, he
title of law in the judgment.—( Laughter from the Opposi-
trusted that the House, taking all the circumstances of the lion.) Why the Judges hold that the publication of 658
case into consideration, would not consider it necessary for copies for 658 men was no publication at all. Was not that
the protection of their privileges to commit Mr. Stockdale, ridiculous ?—( Laughter, and hear, from the Ministe-
but that they would temper justice with mercy, by calling rial benches)—and if a man died with a copy in his pos-
upon the Right Hon. Gentleman who filled the Chair to session, and his executors sent it to his attorney to know
reprimand him at the bar.—( Hear, hear.) what it was, that would be an actionable publication.—
Mr. W AKLEY hoped and trusted that the House (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Was not he right in calling
would agree with the Hon. Member for Ripon in the the decision a ridiculous one ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is
propriety of giving Mr. Stockdale an opportunity of being now that we ought to take our stand. We ought to have
heard, because it was his (Mr. Wakley's) firm belief that taken our stand sooner. The great mistake was in sub_
nothing would damage that House more in the public mitting the question to the Queen's Bench, and glad, ins
opinion, or in the general estimation of the country, than deed, was he that he had protested against it.—( Hear,
their calling upon a party to appear at their bar, and after hear.) In his opinion, they had heard the best sense and
putting a few questions to him consigning him to a dun- reason from the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet the
goon, without giving him an opportunity of defending Member for Tamworth.—(Loud cheers.) The Right
himself. He would remind the House and the country and Hon. Baronet put the question on the right footing,
some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who appeared on this ques- when he said that if the privilege was not supported
lion to be seized with such an extraordinary fit of liberalism by public opinion, it would never succeed.—(Cheers.)
—(Great cheering and laughter)—what was actually done This was no party question, but one which involved the
in the case of Sir John Hobhouse. There a pamphlet very existence of that House. He (Mr. O'Connell) would
was written by that gentleman in 1819, entitled " A not detain them on the point of law—he would just put
Trifling Mistake." In that pamphlet he made some strong this to the House—the Learned Recorder, sitting in his
r remarks on the conduct of this !House, remarks not so Court, would vindicate his privileges against them and all
strong or stringent as in the excited state of the public at the world.—( Hear, hear.) Would they, the superior
the present moment were made now, and which were met Court, yield their dignity with more pusillanimity than the
with every day—( Hear, bear)—and no legal proceedings the inferior had ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.) Would they
were taken. Now, what did Sir John Hobhouse say in not stand up manfully on behalf of the people of England,
that pamphlet? Why, that the House of Commons was and defend their right to disseminate among their consti-
not protected by love, but by fear; arid that the real pro- tuents information of national importance ?—( Cheering. )
tectors of the House were the Horse Guards.—(Cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS said he first rose in explanation, to
He said further, that he should like to know what
complain of the Learned Gentleman, for having accused
there was to prevent the people coming to the him, with other gentlemen of that side of the House, of
House, locking the doors, and throwing the key in
to having Stockdale for his client.—( Loud laughter.) " 1
the Thames.—(Hear, hear.) What was done in that am surprised," (continued the Hon. Baronet) that the
case ? Why, it was voted a high contempt of the House Learned Member who has so often traduced the women of
---the printer of the pamphlet was ordered to the bar—he England—
attended the following dap—he had permission to give up air. O'CONNELL (starting with great vehemence
the name of the author, and what was clone then ? Why,,
