Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 29th June 1850, Edition 3 of 3, Page 7

Page 7
Page 7
7 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • twpmal taltament
  • Text (7)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Excuequeb Chamber. Tub Queen V. Waits. T...

      _iTis , therefore , clear that the prisoner was their _servant : The directors have the ultimate charge of aU the documentsof the company ; and , in the ' ordinary course of business between" the company -and their bankers , the paid cheques are returned to ithe directors ; Decome their Touchers , and , _conse . quently _, their property , being documents , belonging to the directors , as such . It was one of the prisoner s appointed duties to receive and keep for his emp loyers such returned eaeqnes ; and every sncb paper , therefore , in his custody , would he in the legal possession ofthe directors . The paper in _Snestion , as soon as it had arrived from the hand of tie messenger at its ultimate destination , namely , the custody of the prisoner , for the directors , was virtually in their possession , so when he afterwards abstracted it foran unlawful purpose , he was clearly guilty of stealing it from his employers . If a butler of his Blaster

      -who had the custody ' s plate should receive plate from the silversmiths for his master ' s use , he wonld be guilty of larceny if he fraudulentl y . converted it to his own use , although it had not , otherwise than by his receiving . it , come to the actual possession of his master . The judgment then proceeded to distinguish this case from those cited in argument , and especially from that of " the King against Masters . " In that case , the jud gment proceeded to state , " the prisoner ' s duty was merely to receive the money from another servant and pass it on to a third , who accounted for it to his master . Here the paper , we consider , reached its ultimate _destination wben placed in the prisoner ' s hands , and his possession was that of the directors , hi 3 masters . No difficulty arises from his being a shareholder , "for as sncb he had no property in the paper . "—The _^ conviction was affirmed ; sentence will be passed in ihe next session of the Central Criminal Court ,

      Fjror,.20ajffb. « The Morthern St A Ft 7

      fJror ,. _AJffb . « THE _MORTHERN ST A ft 7

      Court Of Exchequer. Gilns T. Pbitcnett. ...

      COURT OF EXCHEQUER . GILnS T . _PBITCnETT . In this action the plaintiff sought to recover damages against the defendant for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife . —This was certainly one of the most extraordinary cases which ever came into court , and the defence on the record was almost S 3 singular as the case 5 for we cannot call to mind having seen a plea like the piesent . The defendant 'first denied the allegation of the plaintiff , by the plea of not guilty , and , secondly , alleged that the lady io question was not the plaintiff ' s wife . —Mr .

      Humphrey , Q . C . ( with wfu . m was Mr . Lush , j in opening the cases , said that in an action like the present , he had not to appeal to the sympathies of the jury to consider the outraged feelings of a husband He could not profess that they had been outraged _, for this action was , in fact , brought in consequence of there being issued by the defendant and the plaintiff ' s wife , who might at some future period be ¦ made chargeable to him . The circumstances of the case were these : —The plaintiff , at the time of his marriage with his present wife , then Mary Eliza Herry , was employed in the silk and ribbon shop of Messrs . Leaf ! He established himself in the same

      line of business soon after his marriage , bat had , unhappily , been Tery unsuccessful . The plaintiff and Ins wife had , for some reason , disputes , or , to use a milder term , differences , which , although she had borne him two children , rendered it expedient that they should part . The lady went to live with her parents , who fomented the quarrel by all the means in their power , obstructed the plaintiff in seeing his wife , and probably induced her to take the step 'which had actually been taken—of proceeding against him in the Consistory Court to procure a divorce , which suit ended in the court giving judgment for a separation a mensa et thoro . It was clear that this was a judgment merely of separation , and did not in English law amount to a divorce , so as to enable

      either party to marry again during the life of the other ; and further , it did not free the plai p tiff from the liability of maintaining any issue she might have , even by another , while both he and his wife were in the same country , for it was the rule of law in such a case that he was to be held as the faiher , who was in fact or in law the husband . The plaintiff ' s wife . having , sub sequently to the sentence , contrae'ed an intimacy with the defendant , and had two children fay him , the plaintiff felt bound and entitled to come before a jury to seek compensation for the injury inflicted upon him . Yet he ( Mr . Humphrey ) must admit that the action was , in fact , brought not so much for damages , as to enable the plaintiff to free himself from the liabilitv which now was or might

      at a future period be imposed on him , of supporting and educating children that were not his . —The marriage was proved , and also that all connexion had ceased between the plaintiff and his wife for ten years , and that he had really never interfered with her course of life or tried to induce her to return to him . —The Lord Chief Baron asked whether , under tiie circumstances , it was worth while to take np any further time ?—Mr . Martin , Q . C . ( with whom was Mr . Temple , } for the defendant , said tbat the lady and tiie defendant had been most cruelly persecuted by the plaintiff : hut the learned gentleman

      was interrupted by tbe Lord Chief Baron , who said : I do . not wish to know more of the case than is _sufficient to enable tbe court and the jnry to do justice between the two _rarties to the action before us . —Mr . Martin : The Ecclesiastical Court pronounced the separation on the pound of cruelty and adultery of the husband—The Lord Chief Baron : If a man permit his -wife to live with another man for so many years without endeavouring to prevent the intercourse , or to indnce her to abandon it , he cannot maintain an action for criminal conversation ; the verdict must necessarily be for the defendant . — The jury returned a verdict accordingly .

      COMPENSATION . —KSICHr T . FOX . This was an action brought by the plaintiff , a lady , against the defendants , iron-founders and -contractors at Birmingham , to recover damages for injuries she received in consequence of the improper construction of scaffolding , a portion of which protruded into the highway , and caused tbe plaintiff to fall and hurt herself very much . —Mr . Snowies , Q _. C ., and another learned gentleman appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr . Whateley , Q C , -for the defendants . —The defendants , it appeared , hr . d contracted to furnish the necessary work for the purpose of making a railway bridge ; and the general superintendent of the railway works , Mr Cochrane , had , under them , contracted with the

      company to build it . The scaffolding was erected by Mr . Cochrane without the personal instructions of the defendants , but entirely on his own responsibility . On the night of Aug . 23 th last , the plaintiff and her daughter were returning home , about ten , when the former struck and fell over a piece of wood , where the new bridge was being made , which jutted ont from the rest of the scaffolding , and projected on the pavement . The plaintiff , who was quite disabled by the violence of the shock from rising , was conveyed to the nearestchemist ' s , and thence in a cab to her own residence , in Bel grave-place , a distance of four or five miles . On reaching her home a surgeon , Mr . Hooper , who had attended her and her family for

