Star. — London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

•te f incumbent :•. stet. Ile was far these reasons i el ewes opposed to the appo. talent of any commission, the object of shirk was to propose alterations in the abated principles of law. It nrPciltrd to him that the law of divorce, as it now stood, grew out of the British Constitution. The legislature never delegated to any other ti the. vi , tht of deciding in fans of divorce a rineu/o arairtiorsonii. T't:s had been the case ever rime the Reformation and he could not ennsret to a proposition far arming any other tribunal with such a power. Ills best. and learned friend was correct in stating that, by e canoe:law,ai.eltery was no guru nd nf divorce a vineuto malriinort i. s'erch a,s 'as ie.v at present in all homan Catholic countries. The Holy t tffi-• Haim never granted a divorce on the ground of adul. 'try. Lod alfotied that remedy only in certain cases, which rendered the Marriage null ab initio. Up to the time of Henry VIII. it was enutta yeealio, whether or not a power existed in this country, not only of granting divorce, a roam et thorn, but also a lineal° nsatrimoaii. It was finally settled that no weer but the legislature had power to grant a divorce a riseulo untoimortii, and so the law continued up to the present time. The only remedy left in cases of adultery was an appeal to the legislature. Though the Pope sonic iTlllo3 granted divorces on political grounds, there was no instance of his granting one on the ground of adultery. Up, therefore, to the resent time. divorces a vinculo inefrimonii were only legislative divorces. When the Pope granted divorces on political grounds, as in the case of Bonaparte, it was done in the exercise of some extraordinary transcendental power he was ',opposed to possess. His Hon. and Loaned Friend now proposed to introduce a new court, with full and competent juriedietion in cases of di. sorce. It appeared to him that this would be actieg upon a new and a very latitudinarian principle, nor (lid he see that any thing like sufficient grounds were established for so (vide a de viation from the established practice. His Honourable and Learned Friend, indeed, add that in nine cases out of ten legislative divorces were the result of collusion between the parties. He did not believe that CAWS of collusion were so frequent; but even admitting it to be the case, he did not see how the pro. position of his Honourable and ',earned Friend would remedy the evil. If a Court were established where the expense of obtain ing a divorce would not be more than from 15/. to 50/. it would in his opinion operate rather ns an encouragement to adultery Would this lessen the number of cases of collusion ? It would hold out encouragement and facility in divorces which could not fail to make cases of adultery more numerous both in the higher and lower classes. He allowed that the law, as it now stood, was oper to censure. lie could not, however, admit that nine casts out of ten were cases of collusion. The standing orders of the lords re. quilted that either the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court, or the de cision of a Jury, should be the preliminary to a divorce. He could tint agree to the principle that the House of Lords was not as capable of detecting collusion as ether tribunals. He should have no objection to have standing (inters on the subject established for the House of Commons as well as in the House of Lords. He must on these gr.tunda oppose the motion. In modern times he did not recollect ..ray case in which political motives operated in cases of divorce. lie could rot consent to the proposition of his hon. and learned friend, unless it could be more fully ahewn that the legislature was not capable of investigating evidence so fully and satisfactory as to offer sufficient guarantee against frequent collusion. Those two most learnel and able persons, Lords Eldon and Stowell, pares, rot only in point of relationship, but in talent, in virtue, in legal knowledge, in every eminent quality, so much so that it was a matter of doubt which was the greater man, were known to have differed in opinion on this subject. He was willing to go into a committee on the sub yet. but he could not support any system or resolution which in fact M, , 1111 tend to promote adultery. Mr. O'CONNELL said he fully agreed with the honourable and Learned member (Sir Charles Wetherell), and in oppdsing the pro posed resolution he had the whole tenour of the common law to sup- port his views. Before the Reformation no marriage could be dis. solved, and even In the Protestant church it could not be dissolved unless in peculiar cases. He had also the authority of Bishop Bancroft, who was also at his side of the question. No dim. lotion of marriage could take place except in cases where the marriages were invalid oh 101110; and as to the power of the Pope in these cases, he had no more "powtr than any other Christian bishop. In the MSC of Henry the Eighth, the Pope refused a divorce ; and in the case of Buonaparte the first marriage was not valid, because it was merely a civil contract, and therefore it was competent in a Catholic priest to marry him to Maria Louisa, as it was a marriage in faciem ecelesics. Buonaparte imprisoned the pope, so good a Catholic was he ; but after all, could it be said that the practice of granting divorces tended to improve the morality of the higher orders in this country ? It was quite the reverse, for it gave an additional argument to the Seducer. As a guardian of morality, he would oppose this motion an& divide the house upon it. Sir C. WETHERELL, in explanation, said that the power ex ercised by the pope was extra judicial, and besides he crowned Josephine, which was some admission of a valid marriage. 