from his seat, and with great violence of manner)—That is
a Member of the House got up and stated that he had r
false 1_
(Shouts of " Order," and immense uproar.
authority to say that John Cam Hobhouse was the author Sir Sir R. INGLIS rose from his seat, and appealed to the
Was that individual
of the pamphlet.—(Hear, hear- )
The SPEAKER—If the Hon. and Learned Member
called to the bar and asked what he had to say with re-
gard to the publication? No. No such course was taken
(we unfortunately did not hear him clearly) has stated that
ohoismomwitntedjutsotifiNcoawtigonat.--0
w(
in the good old Tory times of that day.—(Cheers.) John
any other Hon. Member said what was untrue, he has un-
Sp,eaker.
Cam Hobhouse was not brought to the bar to be heard in
doubtedly stated what is a breach of the orders of the
House.—( Hear, hear.)
the opportunityh o
Mr. O'CONNELL, with great warmth—Well, Sir,
saying a single word in his defence.—(Great
Gentleman
I appeal to you upon the facts. An Hon. Member, rising
That act was done by the friends of the Hon.
ho
to explain, as he said, introduced an attack upon me. He
opposite—(Cheers)—by those good Conservatives,
ilitheoarulhheaavri.o)g He was absolutelyf.
in their time preferred some of the principles . advocated
who
char charged me with "traducing the women of England."
I am not now alluding to him—but I say that the charge
by Hon. Gentlemen now.—( Cries of " Question, ques-
is false.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Order, order. ")
lion.") An Hon. Gentlemen cried questionthatAwo was
Sir R. INGLIS—Does the Hon and Learned Mem-
always the case when the shoe pinched.—(
Cheers.)y_
her meant to say that I have made a charge against him,
thing to drive off a statement, when an Hon.GentlemanFor his
which he lls me I know to be untrue ?
is going to state the truth.—( Great laughter.) F
Mr. O'CONNELL—Does the Hon. Member mean to
own part he was willing to take upon himself all the re-
impute to me tl h •le eying traduced the women of England ?
sponsibily that could belong to him, as an humble Mem- P
If he does, he says that which is untrue, and what he knows
her of that House, for the course the Government were.
order.")
rig} it to be untrue.—( Cries of " Order,
pursuing, because he felt no doubt they were in the lie i
path. He thought they were taking the proper course, The SPEAK ER—I must call upon the Hon. and
Gentleman to retract that expression Learned •
on ; as I under-
an d he had only to express his regret that it had not been
him he
taken earlier,—(Great cheering.) He had said this much standlanother
asserts t iat Hon. Member has said
.
what he knows to be untrue.—( Hear, hear.)
with respect to the conduct of the Government, and he _.
Mr. O'CONNELL—WeII, Sir, perhaps I went too far
should not discharge the duty which he owed to his own 4
in that. I will say then " which he ought to know
feelings, if he were not to express his warmest approbation
to be untrue."— ' '
Laughter and cries of " Hear," and
of the conduct pursued on the present occasion by the
" Order.") ( - '
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( Hear,
hear.) The question under the consideration of the t The SPE AKER—I must entreat the Learned Mem-
ber for Dublin to make C. more unqualified retractation.
House was one of the most important that had ever en-
gaged any portion of the Legislature—it was a question, Mr. O'CONNELL—'ir, I appeal to you. lam ac-
in fact, the determination of which was to decide whether cused of having made a charge against the women of
England. Ought to bethere was to be in England a House of Commons or not .Hear, hear,
not that charge .
withdrawn?-
-( Great cheering)...._a question whether it was to be a (
(Shouts of " Order"
House of Commons which had the power to exercise )
any privileges for the benefit of the people, independent The SPEAKER—If the Hon. and Learned Member
of the authority of the hereditary branch of the Lewis- 1 denies the truth of that assertion, I am quite sure the
lature.—( Great cheering.) Was it to be endured that 4 Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Ox-
everything that the house of Commons asserted as a ' ,
ford will not persist in his statement.—( Hear, hear.) It

