The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

" OFFICIAL.

" DEPARTMENT or FINANCE.—His Majesty, the King of
Great Britain and Ireland, having determined, by an Order in
Council, that foreign ships which enter any of the ports of
the two Kingdoms, having been forced by bad weather to take
refuge in them, shall not pay light-house dues, or other duties,
provided that they do not break bulk, or take in any cargo
in the ports in which they take refuge, and that their
stay is not longer than is necessary to repair the damage
caused by the tempest, which obliged them to put
into the port, and I desiring, as is just, to answer on my
part to his concession, and being animated by the same
sentiments of justice and humanity, which dictated it, am pleased
to order, that so long as the said determination shall remain in
force in the manner in which it is conceived, British ships
which shall enter the ports of this kingdom and its dominions,
from real and evidently proved necessity of seeking refuge,
shall not be obliged, in cases of the same nature, to pay any
port or navigation duties on the conditions above specified.
The Counsellor of State, Minister of Finance, will see to the
execution of this resolution.
" THE QUEEN,
" JOSE DA SILVA CARVALHO.
" Palace of the Necessidades, Aug. 5,1835."

IMPERIAL PARLI AMENT.

THIS DAY, TUESDAY, Auo. 25.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chaii at a few minutes past twelve.
On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, the Port Dundas and Dal-
green Bridge and Road Bill was read a third time and passed.
CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
Mr. WILKS moved the Order of the Day for the House re-
solving itself into a Committee of the whole House upon this Bill.
Mr. BLAMIRE and Mr. POTTER objected to the Bill being pro-
ceeded with in the absence of the Hon. Member by whom it had
been brought in.
The SPEAKER made an observation relative to the forms of
the House, in case of one Hon. Member undertaking the conduct
of a Bill brought in by another.
Mr. WILKS had taken up the Bill at. the particular request of
the worthy Alderman (Wood), whose health rendered it necessary
that he should be absent for a short time. He suggested that the
Bill should be allowed to go through the Committee, and on the
bringing up of the Report on Monday next, the worthy Alderman
would be in his place, and Hon. Members might then take the
sense of the House upon the Bill.
Dr. BOWRING objected to the Bill, as its details were of a
most vexatious nature, and it gave too much power to the Corpo-
ration of London.

Mr. EWART also objected to the details of the Bill, and he
thought it would be impossible to carry it through at this late
period of the Session.
Mr. PEASE regretted the impatience manifested by the House
relative to this Bill. The argument of the Hon. Member for Kil-
marnock, that it would establish an im,perium in imperio, would not
he hoped weigh with the HOUS3.
Sir S. IV HALLEY said the Bill was one deeply affecting
the comforts and even the lives of thousands. He believed there
was no reasonable ground of objection to the Bill, and he should
therefore give it bis decided support, as his constituents were most
anxious to have it passed into law.
_ _

Mr. ROBINSON would not oppose the Bill on the ground of
the absence of the lion. Alderman, but was there the slightest
chance of its passing this session ? The real question was, was
the House in a fit state for proceeding with the Bill ? He was as
great a friend to the middle classes as others ; but do not now waste
time, but bring it in early in another session.
Mr. WAKLEY said he understood the worthy Alderman would
be in his place on Monday next ; he would therefore move as an
amendment that the further consideration of the Report be de-
ferred till that day. He objected to the Bill as partial, as it ex-
cepted gentlemen's carriages, and he would divide upon that when
40 Members not being present the House and the Bill would be
lost.

Mr. WILKS said in all his experience he had never seen the
House act so unjustly. After the Bill had gone through more than half
its clauses, and after all its principles had been agreed to, they now,
upon very weak grounds, turned round and virtually threw it out.
He felt it a public duty to the people of the metropolis to press for-
ward the Bill.

