The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-16 00:00:00

JULY 16,_1842.

I—S. Lorymer, brewer, Bristol, Aug. 12, at one, at the Com-
mercial-rooms, Bristol.
CERTIFICATES— A tra. 5.
J. May, mercer, Newport, Isle of Wight—W. H. Hopkins,
currier, Worcester—W. Horanaill, carpenter, Dover—J. Dar-
byshire and S. Pope, calico printers, Manchester—S. White-
head, cattle salesman, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire—J.
Procter and H. Appleby, common brewers, Longport, staf-
fordshire—A. and J. Philip, window glass cutters, White-
chapel-road—W. Bower, cotton spinner, Wilmslow, Cheshire—
R, Rogers, linen draper, Horton—T. and W. Styan, tea
brokers, Great Tower-street.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Colbatch and M. Ridley, hotel-keepers, Brighton—J.
Colbatch, M. Ridley. and H. James, wine merchants, Brighton
—F. G. Chappell and R. Hodges, linen drapers, Seymour-
street—H. Herbert arid J. Watkins, cheesemoneera, Bristol—
J. Bowden and J. P. Clapham, ship owners, Kicgston-upon-
Hull—J. Dowries, sen., J. Downes, jun , and C. G. Hill,
w holesale tea dealers, Laurence PountLey-lane—J G. Alm
fordand T. Barter, surgeons, Beh—:..l. Rock and 11. Baxter,
coach bulders, Hastings—W. Allen, J. Allen, and J. Allen,
merchants, Manchester (so far as regards J. Allen )—.l. Lock-
wood, sere., W. Lockwood, and J. Lockwood, jun., file manufac-
turers, Sheffield (so far as regards J. Lockwood)—B. Drewry,
J. Drewry, and T. Drewry, joiners, Nottinghain—J. Harvey
and E. Chick, maltsters, Sidmouth Devonshire—J. Green-
shields, A. Duranz, and R. Still, merchants, Liverpool (so far
as regards R. Still)—M. Warburg and W. Dieseldorff, mer-
chants, Little Tower-street, City—Sir M. Wood, B. Worid,
G. Field, and W. Wood, hop merchants, Mark-line (so far as
regards Sir M. Wood )—J. and B. Gibbons, iron masters,
14rierley-hill, Staffordshire—J. and A. Hodgkinson, corn
-dealers, Chorley, Lancashire—J. M'Nicoll and H. Tinker, en-
gineers, Liverpool—J. Horton and J. Turner, boot manufac-
turers, Stafford—S. and B. Thompson, wax tallow chandlers,
Brewer-street, St. James's--J. F. Marston, R. Noblet, and S.
Matthews, cork manufacturers, Liverpool (so far as regards J.
F. Marston )—C. Bleaden and H. Choules, hotel keepers,
Southend, Essex—F. and J. Floyd, farmers, Greenwich—J.
Hook and G. Cole, carpenters, Westbury, Gloucestershire—W.
Betenson and W. Rundle, lime burners, St. German's, Corn-
wall—J. Underwpod and T. Halls, linen drapers, Cold
' ester—
J. Adshead and R. Scott, hosiers, Manchester—J. Hardy and
R. Barker, curriers, Manchester—J. J. Bramah, C. Fox, and
J. Henderson, engineers, Harborne, near Birmingham (so far
as regards J. J. Brarnah)—J. Herron anti E. Emery, ware-
housemen, Lad-lane, City—J. Williams, M. S. Grigg, and
W. H. Hawker, spirit dealers, Plymouth—J. Rotton anti J.
Scholefield, brassfounders, Birmingham.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
JOHN RAE, innkeeper, Whitburn, July 20 and Aug. 10,
at one, at the Chambers of R. Gardner, Bathgate.
JOHN FRASER, bookseller, Glasgow, July 19 and Aug.
9, at tw,i, at the Chambers of W. Meikleham, Glasgow.
ANDREW BOUSIE, writer, St. Andrew's, July 22 and
Aug. 19, at twelve, at the Black Bull Inn, St. Andrew's.
