The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-14 00:00:00

C
4/7

rte,_

/~~

(No. 12,3-25.)

e;:_t_7

LONDWN, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 14, 1832.

cated. To the spectators the dap was fatiguing and vexa-
tious, and general complaints were made of the want of that
regularity which the importance of the match demanded.
Among other distinguished characters noticed on the ground
were—the Earl of Errol, Lord Grimstone, Colonel Peel, the
Hon. Colonel Anson, Colonel Charitie, the I-lon. Mr. Brande,
L. Charlton, Esq. and a long list of the Patrons of the Chase
and the 'turf.

ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS.

proceedings, which he produced and read them over to the
Court, and they were taken down by the Judge. A report of
what Mr. Harland read over would fill seven or eight columns
in a paper, consequently, we are unable to give them. It ap-
peared from them that a good deal of inflammatory language
was used on the occasion ; and he identified Curran, Ashmore.
Broadhurst, and Gilchrist, as being on the hustings and utter-
ing such language. The witness underwent a slight re-examin-
tion, but it did not, however, affect his evidence.
Mr. Richard Cooper, reporter to the Manchester Courier and
Herald, sworn.—Attended the meeting, on the 26th day of
Dec., at Camp Field. Saw Ashmore, Curran, Gilchrist, and
Broadhurst there. Did not see any of the other defendants ;
heard no speeches ; attended the meeting of the 22d of January,
at St, George's Fields ; heard Broadhurst say what good would
it do to hang the unfortunate men of Bristol, it would do more
good to hang the judges who tried them ; they ought to bring
those who caused the outrages to justice; he hoped the people
of Bristol would not remain satisfied until they had the life of
Sir Charles Wetherell ; he ought to be hanged on a gallows as
high as Hainan ; judges ought to be cool and calm, which
Lord Chief Justice Tyndall was not, for when lie was leading
counsel against him (Broadhurst) he displayed great rashness
and passion.
Cross-examined by Broadhurst—Took no notes of the meeting ;
did not think the meeting of sufficient importance ; had given
tiscis7anireason for not taking notes, when before the magis.
trates-; did not then say that be was afraid to take notes, be-
cause he sari his (Broadhurst's) eye upon him ; had said that he
thought it prudent to retire when he saw his eye upon him.
Mr. Emanuel Murdell said, that he was at the meeting of
the 29th, and took Pollard. He identified the others as being
present.
James Whitely another special constable, said that he was
also at the meeting of the 29th, and he heard Maskill, Gil.
christ, and Lomax, each make speeches.
Mr. L. T. Gaskill sworn—Attended a meeting in Manchester,
on Sunday, the tt2d day of January, and saw the prisoners,
Ashmore, Cusran, and Broadhurst there, who addressed the
meeting ; Broadhurst, in the course of his harangue, alluded to
the Judges who tried the criminals at Bristol, and said that
society would be benefited the more by the Judges being hanged
than the criminals. The men who were condemned to suffer,
he said, were driven to desperation by the conduct of Sir Charles
Wetherell and the Duke of Newcastle, and that he hoped the
people of Bristol would never remain satisfied until they had
hanged the rascal, Sir Charles Wetherell. That the King must
see the policy of granting the prayer of the petitioners ; if he
did not, the people must act and legislate for themselves. In
allusion to the Magistrates of Bristol, Broadhurst said that
they ought to have beets put upon their trials. Witness heard
Ashmore make a speech, in the course of which he made
some observations upon the recent fortifications of the Man-
chester New Bailey Prison, and said that with two hundred
men as resolute as himself he could shake that bilding to its
foundation, in spite of the bird-cages and pepper-boxes.
By Mr. ARNOLD—Did not take notes of the speeches;
was about to do so, but some of the people used threatening
language and he left the hustings Ashmore might be speak-
ing in joke when he alluded to the pepper-boxes, but he ap-
peared quite serious.
By the prisoner Broadhurst—Recollects meeting Nathan
Broadhurst in St. George's-road on the 29th. Never denied to
him being the writer of a report of the meeting of the 22d of
January. 'Was not disposed to have much conversation with
Nathan Broadhurst on that day, but wished to get away from
him. The report appeared in a London paper of the 24th of
January. Told Broadhurst if there was anything stated in the
report that Was not correct, he had better apply to the Pro-
prietors of the paper in which it was inserted. Is not paid a
sum of money to give evidence in this case, but expects that
all expellees will be paid for coining down from London, and
perhaps a recompense for loss of time.
By Mr. WlLLlAMS—Received a subpoena to attend thdse
Assizes to give evidence, or should not have come. is an un-
willing witness.
By Broadhurst—Has been an auctioneer. Reports for seve-
ral newspapers, and has been a reporter probably five years.
The report of the meeting of the 22d was matter chiefly from
memory, perhaps two or three hours after the meeting; but
will swear to the substance of that report being correct. Re-
collects the procession which greeted Mr. Benjamin Heywood's
return to Manchester after that gentleman's election as Mem-
ber for the county, but did not apprehend any danger from the
'number of people assembled either for personal safety or that
of the town; nor did not feel alarm at the meeting in Camp_
field, which was called by the Boroughreeve and constables.
Attended the meeting on the 28th of November, but was not
afraid. Was alarmed at the meeting of the 22d January for
personal safety, in consequence of the language used towards
witness by some persons present. Recollects a meeting in St.
George's-fields previous to the meeting of the 22d; it was pro-
posed that the reporters be ducked in the next pit.—(A laugh.)
Knew that a vote of expulsion was passed against the reporters
at that meeting, but is ignorant of the causes that led to it.
By Mr. ARNOLD—Was the only reporter who ventured
upon the hustings on the 2.2c1 of January ; went to the meeting
with Mr. Cooper of the Courier office (Manchester), but left
him in the body of the meeting; lodged with Mr. Cooper in
Manchester at the time of the meeting; Mr. Cooper and witness
did not write out their reports together.

