The Sun. — London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, r 2 7 . The Earl of SIIAFTESRL'RY, in the absence of Lord Denman, teak his seat on the Woolsack shortly after five o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Sir JOHN BULLER, and other Members of the House of Commons, brought up the Haverfordwest Improvement Bill, the Exeter Road Bill, and the Dcvonport Market Bill, which 'were severally read a first time. CHELSEA HOSPITAL. Mr. SPICES brought up the accounts of the Chelsea Hos pital, which were laid on the table. EAST INDIA COMPANY. Mr. CAMPBELL brought up from the East India House the accounts of Compensation granted by the Company to their Officers, which wefe also laid on the table, ISLINGTON MARKET BILL. Lord YARBOROUGH presented a petition from the graziers and farmers of Lincolnshire in favour of this Bill. Ile could safely say that all the graziers and farmers of that county were in Favour of this Bill. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Earl MANSFIELD presented a petition from a parish in Scotland, praying for a grant of money for the purpose c,f procuring additional Church accommodation for the people of Scotland. The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and several other places in Scotland, to the same effect, and praying generally for protection to the Church of Scotland. MR. CHILD'S CASE—CHURCH-RATES. Lord BROUGHAM said he had a petition to present, which, on account of there being so thin an attendance of their Lordships, and none of his Majesty's Minsters, he should have felt inclined to delay presenting, had it not related to a personal griovance. The petition came from a highly respectable body of men, 88 representatives of 88 congregations of Independent Presbyterians within the district of twelve miles round Lon don, and was against the Church-rates, by means of which a most respectable individual of the name of Childs, residing at Bungay, in Suffolk, had suffered considerable imprisonment. He ( Lord Brougham) was as anxious as any man to abolish Church-rates, but although that was his opinion, it would not prevent him, though he disapproved of a law, from conforming to it as long as it was the law. Nor did he consider, though he objected to a law, that he ought to make himself a martyr, by resisting the payment of rates.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Brougham) could give his testimony of the purity of the motives which actuated Mr. Childs in the course he had pursued—no tradesman in the country enjoyed more the confidence of his friends than Mr. Childs, who carried on a most extensive printing concern, without any regard to difference of political opinions. He (Lord Brougham) knew Mr. Childs well, and was convinced that the course he had taken originated in the best of motives. There were two modes of collecting Church Rates ; one by distraint, as for rent, which was the most usual, and the other, which the churchwardens and overseers of Bungay had thought proper to prefer, by instituting a prosecution it, the Ecclesiastical Court, the Judge of which thereupon issued his warrant, and Mr. Childs was accordingly carried off and lodged in gaol. Of this the petitioners complained, and prayed a prayer in which he heartily concurred, for a speedy and entire abolition of Church-rates.—( Hear.) The petition was then laid on the table. SLAVE TRADE. Lord BROUGHAM wished to draw the attention of the House to a statement which had given him very great concern, and which was conveyed in a letter from abroad to a most respectable and affluent merchant of the city of London, a man upon whom he could place the most implicit reliance. The letter stated that on or before the 6th of March last, six prize vessels were taken by the British cruizers on the African coast, and carried into Sierra Leone. He did not know to what country the vessels belonged, but they had sailed under the Spanish flag at the time they were taken ; and the writer made this calculation, that about 159 blacks with which these vessels were crammed, had fallen a sacrifice to their situation, before they reached Sierra Leone. Thus there was a mortality in those six ships of no less than 900 human beings who were torn from their country by a cruel, criminal, and mistaken traffic, carried on by a set of detestable wretches. He made no charge a gainst _ those Captains who commanded these traders, b u t the men who committed these atrocities ought to be hanged, and they were liable to be hanged by the law of nations as it now stood.—( Hear, hear.) He wished to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty whether any information had been received touching this matter, and whether the captains of the British cruizers had done anything to diminish the distresses of those unfortu nate creatures who were found in the prizes. Lord AUCKLAND replied that the Admiralty were not in possession of any particular information upon this subject : he was not aware there was any report of it at the Admiralty ; but if the Noble Lord would put him in possession of the names of the ships, he sh ou ld, p er h a p s , be better able to answer the question. Lord BROUGHAM said the letter did not mention the names of the ships, but merely said two British cruisers. The letter was then handed to Lord Auckland, and the conversation dropped. The Earl of SHAFTE SBURY presented a petition from the parish of Aboyne in favour of the Established Church. SCOTCH ENTAIL. The Earl of ROSEBERY rose to call the attention of the House to the law of Scotch Entail. The Com mittee upon the subject considered, and he concurred with them, that some material alteration in the law of entail was necessary ; he hoped means would be found to render the change beneficial. He also concurred in the general opinion of the Committee, that in any future measure for altering the law of Entail, care should be taken to avoid those objections to which the people of England considered the measure of last year liable. He Would take notice of two points in the report of the Committee, one of them of a legal description, and the other of a general character. The point having reference to the legal part of the subject was that to which the Lords of Session made strong strictures on the operation of those Bills by the endeavour to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England upon this subject. His next observation re ferred to a part of more general importance, and he there fore felt less diffidence in offering a few remarks upon it. The last paragraph of the Report of the Lords of Sesssion stated that besides the various objections to which the bills of last session were liable in a legal point of view, they conceived that if power was intended to be given for the sale of a certain proportion of landed property, and such power were passed into law, that the consequences would be ex tremely if not dangerously detrimental to the com munity, because it would occasion a glut in all the markets, and would depreciate the value of all landed property.—(Hear.) This involved a principle which was never proposed to be acted upon in that House, and which, he hoped, the Parliament would never think it right to consider in the passing of any measure.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to be put forward as a reason for restricting the sale of landed property, entailed for the purpose of creating a monopoly of land in a few hands, with the object of artificially raising the price of land, and preventing the natural effect of circumstances in lowering it. His hope all along had been that the question would have been taken up by the Government, or some high ju dicial officer, for he could not possibly hope that it could be successfully carried into effect by any one in the private situation he held. The Government, however, were so much pressed by other and more important business, that they could not be expected to take it up during the present session. The course, then, that he intended to take was, if he was favoured with the counsel and aid of the judicial authorities to whom he had alluded, he would, before the next session of Parliament, attempt to remodify the Bill, in order to avoid the objections made by the report of the Lords of Session.