The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-07 00:00:00

1 di sebtor had no means of satisfying the demand of his cre ditor, this clause would be altogether useless and unimport ant. In the case of bankruptcy at present there was a searching inquiry made into the affairs of the bankrupt with a view to the interest of his creditors. By the proposed measure any person, however large his property, might be sued for a debt, and if, after a judg ment should be obtained against him, he should not pay th e debt and costs, the creditor might make him file a schedule.of all his debts and property, have him brought before Commissioners, and finally sent to prison. He ( Sir F. Pollock) could not see the advantage of this. With respect to the Insolvent Court, a person under that system was, doubtless, liable to be called up before the Insolvent Court from time to time ; but, at the same time, he had a correlative benefit in return, for he made a schedule of all his debtors as well as creditors, and was then discharged, without being liable to any subsequent ar rest for the debts upon his schedule. He (Sir F. Pollock) thought that a measure which called upon a debtor to make out a schedule of all his property, and to expose the real nature of his affairs, ought to be followed by some greater advantage than the exposure of all that property to the risk of being sold for the purpose of paying some single creditor. s —( Hear, hear.) A debtor ought not to be exposed to a system which, in the end, gave him no relief. He had better be exposed to the necessity of going to prison till lie could pay, for he :vould be as likely to obtain real liberty by that means as lie would by the pre sent measure. Why should the creditor have all the benefit, and the debtor no relief or redress ? Under the pre sent system a man gave up all his property ; but he had the satisfaction of knowing that all his creditors had the benefit of it. Under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, creditors fre quently recovered 20s. in the pound, and there was not unfrequently a surplus.—( Hear, hear.) But by the pro posed measure a creditor might get a judgment against his debtor, and being thus entitled to take from him property to the full amount of his debt, might proceed to sell re versions, expectancies, or any description of property be longing to him. He thus recovered his debt in a manner most prejudicial to the debtor.—( Hear.) He had been a member of the Common Law Commission, which had re ported to the House upon this question, and he was anxious that the opinions of those persons connected with it, which were unaccompanied by details, should not lead to mischief by being misconstrued. He wished to see the re commendations of that report fully carried ont, for it con tained recommendations which, if adopted, would save the country, in costs and expenses of one kind or another, the annual amount of 250,000l.—(Iicar, hear.) By the plans recommended in that report, both debtor and creditor would be benefitted ; whereas by the clause before the House a creditor would derive all the benefit, and the property of the debtor run the risk of being prejudicially disposed of, and himself of being materially injured. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was glad to hear that the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon, as well as the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, remained un changed in their opinions, that arrest or inesne process ought to be abolished, as well as all imprisonment for debt, except in certain cases. His Hon. and Learned Friend also agreed with him in the opinion that there must be some more direct remedy against the property of debtors than at present existed. But of what use or advantage would it be to introduce a measure giving that remedy, unless at the same time they compelled debtors to disclose in some way or other the extent and nature of that property ? Now the 12th clause of the present measure was calculated to Produce such disclosure, and was merely auxiliary to the other clauses of the Bill. He really could not see where was the hardship of calling upon a debtor to make a state ment of his means of paying his debts ; and lie would only be summoned before Commissioners, or committed to prison, in cases where the creditor had reason to believe lie was c oncealing property. His Hon. and Learned Friend said that the Insolvent Debtors' Act protected the persons of creditors, and rendered their property liable. Now the present measure gave a more direct remedy against Property, while it afforded equal protection to the per son, except where fraud existed. There was nothing in it-which wobld prevent any dnbtor making an equal distri bution of his property among his creditors, if he• chose, for he might under it commit an act of bankruptcy ; and by a clause which he should have the honour of introducing into it, every debtor, and even a Member of Parliament, would be compelled to do so—( Hear)—unless his debts should be compounded for in some way within a certain Period, say, three weeks or a month. He believed the proposed measure would be as fair to the debtor as to the creditor. After a conversation in which Mr. Richards, Sir F. Pol lock, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Hawes, took part. Mr, Alderman COPELAND animadverted in strong terms on the injury that would be done to the stability of commercial transactions by the operation of this clause. Be thought that while so much assistance was afforded to 4 the creditor, some protection should be given to the debtor. After a few words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, :Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr. G. F. Young, and the Soli ' ctor-General, Mr. GROTE was bound to express his conviction that this measure was founded on principles of justice and hu manity, and not less so on the consideration of the interest of the commercial portion of the community. At the same time he thought that sufficient attention had not been paid by the Attorney-General to the objection raised with re ference to the distinction between the trader and non-trader. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in a former Bill he had proposed a plan for ensuring a fit jurisdiction in the cases of both traders and non-traders, but the machi nery necessary was f oun d t oo comp li ca t e d an d expens i ve . He th oug h t that the tribunal proposed in the present Bill ilwould be found fully competent to adjudicate on cases of both kinds. Mr. GROTE had not the least intention to offer oppo- Zion to th e c l ause, b ut he thought the o b servat i on of the Hon. and Learned Member opposite worthy of attention. Mr. D. W. HARVEY was satisfied that this Bill had pot received that calm deliberation which a measure of its itmiii!ortance demanded. He was opposed to legislating in Way by instalments, but still, as he approved of some of the objects which it had in view, he would support it. .Afte r a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENIRAL, Mr. di v 4l4c rinan COPELAND, and Sir F. Poeeocx, the H o use ided The numbers were For the clause Against it Majority in favour of the clause —49 T he clause, empowering the Commissioner to make rules theorders,' to b e approve d o f b y t h e L or d Ch ance ll or, for ha r egulation e o f th e i r C our ts, having been propos e d, P. POLLOCK objected to the clause, on the gre w . od that it would give the Commissioners a power to p - °re ° a fine on parties treating them with disrespect --a calliver which he considered not only unnecessary, but un ed for. He also thought the rules and orders should e rp lil L itde for, and not by, the Commissioners. :sae ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the e s P i n'osioners should have the power of making rules and e t h e e r r i j far the practice of their Courts, as in the case of all of 6 ; u dges ; but he was willing to admit that the power ti ou — ng bad been given to them on their own representa leis, : 8 they had stated to him that they could not other- After arry the law into effect. some conversation, Part r. ro lt n , l C-al. ARDS moved that " the Chairman do re - Sir cr ess." t 'cmght P OLLOCK should support that proposition , as aidered important that the clause should be con- The p"' a full House. use then divided, and the numbers were— For reporting progress 37 Against it l2 T 6 el Majority •ause was aft erwar d s agree d t o . ••• z . es Z (: C hairm an th a A , t ielv writ w as move d f or t h e b oroug h o f R oc hdale, in Tpiitiice of M r. E ntwisle, deceased. liaL.se - then adjourned, at One o'clock. NI VERSITY INTELLIGENCE. ----w110...