4lr. O'CONNELL—Napoleon himself placed the crown upon the head of Josephine; and that was a civil and not a religious act. Mr. S. RICE could not concur with the opinion of the learned member for Clare, that in all cases the marriage tie should be indis soluble. Ile could have no objection to any legislative improve meat in the present system ; but he thought the standing orders of the house were a sufficient protection to defeat any collusion between the parties seeking a divorce. There was not a Protestant country which had not a judicial jurisdiction to try the validity of mar riages, and decide upon their being dissolved or not. It was said, if divorce was made cheaper there would be greater habits of immo rality ; but the case of Scotland evinced a very different feeling. lie did not consider that in supporting the motion he would be adding to the number of divorces—so far the contrary, that it met his full approbation. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that his hon. and learned friend had brought forward this motion in its present shape. It' the knowledge and intention of his hon. and learned friend had been embodied in a bill, the house would be more competent to de cide upon its merits. He did not quarrel with the law of divorce in Scotland as to Scotland, but he would not consent to give to any Court in this country the power of trying divorces a vireert/o. If such a Court were established it would lead to considerable evil, altitotigh he admitted that it was hard to have one law for the rich and anetner for the poor. If divorces were more extended, they would, in his opinion, lead to the increase of adultery, and there fore he would oppose the present motion. There was great diffi ct,lty in bringing in a bill upon the subject, and upon this very grm:nd he wished to see one introduced. Dr. LUSHINGTON said that this and other ecclesiastical mat- ten of importance had been referred to a commission, the result of whose labours could not be at a very speedy day offeted to the public. The ecclesiastical courts remained now nearly the same that they were left at the Reformation. Times had since changed ; new diffi culties had sprung up; and, considering the many doubtful points involved in this question of divorce, the greatest caution should be observed. .He deprecated having Imposed upon him the consi. deration of a subject which had excited the greatest diffierences of opinion, although, as a member of Parliament, he would be always ready to do his duty. In the last fifteen years he was cognizant of all the cuts of divorce which were heard before eithtr House of Parliament, with the exception of some half dozen, and in none of them did he see collusion in the applicants for divorce. He had supported the divorce bill of Lord Ellenborough, and he would support it again if occasion re. quired it. He felt it • great hardship that the law of divorce should be extended to the rich and denied to the poor ; but still he also thought that its extension would open the door to a greater number of adulterous acts. He wished a Bill had been brought in upon the subj.:et, for then the house would be better able to form some decision on the subject. He hoped, under these circumstances that hie hon. and learned friend would not press his motion to a divison. Mr. C.W.WYNN could see no difficulty nor incongruity in re ferring this subject to the present ecclesiastical commissioners, or to , a new commission altogether. No reliance could be placed on the law of Scotland in reference to this country. If a man in humble life were guilty of bigamy, he would here be imprisoned or trans ported, whereas in the higher orders a divorce could be procured without a dissentient voice in either House of Parliament. Surely then such a state of the law demanded inquiry. The standing orders of the house, if properly entorced, would prove a great check upon the collusion of parties, but as exercised at present, they were nugatory, or nearly so. He contended that a detailed report from a committee of inquiry would be of much more advantage than the introduction of a bill in the present state of information in the house. _ _ . . Sir R. PEEL said that when he considered the complicated de tailt of such a subject, he was not surprised that no legislative enact ments were sought upon it. He was sorry that the