DAVID MORE and JOHN LAMB, weights, Cowead-
dens, Glasgow, July 21 and Aug, la, at two, at the Office of
Kerrs and Anderson, Glasgow.
JACOB DIXON EDGAR, merchant, Castle Douglas,
July 21 and Aug. 12, at one, at the Commercial Inn, Dumfries.
ALEXANDER EMSLIE, tavern keeper. Edinburgh, July
21 and Aug. IS, at two, at Young's Tavern, Edinburgh.
JOHN MILLAR and CO., merchants, Edinburgh, July
20 and Aug. 18, at twelve, ai she Ship Tavern, Edinburgh.
J. WALLACE and CO., manufacturers, Glasnow, July 21
and Aug. 11, at twelve, at the Office of I'. C. Young, Glasgow.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed
from the Returns made in the Week ending July 12, 1842, is
365. 5 d. per evil., exclusive of the Duties of Customs paid or
payable thereon on the importation thereof into Great Britain.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF _LORDS, July 15.
The LORD CHANCELLOR tools his seat on the Wool-
sack at Four o'clock.
The Bri ish Possessions Abroad Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Dublin University Right of Voting Bill was read
a third time and passed.
THE QUEEN'S PROTECTION BILL.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR, in moving the second
reading of the Bill for the better protection Or the
person of the SoVereign from violence, said he need
not remind their Lordships of the feeling with which the
Bill was received by their Lordships, when it was proposed
to their Lordships for the first reading, nor of the feeling
with which it was passed by the other House of Parlia-
ment—(Hear, hear)—nor did. lie doubt that it would be
met with equal feeling by the country at large.(Hear,
hear,) Unfertunetely, experience bad given proof of the
necessity for this Hear.) The object of the
Bill. was to at er and amend the laws relating to attacks
upon the person of the Sovereign, tending to cause her
destruction, or to maim or otherwise injure her.
The Act of the 25th of Edward the Third was directed
against attacks upon. the person of the Sovereign,
tending to destroy him. The Act of the 36th of
George the Third extended the provisions of that
Bill to attacks upon the Sovereign's person, tend-
ing to maim or otherwise injure ; and by the 39th of
George the Third alterations were made in that Act.
Their Lordships were aware that by an Act of
William 111. (in consequence of the severity with
which persons convicted of high treason had been
dealt with in the previous reign), to throw a greater
protection round the life of the subject than the previous
law afforded, by that Act, certain farms were required
for the trial of persons accused of high treason.
These forms chiefly respected the notice of trial, the
service of the indictment, and lists of witnesses and
jurors. The object of the present Bill was to provide for
remedies in cases of attack upon the person of the
Sovereign, similar to those which were provided in
cases of attack upon the person of a subject.
The life of the Sovereign was more valuable than
that of any other individual, and when the se-
vereign was a Queen, such attacks were more dan-
gerous, on account of' the necessity of her being
so much exposed, and . en account of other cir-
cumstances, which their Lordships would • understand.
The Bill, therefore, provided fir cases of violence
not tending to the death of the Sovereign, or to
maim or wound her, or other 'nets of violence.
It provided that they should be punished by transporta-
tion for a term of years, or by three years' imprisonment,
with whipping, or other corporal punishment., as the
Court should think fit. He concluded by moving that
the Bill be read a second time.
Viscount MELBOURNE, after the statement made by
the Noble and Learned L ,rd on the Wi olsack—a statement
short arid at the same time pithy—efter what was
known to their Lordships, and to the while country,
it was seriously necessary for him to say that
he gave to the Bill his most cordial approbation—
(Hear, hear)—and he thought there could not
be any difference of opinion respecting it,
in either House of Parliament, or in the country.
(Hear.) lie agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord as
to the importance of the life of the Sovereign, and
the greater danger to which it was exposed than
that of any other individual—and he said this without
reference to the age or sex of the Sovereign, or any cir-
cumstances peculiarly calling for loyalty and attachment.