Pursuant to public notice, a meeting of the householders of
the parish of St. Martin's was convened last evening, at the
British coffee-house, to consider the propriety of adopting or
voting for Sir John Cam Hobhouse's Bill or Vestry Act, intended
to be brought into operation in the parish, in contradistinction to
that of Sturges Bourne's Act adopted in a parochial vestry in
January last. The meeting was numerously attended. Dr.
Bainbridge in the chair.
Mr. SIMPSON adverted to the recent adoption by the parish
of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, and protested against any other
Act being adopted till the effects of that were fully tried and
proved. He moved " That that the rate-payers of the parish
having determined on the adoption of Sturges Bourne's Act on
the 24th of January last, this meeting, concurring in the deci-
sion'of their fellow-parishioners in vestry, will forward it by all
lawful means." Mr. Richardson seconded this resolution.
The motion was opposed by Messrs. Bruce, Bowers, Pitt, and
Pouncey—and in a more elaborate manner by Mr. Wilde ; but
it was ably supported by Mr. Robert Fenn and others, who made
such au extraordinary exposition of the malpractices of the
Select Vestry as to illicit frequent outcries of " Shame, shame
tie, fie!" And in ridiculous allusion to an expression of Mr.
Wilde's, they frequently called out " These are the honest
men :"
It was subsequently resolved, neither to vote for, nor against
the adoption of Sir J. C. Hobhouse's Act.

CAMBRIDGE ASSIZES, MARCH 13.

(RECEIVED THIS MORNINC.)

The business in the Criminal Court terminated this even-
ing. A number of cases were tried during the day, but none
have ended fatally for the prisoners.
A case •f riot and assault, connected with the administration
of the Poor Laws, excited a good deal of interest. There
were four male and one female prisoner indicted for
riotously assembling and assaulting a man named
Unit, who is a deputy overseer in a parish in this county. It
appeared that this Unit had attended at a meeting of the offi-
cers of a neighbouring parish, to which he was invited for the
purpose of contracting for the parish—" for the labourers (he
said) as well as for the paupers." A great ferment bad been
created in the parish in consequence, and the deputy overseer
was attacked, the doors and windows of the houses in which the
meeting was held being first broken, and Unit dragged out,
and pelted out of the parish, hooted and execrated. He stated
in his examination that he was so ill used, that he was com-
pelled to keep his bed for three days.—The Jury returned a
verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners, but recommending
one of them to mercy.
Another case of assault, connected with the above, was next
tried, the two defendants found Guilty, and sentenced to three
months' imprisonment andhard labour.
The JUDGE then ordered the defendantsin the first case be-
fore him, and after addressing them at some length, sentenced
Harradince, who had been recommended to mercy, to three
months' imprisonment and hard labour, and the others to
twelve months' and hard labour. The instant that Harradince,
(who is a decent looking young man, and a shopkeeper) heard
the sentence, he fell, as if shot, at the bar, and remained for
some time terribly convulsed. The shrieks of the young man
and his mother for several minutes were very affecting. He
was removed from the Court with some difficulty in this con-
vulsed state.

Two charges of child-stealing were brought against a young
woman, but they could not be sustained, and she was acquitted.
Previous to the rising of the Court it was announced that a
true bill had been found against Unit ',the prosecutor in the
riot and assault case), for an assault committed on a young
woman previous to the riot for which he prosecuted.

LANCASTER ASSIZES.-MAR( 12.

(RECEIVED THIS MORNING
THE MANCHESTER AGITATORS.