motion was not more specific; and here there were two points for consideration; first, was any case made out for alteration ? and, secondly, was the mode proposed the best for attaining the intended measure for regu lating divorce ? With respect to the charge of collusion, he could not admit that It was practised in nine cases out of ten; if it were so, this house had neglected its duty. But he did not believe the proportion to amount to any such extent. Next, as to the argument that the law was now one for the rich and the other for the poor, he could only say that be feared that imperfection of the law, much as it was to be regretted, must still continue, do what this house might to attempt n remedy. in all cases there must be expense in procuring evidence, which would operate as a bat to the remedy of the poor man. The abolition of the existing tribunals could not improve the system now prevailing; for he considered, that viewing the question upon the grounds of morality, divan% now less occur red than if there were a greater facility in procuring them. It would be a premium upon adultery to hold out that fifties should have the snatriage tie dissolved, in case of adultery, for the surd of 151. He could not admit that the morality of Scotland was principally oeca sinned by the law of marriage and divorce ; isdepended upon elements of a different nature. The English law,as it at present, mid there should be no divorce; and there was none, except in cases of peculiar hardship, and nothing but a solemn Act of the legislature could give the remedy which might be sought. The poor man, it was true, might be released from the expenses of this House, but that for the attendance of witnesses must in all cases be paid by the party seek ing relief. He did not wish to be forced to give an opinion upon this subject on this occasion. He could not consent to refer it to any commissioner however enlightened, nor did he think it would be advisable, under the existing state of information, to come to any premature discussion. The subject was one of very considerable importance : its details, as he had before stated, must be very COM. plicated ; but he could only consent to their being discussed within the walls of Parliament—he meant, of course, as legislative mea ' sures. It would not be fair to refer so important a subject to gentlemen who were acting gratuitously. Ile doubted tea the policy of loading Commissioners with such a multiplicity of 1-tsi. nets. It was better to confine Commissioners to the explicit dee.ies for which they were appointed, and not to embarrass them with points which were somewhat connected in appearance with the sub. ject for which the Commission was appointed. He thanked the hon. and learned gentleman for the manner in which he had brought the subject forward ; but under the circumstances he horeei the hon. and learned gentleman would accede to the proposition 'LA to hint, and not compel hint (Sir R. Peel) to meet the motion with a direct negative. Lord F. L. GOWER was obliged to the hon. and gent. for the able manner in which ho had brought the stit;j:et forward, but after what had fallen from hon. members, he could not but think it would he most inconvenient to adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned gent. He tEssented from the plan and arguments of the lion. and learned member for Clare, and he thought the de sultory remarks which had been made full) 'hewed that there were points of the nicest difficulty to be dealt with. Dr. PH ILLI3IORE replied. He had not brought forward the subject but at the instance of others. The hon. and learned Solici tor General asked why he did not bring forward a bill ? To that he I would reply, that no person, not connected with government, could hope to succeed with any bill. The question bred come to this point —that something must be done. He contended that collusion did exist to the extent he had stated ; but let the house look to the evi dence of Lord Thurlow, Lord Eldon, Lord Kenyon, and others, who said that the law of divorce could not stand as it was. The right hon. gentleman (Sir H. Peel) said divorce was forbidden by the law, but that was not the case. It was forbidden only to the poor; the rich could and did procure a divorce. The principle was had, anti made an unjustifiable difference netween the rich and the other classes of society. lie referred to the words In which the commission teas appointed, anti contended that by them the subject was strictly fittini for th-ir consideration. It was the very subject which the commissioners ought to ece,sider in preference to almost all others. Some remedy was evidently necessary, and he could conceive no course more proper, under the circuntstat:ces, than that which he had proposed. The If ouse then divided, when there appeared. For the motion Against it . 