The Sun. — London, England, 1835-05-21 00:00:00

no prospect of salvation for the - British Constitution. The design of the Tories, we repeat, is palpably again to dissolve the Parliament—t o p ac k a H ouse of Commons with an - anti-national majority —fa use -the Court for their party purposes —to oppose all those reforms which are loudly de manded by public opinion, and to reinstate themselves once more in power. Temporary success would array the people against the Crown and Aristocracy, and all the intervening classes of society would be sacrificed as political links in our mixed form of government. To prevent this certain consequence of Tory domination in the Legislature and Executive, the leading ad vocates of popular opinions are imperiously required to resist these Tory Clubs. Societies for political orga nization are unquestionably evils ; but the Tories have thrown down the gauntlet, and it must be promptly taken up. No alternative remains. Loyalty to the Sovereign— respect for the Aristocracy—the interests of the middle classes and of the people at large—demand that these mushroom Tory Associations should be defeated by counter. societies. 'When the Tories declare an armistice, let us meet the flag of truce ; but in the meanwhile the Reform ers treast take care that their enemies do not steal a march on them. We want no societies to propagate liberal opi nions ; the Printing Press and Education are our instru ments of conversion, but the Reform Bills are implements of political power, the use of which must not be neglected. The ensuing Registration, now nigh at band, requires the devotion of Reformers, and to that the Liberal party must direct all their ene rg i es . It m ust not be surrendered . to the exclusive keeping of the Tories. We fervently hope that public attention will be attracted to this all-important sub ject.—Morning Chronicle. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. The adroit machinery by which the Carlton Club have been long operating on the public opinion of the country, and especially on its electoral condition, is at last on the point of being counteracted by the machinery of a better cause ; it will be (as it long since ought to have been) met and foiled by the use of 'its own weapons. A Reform Association has just been Permed in the metropolis for the purpose of establishing se commu nication with all parts of the country ; and, 'among other essential matters, for the purpose of organiiing a complete system of registration. The new ckib, which already reckons some of the wealthiest of the Whig Aristocracy, and of the reforming commercial.iets among its members, is so framed as to comprehend, the largest number of all classes of Reformers. We understand that there have been some provisional meetings of the club, and that another will shortly be held for the purpose of placing the seal on its organization. These are the true arms by which the conspiracies of the Carlton Clubbists and the " Church and State" associations are to be confronted and defeated.— Morning Adiertiser. Lord John Russell's unopposed return for Stroud, and his Lordship's speech on that occasion, were communicated to the public in the Times of yesterday. The address of the Noble Lord to his new constituents was like other dis courses which have lately proceeded from the same source, in something of an apologetic strain, like that of a man who feels that reproach is familiar to him, and who comes pre pared with ready-cut and dry excuses. Lord John appears to take credit for himself and his party, to the detriment of Sir R. Peel, for his readiness to follow up the Reform Bill by other measures, which his Lordship deems its " just and necessary consequences." This may do for a party audience ; but what is the fact of the case ? After Sir Robert Peel was convinced by experiment that the country disagreed with the views which he and his friends had taken respecting the Reform Bill, and its effects upon the Constitution, did he not manfully declare that it was his duty to yield his own judgment to that of the great bulk of the nation, and what it should be their will to require through their representatives, that, to concur with them in establishing as the law of the land ? Why should Sir Robert Peel be accused of insincerity in such a declara tion ? Was he not aware—is not every man of sense per suaded, that the voice of the electors generally, must be all-powerful over the decisions of the House of Commons, and we want to know what purpose of party ambition could be served by Sir Robert Peel and his Conservatives fling ing down defiance to the people so represented, and engag ing in a series of conflicts, wherein they knew that they must be inevitably beaten ? Sir Robert Peel has surely credit enough even with his Whig opponents, to convince them that he could never dream of holding office by the prosecution of a policy adverse to the spirit of reform, and although they took advantage of a momentary coalition, ac cidental in its occurrence, and fugitive in its elements, to expel him from office by a mere trick, they may depend upon it that the people of England, the majority of whose repre sentatives voted with the Right Hon. Baronet, have not affixed the same meaning to his declarations or intended po licy, as that which Lord J. Russell, in his self-complaisant contrast between the Conservatives 'and the Whigs, has been so ready to take for granted. Sir Robert Peel, both in his words and measures, went as far as his conscience approved, and as far as he could consistently, according to his own opinion, with the deliberate sentiments of the Bri tish nation. Let us see how his acts did square with his announcements. Lord John Russell talks boastingly with regard to Corporation reform, although during his four years' administration he and his colleagues went not an inch further than the appointment of a commission to inquire ; to the report of which commission, so soon as it should be brought to light, Sir R. Peel, at the very outset, pledged his Government that it and he would pay the most re spectful attention. Upon the question, therefore, of cor porate reform, the Right Honourable Baronet and his declamatory critic at Stroud stand (barring the vast preponderance of political character in the scale of the Conservative statesman) precisely on the same level. Then, look at these rivals (rivals ! we beg Sir Robert's pardon), with reference not to their profes sions, but their acts. They both brought in bills for redressing the grievances of Dissenters. The bill of Lord John Russell was from beginning to e - nd complained of by the Dissenting body as a flagrant wrong to th e i r i n t erests, and a gross insult to th e i r feelings, while the rest of the world stood by and treated it with derision and contempt. Whereas the measure of Sir Robert Peel cut away the very roots of their grievauee for the Dissenters, granting them all the relief they asked in respect of their family arrange ments, and imposing on them neither disgrace nor burden in derogation of the boon. The truth is, thA the right hon. baronet hit the nail upon the head, and drove it home and clinched it ; his redress being that of a considerate and enlightened statesman, while Lord J. Russell's was a childish and ludicrous abortion, lacerating where it professed to heal, and disgusting where it aimed to conciliate. Then, let any honest and prudent man compare the tithe bills of the two Administrations, and see is there a single point in which the superiority of that brought in by Sir ILHardinge was not ma nifest over that of the Whigs, improved, as it had been, with their consent, by the tender and health-working hand of Mr. Daniel O'Connell. Another opportunity will soon arise for treating in detail the Irish Tithe Bill of the Conserva tive Ministry, and therefore we shall now just observe, that in simplicity, in efficiency, in real satisfaction to the land lords, in equity towards the Church, and in solicitude for the public finances, it was a miracle of sound sense, into• grity, and foresight, as contrasted with the Whig-Radical production of the former year. One test of its unexcep tionable policy was, that the Whig leaders could net find a word to say against it, beyond some inconsistent and bar barous absurdities touching the application of what still remained undisposed of from the million previously destined to the suLsistence of the starving clergy, who are now, if the Whig Radicals abide by their late objections, left by them to starve without remorse. Here, then, have we dis posed of the three leading topics of accusation which Lord John Russell brought out as a text for his anti Conservative speech to the Stroud gobemouches ; and when these, the constituents of Colonel Fox, turned over by the Gallant officer (for what consideration will appear by and by) to the leader of Whig Radicalism in his extremity, when they shall come to ask each other in a few weeks—" But what has the country gained by the resolution about one Irish Church ? How are we the better for at! t h e f uss which it occasioned ?"