This day the trials of Robert Gilchrist, James Moskell, George
Lomas, Thomas Faux, Henry Pollard, Nathan Broadhurst,
William Ashmore, and Edward Curran came on in the Crown
Court, which was crowded to excess. Lord Melbourne, who
had been subpoenaed, did not appear, in consequence of the at-
torneys for the Crown, to save his Lordship the trouble and ex-
pense of travelling, admitting all that his Lordship could prove,
viz, the presenting an address to his Majesty from one of fh
Sunday meetings.
The charges against the prisoners were embodied in three
counts, and the indictment stated that they, the defendants,
did, on the 2`2d and '.!9th of January, with divers other persons,
to the number of 1,000 or more, conspire to disturb the public
peace by inflammatory speeches, and otherwise to excite the
subjects of our Lord the King to insurrection and insubordina-
tion, and to subvert and overturn the settled institutions of the
realm. This charge was comprised in:two counts ; the third
was for tumultuously assembling to disturb the public peace.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Coltman, and Mr.
Wightman conducted the case for the prosecution.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, opened the case for the pro-
secution, and stated that he would, as shortly as he could, ex-
plain to the Jury the heads of such evidence which would be
adduced in support of the charges against the prisoners ; and in
stating this, he should endeavour to conduct himself with all
due moderation. In the performance of this duty, he should
not attempt to trench upon any point, that the history of the
country, or the condition of the times, had rendered debata-
ble ground. The nature of the evidence which lie should ad-
duce, would, he had no doubt, satisfy them that the object of
the defendants, as they had exhibited them, was to excite in
the minds of the people dissatisfaction to the present Govern-
ment, under all or any modifications of it. That was the line
and course which his observations would take, in opening the
proofs which he was about shortly to state to the Jury. The
Jury were no doubt perfectly aware, thation the 21st day of Nov.
last year, his Majesty thought fit to issue a Proclamation, which
was directed against associations then in being in this county,
to:which the Proclamation distinctly allude to, and specifically
mentioned. That Proclamation was published in London on
the 21st of Nov., and it must be taken for granted, that it
would reach Manchester on the 23d, and, in addition to the
publication of this Proclamation in the Gazette, he should
prove that the authorities of Manchester caused printed copies
of it to be plentifully distributed and placarded about the town.
This Proclamation having arrived on the 23d, on the .2Sth, not
a week from the date of its publication, a public meeting was
called by placards, to be held in Camp-field, in Manchester.
An adjournment of this meeting took place to the 26th Dec.,
and a meeting was held at that time pursuant to such ad-
journment. On the 22d of January, another public meeting
was held in St. George's-fields. In the mean time some trials
had taken place in another part of the country under special
commissions. The calling of this last meeting, was made
generally notorious by placards. The meeting was adjourned
to the 29th of January, as would be proved. In the mean time
between the 2-2 d and the 29th, the Magistrates of Manchester
conferring with the authorities who had witnessed the impres-
sion and the effect produced upon the inhabitants by these
meetings, and particularly upon persons who had property for
sale in shops and other places, and thinking that the avowed
objects of the meetings, and to language used, were clearly
illegal, and tended to the subversion of the Government in all
its forms, thought fit to issue a notice, warning all persons from
attending the adjourned meeting. It was, however, held ; and
at it the first five named defendants were taken into custody.
Broadhurst, Curran, and Ashmore were subsequently appre-
hended, the two former in London, where they had gone as
witnesses for Mr. Hunt in an action for libel against a public
newspaper. Having given the dates of these meetings he
would now turn to the avowed objects of them on the face of the
placards themselves, and the Jury would see that the public
meeting of the Zd of November was said to be for the purpose
of making a declaration of rights, and also to choose one or

By Broadhurst—Never received a letter from the Editor of
The Sun newspaper in November last, desiring him witness to
attend the meeting of the `X,th of November, and to take down
every word uttered by the speakers ; never said that he had re-
ceived such a letter, and never mentioned such a circumstance
at the William the Fourth, in Manchester.

—......-
John Cooke, a special constable, said that he was at the meet-
ing of the ‘29th ; saw Faux on the hustings. In about three
minutes after I got up there were several bricks thrown; and I
saw Faux with his hand in his breast, under his great coat ;
searched him, and found the dagger produced. He was shout-
ing " Down with the Church and King !" when he was taken.
Did not see Curran or Broadhurst there.

