The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-07 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. HA TTON- GARDEN. Yesterday Amelia Ramston, a good-looking girl, 19 years of age, was placed at the bar, charged by police constable 179 G under the following circumstances : The constable stated that on Sunday night last, about eleven o'clock, his attention was attracted by the melan choly moaning and cries of a female. On proceeding to Clerkenwell churchyard, he found that the prisoner by some means had entered the churchyard, where she was kneeling over one of the graves. She appeared to be in the deepest sorrow ; her cries had caused an assemblage of persons, and considerable excitement was created in con sequence of her conduct. Witness took her into custody, but nothing could be elicited from her, but " Oh, my poor father." He took her to the station-house, where her grief did not cease during the whole night. Mr. LAING inquired what induced her to enter the church-yard, and behave in so extraordinary a manner ? Prisoner—l am very sorry if I have done wrong : I was only crying over my poor father's grave. Mr. LAING—It is a most improper mode of giving ex pression to your grief, and I should recommend you to avoid it in future. Constable—She has been several times found lamenting over ber father's grave since his death, which happened a short time since, and she has been cautioned. Mr. LAING asked her how she procured her living— Priioner—l did live with my father, but I have been at service at Islington since his death. Mr. LAING—You are now discharged, but do not come here again under similar circumstances. The prisoner then left the office, melancholy, and crying, MARLBORO UGH-STREET. Yesterday William Smart, one of the alleged proprietors of a lovr:gambling house, No. 34, Regent-circus, known as the Regent-circus Clubhouse, was brought before Mr. Dyer, charged by John Ward, with an assault. The complainant had been engaged by the defendant as waiter, at the clubhouse in Regent-•circus, but shortly after wards, finding the sort of place he had got into, the cha racters who had hired him (the defendant being the son of the proprietor of the notorious mother H.'s,) and also the foul play and robberies perpetrated on the unwary who were introduced into the house, he gave them warning, be cause he feared he should either be imprisoned or trans ported, if implicated in the transactions which were nightly taking place. Another of the partners of the club, (four in number) was a person named Edward Reynolds, who, on learning that he had given notice to quit, asked him to stop, but he refused ; and then a plan was laid to give him (using the complainant's words) a good hiding. He went to No. 14, Park-place, anether house, called the Melton Club, kept by the same gang, to demand his wages, and then he was immediately seized, and most cruelly beaten. Mr. DYER—Did Smart strike you ? Complainant— Yes, he was one of the persons who ill-used me. The solicitor for the defendant made the following state ment. The complainant was taken into the service of the proprietor of the house No. 34, Regent's-quadrant, but having been detected in acts of petty larceny he was dis missed, and the balance of his wages tendered to him. He went to No. 14, Park place, where Mr. Smart happened then to be, and deliberately broke a square of glass, value upwards •f two guineas. The defendant Smart went out to expostulate with him, upon which the complainant seized him, and nearly ripped his coat off his back. What had been alleged in the way of assault against Smart had been done by his client merely in self-defence. Complainant—Gentlemen who have been induced to play in the Regent Clubhouse have been robbed by the owners of the house. I can bring one gentleman forward who was robbed by them by means of loaded dice. He detected the fraud, and then it was so managed that the dice were changed. I got possession of the foul dice, and here they are (handing some dice to the Magistrate.) Mr. DYER—Any person coming forward and giving evi dence against gambling-houses, and exposing the tricks and cheats practised in them, does a public servico. Ido not speak particularly, but generally. As to the present charge of assault I shall decide it by requiring the defendant to find bail to answer any future proceedings which may be under taken against him. Solicitor—l have a charge in behalf of the occupier of the house, No. 14, Park-place, to bring against John Ward. It is for wilfully breaking a square of glass in the house. This was done after he had kicked up a disturb ance on Thursday morning. Mr. D 1 ER-Why did not the parties come here before, and take proceedings against this person? Defendant Smart—Why, we did not wish to be seen in such a petty thing. Mr. DYER—I do not know what you mean by a petty thing, but I conceive if a person, having legal means in }l's power, does not attempt to resort to them until a charge is brought against him, the case does not stand in 'uch an unsuspicious situation as it would ha I he acted otherwise. Ward—The houses in Regent-circus and Park-place be long to the same parties, and that was the reason why I went to Park-place to see Mr. Smart. When I went, the porter, according to the usual plan, looked through the glass to reconnoitre the applicant, and, on seeing me, he refused to admit me. The pane of glass was broken acci dentally, as the