---- 'Pp, e?"°lth, APRIL 5 .--This be;ng the first day of degrees, &c., Ith in 4 Con,,crregation was holden for granting & .Ab e following were conferred •. The Right Rev. E. b en , s Lott OF DIVINITY, BY DIPLOMA. —The .. .1 (41 , Bishop of Salisbury, elect, Merton College. ...em. t 'irrEas 01, AaTs.—Mr. R. R. Jackson, Scholar, r . z.olco College Charles Damon, Fellow, Oriel Clolleglie H. DigQ. W ade, Fellow, Balliol College; the lion. r V nt V , Christ Church, Grand Compounder ; 4_,Yd, Christ Church ; the Rev. Geo. Slade, St. NI Edmund's .Thos. ' 1 ); and Mr. W. Bowring, Queen's College. N At two o'clock the Proctors elect, the Rev. W. J. Meech, Col -1 " Col;ege; and the Rev. W. J. Butler, Magdalen b jie, proceed from their respective Colleges, attended y Ivil: Heads and other Members to the Convocation House, .ie 4 ti !re the late Proctors laid down their badges of office. T h e ler Proctor going out delivered a Latin speech concerning ;cmi._,le (?ceurrences of the late year. Tl.e Vice-Chancellor then nistered to the new Proctors the oaths of allegiance and Ith, Prern acY, and the official oath, and afterwards delivered to 3prnt the b a d ges of office, the books and keys. The new ,seoetors then took th e i r Ch a i rs, and nominated each two Mas. F t of Arts to be their deputies or pro. Proctors. 1 . 11 -q t the annu a l e l ect i on of Fellows at Merton College on the 1,. t 'sn,lllt., i P• There were n Adams was chosen to fill the vacant Fel- kci.o-,kine candid a t es f ur it. r.,,,,......--_ ;,co WllO was tri e d at t h e l ate L ancas t er As .4'or attempting to poison his wife and children at Preston, , 0 4 st . ilo Was sentenced to transportation for life, attempted to tzl ilt,.` sui c id e by cutting his throat with a piece of iren paling ty er I .,'"‘'lay last, b ut fortunately he was discovered—not, how 41ein.`e he h a d' mangled his throat in a shocking manner. press at lies in a ve r y p recar i ous state. —Cuinbcrland .{ccyee. WILL YOU HAVE YOUR CHURCH REPAIRED?" Ridgway and Sons. The following are extracts from this important pamphlet : The factious have told the country that it is a Bill for the destruction of our Churches. Bishops and Archbishops meet at Lambeth, mad come down to the House of Lords, and denounce, in a body, as sacrilege and spoliation, a Bill, of which there is no notice whatever on the rolls of their House, and which actually has not been discussed in the Commons. They, or others, prepare artful forms of petitions, which will serve their purpose to present to the House of Lords as from the country, but these country petitions are actually drawn up and printed in London, and then sent off to the dependent clergy, in the several dioceses, with orders to get them signed and returned as speedily as pos sible ; whereupon Tory clergymen, like Mr. Coddington, of Ware, and thousands of others, denounce the unknown Bill to their parishioners, and entreat them to petition the House of Lords to save and defend them from having their churches pulled down.* The country has thus been more surprised than alarmed ; a reaction is already beginning to take place. Counter petitions, complaining of the deteits which have been practised, are beginning to flow in ; and there is a general call for some matter-o-fact explanation of the Bill, and of the arguments and objections that have been raised against it. This will be attempted in the following cursory remarks. 'We will begin with the objections. One objection, for it can scarcely be called an argument, raised by the Tories against admitting even the resolutions upon which this Bill is founded, consists in the assertion of the antiquity of levy ing Church-rates. Certainly the custom of rates for the support of our Churches goes back to a remote period of our history. But it is not the most ancient method ; it was a change or innovation upon one still more ancient; for, if we search history, we shall find that the earliest customs and laws of our ancestors for maintaining their Churches, was to render a portion of the Church property liable. Augustine the monk first formally established Christianity in this country in the latter part of the sixth century ; and in the epistles addressed to him as Bishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory, which are still preserved, it is directed, " that of every stipend which accrued to the Church, four portions should be made ; one for the Bishop and his family ; a second for the maintenance of the clergy ; a third for the relief of the poor ; and a fourth for the repair of the Churches."—(Smith's Beda, p. 62.) It may be said that this was when there were no parish Churches, nor systematic establishments ; but if we descend later, when parishes were formed, and the bishops had ob tained a separate maintenance, by grants of lands, salt pits, fisheries, &c., we shall find that, although a different or tri partite division of the property bad taken place, yet that the principle of repairing the Churches out of Church pro perty was kept clearly in view. Thus it is laid down by Archbishop ./Elfric, in his epistle to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherborne, concerning the ecclesiastical canons, A. D. 990, " That the priest shall distribute the tithes into three parts ; one for the repair of the Church ; the second for the poor ; and the third for the ministers of God, who have the care of that Church."—(2E/j, is Con. 25 ; IVilkins's Cana 1, 253.) This distribution was formally ratified by the great coun cil or Parliament of the nation, then ca ll e d theWitenaae mot, which enacted the following law, A. D. 1014 :—" Res pecting tithe, the King and his witan (or councillors) have chosen and enacted, even as right it is, that the third part of the tithe which belongeth to a Church, shall go to repair the Church ; the second part to God's servants ; and the third to God's poor."—(Schmid Gesetse der Angel Sachsen, 1, 132.)t And later than this, that is to say within the time of legal memory, there are records of councils as that of York, A. D. 1195, under Archbishop Hubert, and that of Oxford, A. D. 1222, under Archbishop Stephen, in which the eccle siastical authorities themselves command, " that the decent maintenance and reparation of the Churches should be pro vided for by the several rectors and vicars out of their re venues (tithes), as reason dictates and approved custom commands."—( Concil. 