EVENING EDITION.

is, then, my duty to call upon the Hon. Baronet to with- l A conversation then took place as to postponing the
thaw that assertion.—( Hear, hear.) Then the Hon . urther proceedings till Monday, or pursuing the m to-
Baronet can call upon the Learned Member for Dublin to morrow, and it was generally admitted that, as the Court
retract an expression quite contrary to the rules of the of Queen's Bench might make the rule absolute to-ntor-
House.—( Hear, hear.) row, and so place the parties in a i'iffetent situation: that
Sir R. INGLIS--Then, Sir, I understand the Belo. it would be advisable to meet to-morrow.
and Learned Member for Dublin does ia his place m Mr KELLY, however, moved that the House at its
Parliament, distinctly deny that he ever did traduce the rising adjourn till Monday, which motion was lost by 36 to
women of England, as it has been reported he did. is 116 It was finally or de red that Mr. France attend to-
that so?—( Hear, hear.) t,'-morrow with M . Burch, II (at 12) ; and Messrs.
Mr 04CONNELL (with great enetuv)—Certainly I Hoe nrd and .Jackson on Mendas,
cannot hesitate for •ne moment I ear., rt,,t what adsee THE ADDRESS.
tage may be taken of me—l answer, the House teat the rhe Report on th
e /Viol e-s is ,s brought up and agreed to.
charge is totally Hear, hear.) PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sir R. ING L IS— Then, noon that ur,ler-r,inflic),:r, Sir, Mr L A 130 UCH ER E moved see sseeppeintment of
I withdraw the expression, which was psrcnthelical the Private Business Commit, e
merely.—( Laughter. ) But the Learned Member ived PRIVILEGE
brought in matters quite for,..ip,:n to the question.—( Hear, Mr. F. KELLY gay, no ce that on Monday he should
hear.) l move as an arm-mimeo r hat Messrs. Hansard should he
Mr. LAW then rose, mid raid mid to offer an eel( mnified tor the rt cent see tons, and that the Attorney-
' Ge.vieral should he instructed to defend my future actions.
explanation of a weighty eharsee xhich h le en made
against him in his judicial cat ,cite —( He o. he r ) Hs TL'e House then adjourned it One &Clock.
I complained of the tone, the manner, .and the assertion,
I the Learned Member for Dublin. It :vas easy to pervert
isolated expressions in the newspapers, but the Learned
Member had grossly misrepresented the facts—uninten-
tionally of course—for the Learned Gentleman, so sensitive
to aspersions on his own character, wousi never willingly
1 attack another's. —( Loud dry e rivi-ned , beers. ) be
impression perhaps, tnir.4iit ove h. er,,att_d by this
I incident. In the ( t; T.' for an offence
which had become prevalen,. lie happened to observe, in
answer to a remark in favour of mitigation of punishment,
that an example was necessary, adding that if a olistsken
I lenity had been shown elsewhere—( Cheers from the Minis-
terial benches)—but he had net mentioned Lord Norman.
bi's name.—( Laughter. ) It was only an observation—
(Renewed laughter)—he meant no political allusion.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. DARBY said the Noble Lord (John Russell) had
virtually sounded his retreat by declining to state the
exact cause of commitment on the resolution, and
the Attorney-General cleverly wished the commitment to be
indefinitely for contempt, hoping that thus the commit-
ment would not be inquired into on habeas corpus, as the
Judges had stated that into mere committals for contempt
they could not inquire.—( Hear, hear.) The law was
really triumphant at this moment.—( Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENE ~IA L said it was most un-
pleasant for him in the discharge of his duty to defend
the privileges of the House, to come personally into col-
lision with the Judges of a Court in which he had ever
practised, and in which he must continue to practice while
he remained in his profession.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He had no hesitation in affirming that his advice
would be that the resolution should not state the
precise cause of commitment.—(lronical cheers from the
Opposition.) But Lord Denman had stated that he
should reserve to himself the right of inquiring into any
commitment.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HO WICK said he hoped the amendment would
not be withdrawn, so that the original motion would be
compelled to be put—( Cheers)—for that motion would
bring the question most boldly and decidedly to issue.—
( Cheers.) "It will then appear thus upon our Journals