—the answer will be, 'i'nat instead of Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellingts,,n, the King has got for his advisers Lord John Russell and Mr. Daniel O'Con nell ; an additional pension u;,on the list of ex-Chancellors, and the certainty of a civ;l war to resolve the question now again raised by William IV., after William 111. had once effectually settled, it, whether the Crowns of Great Britain and Ireland shall be worn or not by the same Monarch ? There is not another syllable in Lord John Russell's speech evhich calls for the slightest notice. He has slily abstained from touching on the real and perfectly separate motives, almost equally creditable, which weighed with Whigs and Irish Radicals, to concur -in the same hostile operation against the late Ministers ; that with the former section of the confederates' body it was simply faction for the sake of Place, whereas with the latter it was simply the nearer prospect and more sanguine hope of seeing Whiggery Swamped by revolution.—Tinos. The. Marq u i s of Wellesley, who has either entered, or is c-p, the verge of, hii 76th year, can want, we should ima gine,. no better reason than that for retiring even from the office of Polonius to the Court —especially considering that he has attained this ripe old age after " having lived all the days of his life," and no small number of them, under the T orr id Zone. The Noble Marquis's misfortune seems to hav e b een , that he did not knowthe exact mo ment vent when t o l eave t h e cares of office for the quieter -du ties of declining age, and that, though a man of the highest classical taste and attainments, the "solve senescentent" of pf Horace seems to have been entirely lost upon him. The result is, that the causes of his retirement from the House hold become equivocal and obscure, and professed avowals of a directly opposite nature are imputed to him, and ban died about with an eagerness which must be anything but gratifying to a man who has filled for half a contury so large a space in public life. As it is, the matter requires some concise and authoritative clearing up. This, it was expected, would have taken place in the House of Lords on Monday. The reluctance to give this explanation speaks volumes, while every day's silence increases the em barrassment. If age and infirmity alone were the reason, they were as well known, and must therefore have operated as strongly, when, only a month ago, the Noble Lord took office. We will not attempt to recapitulate the various conjectures which the Noble Marquis's retirement has given rise to. Most of them must, of course, be errone ous. But such will always be the case when " more is meant than meets the car."—Morning Herald. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. STEWART V. OSBALDESTONE. This was an action on a promissory note for 2,9601. by the executors M' e late Samuel Stewart. The defendant's hand-writin g being ad m itt e d, M r . B INGHAM f or t h e de fendant, observed that the note was void, it having been given for a gaming debt. The late Mr. Stewart and the defendant were at the Doncaster Races in 1832, when a horse named Fang won the cup, and the defendant lost several sums in betting against her. Being anxious to run a horse of his own, named Cybele, against Fang, he pro cured a trial between them beforehand, and having ascer that Cybele would beat Fang, he proposed a nr:Lch, which was agreed upon, and on that occasion bed with Stewart in favour o f Cyb e l e , b u t t o hi s gr• lat surprise he discove red, a short time before the was to commence, that one of Sybele's legs was in'ac - h swelled, upon which he proposed to draw flu! 'oet, but Stewart would not consent, and consequently he lost it, and gave this note as a security for it. Mr. Baron ' k. - ;rURNEY was of opinion that there was no evidener, of this note having been given for a gaming debt. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 2,9601. MURDER OF A FEMALE. At 12 o'clock yesterday, Mr. Carter, and a highly re spectable Jury, assembled at Mr. Okey's, the Hero of Waterloo public-house, Waterloo-road, to inquire into the mysterious death of Francis Newcombe, who was found dead in a shed in the back premises of the Bull in the Pound public-house, Broadwall, Lambeth, on Sunday morning. John Newcombe, whose appearance was that of a labourer, was living at Herne Bay, and was married to the deceased, who had frequently expressed a wish to come to London to visit some friends. About eight weeks ago he consented to let her come ; she did not say who she was coming to see, or bow long she intended to remain in London. When she left Herne Bay she had a sovereign and a half in her pos session. The deceased left her home with witness's con sent. He did not hear anything of the deceased until about a fortnight ago, when he received a letter from her without a date or signature, but he was positive the handwriting was that of his wife. The letter was here read. It stated that her health was better, and she wished to have her child sent up to London, who was ill, and which she thought she could get cured i■ London ; that if he (the witness) would allow her ss. per week, for the support of the child, she would maintain it while she remained in London. Witness, in continuation, did not answer the letter, in con sequence of being ignorant where to direct it. Mr. Cooke, of Westminster Bridge-road—l am the pa rish surgeon, and was called in to examine the body of the deceased on Sunday. Witness observed a wound upon the forehead. He had since made a post nzortent examination of the head, and discovered that the wound on the forehead had extended into the interior, and had caused a concus sion of the brain. There was a quantity of extravasated blood. In his opinion he had no doubt that the deceased had been struck upon the forehead by a fist, and that - she had from the effect of the blow fallen backwards, and had struck her head against a post or some other hard sub stance. The blow produced by the fall must have caused instant death. The CORONER—Is there any evidence to show who had been in the company of the deceased? The Beadle replied in the affirmative. Jemima Gilbert, is living at No. 123, Kent-street. The deceased lodged at my father's house, and went by the name of Fanny Kempster ; she had been with us about a fort night. Had seen her upon one occasion, about twelve months ago, when she lived in the same house for a short period ; she was not at that time, or subsequently, visited by any man. Witness had seen the deceased alive about half-past nine o'clock on Saturday night last. On the de ceased leaving her she said she had an appointment to meet a person in a coffeeshop in the Borough, and wished witness to accompany her, but which she declined ; she never saw the deceased alive afterwards. Mr. Green, landlord of the George public-house, Kent street, stated that the last witness and the deceased were at the bar of his house on the evening of Saturday, and they had a pint of beer together. This statement the female Gilbert most positively denied, and, in reply to several questions from the Jury, she stated that the deceased had, in the course of the day, said she wanted to meet a young man, a painter, who had come from Herne Bay, and she was very anxious to see him. Mr. Green—The deceased, when at my home, inquired of me whether a young man answering the description given by the last witness had been to my place and inquired for her, which I answered in the negative. A great number of questions were put to Mr. Green and Mrs. Gilbert by the Jury, relative to the latter being in the company of the deceased, which Mr. Green positively swore to, while the latter denied it. The Coroner and Jury observed they bad no doubt that Gilbert had for some purpose kept back some very material facts. John Burkhard—Am a coal-porter ih the employ of Messrs. Isherman, Norway Wharf, Westminster. About seven o'clock on Sunday