—( Hear, hear.) Unless the Bill contained three principles, to which he attached much importance, he would be obliged to refrain from any connection with it—those three were first—that after the bill had become law, there should be an end put to the making of any further perpetuities in Scotland; secondly, that the heirs in possession should have enlarged powers given them, in order to effect the exchange of lands ; and thirdly, that the heirs in possession should have power to sell such portion of their lands as might be fixed by Parliament. Those principles were considered to be of so much importance to the improvement of the law in Scotland, that unless he could see there was a probability of their being carried into effect, he trusted that the House would not charge him with any dereliction of duty, if he abstained from introducing any measure upon the subject. The Noble Lord concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which they had heard him. Lord BROUGHAM entirely approved of the state ments that had been made by his Noble Friend. The question was certainly one of great difficulty, but he thought that his Noble Friend would be able to effect his way through it, and by that means considerably relax the law of entail in Scotland, the rigour of which had reduced many persons, who had hitherto moved in a high sphere of life to comparative beggary. He trusted his Noble Friend would not be discouraged. He could assure him he should have his best assistance to perfect a measure that would be productive of so much good. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. Lord G. SOMERSET and others from the Commons, brought up the Great Western Railway Bill. LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY BILL. Captain ALLSAGER brought up the London and Croydon Railway Bill, with the Lords' amendments agreed to. The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from Lau reneekirk for protection to the Scotch Church. The House then adjourned to Monday at ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MAY 2i'. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the unusually early hour of two o'clock, for the purpose of getting through the great mass of private business. The House having been counted out last night, it was necessary that it should be counted, and that 40 Members should be present to constitute a House ; there were only about 30 Members present when the Speaker commenced counting, and but for the sudden irruption of se veral Members from Committees, which excited some laugh ter, the House must again have stood adjourned. COMMITTEES. It was moved and agreed to, that notwithstanding the sitting of the House at this early hour, the Committees should have leave to sit till four o'clock. DUTY UPON LIME. Mr. NV. L. CHARLTON presented a petition from Lud low, in Salop, praying that when lime is car r i e d f or t h e pur poses of improving the cultivation of the land, it shall be con sidered as manure, and shall be exempt from toll, unless the mortgagee or mortgagees of the tolls shall object to the same, after having being first duly informed thereof by the Clerk to the Commissioners, and tbat any evasion or fraud—that is by the use of lime for any other purpose, after it has been so ex empted from toll—shall be punished by fine or imprisonment. DORCHESTER UNIONS. , Mr. WA KLEY had to present sixteen petitions, praying that the House would call upon the Throne to interfere on behalf of the Dorchester labourers. Eight of these petitions were from Dorchester, from the friends and neighbours of those men who were transported, and the other eight were from Ipswich, Rochester, Norwich, and one from Stoke-upon-Trent signed by 13,448 of the inhabitants. The petitioners considered in the first place, that these men were improperly prosecuted, and in the second place that if the prosecutions were just, the sen tence was most severe and uncalled for. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Member contended that these unfortunate men had been convicted under a law of which they were entirely ignorant, and that they merely fol lowed the example set in London and other places, viz., of combining together for the purpose of obtaining such wages as would enable them to support themselves, their wives and fa milies. The relatives of these men, thus, if not illegally, certainly cruelly punished, had been pursued by the same feelings of ill-will and oppression. One of them—a woman who had amongst those who were transported, two brothers, a husband, and a son—after these men left England, she ap plied to the overseers for relief. The overseers said "No ; we will give you no relief. You have another son left, and he has six shillings a week, which is quite sufficient for his and your support." He hoped the House would interpose its privilege of addressing the Crown upon this case. The pro ceedings against these men had caused the greatest uneasines and agitation amongst the labouring classes. ;Ley lett that if these persons were not protected by being brought back to England, they could not expect protection under the existing law—as they felt that they were not represented in that House, the suffrages being confined to householders. He considered it the duty of that House to interpose for the purpose of bringing the men back to England—till then the working classes would not be satisfied, nor could the law be vindicated in the eyes of the people. He was sure that when he brought the case fully before the House, he would be able to convince them that the whole proceeding was illegal. He, however, hoped that he would not be placed under the necessity of bringing the subject before the House on the 25th of June, but that his Majesty's Ministers would be induced to take the case under consideration, as he was satisfied from their feelings of justice and humanity, that they would not allow these un fortunate men to suffer the penalties of a crime, of which, if guilty at all, they were unintentionally guilty. An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, pre sented similar petitions from two places in the county of Dorset. Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition from Ashton-under Lyne to the same effect, signed by 3,209 persons, and another from Warrington signed by 2,698 operatives. Mr. HODGES presented a similar petition from the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, and its neighbourhood, very nume rously signed. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from the stone masons of the metropolis, praying a remission of the sentence passed upon the Dorchester labourers. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. Sergeant TALFOURD presented a petition against the Bill for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt; it was signed by many respectable inhabitants of the town of Reading, who, he could take upon him to say, were, from their intel ligence, capable of appreciating the advantages of any measure that would remove the abuses that now exist. They did not, however, think that the substitutes for the old system that the Learned Attorney-General had proposed would be efficient to prevent the fraudulent transfer of property. THE FACTORIES, AND THE SABBATH. Mr. POTTER presented a petition from Wigan, praying the House to pass some Bill to lessen the hours of labour in factories. Also, a petition from Honington against any le gislation restricting recreation on the Sabbath. He hoped that the decision of the House last night, and the votes of the two last sessions on this subject, would set all discussion re specting it at rest for the future. The Hon. Member pre sented a petition from the Dissenters of Salford, complaining of the measure proposed for their relief by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and hoping that the House would sanction no measure that would not put all classes upon an equal footing. THE IRISH CHURCH. Mr. SHAW said he had several petitions to present that re ferred to the Established Church of Ireland. One was from the county Louth, signed by 1,500 Protestants of that county —another from the diocese of Clogher—and a third from the clergy of the diocese of Killaloe and Kilfonsa, all of them de precating the principle, in the strongest manner, of appropria ting Church property to any but Church purposes. They pray the House to extend its protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland, established by law, and guaranteed by the Act of Union. They further state that if the principles of appropria ting Church property be applied to Ireland, where the Protestants are few in number, compared with the Ro man Catholics, it will hold out a premium for the ex tirpation of Protestants, and that the adoption of any measure which should have that object in view would be a mockery of all legislative engagements, and the violation of a solemn national compact. They also begged to inform the House firmly, but respectfully, that any such measure would put an end to the deep bond of