The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-11 00:00:00

Mr. WARBURTON did not regret that the aid of
the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General had been called
in, but it would not induce him to vary the vote he had
given on a former occasion.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
it had been established to the satisfaction of the House
that those were reprisals, and not captures, and that the
parties were entitled to compensation. He need not refer
to the case of the Spanish vessels which had been seized
at the breaking up of the war in Spain, and in which
compensation was granted to the owners. On the 22d of
JuLy an embargo was laid on all the Danish vessels in
the English ports, and an armament wee sent out to
seize all vessels on the high seas belonging to that Go-
vernment. The armament ascended to the mouth of the
Baltic, which every body knew was a close sea, and he
thought it only reasonable, fair, and just, that where the
British Government derived so large a sum of money
from the capture of the fleet and stores and the condem-
nation of vessels seized in British ports, it was only rea-
sonable and just that compensation should be afforded
out of that large sum. It was nothing for him to hear
that the funds had been misapplied; it was no answer to,
say that thirty years had' lapsed since the occurrence;
that was only a stronger reason why the parties should
immediately receive the small pittance of compensation
to be awarded to them. He relied upon the want
of notice to the British who were sending their
vessels to the Baltic, and upon the withdrawal
of the British fleet, thereby rendering capture certain.
That was enough to justify him in departing frcm the
usual rules in voting for compensation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not wish for a
moment to take credit to himself for any thing he was
not entitled to, therefore, he must disclaim the credit
given him by his Learned Friend, that his statements of
last night were merely the arguments used in former :de-
bates, and put in a clearer form; he supposed the superior
intelligence of his Learned Friend had enabled him to
find it out. Sir James Mackintosh had distinctly laid it
down that book debts and goods seized ought to be com-
pensated, because they were seized against the usages of
war, and the law of nations; in such a case, he laid it down
that it was the duty of the Government to enforce
compensation by arms, or to make compensation out of
their own funds. The application of the principle, how-
ever, he limited to seizures made against the law of
nations and against the usages of war. That was an
authority upon the present occasion. When he addressed
the House yesterday he had refrained from reading the
documents, contenting himself with stating them, and
waiting until he heard whether they were contradicted.
He would then read them; The first was a clear declara-
tion of war upon the part of Denmark against England ;
and he said distinctly that that declaration was made on
the 16th August. He would now state the facts—he
would recapitulate them to the House. His Hon. and
Learned Friend had stated that there had been an em-
bargo previous to the 27th of July. Now he could dis-
cover no such thing, and he should be glad if his Hon.
and Learned Friend would refer him to the authority on
which he made such statement.

Mr. CIIESSWELL—It was so stated on bringing for-
ward the motion in 1831.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would refer his Hon.
and Learned Friend to the orders of the Admiralty for
laying on the embargo, which were dated the 25th of
August. He had inquired at the Admiralty, and there
was no document there to show that any embargo had
been laid on before the 25th of August, nor could he
find at the Admiralty any trace of any application havine-
been made there, as stated by one of the persons interested
in supporting these claims, by any persons for informs.
tion, or that any information had been given by any per-
sons on the subject. On the 25th of August, the orders
of the Admiralty authorising the detention of vessels
were issued, and affairs continued in that state until the
!Id September, when those orders were confirmed and ex-
tended by an Order in Council. On the 3d of Au-
gust the British fleet arrived off the coast of Den-
mark, and cut off all communication between the
island of Zealand and the Continent of Eu-
ope. Now what effect on the mind of :any man of
ordinary intelligence must the appearance of a British
fleet off the coast of Denmark have produced? If it
were unexpected, the more likely was it to excite alarm;
and he contended that the appearance of that fleet, ac-
companied as it was by a large body of troops. was abun-
dant intimation to the merchants that they could not
remain safely in the proximity of such a fleet, and that
if they did so remain they must do so at their own ex-
pense and risk, and not at the expense and risk of the
nation. From the sth of August until the 13th nego-
ciations were going on between Mr. Jackson, the repre-
sentative of the British Government at Copenhagen, and
the Danish Government, relative to the surrender of the
Danish fleet to the care of Great Britain. On the 16th
of August the Danish Government issued the following
proclamation, which would be found in the nine-
teenth volume of the " Annual Register," page 173.
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here react the de-
claration of Christian VI., in which, after reciting the
demands made by the British Resident Jackson, he
stated that the Resident, on the refusal of the Danish
Government to comply with those demands, had de-
manded passports for himself, and his suite, and that
consequently the war between England and Denmark
might be considered as actually broken out, and he called
upon all his faithful subjects to arm to repel the Eng-
lish aggression. He further ordered that all English
ships and property wherever found, should bo seized,
and that all English should, until they could be sent out
of the country,,be placed under arrest; and the declaration
finished by stating, that, as a matter of course, all Eng-
lish ships and boats found upon the coast should be con-
sidered as hostile, and that all correspondence with
English subjects should cease until further orders.)
When the King of Denmark issued a proclamation on
the 16th August, that war was actually broken out, could
any man say that he was justified in remaining in the
Baltic to prosecute commercial speculations, on the
belief that pacific relations would not be interrupted?
No relations of peace and amity subsisted between
the nations after that proclamation; and on that day Ad-
miral Gambier and Lord Cathcart issued an address, in
which they stated that they were ordered there by coin-
mand of his Majesty, to obtain by pacific negotiation, if
possible, the surrender of the Danish fleet. That sur-
render was refused; and, on the 24th August, the Danish
Government issued a further proclamation, in very hos-
tile terms. On the 2d September the bombardment of
Copenhagen commenced. From that time there was no
pretence for the statement that anything like a cessation
of hostilities had taken place. On the 9th September,
the decree was issued which gave rise to the claims for
compensation--namely, that respecting the confiscation.
On the 23d of September a British manifesto was Issued,
showing the two nations distinctly to be at war. Now,
when were these vessels seized ? On the 6th of August,
and on the sth of September; but the great majority late
in October, through November, and down to the 23d of
December. On. the 4th of November Great Britain, never
having entertained hostile feelings towards Denmark, but
having acted on the principle of great State necessity,
a necessity founded on the most absolute -justice—if self-
protection be consistent with justice—the ;Government
of the day was restrained from presenting a perfect de-
fence, because we know that at certain times private in-
formation which the Government may procure may not
be disclosed with safety to the individual who furnished
that information, nor consistently with the means of ob-
taining further information which it might be desirable
that they should possess. But afterwards-they discovered
that France and Russia had determined, to seize the
Danish
fleet, and use it hostilely against Great Britain ,
and when the British navy arrived at Copenhagen, that
place was in a state absolutely defenceless, so as to give
every facility to the objects of Russia and France. It
was complained that the English had taken the fleet
when the ,Danes were not in a situation
for defence. But that was their justification,
for it became the imperative duty of the Government of
the day to take wise, prompt, arid decisive measures, that
that fleet should not be used for the invasion of Great
Britain, and the British Government would have deserved
impeachment if, on the information they possessed, tey
had not wrested from the power of Russia such powerful
means as the Danish fleet afforded. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman denied that they were at war. His
acute and intelligent Friend behind him (Mr. Warbur-
ton) had looked too closely into the question to make
such an assertion ; he had retired from that position.
What constituted war? One nation appeared with a pow-
erful armament on the shores of another nation, demand-
ing- of that other to surrender its fleet ; that demand was
resisted, and the Government so required published to its
subjects that the two nations were at war, and imme-
diately directed the commencement of hostile acts. Did
not that conststute war? Were the Danes to say whether
they were, at war or his Hon. and Learned Friend?—
(Hear, hear.) In their proclamations they stated that
the war was begun. It was not a paper war ; a procla-
mation was issued by the Danish Government that the
two nations were at war. What was the foundation for
the statement that the two nations were not at war?
There was not the slightest, unless his Honourable
Friend could erase from the records this declaration
of war on the part of Denmark. It was a most
material fact for the House to bear in mind, and to
adopt a distinct conclusion upon, were the two nations
at war prior to the seizure of these vessels ? His Hon.
Friend seemed to think that he had imputed to him a
Want of accuracy in reference to the books. He had
read the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend atten-
tively, and, after readine- it, he was astonished at the
result. Nothing but his happy manner of delivering
what he had to say could have made that speech effec-
tual to convince the House. His Hon. and Learned
Friend seemed to think that ho (the Solicitor-General)
was mistaken in supposing that he had drawn an incor-
rect inference. His Hon. and Learned Friend had not
made any quotation from Grotius. He (the Solicitor-
General) would refer the House to the authority of
Vattel on the subject.of reprisals. Reprisals were those
things which were taken by nations which had a cone-
plaiht against other countries, prior to the breaking
out of a war, and with a view to obtain justice,
upon a matter of complaint. (Hear, hear.)
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then referred to the
authority of Vattel with respect to reprisals, in justifica-
tion of the course the Government had pursued.) Now,
what was the date of the seizure of the vessels in ques-
tion, what were the dates as compared with the declara-
tion he had heard that the two nations were at war?
A few in the month of' August, still fewer in September,
and fewer still in October and November. The two na-
tions were at war after the 4th of November. Apologies
were made for the act done, but stating- that it was ab-
solutely necessary for the preservation of the country, by
reason of the coalition of France and Russia. If his
Learned Friend called that an apology he was at perfect
liberty to do so; but, in his (the Solicitor-General's) opi-
nion, it was justice to the nation. These seizures, there-
fore, he he said, were all of them after. war, and there was
0. ground for calling into the subject any recognised
prmeiple, for the 'case of goods and debts stood
duperon
anddifferer,
nt grounds.. NON, he .wished to u-
wasstit
tninthgen Isoround upon which this was put.
eits44selfthat it was the peculiar circum-
stances of, the
might be said, and saicialtlehl wa4
to .he the ground .it.
had its
peculiarsircumsta,nces ; JontY' that- every ease
NYOgases.cquld be identical;
if it was to be put on the grestest of peculiarity of cir.