Mr Stephen Lavender is deputy constable of Manchester ;
saw the placard calling the meeting of the 28th of November ;
the placard produced is the same he saw ; was at the dispersion
of the meeting on the 29th.
Cross-examined—lt was possible that they might have dis-
persed of themselves quietly, but the inhabitants of Manchester
were much afraid of the meeting. Curran and Broadhurst were
brought on the outside of the coach from London, chained to-
gether.
Dr. BROWN, on behalf of the prisoners, contended, at
some length, that a charge of conspiracy could not be substan-
tiated against the prisoners; that the object of the first meet-
ing was merely to frame a Reform Bill, to be submitted to the
Ministers, and which only went a little further than Ministers
wished. The Sunday meetings he defended, as being legal,
having been called for the purpose of petitioning his Majesty-
The proclamation of the 21st of November did not apply to
those assemblages.
Mr. ARNOLD followed on the same side.
After which Nathan Broadhurst commenced an address to
the Jury in his own defence, having declined to avail himself of
Counsel,—in the course of which he denied having used the ex-
pressions in the sense imputed to him by the witnesses. He felt
confident of a verdict in his favour by the Jury, and intimated
that the Whigs had tried to impannel a Jury in London to find
a certain individual guilty, but the Jury was too conscientious
to do so; they had since tried the same thing at Manchester
with similar results, and they were now trying what a Lancaster
Jury would do. He was unconscious of having committed any
offence, and he left his case in the hands of the Jury.
The Learned JUDGE summed up at considerable length,
and the Jury after a short retirement returned with a verdict of
Guilty against Curran, Ashmore, Broadhurst, and Gilchrist,
and acquitted the other. The Jury stated that they found them
guilty upon the third count, ♦iz., riotously assembling to disturb
the public peace.
His LORDSHIF intimated that he should defer passing sen-
tence until Thursday.
The trial lasted thirteen hours.

NORWICH. March 10.
I
Wheat (per qr.) ... 55s 60s. fifis. 13eans (per qr.) ~.......,:12s. 345.
Barley ----- 255. 335. 361. Pease, Orey.—. 335. 375.
Oats --20 s. 24s. `.265. Flour, fine (per sack) 465. 48s

CANTERBURY, March 10.
Wheat, white 555. to 655. ..... —s. to —s.
red-- 50s. to COs. -- Old.— —s. to —B.
Barley, Malting...... 348. to 38s. Grinding.. 245. to 30s.
Oats - —s. to —s.
Beans 345. to :385..._.. 01(1--- 38$. to 40s.
Pc3se —.--- —. 38s. to 40. A...... Grey.......... 335. to 375.

MANCHESTER, March 10.
Wheat, per 701 b. 9s. fkl. to 9s. 6d. Red Os. OA. to 9s. 3d.
Barley, per (lOib 5 0 5 3 Oats 3 9 4 0
Beaus, per Imperial quarter
Pease, White, per Imperial bushel 5 0 6 ti
Malt, per 6 Imperial bushels 42 0 47 0
Flour, per Sack ,f 2801 b. 4ll 0 52 0

EXETER MAR!
Beef (score) Bs. Od. 9i. 6tl.
Mutton (15.)--0 5i 0 6
Veal and tznill-0 6 0 7
Pork 4 0 6
Geese (each) --4 0 5 6
Ducks 'couu'e 0 5 0
Fowls •••••• 3 0 4 0

.ETS.—March 9.

Wheat (bushel) ~.ss. od. Bs. 3d.
Barley 4 6 4 9
Oats
Beans 5 6 6 0
Batter (Ib.) .1 0 1 3
Eggs (1‘2)... 0 0 1 0
Potatoes (peck) 6 0 7

IRISH MARKETS.

DUBLIN SIARKET NOTE.FRIDAY, March 9.
From To Average.
2,452 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 2'..2 0133 0 28 9
46 13eie
112 Batley ir, stone 13 6 16 6 14 8
4,372 Oats... l2 stone 9 0 16 0 10 5
1.,836 Cwt. Flour 9 stone 5 0 22 0 0 0
1,088 Oatmeal 8 stone 9 0 11 6 II
Sold to Bakers only.
10,342 Cwt. Flour l3 0 22 0
Average price of Wheat and Flour 435. Od. per
Firsts, -- from 19s. M.
Receipts of Hour, 9,434 Seconds, from 15s. Od.
Sales of Do. 12,8:16 from ss. Od.

17 43
iack.

to 225. Od
to ISs. Od.
to 10s. Od.

PRICE OF BREAD.
Quartern Loaf I Half Quartern
• --

Wheat, Barley. Oats. Flour' per cwt.
per barrel per barrel per barrel f-----a—__
20 stone. 16 stone. 14 stone.
I Ist. 2.1.
--- --- ------ -----
. s. d. a s.d. s.d. a s.d. s.d. a 5. ti. is. d. as. d. s. d. as. .1.
C0rk..,...... 20 0 30 612 0 146 93 10 815 0 186 50 150
Limerick 127 6 30 0 13 0 14 012 0 13 6 16 0 19 0 0 0 15 0
Waterford426 0 29 0 13 0 16 01 90 10 017 0 19 010 0 160
Cionmel ....129 4 300 12 0 16 013 6 139 17 0 19 013 0 16 0
Carlow --127-- 0 29 Ol4 0 1561 90 10 020 6 2l 0 OO 00
Butter.
.—_,-- -____.--------- ----.--_____=--___
i Beef, IMuttond Pork,
' per lb. per lb. i per cwt. Ist. 2d. 3d. 4th. sth
Cork ..idtiafl:di. di d L'ide 'sdsd 1
I ---;
5i27J0 32 0970 92082070 1600
Limerick— 3 4 13i 434 0 35 0,80 072064056 0 48 0
Waterford 3 613 532 0 38 0198 080070066 0 60 0
Clonmel 4 515 633 0 3ti 6178 75 0— i: 0 0
Carlow-- 4 SEO 0 00 0 0196 074('640 0 0