102 Majority against the motion —37 Mr. SADLER said the subject he had to bring under the consideration of the house was one of the greatest importance. Considering the inquiries which had been made and wer making upon the question, he could not but feel that he must draw larg ely upon the indulgence and candour of the House in the cowrie of the remarks, which nothing but an imperative sense of duty could have persuaded him to offer. The proposition he had to mate was not undigested, but had been long and sedulously entertainel by him self. They had arrived at that point that something must be done with respect to the poor of Ireland, or the English soon laws must be swept away. Assimilation of laws was coming into vogue ; but if they meant to do any solid and lasting good, they must begin at the foundation. He did not mean to propose the introduction of our Poor JAWS into Ireland as they were in England ; but he contended that it should be compulsory to sup. port the poor. Nor did he travel beyond his subject in thus looking at Ireland, for without something was done respecting the paupers of Ireland, nothing efficient could be done for the poor of England. Steam navigation and other alterations had virtually united Ireland with this country. Ireland was nearer, for the purposes of la bour, to London, than our nothem counties. He dr e recated the system of absenteeism, and contended that it had caused the greatest mischief. It not only prevented the natural tics from springing up between landlord and tenant, but it under. mined the best feelings of human nature and subordination. How dreadful it was to see thousands cast from the homes of their forefathers, and that too in a country in which there was no legal charity ? Nor was this point unimportant to the English labourer ; for in every town the English labourers found the Irish ready for the loom, the field, and all occupations. He should present this tight of the rish poor in language far better than he could employ. He would not appeal to ancient authorities, but quote the authority of the modern Jurists.—[ Here the hon. member referred to the autho rity of Grotius, to prove the right of the distressed to relief, and to chew that in the event of absolute wantof necessaries arising, the na tural right of all men to share in the produces and gifts of Nature re turned to them.]—Puffendorff and Montesquien recognised the same right. He would now quote a still greater authority, that of Locke, whose words were to this effect—" Religion tells us that men have a right to subsistence In every country, and no right in property is so completely exclusive as to shut out the needy from relief."— Blackstone also said that a provision for the poor was inseparable from civilisation ; and Paley said their claim was founded on the law of Nature. The Irish poor bad a like right in common with all others, and their right was still more strongly enforced by expe diency. In that country there was an excess of population, the most effectual remedy for which was a poor law. Some, indeed, were of opinion that it would be better to leave the poor to mere optional charity ; but he trusted the poor of this country would never be left to depend upon voluntary benevolence, and that they should not long continue so in Ireland. It would be a gross injustice to leave the poor to mere optional benevolence. The legal relief for the poor should not be made a matter of disgrace, but rather, if possible, cre ditable to those who received a. There were various other atten tions, education in particular, which would be a source of great comfort and relief to the poor. It was absurd to think that poverty could be quite extirpated from any State. It was not desirable that it should be so, fur the fear of poverty was the greatest source of human exertion, and the greatest incentive to industry. If the whole currency of the country could be transferred into the pockets of the poor, the in terest of it would not be enough to sustain them. It was said the poor oublit to save, but how were they to do so if their wages were barely sufficient to support them? It was &principle of political economy that wages always accommodated themselves to that point which enabled the labourer merely to sustain himself and family. If this principle was correct, how could the poor labourer save unless he denied himself the necessary food and clothing ? It was a mistake to suppose there was no poor poor law in Scotland. There was the 71st of James VI. which, if acted upon, would carry the benefits of a poor law into the remotest comers of S cotland. In all the free states of antiquity, there was a provision for the poor. He had the au thority of the historian Milford, as regarded Greece. Moses also made provision by law for the poor, as was proved by the learned Belden. This legal charity, however, did not exempt from the duty of voluntary charity. It was a mistake to suppose that a provision for the poor was confined to England, and was un. known previous to the Reformation. Though opposed politically to Roman Catholics, it was but justice to admit that, both in ancient and modern times, their establishments for the relief of the distress. ed were munificent. The charity of the Roman Catholic Religion was carried to such excess, that it almost became a crime. In some of the States of Germany, in Denmark, in Norway, in Sweden la the Swiss Cantons, even in poor Zealand, there we. a provi sion for the poor. In America they very early made a provision fee the poor, which White praised as the best regulated of any in the world. The expense of maintaining each pauper was ar.Us• - lated at forty-nine dollars ; and in New York it mnouhted to 200,000 dollars a year. (Hear, hear.) Was Ireland, which most needed It, the only country to be left without such a provision P He should quote on this subject the opinion of the late celebrated Bishop of Cloyne, in,his work entitled " The Right of the Poor in Ireland to Legisl ative Itellef."