      year s , was sent for , and he described the injuries she had sustained as beine most serious . Both tbe bones of her right leg were broken , and the motion ofthe cab had converted that fracture into a compound fracture ; her right arm was severely contused , and nothing bnt the strength of her muscles saved it from being fractured . The surgeon ' s bill was £ 31 17 s . 6 d . and the other expenses amounted to about £ 22 . —Mr . Whateley , in his address to the jury for the defendants , disclaimed aU idea of attempting to deny thata serious injury had been done to the plaintiff—one which the _gentlemea , Messrs . Fox and Henderson , whom he represented , deplore as much as it was possible . But this was not the case ofa person who bad to maintain

      herself b y her own labour , for she has a small income on which to depend . The defendants employed a -person to make thh scaffold , which they never saw ; and truly , if owing to the improper construction of it injury was done , very little beyond the amount Of the expense the plaintiff was actuall y put to wonld , as damages , satisfy the justice of the case . —The Lord Chief Baron , in summing np , told the jury that , when himself at the bar , he had never ailed , in a case like the present , for damages in respect of any pain or suffering which might have been inflicted by the accident complained of , on the plaintiff ; for it might be looked on as the act of Providence , to a certain extent , where there was

      no positive malice on the part of the defendants . In this spirit he himself had asked the jury to assess the damages in the case of Mr . Carpue , the surgeon , who had been seriously injured by an accident on the Brighton Railway , and the plaintiff then assented to the -view he had taken . _ Undoubtedly the ease was in the hands ofthe jury , who would award the expenses tho plaintiff had incurred , and such further sum as they deemed reasonable . His lordship then proceeded to detail the evidence . —The jury , after a short deliberation , found forthe plaintiff , £ 200 damages , and the Lord Chief Baron gave leave to move , as above stated , -to enter a nonsuit .

      Court Of Queen's Bench. Wall! V. Bramwmj...

      COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH . WALL ! V . BRAMWMJL—QUALIFICATION FOR IOWH

      _couyciixoB . In this case an action had been brought against the defendant for penalties nnder the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act , for acting as a councillor of the borough of Stockport , without being duly qualified so to do . Under the Act in question , it was necessary that a party thus acting should be an inhabitant householder of the borough , and be rated in respect of premises in it for three years before he is qualified to act as councillor Itappeared

      that the defendant had occupied for the full tune required b y the Aet a house , known as the " Jolly Hatters , " to which a warehouse was attached , in respect of which house and warehouse he had been rated , and paid the rates , havingalso been an inhabitant -householder of the borough for the whole time . Itappeared , however , that in August , 1848 , he had ceased to occupy the house , but stillretained the warehouse , on which he paid the ratd , which rates were suflkient in amount to qualify him , if he was otherwise duly qualified . The question was ,

      Court Of Queen's Bench. Wall! V. Bramwmj...

      wheXher'thedefendant , having for some time previous to his assuming . the , functions of . councillor , ceased : to occupy the whole premises in respect to which he had been rated , and occupied only a part ofthe premises , paying the rate on that part , which rate was sufficient in amount for the purpose , was entitled to be on the burgess list—his title to be so constituting his right to act as councillor , if appointed to the office . The plaintiff obtained a verdict at tbe trial , but leave was reserved for the defendant to move the court to enter the verdict for the defendant . . A rule nth' had been obtained for this purpose . —ilr . Evans and Mr . Crompton now showed cause against the rule , whicb was supported by Mr . _Welsby . —Mr . Justice Coleridge delivered

      judgment . In doing so he observed that the action had been brought on the third section of the act , on the ground that the defendant had acted as a councillor of the borough after having ceased to be qualified to act as . such—the alleged cessation of his qualification being that he was not a burgess , which it . was necessary for him to be , before he could legally act as councillor . But the question was , whether , at the time he acted , the defendant was entitled to be npon the _hurgesslist ? In order to ascertain whether he was so or not , the court must look at the 15 th section of the act , which made it the duty of the overseer , on the 5 th September , to make out a list of the persons entitled to be enrolled onthe burgess roll for the year . The court was then to inquire whether he was entitled to be on the burgess roll forthe year , not whether he was or was not a burgess . In inquiring into tbis , they had to look at the 9 th section of the act , which enacted

      in substance that every male of full age , who had occupied a house or warehouse for three years previousl y , and had been an inhabitant householder of the borough for that period , and paid the rates on the premises , with the exception of such as were due for the six months anterior to the lst of August , should , if duly enrolled , be a burgess . The provision of the section went more to define who should be a burgess than who should be entitled to be enrolled . The question now wns ,, whether the defendant was entitled to be on the burgess roll , in order to see whether he was entitled to be on the baagess list , for if so entitled he was qualified to vote . The Court was of opinion , on the facts ofthe case , that he was entitled to be enrolled , and if so , he was entitled to be on tbe burgess list . The intention of the legislature obviously was that a person so entitled should be qualified to act , and on tbat ground the Court was of opinion that the rule should be made absolute .

      TnE QUEEN V . COHEN AND DAVIS . Mr . M . Chambers and Mr . HnddlestoD were counsel for the prosecution , and Mr . Sergeant Shee and Mr . Ballantine for the defendants . —This was an indictment charging the defendants with a conspiracy to defraud the creditors of Cohen . It appeared that Cohen was formerly a tailor , but all at once he ordered glass and earthenware from certain persons named in the indictment , which goods he consigned to Davis , who was a dealer in earthenware in the BlacEfriars-road . Yery shortly after this Cohen went before the Insolvent Court , and after several examinations he was ordered to be imprisoned for twenty months for defrauding his creditors . Inquiries were made , and then this indictment was

      preferred . —Many witnesses were examined , but the detail of the evidence was by no means interesting . —The defence was , that the evidence did not show that Davis had been a party in conspiring to defraud the creditors of Cohen , and that although Cohen might have acted improperly , still that Davis had nothing to do with the matter . —The Jury at once said they had made up their minds and need not trouble the learned Lord Chief Justice to sum up . — Lord Campbell , however , said it would be more satisfactory that he should sum op , and he accordingly did so very briefly . —The Jury then instantly returned a verdict of " Guilty " against both the defendants . —Mr . Chambers then prayed the judgment of the Court . —Lord Campbell said the defendants

      upon the clearest evidence had been found guilty of a most enormous offence . . Such things were often practised and much suspected , bnt it was very rare that evidence snch as had been laid before the jury could be brought so as thoroug hly to establish tbe guilt of those who were concerned . Under these circumstances , by way of example , he thought the smallest punishment he could impose was tbat for this offence the defendants should be imprisoned for one year in the House of Correction , and during that time they should respectively be kept to hard labour . —Mr . Chambers handed np the statute to the Court to sho w that there was no power to award hard labour . —Lord Campbell saidhe deeply regretted it . The sentence would therefore be imprisonment for one rear .

      Love, Murder, And Suicide.—The Following...