1, 40 L-585.) Mr. Justice Blackstone, in his Commentaries on our Laws, recognises this ancient distribution of our Church property, and is corroborated by all other legal authorities who treat of the matter. Thus, therefore, if antiquity were to decide the question, Church-rates would be pronounced an innova tion, and we should re-enact the law of King Ethelred and his Parliament. It has been said that a very ancient Church-due, which was called Church-shot (sceat), is the type, and was the same, as a Church -rate, but neither is this so ; for Church shot was a first-fruit offering to the clergy of a measure of corn, at Martinmas, and the shadow of a similar gift, in the form of Easter offerings, is preserved to this day. It is probable that Church-rates crept in as an occasional aid to the appointed third portion of the tithes, when extensive repairs or rebuildings were required ; and that as the as cendency of the clergy and monks increased, they succeeded in turning these aids into a constant substitute for this third portion, which they then appropriated to themselves. And it is to be remarked that no positive or direct law has ever yet been discovered which authorises this perversion of the whole property of the Church to the sole use of the clergy. In the beginning of the fifteenth century Lind wood states that the rector was bound at common law to keep the Church in repair, but that this duty had, in most instances, devolved on the parishioners. But after all we do not attach much value to these ar guments, founded upon the antiquity of Church -rates, al though since the decriers of the present measure for main taining our Churches have laid such stress on their being the most ancient institution, it has been thought worth while to prove they are as wrong in this, as it will be shown they are in their other assertions. The simple fact is, that Church-rates were an innovation in the distribution of the property of the Church, and an encroachment on the poc•/:ets of the people. They may, or they may not, have been useful in their day ; that which most concerns us is, whether they answer their purposes now—whether they can be made to answer those purposes ; and if not, what substitute can be found for them ; for it is quite clear that our Churches must not, for the gratification of party spite, he left to fall to ruin. The present purpose of Church-rates is to keep the Church in repair ; formerly they were used as an engine to worm out and punish dissent. He who did not pay his Church-rates was stigmatised as a schismatic, or heretic, and marked out for persecution. We have not now the power, and but few of us have the will, to persecute, al though there are more than choose to acknowledge it. Many who profess and call themselves good Christians have still a lurking satisfaction in seeing a staid dissenting neighbour fined, or humbled, for differing from them on religious matters ; and it is this feeling which makes them, perhaps, unconsciously, loudest in their cry for Church rates, which have always afforded them a triumph of this kind over the chapelmen. Church-rates depend entirely on the will of the house holders of each parish ; whether they can formally refuse them or no, may possibly be a question ; but that they can indefinitely-postpone them, or reduce them to an insignifi cant and useless amount, is undeniable. In fact, they are sometimes directly, often virtually refused, and still more frequently, thus reduced. Of late years this prac tice has greatly increased, and at present a large .number of parishes throughout the country are either wrangling about their rates, or declining to pay for them at all. When once a rate is voted, the levying it can be enforced by law, and many grievous distraints and vexatious sales of household furniture have lately taken place ; so that the law has been brought into disesteem, and the system of Church-rates grown more unpopular. It is also becoming yearly, and now we may say daily, less effective and productive. The consequence is, that our Churches, which have never been kept in a slate of good repair under this system, are filling more and more to decay; and the decent celebra tion .of the rites and ceremonies of our Church within its walls is offensively impaired. This state of things is generally acknowledged by men of all parties. Even Sir Robert Peel, when he was Prime Minister, felt these dangers so strongly that he pointed to the relief of Church-rates in the King's Speech, and still more distinctly avowed his intention, by his own speech from the Treasury Bench. Lord Stanley also brought in and carried a Bill for their abolition in Ireland ; and Lord Spencer (then Lord Althorn), under the ministry of Lord Grey, and when Lord Stanley was a member of the Cabinet, proposed their abolition in England. He was supported by nearly all the Tories, who then dis played none of that affection for them which they now profess. Lord Spencer's Bill proposed to transfer to the consolidated fund, the charges which had hitherto been defrayed by the Church-rates ; but it was objected, that the Dissenters, whose relief from the payment of rates formed one of the objects of this Bill, would have re ceived a very questionable benefit ; for although the amount of payment made by each individual, might have been lessened, still the rate itself, over which the dissenting parishioners had hitherto exercised a direct control, would have been changed into an absolute government tax t. But • 'Yet, notwithstandin g all these exertions, the last published report of the number of Petitions presented to the House of Commons, gives : _ For abolition of Church-rates Number of Petitioners ... 190,981 Against abolition of Church-rates Number of Petitioners t We are indebted for much of the above matter to an ex cellent little pamphlet, entitled, " Historical Remarks upon ; h e s upposed Antiquity of Church -rates, and the Tripartite Division of Tithes ;" recently published by Messrs. Ridgway, London. _ Practically, the present system gives those who might de sire ruin our Churches, the means of effecting their purpose. They need only, in any parish where they form The majority, continue to postpone Church-rates, and the Church must then lecessarily decay, or be supported by the voluntary contribu tions of the Chnrehmen. the Scotch and the Irish raised still stronger objections. The Scotch contended, that their lands and their pocket s were liable for the maintenance of their own established Kirks, and that it would be contrary to the Act of Unio n and to justice, to saddle them with the mainter?anee o f the Churches of England also : and the Irish said, that, since it was considered just to relieve them from the pay ment of their own Church cess, it would be a manifest contradiction of justice to impose on them, in the form of a tax, a portion of the English Church-rates. These objections were not easily controverted ; and Lord Spencer did not press the adoption of his Bill. But he was right, and has been supported by all subsequent authorities and experience, in its main object, which was to abolish Church-rates ; his only error was in looking to the Conso lidated fund for a substitute for them. Surely these repeated votes of the Commons, the assent of the leading men of all parties, and more especially the intimation from the Throne, of a relief from Church rates, as recommended and avowed by Sir Robert Peel in 1835, must be considered by all practical men as a virtual abolition ; they may or may not linger some time longer on the letter book of the law, but it is clear to every one that there is a very near end of their effeCtual collection ; each year the returns will decrease in amount, till they reach nothing, and in the meanwhile what is to become of our Churches ? ,Are their services and their ceremonies to he gradually curtailed of their usual ornaments and decencies ; are fire and lights to be refused —vergers, clerks, and organists, to be dismissed —commu nion tables and reading desks to be neglected, and the gene ral fabric of their venerable buildings, to which a little repair applied in time, might now be of effectual stability, to be left to fall into dangerous and expensive decay ? We do not say that such is already the case, but we know that these evils have partially occurred in many instances, and that they threaten to spread rapidly. It is to remedy this state of things—to promote concord, and to provide a fixed fund for the decent maintenance and thorough repair of our Churches, that the Ministers have proposed measures which the real enemies of our establish ment (who proclaim themselves its friends, while they make it their party tool) call spoliation and sacrilege. Let us now examine the Bill itself, which has two dis tinct objects in view : the one, effective repairs ; the other, permanent funds to pay for them. In the first place, then, this Bill, which has been called a Bill jiff the destruction of our Churches, provides for their efficient and constant inspection and repair. Hitherto the Churchwardens, Ministers, Archdeacons, and Bishops have taken a very loose care (with certain exceptions) of the sacred buildings committed to