cumstances, it should be put upon some great and intel-
ligible ground, such as could not be mistaken on future
occasions. Now what was the pecularity here ? His
friends said that they were taken by surprise—that no
notice had been given of hostility to enable them to
escape—was that the peculiarity ? How often would it
happen? He hoped never to see such days as that,
but if the experience of the past v. as mat-
ter of caution for the future, looking at the
course of events what answer, he would ask, could they
give to the numerous claims which stood upon the same
foundation ? He denied that they had not sufficient
notice, and even if they had not, if it was said that
the absence of notice furnished a ground for compensa-
tion, then he said that the present case was peculiar for
absence of any such ground. But he asserted that the
parties had as much notice as was necessary. It was
stated in the course of the debate that an individual of
the name of Harrison had applied to Admiral Gam-
bier to know if he might safely go to the Baltic. It was
said that the Admiral told him he might go. This
might be the case, but the supposed conversation was
given thirty years after the period referred to. But
let them mark what followed. That individual wrote
home to England to obtain an insurance. What did that
writing home for an insurance show ? Did it show that
he might remain there without fear of war ? Certainly
not. The merchants who traded to the Baltic were a
very adventurous set of men—they chose to speculate—
they stayed to load their cargoes, but they stayed too
long. The British fleet was detained for a time to put
the Danish fleet in a state to come to England. Why
did not the vessels come away with the fleet ? It was
argued that the British fleet did not leave sufficient pro-
tection for the vessels in the Sound. That would be no
ground for compensation. A large fleet such as that
was must have been some time preparing to sail. Could
those in the Baltic be ignorant that such a fleet was about
to depart or had already departed ? Decidedly not. If
they chose to remain they did so at their own risk, as
they did for their own profit. That, then, would form
no ,ground on which to sustain these claims. Something
had'' been said about a conversation which took place
at the Admiralty. Would that House say that on the
ground of a conversation said to be held at the Admi-
ralty, about which nothing certain existed, they should
vote away a large sum of money ? That was certainly
too futile a ground to be upheld. No application on the
subject existed in writing. It was asked if they had
thought it fit to take the fleet, why did they give any
compensation at all ? Compensation was given in the
former cases, because it was intended at the time the fleet

•
was taken to return it in perfect safety. When the
Danes refused to surrender their fleet, and assumed a

, hostile attitude, we were obliged to consider them as
enemies, and the ships were therefore taken in state of
of warfare. It was to the Danish captains that compen-
sation was given for their private expenses and freightage.
It could not for a moment be contended that the property
seized by the British Government from its enemies
should be applied to the payments of the losses of pri-
vate individuals. He regretted the loss these parties
had sustained in the pursuit of their commercial specu-
lations ; but there must be some broad and intelligible
ground on which such an application should be made.
The Spanish case had been referred to as forming a pre-
cedent, but he denied that there was any analogy be-
tween these cases. Before the House granted the pre-
sent application they would do well to consider what was
the precedent which they were about to lay down; and he
was satisfied that on every principle of justice and ho-
nesty the parties now before the House had no claim
whatever upon the public funds.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Mr. A. CHAPMAN contended that the Government
was bound to remunerate these parties for the losses
they had sustained, because, when application was
made to them, they stated that there need be no appre-
hension whatever, and, acting upon that advice, one of
his constituents, with his family, had been entirely,
ruined. He contended that these claims stood upon pre-
cisely the same footing as the book debts and the goods
seized on shore. He himself had sent out a ship which
had been seized at Copenhagen, but it had been after-
wards re-taken and delivered up to him by Admiral
Gambier. He trusted that the Government would see
the justice and expediency of no longer withholding the
settlement of these claims.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For bringing up the Report
Against it 64
Majority
SUPPLY.

The Report on the Committee of Supply was brought
up, and the resolutions agreed to.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Committee on the
Bribery at Elections Bill stood upon the Orders of the
Day, and he wished to state what his feelings were with
regard to that Bill. If he could expect to obtain the
attention of the House, the present was a period at which
it would be most important to carry it. He owned he
very much feared that having to go through the whole
of the clauses, they would not be able to give it that
attention at the present advanced period of the Session
which it required. These were his feelings ; but if it
was the wish of the House he should have no objection
to proceed with it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had voted for tho second read-
ing of the Bill, because he was most anxious that the
law with regard to bribery and treating should be pro-
perly defined. Many parties innocently offended against
the law because they did not know what bribery and
treating was. On the whole, however important as the
Bill was at the present moment, he thought it would be
a great misfortune to pass it in a hurried manner. On
the whole he was inclined to think that, considering but
a few days would elapse before the House was dissolved,
the Noble Lord had exercised a sound discretion in not
attempting to: pass it, and he had no objection to share
in the responsibility.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the question that the Municipal Corporations Bill
be read a third time,
Mr. CRESSWELL opposed the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. MACKINNON and Sir J.
Y. BULLER,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading 54
Against it 9

Majority
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
THE BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL,
_ _

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he proposed to proceed
with the Committe on the Bill to-morrow (this day).
Mr. WYNN said that it would be well if the measure
were carried into a law this Session. It would be ad-
vantageous at the commencement of the next Session of
of Parliament to have the Bill in operation. The 6th,
7th, Bth, and 9th clauses of the Bill, which referred to
the protection of witnesses in the case of giving evi-
dence, were particularly valuable. He thought that these
clauses ought to be passed in the form of a separate Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that the passing of the mea-
sure would be of the utmost value on the eve of a ge-
neral election.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed to go into Com=
mitten on the present occasion, to consider the sug-
gestions of the Right Hon. Member for Montgomery-
shire (Mr. Wynn), and to go on with the Bill to-morrow.

Sir sROBEitT H. INGtIS said that the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had left the House
under the impression that the Bill should not be pro-
ceeded with.
Mr. WAKLEY did not understand the Noble Lord
to withdraw his Bill. He (Mr. Wakley) thought
that the Noble Lord's remarks were merely thrown out
to ascertain the opinion of the House on the subject.
Mr. W. WYNN hoped that he should not be under-
stood as objecting to the principle of the clauses ; what
he feared was the difficulty of carrying them into exe-
cution.