      Love , Murder , and Suicide . —The following tragical incidents are related in the French papers : — About three years ago a tradesman , inhabiting the Quartier Breda , destroyed himself in a fit of desperation , after having written a letter in which he declared that hisreasen for making away with himself . was , that he conld not survive the knowledge of his dishonour . A thousand reports were current at the time , as to the precise cause which led to the catastrophe . When the husband was dead a liason sprang op , and was almost publicly acknowledged between his widow and a young man in the neighbourhood , but satiety was soon followed by coldness and scenes of reproach , caused by the jealousy of the widow , whose lover seemed to neglect her more and more every day . The intimacy between them still continued , however , notwithstanding the clouds which so frequently disturbed its course , and tbe

      young man was accustomed to take his meals almost daily at the house of his mistress . On Thursday last he had dined there as usual , when , having scarcely risen from the table , he was seized with burning pains and vomitings , sufficiently alarming in tbeir character to cause the assistance ofa medical man to be called in . Immediately on his arrival , at the first examination of the patient ' s countenance and of the substances vomited by him , the roan ot science suspected the case to be one of poisoning . His treatment was that usually resorted to in EUCh cases , but in spite ofthe promptitude and energy of the measures adopted the patient expired , accusing his mistress ofthe deed . As for the individual in question , as soon as the first symptoms of poison appeared , she became completely wild , and when her lover was dead she appeared struck with stupor , shut herself up in her apartment , and refused all assistance or consolation . She remained thus

      secluded during two days , when suddenly the neighbout heard proceeding from her lodging the sound of an exploded fire-arm . The doors were broken open , and the commissary of police summoned . On his arrival all tbat was found was a lifeless corpse . The unfortunate woman had shot herself through the heart , with the same pistol with which three years ago her wretched husband had terminated his existence . Tragical Occurrence near Santa Chuz . —We have been put in possession of the facts relating to a tragical occurrence near Santa Cruz . Onthe 31 st ult ., the wife bf Mr . J . Graham , residing about six miles from Santa Cruz , at the saw mills called

      Savant , leit his home , taking , as he says , between twenty and thirty _thousand dollars in coin and gold dust . Oa the 2 ad instant , Graham obtained a search warrant , under which the sheriff proceeded to search the bouse of Mrs . Mary Bennett , the mother of Mrs . Graham , also residing at Sayant . This wa 3 done upon the affidavit of Graham , that he believed his wife ' s sister , Mary Ann Bennett , aided in the robbery , as she was at his house on the same day that the affair occurred . Nothing was found but a small box , which Mrs . Bennett said was sent her by Mary Ann , with a request to have it decently buried , as it contained a small child . This box , which was ina trunk where-Graham and his son

      Jesse kept their money , was broken open and the money taken while they both were absent at San Jose , attending a horse race . Mary Ann was then arrested on behalf of the people , for aiding and abetting in the robbery , but discharged for want of sufficient proof . At two different times subsequently , the son Jesse endeavoured hy threats to compel Mrs . B and her son Jackson to disclose the _filace of the wife ' s concealment , menacing their ive 3 should they refuse . Upon this , they proceeded to the Alcalde and entered their complaint . Jesse was ordered to give bail in the sum of 2000 dollars . Not being able to obtain the sureties , the bond was doubled , and he allowed to depart on his own recognisance , promising good

      behaviour . He , however , followed Mrs . B , and on their road home evertook them about one mile from the Mission , fired with a double-barrel shot gun loaded with buckshot , npon Jackson but missed him , and then discharged the other barrel at Mrs . B .. before her son could afford any defence , having been thrown by his fri g htened animal . Five shots took effect upon her—two in her hip , the remainder in the legs , though none of them are dangerous . The scoundrel then hurried on to Mrs . B ' _s house , called out her youngest son , and shot him down deliberately—the boy died on the instant . Since then nothing has been heard of him . A reward of three thousand dollars is offered for his apprehension . The eloping lady has a lover in the case whose name is forgotten . —Pacific News . ;

      A Scape Goat . — A person in Largo , who heard it affirmed that rats would disinhabit premises where a goat was kept , had the curiosity to try the experiment though with but little faith in the recommended antidote . Accordingl y , one of these bearded mountaineers was procured , lod ged inthe premises , when , unexpectedly , the long tailed ug ly , devouring vermin suddenly decamped . The goat has been kept for many months , and nothing in the shape of a rat is now seen near the premises . Some may be apt to class this affair among the ridiculous ; but we have been told it is a reality ; and surely this mode of making rats flit is as simple as it is singular . —Northern Warder : The Arctic Expedition . —Accounts from j the west coast of Sonth America mention that her Majesty ' s ships Enterprise and Investigator had passed through the Straits of Magellan .

      Twpmal Taltament

      _twpmal _taltament

      Monday , June 24. House Of Lords.—The Qu...

      MONDAY , June 24 . HOUSE OF LORDS . —The question of the legality ofthe recent Sunday regulation in the Postoffice was again brought before the house , by Lord Brougham , who insisted forcibly on the hardship of the new plan . The Marquis of Lansdowne was understood to say that he had no doubt as to the right ofthe Crown to make what regulations it pleased with regard to the transmission of letters , though he feared that the new scheme would be productive of great dese * cration of the Sabbath .

      After an explanation from Lord Canning , as fo some observations which fell from him respecting Sir Edmund Lyons , in his speech on the Greek quarrel , the DitAIKAGE AND _IjIPBOVEMENT OF LANDS ADVANCES Bill was read a second time , on the motion of Lord Lansdownh . Their lordships then adjourned . HOUSE OF COMMONS . -At the time of private business , on The Prussian Minister ' s Residence Bill , Sir R . Inolis noticed , in terms of pointed severity , the " wanton if not premeditated insult , " to which , he said , his disinguished friend the Chevalier Bunsen had been subjected in another place . Mr . Roebuck , in vindication of Lord Brougham , gave an explanation of the occurrence ; and Lord J . Russell , without expressing any opinion npon the subject , paid a tribute of respect to the personal as well as the public character of the Chevalier .