union that now subsists between the Protestants of both countries, and finally would lead to a separation of them. He (Mr. S.) would not now go into the general discussion of this question, but would merely state some facts which had come to his knowledge in reference to this subject. He would state the facts in the words of the Rev. Gentleman who had communicated them to him. The Rev. Gentleman is vicar of Killaloe,—he alludes in his letter to a statement made by the Noble Lord, that the Protestants of Killaloe were only 2,000, whereas the numbers are 15,263. —( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord also stated that in the parish of Tullamore— Mr. D. BROWNE rose to order. He did not think it proper to allude to statements made in that House in the ab sence of -the Noble Lord to whom they were attributed. Mr. SHAW considered himself perfectly in order to allude to statements made in that House, for the purpose of explana tion. His Lordship is reported to have stated that in the parish of Tullamore the tithe composition was set down at 4741. and that it only contained 120 Protestants. Instead of that, by the return made to the Commission of Inquiry, the number of Churchmen is 1,254-4 Hear, hear, hear.) The Hon. Member must therefore see the importance of not allowing facts thus stated to go uncontradicted. Another fact in refe rence to this case, is that of the non-residence of the curate in a certain parish, which the Noble Lord instanced as one of the proofs to show the necessity of the Church Reform measure. It was said the curate resided out of the parish—that the par son lived 15 miles from the church, and that the sexton sold spirits at the church. yard gate. What was the fact as to this threefold charge against the curate, the parson, and the sex ton ? Why, that there was not one word of truth in it from beginning to end.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) It was known to many Members of the House that the curate (Mr. Laird) lived in the parish, and actually boarded and lodged in the families of some of Mr. O'Connell's relatives. So much with respect to the curate, who had been stated as not residing there ; then with respect to the clerk—the statement of the clergyman was, that he had been clerk for six years, and that he had not only resided there during that time, but he had filled the office of schoolmaster. With respect to the sexton selling spirits in the churchyard, the clergyman stated that he was a most pious man, and that during his life he had never sold spirits without a license, nor in the church yard. This statement the clergyman expressed his readiness to prove the accuracy of upon oath. Ile (Mr. Shaw) believed that the statements that had gone forth were not for the pur pose of reforming the Church, but in order to set up a prin ciple, which he believed would be the first step, not only to destroy the connection between Church and State in Ireland, but in all parts of the country. Sir GEO. CLERK presented similar petitions from pa rishes in the county of Meath. Lord FRANCIS EGERT ON presented petitions from Salford and Manchester, signed by 10,500 persons, stating their alarm at the present situation of the Irish Church, their regret that the measures proposed by the late Government had not been carried into effect, and praying the House for protec tion to the Church Establishment. The petition was signed by many respectable Dissenters, and also a Roman Catholic gentleman named Travers. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from Lancashire, signed by 9,500 persons, in favour of the Irish Church, and deprecating in strong language the course that had been pursued towards it by the present Ministry and those who supported them. Mr. RICE TREVOR presented a petition from Durham, praying for protection to the Irish Church, and against the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill. It was the Hon. Member's decided conviction, that if measures like the pre sent were passed into a law, no property in the country would be safe. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS felt it necessary to offer a few observations upon the petition which had just been presented by the Noble Lord, more especially as the House would be shortly called upon to carry into effect the resolution that had been agreed to, relative to the appropriation of the surplus revenue of the Irish Church. He knew not what exertions might have been made to obtain signatures to the petition in question, nor did he mean to question its authenticity in any way ; but this he would say, that the signatures bore a very small proportion to the population of the town from which it came.—( Hear.) He was glad to find there was so small a number representing such sentiments as were contained in that petition.—(Hear, hear.) He would beg leave to refer the House to the opinions expressed by his Right Hon Colleague, who had since accepted the office of President of the Board of Trade.—(Hear, hear.) At the late election, the Right Honourable Gentleman had expressed his opinions pretty freely, and he would say that the result of that election spoke the deliberate conviction on the minds of the population of Manchester upon this subject.---(Loud cries cf Near, hear. ) Allusions had been rrndo to one gentlemen who had signed it, who was a Roman Catholic and a large landed proprietor. He did not mean to cast anv imputation upon that gentleman, or any other; but he believed he was the owner of considerable Church property—(Loud cheers)—and if he (Mr. Phillips) was the owner of Church property, and that he considered it in danger, he should certainly feel it his duty to enter his pro test against any measure which he thought calculated to pro duce that effect.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The circumstances attending the getting up of the petition were such as that it could not be considered a petition from the county, and he (Mr. M. Phillips) would enter his protest against its being received as expressing the sentiments of the people of Man chester. —( Hear.) Mr. FINN, as a Roman Catholic, would enter his protest against the assertion, that the Roman Catholic Members of that House had violated their oaths. The petitioners called upon the House to frame an oath to prevent the Roman Ca tholics from interfering with Church property; but if they were not to be believed upon their oaths, what was the use of mak ing forms to bind them ?—( Hear, hear.) Were there ever such stupid, such sottish propositions submitted to the House ? THE SUN, LONDON, TftURSD.AY, MAY 28, 1835. What had kept the Roman Catholics out of that House for 140 years but their sacred reverence for the obligation of an oath ? This was a fact which all the illiberality, cant, hypocrisy, and spirit of plunder which had prevailed in Jreland had never been able to refute or disprove. He challenged Hon. Members to produce the same regard for the obligations of an oath among the various sects of this country (England.)— ( Hear, hear, hear.) He would now state one fact to the House—a Protestant Gentleman, the Member for Ennis, when he had come to that table to be sworn, had revolted from the oaths about to be administered to him as a Protestant Mem ber, and took the oaths as a Roman Catholic.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Finn) would not for the first position which fortune, station, or empire could confer on him, take the oaths which the Protestant Members of that Hovse were called on to take, and in which their Roman Catholic brethren were stigmatized as idolators.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that those persons who assailed his (Mr. Finn's) religion were a disgrace to the name of Protestant or any other religion. They revile the religion of their neighbours, forgetting that pure principle of charity without which there was not, nor could be, any reli gion.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. F.) spurned the base attempt of the petitioners to obtain the opinion of that House upon the Roman Catholic oaths, or to induce it to frame others. The question had been a fruitful one for every bigotted indi vidual to pour out his rancour against the Roman Catholics— it had formed a subject for every vile renegade print, for every apostate unblushing print, which, the more broadly and uni versally the seal of public r-nrol,-.;,, , i wa g ct,rnnod upon it tbn ~, puur out I.a raticou. and ma lignity against his (Mr. Finn's) religion.