Mr. FRESHFLELD said all clauses upon which any
question could arise might be postponed, and the House
would proceed with the others.
The House then went into Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was his intention to aban-
don the first clause ; but if Hon. Gentlemen wished it,
he would not object to postpone it.
After a few words from Mr. ;A. CHAPMAN, the
clause, with the four folloWing clauses, were struck out.
Clause G was agreed to with an amendment.
Clauses 7 and S were agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN asked if the clause would en-
able an Election Committee to proceed with the in-
quiry as to alleged bribery after the petitioner should
have withdrawn his petition ?
Mr WYNN said that additional machinery would
be required in order to do so.
Mr. WARI3URTON thought the clause was an ex-
ceedingly proper one.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed
that the object of
the Hon. Gentleman was an exceedingly important one,
but it would be necessary that in such cases as those al-
luded to, the Committee should report the circumstances
of the case, and that public officer should be ap-
pointed to prosecute ths°elnequiry before the Committee.
Mr. S. O'BRLENsuucle,sted that the inquiry should
be conducted at the p
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the matter had
subject of a separate Bill.
better be made the subj
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN then rose to propose a clause
for the purpose of enacting that the same me declaration
should be taken by Members as was now taken by elec-
tors with regard to bribery.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Hon Member
would defer his, motion until the Report should be
brought up.
Mr. WYNN hoped the Hun. Member would not
press his motion during the absence of the Right Hon
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who took a great
interest in the subject.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN must press his motion, and
he would briefly state the reasons which had induced
him to propose the clause. The Member bribing an
elector was much more guilty than the poor elector re-
ceiving the bribe. He was surprised that the Hon.
Member for Bridport was apposed to the declaration,
and the ground that he assumed that such a declaration
would be useless, would :apply equally to every oath
and declaration taken. He proposed that a person
taking such declaration falsely, should be liable to all the
penalties of perjury ; and he believed that in nineteen
cases out of twenty such a declaration would be effec-
tuaL To be consistent the Hon. Member should pro-
pose to repeal. all enactments requiring such a declara-
tion from electors.. The Hon. Member then proposed
the following clauses And be it enacted, that every
Member returned, to serve in Parliament shall, after tak-
ing the oaths prescribed to be taken at the table of the
House of Commons, before he becomes entitled to sit and
vote, also make and.subscribe the following declaration
—' I do solemnly affirm and declare that I have not,
directly or indirectly, made use of any bribery for the
purpose of being electecl.at the late election as a Mem-
ber of this House for the county of (or county
of a city, town, or horougli, as the ease.may be.)' And
he it enacted, that if any person shall makaand subscribe
such declaration falsely, every such person, being duly
convicted thereof, shall incur and suffer such pains, pe-

nalties, and disabilities, as persons convicted of wilfu
and corrupt perjury are by law liable to, and may k
prosecuted for the same at any period within five year:
after he shall have made such declaration."

Mr. WARBURTON simply asked himself whether
such a clause would be effectual in preventing bribery en
rot.—(llear' hear.) It would have the effect of making
the public believe that electors were purer than they
really were. As to the effect of such a declaration, lu
would merely allude to the declaration taken by officer
of regiments when their commissions were bought or
sold. On such occasions both the buyer and seller de-
clared on their honour that they had neither given nor
taken directly or indirectly a greater sum than the regu-
lation price, and the colonel of the regiment certified that
he verily believed that the regulations with regard to
price had been strictly complied with. Yet every one
who knew officers, knew that these regulations were
never complied with, but were absolutely considered
dead letter, and this took place among a class of men who
were considered as the very pink of honour, and who wen
bound to sacrifice every thing rather than that honour.
Yet it was among these gentlemen that this asseveratiot
was violated. A solemn asseveration was made the,
certain things were done, and yet the declaration mad(
had not the slightest foundation. There was another in-
stance in which the oath was prescribed, but equally dis-
regarded. By the 28th of Henry VIII., c. 15, sec. 9.
all Bishops and Archbishops, upon ordaining clergy-
men, were required to put to them a corporal oath tha:
they would learn the English language and teach it,
and support a school for that purpose, and also that they
would assume the English garb and fashion. Every one
knew that that oath was constantly violated. The oath,
to obey the statutes at the Universities af-
forded another instance of the manner in whiel,
such asseverations were evaded ; nor was any
discredit attached to these parties. Under these
circumstances, how could it be imagined that the pro-
posed declaration would have the effect of preventing
bribery ? His opinion was, that the only effect would
be to cause the agents to conceal what had occurred till
a considerable period had elapsed. He wished to see
Members elected, not for their money but for their
merits, and believing that this Bill would not promott
that end, he could not give to it his support.
Colonel SIBTHORP said the effect of the Bill would
be to prevent the rich from benefiting the poor even by
giving a few shillings in charity, and it should have his
strenuous_opposition._______

Sir DENIiAM NORREYS was in favour of making
the oath as stringent as possible. Ile considered bribery
by an agent no less deserving of punishment than bri-
bery by the party himself.

kr..E. TURNER and Mr. W. ROCHE supporte
the clause.

Colonel PERCIVAL opposed the clause.
Mr. T. B. HOBIIOUSE said that no declaration con
be made that would not be evaded.

Sir R. HARDINGE wished to know by what tribu-
nal any Member of that House was to be tried when he
had been guilty of bribery.
Mr. O'BRIEN apprehended that he would be tried
iri the usual manner, and by the Common Law Courts.
Mr. BROTHERTON apprehended if it was the wish
of the House to put an end to bribery, there could not
be any objection in a Member declaring that he had not
been guilty of bribery. He was for adopting any course
that would put an end to bribery.

Mr. WAKLEY said that he believed the House
was not sincere in its wish to get rid of bribery—
if it was, the cure was easy, and that cure was to
enlarge the constituency.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped
the Noble Lord, from what he had experienced, would
put aside his views of finality ; and, if he did, he (Mr.
W.) did not despair of seeing him come forward shortly
as the Radical Doctor to cure all the evils that at pre-
sent existed in the representation of the country. He
did not believe that any declaration would prevent Mem-
bers from bribing. He believed if the clause was car-
ried, it would have no good effect. He trusted, there-
fore, the Hon. Member for Limerick would withdraw
the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought if the declaration was
not productive of good, it was calculated to do a great
deal of harm. He could not conceive that any good ef-
fect would be produced by a declaration. He believed
that after a short time a declaration would become a dead
letter. He did not wish to make any final declaration on
the subject, but, as at present advised, he could not agree
to adopt the clause.
Mr. COURTNEY said they had for some long nights
had sugar debates, in which much sympathy was shown
for the negroes ; last night they had a long debate, in
which dogs were talked of with sympathy ; but why
should not some of their humanity be shown to them-
selves ? If the clause became law he would envy the,7ife
of the toad under the harrow to that of a Member of
Parliament, living perhaps under weak nerves for
five years at the mercy of any disreputable informer.
The Legislation they were now engaged in was useless,
and therefore mischievous. He trusted the Hon. Mem-
ber for Limerick would not force them to a division, for
the motives of those who conscientiously voted against
the motion would be sure to be misrepresented out of
doors.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 22
Against it , 5l
Majority against the clause ...... —29
On our return to the gallery, we found—
Mr. S. O'BRIEN calling the attention of the House to
the expenses to which candidates were put to bring-
ing up voters. It was most desirable that, in Ireland at
least, such expense should be brought as low as possible,
and that such payment or allowance should not be
deemed bribery. He would confine the allowances to ss.
for the expenses of attending at the poll, and 6d. per mile
for travelling—to that extent it ought not to be con-
sidered bribery. He brought up a clause to that effect.
Sir B. BATESON agreed with the Hon. Member, but
the greatest blessing that could be conferred on Ireland in
election matters would be to extend to her the English
system of voting at various places in the county. It
would save much of drunkenness and loss of life. He
was certain that if they did away with treating in Ireland
they would disfranchise more than one-half of the
county electors, for they could not travel 30, 40, or 50
miles to the county town, and remain there five days at
his own cost.
After a few words from Sir G. GREY and Colonel
SIBTHORP, the clause wa's withdrawn.

The House resumed, the Report to be received to
morrow.

The Report of the Committee on the Banks of Issue
Bill was brought up.;
The Metropolitan Improvement Bill went through
Committee.

The County Bridges Bill was read a second time.
The Highway Rates Bill was also read a second time.
The School Sites Bill was reported, with amendments.

THAMES EMBANKMENT.

Sir F. TRENCH moved the re-appointment of the
Select Committee on Thames Embankment, for the pur-
pose of considering evidence in support of a plan to form,
upon the embankment, a quay of communication from
Blackfriars-bridge toHungerford-market ; the whole of
which could be provided for by a railroad between the
same termini, without any demand for the public money,
or any reference to the value of the land recovered from
the river.