morning I was passing at the back of the Bull in the Pound. I saw the deceased lying on her face ; she was quite cold. I instantly gave the alarm, and the cabman and two policemen came down. The mouth of the deceased was filled with chaff and straw. CORONER—Did the chaff appear to you to have been. forced into the mouth of the deceased ? Witness—l think she must have drawn it into her mouth while dying. William Bryant—Am a coal-porter ; on the Sunday morning he was informed that two men had been seen near the spot with a female answering the description of the de ceased ; they had with them a whit© dog ; he subsequently went into the Blackfriars-road, and saw two men with a white dog. They answered the description which he had pre viously heard of the two men who had been seen near the shed. Being struck by their appearance, he was induced to listen to their conversation, when he heard one of them say, " All that she talked about was King-street." The other replied, " No, it was Kent-street." One of the men was dressed in a fustian shooting-jacket, with kerseymere knee breeches, white cotton stockings, and low shoes. The other had on a flannel jacket. Witness could identify one of the men, who was a paviour, and had formerly worked for Mr. Grady, the paviour. John Bingnell—Am a watchman. About twenty minutes after two o'clock on Sunday morning he was on duty in Roupel-street, when he heard a voice like that of a female exclaiming " Here is a villain, he has got me down, and is trying to kill me." By the CORONER—Did you hear any other words ? Witness—Yes, I heard the same voice say, " Come to me," and then in a fainter voice say " Have mercy on me ;" he heard no more. His reason for not going down the passage was, in consequence of having repeatedly heard similar ex clamations proceed from the spot. By the CORONER —The cries which he heard came from the spot where the female was found ; he had no doubt that she was murdered, CORONER When you heard the cries why did you not obtain 'assistance ? Witness—Having often heard cries eroceeding from the spot I thought nothing of it. Besides, being very tired, I did not want to have any trouble. Three other witnesses deposed to having heard the cries or screams of a female, but it never occurred to either of them to ascertain the cause. The CORONER having summed up, the Jury returned a verdict of " Wilful Murder against some person or re: . - -:or5: unknown." On the Spilsby-road on Tuesday last a black man accomplished the novel task of walking backwards five miles within an hour. —Louth Herald. INCENDIARY FlRE.—Between 12 and 1 o'clock on Tuesday night a fire was discovered in a shed adjoining the workhouse at Sible Hedingham, occasioned, it is supposed, wilfully. By great exertion the fire was confined to the shed, which was totally consumed, together with a quantity of potatoes and coals, and a number of working tools. The damage will not, it appears, exceed 1001., and the building was insured—Chelmsford Chromicle. SUSPECTED INCENDIARY FIRE AT 13 ROMPTON —About one o'clock yesterday morning the neighbourhood of Brompton and Little Chelsea was much alarmed by a fire, which was discovered to have broken out in the back premises of the Admiral Keppel Inn, on the high road to Fulham. The alarm was given by a female, who, as s h e was pass i ng b y, dis covered the flames issuing from the extensive inclosed skittle grounds at the rear of the premises, which, being pitched over, burnt with great fury. The Kensington parish engine was speedily brought to the spot, and, although very scantily sup plied with water, the destructive element was subdued about three o'clock, without extending to the front premises, which are uninjured. The greatest praise is due to the T and V division of police for their great exertions in extinguishing the fire, to which the preservation of the premises of Mr. Collins, adjoining, is mainly to be attributed. The back premises N% er e only finished about Easter, and it is strongly suspected they were maliciously set on fire, as previous to going to bed the waiter had inspected them, when every thing was safe. Mr. Watts, the' proprietor, who is in the country,. is, we understand, insured. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1835 - - Mr. PO ULTE R would so alter hip measure, by adding the as to keep clear of the A c t o f Ch ar l es the words "in 5h 0 .1 3 5 , " Second ; and in that case be hoped for the support of the Right Hon. Baronet. An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not ascertain, could not by any means consider the Sabbath desecrated by the innocent enjoyments or recreations of the humbler classes on that day. On the contrary, he was of opinion that the poor had a right to their Sabbath recreations, and if he supposed that this Bill was calculated to prevent such recreations he should certainly oppose it ; but, not believing that it was likely to have this effect, he would give it his support. Mr. ROBINSON said the question before the House was, whether they should or should not go into Committee upon the Bill. If there were any Gentlemen who entertained doubts upon the subject, as he confessed he himself did, it was in their power to reject the Bill upon the third reading. Mr. HAW ES, in accordance with the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel), withdrew his amend ment t but at the same time expressed his determination John Russell) Would be ih his place, which, as he said before, he expected to-morrci*. Mr. ROBINSON acceded to this r'etinei.‘t; LORD'S DAY' OBSERVANCE rsiLta Mr. Porft R presented a petition from the market gar deners of Tottenham, against the Sabbath Observance Bill. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from the clergy and inhabitants of Worcester, in favour of the Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE had a petition to, present from Fins bury, praying that certain clauses might be introduced into the Bill, and that they might be heard by counsel at the bar of the House in favour of those clauses. The petitioners went on to state, that having reason to believe that many of the supporters of the Bill were the very worst observers of the Sabbath-day—( Great laughter)—and that in the parishes of St. Westminster, card-playine• and games of chance—( Renewed were carried on in the houses of individuals of rank and fashion, whereby not only the Lord's Day was profaned, but the servants had a bad example set before them, and were induced to pursue similar practices--that they dis approved of games of chance for money on the Sabbath-day— ( Continued laughter)—and those who would prohibit chuck farthing, the petitioners could not help thinking, with the poor men whose only day of cessation from labour was the Sab bath, such men should not be permitted to profane the Lord's day with impunity.—('clear, and laughter.) They therefore prayed there might be introduced into the Bill a strict enact ment against the playing of cards and games of chance in private Houses on the Sabbath-day—(Great laughter)—and they fur ther prayed that if the house doubted these statements, they might be allowed to prove them at the Bar of the House. Sir A. AGNEW—If the Hon. Member would move for the introduction of the clauses referred to in the petition, he would have great pleasure in seconding the motion.—( Great laughter.) The petition was then laid on the table. Mr. F. SHAW presented petitions from Skibbereen and other places in Ireland, in support of the Sabbath Day Bill. Several petitions were presented for and against the Bill. On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the Chair, Mr. B. HA WE S would preface the few observations he had to make by expressing his regret that any petitions should have been presented to throw over this subject the ap pearance of ridicule. He was willing to admit that that there should be a day set apart for rest, and that encou ragement ought to be held out for the due observance of the Sabbath ; but the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury had objected to the original Bill of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigton shire ( Sir A. Agnew), because he thought its effect would be to hand over society at large to the tender mercies of infor mers. He feared very much that such would be the character of the present bill, and he regretted that the Hon. Member had ob jected to its being referred to a committee upstairs, as he thought that public discussions upon subjects like the present, by no means tended to advance the interests of religion. He thought that a Committee was the proper place for discussing this sub ject, as there were already sixteen or seventeen Acts for the Bet ter Observance of the Sabbath, all of which bad become obsolete. He was aware that there was such a feeling abroad upon the subject in the country, that he knew the time had come when same measure must be passed upon it, and therefore it was that he was anxious to know what Was actually necessary to be done, which could only be known from the enquiries of a Se lect Committee. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Poul ter) said, that he only wished to put -an end to Sunday trading, but if such was his intention, the words he used in his Bill went much further, and would put an end to all travelling on Sunday. If the Honourable Gentleman was not afraid of an inquiry—if he (Mr. Hawes) had not read the words aright in the Bill—ang. if it was not intended to give other persons the opportunity of reading it in the same spirit, he would at once agree to its being referred to a Select Committee. If the Hon. Gentleman would take that step, he, (Mr. H.) would pro mise him all the assistance that lay in his power, but if not he would feel it his duty to give it all the opposition consistent with the rules of the House. He had the authority of the Hon. Baronet opposite ( Sir A. Agnew), and of another great authority, Dr. Pye Smith, for saying that the lower orders were now in the habit of keeping the Sabbath much more religiously than in former years ; then, if such were the case, he would say, allow that feeling to go on, and he believed it would have a much better effect than the introduction of any new law on the subject.—( Hear, hear. ) It was upon these grounds that he felt himself called upon to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. POTTER begged to second the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. He had repeatedly de clared his opinion that any additional legislation to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath was unnecessary, and instead of benefitting the cause of religion would seriously injure it. As the House had, however, sanctioned the Bill of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman by the second reading, he did not wish in this stage to throw it out, but let it go to a Com mittee. He was aware several Hon. Members had amend ments to propose, and he (Mr. Potter) also bad several. Now these different amendments might cause a great deal of dis cussion, and by being settled in a Committee up stairs (if that was possible) less ridicule would be thrown upon the subject— ( Hear.) The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigtonshire, was opposed to this course, because he thought public discus sion was useful, but surely it was disadvantageous that a ques tion of this sort should be treated with any want of decorum. The great error of the Bill, and particularly of the Bills which had been brought in by the Hon. Baronet during the two last sessions, was, that they attacked and interfered with the com forts and recreations of the working and middle classes, leaving those of the rich untouched. The Hon. Baronet was desirous of preventing all travelling on the Sunday, even so far as Greenwich or Richmond; but why not at once endeavour to prevent the mails travelling on Sunday ? The innocent and indispensable recreations of the people he objected to, but which he (Mr. Potter) contended were essential to their health • but why not be g i n w ith th e r i c h, w h o were a bl e to de fend themselves ? Why, for instance, not close the Zoological gardens in the Regent's-park on the Sunday ? Why allow the gay and splendid equipages to move about in Hyde-park on Sundays? Why allow the Clubs to be open on a Sunday? If the Hon. Baronet can restrict the affluent, then, and not till then, he may fall foul upon the humbler classes.—(Hear.) Mr. PO ULTER called upon the House to assist him in car rying this Bill, which was so far from being objectionable, that if it was passed, it would be called the " Poor Man's Bill." If the ordinary traffic of the 'Sunday was suspended, it would be a great blessing to the working classes. Mr. HUME said that the interest of many classes would be endangered by this Bill if it were passed in its present state, especially the market gardeners. He thought that the merits of the Bill ought to be discussed in a Committee up stairs, in order that the views of all parties might be known. Sir A. AGNEW thought the Bill had much better be discussed in the House than in a Committee up stairs. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was op posed to referring the Bill to a Select Committee up stairs. The House was then in as good a condition to discuss the clauses of the Bill as it would be after the proposed reference. Delay would be the only result of such a proceeding, and as the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, it was unne cessary to refer it. Mr. WARBURTON considered that the tendency of this Bill would be to bring legislation into disrepute, and consequently the observance of the Sabbath itself.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He differed from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, in his argument supporting the motion. He was convinced that the Bill would become a dead letter, and he would ask the Honourable Gentleman if the ge neral terms in which his Bill was couched would not interfere with the comforts of the people, and totally prevent them from enjoying any relaxation on their only leisure day. Sir ROBERT PE EL said that no man in the House felt more the importance of observing the Sabbath than he did, for he was convinced that no (me had a right to shock the public feeling by violating it--( Hear, hear) — but he would say he entertained very serious doubts whether it could be prevented by acceeding to this measure, and whether it would not be better to trust to the in fluence of manners, and thus check by the force of public opinion any violation of the Sabbath. That course would be better than to have its observance de pendant upon a new law that would be difficult of exe cution-_the tendency of which would only be to bring the law into disrepute, and the sacred object for which that law would be enacted. From his own judgment, he thought it would be better to trust to the influence of public opinion, than to legislate at all upon the s u bj ec t ; f or hi s own s h or t experience convinced him that the Sabbath was now better observed than formerly. If that effect had taken place, while the laws referring to the Sabbath were per mittted to remain in the statute-book as a dead letter, it was easy to show that that result was owing to the influence of manners. The enactments, though in force, were not observed, andthe disre pute, introducingivonldb e newto bring measures legislation onthe subject, into he was satisfied that one of two alternatives mus t be adopted—either leave the law as it is, or sim fY "" • d o cosolidth...; :! ; that everyone may understand it. — ( Cries of " Hear , hear, beu.. - ) This Bill assumed that the Act of Charles 11. was in operation, and the title of this bi ll w a s to ren de r that Act more effective. tendency by Now the enactments of the bill were totally at variance with its title. — ( Loud cries of Hear , hear.) It selected on e single offence from the Act of Charles the Second's Act, and rendered it more pe n a l . — ( Hear , hear.) He was at a loss to know how any man could understand what this Bill really was. They had better have the law as it was, or else consolidate the whole of the laws into one Act. He was at first inclined to support the motion for a Committee, but he thought it better to meet the question fairly, and defeat it upon principle. He had, however, no objection to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and make it as per fect as possible, and then he would feel himself at liberty to vote for it or oppose it, as he should think fit. ADMINISTRATION OF WILLS BILL. , 0 to take the sense of the House on the bringing up of the report. Sir J. CAMPBELL suggested:as the best mode Of pro cebi.',l;-;,r.' the repealing of all the Acts at present existing in relatiorl 10: this subject, and then legislating, de novo, in one Bill. ' Mr. OULB URN would vote to. going into a Committee of the whole House ; and ; doing so it was his desire to re move whatever was overstrained or ary in the Bill, but the cry : at the