Mehatni anti Pratceliingit in 1,9atlinment.

POSTAGE CHARGES. POSTAGE CHARGES.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition from merchants, bankers, and other persons engaged in busi- ness in London, praying for the reduction of the rates of postage on letters to one uniform sum of a penny a letter.

He concurred in the opinion expressed by the petitioners, that the charges of the Post-office on letters were carried to an extent that not only into tied greatly with commercial and friendly intercourse, but really injured the revenue. A pamphlet, in which the plan proposed by the petitioners wair fully developed, bash been published by Mr. Rowland Hill, and the statements he there found confirmed the views he previously entertained. The writer had pointed out the evils of the present system, and suggested their remedy. He proposed, first, a reduction in the charges; secondly, payment in advance ; and, thirdly, an equalization of the duties. In these views Lord Ashburton fully concurred. It was to be hoped that the Government would turn their serious consideration to this subject ; which, whether considered with reference to the extension of com- merce or of education, was of the utmost importance; and if it were not that the session was considerably advanced, he should propose to refer the matter to a Select Committee. The Parliamentary returns showed that, notwithstand- ing the great increase in population and commerce, there had been a consider- able fulling off in the Post.office revenue. The diminution, comparing 1825 with 1830, was not less than one-tenth ; and comparing 1825 with 1835, the falling off amounted to 130,0001. For this to take place, notwithstanding the great increase in the wealth, intelligence, and population of the country, must satisfy every one that the present rate of charge was too high.

Lord DUNCANNON said, that the subject had been under the consider- ation of Government— The Treasury was not advised at once to adopt the whole of Mr. Hill's plan. but it was thought desirable to try it to a certain extent. The Chancellor of She Exchequer proposed to reduce to a certain extent the charges on the trans- mission of letters; and though it was considered inexpedient to deprive persons of the opportunity of sending unpaid letters by the Twopenny-post, they would shortly he enabled to purchase the envelopes which would carry them for a penny each. No doubt, it would lead to a great saving in the expense of managing the Post-office if the public paid the postage in advance ; but he

doubted if such an arrangement would be generally liked. With regard to foreign letters, there would be great difficulty in carrying Mr. Hill's plan into execution.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, that Mr. Hill entirely lost sight of the fact, that if, as he supposed, the number of letters sent by post would be five or six times what it is at present, the number of mails employed must be five or six times more than at present— lie, however, was glad to learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to try the effect of a partial reduction of the charge. He was ul opinion that great difficulties would be found in the way of any attempt to get the pub- lic to pay the postage in advance. Many of the letters were put into the post- offices at the last moment; and much time would be occupied in taking the money with the letters, and many more of what were called " windows ' for the receipt of letters would be necessary. He could not agree with those who contended that no reform had taken place in the Post-office. During the last ten years—he might say during the last twenty years—that department had been gradually improving. He begged to add, that if they adopted too hastily dm plan which was proposed, they might throw the whole establishment into serious embarrassment.

On the same evening, Mr. GROTE presented a similar petition in the House of Commons. Among the persons who had signed this petition, he stated that there were twenty-two heads of the most emi- nent commercial firme in London, sixteen members of the most eminent banking firms, five directors of insurance-companies, and several scien- tific characters, (among whom he would mention Doctors Arnott and Birkbeck, and Professor Babbage,) together with several booksellers and persons engaged in various commercial pursuits.

THE GLASGOW WRIT.

For about three hours on Tuesday, the House of Commons, at the

instigation of Sir JAMI:s GRAHAM, was engaged in exainining wit.

nesses as to the mode of transmitting the late writ for Glasgow to the

Sheriff of Lanarkshire, and in discussing the conduct of Mr. E. J,

Stanley and the Post-office authorities in reference to this matter. Nothing could be more tiresome or stupid than the course of examina. tion pursued by Sir James Graham and other Members. The same questions, in effect, were repeatedly asked ; the most trifling objec- tions in point of form were urged and discussed ; again and again the witnesses were sent out of the House, (that is to say, a few yards from the bar,) while Members talked upon the most insignificant matters on which discussion could be raised ; and business which occupied several hours might have been despatched in five minutes. The facts elicited may be thus briefly stated. The writ for Glasgow was moved at four