Mr. HAWES objected to the motion. He begged
the House to consider the great amount of property
that would be affected by the formation of the embank-
ment proposed ; and he believed it would not benefit
navigation, but, on the contrary, would impede it.
Mr. KEMBLE trusted that, under all the circum-
stances, his Hon. Friend would not press the motion to a
division.

Mr. PRYME supported the motion.
The CHANCELOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that at this period of the Session the Hon. and Gallant
Member would not press his motion.
Sir F. TRENCH consented to withdraw the motion.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven.

From the late Henry Cowper, Esq., of Tewen
Waters, Herts., to Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, 39, Albemarle.
street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel, and 76, King William.
street, Bank of England.—" Gentlemen, having been deaf for
many years, I was induced from recommendation to try your Invisi-
ble Voice Conductors, and I have great pleasure in telling you that
they enable me to bear persons in company and at a place of wor.
ship most distinctly; and in consequence of the great advantage
which I have derived, I have recommended many persons to you,
and their report is similar to mine—most favourable. The Spec.
tacles and Hand-glass which you have sent me are very excellent,
and suit my sight precisely, and surpass any thing of the kind I
have ever tried ; the transparency of which is so brilliant, that,
although I have passed my 86th year the 22d of May last, yet they
enable me to read, ace., by candlelight with the greatest ease and
comfort to myself.—Gentlemen, I return you my best thanks,
and remain your most obedient servant. HENRY COWPER.—
June 22, 1839."—General Browne Clayton feels desirous to ex-
press the comfort and advantage he has derived at his advanced age
of 70 years, and after two years' trial, from the use of Messrs. S. and
B. Solomons' newly-invented Spectacles ; their valuable invention
ully merit the patronage they have received of the Royal Family
and so many individuals of high distinction, as well as of the nume-
rous scientific and eminent medical practitioners.—London, the
25th Feb, 1841.—Address, Addignton Hall, Lancashire.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]
PERSONAL ORNAMENT.-A highly-interest-
ing work might be composed oh the various and dissimilar
modes of personal embellishment practised among different na-
tions, and the chapter devoted to the teeth could not but prove
one of the most attraeive in the volume. Among many savage
nations the practice is well known to prevail of dying the teeth
black, which is esteemed a high degree of ornameet ; while, on
the contrary, our British fair, relying on nature for their at-
tractions, seek only to preserve the charms which she has so
richly bestowed on them, and endeavour simply to preserve the
white and pearly character of the teeth. Among the various
means suggested for this object, we would select the celebrated
" Odonto, prepared by Messrs. Rowland, of Hatton-garden,
as the most admirable and perfect dentifrice yet submitted to
the public.
THE COUNTESS OF BLESSINGTON S NEW
Wonx.—We are requested to state that " The Idler in
sFtrraence," by the Countess of Blessington, in 2 vols. bvo., is M
published this day by Mr. Colburn, of Great arlborour.,,h-
et, and may now be bad at all the booksellers. Mr. Col-
burn has also just published :—l. The Hon. Mrs. Damer's
Diary of her Travels, in 2 vols. 8 vo. 2. The Life and Lite-
rary Remains of L. E. L., 2 vols. small Bvo. 3 Campbell's
Life of Petrarch, 2 vols. 4. Ideas and Reflections on the
Properties of Music, by his Royal Highness the Crown Prince
of Hanover, price ss. 5. 111 r. Fowler's " Three Years in
Persia and Koordistan, 2 vols. small Bvo. 6. Trollope's Sum-
mer in Western France, 2 vols. Bvo. 7. Woman ; a Poem
by E. S. Barrett, 3s. 6d. 8. The French Stage and the
French People, edited by Theodore Hook, Esq., '2 vols. small
Bvo. 9. Dr. Croly's Personal History of George IV., 2 vols.
small Bvo. 10. The Book without a Name, by Sir Charles
taend La
rs
from dy
ttlo r
the arts
an,u 2
rts veofls .
Europe, smallo
28 vole.
81;
oSin .
anbdu r ni
2e s LTeht-
e
Life and Letters of Beethoven, edited by Manholes, 2 vols.
small Bvo.

A marriage is rumoured in the fashionable cir-
cles, and with all appearance of truth, that an Hon. Baronet,
Member of Parliament for one of the border counties, will
conduct to the hymeneal altar at the close of the season the
only datighter of a Gallant General related by marriage to
eue of the leading statesmen of the day.

.SIR ROBERT PEEL AND MR.

ASHWORTH.
(From the Manchester Guardian.)
TO THE EDITOR. OF THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN.

Turton, 6th mo., 8, 1841.
RESPECTED FRIENDS,—I have to request your insertion of
the following correspondence, which has passed between Sir
It. Peel and myself, in reference to certain statements, made
in his speech on the sugar duties, on the 18th ult.

I hal%e prefixed to it an extract from that speech, and also a
letter, previously addressed by me to Sir Robert Peel, through
the medium of The Sun newspaper. This letter has already
appeared in the Guardian, but I think it deairahle now to re-
peat it, with the view of rendering the subsequent correspon-
dence more intelligible.

As a week has elapsed without a reply to my letter of the
Ist instant, I presume the correspondence is now terminated.
I am, respectfully your friend,
HENRY ASHWORTH.
[We emit the letter and the extract, as not necessary to
make our readers acquainted with the facts of the cage.)

Turton, Bolton, 5 mo. 29, 1841.
Respected Friend, Sir Robert Peel, Bart.—l find that thou
bast stated, in reply to an inquiry of Mark Phillips, Esq.,
that thou hadst not received any direct communcation from
any of the deputation who waited upon thee, from the Man-
chester Chamber of Commerce, concerning thy statements to
the House as to their opinions of Mr. Greg's pamphlet; and
that, if any such were now sent, that thou would frankly
state the result."

It would also appear, that then hast demurred to notice my
puplished letters to thee,—probably upon a point of etiquette,
because I had not previously submitted them personally to
thyself.
_

should regret, if I had inconsiderately disregarled the
usual courtesies of life ; but be pleased to reflect for a mo-
ment :—After thou had assailed my constituency, time, and
not etiquette, became my first duty to consider in the removal
of so foul an imputation; and my determination to publish at
once, was hastened by the recollection, that thy reply to the
note of the deputation bad kept them waiting seven days.
If I have failed in respect in not forwarding a copy of my
published letters on the day of publication, I regret it.
The subject which requires thy explanation is thy assertion
that the deputation, and especially myself, had advocated
opinions in favour of protecting duties to our colonies.
Thou wilt bear in mind that, at our interview, the deputa-
tion handed thee a copy of the resolutions passed at the Cham-
ber; also a copy of their " Report on the injurious effects of
restrictions on trade ;" these thou promised to read, and upon
them we rested our case.

As the documents deprecate the discriminating duties on
British colonial sugar, and as the deputation most fully con-
curred in stating that they repudiated the principle of " pro-
tection and monopoly" as a system of legalised robbery, it is
due to them, as welLas to myself, that thou should explain
how thou happened to misrepresent our views and opinions.
Jam, respectfully, thy friend,
ITENRY ASHWORTH.
•

Whitehall, Alay 31, 1841.
Sir,—l have this day received your letter of the 29th instant,
and hasten to give that reply to it which I would readily have
given to other letters which professed to be addressed to me by
you, if I had received them.