same,timehe was still more desirous toremo: - .F • ing evils which it was the bhji?et Of the Dill to put down. The House then resolved itself into (joinftiitttid; Sir. R. PEEL, observing upon the words in the Bill which prohibited sale in " open shop" on the Sabbath, asked how • woull the Hon. Gentleman obviate the objection which lie (Sir R. Peel) had. before made to that phrase? This, if it passed, being the last Act upin the subject, would be calcu lated to the public, by inducing them iO holletc that the illegality of the act did not consist in the traffic itself, hut in the circumstance of its taking pla•,.e in an open shop. At all events, those inclined to evade the spirit of the law might open a stall. Then, again, all traffic was not carried on in shops ; for instance, horses were not sold in shops, and, therefore, the passage would not be effectual to check the traffic in horses. Mr. POULTER regretted that he did not hear these objec tions before, and therefore he was not prepared immediately to meet them. He was, however, desirous of obviating every fair objection which might be made against the Bill, his only desire being to endeavour to put down, as much as possible, traffic on the Sunday. Mr. HAWE S said that the Bill prevented the sale of whole some food, but did not suppress the sale of intoxicating liquors. He wished to know whether it would prevent the sale of news papers on the Sabbath, or if it interfered with travelling upon that day ? Mr. POULTER replied that the Bill had no reference to travelling either by land or water. lie admitted that the sale of newspapers on the Sunday would come within the scope of its operation ; but if any Hon. Member chose to make an exemption in their favour, he was at liberty to introduce a clause to that effect. Sir A. AGNEW observed that a majority of the newsven ders had already petitioned the House to suppress the Sunday sale of newspapers. Mr. O'CONNELL deprecated legislation upon this sub ject, and argued that pure and true devotion would flourish better in the land without the assistance of Acts of Parliament. Sir H. VERNE Y agreed in the main provisions of the Bill. Mr. DUNCOMBE thought if coffee-shops were to be in cluded in the provisions of the Bill, so should club-shops. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was of opinion that the Bill ought to be allowed to go through Committee pro forma, and then they should strive to make it as perfect as possible. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE would suggest a clause in favour of shellfishmen, such as lobstermen, crabmen, &c.—( A laugh.) Mr. POTTER thought the venders of flour, bread, soda water, spruce beer, ginger beer, fruit, &c., should be included in the saving clause.—( A laugh.) Mr. ROEBUCK would equalize the law, so as to affect the rich as well as the poor. If public carriages were to be stopped on a Sunday, so should private vehicles; public car riages afforded comfort and means of conveyance to a greater number of persons than private, and yet employed fewer la bourers. If a poor man, pent up all the week, was to be de barred from an excursion to the country for his health on a Sunday in a hired vehicle, why should the rich man, who was free every day in the week, have a license for driving about on that day, and keeping a retinue of servants employed about him and his horses ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) re spected the morals of the poor, and he did not see why ser vants, who could not with impunity take a jaunt on a Sunday, be employed in rubbing down the horses of their masters on that day ; nor did he see, if the rigid observance of the Sab bath were a matter of such imperative duty as to exclude all kinds of labour, why lordly Bishops should ride to church in coaches, and compel their servants to work, and violate that observance.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. G. F. YOUNG called the Hon. Member to order'. If he were not about to give notice of an amendment he should not enter into such a discussion. Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. Member (Mr. Young) was in the habit of lecturing persons. But it would be well if his reprimands were more guided by judgment and discretion. He (Mr. Roebuck) would contend that the Bill was a punishment to the poor, and a perfect indemnity to the rich. If a rich man gave a dinner to twenty different persons on a Sunday, as was often the case, all these would have their coachmen, foot- • men, and grooms employed to attend ; .see then how many would be required to violate the Sabbath, in order to minister to the pleasures of a few. Yet a poor man, who had not a kitchen fire, or utensils to dress his breakfast or dinner, would be prevented from going to a coffeeshop or cookshop on that day to get necessary food.—( Hear, hear.) Last year, when a similar Bill was before that House, a body of mechanics called on him, and said they were desirous of being orderly and hurting nobody, but if the House of Commons passed such a Bill, and showed such carelessness about their wants and com forts, they would declare their feelings by openly breaking the Sabbath, for they would assemble in a body of 100,000, and go and take their glass.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. YOUNG denied that he used a dictatorial term to the Hon. Member, and surely the Hon. Member was not exactly the person to charge any one with assuming too much, or with want of judgment, modesty, or discretion.—(Loud cheers and laughter. ) Mr. EWART said it was objected that the weekly papers were sold on a Sunday. So they were in Liverpool, and carried, by the ships that sailed on that day, to all parts of the world, which could not be the case if the present Bill passed. Mr. BULLER said the Hon. Member professed to allow refreshment ; but the only refreshment he would really allow was medicine.—( A laugh.) He would not allow work for gain on Sunday. Now, his Bill would allow the rich to work for gain on that day; for the rich lawyers might carry on their chamber practice on that day—( Hear, and laughter)--and these lawyers might be employed on that day in preparing a case for prosecuting the poor violators of it. Not only the lawyers, but the attorneys and their clerks might be safely em ployed on that day.—( Hear.) So, then, a poor man was to be punished for buying and selling a halfpenny-worth of meal on a Sunday, and the Solicitor or Attorney-General, his at torneys, and their clerks might be safely engaged in preparing a prosecution against him, an occupation that the community might not think quite so innocent.—( Laughter.) Mr. O'CONNELL said the great grievance complained of seemed to be the public scandal of an open violation of the Sabbath. This reminded him of a story about Charles the Second. When the Rev. and Learned Doctors charged that Monarch with certain peccadillos, they said Your Majesty should have closed the shutters."—(Loud laughter.) Sir A. AGNEW said the objections to the Bill - were that it was too coercive ; now he thOught it did not go far enough, and was sure the sympathy out of doors was in favour of a larger measure. —( Renewed laughter.) Mr. SINCLAIR was sure the religious classes would not be satisfied with the tone of the present discussion. The Bill would meet with a different reception if it were submitted to a different tribunal. Mr. M'LEAN would be anxious to prevent any flagrant dereliction of propriety on the Sabbath ; but if the Bible, the best guide of morals and religion, did not check it, an Act of Parliament could not.—( Hear.) Mr. HAVES said a few words, which were inaudible. Mr. O'CONNELL was much obliged to the Hon. Mem ber for reading them a lecture on the deference due by Mem bers to the sentiments of their constituencies.—( A laugh.) He (Mr. O'Connell) had a great respect for the opinion of his constituents, and that opinion he could tell the House was entirely against this Bill or any Bill of the kind. The Hon. Member said that a laugh was an offensive argument, but, in his opinion, there was a gravity which was a great deal more offensive than laughter in such matters as these. Tyranny was always clothed in gravity; the Inquisition itself was grave. Did the Hon. Gentleman expect that the I-louse of Commons would ever pass this Bill, or any Bill of the kind? He would tell the Hon. Gentleman for his satisfaction, that the House would never do so. A case occurred to him which was re cently decided by Lord Jeffrey. It was an action by a barber against his apprentice, for refusing to shave a customer on Sunday. The Learred Judge decided that the barber's boy was justified in refusing to shave on Sunday if he did not choose to shave, but that the barber himself might shave a cus tomer if he pleased—it was his privilege to do so. Now, as the Hon. Member proposed to do away with all working on a Sun day, how would he have dealt with this case ? Either he must shave himself on Sundays, or, if he would not, or could not, he must let it grow its length.