their charge. Every one who is accustomed to visit our country Churches, more especially in winter, knows full well the air of cold and damp dreariness, with cob-webbed windows, and mildewed walls, which too many of them present within ; they have seen the benches for the poor, inconvenient, confined, ex posed to drafts, and ill situated for hearing ; and without, they have found upturned or defaced graves and headstones, with grazing cattle, and a ruinous broken down fence, en croached on by the ale-house, bespeaking the negligence with which those who are now perhaps loudest in their pro testations of affection for our Churches are in the habit of treating them. Something of this may have been caused by the inadequacy and unpopularity of the rates themselves. But there has been too much of negligence ; and, to remedy this, the new Bill proposes to give the Archdeacons more power, and to render their duties and responsibility more clear. They are, under the sanction of their Bishops, to appoint surveyors with permanent salaries, whose constant duty it will be to inspect every Church and Chapel com mitted to their charge ; and who will annually make written reports to the Archdeacon of the state of every Church building, of the walls and fences, of the Church-yards, and other enclosures, together wits► detailed estimates of the repairs necessary for each Church or Chapel during the ensuing year. A copy of this report is to be left with the officiating Minister, for his observations, who will also make his own special report to his Archdeacon, of the sum requisite for defraying the annual expenses for con ducting the service of his Church. The Archdeacons will then collect and present to their Bishops these reports and estimates ; and each Bishop will forward the reports of his whole diocese, thus certified and collected, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in London, who then, having before them the reports and estimates of the repairs necessary for all the Churches and Chapels of the whole kingdom— will decide upon their merits, and certify the amount which they may consider requisite, to the Com missioners of the Church Fund, who will forthwith cause it to be paid to them. It appears, by returns that have been made to Parliament, that the sum hitherto spent in the repair of parish Churches, is about 250,000/. a-year, and the Commissioners will not be entitled to go beyond this sum, which is admitted by every one to be amply suf ficient. The ecclesiastical Commissioners will then remit to the several Archdeacons the sums appointed, and they in their turn will allot to the Churches and Chapels within their archdeaconry their several portions, according to the estimates forwarded, and the works to be executed un der the diocesan surveyor, and certified by the officiating Minister. Now, in all this arrangement, we defy any one to point out anything like an interference on the part of the laity, or of the State. All the control of the repairs, the machinery fOr ascertaining and reporting their urgency and extent, as well as for granting the funds, are in the hands of the Clergy ; and yet this is called a Bill for degrading the Clergy, and pulling clown their and our Churches. If we had any fault to find, it would be with the marked exclusion of all lay supervision. We now come to the question of funds. We have al ready seen that Church-rates are in a course of inevitable abolition. It is mere folly or faction, to talk of strengthen ing the arm of the law—you crnnot in fact strengthen it ; for to strengthen the law, that is to render rates compul sory, would be not to strengths.►, but to change the law. For the very essence. of the Church-rate system is, that the rate should be freely voted in vestry. Now it is impos sible to make people vote as you wish ; and we do not think any one wrongheaded enough to propose, that the ultimate power of levying a rate, that is of taxing the peeple, should he transferred from the people, that is the vestry, to the Magistrates or Clergy. Even if such a measure could be forced through Parliament, is it probable that it would be effective ? There are now no less than twelve hundred summonses for arrears of rates in the single parish of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, and these are for rates voted by the parish vestry. How many would there be, if a rate were ordered by the Magistrates or the Clergy ? We should soon have!the disgraceful exhibitions of a Church-rate war in England, as we now have of a tithe war in Ireland. We eau conceive nothing more pregnant with mischief to the best interests of the Church, than to bring it in collision with the people. by means of a compulsory Act for levying rates. After all, the House of Commons is the sovereign authority for the imposition of taxes, and it has in two suc cessive Parliaments pronounced against Church-rates. This is decisive ; and so it has been accepted ; for the payment of rates has already been refused on the grounds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared against them in Parliament. The main object, then, of all well-wishers of the Church, is to find a substitute for them, and speedily. Lord Althorp condemned them, and sought in vain in the general taxes of the country for their substitute. Sir Robert Peel condemned them, and did nothing, except to tell the agriculturists, and to counsel the King to tell them too, that he would relieve them from _ .. ........„,.. their burden, " w hi c h b ears very un f a i r l y on .. the , land."# He was in (ffice then, and coaxing the fa, viers ; but he is in opposition now, and coaxiny the high Au, chmen, and so has 'discovered that the agriculturists would disgrace themselves in the eyes of posterity, if they were to accept this very relief; which he, not the less, counselled his King to pomise to them t ! Lord Stanley condemned and executed them in Ireland. lie sought for, and found a substitute, in a tax upon the richer clergy, in the shape of bona-fide Tenths of their cleri cal revenues, instead of the nominal sums they had hitherto paid : he sought for it also in the revenues of the Irish shoprics (ten of which he demolished at one fell swoop,) and in the improved value of Church property to be obtained by an Act of Parliament allowing its enfranchisement. Sir Robert Peel objected that this improved value of the property of the Church belonged to the Church just as much as the original property itself ; but Lord Stanley drew a distinction, saying emphatically, " to whom then shall be the benefit of this payment'!" The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel, now his Lordship's Right lion. Friend and Tory colleague) says, " to the Church :"—I say, " to the State." This is stout and strong enough, but he was in dice then, and anxious to carry his measure : he is an opposition now, and equally anxious to defeat a similar measure of his Arnie?. colleagaes ; and so has discovered that the cases are different, anfintimates, though he has not had the hardi hood to assert, that this improved value of Church property in England must go to the Church. It is not possible to dive into the recesses of the human heart ; but a plain unsophisticated man might quote his Lordship's own coarse expression, and say, this is a " thim ble rig" of the shallowest performance. Hocus-pocus—lrish Church Property—Act of Parliament — Property of the State. Hocus-pocus—Enzlish Church Property—Act of Parliament Property of the Church. The present Government have been more consistent ; " I think the charge of providing fcr the repair ofChurchcs bears very unfairly on the land, and that subject is one which I had in view when, in the King's Speech, reference was made to "a method for mitigating the pressure - of those local charges which bear heavily on the owners and occupiers of land, and for distributing the burthen of them more equally over other descriptions of property."—Mirror cf Padiantent.—Debate on the Address, Feb. 24, 1835. j• Mirror of Parliament.—Debate on Churel-rates Mara, !,837. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 1837. they arc willing to follow out the course which Lord Stanley traced and which they trod with him. It is true that both he and they, at least several of them, supported Lort Spencer's Bill ; but they were soon convinced of its inapplf cability. It is to be remembered also, that, at the time o bringing forward Lord Spencer's Bill, the Government had no correct information as to the state of the English Church property. But the Ecclesiastical Commission, since, ap pointed by Sir Robert Peel, has partly lifted the veil behind which it lay concealed, and has discovered a vast . sunken fund of unemployed capital which may be rendered active and highly productive by legislative enactments. There has long been strong and in some instances painful evidence of the ' ()Toss mismanagement and occas i ona l m i sapp li cat i on b y bi shops, deans, and prebendaries, of the Church property corn :flitted to their charge. It is unjust to place private interests and public duties, in direct opposition to each other. But in the management of Church property, it is the interest of the clergy to benefit themselves, who have only a life interest in it, at the expense of those permanent interests of the Church, the nation, and their successors, which, as stewards, it is their duty to protect, but for whom it is difficult for them to feel so strong an affection as for themselves and their own families. And if interest tempt them strongly, power as irresponsible trustees is at hand to enable them to accomplish their desires. It is not fair to be hard upon them for having occasionally yielded to thi s temptation ; for Bishops a n d Deans, like the rest of us, are hut frail creatures ; but it is very hard to continue to ex pose them to this temptation. We could give many in stances where the property of the Church has been prodi gally and selfishly wasted ; where thousands of pounds of rent are now received by laymen, for lands which have been parted with for a mess of pottage by the clerical te nant for life. But it is better to let these matters pass, and to look to the future for a remedy. This is now proposed. For the attention of those Ministers of the present Govern ment, who, as the successors of Sir Robert Peel's, became members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, was soon at tracted to the mismanaged and unproductive state of the English Church property. They resolved to apply to it the principle of Lord Stanley's Irish Church Bill, and to place its entire management in the hands of responsible Commis sioners, who, having much experience and no temptation to misapplication, might work out its productiveness,and relieve the bishops, deans, and prebendaries from a most invidious and unclerical duty. For if there be any persons who are least of all fitted for, and whom it is least of all beneficial to the interests of religion, to employ in the selfish and mam mon barterings with the world, upon such subjects as leases, renewals, distraints, and ejectments, it is our bishops and the higher clergy. The Tithe Bill of last year recognised this wise and Christian principle, by releasing the lower clergy from all bickerings with their parishioners for tithes ; and the present Church-rate Bill proposes to render a like service to the hierarchy. It may hurt the worldly pride of vain-glorious men, to longer to act the parts of great land lords, but it will be a consolation to all who deserve to be shepherds of human rather than of animal flocks, to find themselves endowed with a fixed income, and relieved from cares, which, to say the least of them, distract their atten tion from their higher and more spiritual calling. Therefore, both as a matter of worldly profit and of spiritual good, it is proposed to place the management of the whole Church property in the hands of experienced per sons, and to make such legislative enactments, as will set this property free for the purposes of building and ins provable leases. A large increase of revenue will thus arise, will in fact be created ; and out of this surplus fund it is proposed to apply 250,000/. a-year to the building, repairing, and maintenance of our Churches. This, again, is called spoliation and sacrilege. * * * The only question is, as to the right and power of the State over any surplus revenue, which may arise from this property in consequence of the improYed administration, and legislative enactments, made expressly for the purpose of increasing its value and productiveness. For the satisfaction of those who have any doubts, or who place any weight in the opinion of Lord Stanley, we will quote it at large. Speaking of this " increased value," he says, " Why do I say this is applicable to the State ?" And in answer to his own question, he inquires—" What is the present value of Church property ? The Bishop, by the conditions which youe the State, have imposed upon him, cannot g rant a lease for a lo nger p er i o d th an twenty one years. The lease, subject to this condition, if brought into the market, is worth about twelve and a half Years' purchase. You pass an Act which increases the value of these leases to the extent of seven, eight, or it may be nine years' purchase. Whatever the increased value is, you give it to the Church. She does not possess it without the Act of the Legislature : therefore I ask if you, by your Act, give an increased value to Church property ; has the Church any right, or can she have any chains to say, It is to me that you must pay this increased value, which my property never had, and never could have had, but by your Act ?' I say it is perfectly consistent with the principle that the real revenue of the Church ought not to be appropriated to other purposes, that you should appropriate to secular or any other purposes, the increased value you now give to Chu ch property convertibl e into pounds, shillings, and pence, which it never would have been without your Act." 4 This is the recorded opinion of a Noble Lord who is acknow ledged to have high flown and romantic opinions respecting Church property, yet here he deliberately assigns this in creased property to the State, and gives his reasons. * By what authority, if not by this sole constitutional authority, were tithes and the collection of Church-rates originally legalised ? What transferred all the property of the Church, its titles and endowments from the Catholic to the Protestant? What restored them in the time of Queen Mary, and what re-transferred them in the time of Eliza beth ? Upon what other foundation than the statute law, does the property of the bishoprics and dioceses of the new foundations rest, as Oxford, Bristol, Peterborough, &c., and the chapters of Ely, Carlisle, Durham, &c. ? What gave tire first-fruits and tenths to Queen Elizabeth and the Crown ? What granted them to the poorer Clergy, in the clime of Queen Anne ? What presented the Presbyte rians in Scotland with the property of the Episcopalian Church ? Or, to come to later instances, what authorised a Bishop of London in 1768, to allow of the alienation by one of his prebendaries, for a heavy fine for his own profit, and for a paltry rent to the Church of 2001., of the whole manor of Tottenhall, which now pays Lord South ampton 20,0001. a-year ? By what authority has the pre sent Bishop of London been enabled to build a city at Pad dington ? By what authority did a Bishop of Bath and Wells sell the manor of Wivelscombe to the son of a for mer Bishop ? And by what authority did the late Bishop of Durham endow the University of Durham out of the property of his see ? These and a thousand other matter-of-fact cases of a similar nature might be quoted, as to the constitutional, legal, and beneficial interference of the Legislature in the affairs of the Church; and after all, in what does this in terference of the State consist in the present instance ? Merely in providing, when other means have failed, that the 1 uildings of the Church shall be kept in repair, not by dimi nishing the present property of the Church, but by the cre ation of a new property. Indeed, Sir Robert Peel himself seems to feel the diffi culty of directly opposing these plain instances of the practice and the theory of our Constitution, and therefore forgetful of the sacrilege and spoliation cries of the bishops, he has sought to get rid of the ministerial measure, in other words, to embarrass the Government, and leave our Churches to decay, by means of his favourite manoeuvre, a side-wind. He has broken forth with a new-found zeal for Christianising the land (a poor comgment to the religious zeal of the Clergy), exclaiming, " If this in crease can be made to the income of the Church property, let it be employed in building Churches for the ignorant population of our great town, or let it go towards raising the incomes of our poorer Clergy. 