o'clock in the afternoon of the 17th of May, by Mr. Edward John Stanley ; it was sent to the Crown Office, and thence to the Lord Chancellor in Bruton Street to be sealed ; but as the Chancellor had gone to Wimbledon, it was sent after him ; being sealed at Wimble- don, it was transmitted to the Post-office, Mr. Stanley having writ,en a letter to Colonel Maberley requesting him to forward the writ " if possible, by express," in case it should be too late for that night's post. The writ was sent by express ; but whether the "express" was by horse or post-chaise and four, did not positively appear. However that might be, it did not arrive till several hours after it would have been received had the Lord Chancellor been in town and the writ been despatched by the regular mail ; for the Post-office expresses, it was distinctly stated by a Post-office clerk, only went at the rate of seven wiles an hour. In the course of the examination of the witnesses, Mr. STANLEY offered to state the contents or to read a copy of the letter he had sent to Colonel Milberley. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished the letter itself to be produced, that the Post-office clerk might swear to the identity of the letter. This insinuation called forth a very warm remonstrance from Lord JOHN RUSSELL ; who indignantly resented the imputation that Mr. Stanley would read or state the substance of any letter which he had not written. Sir JAMES GRAHAM maintained that he had a right to the absolute proof that the letter written by Mr. Stanley was actually that which was given to the Post-office clerk who had forwarded the writ : the evidence, he maintained, only proved the fact that a letter from Mr. Stanley was delivered by a messenger, name unknown, to the Post-office clerk. The examina- tion of the witnesses having been concluded, Mr. E. J. STANLEY was heard. He said that he was not surprised at the conduct of Sir James Graham-- It would be in the recollection of the Rowe, that on a former occasion he was ready to say what he knew on the subject, and to meet the charge of the right honourable baronet fairly and fully. If he did not do so on that omits sion, he believed the House wuuld attribute it to the circumstance of his being taken by surprise in the manner he was. He was taken by surprise. He had had no communication with a single person on the subject. He had not had time himself to consider even what answer he should give, or how any answer that he should give might affect ether persons : and he, therefore, asked the House, if be had not a right ta complain of the mode in which the right honourable baronet had introducrd the question, and which prevented him at the time from giving the fullest explanation. " The right honourable baronet, (continued Mr. Stanley,) on Friday last spoke to me behind the Chair, anti expressed a wish that 1 should be in my place, as he had a question to put to me. I asked what was the nature of the question. The answer was, I will not tell you you will hear it when I rise.' (Loud and continued cheering from the Minis.. terial benches.) I ask if there is another lember in the House who would act in such a manner—in a manner so contrary to the practice and courtesy of the House. Even in ordinary matters, whatever may be the subject, it is usual to give notice that a question will be put, with the subject to which it re- lates, in order that the Member to whom it is put may be prepared with ao answer. But I believe it is quite unparalleled to put without notice a gum- tion affecting. as this does, the personal conduct and personal character of a Member of Parliament ; and going to the extent of charging him is ith violat- ing an act of Parliament, trampling on the privileges of Members of this House, and interfering with the freedom of election. (Loud cheers.) When charges so grave are brought, I ask, is theme another honourable Member who would have done so? ( Cheers.) I do not believe that any other Member would have acted in that was ; I do not believe there is one who would not have given notice, in order that the Member questioned might be prepared to answer to the appeal. The right honourable batouct has indeed given as an excuse for not having given notice, that the fact was so incredible that he dal not believe it had taken place; and yet at the same time, the right honourable baronet stated, that the authority on which he acted was so undoubted that there could be no question at all about it. I leave the right honourable baronet to reconcile these statements. I leave it to the !louse to say what object he had

in view by taking any Member by surprise. But that is the courtesy which

we may expect from the right honourab!e baronet when he bcomes the leader of that party for whose favour he now bids so high, though he has assailed their principles and their conduct for the last twenty years? This is the cour- tesy one may expect ttttt one who is the eager volunteer in every forlorn hope against his former noble and right honourable friends and colleagues, and even his quondam associates and more humble supporters. I may have spoken strongly ; but, after the provocation I have received, I trust the House will excuse me."

Mr. Stanley then stated several of the particulars respecting the transmission of the writ, mentioned above. He contended that it was by no ineans clear that he had transgressed the letter of the act ; seeing that to send a writ through the Post-office, whether by express or by tnail, was still to send it by post. Moreover, lie had a precedent for send- ing an election writ to Sandwich by express; and he was informed by the senior dolt in his office, that such had been occasionally the prac- tice.

Sir James GRAHAM spoke a few words in defence of his conduct, amidst derisive cheers from the Ministerial benches ; and then the "witnesses were discharged from further attendance," and the charge against Mr. Stanley fell to the ground.

PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

Lord HOWICK, on Tuesday, moved three resolutions, declaring the right of the House of Commons to publish such of its Reports. Votes, and Proceedings, as it shall deem conducive to the public interests.; that the institution or prosecution of any action for the purpose of bringing that right into discussion or dispute anywhere but in Parliament, is a

high breach of privilege, worthy of punishment ; and that f r any court to decide upon matters of privilege inconsistent with the determination of either House of Parliament, "is a breach and contempt of the pri- vileges of Parliament." Lord Howick having spoken in support of his motion, Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved a series of counter-resolutiors, the pith of which was, that the privileges of the House could'not protect the publisher of a libel from the penalties of the law, even although such publication was authorized expressly by the House. Sir Robert drew a distinction between the publication of documents for the use solely of Members, and for sale to the public. In the latter case, he maintained that the publication of a libel was unjustifiable.