KtultiNsv.—Butter to —s. per cwt. ; Wheat Zs. to 265.
per barrel ; Flour 2.,h3. to 345. per bag; Oats 9s. to 1 per bar.'
; Barks, h'.)s. Lo 15s. ; Beef 4d. to sd. per lb. ; Mutton
to sd. ; Potatoca 2d. per stone ; Coals Is. 2d, per cwt. ; Bacon,
rigoWll. to 33§, per ewt.

more delegates to form a National Convention. In pursuance
of the object he had in view in stating the case, he was not
there to question the undoubted right of every man to express
his opinion of public men and public measures; nor was he
there to say with what degree of warmth and zeal these opinions
should be expressed, nor the point of discretion at which they
should stop, his object was merely to show what were the ob-
jects and propositions of the meeting of the ‘2Bth of November.
He should submit to the Jury whether or not such proceedings
were illegal, and radically inconsistent with the good go-
vernment of this country. That meeting was adjourned
to the '26th of December, and a meeting was held, pur-
suant to such adjournment, but what took place at the
meeting lie had no evidence. He should show that
Broadhurst, Curron, and Ashmore were there by a witness,
who was near enough to hear what passed. On the 22. d of
January, there having been some trials at Bristol and Notting-
ham, a meeting was called by placards, headed " Legal Murder
at Bristol ;" there then followed some verses of a certain degree
of merit, but not of particular merit here, inasmuch as they
were not applicable ; the lines were written by Addison :.—" Is
there not some chosen course, some hidden thunder in the
stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
who owes his greatness to his country's ruin,"—and the spirit
of which quotation lie (the Attorney-General; believed that
there was. Accordingly this meeting was held in St. George's-
fields ; and to the placard was affixed the names of two of the
defendants, Curran and Faux ; and Ashmore, Broadhurst, and
Curran attended, and an adjournment took place to then—oth ;
and in the meantime, the order from the authorities of Man-
chester, prohibiting the meeting, was issued; but the parties
held a meeting, and were dispersed. The Learned Gentleman
then went on at some length, explaining the nature of the
charge against the defendants, and concluded by contending
that the evidence he should adduce would be sufficient to bring
home either one or more counts in the indictment against the
defendants.
Mr. J. Harland, re.potter to the Manchester artaetliari, Was
the first witness called, and was under examination nearly four
ii,:urs. He was at the Camp-field meeting on the ‘.)6th of No-
veluiJer, ind took copious short.hutd.notes of the whole of the

EXECUTION OF THE MURDERERS

'''ia,.,..
-..w..
, - -- - --- —-•-- - - .., _ ,
i
'
it
it
,t'T
..:, p
•~\ ov - •,..,k) X '.1.,-
't.
,(
.: , • . ffN;;;,.,:-, y , /,,... .
.. :... w• ~.., , 4
. ~,„k„,,,„\iss. ,•t, • 9 :,-;.,. --t. •-'--, _
-:--.'
...,
49
~,,,,, . t
I / , ‘4 7.___.? --j. 7. `--t-i-- .'..;6,11 i'iiii---'4>,-- .1,4-1-----„
..,_.i. , ---------<-,
IL
„.._,...
i r:t1" 'I, - I 14:".'"'"-Z--- ---Z.;:x. ' k c;ti,..Cl . ~ -_)1....01. ....""•-._!(,) 7 , • , oil
. ,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

( PRICE 111.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Marcell 13.