      Confidence in the Ministry . —On the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply being read _. Lord J . Russell said , that as the hon . member for Sheffield had given notice of an amendment on this motion , he ( Lord J . Russell ) was quite ready to postpone the orders of the day . Perhaps the house would permit him to say , that as two hon members had given notices of amendments on tbe motion of the hon . and learned member for Sheffield , respecting which they would of course act as tbey should deem proper , the government were only anxious that tbe house should come to a full and fair

      decision upon tbe question proposed by the hon . and learned member for Sheffield , wh ch the government thought was the question properly to be put in issue . ( H e ar , hear . ) Mr . Anstet said , that after the explanation of the noble lord upon a matter which more nearly concerned the government than any other party , he certair . lv would not persevere with his amendment . ( Cries of " Hume ! Hume ! " ) / Mr . Hume had no hesitation in saying that when the time came he should submit hi * amendment to the honse , to he dealt with as the house should think fit . ( Hear , hear ; and laughter . ) He certainly should exercise his discretion in making his motion or not , as he liked . ( Hear , hear . ) Mr . Rokbuck then moved the important

      resolution of which he had given notice , " That the principles upon which the foreign policy of the government has been regulated , have been calculated to maintain the honour and dignity of this country , and in times of unexampled difficulty to preserve peace between England and foreign nations . " He commenced by explaining the reasons which had induced him to make this motion . A government constituted like ours , he observed , when condemned by one branch of the legislature , is unable to discharge its dunes either at home or abroad with honour . In such a case , therefore , it became the duly of this house to ascertain for itself what had been the conduct of tbe government , and to express its own opinion . He agreed with Lord J . Russell , that no

      administration was bound to resign upon a mere resolution of the House of Lords ; but if it was necessary to have a House of Lords , and if tbat house had expressed an opinion upon a question regarding our foreign policy , this house should step in and declare the sentiments of the people of England npon the same point ; the clear proposition contained in the resolution of the House of Lords being a condemnation of that foreign policy . He confessed he came to the consideration of the policy of Lord Palmerston with a mind disposed in its favour ; for , though he had seen much in its details to condemn , with its principles he entirely agreed . There were two classes of cases which that policy embraced—one regarding individual rights and wrongs ; the other , the general interests , the dignity , and honour of this country .

      The object of Lord Palmerston , with relation to the first , was to extend the protection of the government of England to her wandering sons , so far as the rules of civilised nations would permit ; and with respect to the interests of this country , as a people , he believed Lord Palmerston ' s policy had been to mainlain the peace of the world , not by truckling to despotism , bnt . as far as permitted by the rules of international law , by the exertion of the moral force of the English name . Might there not be a minister of this country whose policy was to make tyranny safe in Europe ? These antagonist principles were now upon their trial , and the House of Commons was called upon to decide whether England was openly to countenance _^ not struggles for anarchy , but the efforts of mankind for self-government , or lend its aid to crush these efforts . Mr . Roebuck

      then rapidly reviewed the system of foreign policy pursued by ( his country from 1790 to 1815 , and from 1830 to the present time , contrasting its principles in the two periods . He then noticed cursorily the circumstances under wbich the kingdom of Greece was established by the three Powers ; the petty intrigues of which the little court of At hens soon became the focus : the obstinate ignorance of the English people as to foreign _affaits ; the insolent demands made by Russia and Austria upon Turkey for the extradition ofthe Hungarian refugees , and the appearance of the English fleet in the Dardenelles , which had vindicated the rights ofindependent nations He then applied himself to the specific case of the claims upon Greece , to which it was objected , tbat the demands

      were unlawful—tbat their amount was insignificant and exaggerated—tbat the manner in which they weie urged was imperious and uncalled for ; and that the time for exacting redress was inopportune . He denied that there was _anything in the claims contrary to the law of nations , which was a system ot general morality , the rules of wliich were somewhat vague ; But ' _iiiw had they been interpreted in practice ? France in 1831 had sent a fleet into theTagusto exact reparation for injuries suffered by French subjects , our offer of mediation being refused . In 1842 the French government had in a similar manner obtained redress for its subjects at St . Salvador . There were many similar instances on the part of France , America , and England

      herself ; and with weak nations it was a merciful mode of proceedings in such cases , not to declare war , bnt to blockade their ports and take possession of certain property . For many years there had been continual complaints of the conduct of the Greek government towards Bri t ish subjects , letters from our ministers remaining unopened and ,, of course , unanswered . In Mr . Finlay ' s case his land had been taken possession of , not for great national interests , but for a garden in which the King might disport himself at the expense of a British subject , who was refused all payment whatever . He applied to Lord Aberdeen to intercede with the Greek government ; Lord Aberdeen acknowledged the justice of his claims , and directed Sir E , Lyons to urge therit ;

      but Mr . Finlay obtained no redress . M . Pacifico , on a Sunday , when the Christians of Athens were at church , had his house attacked by a mob , headed by certain young noblemen , his family beaten , and his whole property destroyed . He cared not what M . Pacifico was ; he was born a British subject , and had a rig ht to demand , the protection of England . He appealed to the Greek government ) and obtaining no reparation he sought that protection . Had it been Baron Rothschild who had been'thus attacked , all Europe would have rung with the outrage ; but M . Pacifico being a poorf ; Jew he was treated with insult and his demands set aside . It had been said that international law forbade _comoliance with such an appeal ; this he . denied , and

      he showed what would be the effect of- such an interpretation of the law jn despotic countries . Then it was said that these were isolated cases ; but there were other cases , and if we once relaxed , in the case of half-civilised nations , the rules by which the subjects of this country are guarded , abroad , there would be no safety for English commerce . Mr . Roebuck then went into a minute examination of the details of the transactions betwixt M . Gros and Mr . Wyse at Athens , and Lord Palmerston and M . Drouyn de Lhuys in England , and concluded by expressing a hope tbat Mr . Hume would not , by persevering in his amendment , enable . members to ride off from deciding upon the general policy of the government .

      Mr . Hume could not join in the tit quoque argument of Mr . Roebuck , because he thought the conduct of other states furnished no rule of conduct for England . Finding , however , that he ( Mr . Hume ) had taken a wrong step , and that his amendment would place some hon . members in a difficulty , he should not press it . Sir F . Thesiger observed that Mr . Roebuck , in placing himself in the gap and moving such a resolution , had purchased a claim to tbe substantial gratitude of the government . He recollected , however , a debate , in 1843 ; upon the war in Affghanistan , in which he had declared that Lord Palmerston was typified by a lucifer match , and

      he was astonished that , with such an impression , Mr . Roebuck had proposed this resolution , the lucifer match being still in the Foreign-office . Mr . Roebuck had not called for a reversal of the resolution of the House of Lords , but had prudently given an ample range to every one who desired an excuse for voting with the government . After some general reflections upon the policy of Lord Palmerston , than which nothing , he t hought , was more likely to embroil us with other nations , and which had resulted in the deepest humiliation to Eng land , Sir Frederick examined ' at some length the cases of Mrc-Finlay ant' M . Pacifico , neither of which ; he contended , afforded a ground for . hostile aggression ; the former having been referred to _arbitration _, and the latter , which involved absurd ,

      Monday , June 24. House Of Lords.—The Qu...

      utifounded , _% and exaggerated . claims , being a , case . for the tribunals of the , country . . He then went into tho particulars of the ' negotiations carried ori by the intervention of France ; and observed that Lord Palmerston , having beench ' arged with a breaclr _. of the arrangements , was compelled ' at last to adopt th % very convention he had repudiated , and was now in the same position as that in which he might have stood without humiliation on the ' 14 th of May . He asked the honse whether these transactions were calculated , in the words of the motion , to " maintain the honour and di gnity of this country ?" Mr . Wood supported the motion , and in reply to Sir F . Thesiger discussed minutely 1 he several cases of complaint against the Greek sorer iment .