Mr. BERNAL begged to ask the Honourable Gentleman most
kindly whether, after the foregoing conversation, he thought he had
the slightest chance of passing the multifarious clauses of the Bill.
On another ground, in the present state of business in another
House, was it at all possible to expect it to pass?
Mr. WILKS would not press the Bill under these circumstan-
ces, and would postpone it till this day week.
STEAM VESSELS PILOTAGE BILL.
The Report of the Committee was brought up.
REGISTRATION OF VOTES (IRELAND) BILL, CUS-
TOMS DUTIES BILL, and the DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
The Reports of these Bills were also brought up by Mr. I3ERNA.L.
The Marriage Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The Slave Trade (Denmark Bill) and the Slave Trade Sar-
dinia Biil went. through Committee without further observation,
than Mr. PEASE complaining of the proposed distribution of the
prize money.
The instrument of Sassine Bill was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

PUBLICATION OF LECTURES BILL-LIBERTY OF

THE PRESS.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved the Order of the Day that the
IieRSC go into Committee on the Publication of Lectures Biil.
\VAKLEY made a few observations which were inaudible
in the Gallery.
Mr. WILKS hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into
Committee, as it was necessary to afford some protection to public
lecturers and preachers. In many cases a minister might deliver
a series of lectures, fur which he could very easily obtain one thou-
sand guineas, yet he might be deprived of it by short-hand writers,
being engaged i,y some publisher to report them.
Mr. HOWARD thought this Bill an infringement on the liberty
of the Press.--(Hear.) He could not conceive how a lecturer
who was paid for delivering lectures according to his own demand,
could have a property in them after fulfilling his contract, by which
contract he had virtually disposed of his copyright.
Mr. PEASE could not conceive how a religious preacher could
object to the promulgation of his discourses if he really meant them
to be useful. Why should that which was good to some not be
published and circulated for the benefit of those who did not have
the opportunity of hearing it ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said there was a distinction to be
made between private and public lectures and sermons.
The House then resolved itself into]a Committee, the SOLICITOR-
GENERAL in the Chair.

Mr. WAKLEY, on the reading of the 2d clause, which proposes
that no newspaper shall be allowed to report any lecture, or part of
a series of lectures, expressed his hope that this clause would not
be pressed. It seemed extraordinary that a newspaper should not
have the privilege of publishing a single lecture. The intention of
the Bill was no doubt to prevent piratical publications of a whole
series, but not to be so rigid in its restrictions as this. He thought
the Bill would check the progress of knowledge 'and information,
and do a serious injury to the public.
Mr. PRYME admitted the force of the Hon. Member's argu-
ment, but he thought that some protection should be given to pub-
lic lectures.

Mr. POTTER wished to know how the Bill would apply to
leturers paid and engaged to deliver lectures.
11 The LORD ADVOCATE said he intended to introduce a
clause to exclude all endowed lecturers in public schools and univer-
sities lecturing in their official capacity. As to the argument in
favour of newspapers, whether the lecture was moral or immoral, in
one case the lecturer might suffer, but in the other the public
assuredly would.
Mr. WAKLEY had some experience on this subject, and he
could assure the House that lecturers would not be satisfied with
mere criticisms or extracts. He had known them complain that
they had been misrepresented because parts of their speech had been
omitted. He would allow that protection which the Learned Ad-
vocate desired, for systematic works delivered in lectures; but was
no information to go forth to the public as to the nature and pi•o-
gress of such lectures ? There were some lecturers, indeed, who
feared publication, because they had not kept pace with the spirit
of the times and the progress of science, and of these he knew some
in this city. Though he would protect the private lecturer, he
thought the restrictions too rigid.
Mr. PEASE was of opinion that all public lectures were public
property.
Mr. WAKLEY could not allow the clause to pass without a di-
vision.

.--The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but we understood
that no division took place, and on our return we found
• Lord J. RUSSELL addressing the Committee. He thought
that the clause should be framed as nearly as possible so as to pro-
tect lecturers. At the same time, he would give newspapers the
power to make such extracts as would enable them to form a fair
criticism upon the lecture. If the clause went beyond this object
it ought to be restricted.
Mr. WAKLEY concurred in what had been stated by the Noble
Lord, that protection ought to be given to private lecturers, in the
same way in which it was given to authors. He regretted to hear
that the University of Edinburgh was so situated, that the Pro-
fessors complained when their lectures were published. He found
that in every instance where publication bad taken place, men of
talent derived immense advantages ; but where lecturers obtained
their situations through nepotism—that system which was so
strong in our public institutions--all such were opposed to
publication, because they wished to conceal_ their Incapacity.