7 This is not the first time it has been said, when one good deed was doing, why was not such a thing sold for so much money, and given to the poor. It is certainly deplorable that there should be many nor tions o cl f er o g u y r m lu en rg ,lm, larger and more recently grown t owns , w h ere there is a want of Churches, and m o r e es p ec i a lly of' resi dent their doctrine and example, might spread the holy precepts of the Gospel ; but the extent of this evil is much exaggerated : the Dissenters, and parti cularly the Wesleyans, have long curried, and are still zealous in carrying their light into these dark places ; the Clergy of the Established Church are following their good example, and an awakening charity amongst the laity is rendered manifest, by their numerous and munificent sub seriptionst towards the building of new Churches. It is well known, also, that the present Liberal Ministers (these enemies of our Church), are strenuous in their en deavours to do that, which those friends of the Church, the Tories, never would do, arel will not now even aid the Liberals in doing, viz., enforcing the residence of every be neficed clergyman in his parish, by abolishing pluralities. Sir Robert Peel well knows that this alone would plant many a clergyman in his own parish, and attach him to his duties where they are most required, and best felt ; and he is too much a man of business not to admit in his heart how much more wise and necessary it is for a Govern ment to use its best endeavours, first, to provide with re sident clergymen, and to keep in decent repair, the Churches we have, before it proceed to build and endow new ones. This should we do, and not leave the other undone. And so the present Bill provides, for it hppre priates, after the payment of the 250,000/. a-year ' . or the mai n t enance an d repair of Churches, th e . o il r t; i; e rit s li t srtreo o er t s ' ,of tl l. t p e , re mai ning surplus for the a tier aceruine Act - autism of It ula the incomes of the poor clergy. * rirler lepsroapned*rt: W e now come hout.i‘oviai r ell a e nd la i:A) : i a se g tb, c at n t t e e i i t:t un is to be placed in the heads of certah 4 o d iejal ` nts . Church, t h7 e l Y 2 s , 1833. Amongst these subserl2rs, are the names of the Allow ing infidel Liberals, for the paltry sums set opposite to their names. Duke of Bedf9-4 1 0001, ; Mr, George B ing , '4OOO/. t, • tions very much resembling those under whicli—theCUm missioners of Woods and Forests manage the property of the Crown. # # The Commission is to consist, on the part of the Clergy, of the Archbishops of Canter ' bury and York, of the Bishop of London, and of the Deans of Westminster and St. Paul's, with another Commissioner to be named by the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and on the part of the State, of the Lord Chancellor, a Secretaly of State, the first Commissioner of Woods and Forests, two other Commissioners named by the Crown. Thus the only possible patronage which the Crown can have, will consist in two Commissioners ; and it is to be remarked, that the Clergy will have six while the State have only five members in this Board, which is to pull down our Churches, to introduce the voluntary system, and to end by destroying all religion whatever in the country Thus says clamour ; but this will not deceive the plain sense of the people of England. There Is one point more to be considered, which is the question of pew rents. Some alarm' has been excited in the country, by a false representation, that the measure has in view a general system of pew-letting, in country parishes, where such a thins , has been. hitherto un k nown . If this should b e so , it w ill the fault of . the Bishop and Archdeacon, to whom the duty is entrusted by the Bill, of deciding in what cases pew rents shall be levied, and they will be bound to conult the wishes of the pa rishioners themselves, before they authorise the collection of any money from this source. * * * * This, then, is the substance of the Bill, which a fac tion, in its hunger for office, its hatred of all reform, and its utter disregard for truth, would fain make the people of England believe to be framed for the ruin of their Churches-, the degradation of their clergy, and the destruction of their religion ! Let us, therefore, before" parting, run over a few of our details. In the first place, then, we have seen that Church rates themselves are an innovation and encroachment on the pockets of the people ; and that they are a source of strife on religious subjects. That they are a voluntary tax, which can be, and is, frequently evaded by vestries, both in town and country ; that such evasions are becoming more general, and bid fair to be universal, now that the House of Commons has twice voted a condemnation of them. We have thus found that they are necessarily, by the force of circumstances, without any blame of this or that Ministry, irrevocably and practically abolished for all efficient pur poses of repairing our Churches, and therefore a substitute must be, and has been, sought for and found. Secondly—We have examined this substitute,. and seen that the funds which it offers can be derived from that very property without injury to individuals, and with benefit to' the property itself, which, by the ancient law of the land, was liable for the repair of the Churches. Thirdly—We have examined the mode of raising these funds, and we have found that it releases our bishops and the higher clergy from the unspiritual.management of groat landed estates ; and also that it relieves them from the temptation and the suspicion of benefiting themselves in the management of this property, at the expense of the pro perty itself. We have seen that it will give the lessees of 'this property the advantage of a fixed tenure, and that those only will suffer who have hitherto been profiting at the expense of the Church, by undue bargains or leases ; and that the nation- at large will gain by the increasing productiveness which will naturally arise from the agricul tural improvemeilts and building leases that may henceforth be safely undertaken on this immense property.. ForirthlyW e have also found that the inspection .and repairing our churches will be placed in experienced and responsible hands, subject to the direction and control of thehighestecclesiastical authorities. Aud finally, our vestries and parishes wili be reclaimed from the hickerings of rival sects wrangling for money ; our poor will.have ample space and accommodation in our re paired Churches ; and the middle classes, the shopkeepers, the farmers, the smaller mannfacturers, all who choose, will be rclievedfi•om an irregular and vexatious tax. All these advantages to our Churches, to our peace, to our pockets, to our national profit, and, above all, to the decent ministrations of religion, are to be obtained by this Bill ; and yet it has been called spoliation and sacrilege— so was the Reform Bill ! We began by. promising some remarks on this Bill, which the factions say, is for the pulling down our churches, but in expounding its principles, we have found, unless we much deceive ourselves; that is one for keeping them in repair. That is a Bill to preserve Church-going parishioners from uneasiness and danger in their house of prayer, dissenting parishioners from civil duties, at variance with their reli gious scruples, and both anthill from vexatious payments, as well as an un-christian heart-burnings ; and that it will keep the venerable fabric of our Churches themselves from decay and ruin. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. An article appeared in the Morning Advertiser of yes terday which is calculated to throw Reformers off their guard. "We believe (says that journal) we may confi dently state that the Irish Municipal Bill will be read in the House of Commons upon Monday next, and be suf fered to pass without opposition." So far from that being likely to he the case, there is almost a certainty that the Tories will divide, in the hope of reducing the former ma jority, and thence obtaining the pretext. for which they are constantly on the watch, that there has been a reaction in their favour. It is of the greatest consequence that every Liberal Member should be at his post to secure the passing of the Bill by a large majority of the Representatives of the people, so as to afford the Lords no excuse for de stroying the Bill on the grounds of the indifference of the country. With respect to the intentions of the To ries in the Lords we have reason to believe that their course has not yet been definitively determined on. That one division of them differs widely from ano ther, both as to this measure and the general course of policy which the Government ought to pursue, is no secret. Whether, in the deliberations of the party, the moderate or the wild party shall prevail, can at present only be matter of conjecture. The Duke of Wellington was overborne last year, but still he did not separate himself from the men he must in his heart have despised. Whether he will continue to'sacrifice his reputation as a statesman, and to join in the pack led by Lord Lyndhurst, who are everywhere exclaim ing against the treachery of Sir Robert Peel, will soon be seen.—Morning Chronicle. Mr. Warburton last night obtained leave to bring in a Bill 'to alter the qualifications of Members of Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman proposes that in future 6001. a year should be the qualification for Borough, and 300/. a year for County Members, without reference to the source whence the income be derivable, whether from leasehold, personal, funded, or other property. Being fully impressed with the conviction that the possession of property furnishes no test whatever of the eligibility of a man to become a Member of the House of Commons, and that while such qua lification be required, its only effect will be to perpetuate the trickery, fraud, and perjury by which it is notorious the present law of qualification is so frequently evaded, we do not see that any change short of the utter abolition of all property quali fication will operate the least improvement in the system, unless, indeed, by facilitating the evasion of an ineffective, impolitic, and absurd law. After the admirable manner in which the subject was discussed in the earlier part of the Session, by Sir W. Molesworth and Mr. Leader, in pro posing the abolition of all property qualification, and the unqualified support which we gave to the proposition, it is unnecessary here to resume the discussion of the general question. Though we regard the proposition of Mr. War burton rather in the light of an alteration than an improve ment, we think Mr. Roebuck might have found better grounds for opposing it than " an unwillingness to interfere hastily with the existing law," or " that the possession of a valuable picture" —a species of property alluded to by Mr. Warburton—"- was no evidence of a man having received an education to qualify him to take part in the proceed ings of the British Legislature." The first is rather a squeamish objection, and certainly comes awkwardly from Mr. Roebuck. The proposition to remove an abuse does not recessarily imply that the mode of its removal should be hastily adopted, or that having admitted the principle, ample time should not be afforded for preparing and perfecting its details. This objecf,on, therefore, is as untenable as absurd ; nor is that of the picture qualification much less , so ; for we c ons id er the possos4on of an antique gem—a Salvator Rosa, for instance—fully as good an evi &Nice of an education suitable to a member of the Senate as the real or fictiti ous qua lifi cat i on now a d m i tte d as a test of eligibility. Both tests are equally absurd, but the picture has one advantage to which we - would dir'ect Mr. Roebuck's attention—it is more easily transferred than the present property qualification. So that if Mr. ‘;`,%arlrarton's proposition were adopted, any gentleman with the desire of becoming a member of the House Commons, would have only to borrow sonic v aluable cl,peeimen of art, and, no doubt, like the bene Bish in compliance with the request of a ~p , w h o, 1 7ady in that state when it is considered ne cessary to hu caprie.es, tent her some valuable articles of plate, fn which she professed a desire, until the anxious time tvP, passed, vslien he requested the article to be re .s, promisiug,however, that on the next occasion they should again he at her serviee—so, during the Parliamentary gestation of certain pompous politicians, we have no doubt t S'ome kind friend would always be at hand to supply them, for the nonce, with the wished-for qualification, without all the chicanery to which many are at present obliged to re , sort. The property qualification seems to obtain merely for the purpose of being evaded. The law affecting it can ' not be made, nor is it proposed to make it, more stringent than it is. How much better, then, would it be to abolish it' altogether, and not make it necessary for tome of the ablest Members of the Senate to bold their scats in virtue of a fiction or a fraud ? Our ge neral laws arc in many cases so absurd, that without their evasion by fiction or falsehood, our administra tive system would come to a dead stand. In Church and State the capacity of lying appears the first essential i. entering upon the road of preferment. The sciolist Church-• ma i subscribes - his assent to articles which he is not ex peeted even to understand, and takes a degree without fear of the penalty which these articles deal to alt who doubt or dissent from them. Again, the aspiring %s al, - hi, eyes gloating; on the mitre, exclaims, « :Mil o ep i .scoparil. • but at the &tine time .suffers his head to be ensconced is the symbol he affects to put away. In our C our t s o f L aw. under carious modifications, false army, navy, and senate, hood is in a Similar way made necessary in the public. func-_. tionary—without it his occupation is gone: What good, we ask, can come of perpetuating a system which relaxes the [wads of moral obligations, and exposes the adminis trative economy to derision and disgust ?—illurning Ad mertiser. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. T TER SA LI'S- YF:STERDA r. TIIE The room was fully attended, and several bets were made . on the Derby, at odds varying in several particulars from those quoted on Monday. Brother to Bay Middleton was decidedly first on the list, but no blow was struck until past six o'clock, when 8 to 1 was taken about him; 15 to 2 was then offered, and at the last moment 17 to 2; 9 to 1 was taken about Jereed to a pony, and afterwards offered, and 6 to 5 laid in fifties between the two. Benedict was backed fur a hundred pounds at 91 to 1, and Mango for the same amount at 11 to I, both leaving off a shade better; indeed a pony was laid out on the latter at the odds mentioned below. Sambo did not sustain the position he filled on Monday, although between two and three hundred pounds were laid out at 17, 20, 22, and 24 to 1, the last price being 20 to I offered; he evidently suffered from the anxiety manifested to back Mickle Fell. Rat-trap was backed fur two or three hendr'ed pounds without moving. Rococo had the misfortune to break his leg while running a trial on Wednesday at Newmarket; he had been backed in two or three quarters to win an immense stake. The closing prices were -7 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's lot—offered 81 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Bro. to Bay Middleton—taken 9. to 1 agst Colonel Auson's Jereed—offered 9 to 1 agst Captain Gardner's Benedict—offered 10 to 1 agst Mr. Greville's Mango—offered 20 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Sambo—offered 22 to 1 agst Mr. S. Stanley's Rattrap—taken 30 to 1 agst Mr. Sadler's Defender—offered 33 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's Mickle Fell—taken 33 to 1 agst Mr. Wreford's Wintonian—offered 40 to 1 agst Duke of Rutland's Slight colt—offered 40 to 1 a,gst Sir G. lleathcote's Marquis—offered tq 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Capulet—taken 50 to I agst Mr..a.