—( Laughter. ) Mr. JOHNSTONE, as he had been very pointedly alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, thought it right to offer a few words in explanation of his conduct to his constituents. An application had certainly been made to him by his constituents to resign his seat, in consequence of a vote he had given upon a late occasion. On receipt of this com munication he had applied to the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, and to a Noble Lord, a Member of his Majesty's Govern ment, for their opinion, whether as a man of honour he was loilnd to resign his seat, and their opinion was, that he was not so bound. 1:p:;n. their opinion, and not upon his own in dividual opinion, he had continue: l , to hold his seat. The Chairman then reported progrz:2, and the House resumed. On the motion of the Attorney-General the House went into a Committee on this Bill. On the 13th clause being moved, Sir W. FOLLETT moved as an amendment that, instead of parties being made competent to devise real and chattel property, equally, at the age of seventeen, as related to real property they should be incompetent to do so until the age of twenty-one. The Attorney-General, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. O'Con nell opposed the amendment. Mr. NI CHOL LS supported it. Sir G. STRICKLAND thought that personal property, as regarded wills, should be placed on the same footing as real property with respect to the age of the party devising it. He was of opinion that the period of twenty-one years should be the age fixed at which the power of devise commenced in all cases, because it was nearer the age of perfect reason than any period below it, and therefore he should support the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the amend ment. It would put the clause of the Bill in the best condi- tion of which it was capable, inasmuch as it would distinctly define the line between both species of property. If the amendment were adopted one age would be fixed for all pro perty, and one line would then serve. As an arbitrary line should be had recourse to, he would put it to the Committee whether it was not better that it should be one which all per sons understood, which would be the result of fixing the pericd of full age in this respect at twenty-one. The period of seven teen, or any other whatever, would not be so satisfactory to the community at large as that of twenty-one, for the reason tea` none was so thoroughly comprehended or so generally diffused among 0 them. ' M C. FERGUSSON opposed the amendm ent. r. e could percaive no difference between the disposition of pro perty by will and any species of contract. It was ridiculous to to assert that parties under twenty-one were not competent decide rightly on a testamentary legatee ; every day gale proofs of the contrary. In point of fact they wer e fully ea pable from reason of appointing their heir. Some of th 1 e moste absurd wills on record were made by persons of very advan; .all who were conversent with the subject k new. a g e, " host ever, the p swer of willing away real estates were to be el' tended to ing fixed for the disposal of per sonalthe period of tirr9r,ty-one 1;...2 could not consent to it. a . p ers ,,,, 0 , :eventeen he should have no objection to property, otlierwi!-c he would be taking away a vested rig-1n: nresent stood, eat under the law of personal property as it En: thb be could not accede to unless the period of disposingmenatl which parties erki°Y e A estates should be reduced to seventeen. • If the a:n en us , were adopted by the Committee great hardships would ens_te For instance, he would suppose the case of an illegitinlaof child. If the father died before he attained the age his ° twenty. one ; however inclined he might be to p rovide fors' n. offspring the unfortunate child could not inh erit, in I', quence of his powerlessness to devise any por tion of his Pe t sonal property for its maintenance and support. ri that Mr. LYNCH supported the amendment. He admitte- .0. it took away a right, but it did so for the purpose of c onier ri bc `: a general advantage, making the law, what it should eve r uniform. at Mr. BERNAL supported the amendment. LJnkieg b e the habits of the youth of both sexes in this king decat o re would put it to the Committee whether it would not be dire, consistent with the general welfare of the cominunitY t: e of strain the power of disposing chattel property until the.aa,,,,as twentv-one, rather than extend it ? At twenty-one it tee s probable that a great many of the errors of sixteen or seve n d s would be seen and avoided, for two or three years e a ri.o od. of great change in the mind of young people at that pc life. Every parent and guardian knew that at sevetibtere their charge was not safe, nor even twenty-one ; but es there should be a period to non-age, and as twenty - one Was I L - so to ripe reason than seventeen, he thought there could nod hesitation which to choose in the mind of any m an who I°eoby at human nature as it - actually existed. He could not see, ro, there should be any distinction between personal and rea,`P is perty in the present state of society. Personal prop then 1835 was quite as valuable as freehold property. BVh ,.Y y o ath should it not have equal protection against the errors 0. d or the efforts of designing individuals ? Mr. C. BULL ER supported the amendment. , a iled Sir W. FOLLETT, in reply to the Hon. and -u e " 1 1 19 Member for Kirkcudbright, said that the amendment certa!pia went to take away a vested right • but then the ed is clause, which the Hon. and Learned Member suPPer" eat opposition to it, was to precisely the same effect. With re lsr• to the age of seventeen, nothing could be urged in its wh ile It was entirely unknown to the law of the co untry, er ring twenty-one twenty-one was recognised in almost every legal act ref to person or property. Awe nt of Mr. WARBURTON said in adopting the amend ply of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter he WO er t r' t he opinion that the Committee would be legislating de n ,, s- ,isce natural feelings of humanity. A case in point would e n ' ose of them of the fact. A man might marry under th, e ,?atr twenty-one; he might have children under the ag e O' •liris e be one, and he might die under the age of twenty-one. i o ro , to be deprived of the power of bequeathing his persona Joie perty because he had the misfortune to die befo re a ,C.,ljogi age ? To suppose so would be doing a violence to the decide of human nature. If, however, the Committee should s s th e upon adopting the amendment, and fixing twenty-oneced so age, he trusted that they would make the case he addtbers exception to the general rule, and provide for i t an " of an analagous nature accordingly. f the Mr. LAW agreed with the principle and tends 0 amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL should oppor amendment. . The Committee tiatn divided— 82 For the amendmot 88 For the original clause --4 4 Majority After some further conversation the clause as ame nde , ordered to stand part of the Bill. Mr. NICHOLLS moved, as an amendment to the 1 8th clause, that the following words be added f : lt e e n r:rpoft: will is wholly in the handwriting of the testator,..annrlted , to apply only to the personalty, it shall be dated and aegis no the testator in his own handwriting, or if the s atn wholly in the handwriting of the testator." After a short conversation, in which the Attorney' St' Dr. Lushington, Mr. C. Fergusson, Mr. O'Conne" Bernal, and Mr. Hogg took a part, Mr. NICHOLLS consented to withdraw his amen b the The clause, with the succeeding clauses, went throt gill Committee. We understand the third reading of tu to be fixed for this day (Wednesday) se'nnight. of the The House then resolved itself into a Committeero. whole House upon the Executors and Administrators Pooh, After several of the clauses had been agreed to, the man obtained leave to report progress, and to sit aga' n ' SEAMEN ENLISTMENT BILL. g o rse ° Sir J. GRAHAM moved the second reading of the '-' Enlistment Bill. le Do uset° Mr. WALL ACE objected to the whole priouiP -- Bill. He would enter his strongest protest against the 0 the doing anything that should acknowledge, or even hav e stae ° , appearance of acknowledging, that i m pressment s had ever been lawful in England.