—( Hear.) There was a deep feeling of conviction amongst the peasantry of Ireland, that the injustice, the miseries which they suffered, arose from the parsons. There were, he knew, many men of great worth amongst them, but there were others who made it their sole business to diffuse bad feeling, and to excite discord amongst the people of Ireland. Look at the Dean of St. Patrick for instance, a man who received 2,5001. a-year from his benefice. He had read a speech, an authenticated speech, of that Rev. Gentleman, in which he denounced the Roman Ca tholics of Ireland as heretics, murderers, and persons utterly incapable of faith or truth. And this was the manner in which this Reverend recipient of 2,5001. a year abused the people from whom he derived his income 1—( Hear, hear.) Was it surprising, then, that the people of Ireland should feel a sense of injustice at supporting a Church, the ministers of which thus slandered and insulted them, and that they should feel a deep attachment to their own clergymen, their friends in the hour of need, and their faithful counsellors in the hour of distress? He despised, from his soul, the cant—he was afraid of giving expression to his feelings ; but when lan guage of this kind was held in that House, he called upon the Right Hon. and Learned Recorder to come forward-- to bring forward a distinct resolution upon the subject. When he (Mr. Finn) brought forward in that House a mo- tion, that in every parish where 500/. a-year was the amount of the benefice, that in such case the Protestant working clergymen should get 1001. a-year,—how many supported that motion ?-33. And of those who were now anxious to distribute the superfluities of the Church among the working clergy, not one of those zealous friends of the Church sup ported his motion.—( Hear, hear.) He could inform the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the Church was as likely to suffer from its over-zealous friends as from its bitterest ene mies.—( Cheers. ) Captain BERKELEY rose to say one word. It had been stated by the Honourable and Learned Recorder of Dublin, that those who differed from him upon the subject of the Irish Church voted upon that occasion because they wanted to put the late Ministry out of office, and to destroy the Church Establishment. Mr. SH AW—I said the great majority. Captain BERKE LE Y did not wish to boast whether he had as great a regard for the Established Church as the Hon. and Learned Recorder—for himself, he believed that the Honourable and Learned Recorder's regard did not surpass his own ; but all he rose to say was, that so far as any impu tations were cast upon him as one who did so vote, he would tell the Honourable and Learned Recorder that such imputa tions were neither founded on truth, justice, or charity. Mr. SHAW had said that a great many had joined in that vote for the purpose of overturning the Church.—(Cries of " Name.") Many had said—at least some Hon. Members had said—had professed that their object was to overturn the Church.—( Cries of " Oh," and " Name.") Many, no doubt, differed from this, but he considered that the great majority had joined in that resolution in order to destroy the connection between the Church and State in both countries. Mr. BR OTHERTON said as a petition had been pre sented from the place which he represented, he begged leave to offer a few words. It was not his intention to disprove the respectability of the parishioners, but he must say that 10,000 out of so large a constituency was a very great portion.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that this was not a question of religious principle, but simply a question of money.—(Tremendous cheering from the Irish Members.) If the established religion be the Christian religion—a religion founded on justice, seeking to procure peace and good will—it was a bad compliment, at the best, to that religion, to say that it would be overturned unless it were supported by the money of the country. He must say, that in voting for the resolution, proposed by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, he ( Mr. B.) did not vote with a view to put down the Established Church, or to do anything having a ten dency to weaken the religious feelings of the country. His object was to promote peace and tranquillity in Ireland, to do justice to those who had too often suffered great injustice, and to promote the interests of this country, by endeavouring to promote good order in that part of the empire, and also to prove his respect for religion by standing up on behalf of justice and humanity, rather than by exciting improper and acrimonious feelings amongst the people of Ireland. (Cheers. ) Mr. RUTH VEN was exceedingly surprised at the perti nacity with which these petitions were presented. He had some hope that the Noble Lord (Egerton) who had presented one of these petitions would have had the delicacy of not pressing it upon the House, as a more unjust, audacious, and slanderous petition he had never read. They were told that some respectable names were attached to the petition, and that one of them was that o f a gentleman of great respectability. If such a person's name were attached to the petition, it dis graced him as a gentleman and a man. They were told, as an excuse, that this gentleman derived his income from Church property-- Lord F. EGERTON—The name of the gentleman to whom the Hon. Member alludes is not attached to the petition. Mr. RUT HVE N—lf there were any other gentleman of respectability amongst these petitioners, he would say that he had disgraced himself both as a citizen and a private gentle man. Such a petition ought not to be allowed to lie on the table. The language of petitions to that House ought to be clear, distinct, and not liable to be misunderstood.—(Hear , hear, hear.) They ought to know what the petitions ap plied for.—( Hear, hear.) It was not to be tolerated that Members of that House should be spoken of in such lan guage as that of the present petition. What did the peti tioners mean by Irish agitators ? That House should riot allow petitions containing such vague charges to be pre sented in this manner. It was a practice that was too often resorted to, and was only calculated to create ill-feeling among the Members of that House, and the people at large. He would state with respect to the assertion of the Right Hon. Member, that they were not applicable to him, and they were not founded in truth.—( Cries of " Order, order.") The petitions had not been read to any extent, and the petition which had been read conveyed enough to show how suspici ously all such documents ought to be considered. The peti tion which had been read at length contained language which ought not to be entertained by the House, and he trusted therefore it would not be received. Col. EVANS had no doubt in consequence of the statements that had gone forth, that the measures that were intended to be brought forward with respect to the Irish Church were calcu lated to destroy it altogether, that many persons really enter tained that opinion. With respect to receiving the petition, he must say that it contained language which charged one party with perjury, and another with high treason. Did it mean to charge his Majesty's Ministers, and those who sup ported the course they had adopted, with that offence ? If it did not convey a distinct charge of that nature the petition was certainly a most senseless one.—( Cheers.) Mr. WILSON PATTEN bore testimony to the respecta bility of the persons who signed the petition. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON observed, that if be thought any portion of the petition charged any person with high trea son, he should have thought it his duty not to present the pe tition. Such, however, was not the construction which he put upon any portion of the petition. He understood its meaning to be to express, in strong language, what their opinions were ; hut he did not think the language used exceeded the latitude the House allowed. Mr. G ROTE begged to call the attention of the House to the disrespectful language of the petition which, whether coming from ultra-pious or ultra-radical parties, was equally objectionable to the House. Mr. A. TREVOR would not have presented the petition, had he thought it contained language so strong as that which the Hon. Member stated. The language of it he (Mr. T.) admitted was strong, but the subject was one of great im portance and interest, and in some measure justified lan guage somesvhat stronger than the rules of the House would permit. They had heard day after day of the persecutions that the Roman Catholics had suffered; but he would ask, were not the Protestants also persecuted, and were they to be con demned when they complained of their grievances—when they saw measures in progress to alienate Church pro perty from its legitimate purposes—and which measures they conceived to be a flagrant invasion of their most sacred rights?