(said the Noble Lord)—that on the petition of Messrs.
Hansard, Mr. Stockdale was called in, and admitted that
he was the person who brought the action against them
for what they had done by the orders of this House;
whereupon, naturally and immediately, the House resolved
that he has committed a contempt—( Hear, hear)—that is
perfectly plain, perfectly clear, and simple—(Cheers)
—and there is no occasion to add any other statement."
(Hear, hear.) As to calling in Mr. Stockdale and hearing
him in reply, he (Lord H.) appealed to the Speaker whe-
ther its practice was ever to hear persons speak in defence
of a contempt ? and whether the usage was not, after exa-
mining the person and ascertaining the fact of the contempt
—instead of giving an opportunity perhaps for an exceed-
ingly insulting speech—( Hear hear)—to commit the party
at once, and leave him to petition, to state anything in pal-
liation.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER was for calling in Mr. Stockdale.
The House then divided—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority ---149
On our re-admission we found—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving that John Joseph
Stockdale be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms attending this House.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that with all deference to
the House he trusted that it would not bethought presump-
tion in him to offer a few words upon the present motion—
in doing so he would endeavour to avoid going ever the
same ground occupied in the former debate. He felt
perfectly satisfied with the arguments used by the Learned
Gentlemen on his side of the House—indeed it was a singu-
lar feature in tine case, that with the single exception
of the Attorney-General all the high legal authorities took
the same view of the question, and that was against the
proceedings of the House. He considered that a question
which deeply involved the liberty of the subject, and he
could not give his concurrence to such arbitrary measures
as were proposed. He would therefore propose as an
amendment, " That in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard,
judgment having been suffered to go by default, the House
was not in a condieion to take further proceedings."
Mr. Alderman COPELAND looked at these proceed-
ings with a degree of jealousy, believing their object to be
the prevention of that boast of Englishmen, the Trial by
Jury, and to attack the independence of the Judges. If
they committed Stockdale to the custody of the Sergeant
at Arms, how could they avoid committing the Sheriffs ?
and he would put it to the House whether it would be
advisable to commit those officers who are responsible for
the peace and safety of the metropolis. He should sup-
port the amendment, as he was fearful that the privileges
of the House might be lost in the struggle upon which
they were about to enter.—Cheers
Mr. KELLY thought it was of the last importance that
the House should distinctly understand the course which
the Nibble Lord intended to pursue. He wished to ask
first Whether the Speaker's warrant would state on the
face of it what the breach of privilege was, for which
Mr. Stockdale was committed ; and next supposing it
should not be so stated, by what means Stockdale would
be deprived of the power of being brought before the
Queen's Bench, by a writ of Habeas Corpus. Yet there
was nothing to prevent Stockdale from commencing an
action against the Sergeant-at- Arms for false imprisonment,
and in that case would the Noble Lord advise the House
to remain quiescent, or would he instruct the Attorney-
General to appear and defend the action ? because in the
latter case it would be abandoning the principle upon which
he was now acting, but if he adhered to the principle of
the resolution, and refused to appear to the action, so that
judgment should go by default, the probability was Stock-
dale would obtain very large damages, and nothing could
prevent those damages being transferred from the pocket
of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the pocket of Stockdale.
Lord J. RUSSELL though it necessary the House should
understand that in 1837 certain resolutions were passed
declaring that the House was the sole judge of its own
privileges, and that the prosecuting of any action before
any other Court calculated to bring those privileges into
question was a gross breach of privilege, and contempt of
the House of Commons; these resolutions were not a