      one of which—that of an individual wlohvi been brutall y tortured in the Turkish fashion—ha 1 been scarcely noticed . In all these cases redress was refused , and it was remafcable how many ofthe Ionian islanders were insulted , flogged . and tortured , because thoy were British subjects . In such instances it was the plain and bounden duty of our government to interfere . But the most flagrant outrage was in the case ofthe FantOm ' s boat , and yet it was said that British honour was compromised by a demand for redress . It had been admitted by the ablest advoeate of the resolution' of the House of Lords , that for years past the representatives

      ofthe three great Powers at Athens had been caballing amongst themselves—one to maintain Eng lish , another French , and another Russian interests . Then was it for tho . English Minister at such a Court to say , " We ' cannot obtain redress ourselves and must seek the intervention of Russia and France ? " The step taken by our government would be of immense value throughout the East , and wouid dissipate the illusion of tho Greek Court , that England dared not enforce her ri ghts without the sanction of France and Russia . If Greece was to be maintained , it was riot by handing over bur claims to Russia or France ;

      Sir James Graham hoped that at last they wero let out of nisi prius , as for the List six hours they had been listening to three lawyers , who bad not travelled out of the affairs of Greece . '; f Cheers . ) He proceeded to say that he was reluctantly dragged into the debate , but he felt that to abstain from it would be cowardice in him . Touching upon his long political and personal friendship for Lord Palmerston , he said that since ho had left the government of which his lordship had formed a part , he had frequently supported it , and had _alwajs maintained his regard for Lord Palmerston himself . Therefore , personal feeling could in no way influenco his present conduct . The question of that night was a far larger one than any speaker had yet rendered it . He would endeavour to address himstlf

      to tbe general question . He then went through the history ofthe forei gn affairs of Eng land for some years past . He had himself , been an assenting party to the siege of Antwerp , and the separation of Belgium from Holland , and . also to tho operations for Don Pedro , but he reminded the house that all these things had been done with theknowleuge and approbation of all our allies . But in illustration of Lord Palmerston ' s foreign system ; he cited a speech ofthe present Earl Grey ( when Lord llowick ) delivered iri that house in 1844 , ' which inculcated noninterference—a princ i ple Sir James declared to be sacred , and he said that he woiild contrast the advice contained in that speech with the conduct of Lord Palmerston immediately on coming into office

      with the -present , government . Beginning with a despatch to Spain in 1846 , in which censure and counsel were administered in the most , peremptory manner , Sir James proceeded to a despatch of 1848 , in which Karvaez was schooled by Lord Palmerston as to enlarging his ministry and introducing Liberals into it . The very speedy result was the expulsion of our representative from Spain . And when Spain , the proudest nation in the world , actually stooped to make an amende , '' the first thing Lord Palmerston met her with was ah announcement , that if Sir H . Bulwer was not otherwise employed , he would be the minister who should be sent back to Madrid . Then in the case of Portugal , there also Lord Palmerston had sought to dictate ,

      in the case of Costa Cabral . In reference to Switzerland , Sir James , with great apparent precision , was detailing a case of diplomatic misconduct , which affected the honour of England , when he was suddenly stopped with "Quiteuntrue , " from Lord Palmerston . Then the noble lord meant to convey that the ministers of France and Spain , in so stating were guilty of saying what waB not borne out b y fact . [ Lord Palmerston was understood to assent . ] As regarded France , Sir James then charged his lordship with unremitting hostility toM . Guizpt , and with incessant communications with his bitterest adversaries , who were now Republicans—a course which , ho said , would be a reproach to Lord Palmerston ' s conscience to

      his last hour . He next quoted a despatch to Lord Ponsonby , in which Austria was accused of privately harbouring designs against Piedmont — a despatch which wns allowed to circulate all over Europe , but a most solemn denial of such designs by Prince Metternich , reccired in three weeks after tbat despatch was read , was suppressed , arid never produced at all until Lord Brougham long afterwards forced it " out . Austria had loudly complained ol this conduct . The despatch circulated , and Piedmont , violently excited , became the assailant oi Austria , and all that Lord Palmerston - did to prevent hostilities was to hint that Piedmont was hardly strong enough for the contest . And when Austria asked the meditation of England in the

      matter , Lord Palmerston refused ; in the results that ensued nothing but the wisdom of Radetzky had saved Austria ; and the end had been that revolution was everywhere put down . Naples , and our operations there , Sir James next , considered , and exposed the support we first gave to the insurgents , whom we abandoned to their fat ' e on matters taking a different turn . Then came the case oi Russia ' s demand of the Hungarian refugees from Turkey . He condemned the order to our fleet to proceed tothe mouth of the ; _Dardanelles before the result of our communication , with the Emperor wa 3 known . And he further condemned the next orders , which sent the fleet actually within the Dardanelles . And then , when tbe appear to " the Russian Emperor

      proved successful , and he became indignant at the hostile step , ' an ? excuse of stress of weather " was made on the part of England , which was actually false , the removal of the fleet having actually taken place , as witnessed by Lord Hardwiok , on a beautiful day arid in clear water . He then addressed himself to the affairs of Greece , and , readinga despatch to M . Glarakis , in Oct ., 1847 , declared that its most" offensive" tone went a long way to exp lain subsequent difficulties with Greek administrations . Ho believed th . it Greece was not innocent of fermenting insurrection in the Ionian Isles . Sir H . Ward makes that charge , which is solemnly denied by the King of Greece , and thereupon Sir Henry retracts . And after this Lord Palmerston himself

      reiterates the charge with additional items—a line of conduct devoid of truth and honesty , and therefore detrimental to the honour of England . Much might , no doubt , be said in vindication of the claims which had formed the subject ; of that night ' s debate . But the case of the islands , to which little or no reference had heen 'made , was at present involved in obscurity . The title to those islands was most uncertain , and yet ; amid all that uncertainty , positive orders had been g iven by the Forei gn-office to seize them , arid accident , onl y had prevented that seizure , and , in all probability , a consequent war . As regarded our conduct to France in the Greek affair , our course should have ; been , as soon as it was admitted that accident only had prevented the fulfilment of the convention of London , to . have at ori ' ce recurred to that treaty instead of allowing delay , and amusing' the house arid the country with

      attempts to fix the blame on M . Gros , whereby the good understanding of the countries were jeopardised . Slig htl y alluding io the " difficult question " of Denmark , he summed up by saying that the Ambassador of France had been recalled , and the representative of Austria had been withdrawn ; that the amity of Prussia was entangled in the Danish question ; that Russia was writing angry notes ; that Narvnez was all powerful in . Spain , and Costa Cabral in Portugal ; that a Frenoh army was _Established in Rome ; and the Pope was as much as ever estranged from this country . Under these circumstances , he was asked to \ ote for a resolution affirming the wisdom ofthe foreign < policy of the nobleman under whose administration all this , had taken place . Such a resolution he could not support . Sir James sat down amid loud cheering ,: and tbo debate was instantly adjourned . The house rose at one o ' clock .