A dry debate ensued; Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Sir ROPERT PEEL, Mr. HUME, and Mr. Wyss, supporting Lord Howick's resolutions ; Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. PEMBERTON, and Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, denying the right of Parliament to shield the publisher of a libel.

A division took place on the second resolution ; which was carried, by 126 to 36. The others were affirmed without a division.

On Thursday, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented a petition from Mr. John Hart Nichols, printer to the House, praying for direction how to proceed in the defence of an action brought against him for printing a petition relative to one Thomas Green, which petition was said to con- tain a libel on Green, whose attorney had commenced proceedings against him. The petition was among the printed papers in the matter of the Greenwich Railway. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented a petition of similar purport from Mr. Hansard, who said that Stockdale had commenced another action against him for a publication made by order of the House. The petitions were ordered to be printed; and Sir JOHN CAMPBELL is to move that they be taken into consideration on some early day. I. The Times states, that in the case of Green, the Speaker himself has been served with notice of action.)

MISCELLANEOUS.

CHURCH-RATES. Lord JOHN RITSSELL, on Tuesday, put off his motion for a Committee on the letting of Church-lands, from Thursday to Thursday next week. Mr. HARVEY gave notice that he should move an amendment, that the collection of Church-rates should cease entirely from a day to be named.

STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS. Lord BROUGHAM gave notice, on TWarsday, that on Monday next he should submit a proposition on the state of public business in the House of Peers. In the House of Commons, on the same evening, Lord JOHN RussELE stated, in reply to questions from Lord STANLEY, Mr. HumE, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, that he would not press his motion for a Committee on Church leases on Thursday next, until other motions which stood before it on the paper, including one on Household Suffrage by Mr. Hume, had been disposed of; but that if he were prevented from making his motion on Thursday, he hoped to have precedence for it on the following Friday; in which case it would be necessary to put off the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill to the Monday following. Colonel SIBTHORP said, he should certainly press his motion for the reduction of official salaries, on Friday the 9th.

NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. BORTHWICK, on Thursday, moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish a system of national education in connexion with the Church. He proposed that in every parish a schoolmaster, to be a member of the Establishment, should be ap- pointed with a small endowment. Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR seconded the motion. Mr. GILLON and Mr. EWART objected to the scheme, that it was sectarian and narrow. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that if the endow- ment were to come out of the Consolidated Fund, Mr. Borthwick should move a resolution in Committee : he had not taken the regular course. The SPEA K ER said, that would be the usual and proper course. Mr. BORTHWICK would withdraw his motion, if he should be allowed sub- sequently to bring in his bill. A desultory conversation followed. Mr. ROBERT STEUART said, he would be no party to bringing in the bill. Mr. BORTHWICK then asked leave to withdraw his motion. Several Members on the Ministerial side objected to the withdrawal. Mr. O'CONNELL said, in that case, the 'notion could not be withdrawn. Mr. LAW then moved that the House adjourn; which motion was carried, by 36 to 34.

THE AUXILIARY LEGION AT lam In reply to a question from Mr. BORTHWICK, on Tuesday, Lord PALMERSTON stated that there was no foundation whatever for the reports that the British Legion had massacred the prisoners they took at 'run.

COLONEL ARTHUR'S GOVERNMENT OF VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. On Thursday, the Earl of RIPON moved the Peers to address the King for a copy of a despatch from Colonel Arthur to the Colonial Secretary, dated in October last. That despatch, Lord Ripon stated, detailed the progress of the colony in civilization and commerce the gradual in- crease of the numbers of free settlers over convicts, and the diminution of crimes. He passed a high eulogium on the character of Colonel Arthur, who had been Governor for ten years, and whom he would designate as the "model of a judicious, humane, and liberal Governor." Lord GLENELG acceded to the motion ; and said that Colonel Arthur had made a complete and triumphant answer to the numerous attacks upon him.

COLONEL BRADLEY AND COLONEL ARTHUR. Mr. THOMAS DUN. COMBE, on the same evening, moved for a Select Committee of the Commons to inquire into the truth of the charges preferred by Colo- nel Bradley against Colonel Arthur. He was prepared to substantiate charges of cruelty against Colonel Arthur, both by documentary and oral evidence.