—Piere the hon. member read a long from this work, stating a variety of circumstances which sm. ra ssa ced ge distress in Ireland, and pointing out the propriety of making a provision for the poor, and the right of the poor to such provisos. The representations this prelate made 60 years back, though not all applicable now, were so in a grat measure. The late Mr. Curia said that all the waters of oblivion would never wash out from his memory the scenes of distress he witnessed in Ireland. How duo& fully must their misery be aggravated when the produce of that amp on which they principally subsisted failed, and was succeeded by all the horrors of famine and disease ! On this subject he would refer to the report of the medical commission, which, as a seer of old said, was full, within and without, of woe. The report to which he alluded was that on the fevers which prevailed in Ireland. Ac. cording to the census of Ireland by Mr. Mason, the duration of life in Ireland was shorter than in England. He found, at the same time, that there was nothing In the climate of Ireland to re duce human life. By looking at the peerage, he found that the peers lived as long in that country as in England. To distress and privation they might attribute the depreciation of life in that court. try. The demand for a standing police and a large army might be saved by the introduction of the poor law he should propose. If that house would give the people of Ireland some stake in their country, they would respect the rights of Ireland. An objee don had been made to the want of machinery. This was an Insult. It might be ready under the provisioneof the poor laws; and, once introduced by charity, it would open wide prospects of in dustry. To say they had no machinery was representing Ireland to be in a state of barbarity. When was machinery in Englead when the 48th of Elisabeth was passed.? They had none ; and the 12:210rs of that day knew that machinery would follow the 1 1 :ages produced by the poor law. Very soon after the poor law was introduced Into this country, the cost of sustaining the poor amounted to one-third of the public revenue. The last year the pow rates amounted to one.ni:ati of the public revenue. The poor had occasioned a diminishing expense, u proved by Eden, who had written largely and wisely on the subject. It was a matter of notoriety, that the returns to the house of the state of the poor was incorrect. It was well known that part of the sustentation of the poor was formerly derived from the religious houses of the country, but those sources of relief had been taken away under a system of spoliation. Means were taken to rid the coun try of Its poor population. The act of Elizabeth 'sewed — that great and God-like measure, the 48th of Elizabeth, aas passed, and the principle of charity well established. The question was the propriety of applying the poor laws to Ire. land. Those who conceived that the poor laws were injurious were e'en ivcd. The claims of the poor requi.eti attention. The I lieuse would consult its own honour in recording a TOL: of humanity and O . :: i.y. The parliena nt weuld then do them selves justice, nett rec.. to tilt porn of England and Ireland that they had heat ts to feel t r distress. Let the parli.tment of England commence a meritorious work of that description. Let them do jnstice and love mac-. 'I be honourable member observed that he had omitted statements which he could have gone into and withheld dceutnents which must have convinced the house, but having already taken up much elute, he sheuld think he had done his best. He concluded by proposing the following resolution for the considera tion of the house:—" Resolved., that it is the opinion of this house that the establishment of a Poor Law in Ireland on the principle of the 48th of Elizabeth, with such alteration and improvement as the course of time and difference of circumstances in England and Ire land maw require, is expediem and necessary for the welfare of each country .h Lord GOWER assured the hon. gentleman that he had too much respect for the attention the hon. gentleman had bestowed on this subject to throw any blame on him for having introduced it, but he certainly had to complain of an alteration in the form of motion. He found the notice of the hon. gentleman's motion was for leave to bring in a bill to better the condition of the labouring