      ' ' TUESDAY , June 25 . HOUSE OF _LORDSi- _^ Marquis of Londonderry postponed until Thursday next his resolutions ! respecting the ' Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland ! . ' , Several bills were' advanced a stage / and their lordships then adjourned ; HOUSEOFCOMMONS .-The adjourned debate ori Mr . Roebuck's motion was resumed by-Mr . Bernal Osborne , who said that be considered itbat this was not a question of details . The house ! was not called upon to say whether it approved every act of our Foreign Minister , but whether our forei gn policy was tobe regulated by the representatives of foreign nations . He taunted tho Protectionists with not having brought forward amotion upon the subject—a course hei should have expected from the

      ingenuity of'cunning , sharpened by the pertinacity of revenge . After a personal attack upon Sir ; James Graham ( uponwhom , he said , the . mantle of ; Mr . Urquhart had fallen ); he quoted parliamentary records to show that a short time ago , upon ' a discussion on Portuguese affairs , Sir James had declared his entird approval of the conduct of Lord ! Palmerston in reference to Portugal . He woujd , he said , vote withSir 'James if Lord Palmer ' _stonfyere not able to dispose of the accusations against him as easily as he ( Mr . Bernat Osborne ) could dispose of the political character and consistency of Sir James Graham . As regarded Greece ; he believed that the sticking up a Russian ptippet inthe Levant was a foolish mistake , that the Greeks were a most profligate and worthless people , aad that we had found

      Monday , June 24. House Of Lords.—The Qu...

      _itneccssaryto . ohastiso . the child , whom ne badso u _?^ 8 e ! . 9 _^ sen ,. to » d ° Pt . Thinking the interests of England and / the world' at _stiike , he supported Mr . Roebuck _amotion with pride and pleasure . • Lord John'Manners contrasted the . high-flown declamation which had been uttered about _England ' s throwing her protection ar 0 und her meanest son with the facts , no refutation of which had ever been attemp _' cd , in reference to the . recent seizure and imprisonment of an unoffending British' su Meet by the Americans at Charleston , and in reference to the expulsion , b y Lord Palmerston ' s protege , the French Republic , ofthe harmless and industrious English labourers in France . Alluding to Lord Palmerston ' s alleged love bf peace , he dwelt unon

      his lordship _s conduct in the case of the islands of Cervi and Sapienza , and in Switzerland , in proof of the bellicose way in which such love was manifested . He next inquired what was tlio success of those efforts at establishing constitutional governments abroad , which were considered so important a duty of our own government ; and ho instanced a series of tyrannies and barbarities committed by various newly arisen Liberal governments as an evidence of what Lord Palmerston had done for the good of mankind . After showing how many of his lordship ' s efforts and prophecies had alike failed , ( instancing particularly the case of Austria , whose sway in Italy Lord Palmerston had confidently asserted could never be re-established , ) be concluded by declaring that he could not see that tho honour

      or dignity ol England either had been , or could be , maintained by a policy which exposed this country to the indignation of civilised Europe . ' Mr . Ciiisholm _Anstbtc , in a speech of nearly two hours and a half , delivered to a very thin audience , explained the difficulty be felt in coming to any decision upon the question , for while he had been upon many occasions , compelled to oppose the foreign policy of ministers , it had , of late years , met his entire approbation . Under the circumstances , he could not give his vote in favour of so general a verdict of approval as that implied in Mr . Roebuck ' s resolution , while he certainly could not join in a vote which involved a general censuro . lie , therefore , hoped he should be favourably judged when he announced that ho should not vote at all .

      Mr . _Bailuk Cochrane addressed himself to an examination of the conduct of Lord Palmerston in reference to the affairs of Switzerland , and ofthe behaviour of his agent , Lord Minto , in Rome , during the revolutionary period there . _Ilo next censured the mode in which the Sicilian and Neapolitan negotiations had been conducted , and stating that he would abstain from going over other topics which had already been bandied , he concluded by denouncing Lord Palmerston ' s policy as being , despite of the character wliich had been claimed for it , decidedl y un-English . Yiscount Palmerston said that it was due to himself , to the house , ¦ and to the country , that the second night of this important debate should not close without a statement from him ; This

      was no mere question of the endurance of a ministry , but was a- question of national policy . But be thought the way in which this subject had been brought on was unworthy of the party which had obtained a hostile majority in the Lords , and wliich should have brought forward a substantial motion in accordance with that affirmed by the Peers . Addressing himself to the hitter resolution , ho declared that it advocated a policy hostile to the interests , rights , and dignity of the country , which was told that its subjects abroad must not look to the mother country for protection , but must trust to the chances of the corruption and tyranny of the government under which they might happen to be placed . He

      denied that doctrine . No minister had ever acted under it , and no minister would be allowed by the nation to act under it . Doubtless an appeal to the courts of justice of the foreign country was the first duty of an injured Englishman , but there were cases in which nothing like justice could be hoped for from those court ? , and also cases in which laws were" passed to whioh no Englishman ought to be subject , and these became exceptional cases in which interference was rendered a duty . It became the question how far this rule was applicable to recent events . He proceeded to sketch the history of our relations with Greece , and alluded to the declaration to the Greeks by the Three Powers , tbat the King would

      give them a constitution , which , it was arranged , should be deferred till Otho attained his majority . That time came , , but no constitution was granted , and it was found tbat Russia , Prussia , and Austria ( all then despotic ) were advising the withholdin g such constitution . France , too , where England had looked for support , thought the time had not come for constitutional government in Greece ; and , Bavaria , leaning the same way , England stood alone at Athens . But the English government declined to depart from tho declaration she had originally made in favour of a constitution . There was no mean , low contest of intrigues , carried on between Sir E . Lyons and his antagonists , but their difference was simply upon that ofthe great principle in question .

