The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-13 00:00:00

" St. George, Hanover-square, by banns, on the sth Dec., 1793.
The next document tendered was a will, dated 1800, in
which the testator declared that he had been solemnly, le-
gally, and duly married to Lady Augusta Murray at Rome,
on the 4th of April, 179,3 and afterwards at St. George's, Ha-
nover-square, and also that the claimant, who was born in
the parish of Marylebone, was his true and legitimate son.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the admission of the
last document, because it contained an admission that thh
marriage had been declared to be null and void.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said he did not apprehend that the
objection of his Learned Friend was founded in fact. There
never had been a dispute as to the only point as to which
the will was produced, namely, a marriage in fact. The
words were " Notwithstanding a decree has since passed the
Court of Doctors' Commons to declare the marriage unlawful
and void, yet I feel and believe myself bound," &c.
Lord CAMPBELL thought it would be contrary to all esta-
blished rules to admit this document, when it contained a
declaration that this marriage had been declared to be void.
Lord BRouGmtm and Lord DENMAN concurred in this view.
The LORD CHANCELLOR considered that the only declara-
tion of this nature which could be admissable was a declara-
tion of a legal marriage.
After a short discussion, it was decided that the evidence
could not be received.

Mr. BRIGHT wished to know when the return of the
convictions under the game-laws during the year 1843.
which had been moved for at the beginning of the
session would be laid on the table.
Sir J. GRAHAM (as we understood) replied that
the returns would be laid on the table without delay.
Sir G. GREY wished to state, with regard to the
Charitable Trusts Bill, that he had no wish to offer any
obstruction to the - measures of the Ministry merely
for obstruction's sake; but it should be recol-
lected that this was a Bill of very great import-
ance. It had not yet been introduced into the
House of Lords, it could not by any possibility be in the
House of Commons before the latter end of July or the
beginning of August, and he protested-against the
Bill being -hurried through at a late period
of the session in • a thin House ; and if it
should be necessary . to propose amendments in
that Bill, he claimed to himself a right to propose those
amendments, .and to discuss the matter fully without
being charged with offering wilful obstruction to the
measures of the Government.
SHIPPING INTEREST.
Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that there was a no-
tice on the paper of a motion of the President of the
Board of Trade for a Committee on the subject of the
shipping interest. That motion must give rise to dis-
cussion. He trusted it would not be introduced at a
late hour.
Mr. GLADSTONE would not introduce it at too
late an hour for discussion.
AMERICAN LOYALISTS.
Mr. HUME wished to know when it was the intention
of the Government to move for a Committee of Supply,
as on the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
he intended to direct the atfehtion of the House to the
case of Mr. Cooper. •
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that it would be better
for the Hon. Gentleman to give notice of motion on the
subject, as he could not, undertake to move the Com-
mittee of Supply for the purpose of affording the Hon.
Gentleman an opportunity, of bringing forward his
motion.
Mr. HUME would then give notice that he should,
to-morrow, on the moving of the first Government order,
bring the case of Mr. Cooper before the House.
BANK CHARTER BILL.

of deputations, without, in any degree, interfering with the
ordinary discipline of the prison,
" I have the honour to be, your obedient servant,
" WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN.'

Mr. ERLE then proceeded to read letters from the Duke of
Sussex to Lady Murray, written on board the Endymion, in
January, 1801,.as to the manner in which she should be
treated; and a letter to Sir Augustus D'Este, containing
advice as to his condtict.
Letters from Lady Murray to the Rev. .Mr. Gunn, and
from the latter to the former were also put in; and Mr.
Gunn, the son of the Rev. Mr. Gunn, was called to identify
those written by his father.
Letters of ordination by the Bishop of Norwich, admitting
the Rev. Mr. Gunn to priest's orders, were also put in evi-
dence.
A letter of his Royal Highness to Lord Erskine, was then
about to be read, dated 1798, stating at full length the liti-
gation which bad gone on with respect to the marriage, and
desiring his assistance; but it was excluded on the same
ground as the will.

A officer of the Ecclesiastical Court produced a copy of the
proceedings there, which was received in evidence.
Lord Northwick, examined by Sir T. WILDE=Had fre-
quently visited Lady Murray and his Royal Highness in
Lower Grosvenor-street in 1600. His Royal'Highne,ss al-
ways treated her, Ladyship as his consort, and she was called
the Princess Augusta. •
The Rev: Mr. Crow examined by . Sir T. WILD.--De-
posed to having officiated for the. Rev. Mr. Gunn in 1792, on
account of his going abroad. He returned to England in
1793.