new law, but were merely declaratory of the ancient and
undoubted privileges of Parliament. Mr. Stockdale had
acted in contravention of this resolution, and had brought
an action, calling their privileges into question in a Court
of Law. It was now competent for the House either to
pursue the course indicated by their former resolutions,
or to abandon all proceedings ; but not to pur-
sue that course, and yet to maintain the resolu-
tions, would be to place the House in an absurd
and ridiculous position.. The Hon. Gentleman had asked
if it was intended to state, on the face of the warrant of
commitment, the nature of the contempt of which Mr.
Stockdale had been guilty. It was not for him to advise
the House what should be the nature of the warrant to be
issued, but after having heard the advice of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney-General, he presumed they
would act upon that, and that the warrant would not con-
tain any recital of particular acts, but that Stockdale would
be committed as having been guilty of a breach of privilege.
He wished to call the attention of the House to the im-
portance of the amendment which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had proposed, which was to the effect, that because
they had allowed judgment to go by default, they were
precluded from taking any further steps in the matter.
That was overturning indirectly the resolution of 1837,
which declared that the House had the sole jurisdiction in
all cases in which its own privileges were concerned. Let
them consider what was the effect of the arguments of the
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They said if an action was
brought in a Court of Law questioning the privileges of the
House, and you appear before that tribunal, and the decision
was against you, it was argued with great plausibility that by
going before that Court, you do in effact submit to the
decision of that Court. But if they took another course,
and did not appear at all, it was then said that because
they did not go into Court, but suffered judgment to go
by default, that therefore they were bound to submit to
the decision of that Court ; so that whether they go be«
fore a Court or hot, according to Hon. Gentlemen on the
other side, they were bound to submit to the jurisdiction
of their privileges to the Courts of Law ; and that not one
privilege, but every privilege which they possessed, must
be decided according to the judgment of the Courts of
Law, and not according to that of the House. That was a
most important question raised by the amendment, and it
was necessary the House should fully understand the im
portance of it, as, in his opinion, if they were to pursue
the course recommended by the amendment, it would be
subversive entirely of the privileges of that House.
Mr. CRESSWELL said he thought it bad been con-
tended they ought not to commit that miserable man Stock-
dale, for whom individually he had no sympathy—ne, it
was not Stockdale, but the liberty of the subject, that
formed the grand object. He understood the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) to say the House was to commit for a
breach of privilege, and that they were justified by the pre
cedents on their Journals, On which then of those prece-
dents were they to act ? Let them net step short new. He
would advise them to recollect there was another resolution
on their books yet more dangerous, under which they
might commit the Judges. If they acted on the one,
they would have to act on both ; only that the Judges
might be committed to Newgate, where they would be
near their place of business, when they had to try the cri-
minals confined there.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when the numbers were—
For the Motion
For the Amendment 2 •••• ..... 105
Majority
—134
On our return to the gallery we found
Lord JOHN RUSSELL on his legs, stating that it
appeared to him the Messrs. Hansard had paid the-
money
into the hands of the Sheriffs, it might be with the in-
tention pf waiting for the instructions of the House.—
( Cheers and laughter.) He would now propose to the
House that the Sheriffs be ordered to attend again on Mon-
day next.
Alderman COPELAND said that the Sheriffs would
be compelled to pay over the 6001. to Mr. Stockdale, or to
his assignee in the Insolvent Court.
Col. WOOD trusted, before the House separated that
it would come to the resolution to discharge the Sheriffs
from attending,