      Every sort of abuse quickly sprang up in Greecethe Greek character , always dishonest , developed into brigandage—while the police practised every _specitB of corruption and revolting barbrrity ( torturing individuals of both sexes , ) and wero nevertheless favoured and screened in high quarters . It became necessary to put a stop to such practices , so far as they affected tho subjects of her Mnjesty . Deprecating the tone in which tbe grievances which had formed part of the debate had been discussed , he proceeded to consider the details of each caso . The first was the insult to the British navy . Explaining the original Spitfire affair ( upon which the Greek authorities sought to excuse their conduct to the English officer , ' ) ho stated that all tbat had

      been demanded by us was an apology , to which we were clearly entitled . Next came the Customhouse cas 9 , in which ho declared thpt the conduct of the Greek authorities had been exceedingly bad , while our demand had been remarkably moderate . He then adverted to the case of the innocent men who had boon manacled , thumbscrewed , and dragged to prison , mid in which ho also said that we had a perfect light to demand compensation . A similar rule appplied to the case of those persons who , having been found sleeping outside their own doors , had been dragged to prison , and flogged , for no offerice , and under the sentence of no tribunal . Mr . Finlay ' s affair followed . This case was one which must be " viewed with regret by

      all who were interested in the honour of royalty , which had here sought , for the sake not even of a national object , but for that of private enjoyment , to deprive a stranger of his land without making him a just compensation . In 1843 , the Greeks having lost patience , and extorted a constitution , courts of law were established ,, but they had no jurisdiction over Mr . Finlay ' s case , while an arbitration , which was negotiated , was rendered impossible by the demand of tho Greek Covernment to appoint two out of the three arbiters . Another arbitration was defeated by a stratagem of the Greek officials , and at last a demand , not of a specific sum , but of the value of Mr . Finlay ' s land—no unreasonable claim—was made by ner

      Majesty ' s government . He proceeded to M . Pacifico ' s case . Partially defending that person against the imputations which had been cast against him , his . lordship declared that his , not Pacifico _s , character , but his treatment , was tho matter for consideration . He denied the justice of the taunts which had been launched against M . Pacifico for alleged poverty , stated the outrages inflicted upon his house , which the mob for two hours was plundering and destroy ing , and wbich they ultimately reduced to utter ruin , and showed that M . Pacifico had no means . whatever of obtaining redress , which , and not revenge , was his object . This of all others was a case in which we wero entitled to call upon the Greek government for . compensation ; and had that government _AnfAi _. n . 1 fiiiulu _unnri _t-Vio _nnnrnflnfinn _fltn _vnanlt

      would no doubt have been satisfactory . But as the Greek government denied the principle of the claim , Mr . Wyse had no other , course but to insist tipori it ., AU these claims and demands , continued Lord Palmerston , were from year to year evaded or treated with contemptuous silence , and it became ihe question whether we were to enforce or to _abandon them . The smallness of the Greek country was surely no reason for _; its offending with impunity , nor could we tell our injured subjects that they should not havo redress , simply because we had such ample means of obtaining it for them . And he conceived we took a generous course , and one which spared all injury to Greek pride , in sending a force wbich at once showed to all . Europe that resistance was put of the question . Defending . the mode in which our

      reprisals had been made , ho adverted to our cheerful acceptance of the proffered good offices of France , upon the terms of which acceptance there could be no _. doubt at all . _Thorenever bad been any misunderstanding between M . Drouyn tie Lhuys arid himself . The mediation was limited to thequestion , what sum Mr . Finlay and M . Pacifico were to receive , and was . to embrace thequestion whether they were to receive anything or not . And Mr . Wyse was not to decide ( in tho event of any difference ) whether Baron Gros' mission was to end or not . Stress had been laid upon his , Lord Palmerston ' s not sending but on the 0 th of April , to Mr . Wyse , information as to this latter arrangement ,

      but his lordship , said this bad already ; been-rendered unnecessary , for on the _^ _iJth _' ofMarch'jhenad sent Mr . Wyse instructions ; which , if acted ' upon in the spirit in which they ' were sent , would have answered precisely ! the same purpose . Arid no dispute did arise which could have beeri met by any instructions which _, could at any " time have been sent to Mr . _Wyaei Following the history bf the negotiation , he accused Baron Gros of having , on tho 22 nd of April , retracted terms to whioh he had previousl y come , and of having insisted ( on the faith of information from Portugal hostile to Pacifico ) on opening the question of Pacifico ' s title , to any compensation at all . This he had no ri ght to discuss . The negotiation was therefore broken off . But it was

      Monday , June 24. House Of Lords.—The Qu...

      not true tbatMi > Vfyse had . received- » ny * infprmation the 24 th of April from Baron Gros , appri ing him of the convention of London . ' ' it was admitted by the French government that Bardn Gros himself had not then received information of that convention ,. and the fact was , that until the 2 nd of . May , Mr . Wyse had riot known of it , so that he was . full y exculpated from the charge of having used force after he knew that in Loudon specific terms had been agreed to . It was , therefore , _Riron Gros who withdrew , generally and officially , from his mission . Ho proposed afterwards to retract this withdrawal . Mr . Wyse made a proposal to test his sincerity of intention in such hitter proposition , and met witha refusal . A private negotiation between Baron Gros

      and the Greek government procured still further indulgences ; but allproving irt vain , Mr . Wyse , ' at last , took tho onl y step that remained , Lord Palmerston then sain tlmt negotiations had since gone on between Franco and England , wbich , he was happy to say , had terminated satisfactorily / on the basis of _adhertAg to such part of the London convention as was still available . There was one point for which Mr . Wyse had provided , but for , which our government had not thought necessary lo provide , namely , a disclaimer of any ri ght , on the part of Greece , to ask compensation for damage done to vessels during the reprisals . This provision Lord Palmerston deemed needless , as no such claim could havo a shadow of foundation . In lieu of that provision , we had agreed to accept the

      good offices of France with the Greek government . There the whole matter ended . He then went into the case of the islands of Cervi and Sapienza , and contended , for the history of the Ionian Islands , that Sapienza had by solemn decree been aggregated to Zante , and Cervi to Ceri go . There coupho no doubt about the title to the islands , or about its notoriety . They had always been considered as belonging to England , and any taking possession of them by the Greek government was an intrusion . But that question was not ineluded in our demand , and was still open to discussion . Having disposed of Greece he came to ' the wider range taken the preceding night by . Sir James Graham , who , he admitted , had taken a

      proper view of the real question before the house . Adverting to tho first statement made , by Sir James Graham , he denied that our allies had agreed ia the measures in Belgium which Sir James had concurred in , for Russia , Prussia , arid Austria actually protested against them , and withdrew from _^ the conlerence . no pointed , nevertheless , to the issue ofthe Belgian experiment as a most successful justification of the course then taken b y England in unison with France . He then dealt , in succession , with the following points in Sir James Graham ' s speech : —First , the Portuguese treaty , - which he described . is a victory of constitutionalism over despotism , and he also defended our own subsequent interference in the affairs of that country , in