—(Cheers from the Opposition.) He had several other petitions to present from the county of Durham on the' same , 11iiret, L':` as I.c '.l ,- 4iic,het• they were couched in the same language as that in the petition he had just presented. As he did not, however, see any of the Hon. Members for that county present who differed from him ( Mr. T.) on this subject, he would abstain from doing so. He hoped that the Hon. Member for Kil kenny (Mr. Finn) would believe that he (Mr. T.) did not wish to cast the imputations that he conceived were contained in the petition. He was not responsible foi: the language of the petition, although he concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners as to what they conceived the measure contem plated by the Noble Lord, when they termed it a measure of spoliation of the property of the Irish Church. Mr. 0' C 0 NNE L L said he had no objection to the recep tion of the petition from South Lancashire, although it. con tained expressions that were disrespectfully violent, exceedingly calumniating, and utterly false. It had all these qualities ,of violence, calumny, and falsehood to make it parli amentary. (Laughter and cheers.) It was full of that ribaldry that is in so much requisition abroad to vilify some Members of Parlia ment, especially one for whom he had a great •affection.— ( Laughter.) He was willing to treat it with, the com passion of his c.nntempt. It was full of I - 4 1 d taste—it lied most outrageously—and he was perfectly. , willing that the petitioners and it should be both permitted to lie on the table.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Member for the City of Durham has completely vindicated himself from partici pating in the sentiments of the petitioners— Mr. A. TREVOR—Not as to the charge of perjury. Mr. O'CONNEL L—The petitioners have not the manli ness to bring a direct charge, but they deal in base and cowardly insinuations, fit only for the ribaldry of news papers of a certain description. He would not reject the petition on that account, but he would like that the prayer of it would be attended to, and that some spe cific motion was founded upon it. For his own part, there was one portion of the oath which he did not like—he referred to that part which called this a Protestant Government. He could not understand what was meant by calling this Govern ment a Protestant Government, when, in fact, there were only three offices to which Roman Catholics were not eligible. He would be glad, however, that the charge was made di rectly, and that a motion was founded upon it.—( Hear, hear.) He had more than once in that House given his construction of the oath, and he asked any Hon. Member who differed from him in that construction of it, to never fear his (Mr. O'Connell's) expulsion. As to Lord John Russell's measure, he was prepared to vote for the measure on the same princi ple as if the Catholics had the possession of this Church property under similar circumstances to those under which the Protestants now possess it, and he would do this because he was convinced that the scandalous robbery, the outrageous peculation, and dis graceful love of Mammon, would infringe upon and destroy that respect for the retigi,;., Li, c - -nee he believed to be true, and because he thought it would bring into iii,grac. , and contempt the Clergymen of that religion, to have them fed, fattened, and gorged at the expense of the wealth, industry, and comfort of Protestants. He would vote for that measure as a Catholic, in order to remove those causes which he was of opinion would prevent Protestants from considering the truths, and embracing the principles, of the Catholic reli gion. How could Hon. Members account for it, that the principles of Protestantism had not extended in Ireland ? ( Hear, hear.) It was because of the Scenes that took place in that country, in enforcing the payment of tithes—it was because the excessive and unnecessary wealth of the Pro testant Church prevented Catholics from inquiring into the truth of its doctrines, by creating prejudices against it— or was it owing to the extreme ignorance of Roman Catholics ? He would be glad to know whether any other reason could be assigned why papists did not become Protes tants, if it were not either on account of the violation of jus tice which was inflicted upon them, which they felt more sen sitively when they reflected that this property was originally designed for Catholic purposes—for the education of Catho lics—for the maintenance of the Catholic clergy—for celebra ting masses for the relief of the souls of the deceased from purgatory—_ An HON. MEMBER said " No, no," to this statement. Mr. O'C 0 NNEL L begged to ask where the Church pro perty was that was originally so designed? Surely the Hon. Gentleman was not so unacquainted with history as to assert that it was granted for any other purpose. What, therefore, was it that he proposed—first, that the spiritual wants of Pro testants should be completely supplied, but Hon. Members wanted more than that their spiritual wants should be supplied —they wanted the pounds, shillings, and pence—( Cheers) — and shame to those who insisted that religion was not a subject between the human mind and its creator, but that it was rather a question of mere paltry pelf, and the mere exaction of the mammon of this would. This is the point he wanted to try —admitting that it is the ignorance of Catholics that keeps them in ignorance of the Catholic religion. By what arguments can Honourable Members opposite justify themselves in refusing to appropriate the sur plus of the Church revenues to their education, and so enable them to know the truth, thus giving to the Protestant reli gion a clear stage and no favour—then God would defend the right. Give the means of enlightening the human mind—supply us with a good moral education, and then they would have the power to ascertain the truth. The Hon. Gentleman then re ferred to the decrees of Popes that had been quoted ; and stated that the doctrines of his Church, in respect to per jury, was the breaking of a lawful oath, or the taking of an unlawful oath.—( Hear, hear.) He concluded by hoping that some Hon. Member would make a motion on the subject of this Catholic Oath, and then he would not care for the ribaldry of South Lancashire, or the lies of Durham. Sir C. PEP YS took the oaths and his seat as member for Malton. Sir A. AGNEW gave notice that he should move a clause, to be inserted in the London and Birmingham Railway Bill, to prevent travelling on Sundays.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.) Mr. WILK S presented a petition from the householders of the southern division of the parish of St. Pancras against the St. Pancras Paving Bill. Some other petitions to the same effect, and some in favour of the Bill, were presented by Mr. Tooke, Mr. Russell, Sir R. Inglis, Sir S. Whalley, and other members. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Trustees of the Truro Roads against the Truro Improvement Bill. The Hon. Member also moved the first reading of the Stretham (Cambridge) Inclosure Bill. ST. PANCRAS PAVING BILL. Sir S. WHALLEY moved the second reading of the St. Pancras Paving Bill. Lord STORMONT opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that it was intended to amalga mate the several district Boards of the parish into one Board, and thereby to saddle the exorbitant debts of some of the districts upon the rest. The parish was divided into nine teen districts, but so much opposition was anticipated from two of them, that the promoters of the Bill had thought proper to omit them. The Noble Lord spoke in so low a tone of voice that only a few words could be heard in the reporters' gallery. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. Mr. TOOKE, having opposed the Bill during the last session, now saw no reason to alter his opinion. The public would gain nothing from the proposed change, for the power of the Committees would fall into the hands of the vestry, very few of whom attended. He had presented several petitions from inhabitants, and more had been presented from bond-holders, who were of opinion that their claims would be prejudiced, by having a fluctuating body like the Vestry substituted for the respectable trustees. He therefore, with pleasure, seconded the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. HUME would ask whether it was fit that 17 Boards should exist, with 500 members, while the parish had a re spectable vestry of 100 individuals elected by open poll ? It would give a greater security to the bondholders than they had now. He trusted the House would let the Bill pass the second reading, and in the Committee every disposition would be shown to afford the best security to every individual. Mr. WILK S said that, though at the risk of the censure of his Hon. Friend, he was prepared to give a vote against the Bill, as he had done before, and he trusted that the House would, as they had done before, sanction his vote by throwing out the Bill. Parliament had no right to abolish the security of any individual who had lent his money upon the full security of the rates, bridges, &c. which they now had. Sir S. WHALLEY said, that by the Bill the vestry were enjoined to raise a particular rate for the payment of the inte rest and capital of the debt, so that the House would see at once that the security was not in the least impaired. The last Bill was thrown out because it was opposed by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who said, " except the Foundling Estates, and I will vote for the second reading." They had now excepted those estates, not to him only, but in justice to the case, for they were situated in two different parishes. Sir R. INGLIS said the case was not one of party politics at all, and he trusted that the day would never come when local bills would be so decided.—( Cheers.) Though St. Pancras was called a parish, it was not to be confounded with those small parishes common in other parts. It covered a very large extent of ground, and contained both town and country parts then was it fair that those country parts should be under the same regulation as the town ones? He trusted the Bill would be thrown out by as large a majority as had taken that course last year. Mr. F. MA ULE hoped the Bill would pass. He would vote for the second reading, on account of his abhorrence of any public business being done by self-elected bodies. Mr. BYNG would vote for the second reading, as he thought it would be much to the advantage of the parish, by abolishing a great number of useless Boards. Mr. H. BULWER rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide." He said he would support the second reading of the Bill, and he was sure if the Right Hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, had been in his place, he would have had his support. Lord STORMONT made some remarks across the table. Mr. BU L WE R did not know whether the Noble Lord meant to say that he did not believe the assertion made by him, ( Mr. B. ) ( No, from Lord Stormont.) He had the authority of the Mirror of Parliament for saying, that if the Right Hon. Ba ronet were present, he would support the present Bill, as it had not now the clause to which he objected. Lord STORMONT explained that all he meant to say was, that had the Right Hon. Baronet been present, he (Lord Stormont) did not believe he would support the Bill. Sir S. WHALLEY said, when he spoke to the Right Hon. Baronet, he then said he would support the Bill in its present shape. After a few words from Lord EASTNOR and Colonel EVANS, the Gallery was cleared for a division. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were — For the second reading For the amendment ll5 Majority against the Bill 2 Mr. E. S. RUTHVEN brought up the report of the Corn• Itittee on the Dublin Oil Gas Company Bill. CAALO . :;' C,; - ::\ FT.T%OTION. Mr. STEWART MAJORIBANKS, as cf thr Carlow Election Committee, reported to the House that the Committee had decided that Messrs. Kavenagh and Bruen were not duly elected—that the election was null and void, and that neither the petition nor the opposition to it was frivolous or vexatious. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next.---Carried. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, as an individual, would enter his protest against the House adjourning for two days at that ad vanced period of the session, and when so much business was to be done. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. O'CONNELL having given notice of his intention to bring . a question of breach of privilege before the House, and it being necessary to have a witness to prove the fact at the bar of the House, he bad since ascertained that the witness was not in town, and he would therefore beg to with draw it, and now gave notice of his intention to bring it for ward on Wednesday next. Mr. TOOKE begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gen. tlernan °yip os it e (Sergeant Goulburn), who was the Chair . man of the Commissioners, what amount of compensation the clerks of the Exchequer were to receive for certain loss of fees they incurred ? Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said a great mistake had been published in a widely circulated newspaper, respecting this compensation. It was said it amounted to 30,0001., whereas it only was 10,0001. In reply to a question from some Hon. Member, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on Monday next he would bring forward his measure for Municipal Reform. When he had not a seat in the House he was informed by his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had agreed to fix Monday next for the consideration of the Hon. Member's (Mr. Cayley's) motion relative to the cur rency. He (Lord John Russell) hoped his Hon. Friend would select some other day for bringing forward his motion. Mr. CAYL E Y could not comply with the request.— ( Cries of " Oh, oh.") He had already given way twice ; and although he was aware of the great importance of Municipal Reform, yet when he considered the great distress of agriculturists, which he thought a revision of the currency would remedy, he could not consent to post pone his motion. Mr. HUM E hoped, notwithstanding, that the Noble Lord would bring forward his Bill, and have it printed. Mr. O'BRIEN asked the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland whether he intended to bring in any Bill to amend that part of the Irish Reform Bill, which related to the registra• tion of votes? Lord MOR PET II replied in the negative. Mr. O'CONNELL had given notice that he would bring forward a measure to that effect, and he would do so if the At torney-General for Ireland would not do so. In reply to a question from an Hos. MEMBER, Lord MORPETH said the return of the Commissioners for Municipal Enquiry would be laid on the table in a few days, and then he would give an answer. Mr. SHAW asked the Noble Lord when he would lay his Bill for Irish Municipal Reform on the table ? Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he would bring it forward when the Attorney-General for Ireland arrived. HIGH WAYS. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, and considered the High Ways Bill, which, after receiving some amendments, the House resumed. ASSIZE BILL—IRELAND. Mr. O'LOGHLEN moved the second reading of the As size (Ireland) Removal Bill. Colonel CONOLLY begged leave to direct the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's attention to the county of Kildare, with reference to this measure. Mr. BARRON opposed the Bill, the object of which, he said, was to remove the assizes from Waterford to the incon siderable town of Dungarvan, under' the pretence of centrali zation. He moved, as an amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." Mr. WYSE seconded the amendment. Mr. GRATTAN hoped that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Dungarvan, seeing the opposition to the Bill, would withdraw it for the present, and allow some time for con sideration. Mr. O'BRIEN was understood to oppose the Bill. Lord MO RPETH hoped that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and he would pledge himself to take care that it should not be pressed forward until he had taken an opportunity of consulting the representatives of the country generally as to which way public opinion leant with re gard to the object of the Bill. Mr. WALKER coutended that the Orange character of the Privy Council in Ireland and the prejudices of Grand Jurors in that country, would render it dangerous to vest in those bodies such power as would be given to them under this Bill. Sir J. CAMPBELL was of opinion that if the Bill were dissatisfactory to Ireland it ought to be withdrawn ; still, as had been suggested by the Noble Lord (Morpeth), it would be as well to let it go through the second reading, and before forwarding it any further, public opinion could be ascertained. Mr. O'DWYER supported the Bill. Mr. BARRON was willing to allow that the matter was pressed on Mr. O'Loghlen by his constituents, and by reason of his connexion with the town he could not avoid taking such a part in the question. However, if the House were willing that the Bill be read a second time, he was satisfied. Mr. JACKSON was astonished at the nature of the oppo sition to the Bill, for there was no real foundation for such opposition. He heard two objections stated—one on the ground of Mr. O'Loghlen's connexion with the town, the other lay to the interference of the Privy Council in Ireland. Now he would distinctly aver that Mr. O'Loghlen did not deserve the unhandsome imputations cast upon the integrity of his motives. His character was far above them. The Bill was a very good one, and of great convenience to the inha bitants of the county. The attack on the Privy Council was equally unfair and untrue, for a more honourable body of men did not exist, either in Ireland or England. In Ireland any Member might attend a. meeting of the Council without a summons. The Hon. Member, after some further observa tions in defence of the character of Grand Juries, supported the second reading. Mr. LYNCH hoped the second reading would stand over. Mr. FINN had an instinctive distrust of the Privy Council, whose powers the Irish people would diminish as well as they could.