pOLICk. INTELLIGENCE.

--N_ -

Bo -STREET.

Yesterday Mr. Hall and Mr. Jardine were occupied the
entire of the afternoon in di,posing of charges brought
against twelve Chartists v‘ho had been apprehended, some
of them armed with deadly weapiais, on the previous night,
while holding a meeting ":n the Trades' Hail, Abbey-street,
Bethnal-green. On being taken into custody, they were
all lodged for the night in. the Denmark-street Station,
which is within the district of .the Lambeth-street Police
Court, but in consequence of a communication received
from the Home-office they were beought up under a strong
escort of the t- division, under the direction of Superin-
tendent Pearce, to be examined at thiN Court
The Rev. Lord Augustus Fitzclarence was on the bench.
The first five prisoners, who appeared to belong to the
working classes, and whose names were L?aniel Byrns,
Thomas Clarke, Thomas Rennard, Thomas Hope. and
Win. Wilkins, were charged with illegally meeting with
arms in their possession for unlawful purposes.
Mr. Wooller appeared for the prisoners.
Mr. Superintendent Pearce having been sworn, and ex-
amined by Mr. Hall said, there is a house in Abbey-street,
Bethnal-green, called the Trades' Hall, part of which is
a b•er-shop, where several Chartist meetings have been
held, from time to time, &nd in conseqn:ence of information
I had received, I felt it to be my duty to report the whole
circumstance to the Commissioners, by whom I was
directed to proceed with Captain Hay and a sufficient
number of constables to the place. On entering the room
we found about 500 persons assembled, some of whom had
great coats, and we proceeded to search them, having had
every reason, to believe they were armed. It was then
about half-past nine o'clock. There was a raised platform
in the room, upon which was a person, apparently the
Chairman, who was holding forth to the meeting, among
which the prisoner Byrne was standing, and from whom,
I saw the knife taken by one of the officers. fie held it
shut in his hand, and there was some difficulty in taking
it from him. I did not see him do or hear him say any
thing, and he was standing in the body of the hall.
I afterwards saw Rennard searched, from whose bosom
the brace of pistols produced, which were loaded with
balls, were taken. The sword produced was taken by
an officer from the prisoner Hope, and he offered great
resistance before he was compelled to give it up. This
sword was without any scebbard, and, on mounting the•
platform, the pike produced was found concealed behind
the wainscotting, together with a number of bullets
which were discovered lying on the stage. I also picked
up two or three ball .cartridges about the room, and seve-
ral others were subsequently found by the officers. _ There
was no violence used in searching the prisoners, except by
themselves.

Inspector Lewis, H division, stated that he accompa-
nied the last witness to the Hall at the time in question,
where there were about 500 persons assembled, and some
person, seemingly the chairman, addressing them. There
was a general rush to the door on seeing the police, and
the speaker desired the people to sit down. Hope, from
whom he took the sword produced, was about to strike an
officers with it, had his hand not been stopped. He had been
more than once at the same place, but could not say if the
prisoners were at those meetings; and the meeting in
question had been adjourned from Tuesday, at which h•
heard the speakers desire each person to bring as many as
they could with them, but he heard no mention then made
about arms.

Henry Herris, another Inspector, identified the prisoner
Wilkins, whom he saw searched by the last witness. On
the rush being made to the door, be attempted to mairce his
escape, but, on witness preventing him he feltlsomething in
his pocket, which, upon searching him, turned out to be
the pistol produced,and which was subsequently discovered
by the Superintendent to have been loaded. A bullet and
some powder, with a slug were found upon him, and upon
being further searched, he said he would sootier loose every
drop of blood in his body than be in witnesses's situation.
Mr. Webb identified the prisoner Clarke as having
been in the body of the hall.
J. Davidson, 146 H, deposed to being resisted in search,.
ing Rennard, when the pistols were found, and he also
saw the other prisoners searched.
Mr. Wooller—Did you meet with any resistance in the I
execution of your duty ?—None whatever.
Joseph Weston, 140 H, confirmed the testimony of the
other witness.
James More, 71 H, in assisting to search the room,
found a pike on the platform, and he found the short knife:
produced on the prisoner Byrne.
Richard Baker, 31 H, picked up two knives in the upper
part of the room—they were lying on the floor, and had
scabbards. He heard the prisoner Byrne say that they
(meaning the constables) would rue their conduct.
Joseph Price, 133 H, observing a noise under the stage
as the meeting was nearly dispersed, went under, and,
finding it very dark, he procured a candle, and discovered
a pistol, produced. loaded, primed, and half-cocked. It
was lying on the floor, with a dozet2 ball-cartridges and a
quantity of loose powder. There was also another pistol
near to the same place, which was not loaded.
The Superintendent found a knife produced, and he had
reason to suppose that the ammunition had not been many
minutes where it was found.
Mr. HALL inquired what was the number of pistols and
other articles which were found.
The Supertendent produced twelve pistols, nine daggers,
seven knives, two pikes, one sword, twenty-three ball
cartridges, and a quantity of gunpowder.
Mr. Wooller said he could not see there was any case
against the prisoners stronger than that each of them
might, or might not belong to a particular society, and as
such, each of them was answerable for his own acts in the
same manner as any man might enter into a church or- a
chapel.
Mr. HALL said the case presented very strong features
against every one of the prisoners, except Clarke, who,
although it appeared, he carried nothing, yet was heard to
cry out to the people to stand to their posts ; the prisoner
Byrne appeared to be actuated by very bad feeling by his
threatening the officers that they would rue what they
were doing. As all the circumstances connected with
this case were of a very grave nature, the prisoners
should be remanded until Tuesday next.
The prisoners being removed from the bar, Joseph
Williams, David Williams, Charles Hodson Neesom,
Richard Spurr, John Cherry, George Livings, and
Thomas Evans, were brought up charged with being pre-
sent at the meeting for unlawful purposes.
The Superintendent proved that on his entering the
room the prisoner Nelson was acting as chairman, and on
seeing the police he called upon the meeting to stand
firm, and keep their ground, and to be quiet. He also
made some observation about the police which witness did
not understand. He commenced to search all who were
on the platform, and on searching Joseph Williams he
said " If you handle me I'll take and knock you down," and
on taking hold of him he raised a stick to strike, but wit-
ness drew his sword and told him that if he struck him be
would cut him down, and after much difficulty he was se-
cured with handcuffs.
Mr. HALL considered it quite unnecessary to go over
the ground again by re-examining all the witnesses, as the
evidence of the Superintendent was the same, and as he
understood that other evidence would be added, he would
pursue the same course that he had done with the other