pour of the British cmpite. Tl " st being the notice, he had not expected the hon. member to make a speech on the expediency of introducing the poor laws to Ireland. Such a proposition had however been made, and the House naturally looked for the machinery by which the difficulties in the way of the tuca,ure could be obviated. Was the honourable gentleman ignorant of the labours of a committee on the subject ? On the 11th of March it was moved by an hon friend that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of • the Irish poor. T.. it committee was still sitting, and when their report was made he should support it. There was no difficulty in putting the question whether hon. members would come forward to relieve their fellow creatures, but the hon. member knew it was one which required great caution. Charity was optional. It might be tried, but care should be taken that it did not do more harm than , good, by raising feelings and expectations which could not be grati. fled. In the view he took of the subject, the noble lord considered it his duty to move the previous question on the resolution. Mr. TRANT complained that the names of members disposed to introduce the Poor Law to Ireland had been excluded from the committee. The hon. member for Newark had brought forward an important question, and lie should support It. Mr. W. HORTON opposed the resolution. He was much asto nished that the hon. number in a speech of two hours, had not prov ed whether the poor laws would suit the manners and habits of the people of Ireland. Mr. S. RICE gala his honourable f,icnd knew, when the list forming the committee was put into his hands, that every oppor tunity was afforded for making any alteration. The honourable member for Newark was among the names of the committee, and at his request it was withdrawn. The question, whether appli cable to h.ngland or Ireland, cculd not promise any hope of success at that late p e riod of the session. They certain!, should not touch the poor laws with a view to introduce the law to Ireland, unless they made previous inquiry. 31r. GRATTAN said if the honourable member for Newark divided the House, he should vote with hint ; at the same time he should say, al•en he came to the douse he did not expect the motion dun under consideration. Sir R. WILSON thought the Chairman of the Committee adverse to the introduction of the poor laws to Ireland. The introduction of poor laws was in his opinion indispersble, and the sooner the house pledged itself to take the subject into consideration the better. Mr. DUNCOMBE vindicated the course which had been taken by his hon. friend (Mr. Sadler), and said that he was not epen to the censure which some lion. members had attempted to cast upon him. Mr. MONCK thought the House deeply indebted to the hon member for Newark, for the very able and luminous manner in which he had brought forward this important subject, and he should support the motion. Dlr. SLANEY said, that in voting against the motion, he wished to be understood as not denying that the time might come when a modified system of poor laws might be introduced into Iceland with advantage. Mr. SADLER replied, contending that the principle of compul sory legal charity must sooner or later be adopted in Ireland. Sir C. WETHERELL said, that he, could not agree to go the length of the resolution, and recommended his bon. friend to with draw it. Mr. SADLER said, that he should not press the motion to a di. vision, against the recommendation of his hon. friend. The previous question was then put and carried. Mr. DOHERTY obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to banking partnerships in Ireland. COURT CY CHANCERY. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in two bills to regulate the offices of the Master in Chancery and Regis trar of the Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned gent. stated it to be his intention to more the second reading of the bills on the same day with the bill which had been brought down from the House of Lords, when the discussion of all the measures would be taken. SALE OE BEER BILL. Upon the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house went into a committee upon the above bill, with the understanding that the discussion was to be taken upon the report. Mr MONCK moved an amendment, limiting the granting of H. censer to persons being assessed at 15L or in extra-parochial places paying a rate of 201. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the proposition u being impracticable. Sir R. VINYAN, and other members, objected to proceeding with the discussion at so late an hour, and the committee divided upon the question of reporting progress. The numbers were— For the Motion..." • 59 Agahet it lOl Majority against the Motion. ..--42 Sir R. VYVYAN gave notice that upon the bringing up of the report he should move a clause by which persons having excise licenses for the sale of tobacco or his might be allowed to sell beer without paying for any other license. After several clauses, with sonic verbal amendments, had been agreed to, the Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again. WORTHRRX ROADS BILL. Lord MORPETH moved the second reading of the above bill. After a lengthened discussion, the house divided, when there ap peared— For the snood reading . 