porter was fastening the door. Smart—The door was not fastened. Ward—Yes it was. The " tiger," a strong iron bar, w is placed across it. After some further conversation, the latter charge was disposed of ; and then a person named Hancock, living in Chapel-street, May-fair, and the solicitor, who said he lived at No. 186, Park-place, offered themselves as bail for Smart, and were accepted. LAMBETH-STREET. Yesterday Daniel Smith, alias Dan Donovan, one of the mast dexterous house-breakers in Europe, and who, it is affirmed, had effected, with two others, the extensive rob bery at the shop of Mr. Williamson of the Royal Exchange, about the compromise of which so much has been said, as well as many others of equal and greater magnitude, was placed within the felons' bar, before Mr. WALKER and a County Magistrate, charged with being found on the pre mises of Mr. Francis Butcher, a corn chandler, of 19, Green-street, Stepney, on the preceding day. James Dempsey, a cooper in the St. Katharine's Dock, about a quarter pest three o'clock on the afternoon of Sun day, observed rz person knock several times at the door Of the prosecutor, Mr. Butcher, and no person coming to an swer him, he took a key out of his pocket, and endeavoured to open the door. The key, however, appeared not to tell or fit the lock, upon which he took out another, which ap peared to open the door. The per:on who succeeded in opening the door, as soon as he had done so, walked away, and the prisoner entered the house, and closed the door after him. He (witness) having witnessed the whole of this from his lodgings, which were opposite, and suspecting that there was something wron g , he mentioned th e c i rcums t ance to hi s landlord, and th e y both agreed to go and ascertain what their business was. They accordingly knocked at the door several times, hut not receiving an answer, he (witness) went down by the side of the house to where there was a large gate leading into the back premises, and seized the prisoner as he was coming out of the gates. The pri soner at the time said that he was a friend of Mr. But cher's, and had come to see him, and added that it was ex traordinary that he should be suspected of intending any thing wrong. He (witness) notwithstanding, held him tight, and forced him into a small room, where he detained him until the arrival of an officer, to whom he gave him into custody. While in this room, the prisoner threw away some thing, which turned out to be two skele ton keys. Richard Cutbill, a police-constable, on the preceding afternoon went to the house of the prosecutor, and there took into custody the prisoner, whom he found in the care of the last witness. On taking him to the station-house he found in his pockets the skeleton keys and chissel which he then produced. (The witness here produced nearly 100 skeleton keys of the most curious and ingenious construc tion, and which would open any lock, from the largest street door, down to the smallest ladies' work-box, as well as the two keys, which the prisoner had previously thrown away.) Mr. Francis Butcher stated that on the preceding day, himself and the whole of his family had proceeded to Fair lop Fair, having first locked up and secured the house. On his return on that evening he discovered that, during his absence, his house had been entered—three of the rooms up stairs bad been forced open, as well as two boxes, and that seven sovereigns, as well as about fourteen or fifteen shillings in silver, were taken from the latter. In reply to the questions of the Magistrates, the witness said that the prisoner was a perfect stranger to him, and that he had never to his knowledge seen him before. The Magistrates, after consulting together, remanded the prisoner, to give time for the apprehension of his com panion, who is well known. During the day several members of the " swell mob" ho vered about, and it was stated that a large sum was offered to the prosecutor not to come forward to prosecute, but which he had the honesty to reject. SURREY SUSI° xs.—Yesterdav these Sessions commenced at Newington, before R. Hedger, Esq., and several of the County Magistrates. Although so short a period has elapsed since the last adjournment the present calendar contains the names of thirty-five prisoners for trial for felony, besides sixty-six for misdemeanours. There are eighty-three prisoners in custody a t B r i xton H ouse of Correc ti.in, six in that of Klngston-upon-Tharnes, and nineteen at (3,nldfurd ; trrki,,g a total of 209 prisoners in custody in the g.a - of no interest. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, JzzLi , 6. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY sat as Deputy-Speaker. Lord BROUGHAM delivered a long judgment in the case of Irvine v. The Bank of Scotland, reversing the judgment of the Court below. A Message from the Commons, by Captain Spiers and others, brought up the Paisley Water Bill, and other private Bills. ISLINGTON MARKET BILL. The Marquis of SALISBURY brought; up the Report of the Select Committee on the Islington Market Bill. He was instructed by the Committee to move that one Counsel be heard at the bar of the House on each side, and that the Judges might attend ; for the Committee had felt considerable doubts upon that part of the case relating to the rights of the city. He would make the motion to-morrow. Lord BROUGHAM said, there was no doubt but that the House could command the attendance of the Judges upon any occasion, but as it might be attended with much inconvenience to the judicial business of the country, he trusted that unless the matter was very doubtful, they would not be brought down there upon a private Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY was fully aware of all the in convenience that might attend such a course, and therefore it was that he had given notice of the motion. Lord BROUGHAM was not aware of that : he thought the Noble Marquis was then making his motion. After a few words from the Bishop of HEREFORD, the Lords were ordered to be summoned for to-morrow. THE CANADAS. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition signpd by between 5,000 and 6,000 persons, inhabitants of Quebec and its neigh bourhood ; most of the petitioners were of English descent, but 600 of them were descendants of French settlers ; they stated their gratitude to the Imperial Legislature for having, in 1791, given them the benefit of a Constitution something similar to that enjoyed by England. They com pained that the working of the measure had not afforded them all the benefits they expected from it. They com plained that the House of Assembly had arrogated to itself much more than its legitimate power, by which the British descendants had been completely shut out from being represented in the House of Assembly, and their property and interests were much deteriorated in consequence ; and thereforo they prayed the Imperial Parliament to afford them redress. He would not then say how far he agreed or disagreed with the petitioners, but he trusted his Noble Friend near him ( Lord Gos ford) and the Commissioners going out to that country, would perfectly succeed in their objects, so that an end might be put to all the heart-burning and dissensions which had so long and unhappily torn that country, and then the people would be able to enjoy all those blessings which the situation of the country was calculated to afford, both from its position and internal resources. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the inhabitants of Montreal to the same effect ; also a petition from a gentleman named Rhodes, residing in Essex, against the Islington Market Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel against it. The Marquis of SALISBURY referred to the evi dence of the last-naii‘ed petitioner before the Commit tee upon the Bill, from which it appeared that he was the proprietor of certain grounds-which the projector of the new market proposed to purchase, but it appeared that some dispute had arisen upon the terms of sale. The Noble Marquis, therefore, objected to the petition, as the object or the petitioner being heard by counsel seemed to be to try the validity of a contract. The Duke of RICHMOND said the petitioner was very unwilling to part with his land ; but rather than the Bill should not pass, he consented to take a certain price for it, which was now refused to be paid. He hoped the petition would be referred to the Committee. After a few words in explanation from the Marquis o: SAT,lssuaY and the Bishop of HEREFORD, Lord BROUGHAM complained of the manner in which Private Bills were too frequently disposed of before Com. mittees. In one instance he remembered that after 14 Members of Committee had canvassed all the facts, and heard the argu ments of Counsel, 16 who never before attended or heard evi dence or argument, came in and gave an adverse decision. They were not Judges of Oyer and Terminer, but Judges of Terminer sans Oyer.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped to see this and other irregularities early corrected. Lord NV H A RNC L I FFE observed that the Noble and Learned Lord should bear in mind there was this difference in the proceedings of the two Houses—that is their Lordships' House the evidence was printed, while in the other House it was not. Lord BROUGHAM remarked that it was printed in the House of Commons. Lord WH A RNCL IFFE could assure the Noble and Learned Lord that it was not generally. Lord BROUGHAM had seen instances of it. Lord WHARNCLIFTE said that the practice was very unusual. Lord BROUGHAM referred to the case of the Zemindar of Nozeed Bill, in which it had been resorted to. Lord WHARNC L I FF E repeated that it was very unusual. However, the principle which the Noble Lord seemed to advo cate would equally preclude Noble Lords who had not heard the evidence from voting on the third reading, and against such a doctrine as that he entered his protest. Lord BROUG II ANI said the Noble Lord was confound ing a vote on the third reading with a vote in the Committee on a private Bill. For his part he was desirous to see private Bills placed under a more wholesome superintendence than now existed. Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought that the Noble and Learned Lord went too far when he contended that no Noble ard should vote on a Bill, unless he had heard all the evi dence upon it. After a few inaudible observations from Earl STRADBROKE and Lord COLCHESTER. The Duke of RICHMOND disclaimed having alluded to the Right Rev. Prelate (Hereford). He did not agree with his Noble Friend ( Wharncliffe) on the subject of Noble Lords voting upon a Bill upon which they had heard no evidence ; he, for one, would never vote on a private Bill, unless he had listened to and seen all the witnesses. Lord WHARNCL IFF E said, that it was to the extreme principle laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord that he had objected. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Lord DUNCANNON presented several petitions against any grant for the building of churches in Scotland. POOR-LAWS (IRELAND). The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Mr. Lawless, praying for the introduction of a system of poor-laws into Ireland. PRISONS REGULATION BILL. The Duke of RICH: OND brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill, and gave notice of moving that it be committed on Thursday next. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE gave notice that to-mor row he should submit a motion on the subject of the Report of the Committee on Rebuilding the Houses of Parliament. Some Bills were then advanced through their respective stages, and the I-louse adjourned at a Quarter to &Yen. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 6. The SPEAKER took the Chair at half-past 3 o'clock. COURT OF REQUESTS. Certain Returns from this Court were laid on the table. EAST INDIA COMPANY. Mr. CAMPBELL, from the East India Company, brought up further accounts of the compensation granted to the ser vants of the Company. NEWTYLE AND GLAMMIS RAILWAY. Mr. HALLYBURTON brought up the Report of the Committee upon this Bill. NAVIGATION BILL. Mr. HODGES brought up the Report of the Committee upon this Bill. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. LONDON SMALL DEBTS' BILL. Mr. Alderman WOOD brought up the Report of the Corn mittee on this Bill, which was then read a third time and passed. FACTORY CHILDREN. Sir G. STRIC KL AND presented a petition from Kearsley, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for a revision of the law as it now stands for the limitation of the hours of working for children employed in the factories. The petitioners com plained that the owners of the factories had obtained the signa tures of the parents of factory children to petitions on this subject, by telling them that they were petitions for obtain ing higher wages for their children. The petitioners prayed that if any alteration would be made in the law, a Bill for ten hours, similar to that introduced by Mr. Sadler or Lord Ashley, would receive the approbation of the House. TITHES. Captain PE CHE L L rose to present the petition of which he had given notice from a large body of landed proprietors and landholders of the Western Division of the County of Sussex, residing in the neighbOurhood of Chichester, Arundel, and Worthing, expressive of their alarm at a recent decision of the Court of Exchequer, in the tithe case of Kemp v. Arun dell, and praying for a speedy commutation of tithes. The petitioners contended that turnips for the pasturage of sheep were only subject to the tithe of agistment, and complained that the decision to which the Exchequer Court came in the case referred to had placed them in a very distressing situation, and had excited the greatest alarm among them. The case was one in his ( Capt. Pechell's) opinion of very great hard ship, and he trusted that it would receive the serious attention of the House. Mr. PARROTT thought this was one of the most impor tant petitions ever presented to this House.—( Hear, hear.) The enlightened Government of Portugal had swept away the whole tithe system, and though he did not ask the legislature of this country to remove the whole burthen—( Hear, hear,)_ he did ask it to modify it, and adapt the tithe system to the circumstances of the times.--( Hear.) He trusted the Hon. Member for Brighton would not let this matter rest, but that he would strongly press upon Government the necessity of fixing upon a reasonable commutation of tithes; and though there would not be time to do so this Session, he trusted that no time would be lost in bringing forward such a measure next Session. With respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts, he was very glad to hear that the Attorney-General was preparing a Bill to take the trial of all tithe cases out of the jurisdiction of those Courts.—( Hear.) Lord SAND ON considered this petition as one entirely disconnected from all party feelings and motives, and hoped that ere long some decisive measure would be brought for ward which would tend satisfactorily to settle the tithe question. Captain PE CHEL said that after what had fallen titan the THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1835, Noble Lord he should not bring to light many things against this vicar, but the clergy of Hampshire seemed much addicted to plunder. He held in his hand a Report of a trial, Richard son v. Conyers, by which it appeared that a clergyman de manded the tithes of grass after it had been paid, thus at tempting to squeeze 24 months out of a year. Laid on the table. CORPORATION REFORM BILL. Mr. COLLYER presented a petition from Plymouth, pray ing that Stonehouse may not be joined to that borough under the Corporation Reform Bill. Mr. OUNCONIBE presented a petition from the West Riding of York against some clause in the Corporation Reform Bill. Mr. ORD presented a petition from Newcastle-upon-Tyne in favour of the Corporation Reform Bill, and praying that the House would pass the measure. _ _ Mr. J. LEFEVRE presented a petition with a similar prayer from Winchester. Mr. GROTE presented a petition to the same effect which emanated from a public meeting at Norwich—they further prayed