—( Bursts of laughter.) The Hon. Member proceeded to attack the Privy Council and the Bill. Sir R. BATE SON remarked as to the question before the House, he thought the Assizes should beheld in a central town in every county. In the county of Antrim, for instance, the Assizes were held in a corner of the county, and it was a great hardship on witnesses and jurors to attend them. So great was the inconvenience felt that most of the gentlemen wished for a change. The conjoint approbation of the Grand Jury and Privy Council should be attended to- Sir R. MUSGRAVE said the majority of the Irish Mem bers were opposed to the Bill • and a public meeting, convened by the Lord Lieutenant, andseveral Magistrates, condemned its provisions. Mr. G. EVANS opposed the Bill. Mr. F. SHAW vindicated the character of the Privy Coun cil and Grand Juries. He lamented that a simple Bill, hav ing for its object the speedy and cheap administration of jus tice, should be thus made a question of party.—( Cheers.) He would support the Bill. Mr. O'LOGHLEN explained, and the Bill was read a second time. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL. The House then went into Committee on the further consi deration of the Report on the Merchant Seamen's Bill. Clauses from 18 to 28 were carried, some with a few ver bal amendments, of a technical character, and without any general interest. On clause 29 being put, Mr. ROBINSON said on this clause he should divide the Committee if the Right Hon. Baronet did not consent to an alteration of one part of it. He believed that the merchants had no objection to the clause, as far as it forced them to carry a certain number of seamen on board of their vessels, but they did object to the compulsion of taking so great a number of parish apprentices. Sir. J. GRAHAM said that there was nothing new in the present clause except as far as it relaxed the old law. By the 2d and 3d of Ann, every captain of a ship of thirty tons is compelled to take a parish apprentice. Now the present Bill only compels the owners of ships of eighty tons to take a parish apprentice, so that all vessels of a tonnage between thirty and eighty tons will be relieved from that compul sion. But all may relieve themselves by paying 101. to the parish. Mr. YOUNG opposed the clause. Mr. HUME opposed the clause, on the ground that the in troduction of parish apprentices went to exclude the sons of respectable persons, who would otherwise go into the merchant service. _ _ Mr. WALLACE opposed the clause. Mr. A. CHAPM AN opposed the clause. Mr. C. WOOD supported the clause. Mr. INGHAM said a few words against the clause. Mr. O'CONNELL complained that by clause 24 any youths from the age of thirteen to eighteen, if they beg, or their parents beg, are liable to be sent to sea at the discretion of the overseers of a parish. This would have a bad effect in Ireland. Sir J. GRAHAM said that clause 24 did not extend to Ireland. Mr. EWA RT opposed the clause. Mr. PEASE also said a few words against the clause. Captrin BERKELEY supported the clause. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the clause. Sir J. GRAHAM should withdraw this clause if the Com mittee would agree to the 30th and 51st clauses. After a few observations from Mr. Young and Sir James Graham, Mr. ROBINSON said that if shipowners were allowed to fill up the required number of apprentices in the manner most agreeable to themselves, his objections were obviated. The 29th clause was then struck out. The clauses from 30 to 44 inclusive were then agreed to, after a brief discussion. On clause 45 being read, which permits sailors on board merchant vessels to quit them, and volunteer into the King's service, Mr. G. F. YOUNG could not help expressing his most decided objection to the clause. It involved the infraction of one of the first principles of justice, and tended to the demo ralization of the seamen, whom it encouraged, after they en tered into a solemn agreement with the shipowners to serve for a stipulated time, to break through their compact and vo lunteer into the King's service. He would divide the House on the clause. Sir J. GRAHAM thought that the seamen should have the right of changing from the merchants' to the King's service if they chose, or saw any advantage in so doing. As they entered voluntarily into the merchant service they ought to have the power of quitting it when they pleased for the King's service. It was impossible to overrate the advantages of this clause, and he would rather renounce the Bill altogether than give up this clause. Mr. ROBINSON was sorry to disagree in opinion with the Hon. Member for Tynemouth. Though he was a ship owner he would allow the clause to pass in consideration of the great question of public policy it involved. Captain ALS AGER stated it had often occurred to him to have a great portion of his crew, as many as thirty at a time, leave him in foreign ports just at the time he most required their labour, and go on board the King's ships, induced to do so by being told they would have less to do and better recom pensed. He thought the clause, if it passed, should be so framed as to compel sailors to finish their work on board merchant vessels before they were allowed to engage in the Royal navy. After a few words from Mr. BUCKINGHAM and Sir J. GRAHAM, Sir E. CODRINGTON expressed his approbation of the clause. -0• INA • Mr. G. F. YOUNG opposed it, as calculated to demo ralize the British seamen. He should wish at least to have it applied only in time of war. Captain BERKELEY knew an iastance in which so mail sailors were impressed from an Indiaman that there were not left sufficient to work the vessel. She was, in con sequence lost, and the amount of the cargo recovered upon an action. Sir E. CODRINGTON said if an Officer under his cora inai,J took so many men from a merchant ship as left an in sufficient number for working her, he would call him to account. Captain BAG SHAW said four men were the usual s num ber for every 100 tons. Three, therefore, to each 100 ton ought to be left. After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN the H°' divided— For the Clause Against it Majority for the Clause The other clauses were agreed to.—Report on Mo'ndg• t Mr. ELPHINSTONE obtained leave to bring i n a n to limit the poll at elections to one day. OATHS ABOLITION BILL. On the motion of Lord STANLEY the Oaths Abolition fill was read a third time, and passed. Dr. BOWRING then rose for the purpose of presenting s petition, when Mr. ROB IN N said that as it was contrar yto the rule laid down that petitions should be presented at so late an hour he must move that the House be counted.