35 Against it........ .......... . —8 27 Majority for the second reading The other Orders were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock. NEW CHURCHES. A Bill is now before the House of Commons " to amend and render more effectual the Acts for the build ing of additional Churches in populous Parishes :" which preceding Acts are five in number; two passed in the late, and three in the present reign. This emends tory Bill occupies 14 pages. The most important provi sions in in it are clauses providing— " That " the Commissioners may divide the permanent income of any parish, applicable to Church purposes, among the districts, &c. with consent of Bishop and Patron, and of the Incumbent, if interested." That " the apportionment by the Commissioners of permanent charitable funds, when enrolled, to be bind , ino• upon all trustees." e• That the powers of 59 Geo. 111. as to providing addi tional churchyards or burial grounds, be extended to Chapelries having right of burial, and separate rates. That the Chapels of consolidated Chapelries, under 59 Geo. 111. sect 6, be repaired as District Churches. That a parish may be divided into a distinct and dis trict parish at the same time or at separate times. That the Commissioners, with consent, may make any church or chapel the parish church of any parish, and the parish church a district church or chapel of ease. That parishes which have been united may, by Order in Council, be again separated. That tithes, and all endowments, may i n suc h ca ses be apportione d with certain consents. And that the bishop of diocese may enforce preaching a second sermon after second service. PRESENTATION OF THE FREEDOM OF TUE i•!7 OF CANTERBURY TO LORD SONDES. The major and corporation of the city of Conte: wiabing to testify the high resrect in which they lio . l I the private and public virtues of Lord Sondes, unani mously voted that the freedom of their ancient city be presented to his lordship. His lordship, limin g re ceived an intimation of the honour which aw:liieri bias. arointed Wednesday last for the reception of the ciaviii alai other civic dignitaries at his magnificent seai, [see„ here a splendid entertainment had been pan iik4l. The expense of the procession, which was numerous, v. 4, defrayed from the city purse. The mayor, having a l . rived at Lees Court, in an appropriate speech pre,et ik l hio lordship with a superb box of considerable v::' . e. containing the freedom of the city. His lordship re _ ceiveil the present in a manner which did infinite to his feelings, and then courteously invited the mavo i and corporation to partake of his hospitality. A tabh; o f fifty covers was laid in the great hall, and spread v..ith every delicacy. The evening concluded with gre.o. cordiality. METROPOLITAN CHARITY SCHOOLS. Yesterday, pursuant to annual custom, the childre,. belonging to the different charity schools of the metro. polls attended Divine Service at St. Paul's Cathedral The gentlemen composing the Committee, among whom were Mr. Capel, the Member for Queenboroueli; and Mr. Child, of Thomas-street, took the most acne part, had previously made all the necessary army, mews on a scale which equally provided both comfortable accommodation and appropriate display.— Benches, rising aniphitheatrically, and in the form oi a vast decagon, were occupied by the children, both nr.l. and female—the former being seated on the upper, and nn latter on the lower tiers. They assembled to the numlim of between four and five thousand, all presenting. the neatest possible toNeasrance ; and their costume being diversified by a great variety of colours, the scene taken in the aggregate was peculiarly imposing. Although i. rained incessantly during the morning, still the applicant for admission were as numerous as on any previous occa sion, excepting always the memorable day when die Emperor of Russia attended to witness a similar exhibi tion of British charity, and was so forcibly .truck with it. The body of the cathedral was crowded in ever} part front an early hour, and these individuals et were admitted by tickets to the select pews, imm. • diately under the dome, took their seats about 12 o'clock forming a very large concourse, in whist were sonic tinguished foreigners, who contemplated the scene wits apparent admiration. Shortly after tho Lord Mayor. at tended by the Sheriffs, and several privets: friends, lea. entm.ed his pew, the servi.e commenced, and was per formed throughout in the most solemn and impressite style. Mr. Attwood presided at the organ, and. undrs his direction, the gentlemen of the choir did ninp!, justice to the admired strains of Handel, the childrti: joining occasionally in the chorus. Dr. Monk, Dean of Peterborough, preached on the occasion, and ns his text from the 18th chapter of St. Matthew, verse 