—( Hear.) W u" Mr. BUCKINGHAM had inte n d e d to divide theft:ood on the present stage of the Bill, but having been in jib e that it would be more in conformity with the us a g es co in ' House to divide it upon the motion for going int° ° gill• mittee, he would not oppose the second reading of the 0010 Mr. HUTT expressed his opposition to the princ i P les of Bill. c• iPi e Dr. BOWRING was strongly opposed to the P rin the Bill. 0 461 Mr. YOUNG thought that if the Bill were to proeocti upon, at least the Bill for the protection of mertilnin 5 ought to proceed with it, pari passu. nlit tee The Bill was then read a second time, and the - °lll appointed for Monday se'nnight. tiel e ' The Roman Catholic Marriage Bill was read a se c° and ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. EXEMPTION FROM TOLL. „ ff Mr. BYNG moved the second reading of the inatitire a if Exemption Bill. i n Mr. SPIERS objected to the principle of the e the "- it were to be made applicable to Scotland, he should -1 it be read that day six months. was fo An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn' d. opiriion that the Bill would not be unpopular in Seestiall the The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not object 0 prix principle of the Bill, for in his opinion the Bill had , ciple at all. • to 11° Mr. BYNG had not introduced any new Bill , f°r for O ft c li knowledge manure had been allowed to pass toll fre e years, and all that had lent money to turnpike tr ustee tbst lent it upon the principle of the Bill. The fact O s to el had just been discovered that by the existing law, 0 4 1 wool' single word " only " being in the Act of Parliamen t t i , l a ct bee r : be possible to make manure liable to tolls, though it 'i,js tba exempt from it for so many years. It was to obviate t the present Bill was introduced. stit Captain AL SAGER thought that the farmers n ''llo o- ciently protected by the enormous weights they We re - to pass through the toll gates. d to h e The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered committed on Monday next. SUPPLY. f SuPP I/ ' The House having resolved itself into a C om mittee n ci - for the 8,000,0001. were voted from the Consolidated en" service of Great Britain and Ireland. ' The House having resumed, ab °"ll Mr. E WART obtained leave to bring in a Bill Couple capital punishment in certain cases, and also to allow to priso;Nrs. 00 1 for ' Mr. P. O a TEWART obtained leave to bring in the better regulation of salmon fisheries in Scotland. . rege betty Mr. HAWES 6. 1 . better uation of puo-!zses itained leave to bring in a Bill f orth Mr l . CRIPPS bI obtainet2 . leave a to nd br o i f ng th in tt office of O Coroners. . a Ic e" nd n the motion of Mr. WALLACE_ certa i n retto.. o ordered of fees conn ec t e d w ith th e C our ts in Scotla Adjourned at Half-p as t T we l ve o ' c l oc k, _...............__________ _ --- eoceilla f n o ci r t t h h o e c oo regulation of Coroners' Court: BIRTHS. of 35°°. On the 19th i ns t., at Kilburn, Mrs John D. Dici.'n'on, of L ito On the 19th in s t., th e l a d y of Francis . Sampson, 1 - I ` l. ' f th e Argyll-street, Regent- s t ree t, of a son. a , °f On the 15th in s t., a t F r i n d ey , n ear B a gshot, the la i ....... Hon. Colonel Alexander Murray, of a daughter. _.....-------- ----- MARRIE WOO On the 19th inst., at Edgbaston, W arw ickshire , fr • , `"" ic liyabet il Wynne Willson, of Cambridge Heath, Hackney , to Miss of Beman, of the former place. third 511 On the 19th inst., at Carshalton, Surrey, Char les, to i‘ ste' Thomas Begge, Esq., of Bcddington, in the same county, eldest daughter of John Scovell, Esq., of Carshalton. rvviiii3o On the 4th inst., i n Li s b on , A r th u r Hickling, son °' e Wsit• Ivens, :Esq., of St Michael' s , to Elizabeth, eldestdaughter 0, J Shelton Burnett, Esq., of the former place. - gr. ' e,l On the 20th inst., at Trinity Church, Sloane-street, ' , soott .Maguire, of Cadogan-placc, to Maria, youngest daughter of Sotheby Esq of Whitehead's-grove, Chelsea. 7 • , DIED. Oa the 17th inst.., Mr. Edmund Turrell, of Clarendon -greet' Clarendon-square. gas gir On the 12th inst., at Bath, aged '2B, Thereza Eliza, onlY ter of the Rev. Henry Breretoii. p u ll- Lately, in his native Island (Antigua), the yon. J.: 4 ' l lw or combe Taylor, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and late SPe -- t of the House of Assembly there ; and for many Tars an inhaNtan the Mall, Clifton. • a ea t ' At Hayfield, Aaron Ashton, aged 104. He was born i n o om V' Ne tage on the estate of Aspenshaw, the residence of G. V; e r je ster Esq., near Hayfield, Derby. He recollected going to Ale l3 f 9ct be of o f with his father in 1745 to see the rebel army. At the age enlisted, and was a soldier for '2B years, and a the P s , ,„hieh Bunker's Hill he received a wound from the same alrb,,POotbs wounded Major Shuttleworth of Hathersage. Within aka m"„j o yect of his death, this old patriarch continued to walk about e ") 3 is good health and all his faculties nearly to the last ; humble circumstances, was perfectly contented. ....- Paul" On the 25th ult., at Challoch, near Stranraer, DP' Ritchie, sen., in his 85th year. 1., liar . On the 2d inst., at AlstOnfield Workhouse, aged 102,, ./9.- 11 rison, formerly of Offcote and Underwood, Derby5hiti......:.....re .L,...., _ .. - 0 0; - aiid th9a.g .A of 14 London : Printed and Published by URDO YO . 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. M 112, Strand, al of Middlesex. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MAY 20. The SPEAKER took the Chair at three o'clock, being hal an hour earlier than the usual time. SCOTCH CHURCH. Mr. GILL ON presented several petitions from various places in the neighbourhood of Glasgow against the contem plated grant to the Scotch Church. The SPEAKER suggested whether it would not be con venient to the House to receive all the petitiors that were waiting to be presented on this question at ence,—(liear.) Dr. BOWRING presented a petition Prom Kilmarnock to the same effect. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a great num ber of petitions from vlrieeQ - 1, ` - 1 r—rt gL . 4111, LA . support of the Established Church of Scotland. The Lord Advocate, Mr. A. Johnstone, Sir William Rae, and other Hon. Members, presented a great many petitions to the same effect, from Scotland. Sir W. RAE, on presenting t petition with the same prayer, gave notice that, on the 11",:n June, he would move for a Com mittee to which thePc, petitions should be referred, and to in quire whether it Was expe di ent to accede to the propos i t i on suggested in moue of them, that a grant should be given to the l Established Church of Scotland. ' Dr. BO WRING believed that the great majority of the people of Scotland were against the grant. He had no hesi tation in saying that his own constituents were. Mr. R. STE CART was as anxious as any man to keep up the connexion between Church and State, but he thought it was going too far to call upon the people of England and Ireland to keep up a Church which was perfectly coirpetent to sustain itself. Mr. C. BRUCE supported the grant. As far as the northern part of Scotland was concerned the majority was in favour of the Established Church. The whole amount which the Church of Scotland required for the religious education of the people, would not amount to more than half a farthing a head on the whole population. If the principle of the Esta blished Church was bad, why, it should be done away with ; but if it was good, the House would stultify its own opinions if it refused to carry it into effect. Mr. P. M. STEWART was a supporter of the provision in favour of a grant for the purpose of obtaining additional Church accommodation for the people of Scotland. He wished to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which had been stated as a fact, and which had been alluded to by an Hon. Member. It was stated that three millions of money would be required for building churches in Scotland ; and four millions more for endowing them. Now, the truth was, that all that was required was something under 10,000/.