Baronet may conclude, that the protest he has seen
in the newspapers (little errors of translation ex-
cepted) is a correct copy of the protest- issued by
the Pope.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I might content.
myself by simply making that answer to the question that
has been put to me; but there were one or two
lei-narks accompanying the question that I thin',
call for an observation or two from me. I think I ant
entitled in the outset to complain a little of my Right
Honourable Friend. I will not say he has misrepre-
sented, but he has given a little cclouring to an
answer which he states I gave to a question el
his. He steps that when he first asked me on
the 23d of February, whether the Government V. as
aware that such an expedition had sailed from
France toy reply simply was tsars the Governm -nt
were not aware such an expedition had sailed. (Hear,
hear.) Now, any person heaving that version of
my answer, would very naturally conclude that the
enswer implied thnt his Majesty's Government was wholly
ignorant that such an raped tioa was even ahem to
he taken. Sir, my answer was two.fold. I stated
that his Majesty's Government had reason to knew
that such an expedition was in preparation, but
that they had received no official information at that
time that the expedition had actually sailed ; and whateser
impatience my Right Hon. Friend may attach to
a comparison of dates, that was the fact. The Right lion.
Baronet stated that the mode in which this French
expedition landed at Ancona was inconsistent wi'h the
duties which one ind7dent State owes to arotl er.
lam certainly not dispos , nor do I intend at the present
period, to controvert that stag-meet.--.(Loud cheers from
the Opposition side.) Itut French Government. the mo-
ment they heard how the landing wee effected, com-
municated to the Friendly Powers in France. that
the cammanding officer--of tl e expedition lied she b yed
his orders, and thatslit consequence he had been called
home to submit to an inquiry into hie oondect.—tHear,
hear, : ear.) Now, Sir, chat is all the, has taken pl wee
and which has given tlo! Rig t Hon. Baron t, es ; e e itne
tends, a ground for comparing it to the proceedines
Bonaparte.—(Loud cheers.) When any thing about
foreign affairs is brought before the House, time
Hon. Baronet has always been extremely carsful to state
in the moat explicit terms that he is a loser of paeere, anti
that there is nothing which he wishes for more
than to see peace and good will prevail among all,
and all idea of war done away with—(Heer. heat)---
hut I must say he takes the strangest mode of
carrying that idea into effect 1 could po.sibly imagine.—
(Loud cheers.) He says, keep peace with France—it is
for the interest of England that you should maintain
peace with her ; but - still, don't you think the
honour of England must be maintained?—(Hear, hear.)
Can you tamely brook what has peseed ? I- it
not for the dignity of England to demand patisaictinn ?
(neer, hear.) At the very time be is proclaiming
his love for peace he is endeavouring to persuade tie
House to goad his Majesty's Government into a proceed-
ing which must be of a nature to excite waft iendly eennnu•
nicatione between that government and the French.
The Hon. B ronet save, the honour of England is peens
li ally concerned in protecting time territories of the Pope.
For my own part I am at a loss to know why it is more
peculiarly concerned in peon eting the territories of the
Pope than in protecting any other part. At the same time
I am perfectly ready to state that no transaction which has
a tendency to interfere with independent Stales can be a
matter of indifference. The Hon. Baronet says--" Make
the case your own, and just suppose how you would :eel
if the great powers were to interfere respecting the die
turhances in England, and to say as you have been
obliged again to have recourse to measuit s of repression,
we will take the management into our own hands." Now
it is impossible to :suppose two things more totally in.'ifferent
than these. There is this pl in and essential difference
between them—that in the case of the Pope,
that Sovereign has unfortunately thought it ne-
cessary to call in the aid of foreign troops for
the purpose of maintaining peace. Now, I have
no difficulty in saying-, that if ever the day should arrive,
when the King of this country shall Ime compelled to
call in the aid of foreign troops to maintain the peace
and tranquillity of his empire, I, for one, should then
certainly feel that the independence of this country
was at an end, and that then such a proposition might
net be very improperly addressed to this House, or to his
Majesty.
An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not lealti,
declared that the statement just made by the Noble Lord
was the most extraordinary that he had ever heard
in that House. The French Government, with
a view of exciting collision, bad despatched an ex-
pedition to Ancona, and under false pretences, they
had effected a landing, and taken possession of the
fortresses. The Noble Lord, it was true, stated that
he had been informed the French Government disap-
proved of the manner in which their officer acted, but it
did not appear that the fortresses had been given up.
—(Hear, hear.) This was the suxtb expedition sent by
France since the authority of the Bourbons had ceased,
three of which had acted contrary to the law of nations. The
Hon. Member was of opinion that the House was under
great obligations to the Right Hors. Baronet (Sir R Vy..
vyan) for the opportunity he had taken of ascertaining
the conduct of the French Government, and he added that
if the principle on which such an aggression was viewed
was allowed to prevail, great 'danger would result front it.
Colonel EVANS, in reference to the several instances
in which the French had sent expeditions referred to by
the lion. Member, observed that it must be recollected
that, in some of them, his Majesty's Government and
time House had concurred. Iu reference to tie particule
instance now under discussion; although that brerferene:
may not be in consonance with the law of nations, yet
as the policy of Austria bad been to keep Italy in sub-
jection, should the interference by the French Government
restore the Papal States to liberty, every liberal mind
would rejoice at it.
Sir 11. VY VYAN, in reply,observed that he was glad he
had afforded the Noble Lord the opportunity of giving an
explanation of some part of the conduct of the French
Government ; but he was of opinion that the mei e
removal of the officer in command of the expedi-
tion—and while Ancona was still occupied—wee
no satisfaction for the aggression.
MESSAGE FORM THE LORDS.
A Message from the House of Lords informed the
House that their Lordships hail agreed to several Private
Bills.
On the motion that the dropped Orders of the my be
proceeded in, some discussion ensued between Sir R.
VYVTAN, Mr. lIUME, and the SrEAKER.
After which the Coroner's Election Regulation Bill was
read a second time and ordered to be committed next Tuesday.
SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