prisoners.
Mr. Wooller applied to have bail accepted for as many
of the prisoners as were able to procure it, to which Ms.
Hall assented.

DEATH OF PRINCIPAL BAIRD.—With Sincere
regret we have to announce the death of the venerable Principal
Baird, which took place on Tuesday, at his residence near Lin-
lithgow, in the 79th year of his age. Besides the high office
in the University, which he had held for nearly half a century,
Principal Baird for forty years had the honour of being one of
the ministers of the High Church of Edinburgh.—Edinburgh
Paper.

SPOONS and FORKS, strongly plated with
Silver on a white metal, and consecuently not liable by wear
to show any other colour. Table Spoons or Forks 21. 19s.
per dozen. Dessert Spoons or Forks, l'wo Guineas per dozen.
Tea Spoons, 255. per dozen. Gravy Spoons, 9s. lad. each.
Soup Ladles, 16s. each.
T. COX SAVORY,
Silversmith &c., 47, Cornhill (Seven doors from Grace-
church-street), London

BIR THS.
On the 16th inst., at Nelson House, Kingsland, the lady of
George Gabain, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 17th inst., Mrs. B. Evans, Trinity-street, Southwark,
of a daughter.
On the I 7th inst., in Upper Harley-street, the Lady Agneta
Bevan, of a son.

IVIARRIE
On the 15th inst., at St. Giles's,D.
Camberwell, John Nailor
Topping, Ecq., of Whitechapel-road, to Eliza, only daughter of
James Smith, Esq., of Hill-street, Peckham.
On the 16th inst., at Old Windsor, tho Rev. James Elliott,
of Hartfield-grove, Sussex, to Marianne Grant, youngest
dzughter of John Calvert Clarke, Esq. of Coworth-park, Berks.
On the 16th inst., at St. Pancras, 'H. B. Burford, Esq., of
Lisson-grove, Surgeon, to Emma, youngest daughter of the
late W. H. Wright, Esq., of Sydenham, Kent.
On the 16th inst., at St. George's, Camberwell, Richard
George, eldest son of Richard Hedgeman, Esq., Norwich, to
Anne Marshall, eldest daughter of Captain T. C. Sherwin, R.N.