14. being as follows :--" Even so it is not the will of yer Father, which is in Heaven, that one of these little um s should perish." Expatiating on these words, the Very Rev. Gentleman made a powerful appeal to the immense congregation before him, and the result proved that an who were present duly appreciated the appeal. The suns collected equalled, if not surpassed, any that was sub scribed on former anniversaries, and persons of every rank in life seemed emulous to acquit themselves in a manner worthy of the lest feelings of the heart, so far as regarded the moat sacred cause in which those feelings 0 could be concerned. THE DINNER. At five o'clock the patrons and supporters of the institution r..e. together at the Albion Tavern, Aldersgate-strevt, where an excellent dinner was provided. The Lord Mayor officiating as President. The company formed a very numerous and respectable assemblage. The Lord Mayor, on taking his scat, was supported on his left by Mr. Sheriff Richardson and Mr. Sheriff Ward, and on his right by the Rev. Dr. Monk and Dr. Chaffey, Vice-Chancellor of the Un:. versify of Cambridge. After the usual loyal and patriotic tiaAs were gone through, together with some immediately pertaining to the institution, The LORD BlaTon rose, and expressed his hope that the car.. pasty would cordially concur with him in drinking the health of :h. Very Her. the Dean of Peterborough, whose advocacy of the tau , . of charity had that day been so deeply felt and so generally acknow. ledged.— (Applause). Dr. Mom:, in teturning thanks, begged leave to assure loss Lordship and the company, that this day was to him onc the proudest of his life; for never for a moment could he t. insensible of the glorious, the heavenly spectacle which h. bad that day witnessed. It was a spectacle not only worthy of Britain—his native land, but of the whole civilised world. (Great applause.) Whether he regarded it as a friend strictly attached t. the Protestant Church of England--whether he regarded it as at. individual belonging to any Christian communion, or whether he regarded it as a man, 1w must still say that the impression was such as must fade only with the very decay of his memory. (Cheers.) Mr. CHILD then said that he mast, for a moment, claim the tention of the company while he proposed the health of a gentlerr...c whose career he had observed for a long period of years ; a gertie man who, by stern integrity and honourable exertions bad d himself to the very that situation to which a citizen could awn. a Gent. whom he bad known first as a Common Councilman, al. terwards as Deputy of his Ward, next as Alderman, and as the chief magistrate of the city of London. In each of thew gradations the gentleman to whom he referred was. to the v.ty utmost extent, worthy of the tribute which was to be offered to bin: and, therefore, without adding another word, he (3lr. Child) sou::: beg leave to propose " The health of the Right lion. the Len' Mayor." This toast called forth loud and reiterated plaudits and the Loan MAYOR, while addressing the company in return, Ostlh,: them that he felt beyond the power of expression the kindness who they evinced towards him. His highest pride, and his utmost at r.b:• . Lion, was to deserve the good opinion of his fellow-citizens ; and 1: he had been so fortunate as to succeed in this respect, no higher cc. ject remained to be realised. He had now attained that period c - life which was beyond the ordinary lot of human existence ; sac. while the snows of age still lingered on his head, he had yet sorne energies left, all of which should be employed in promoting the in terests sot only of this, but of every other institution which could redound to the honour and happiness of his native land. This brief address called forth the most animated demonsfrall.rs of applause. Mr. CHILD (the Treasurer) then read over a numerous list a subscriptions; and, after some other toasts were given, the comptny separated, highly gratified with *scene which was no less interesting to their hearts than edifying to their minds. Prince Frederic of the Netherlands, Gustavus of Save den, and the Princes of Hesse and Wurtemberg, are al ready mentioned as candidates for the sovereignty o f Greece.—Paris Advertiser. The Duke of Reichstadt has been appointed major to the regiment of Salim, and it is said the Prince will reside at the imperial castle at Prague.—Augsburg Gazette. Letters from Lisbon of the 15th ult. state that the Pope's Nuncio has broken off all intercourse with the government of Don Miguel. The Venerable the Archdeacon of TOTNTS held Ins annual Visitation Court on Friday last. Divine service was performed at St. Andrew's Church, and the Rev. S. Row a, dean rural for the ensuing year, preached a very appropriate sermon on the duties of a minister. On the conclusion of the service the Venerable the Archdeacon delivered a charge to the clergy, in which he urged their conformity to the minutest ordinances of the Established Church. The secular business of the Court was then proceeded with at the Royal Hotel.