‘baldeston's The Pocket Hercules—oTercd 50 to 1 agst Sir M. Wood's Blankney—taken 3000 to 45 agst Lord Chesterfield's Critic—taken THE ILIDDLESIVORTH, P. P. 6 to 4 asst Lord Jersey's Bro. to Bay illiddleton—take 7 to 4 THE PORTLAND HANDICAP. . 6to 1 asst Lord Lichn,‘ld's Elis—takers of 7to 1 Offers to back him against, any thing in the race. So much for pulling up lame. Venison arrived at Newmarket on Waneslay in the cara van, accompanied by the Drummer, aid Bay Middleton alter wards took.took an inside place by the same conveyance to Stockbridge ; it does not appear that either of the ti:rce made any objection to this novel way or travelling. LAW IN'T'ELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, APR'', 6. FLOWER 9.4.' MARTIN. This was a bill filed by Sir James Flower, the son and heir of the late Sir Charles Flower, to take the opinion of the Curt on the question of whether the executors of the deceased were at liberty to conceal a bond for 5,50 W., which Sir Charles had in 1824 taken from his sin as ni security apparently for money advanced, but in reality as a p!edge for good conduct in avoiding any future act of ex travagance. It appeared that Mr. James Flower had in the year 1822 incurred debts to the extent of 4,8001., and. serious diffezences having in consequence arisen between him and his father, the matter was referred to Mr. Petty Muspratt and Mr. Martin, and, by their advice, Sir Charles agreed to pay the debts and take the bond in question from his son as a security. The bond was not to be enforced for six years -at least, but a power was re servi.d to Mr. Muspratt and Mr. Martin to cancel it at any time within that period, if from their sense of the reformed habits of Mr. James Flower they conceived it expe dient to do so. The bond, at the death of Sir Charles, in 1834, had not been cancelled, hut it was sworn by Mr . Musnatt and Mr. Martin that Sir Charles had been, from the time it was given, perfectly satisfied with the con , luct of his son, and that they had neglected to cancel it solely because they were not called on by any of the parties tit) do so. It was also proved that Sir Charles lied kept an an nual account of all his property and securities, and that no mention of this bond, or of any interest due on it, had ever appeared in that account, a farther proof that he never con sidered it a debt due from his son. Mr. WIGRAM, on the part of Sir James Flower, non' contended that it was in the power of a Court of Equity to order the bond to be cancelled, although it be enforced in a Court of law. His LORDSHIP premised to look over the pleadings and affidavits, and dispose of the matter to-morrow morning. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Arra!, 7. PATTERSON V. WELLESLEY. Mr. KNIGHT appeared in support of . a demurrer by Richard Wellesley, the eldest son of the Hon. Mr. Long Wellesley. The bill was filed by Colonel Patterson and his daughter Helena, the wife of Mr. Wellesley (formerly Mrs. 1344), against Mr. Wellesley and his eldest son and the Equitable Assurance Office, for relief under these cir cumstances. In 1834 a separation between Mr. and. Mrs. Wellesley took place at Brussels, and a deed was ext.- cuted by which Mr. Wellesley covenanted to pay Mr. Bick nell 1,0001. for Mrs. Wellesley's separate use, and, in conside ration of Mr. Patterson's covenant to indemnify him against Mrs. Wellesley's expenses, Mr. Wellesley covenanted that he would, before the Ist of February, 1835, secure to Mr. Patterson, 1,000/. a-year for Mrs. Wellesley's separate use, either by charge upon freehold estates in England or Wales, or by investment of a competent sum in the funds, or by the hest_means in his power. The bill alleged that in February, 1835, Mr. W e llesl e y wa s se i ze d of estates of a competent annual value to secure the annuity, and had other sufficient means of observing his covenant ; and that; he had since exhausted all his means except by creating a. charge on his estates. It then alleged that since February. 1835, Mr. Wellesley had entered ,into an agreement with his eldest son, who was tenant in tail in remainder of his: estates, for raising a sum of 400,000/. by mortgaging their estates to the Equitable Assurance office, and that by this arrangement Mr. R. Wellesley was a purchaser of an in terest in his father's estates. The money had not yet been advanced, but the bill alleged that if the arrangement was carried into effect it would wholly disable Mr. Wellesley from performing his covenant, and that it was meant to exhaust the 400,0001., partly in payment of debts which. were not charged upon the estates, and partly in unneces-• sary expenses. The bill prayed that the plaintiffs might be declared entitled to a charge up: n the estates in priority to Mr. Richard Wel'esley and the Equitable As surance office. His HONOUR thought that Mrs. Wellesley was entitled'. to - a charge on the estates, but the objection for want or parties was valid, and the demurrer was allowed. CRIMINAL CO URT.-THURSDAY. OLD COURT. Elizabeth Barris, aged 36, was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a certain ins, , trument, purporting to bat an authority of one William Stockers, with intent to av 7. fraud his Majesty's Navy Pay Office. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE. summed up, and the miry found the prisoner Guilty. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. --~--- HATTON-GARDEN. Yesterday Ann Susannah Buiher, a well-lookin% - woman , 37 years of age, was brought before Mr. Laing, i a custody or it. Bayliss, an ofic•er of this establishment, clrirged by Mr..). B. Glenn, a master-builder, of No. 3, , Liverpool road, Islington, with having intermatlied with - Alm, her first husband being still living.—Reman.aed. Q UEEN. S Q UARE. A young lady, of very I ;a7adsome extririor, a vocalist at the provincial theatres, Ann Newman,. her servant, and, &Win GrillithS, an el':terly woman, matron at a lying-i:r, institution, were cha - ..ged as the defendants. Mr. BODKIN, for, the prosecution, came forward to prefer a charge against. the prisoners for having caused, on . the sth of February last, a child to be christened and regisf,ered in the parish of St. James, Westminster, by the ni sae o f Erlward Thomas Bainbridge, of Arlington-street.. Thi s , the Learned Barrister observed, was art offence order the General Forgery Act. It was the making of ' fietitioll3 entry to accomplish a certain end, which he shorm h erea f ter I fully detail in evidence. It was a painful duty on the part of his client (the opulent banker and M.P.) , but. one which . he felt imperatively due to himself, to be c'aliged to intrudes himsclf , ou public notice. Mr. Bodkin t 1 nen stated that a. child had been obtained by Miss Lindif:y and her servant: from the Lying-in Institutie.), and had 'trim christened in the: name which he had stated. The prisoner Griffith:. was recommended to provide het.... self with legal assistance when the , case was next brought up for hearing. The prisoners were then remanded until the 17th inst. Despatches were forwarded yesterday, from the; Co-• lonia' Department, for Lord Gosford, the Governor of them Canadas, and for Sir Francis Head, the Lieutenant-Governor of Uiper Canada, and for the officers administering has Majesty's Goveramen ''in .th British dependencies, ip North America. "-