. -
I make no complaint of discourtesy on your part ; but I took
for granted that you did not expect an answer to letters respect-
ing which you made no communication whatever to me. It is
true, as you observe, that some days elapsed before I made an
appointment for receiving the deputation of which you were a
member. I made it, however, previously to the discussion
to which the interview referred, and 1 would have
made it at an earlier period had it been in my
power. It is no easy matter, I assure you, to attend
Committees in the morning, debates in the evening, trans-
act all the other business that is connected with Parliamentary
life, and to make immediate appointments with parties who
wish for interviews on public matters. You observe, that
" the subject which requires my explanation is my assertion
that the deputation, and especially yourself, had advocated
opinions in favour protecting duties to our colonies." Now,
1 beg leave to say, that I made no such assertion. Since I
received your letter, I have looked at the report of that which
I did say, as given in the Morning Chronicle (I select that
paper on account of its political bias) ; and it appears to me
that the report is a fair and correct one. I beg leave to refer
you to that report, and I will state in addition the facts of the
case according to'my recollection of them. I received a depu-
tation from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester. That
deputation urged very strongly the doctrines of free trade,
and the universal application of them, and placed in my hands
' a document chiefly founded on the evidence taken by the
Import Duties' Committee, enforcing similar principle!.
I remarked, that however true the doctrines of free
trade might be in the abstract, there were occasionally
considerations in the practical application of them, which could
not be safely disregarded. I urged encouragement of slavery
and the slave-trade as a consideration of this nature, and one
which might fairly be urged against a strict application of the
principles of free trade to the produce of slave labour. Upon
this I was asked by one of the deputation whether I had seen
a pamphlet of Mr. Greg on the subject of the extinction of the
African slave trade; and if I had not, whether I would under-
take to read it. It was described as a very able work, and cal-
culated to make a great impression by its force of reasoning.
I answered that I had not seen the pamphlet—that I would
certainly read it ; and on my inquiring where I could procure
a copy, I was told that one would be sent to me. That copy
was sent to me by you with a note, which I read in the House
of Commons, in which "you commend the pamphlet to my
attentive perusal," and remark, " that you had not heard that
either Sir Fowell Buxton or any of his adherents had even at-
tempted an answer." When I read the pamphlet, in fulfil-
ment of my promise, I found an able and powerful argu-
ment in favour of the continuance, for the present, of a
high discriminating duty on foreign sugar ; an argument
not urged slightly and incidentally, but urged at the con-
clusion
of the pamplet, after a full review of the question of the
sugar duties, and in anticipation of many of the arguments
used subsequently in the debate in the House of Commons. I

ascertained that ihis pamphlet was written by a gentleman who
is the brother of one of the Members for Manchester; it was
commended to my perusal at ao interview which I had with a
deputation from the Chamber of Commerce of that town. It
was sent to me by the member of that deputation who took
the leading part at the conference which I had with them, and
was described by him as a pamphlet to which no answer had
been given.
Finding in this pamphlet, coming into my possession under
such circumstances, an elaborate and successful argument in
favour of my views as to the policy of continuing for the pre-
sent a high protective duty on foreign sugar, I considered
then, and I consider now, that I was fully justified in the use
which I made of it. I think Mr. Brotherton, the Member for
Salford, who, before I could mention the pamphlet, exclaimed
in the House, " Now it is coining," must have laboured under
impressions very similar to mine. You are perfectly at liberty
to make whatever use you please of this letter.
I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant,
To Henry Ashworth, Esq. ROBERT PEEL.

Turton, Bolton, 6th mo. Ist, 1841.
Respected Friend, Sir R. Peel, Bart.—On reading thy let-
ter of yesterday, and the report in the Morning Chronicle, to
which thou refers me, 1 am by no means convinced that the
statement made in my letter of the 29th is incorrect, namely,
that thou had in substance asserted, that the deputation, and
especially myself, had advocated opinions in favour of protect-
ing duties to our colonies.

find, in the report to which thou refers me, the following
passage in relation to Mr. Greg's pamphlet :—" That the
members of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester were
the advocates of free trade, and were the men who were now
agitating the country against the Corn-laws ; and they it was
who asked him ( Sir R. Peel) to read this pamphlet; they
told him they would abide by the decision he came to upon
this pamphlet."—( Morning Chronicle, May 19.) Thou must
be aware that this statement, so made by thee, was incorrect ;
that the deputation did not, as on behalf of the Chamber of
Commerce of Manchester, ask thee to read this pamphlet ;
that it was myself who directed thy attention to it, from con-
siderations arising incidentally out of the previous conversa-
tion ; that this took place after the business of our inter-
view had been concluded ; that this (Mr. Greg's)
pamphlet was not given thee by the deputation, but
was sent to thee some hours afterwards, in my own name,
accompanied by a note, having a reference to Sir Fowell Bux-
ton's schemes, and not to any advocacy of protective duties ;
and that nothing was said to thee, from which thou could draw
the conclusion that we had been deputed by the Chamber of
Commerce to lay that pamphlet before thee ; and thou must
also be aware, as I have before reminded thee, that it was not
this pamphlet which the Deputation left thee, but the " Re-
port of the Chamber of Commerce on the Injurious Effects of
Restrictions on Trade," and the "resolutions "of the Cham-
ber, founded thereon ; these thou promised to read, and upon
them we rested our case ; and that neither myself, nor either
of my colleagues, ever said that we should abide the decision
thou came to upon Mr. Greg's pamphlet, or any thing to the
like effect.

It was with considerable surprise that I found, by thy letter,
the following defence of the course thou halt taken. Thou
sayest, " Finding, in this pamphlet, coming into my poss-s-
-sion under such circumstances, an elaborate and successful
argument in favour of my own views, as to the policy of con-
tinuing, for the present, a high protective duty on foreign
sugar, I considered then, and I consider now, that I was fully
justified in the use which I made of it."
I conceive, therefore, that I, the gentlemen with whom I
acted, and the body by which we were deputed, have all a right
to complain of the colouring wh:ch is given in thy speech to the
conversation which took place at thy house.
The Chamber of Commerce of Manchester was responsible
only for the acts of myself and my colleagues as a deputation ;
and, though it may be considered fair by an astute politician to
catch at an expression of private opinion by an individual on an
incidental point, and to try to fasten it upon the body by which
he was deputed, I do not think that such a course is calculated
to promote that frank and unreserved communication with pub-
lic men, from which I am sure they, and the community, may
frequently derive considerable advantage.

I am, respectfully, thy friend,
HENRY ASHWORTH.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND THE DEPUTATION OF
THE MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, June 7,
TO THE EOITOR OF THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN.
Sir,—That the public may judge of the misrepresentations
which have been made in Parliament, and in the public jour-
nals, respecting the interview of the deputation of the Chamber
of Commerce at Manchester with Sir Robert Peel, we beg to
hand you the correspondence which has passed between that
gentleman and ourselves, which we shall be obliged by your
inserting in your next publication.
We are, Sir, yours respectfully,
J. B. SMITH,

HOLLAND HOOLE.

Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, June 1, 1842.
Sla—The statement made by you, in the House of Com-
mons on the 18th ultimo, with reference to your interview
with the deputation of the Manchester Chamber of Com-
merce, led Mr. Ashworth, one of the deputation, to address
a letter to you, through the public journals ; but, having left.
London, we were not aware, until we saw by your reply to a
question from Mr. M. Philips, in the House of Commons, that
you had received no direct communication on the subject from
Mr. Ashworth.

So many MisrepreseEtations have appeared in the news-
papers arising out of your reported statementin Parliament
of what passed between von and the deputation, that you will
not be surprised we feel called upon, in our own justification,
and that of our colleague, to repeat the facts as they oc-
currcd, for the purpose of giving you an opportunity of cor-
recting the mis-statements which are contained in the re-
ported account of your speech.
You are reported to have said, " That it was not the
first time you hail been indebted for arguments to the Cham-
ber of Commerce of Manchester—you had had the benefit
of the arguments of the Honourable Gentleman the late Pre.
silent of that Chamber (Mr. G. W. Wood) ; you had to re-
turn the same acknowledgments to that Honourable Gentle-
man's successor."