--( C r i e s o f << Orde r ' order.") He contended that he was perfectly in order. The SPEAKER suggested that the clerk should be allow to read the petition. Mr. ROBINSON must persist in the motion that the House be counted, although he objected to the practice. That court, however, had been taken on a former evening with himso when in the act of bringing under the attention of the HI, a subject of considerable importance, and, therefore, as he be lieved the Government were privy to the proceeding, . should, during the remainder of the session, move the adjours meat of the House whenever forty Members were not prese nt ; Mr. F. B A RING did not believe that the Gove rnaleu were concerned in the counting out of the House on the occs:,. sion referred to, and as for himself he had come down P w posely to contribute towards forming a House. The Gallery was then cleared, and, forty Members not * ing present, the House adjourned at One o'Clock. LIST OF THE MINORITY , Of 35 (Tellers included) who voted in support of Mr. lq , ? l ,ad tion for introducing a Clause into the Great Weste rn .31 :4;40 Bill for preventing travelling on that Railroad during the of the Lord s Day. Agnew, Sir A. Alsager, Richard Bonham, Francis R. Fruce, C. L. C. Buckingham, J. S. Chichester, Arthur Crewe, Sir G. Dundas, R. A. Finch, G. Forster, C. Fremantle, Sir T. Goulburn, Mr. Serjt. Greisley, Sir It. Pryme, G. Handley, H. Sinclair, G. Hardy, J. Smith, Hon. Hughes, H. Jackson, J. D. Kearsley, J. H Langton, Col. G. Law, Hon. G. ry Lefroy, A. Pelham, John C. Plumptre, J. P. v vTvvl Vaughan, v r ee e v ekss , 117.rLic,ej .nei Miles, W. Po lington, Lord I glis, Sir R. LIST OF THE MINORITY g o ok Of 15 ( Teller included), who voted for Mr. G. F. Youni, ll eir eal.'" that British Seamen should not be at liberty to break gagements by entering his Majesty's service. Alsager, Richard Marsland, H. Trevor, A. . Bowring, Dp• Dr. Pease, Joseph Tulk, Cha rles Bridgman, Hewitt Ruthven, E. Walker, R. Buckingham, J. S. Thompson, Ald. Ewart, W. Thorneley, Thomas Tailart. bisborne, T. Young, 0 , F. ELECTION COMMITTEES• THIS DAY. ENNIS. .11 , 0 0 The scrutiny in this case is proceeding very slowlb C„300 vote, that which was under discussion when the CC §d adjourned yesterday, being as yet decided, and against k ting Member on the ground of non-occupancy. rais e° Another vote to which a similar objection had been is now under consideration. CARLOW. clistell The Committee met to-day at 11 o'clock, and imm fer entered into a deliberation of this case. After renlaw"7lete nearly two hours in consultation, Counsel and Agen ts iut ioll called in, when the Chairman announced the re t e of the Committee to the effect, that owing to o e ut ies, proper conduct of the returning Officer and his D e Pi t tiog and to the delays occasioned by the agents of the , e „ for Members (Messrs. Brien and Kavanagh), the eleent'lfrit P r ' the county of Carlow was null and void ; and that tier should be issued for a new election, to return two bers to serve in Parliament for the said county. YOUGHAL. The Resolution which the Committee came to last 0 . declaring that it was competent for freemen to Vr r esi' mediately after being registered, and that six mont" 9 day dance in the town or borough in which any free $ Ol " propose to vote, is not required by the Reform Ac t t , again taken into consideration, the Committee co nsen hear the question re-argued. a tb° Mr. AUSTEN, in a very powerful argument, impeaohe. o (il legality of this deci s ion, which, he contended, No Bill rect contradiction to the principles of the Reform ctee9, totally unprecedented in the annals of Elect ion Couotivioula and one which, when the alarming conseq uence s that td, ha result from it, if generally acted upon, were oons ide respectfully submitted ought to be reversed. ingen uity Mr. HARRISON at great length and with much °- maintained the propriety of the decision. he Committee were in deliberation on the question bea we left. oin' teh wesl HORSHAM. _ This Committee met in the Sessions'-house , at eleven o'clock. Mr. HARRISON opened the case on the par t of the pttio'ionr°4 T. Broadwood, Esq., the unsuccessful candidate, os tr plained that the sitting Member, T. R. Hurst , E t sq ";l bel right turned by a majority of voters who had no -• not being resident, at the time of the election, on the p in respect to which they claimed a right to vote. 00 111 The sitting Member was returned by a majoritY 12 0ar" two, the numbers for the respective candidates being Cp 118. t th• 1" 211 ' One voter, named Alldrige, was struck out 0. the ground of non-occupancy. The Committee then adjourned. SPORTING INTELLIGENC YORK SPRING MEETING. pi ht The weather continues unfavourable, w Y it o b rk Ple T o u t esdsl Y 0 .,., 0 h eb ;0'4;4 company, however, was very numerous, and the spo rt ,„`1 0 0' f All; interesting than on the first day. The running was a s i ; Sweepstakes of 30 sovs. each, 10 ft., for two yrs old ;co 1 fillies, Bst. 21b. T. Y. C. 18 subs. tt Mr. Allen's b. f. Promise, by Mulatto ..... Ga r° Mr. Wm. Scott's b. f. 5ki1fu1........ . ............... Mr. 1-1. Claridge's b. f. Adeline, by Je - rr .. y . ................ 4_ Mr. Powlett's b. c. Wentworth, by Confederate , The following not placed:— " Mr. J. Dawson's b. c. by Waverley—Minime, 2 i t Duke of Leeds's Jericho Mr. Osbaldestone's gr. f. by Velocipede—Fickl e r l rrs Btp , Mr. Watts's b. f. by Brutandorf—Bubastes' darn , I an° t he Betting-6 to 4on Jericho and Skilful against th e in th o 1 against the winner. The lot got off at the first at''`'-a most beautiful order, and kept together, at a bad P ace k im tris t 7oo the rails, Avelina being till then just in front ; a t `skiltoi hf ' S Wentworth went ahead, and was soon cut down by t ber , reaching the stand Promise challenged Skilful, and bea .fro head, Aveline being third by about a length. for three The Shorts, a Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each, h. ft., 5 subs' old ; colts, Bst. 51b. ; fillies, Bst. 21b. Last mile. , 1 Mr. Powlett's colt—Giovanni's dam ... ....... otta" Mr. Gully's Democracy, by Tramp, 3y . ............. ". 3_ 4 o f Mr. M. Foulis's De Roos, by Velocipede, 3 Yrs,i",: e (lo o sl l l' 5t04 on Democracy. After waiting till nearly to, r- co oter'i an hour for Budget (who was weighed, mounted an ", 1 one ° c olt the course, but drawn in consequence of having twistFooett'act plates and lamed himself ) the thre started, Mr- , on d, ° leading at a very strong pace, Democracy lying ro se s : n - i w i r c % r e q e t i b ll e Roos third ; in this way they travelled to the closed, and a short struggle ensued, Powlett's colt a bit or his by a length. When called upon Democracy sh °sge- ° ' .6. l"P" A'ntier bl rogue. The result confirms the superiority of 1 ~fract sli t two-year old form ; last year he was beaten at caot e ; tbs . ' mocracy, yesterday he defeated Mr. Powlett's colt u , l A n t ioa, A 00' to-day we see the latter beat Democracy ; the „.,ory - Ainderby was not fit to run last year, or that he has &dully since. . o ld The Oaks Stakes of 50 sovs . e a c h, h. ft., for three J - 1 Bst. 41b. Mile and half. 7 subs. oil Duke of Leeds' Illarianne Tem ple 9 k . Mr. J. Smith's Margaretta, by Action ......... ......... , Mr. Dyson's Miss Camarine, by Langar ............... , A t e Margaretta got a start of several lengths, and rat t e ° close to? good pace, Camarine lying second to her till they we r an d apP e ,,k W. rails, where they closed. Marianne then got in front, r, to have defeated her opponents. Marg are tta, how e _liiss her, and ran her to half a head. Previous to the r ace rine was purchased by Mr. Dyson for 250 guineas. Captain Gardnor's racehorse, Messenger, di, Monday last, of inflamm, A fle stii (34 Ltion. ~" "rgoi 1 1 London : Printed and Published byAIURI.7O — 1 0— -- 11'2, Strand, at The Sun Offic. e, No. 112, Strands "- of Middlesex. _ -- ---- - BIRTHS. i 3 rs• F recw. On the 26th inst., in Belgrave-square, the I - 10 0 . - tbe i s tif n il Cox, of a son. blie , On the 20th inst., in Fitzwilliam-square N orth, ..., 4 01 S 2 of George Latouche, Esq., of a son. rattera-F - On the 20th inst., Mrs. Robert Whalley, 0f....................../ Essex, of a son. - MARRIED. il 94 i ' Clarke Oa rr f' i t ! On the 12th inst., at Harbourne Thomas hte ° CI/1 0- of the Shade, Leicestershire, to 'Elizabeth, da,,u, sAr ich ..011, Willett, Esq., of Norwich, and niece of Henry u° - "parliv and wi g ston Esq., of Lightwood-house Staffordshire, , Leicestershire. geniY :',;(1 On the 17th inst., at Trinity Church, Marylello°;*.plitersl Coape, Esq., eldest son of Henry Coape, Eml , °I. , jer•!Y ; • Maltton, Essex, to Sidney Jane third daughter 0, the Hon. Sir Henry King, K.C.B. ' . •piis DIED. Hackn e y' On the 24th inst., at Alvia-house Establishment, ~. f l. J. R. Harrison, aged 10, only daughter of the latej:,r a cklrt 7 - : - garrison -surgeon, and grand-daughter of Captain 1 7 , ; :ea East India Company's service, Bombay. a . a lew.#?-:.'- On the 26th inst., in Bloomsbury-square, LY !: itit fn daughter of Mr. H. Morrill, in her 26th year. ._,.....,1, , r!!!., I n, On the 22d inst., Mrs. Hall, of the Elms,ltiaL,_,, ( w." TO . ; - _,,404 Nicholas Hall, Esq., late of the same place, an tt ";:r he 7,, On the 24th inst., at Augmering, Sussei,:,_, , ~: , ~.,',': ~,, William Peters, Effingham, Surrey. .---;;,i1;40i ----.- ----_ - ; - ;:iiiia P,„;,if