The order of the day for the second reading of the
Bank Charter Bill having been read,
Mr. B. HAWES rose to move, that no sufficient evi-
dence had been laid before this House to justify the pro-
posed interference with banks of issue in the manage.
ment of their circulation. The question they had
to discuss was one of such vast importance, and
involved such a number •of details, that he must
at once ask for the consideration and indulgence
of the House while he endeavoured to state the grounds
on which he ventured to oppose the further progress of
this Bill. It should be recollected that if this plan should
be rejected by the House, the plan of 1819 for regu-
lating the currency, and 'the •principle of 'the Bullion
Committee of 1810 would still remain in force. Against
these plans he intended '•iio opposition. All that the
Right Honourable Baronet had stated with regard to
the standard of value, the necessity of having promissory
notes being payable in
.gold, and of the necessity
of maintaining the convertibility of notes, he as cordially
agreed in as the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. The
Right lion. Baronet intended that the circulation of
paper should be governed by that of gold,—was it
to fluctuate as that. fluctuated ? The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman had so clearly explained the
objectS of his Bill that he need hardly refer to it ;
but, it was so important tbat he should not hesitate to
repeat the Hon. Baronet's own words. (The Hon.
Member read an extract from the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech' in reference to this point.)
He thought these things ought to bo well considered
before they were adopted ; and if they were not
it was the fault of the parties and not his.--(Hear.)
He (Mr. Hawes) would be glad to know one single
authority of practical experience that the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) could produce to contravene
the opinions he had just quoted from Mr.
Deacon Hume. But how did they attempt
to prove the existence of this excessive issue of paper,
upon which they laid the blame of every evil, and which
they made the justification of their present measure?
For this asserted over issue had been made the ground
for change in 1811, and it had been made
the ground of the measure of 1819. What was the
proof—where was the proof in these two years of the
depreciation of paper ? In his (Mr. Hawes's) opinion
they were bound to show that there had been an excessive
issue of paper, and that this had led to a depreciation of
the currency and to an increase of prices. Again, he
said he defied the Right Hon. Gentleman to show that
the paper currency had been depreciated by those issues,
and that the prices of commodities had been so
affected by this. In the evidence before the Bank Charter
Committee there was not a tittle of proof of this effect ;
nor did he believe that any valid expression in sup-
port of it would be discovered in the various
pamphlets and, other publications upon the subject.
They had had assertions in abundance, but they had
had no facts. He, however, would, not give them asser-
tion against assertion ; he would. show them that the
amount of circulation had produced no direct
effect upon the variation of prices, and he
would defy any one to prove the contrary.
If it was asserted that the amount of circulation pro-
duced a direct effect upon prices, he asked them to show
the grounds upon which they, rested that assertion.
Where was the evidence. to prove that an increased cir-
culation had been invariably followed by high ,prices ?
He would refer to the work of Mr. Tooke on prices, to
show that such had not been the case. There was no
proof that the variation in prices was referable to the
variation, in the circulation. Let them take the year
1838, when there was the highest amount of circu-
lation—there were thirty millions of local cir-
culation. The amount of bullion in the Bank was
ten millions, and the rate of discount was 24 per cent.
If this theory were correct, the rise in price should
have been coincident with the increase in the circula-
tion •, but, on a reference to Tooke, it would be
found that such was not the case. Then there was
the theory of Mr. Jones Lloyd ; if that theory
here correct in the year 1834, the depreciation
of Bank paper as compared to bullion, ought to have
been 75 per cent. Such, however, had by no means been
the case, and therefore the Right lion. Gentleman was
mistaken in adopting that theory, for at that period the
circulation had been preserved safe from depreciation.
It should be recollected that the Right Hon. Baronet
did not deal with the paper credit contained in bills of
exchange to a small amount ; he limited bank notes
only, and left other securities untouched. He referred
to the rage for speculation that had prevailed in
the. United States, the embarrassment caused by
which was remedied by compelling the banks
to resume cash payments. By a fact introducing the
principle of the Bill of 1819. The not limiting the
amount of the paper credit issued by the country banks
in the shape of bills of exchange and other
securities, we leave them free to issue what
would take the place of promissory notes, which
would be a much more dangerous state of things. In
point of fact, it was not correct to say that the-coun-
try bankers did not regard the state of the 'ex-
changes in the management of their business more
than they' did the snow upon "the mountain.
The country bankers were governed in their dealings
primarily by the state and conduct of the London money
were the opinions once, and
numbero
of years upon this
cfmohraarnkgaeets, v
eb
ruyNt
wu,lti
greatmw ha ultimately by the state of the ex-
subject of the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo-
site, Sir James Graham. That Right Honourable
Gentleman had been one of the most able advocates
of the small note system, and, 'therefore, he (Mr.
Hawes) thought he had aright to claim his vote upon
the'present occasion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) That
Right Hon. Gentleman had said beware how you in-
terfere with the • small note circulation—(Loud
laughter)—and in the Bank Committee he had
put leading questions to Mr. Rogers, with whose
opinions, the Right Hon. Gentleman then acknowledged
himself fully to concur, in order to draw from him
upholding testimony to the. value of the country cir-
culation. One of these questions to which the anti-
cipated affirmitive response was given was this:—
"Do you not think that any interference with the
small note circulation will cause a great shock to credit ;
affecting both bankerandcustomer.' —(Hear, and a laugh.)
These were distinctly the opinions of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, who now however, was a supporter of the
scheme of the other Right Honourable Gentleman
(Sir Robert Peel) which was avowedly to end
in one bank of issue.—(Cheers and iaughter.) He (Mr.
Hawes) had therefoee now only to congratulate the
Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department on the
intrepidity with which he had forgotten his former
opinions, swallowed his intermediate scruples, and sub-
mitted himself to the wisdom and, the will of his Right
Honourable Colleague.—(Loud laughter and cheers.)
There was no man who wished to adhere more strictly,
to the principle of a metallic currency, with a paper cur-
rency convertible at will than Mr. Tooke. For himself,
he stood by the Act of 1819. He thought no case had
been made out for any further interference with that
Act. No case of excessive issue had been shown.
(TAFT