      order to disarm the Liberal party there , and put an end to civil war . In the course of this part of the discussion he complained that those who- attacked him there and elsewhere referred everything to personal feeling , which , he declared , was absurd , when brought to bear against himself , who , as Foreign Minister , was only the representative of English feeling , and which , when attributed to him as a motive , was utterly unfounded .. Second , the affairs of Spain , in regard to ' which he had always considered that the interests of England would be promoted by fostering ; constitutionalism , and independence in that country , on which principle he defended the course . he had adopted in reference to Spanish affairs . Narvaez wns Minister in Spain ,

      but the constitution was in . force ; Defending himself from the chavge of discourtesy or _peremptoriness in his despatches , he , informed the _houu . ( humourously entreating them to preserve so profound a diplomatic secret , ) that the recent note to Spain , in which mention was made of Sir H . Bulwer , had Leon confidently read and approved by tbe Spanish Cabinet before it was officially promulgated . Thirdly , France . He utterly denied having intrigued to overthrow the late monarchial government of France , or the Guizot administration ; and he declared ( amid great party cheering , ) that if France thought that a knot of foreign conspirators , aided by a fraction of _co-adjutors at home , when _landed to destroy one of her ministers , the Frenoh people would rally the more strongly around a mas

      who was , by that conspiracy , proved to bo doing his duty to his own nation . Fifthl y , Switzerland . His lordship made a very long and detached _statement of the whole history ofthe quarrel between Sonderbund and the antagonist cantons , and of the negotiations connected therewith , in order to acquit himself of the charge of double-dealing brought forward by Sir J . Graham , and which his lordship denied for himself and for his representative , in the most emphatic manner . Sixthly , Austria . He denied that Austria had really felt aggrieved at the nonrproduction of the despatch alluded to by Sir James , for the Austrian Cabinet had allowed a whole half year to elapse between tho production of the first and last despatches , without ever making a

      representation on the subject . Seventhly , Italy . After dofending himself against the charge of unduly mixing in the Sardinian affair , he adverted to the case of Lord Minto , whose mission had been privately but expressly asked for b y the Pope , and who had advised nothing but administrative reforms , which , so far as they were carried out , bore good fruit . In reference to the case of the Sicilians , he argued that wo had , through Lord Minto , acted a most friendly part towards the real interests of both , parties in the strife , and that we had done everything to preventt or to stop , revolution . And , eig h t hl y , Turkey . Adverting to the unanimity with which all parties supported the appeal of Turkey , in regard to the protecting from Russia the

      Hungarian refugees , ho defended the accompanying our despatch to Russia by the sending in our fleet . The menacing attitude of Russia , in reference to these refugees , rendered necessary such a step , which was no threat , but a signal of support to the Sultan should he be attacked . Ho explained the treaty prohibiting the entrance of ships of war into tho Dardanelles—a treaty we were alleged to havo broken ; he went into a description of the localities , and showed that the removal of the fleet to the Inner Bay was caused by the apprehended necessities of weather , and was actually urged by the Porte itself , out of regard for the safety of the British fleet . But he ( Lord Palmerston ) had previously written to instruct the admiral to keep out of the Dardanelles . Russia made a representation on the subject ; and instead of pleading a plausible necessity , or ( as the fact was ) the want of precision in the treaty ' s description of the limits of the

      Straits , we accepted tbo Russian interpretation of the treaty , and agreed tbat henceforth all ships should be excluded from the Straits . His lordship ( who spoke for four hours and three-quarters ) , said that he had , he thoug ht , disposed of the charges hitherto broug ht against him . The principles on which ho had acted , were , he believed , those of the mass of the English people , and were the principles of humanity , of advancement , and of civilisation . He did not complain of tbe assaults upon him , for a position in the government of this country was always an object of laudable ambition , and never so much so as now ; when almost every country in Europe had been agitated into bloodshed , England stood alone , a proud example of liberty combined with order . But , in contending that in the foreign policy of the government nothing had been done to forfeit tho confidence of the country , he fearlessly challenged the verdict of the house .

      Tremendous and reiterated cheering followed the close of tho speech , and the house was almost instantly cleared , at half-past two . WEDNESDAY , Junk 20 . HOUSE OF COMMONS . _—Couxir Rates Bur . . —Sir II . _HALFonn , in moving the second reading of this bill , justified its objects upon tho ground that these rates , althou « h they were nominall y paid by the occupier , fell upon the owner and that , the relief it afforded to tho former , by transferring the rates altoghther to the owners , would , in the condition of the tenant farmers , be opportune . Mr . C . Lkwis opposed the bill , as contrary to the general principle of the law of England , that tho incidence of these rates shall be Upon tbo owner except under special and peculiar circumstances , and he moved to defer tho second reading for six months .

      Sir J . _Parkinoton recommended Sir H . Halford not to persevere with the bill , which contained a general principle it would be inexpedient to adopt . Mr , M . Gibson opposed the bill , beiause it would in some cases inflict gross injustice upon landlords . Mr . R . Paim ' br agreed that those rates which were for the permanent improvement of the land should be paid by the owner ; but there were other rates for purpose in which the occupier had a concurrent interest . Mr . Sotiikron suggested that the bill , the princi le of which he supported , should be referred to a select committee . After fome further discussion the amendment was carried and tho bill was lost . _Larcent Summary _Jurismction Bill . —On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill .

      Sir G . _SimcKLANn renewed his opposition to the whole policy of the measure , reiterating the objections he had urged at the second reading of the bill , and moved to defer the third reading for six months . _, . Mr .. M . Milnes seconded this amendmont , which was likewise supported , b y Mr . S . Crawford and Mr . M'Cullaoii , and opposed by Sir J . Pakixoion Mr . Rick , Mr . Bankksand Mr . Aquonb t ' Upon a division 119 against 25 , Mr . _Aolionby Copyholds which , ho observed fromtheincidents system , which dissatisfaction ; and interests of

      , . The Third Reading Was Carried By And...

      , . the third reading was carried by and the bill passed . moved the _aecoiyJ _^ _rewKpg _^ pf the Enfranchi semeh _^^^^ _rMepe ot , was to _^ _weve _^^^ l _^ tahdfl of the _tenuro , _lMa _< f _^ j _^ e _> S ; a were oppr _eape _^ l _^ te *] geMri 3 due regard _Eufiffl _^ Mtf _^ _rM > t _4 l lords of _mfrofc _^ _lMaeilfciU _> n the third reading was carried by ind the bill passed _, moved the _aecon _^ _BarW of the 'anchisemeh _^^ M _$ r _# _pu _4 e ot ved _, was _trrjjMev _^ _Swhpl _^ _hiifl _J _& & _ts of the tenu _^ , _^ _pM ! _pK _£ iilS S _ffero oppreas _3 _ejMdJ _^; ted ( gen 9 ra 3 _^ 3 § _lordsi . ' of _m _^ oon _^ _h _^ sj _^ _pg j |

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), June 29, 1850, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns3_29061850/page/7/