Lord COTTENHAM considered that sonic of
the provisions of this Act might possibly be miscon-
strued into an inference that it was intended to
affect in the slightest degree the statutes directed
against high treason, or misprision of treason.
lie wished that it should he generally, distinctly
known there was nothing whatever in this Act
which altered the present law, and that any one who
imagined or compassed to destroy the life of the Sove-
reign, was as much guilty of high treason after the pas-
sing of the present Aceas before it. It was-not pretended
to mitigate the penalties now in force against high treason,
but to provide punishment in cases e hich were beyond
the operation of the present Statute as -applicable to high
treason, and to accord punishment upon delinquents Iv hose
crime did not amount •to high treason.
Lord BROUGHAM said he cordially agreed in the
object of the Act before- their Lordehips. He thought
the course Parliament was now pursuieg most un-
objectionable in the present ease. He was a great enemy
to introducing general alteration of the law in particular
and isolated emergencies, because he was aware that such
a course had the effect of inducing an alteration in
the law with a view to special circumstances, and prevent-
ing attention to all the circumstances which ought to be
considered. He also objected to general alterations
in the laws which tended to render them more severe
than they had been before ; but the alteration proposed
in this Bill he considered to be based upon the soundest
principles of legislation, and was absolutely necessary,
in consequence of the law not being enough to meet
those cases which occurred, as,his Noble Friend had truly
remarked, from motives which it. was impossible to
divine.. It appeared to him that their Lordships were
justified in giving concurrence to a measure for prevent-
ing acts thus tending to create alarm both in the Sove-
reign and the country. He agreed with his Noble and
,Learned Friend who spoke last, that nothing in the pre-
sent Bill at all lessened the severity which the levy new
attached to treason, or misprision of treason. Ile sug-
gested the propriety of a proviso to the following
ef-
fect :—That nothing contained in this Act should be
admitted or taken to alter in any way the punishment
already by law inflicted on acts of high treason or mis-
prison of high treason. He fully agreed in the terms
so powerfully and eloquently used by the Noble Lord
wiell reference to the universal interest taken by the
whole community in the life and safety of the Queen—
(Loud cheers)—and if he wante.i—he could net say an
example, but a ead•subject for reflection, he would look
across the Channel to see the lamentable and truly me-
lancholy misfortune which had befallen the French na-
tion so recently.aon this subject he would say that
there was not a human being in the whole of this empire
who did net from the bottom of his heart deeply tee in-
pathise in that afflicting event.
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Standing Orders were suspended, and the house
went into Committee.
Lord CAMPBELL need hardly say that he entirely
concurred in every word which had fallen froin his Noble
and Learned Friend, and in all the principles and 'objects
o'f the Bill. Ile had risen, however, humbly to propose
an amendment to the Bill. As the Bill now stood, they
were required to prove that an attempt had been made,
that the piece had actually been tired or the stone thrown.
He (Lord Campbell) thought it was necessary to provide
for cases where the attempt had not actually been made.
The amendment which he had to propose was as fel-
hiws, and was to be inserted in the third line from the
bottom of the second page :—" Or, tf any person shall,
in the presence of tine Queen, wilfully produce, 'or have, •
any gull, pistol, or other description of fire-arms, or any
etherarms whatsoever, or any axplosive, destructive, er
changer ms matter whatsoever, with intent to use the
same to hijure the person of the Queen, or to alarm her
Majesty, he Shall he guilty of a high misdemeanour."
He hoped this amendment would meet with the appeolet•
tion of his Noble and Learned Friend opposite (the
Lord Chancellor), as it was not his (Lord Campbell's)
intention td press it in opposition to his Noble Friend's l
desire.

The LORD CHANCELLOR d►d not see any objec •
tion to the amendment just proposed, which ii.as then
agreed to.
The Marquis of GLANRICARDE suggested that a
clause should be inserted providing for the punishment
of persons who Regally entered the Palaces or in other
ways intruded upon her Mhjesty•'s privacy.
Wutit reported to the Uettoe witl3 a4teliduiet4.