Evidence was gone into for the purpose of showing, by
carrespondence, that the Rev. Mr. Gunn was at Rome at the
time of the marriage.
Sir T. WILDE said he now proposed to prove a declaration
made by Mr. Gunn, in reference to the marriage of his Royal
Highness the Duke of Sussex. He did so on the ground that
the individual had peculiar means of knowledge, and that it
was his interest not to misrepresent the fact. He had already
offered evidence as to Mr. Gunn's being at Rome at
the time of the marriage. In 1831 Mr., Gunn was
required to giVe evidence on certain Chancery proceedings,
and he declined to answer the interrogatories, on the ground
that he might thereby bring himself under the penal conse-
quenceS of the Royal Marriage Act. He proposed to show
what declaration he had made on the subject of the marriage.
He had an interest to suppress his own share in the matter,
and he was, as he (Sir T. Wilde) was preparedto prove, in
a state of alarm on the subject up to the time of his
death, to such an extent that his health was affected. Ac-
cording to the rule, therefore, in such cases, he contended
that he should be flowed to examine the 'witness, to show
what declaration Mr. Gunn. had made on the subject of the
marriage. . . ,
Mr..ERLE followed on-the same side., The principle of the
law turned on the-question, whether the party-had a motive
to speak the truth? and in this case the party being'tnider
the greatest appreherisiiini
,declaration.s,ought to be re-
ceived.

The Lows CstAriCELLOli said he thought •theiiropOsitioil
laid down at the bar could not be maintained: Ho-would
suppose,this case :—A was indicted for murder 'B, on his
death-bed, made • declarations that he was present
at the murder committed by A. Was it possible to,
say that, on the indictment of A, the, declarations
of B might he received against him ? Id the
case of the Berkeley Peerage evidence of this kind had been
rejected. It was not true that declarations must always be
received when they are against the interest of the party by
whom they were made; and he was of opinion that in this
case the declarations were not made under circumstances
which rendered it necessary that they should be received in
evidence.

Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Denman, and Lord
Langdale, concurred in the opinion expressed by the Lord
Chancellor.

The evidence was accordingly refused.
Lord Macclesfield, examined by Mr. EntE, deposed to
having seen the Prince with Lady Dunmore and her daugh-
ter at Naples, in 1793.
A register of the baptism of the claimant was then put in.
The further hearing of the case was postponed until Tues-
day week.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Clock.
The Marquis of EXETER presented 140 petitions
from various places in favour of protection to agriculture.
The Earl of SEFTON presented a petition against
the Birkenhead Docks Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented several peti-
tions in favour of protection to agriculture.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented petitions
from Nor:olk, praying for an alteration in the laws re-
lating to coursing.
The Duke of RICHMOND inquired whether there
was any objection to the return of the number of convic-
tions under the Act alluded to by his Noble Friend ?
After a tl,w words from the Earl FITZHARDINGE,
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE said ho was not aware of
any objection to the returns.
MORROCCO AND FRANCE.