Ile could prove that a man of the name of Ingram had been flogged at Hon- duras by tap of drum ; and what was there to disprove the fact? Captain Willis did not deny it; he merely said that he had no recollection of it. In July MB, a nian of the name of Reeves was sentenced to receive a certain number of lashes; and Colonel Arthur wrote a letter to the commanding officer, desiring that the punishment might not be hurried, but that it might be inflicted in the most impressive manner. Was not this of itself an admission that there was something unusual in the proceedings by which the punishment was carried into effect? In the case also of a man of the name of Cook, Colonel Arthur interfered to prevent his being tried by the civil power, fearing that they would not inflict a sufficient punishment. Ile proe'aimed martial law, by which means Cook was tried by a court-martial, and sentenced to receive 700 lashes. Colonel Arthur also in this case wrote to the commanding officer, expressing his desire that the punishment might be inflicted in the most impressive manner possible. There was at that moment an individual in London who was ready to come before a Committee and state that Cook was flogged by tap of drum; that 550 lashes out of the 700 were inflicted upon him ; that many of the men were obliged to leave the ranks; and that there was a general thrill of horror at the manner in which the punishment was inflicted on that occasion. Under there circumstances, he contended that it was not too late to grant inquiry, and to do justice.

Lord Howicx opposed the motion. Colonel Bradley bad already obtained 100/, damages by an action in the Court of King's Bench for

false imprisonment ; but it was expressly decided that Colonel Arthur had not assumed the command wrongfully ; so that point had been settled. With respect to the alleged cases of cruelty, they were the most horrible that any wretch in human shape could have committed; but it was to be remembered, that though they were said to have oc- curred in 1816 and 1820, no mention was made of them until the de- bate on the subject last year. It was provided by the Mutiny Acts

that no officer could be brought to trial for an offence said to have been committed three years before the charge was brought, unless there was some necessary impediment to the trial; and he thought, for the seen- rity of officers, this rule should be observed by the House. He con.. tended that the evidence of cruelty was of the most vague description: even Colonel Bradley himself had said that Colonel Arthur endangered the discipline of the troops by his reluctance to inflict corporal punish-

ment. The fact was, that Colonel Arthur had incurred the hatred of many persons by the unflinching manner in which he had protected the rights of the slaves at Honduras. Colonel Arthur was himself anxi- ous that an inquiry should take place; but Lord Howick, for the rea- son above given, would refuse it

Mr. HUME, Colonel THONIPSON, Major BEACCLEnK, and Mr. Wax- REV, supported the motion. Sir HENRY HARDINGE opposed it. Mr. WOOD considered that the House of Commons should be a place of dernier ressort or last appeal, but that it should never entertain a case except upon very fair and sufficient grounds, which did riot in the pre-

sent case exist. Mr. DUNCOMBE in reply said, that be could bring forward a merchant in the City, who was present at the flogging of Cook, and was ready to come forward and prove all that had been al- leged.

The House divided : for the motion, 33; against it, 81.

RAILWAYS TO BRIGHTON. Captain ALSAGER, on Tuesday, moved the House to agree to the resolution of the Committee on the Brighton Railroads, that the engineering evidence was in favour of Rennie's line.

Lord GEORGE LENNOX moved an amendment, that an address be presented to the King for the appointment of a military engineer to decide upon which was the best line, as the opinions on the subject among the civil engineers were very conflicting.

Mr. PouLErr THOMSON supported the amendment, as did also the members of the Government then in the House.

Mr. HUME remarked, that it was most unusual forGovernment to in- terfere wi .h the conduct of private bills.

No reply was made to this remark ; and after a sharp debate, of no public interest, the amendment was carried, by 164 to 1.57.

On Thursday, Mr. CURTEIS gave notice, that on Tuesday next he should call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Mills on the subject of railways to Brighton, and at the same time express in the strongest language his opinion of the conduct of Ministers in voting against to moti on of Captain Alsager.

ATTENDANCE OF PAUPERS ON DIVINE WORSHIP. The Peers were engaged for some time on Thursday evening in a discussion arising out of a motion by the Bishop of EXETER for copies of any orders or regu- lations by the Poor-law Commissioners to prevent inmates of work- houses from attending the parish-churches on Sundays. The Duke of RICHMOND, Earl Frrzwir.LIAM, and Lord MELBOURNE, defended the conduct of the Commissioners ; and represented that great opportuni- ties would be given to the disorderly, if they were allowed to be absent for several hours on a Sunday—they would spend their time in beer- houses and gin-shops. The Bishop of EXETER having stated, that in the Worcester Union, Dissenters have been allowed to go to chapel, though Churchmen were prevented from going to church, Lord MEL- BOURNE said, that this was not according to, but in opposition to the rules of the Commissioners. Earl Frrzwir.r.last took occasion to mention, that in the North, and especially in Sheffield, the excitement against the law was subsiding. Both he and Lord Melbourne ani- madverted in severe language on the efforts of the Bishop of Exeter to stir up a spirit of opposition to the law. The motion was agreed to.