The Sunderland Docks Bill was read a second time.
Mr. TREVOR presented a petition from a person named
Gray, of Hartlepool, in the county of Durham, praying to
be heard by Counsel in the Committee of the Hartlepool
Hsrbour and Wet Docks Bill, and complaining that the
standing orders had not been complied with.
A long discussion ensued between the Hon. Member,
Mr. Clayton, Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Littleton, and the
Speaker, as to whether, in the first instance, the peti-
tioner hail an actual interest in land proposed to he
affected by the intended Bill, and also whether the
Committee had examined as to whether the stand-
ing orders had been complied with or not. It appeared
that the Committee bad reported that the standing orders
hall been complied with. The result of the discussion
was the withdrawal of the petition.
Lord STANLEY moved for, and obtained leave to
bring in, a Bill to enable the Company of the proprietors
of the Bolton, Bury, and Manchester Canal, to make col-
lateral branches of the can 1.
On the motion of Sir EDWARD KAUGHAY, leavez"
was given to bring in a Bill to light 'the town of Wells
with gas.
Mr. EVANS brought up the report of the Committee
on the St. Margaret's (Westminster) Poor Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up the report of the
Committee on the London-bridge Approaches Bill.
Mr. PAGET presented a petition against the Upper
East Smithfield Road Bill.
Mr. WYSE presented several petitions from various
places in Queen's county, complaining of distress and the
tithe system. The petitioners represented that in their
original institution, tithes were intended, not solely for
the benefit of the clergy, but as a provision in part for the
relief of the poor.
The HON. AIEMBER also presented several petitions re-
lative to the Galway franchise.
Mr. LAMBERT presented a petition from a place in
Cornwall, against the tithe system.
Mr. H. GRATTAN and Mr. J. Gaaa-raw supported
the prayer of the petition,
Lord KILLEEN knew most of the petitioners to be
men of the highest respectability in the county.
Mr. BLACKNEY said that Ireland and its future peace
rested very much on the abolition of tie tithes, and if not
put down by the Legislature, the tithe system would
be annihilated by the united efforts of an oppressed, im-
poverished, and insulted nation.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the free-
holders, leaseholders, and housrhoPers, of Chorlton,
in the neighbourhood of Manchester, against the General
Registry Bill. The petitioners suggested that if any
registry was adopted, a local registry would he infinitely
more advantageous than that proposed by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. Campbell).
The SPEAKER then addressed the House, and said the
time having arrived for the commencement of public busi-
ness, it would be more convenient, he thought, that
by some means, according to the pleasure of the House,
the dropped Orders should be now disposed of, and it was
impossible for him to revert to the circumstance of
there being no House yesterday, without expressing
the sincerest gratitude he entertained for the kindness
and consideration the Hons.. had shown him, not only
upon that occasion, but upon many others since be had
the honour of occupying that Citair.—(Flear, hear.)
Lord ALTHORP then moved that the dropped orders
of yesterday be read.
Sir R. VYVYAN said it bad been his intention
yesterday to ask some questions of the Noble Lord
opposite, relative to a subject which he considered of im•
portance, namely, the French expedition to Ancona and the
affairs of Belgium, and lie thought he could not do better
than embrace the present opportunity of asking a few
questions upon that particular subject. The other day
when he put the question relative to the landing of
the French troops at Ancona, his Majesty's Govern-
ment stated that they were not enabled to give any
definite answer to the questions proposed. On a previous
occasion, when he asked his Noble Friend whether he was
aware of any expedition being prepared, or having s tiled, the
Noble Lord stated he was not then aware whether any
expedition had sailed. Now it was itnpts tant to refer to
debates on that occasion. The questions were proposed
on Feb. '23, and it was discovered that the French troops
had landed at Ancona before Government was aware that
any expedition had sailed. Shortly afterwards a protest,
said to he that of the Pope, had appeared again"
the invasion of his States by the French. This protest
was too long to read, hot he believed every Member had
had an opportunity of reading it. There were some passages,
however, in that document which showed, if it were
correct, that there bad been an invasion of the
Papal territory, and that the French had landed at
Ancona without the permission of the Pope, and in
defiance of his expostulations. When the troops landed,
the Pap ii troops still being in possession of Ancona, it ap-
peared that their commander was told he was a French
prisoner, until he surrendered the fort of which he was
possessed, and which he commanded. Had there, he asked,
ever happened such a thing since the days of Napoleon? And
although it was perhaps a poetical expression, yet nothing of
the kind had happened since the days of the Saracens. On
the 7th March, after the news of the event had reached
Paris, speeches were made by many members of the oppo-
sition, and M. C. Perier delivered a speech, to a few
extracts of which he would call the attention of the
House.—(Hear, bear.) The Honourable Baronet then
proceeded to read extracts, the purport of which
was that the French Government had interfered in
this case on the same principle that they had
interfered with Belgium. The Austri ins having
occupied Bologna, the French Government thought itself
obliged to take this step as a continental power. He would
ask, supposing the same principle were acted on as to
this country, what would he the consequence? He
did not stand there to defend the Papal Govern-
ment; but there were passages in the speech
that affected English interests. It was not for
them to set themselves up as judges of what
mode of government a Sovereign should deal out
to his people, or what a people should expect from
its legitimate Sovereign. But what if the French
were to declare that the legitimate mode of trial
in this country was not sufficient, and that the
periodical repressions of provincial disturbances were
neither just nor adequate; and if a Congress were to
sit to consider this questioning the power of the British
Parliament to decide the question?—(Hear, hear, hear.)
On another occasion, M. C. Pcrier explained more fully
the intentions of Government, but these explanations
were like Cromwell's, when he did not wish his Parlia-
ment to understand him. It was evident, however, that
the interference of the French in this instance had origi-
nated in their own interests,contrary to the wish of the Pope.
His object, therefore, was to know from the Noble Lord
whether the Protest was an official document.—whether
he bad received such official infertnation, as a Minister of
the Crown, so as to say the document had been officially
iksued, protesting against the occupation of Ancona
by a Foreign Power, with which Foreign Power
this country was in alliance? It was far from his
desire to say any thing which might give the appearance
of any thing calculated to involve this country in a war.
He wished for peace. He believed it to be for the interest
of both countries that peace should be maintained.
He believed the majority of Members of both Houses of
Parliament, es well as the majority of the people of this
country, wished for peace ; but if there was any thing
like French honour, it was to be recollected there was
British honour also—(Cheers)—and he could not but sup-
pose that his Majesty's Government had done their best
to preserve that honour., He was willing to suppose
this—he was willing to suppose that the French
troops might yet have to retire from Ancona, and
that the French Government might yet have, in re-
spect of what had been done, to make an apology.
He was willing to suppose all this, and to abstain
from putting a question to the Noble Lord upon it, con-
tenting himself on the present occasion simply by asking
and which deserved most serious attention—(Hear,
hear)—whether the Noble Lord had official information
that this protest was an authentic document?
Lord PALMERSTON said, Sir, it affords me satisfac-
tion on this occasion to be able to give an answer to my
Right Hon. Friend's question ; the more so as
it has frequently occurred • that to questions
proposed by him I have either felt it unfit
to answer them, or been unable to reply to them from the
want of means. Sir, 1 have received from one of our Foreign
Ministers I believe a copy of the protest my Right Hon.
Friend has adverted to in such a way as to leave no
doubt on my mind that such protest was issued
by the itomsn C7l77lllllllClit therefore, the Bight Hon.