Now, you did not in your speech (as reported) think proper,
on this occasion, to make use of a single argument adduced by
the Chamber in its " report," or in its " resolutions," or
through its deputation ; but, instead thereof, you have chosen
to select from
commended to your perusal by Mr. Ashworth with reference
a pamphlet written by Mr.. W. R. Greg (re
solely to Sir Fowell Buxton's scheme) certain passages, never
adverted to by Mr. Ashworth, and representing to the liouso
the opinions expressed in that pamphlet, as those of the deputa-
tion, and on which they rested their ease. -- -

You are reported to have sa'd, " Here was a man connected
with the manufacturing interests—a member of the Chamber
of Commerce at Manchester—deputed by them to come to
London to represent their interests, prepared to take an en-
larged and liberal view of this question, with reference to the
interests both of the manufacturer and the consumer. And
what were the conclusions to which this gentleman mire ?
He said few things could he more certain than that the situa-
tion of the sugar cultivator would be ruined, that capital would
be destroyed, that it would lead to the abandonment of the
land by the present white population, and that not only would
the great measure of emancipation have signally failed, as far
as negro slavery was concerned, but the moral effect on other
countries would he wholly lost. "—Morning Chronicle, May 19.
Not one syllable of the above, attributed to the deputation,
was uttered lay any one of them.
You are further reported to have said, " The Honourable
Member who laughed might not be a member of the Chamber
of Commerce at Manchester, but he should recollect that the
members of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester were
the advocates of free trade, and were the men who were now
agitating the country against the Corillaws ; and they it was
who asked him (Sir R. Peel) to read this pamphlet ; they
told him they would abide by the decision he came to upon this
pamphlet."—Morning Chronicle, May 19.
Now, what the deputation invited you to read, and on
which they were satisfied to rest their case, was not Mr. Greg's
pamphlet, but the Report of the directors to a special general
meeting of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers at
Manchester, on the injurious effects of restriction on trade,
and the necessity of i:nmediate changes in our commercial policy,
held I Ith March ; and also the " resolutions" adopted at another
special general meeting of the Chamber, held on the 22d April,
both of which documents were handed to' you by the deputa-
tion, and which you promised to read.
Not one word will be found in these decuments in favour
of the " temporary continuance of the present discriminating
duties on sugar." On the contrary, the report of the Direc-
tors before referred to, states that—" The tax imposed on the
consumers, by being obliged to give above double the prices
for sugar and coff e to our colonies that these articles can be
purchased at from other countries, amounts to upwards of
6,000,0001. per annum, levied for the exclusive benefit of the
colonies, to whom, a few years ago, the British people paid
20,000,000/. for the abolition of slavery.
" The total value of British and Irish produce and manu-
factures exported to the British West Indies, in 1539, amounted
to 3,986.598/. ; of which about one-fourth is reexported to
the South American and neighbouring States ; so that, at the
present time, including the interest on the slave-compensation
money, the British people are paying 7,000,0001. per annum
to our West India Colonies for the privilege of selling their
products of the value of 3,000,0001. a year."
The second " resolution" unanimously adopted at the spe-
cial general meeting of the Chambt r, held on the 22d of April
last, is as follows :

That it is inconsistent with just government to impose
taxation for any other than purposes of revenue ; that all pro-
tecting or discriminating duties, imposed for the purpose of
raising artificially the prices of home or colonial productions
above their natural prices in the markets of the world, are an
unjust tax upon the great body of the consumers, for the ex-
clusive benefit of a privileged class."
It was furthermore expressly stated to you by the deputation
that they considered monopolies as unwise and unjust, and,
stripped of their disguise, they could view them in no other
light than as legalised robbery.
The
_propriety of admitting slave-grown sugar for consump-
tion was a point introduced into discussion by yourself. You
intimated your dissent from placing it in competition with that
of free labour, and thus indirectly encouraging slavery; whilst
the deputation contended, that the only possible or rational
mode of abolishing slavery throughout the world was to show
the superiority of free over slave labour. But that you did not
mistake their opinions on the subject of free trade is evident
from the following questions which you put to them, viz. :
Do you advocate universal free trade ? They replied, certainly.
Then, have not the West Indians a right to demand free trade?
Certainly. Then I, as a West Indian, might say, Give me a
free trade in slaves. To which they replied, that human
beings were not considered to be a legitimate mercantile com-
modity. _

When the business of the deputation had closed, and the
Members had left their seats to depart, Mr. Ashworth asked,
in reference to the question of free and slave labour, whether
you had seen some observations upon Sir Powell Buxton's
schemes, in a pamphlet published by W. It. Greg. On your
stating that you had not, Mr. Ashworth promised to send you
the pamphlet.
This pimple and true recital of the circumstances of our in-
terview calls upon us to declare, both in justification of our-
selves and in defence of the body which sent us, that the re-
presentations which you are reported to have made in Parlia-
ment do not convey a correct account of that which actually
occurred ; and we respectfully request that you will do us the
justice to correct, before the House of Commons, the mis-
statements which, we trust, have been unintentionally made, or
incorrectly reported.—We have the honour to be, Sir, your
obedient servants, J. B. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.
Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P., London.

'Whitehall, June 2, 1841.
Gentlemen,—l beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of yesterday, referring to the debate which took place in
the House of Commons on the 18th of May, now nearly a
fortnight since.
On Monday last (the 31st of May), I had a letter from Mr.
Ashworth, being the first communication which had reached
me on the subject of that debate. I replied to Mr. Ashworth's
letter on the day on which I received it; and, as he was a
member of the deputation, and as I have stated to him my re-
collection of the conversation which passed, so far as concerns
the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and the circumstances under which
it was recommended to my notice, .I beg leave to:refer you to
that letter, of which I have authorised Mr. Ashworth to make
whatever use he pleases.
In that letter, I observe that I had referred to the report of
my speech in the Morning Chronicle, and that it appeared to
me a fair and correct report.
There certainly is, however, a material error which is no-
ticed in the second page of your letter. It would appear from
the Report, that I had ascribed to a member of the deputa-
tion the statements " that the situation of the sugar cultivator
would be ruined—that capital would be destroyed--that it
would lead to the abandonment of the land by the present
white population—and that not only would the great measure
of emancipation have signally failed, as far as negro slavery
was concerned, but the moral effect on other countries would
be lost."

In reference to this passage you observe, " that not one
syllable of the above, attributed to the deputation, was uttered
by any one of them." This is perfectly true. Those state-
ments are in the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and I so described
them to be, and read from the pamphlet the particular passages
of which the above report gives only the general summary.
I am sorry to say that my recollection is at variance with
yours on some parts of your statement. For instance, as to
the claim of the West Indian proprietor to be allowed a free
trade in slaves. My observation clearly pointed not to a re-
newal of the slave-trade for the benefit of West India pro-
prietors, but to the unequal footing on which a British colony
would be placed by the strict application of she principles of
free trade, if that colony had to compete on equal terms in the
home market with the produce of Cuba; when in the one
case slavery and the slave trade were effectually abolished, and
were not so in the other.

Then as to the circumstances under which Mr. Greg's
pamphlet was recommended to me. It is true that, when the
conference was over, and the members of the deputation had
left their seats and were about to depart, I inquired where I
could procure the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, and was informed
that it should be sent to me-; but there had been a previous
conversation as to that pamphlet, and it had been strongly re-
commended to my perusal towards the close of my conference
with the deputation, and in consequence of my remarks as to
slavery and the slave trade.
If I am asked any question in the House of Commons on
the subject adverted to in this letter, I shall be prepared to
state my recollection of what passed at the interview which I
had with you, in conformity with the communications which 1
have made to you and to Mr. Ashworth.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. B. Smith, Esq. ROBERT PEEL.
Holland Hoole, Esq.

Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, June 3, 1841.

Sir—We have received your favour of yesterday, in which
you acknowledge that a portion of the report of your speech
to which we called your attention, as reported in the Morning
Chronicle, which attributes certain statements to the deputa-
tion, is incorrect ; and that those statements were described
by Sou in your speech as, extracts from Mr. W. Greg's
pamphlet.
There is another point, however, which you have not noticed,
but which we deem of more importance, as between us and
the Chamber of Commerce, by whom we were deputed; as we
are made by the report of your speech in the Morning Chro•
nicle to have put in Mc. Greg's pamphlet as our ca•e, and to have
expressed ourselves willing to, abide by your decision on that.
We beg, therefore, again to call your attention to the report
of your speech as follows ;—" That the members of the Cham-
ber of Commerce at Manchester were advocates of free trade,
and were the men who were now agitating the country against
the Corn-laws; and they it was who asked him (Sir R. Peel)
to read this pamphlet. They told him they would abide by
the decision be came to upon this pamphlet."—Morning Chro-
nicle,May 19.
We have again to reiterate, that this is totally at variance
with what really took place at our interview ; and it will afFord
us pleasure to be honoured by another communication from
you, stating that this part of the report of your speech is aho
incorrect.

We have the honour to be &c.,
J. B. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.

Sir R. Peel, Bart., M.P.