The Earl of CLARENDON begged t;;;11 the atten-
tion of the Government to the occurrences which had re-
cently taken place in Africa. The friendly disposition
of the Emperor of Morocco to this country, and his
constant deference to the advice of England, had not
prevented his proclaiming the "holy war" against
another European power, the ally of England. It could
not be supposed that the Emperor had taken that
course with the sanction of the British authorities.
However, it was now beyond doubt that he had made an
invasion of the French territories in Africa, and that the
war had commenced. With respect to the murder of
the Spanish Consul at Tangiers, it was the fact that the
man was killed in an affray brought about by his own con-
dnct, and for which the authorities were not in the least
responsible. It had been supposed, but he did not
mean to say that it was the case, that the Spanish Go-
vernment had been incited to declare war by France ;
but it was a curious coincidence that, after this, relations
of a hostile character should so soon take place
between France and the Emperor of Morocco. They
might have been the result of acccident, but they
gave a colour to the idea that France desired to see
Spain engaged in hostilities with Morocco. It was most
desirable that the line of coast now possessed by the
Emperor of Morocco should be in the possession
of a friendly Power, because it was from
thence they derived their supplies for Gibraltar.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)
•

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The'SPEA.A.KEit took'the Chair at Four o'clock.
The. Glasgow and Coatbridge Railvvay Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Petitions against the:Bank Charter Bill were presented
by Col. Sibtborp, Mr.. Allix, Sir John Trollope. and Mr.
Wallace.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Sir R.
Inglis, from Anglesea, and other places; by Sir R Phil-
lips, and Sir George Staunton, from Hampshire.
Mr. COLVILE presented petitions from Derbyshire
against the Gilbert Union.
Mr. GREENE presented petitions from Hampshire
to the same effect.
Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions against the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
•
HAIL STORMS.
Captain POLIIILL gave notice that on the 2d of July
he should ask leave to bring in a Bill to exempt from the
payment of stamp duty all policies of insurance on
farms and farming stock against damage by hail.
POST-OFFICE.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that, to-morrow, he
should present a petition from certain parties, complain-
ing of the opening of their letters at the Post-office, and
praying for redress.

IRELAND.

ADDRESSES TO MR. O'CONNELL-REFUSAL .TIS

ADMIT DEPUTATIONS.
DUBLIN, JUNE 11.—A number of deputations from various
parts of the country arrived is Dublin to-day, to present ad-
dresses/to Mr. O'Connell and the other State prisoners. In-
dividual visitors were admitted; but it would appear, depu-
tations were excluded from the prison.
The following addresses were received by Mr. O'Connell
this day, but not through the deputations appointed to' pre-
sent them :—From the Corporation of Dublin, Four Courts
Ward, College Ward, town of Galway, parish of Caltry,
ccoiounnfitynioaf, m
Gatmlwiacyip,atlocom
town of
ils'sriiomq,erspaorfishuesmof;
the parish of Lisnariffy and
Ahascra ; parishes of St. Peter's, Drum, and St. Mary's
Athlone ; parishes tOf .Rollestoirn and. Oldtown ; Belfast ;
town commissioners of. Loughrea, and the repealers of
Loughrea.
Frvr. O'CLOCK, r.lr.—The Evening Post, just published,
contains the following A deputation from' Bruff, in the
county of Limerick, having this day proceeded to Richmond
Bridewell, for the purpose of presenting an address to the
State prisoners, they were refused admission. Mr. Smith
O'Brien, as Member for the county, Limerick, immediately
addressed the following letter to Sir James Graham:—
" TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES JAMES GRAHAM, BART.
" Dublin, June 11, 1844.
" Sin—Having been called upon, on the part of a portion
of my constituents, to accompany a deputation, with a view
to present an address to Mr. O'Connell this day, I was in-
formed by the Governor of Richmond Penitentiary, that the
board of superintendence have given directions that no depu-
tation be admitted to present addresses to the State prisoners.
"'Taking for granted that the board of superintendence
would, in regard to such a proceeding, be willing to conform
to the desire of the Secretarvof State, I take the liberty to
ask whether the exclusion of persons wishing to testify the
respect ..and affection of their fellow-countrymen to Mr.
O'Connell, and the other State prisoners, bas your sanction.
" I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that the local ar-
rangements of the prison are such as to allow of the reception

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 13, 1844.