POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
In the House of Commons, last night, Sir ROBERT INGLIS renewed the motion, which had not been formally negatived when brought for- ward before, for the issue of the writ for Nottingham ; which would not interfere, be argued, with Mr. Roebuck's inquiry into the alleged compromise. In seconding the motion, Mr. GALLY KNIGHT charge Mr. Roebuck with continually telling the House that be was the only Simon Pure in it. This charge Mr. ROEBUCK with some asperity denied: he added, that it was not he who opposed the issue of the writ, but the House had acted under the guidance of the Premier. Sir ROBERT PEEL sustained his former opinion ; and on a division, the motion was rejected, by 136 to 41.
Mr. Roebuck's Indemnity of Witnesses Bill was read a third time. The second clause, which empowered the Committee to give indemnity to persons who might be mentioned by witnesses, was withdrawn, at the instance of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Mr. CHARLES BULLER moved to include Bridport in the provisions of the measure. This was agreed to ; and the bill was passed.
. The House affirmed the reports of the Waterford and Athlone Elec- tion Committees.
It was resolved that no writ should issue for Sudbury before the 9th July.
In Committee on the Customs Aces, the House proceeded with the Tariff. Unsuccessful endeavours were made, by Mr. GRIMSDITCH, to resist the reduction of the duty on foreign thrown silk, inlayed ; by Dr. BOWRING, to fix the lower duty of 20 per cent instead of 25 per cent ad valorem on foreign silks and satins. Schedule 14 was disposed of; and the Committee adjourned.
In reply to Mr. Fox /raw; Sir JAMES Gnsuara stated, that after the late proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scot- land, Government would not bring forward any measure on the subject ; and that the second reading of Mr. Campbell's bill, which stands for Wednesday next, would be opposed.
Allusion was made to the proclamation respecting the coinage, and to the inconvenience which it has caused4n trade. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it was simply the renewal of a proclama- tion which had issued from time to time, though not very recently.
In answer to Mr. D'IsaxEra' Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that a recent notification of the Texan blockade of Mexico in the London Gazette did not necessarily imply that the blockade was a legal one. He was excessively sorry that Texas had thought it necessary to resort to a measure so inconvenient to our commerce.
In the House of Lords, the Income-tax Bill was read a second time, without discussionrin- consequence of the sudden illness of the Marquis of Lansdowne, who has an ameodment to move. The debate to be taken on the next stage of the bill.
Previous page