Whitehall, June 5, 1841.
Gentlemen,—l am not aware of any error in that part of the
newspaper report to which you refer in your letter of the 3d
instant. If here had been, 1 would as willingly have admitted
it, as I did admit the error noticed in my further letter.
I have stated to Mr. Ashworth my recollection of the cir-
cumstances under which the pamphlet of Mr. Greg was
strongly recommended to my notice, at an interview which I
had with the deputati•sn of which you were members.
Mr. Ashworth took the leading part at that interview. If it
were intended by :Mr. Ashworth to recommend to me parts
only of the pamphlet of Mr. Greg, the reservation ought to
have been made at the time. If, again, Mr. Ashworth was
speaking sometimes in his individual capacity, and at others as
a member of the deptvation, or if he offered to me suggestions
from which you dissented, I cannot but think that an intimation
to that effect ought to have been conveyed to me during our
interview.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. B. Smith, Esq. ROBERT PEEL.
Holland Hoole, Esq.

Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, June 7, 1841.
Sir,—We have received your letter of the sth inst., in
which you state that you are " not aware of any error" in that
part of the newspaper report to which we referred you in ours
of the 3d inst.

We are the more surprised at this reply, because we have
since received a copy of your speech of the 18th May, published
by Murray ( which we take for granted is corrected by your-
self), in which we perceive that you have omitted that portion
of your reported speech of which we then complained as being
a misrepresentation, viz., that we would abide by the decision
you came to upon Mr. Greg's pamphlet. We were further
surprised to find, that all the mis-statements in every part of
your speech of the 18th May, as reported in the Morning Chro-
nicle (called by you " a fair and correct report,") which first
led us, in our own justification, and that of our colleague, to
call your attention to, are also, in your said authorized speech,
either altogether omitted or corrected.
Why you still declare that you are " not aware of any error"
in certain Passages in your speech, as reported in the Morn-
ing Chronicle, misrepresenting our interview with you, and
yet in your speech, as corrected by yourself, you have either
omitted or altered these passages, is best known to yourself.
We deem it unnecessary to make a single comment on th 4
conduct. The public will make its own. We cannot, how-
ever, close this correspondence without deeply regretting that
a statesman, aspir:ng to the first office in the bovernment,
should, even by implication, have justified the suspicion of
having'sought to procure a temporary triumph of party in-
terests,.not only at the expense of the character and reputa-
tion of the Deputation of the Chamber of Cemmerce at Man-
chester', but also at that of truth and justice.
We-have the. honour to be, Sir, your obedient servants,
J. B. SMITH.
- • • . • HOLLAND HOOLE.
RoliettTeel,-Bart.,. M. P. -London. • •

SPORTING IN ELL. GEN C.E.

ASCOT HEATH RACES-YESTERDAY.

Yesterday was the " grand" day of the meeting, and with a
slight qualification, the adjective has seldom been more cor-
rectly applied; the weather was delightful, the dust immense,
and the multitude great,—the presence of the Sovereign, with
A brilliant Court, imparting a grandeur to the ensemble which
no other race course can parallel. For those who look for totals
this' brief proem will suffice, but as there is a certain class of
readers who look for items, we will enter a little into detail. Be
it known then, that in anticipation of a visit from the Queen
and her Ilbostrious Consort, swarms made their exit from the
metropolis by the various modes of conveyance now in vogue,
and that the rail and the road were in a bustle from an early
hour in the morning. The " Great Western," as might have
been expected. drew immensely, but not to such an extent as
altogether to supersede coaches and post-horses ; the difficulty
and expense of getting from the Slough terminus to the course
had weight with many, and properly so, as in reality very little
saving of time or money was effected by those who gave steam
the preference. Another inducement to " take to the road"
was the meanness of the Railway Directors, who, having
ruined every posting eitablishmesit on the line (a source from
which a good Plate was always available to the races), and
established a monopoly without making compensation to its
victims, have from the first refused to contribute to a Meeting'
from which they annually derive s everal thousand pounds.
As the races were advertised to commence precisely at half-
past one o'clock, an early arri sal was essential to those who
were anxious to obtain "good places ;" accordingly, by twelve
o'clock, clouds of dust, almost drirkening the sky, gave evidence
of the coming throng, and calk d into play all the energies of
those to whom its disposition wa s entrusted. The Grand Stand
absorbed nearly all the higher cthsss of visitors; but many per-
sons of rank, determined to look royalty in the face, and at the
same time enjoy their luncheons in the old-fashioned way, took
their stand within the carriage itwiosure, setting at nought both
heat and dust, with the certainty of being at least one hour
later off the ground than their nei ghbours, and thereby encoun •
tering the dangers and confusion incidental to the journey
home. The foot people poured in by thousands, hut by the
good-humoured firmness of the police all were packed as well
as could be expected, where two were constrained to squeeze
themselves into a space in w hich one would have been
barely comfortable. It is almost superfluous to add that every
stand was full, that thieves and thimble• riggers abounded, and
that a powerful body of the A dis ision of the police, under
Superintendents May and Grinsokl, and Inspectors Pearce,
Hughes, and Partridge, were kept in constant.and vigorous
employment.
At twenty minutes past one the approa.ch of the Royal pro-
cession was heralded by the shouts of the spectators, and an
avenue was immediately formed, up which it passed amidst the
most enthusiastic cheering. Exactly at the half-hour her Ma-
jesty reached the stand, and on her app,ta.rance at the window
immediately after, was greeted with every possible demonstra-
tion of loyalty and regard; similar feelings: of attachment. were
displayed towards her illustrious consort, w h ose appearance, we
are happy to say, gave a contradiction to Ca e late reports. In
the carriage with her Majesty and the Pri n ce were his Royal
Highness Prince George of Cambridge. I n the others were
the Duke of Sutherland, Duke and Duchess of Bedford, the
Marquis of Westminster, Marquis of Exeter, E an and Countess
of Erroll and Lady Ida Hay, Earl of Albemarle , Lord and Lady
Hobart Grosvenor, Countess of Charlemont, Ea rl of Uxbridge,
Viscount and Viscountess Jocelyn, Lord Kinnacu-d, Sir Henry
Wheatley, Lord Poltimore, Lord in Waiting-.; Honourable
Sir William Lumley, Groom in Waiting; .t.ord Alfred
Paget, Equerry; Sir Edward Bowater, Equcrry to his
Royal Highness Prince Albert; Mr. George and Lionourable
Mrs. Anson, Hon. Charles Murray, Lady Barham, Lady in
Waiting, and the Hon. Harriet Lister and Amelia Murray,
Maids of Honour. Lords Segrave and W. Lennox, and several
other noblemen, had the honour of joining the distinguished
party at her Majesty's dinner-party in the evening.
In addition to those included in the list of her Majesty's
visitors, there were present the Duke and Duchess of Beau-
fort, Duke of Rutland, Marchioness of Clanricarde, Earl an.d
Countess of Lichfield, Earl of Chesterfield, Countess of Albes
merle, Earl of Southampton, Earl Aboyne, Earl Jersey,
Earl Verulam, Earl Wilton, Earl of Pembroke, Earl Mil.
town, Earl Rosslyn, Lord G. Bentinck, Lord Kelburne, Lord
Maidstone. Lord Somerton, Lord E. Russell, Lord J. Fitzroy,
Lord G. Paget, Lord C. Paget, Lord C. Manners, Lord An-
dover, Lord Macdonald, Lord Drumlanrig, Lord Tenterden,
Sirs Minto Farquhar, John Shelley, Francis Collier, B. Hall,
W. W. Wynn. Colonels Peel, Wemyss, Westenra, Synge,
Hall. Honourables—General Grosvenor, G. Anson, J. Mac-
donald, H. Baring, Petre, G. Fitzroy, A. Villiers, J. Vil-
liers, R. Grimston, Paulett, Ct.:axles Forester, and many
others whose names have appeared in our former report.
A few minutes before two, after one false start, the race
commenced for