- -( Hear.) It was by such misrepresentations as these that petitions were obtained against this grant ; the people of Scotland were told that they were to be taxed to the amount of nearly eight millions for a Tory job. Now this was no Tory job; it was no party question, but one in which the enlightened portion of the people of Scotland felt a deep in terest.—(Cheers. ) Mr. S. MACKENZIE was sure that when the wants of the people were fully understood, no Hon. Member would be grudge them what they required. Mr. WILKES was sure that after the observations that had been made, and the sort of challenge that had been thrown down, he had something like a right to reply. He (Mr. Wilkes) had received hundreds of applications, both from indi viduals, towns, and congregations, urging him to resist any attempt that might be made to obtain from the Legislature and the people of England and Ireland, a contribution which they themselves pronounce to be needless, and the effect of which would be to add to those burdens which are at present very difficult to be borne.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He begged to apprize the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that in the event of the proposition for a Committee upon the subject, he (Mr. Wilkes) should feel it his duty to give it all the resistance in his power on the part of the Dissenters of England, Scotland, and Ireland. An Hon. Member had proposed that 10,0001. should be granted, and another that one-half of a farthing from every individual would be sufficient, but he would give his decided opposition to any grant. Sir GEORGE CLERK having been entrusted with a large number of petitions upon this subject, was anxious to remove the misrepresentations that had gone abroad with re spect to the magnitude of the demand which was made, and which seemed to have alarmed the mind of the Hon. Member for Boston. The object of the Committee which the Hon. Member would resist was to enquire whether sufficient Church accommodation existed in Scotland; and if not, whether the Church of Scotland possessed any funds out of which this additional accommodation could be granted.--( Hear.)-- There was nothing novel in such a grant. On one occa sion a sum of one million had been voted for building ad ditional churches in England. In the year 1825, 500,0001. had been voted for the same purpose. It had been alleged that this was a Tory manoeuvre to gain popu larity ; but the House should recollect, that in July last the then Chancellor recommended to his Noble Friend at the head of the Government the necessity of giving some grant to the Church of Scotland. Mr. HUTT felt himself obliged to protest against the course then taken by the House. He had come down that day at considerable inconvenience, in order to put his name on the list, for presenting some petitions which were of very great importance to his constituents, as much as those of any other Hon. Member. The SPEAKER said he apprehended that the Hon. Gen tleman had rather mistaken the matter. The course then taken by the House was that which would have the effect of' having only one discussion upon one hundred petitions, in place of one upon each of them. Mr. SINCLAIR said he had some observations to offer upon the subject, but he would reserve them for another op portunity. Mr. R. FERGUSSON presented a petition from eighty landed proprietors in Scotland, praying for an equitable ad justment of the laws relating to landlords and tenants. THE DORCHESTER LABOURERS. Lord ERNEST BRUCE presented a petition from 3,600 persons in York, praying for the remission of the sentence upon the Dorchester labourers. Mr. LO WTHER supported the petition and hoped that a respectful representation would be made to his Majesty in favour of those unfortunate men, who appeared to have been the victims of others.—(Hear.) Mr. COBBETT said that it was quite evident the poor men had offended ignorantly. He did not know himself that there was such a law in existence as that upon which they were convicted. Their real offence was that they had endeavoured to prevent their wages from being reduced, and it was well known that such combi nations existed amongst tradesmen and shopkeepers, and were carried on with impunity. He did think those poor men had been very cruelly treated. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from a place in Scot land for the repeal of all taxes upon knowledge ; the Hon. Member also presented a petition from Preston, signed by up wards of 4,500 persons, complaining of the events that had taken place at the last election, the scenes of outrage and violence, and the brib er y th a t h a d b een p rac ti se d ; an d imploring the House to interfere to prevent the recurrence of such cir cumstances again. The present petition showed the necessity of the Ballot, and as its allegations were of so much import ance, he (Dr. B.) felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to them. The town, at the election, was in possession of men who wore blue and yellow caps. Representa tions were made to the Mayor and Magistrates, that per sons so decorated were likely to lead to scenes of vio lence. The Magistrates refused to listen to any suggestions, and the consequence was that great excesses took place. Many houses were attacked, windows broken, and furniture destroyed. An indictment was preferred against seve ral individuals at the last assizes, when thirteen persons were punished by imprisonments of different degrees. With respect to some of these individuals the Judges stated that it was well for them that they had not been accused of the capital offence, and that they owed that solely to the kindness of their prosecutors. The petitioners also stated that the per sons who were so decorated committed many other acts of violence. He (Dr. B.) was sure if Hon. Members were aware of the misery attendant on the present system of elec tion, they would be the first to do all in their power to improve it. Corruption to a great extent had been practised in the borough from which the petition came, and as an instance of that, he would state that an individual had informed him that he had received a card as a price for his vote, but that such were his compunctions of conscience, that he dare not present it for payment. The petition, on the motion of the Hon. Member, was referred to the Election Committee. MR. CHILDS OF BUNGAY. Mr. HUIVIE rose to present a petition from Mr. John Childs, who complained, of being imprisoned for non-payment of church-rates. The SPEAKER submitted whether the presentation of this petition at the present period would not lead to a protracted discussion. ' T l . n " I,opel the lion. Cientleman would defer the presentation of this petition till the return of his Noble Friend ( Lord Russell), who, he expected, would be in hi s pl ace to-morrow. Mr. HUM E was willing to do any thing in his power to promote the convenience of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He came down to the House at twelve o'clock to-day, and in obedience to the rules of the House, put his name on the book, for the purpose of presenting:this petition, and here am I now, said the Hon. Gentleman, just as I came.---( Loud laughter.) He would, however, attend to-morrow, and take his chance. The SPEAKER made some observations, the purport of which we could not hear. _ _ _ IRISH POOR LAWS. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on Wednesday the 27th of May, he would bring under the consideration of the House a Bill he had prepared for providing a poor -rate for destitute families in Ireland.: The floN. MEMBER gave notice of another motion he in tended to bring forward, the substance of which was not heard in the gallery. TAXES. Mr. ROBINSON begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it would be suitable to his convenience, on an early day, for him (Mr. Robinson) to bring forward his motion for the appointment of a Committee to in quire into the propriety of commuting and revising the the public taxes. He had intended to bring forward his mo tion on the sth of May, but was prevented, as happened to him, during the last session, by fortuitous circum stances. He gave notice that on Friday, the sth of June he would bring forward his motion, and he begged [lon. Members to understand that he would take the sense of the House on the measure he proposed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER requested the Hon. Member to reserve his determining on, any particular day for submitting his motion, until his Noble Friend (Lord si . i ft vi P