The Reform in Parliament (Scotland) Bill was post-
poned until Friday se'nnight.
On the Clerk reading the motion fora Committee on
Tithes in Ireland,
Mr. STANLEY moved that the Speaker do now leave
the Chair.
An HOF. Mektsxn. wished that other motions which
stood for this evening, might he fixed for some day,
otherwise great confusion would arise in bringing on
the question, and postponing the others until some inde-
finite period.
Lord ALTHORP hoped the House would allow the
tithe question to come on immediately, as it was one of
great importance.
The SPEAKER having put the question on the Order
of the Day for a Committee of the whole House to con-
sider the report of the Irish Tithe Committee,
Mr. WALLACE could not consent to the Committee
until sufficient time should have been given to the Irish
Members to consult their constituents. He would divide
the House.
Mr. BODKIN (as we understood) said that no man
was m.re sensible than he thst it was ni cessary to cut
down the Irish Church Establishment to a condition better
suited to the circumstances of Ireland ; but he thought it
was not expedient for the Irish gentlemen wish whom he
gen-rally voted, to take a course which might seem only
calculated to impede the public business.
Mr. BROWNLOW thought that after the opinion of
the House bad been so decidedly expressed by so large it
majority, it was not for the minority to stand in the way
of the public business.—(Hear.)
Sir J. BURKE concurred with Mr. Brownlow.
Mr. LEADER would lose no opportunity of procuring a
postponement of those measures, in order to give the
people of Ireland time to express their opinions as to the
necessity or the justice of enacting a new penal and curt--

cive
Mr. MOORE O'FERRALL thought that the division
would rffect no goad purpose.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but
Mr. WALLACE eventually consented to the motion,
and the Houee went into Committee.
Mr. STANLEY said—ln rising, Sir, to propose to
the Committee the Resolutions on which it is intend.,l to
found the proceedings of Lis illajesty's Government re-
specting the important recommendations of the Select
Committee upon Tithes in Ireland, 1 cannot retrain front
expressing my regret that any, course whichd
I hanve lett it
to be my duty to pursue, shuld he loae up- by any
Gentleman in this House as intended to deceive them, and
to entrap the Home into an implied approbation of irlla,
ures hie!, laid not been formally brought before it. 1%.
may, perh3r, Lt thought by some that the Government