The Grand Stand Plate of 1001. (handicap) ; once round and
a distance.
Lord Albemarle's Janus, 4 yrs, Bst 51b.., (Robinson) 1
Mr. Osbaldeston's ch f by The Colonel out of Galatea,
3 yrs, sst 131 b..
Mr. Wright's Folly, 4 yrs, ist 121 b... 0
Mr. Bradford's Quicksilver, aged, 7st 101 b....... . . 0
Mr. Shelley's Hellespont, 4 yrs, 7st 91b ..„ 0
Sir G. Heatbcote's Tonquin, 3 yrs, 7st 61b.... 0
Mr. Pettit's Emotion, 3 yrs, 6st 21b .... 0
Betting. —3 to 1 agst Janus; 4 to 1 agst Hellespont; 5 to 1
agst Quicksilver; 6 to 1 asst Galatea ; and 6 to I agst Emotion.
Janus made all the running; followed very closely- by Quicksil-
ver,the Colonel filly having the third position to the (.*rand Stand,
where she passed Quicksilver, and made a push for the Plate,
without, effect however, as Janus held his lead to the end, and
won cleverly by a length. _

Sweepstake; of 30 sovs. each, 20 ft, for two year old colts,
Bst 51b ; and fillies Bst 21b ; winners 31b. extra. T. YC.
3 subs.
Mr. Shackel's Meal, by Bran, (Buckle) walked over.
The Windsor Forest Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h ft, for 3 year
old fillies, Bst 41b ' • the winner of the 2,000 Guinea stakes,
Derby or Oaks, to have carried 51b extra. Ohl mile. 5 snbs,
Mr. Treen's Una, by Glancus (Conolly) I
Duke of Grafton's Florence 2
Lord Albemarle's Minaret I 3
Betting-6 to 4 agst Florence, 2to 1 agst Una (t), and
2to 1 agst Minaret (t). Florence made play at a good pace
to the distance, where Una went up, left her in a few strides;
and-won easy by two lengths.
The Gold Cup, by subscription of 20 sovs. each, with 200
added from the fund ; 3 yrs, 6st 101 b ; 4 yrs, Bst 51b ; 5 yrs,
9st. ; 6 yrs, and aged, 9st 31b ;m.& g. allowed 31b. From
the Cup post on the new mile, once round and in, about two
miles and a half. 15 subs.
11r. Ramsay's Lanercost, by Liverpool, 6 yrs ......(Noble) 1
Duke of Rutland's Flambeau, 5 yrs ...
Mr. Pettit's St. Francis, 6 yrs 0
Sir G. Heatbcote's Bokhara, 4 yrs
Mr. Ridsdale's Bloomsbury, '5 yrs
Mr. Wigram's Teleta, 4 yrs .
Betting-11 to 8 agst St. Francis, 9 to 4 agst Blooms-
bury, 4to 1 agst Lannercost, 11 to 1 agst Flambeau, and 25
to 1 agst Bokhara. Lanercost rendered a long description un
necesary by taking the lead, making all the running, and
winning by a length cleverly, without having been headed, the
pace good only for the last mile. Behind him the race was
contested with much spirit. Flambeau followed the winner
fer half a mile and was then passed by Teleta, who lived only
round the top turn; St. Francis took her place and held it to
the straight running, where he was jollied by Flambeau ; Bok-
hara reaching them at the distance; a splendid race home
ended in a dead heat for second between Flambeau and St.
Francis, Bokhara not being a length from them ; the others
were beaten off.

Sweepstakes of 100 sovs. each, h ft ; colts, Bst 71b ; fillies,
Bst 41b, out of mares that never bred a winner previously to
the July meeting►, 1838. New mile. (8 Subs. )
Mr. H. Combe's The Nob, by Glaucus.... ...... ...(Rogers) 1
Duke of Bedford's Oakley
Betting 2to 1 on Oakley. The Nob made the running,
and after a beautiful race from the distance won by a neck.
The Wind%or Town Plate of 50/. ; 3 yrs, 7st 41b ; 4 yrs,
Bst 41b ; 5 yrs, Bst 101 b ; 6 yrs, 9st ; mares and geldings
allowed 31b ; the winner to be sold for 100/. T.Y.C.

Mr Greville's Pickwick by Camel, aged (Nat) 1
Capt. Gardner's Dismal Jemmy, 4 yrs...
Mr. Westbrook's Decision, 3 yrs 3
Mr. Scott's Abel, 5 yrs
Mr. Lucas's Traitress, 3 yrs 5
Betting-2 to lon Pickwick and 3to 1 agst Decision.
Dismal Jemmy made the running to the distance, where Pick-
wick ran by him, and won in a canter by a length.
The Buckingham Palace Stakes of 200 sous. each, h ft ; for
three yrs old colts, Bst 71b, and fillies, Bst 31b ; untried mares
or stallions allowed 31b ; if both, 51b. Swinley Course.
(5 Subs.)
Lord Westminster's Van Amburgh, by Pantaloon (Scott) I
Lord Exeter's Cesarewitch, 31b........ 2

Betting-8 to lon Van Amburgb, who made a waiting
race of it to the distance, where he went in front, and won in
a canter by two lengths.
Her Majesty and Prince Albert left the Heath after the
Nob's race, at five o clock, but the day's spurt was not brought
to a conclusion until after six.

The Workington Stakes for this day have been divided into
two Classes as follows

FIRST CLASS.

st. lb.! st. lb.
Arctic, aged
Cainelion, 3 yrs 8 13 Launchaway, 6 yrs ...... 7 8
Camclino, 5 yrs .. 8 10,Langolee, 3 yrs
The Corslir, 5 yes . ..... 8 6 Dromedary, 4 yrs 7 1
I
Knight-of-the-Whistle, , Abel, 5 yrs
3 yrs ,. 8 6 Myrtle, 3 yrs
Factory-Girl, 4 yrs
Ben Brace, 3 yrs 7 12 Hellespont, 4 yrs 6 9
SECOND CLASS.

st. lb.
.. __.
John O'Gaunt, 3 yrs ... 8 12 Silistria, 3 yrs
Cesare VV itch, 3 yrs
Carlow, aged ... 8 2 Decision, 3 yrs
Folly, 4 yrs 8 0 Hampton, 3 yrs 6 10
Spangle, 4 yrs
Variety, 4 yrs 7 911. a Gitana, 3 yrs .........6 0
Windior, 3 yrs
Sultana, f 3 yrs 7 71
The list promises plenty of good sport.

st. lb.

CHILDRENS' FRIEND SOCIETY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

9, Throgmorton-street,recT, June 9, 1841.
Sir—The Committee have this morning received an intima-
tion, from a gentleman, who is convinced that the Society has
heneli:ed many poor children, who would otherwise have be-
come a burthen upon the community, that he will present the
munificent donation of 5001. if the Committee will continue
their endeavours to ameliorate the conditim of destitute chil-
dren, by receiving them as heretofore, and training them in
religious, moral, and industrious habits.

'the Committee beg you will favour them by the insertion
of this note.-1 am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. SPARKE, Secretary.
[This liberal offer we are afraid has come too late. The
Society is broken up, in consequence, of the false statements
and ingratitude of the very parties for whose relief it was
established. Captain Brenton, who was the founder of the
institution, died of a broken heart when he found his humane
and incessant labours for the benefit of poor and deserted
children so ill requited. It is altogether a melancholy history,
which we believe some of the conductors of London papers
would gladly sink into oblivion.]

MR. COBDEN FOR STOCKPORT._ We scarcely
know whether to rejoice or be sorry at the announcement we
have to make, that Mr. Cobden has received a requisition from
the electors of Stockport, earnestly soliciting him to become a
candidate for the representation of that borough, and that he
has complied with -their request. A majority of the electors
have, by the requisition, pledged themselves to support Mr.
Cobden with their votes, ss that there can be no doubt of his
success. Stockport will achieve for itself immortal honour by
the election of the man who is the impersonation of the spirit
of justice and the free trade principle ; but if, as we f:ar, the
brunt of the battle has yet to come, the movement out of doors
will sustain severe loss by the removal of Mr. Cobden from his
icdefatigable lahou:s among the people to the less congenial
atmosphere of St. Stephen's. —Anti - Brwd-tax Circular.
BELFAST.—Our accounts from Belfast this
morning are most cheering. The letters speak with perfect.
confidence of the success of Lord Belfast and Mr. Ross, whose.
admirable speech,. at the-Ulster Association, published in this
journal on Saturda7, has won him many friends from the Tory
ranks. Emerson f onnent yesterday issued a piece of delusion
in the shape of an Address, and commenced, his canvass, blit
already he must 'feel that h . doom is Sealed. gvening
Post.