for the adoption of the vote by Ballot. TIMBER DUTIES. Lord S ANDON presented petitions from the shipowners and shipwrights of Liverpool, praying that no alteration might be made in the duties on Baltic and Colonial Timber. Alderman THOMPSON presented similar petitions from Sunderland. STEAM VESSELS. Lord SANDON presented a petition from the proprietors of steam-vessels in the port of Liverpool, praying that the House would take some steps to repeal the heavy burdens under which they laboured. CORPORATION REFORM. The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from the free. men of Liverpool, praying that their inchoate rights may be preserved. Mr. ORD presented a petition from the Licensed Victual lers of Newport, Isle of Wight, praying for an alteration of the Duty on Spirits. INVERNESS ELECTION. Mr. A. COOPER brought up the Repert of the Com mittee on the Inverness Election, declaring the election of Alexander William Chisholm, Esq., to be a due election, and that neither the petition or opposition was frivolous or vexatious. that the Noble Lord would allow time afterwards to consider the Bill in detail.—( Hear.) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill—Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had already given notice that clause 79 would be taken before any other to-day, and he hoped that the Committee would assent to this ar rangement. There were one or two alterations of very considerable • importance, which he was about to propose. One was, that whereas the law formerly provided that payment of the interest of any debt due by the Corporation, should be made ; he would now propose that payment of the capital of the debt should also be provided. The other provision was that the Town Council should not be at liberty to lower any tolls so long as the debts of such Cor poration shall not be satisfied.—( Hear.) Sir M. W. RIDLE Y hoped that provision would be made for the payment of annuities granted by the Corporations, as well as the payment of debts. The CHAIRMAN having read the 79th Clause, Sir R. PEEL thought there might be some cases in which, after providing for all municipal purposes, a surplus would exist. Some Corporations, as, for instance, Dorchester, (as we understood the Right Honourable Baronet,) were possessed of very large estates, and these would probably increase under the new act. He apprehended that as the Bill now stood, there could not be a doubt that if the new Town Council succeeded to all the legal power the existing Corporations now possessed, the Town Councils would have the power of alienating the property of the borough. He ( Sir Robert Peel) thought there ought to be some clause to provide for the Town Council not alienating the property of the town without obtaining the consent of the inhabitants. It had been ruled in the Court of Chancery and Kings's Bench in a case in which the Corporation of Derby imposed a rate for watching and lighting that town, under the provisions of an Act, called the County Rates Act—some of the inha bitants objected to that rate on the ground that the Corporation had funds sufficient for the purposes of the Act, and that no rate should be imposed until those funds were exhausted—but it had been judged by Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, that there was no power to compel the Corporation to apply their property to municipal pur poses, and the validity of the rate was thereby established. If the Town Council succeeded to all the power now possessed by the corporate bodies in cases of surplus, they would have the same power of alienation. He thought that some clause ought to be introduced to prevent such cases of alienation. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in the clause proposed after the several expenses specified in order to meet the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, proposed to insert words to prevent the corporate funds from being alienated unless for the public benefit, and with the consent of the inhabitants. Sir R. PE EL—A case might arise where it would he argued, what was the public benefit, and where parties might promote as for the public benefit, a scheme in which they themselves might have an interest ?—( Hear.) He wished the Noble Lord also, to look at page 10, where it was assumed that there should be a particular species of property for which a man would be entitled to vote, and that this should be entered on the burgess-roll, and that no persons should be admitted to vote except in the booth allotted to that part in which his property was situated. Now this implied that there should be some description of the property in right of which a man claimed to vote. If, however, the Noble Lord would look into the list of claimants, he would find that there was no column for this description of property. If they followed the plan of the Reform Bill, there ought to be a third column, containing a specification of the property in respect of which the franchise had arisen.--( Hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL would certainly attend to what the Right Honourable Baronet had thrown out—in deed it had occurred to him before. He would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Com mittee to the clause by which the Corporations were divided into wards. He proposed that the Privy Council should direct that in towns in which there were 12,000 inhabitants, and not more than 18,000, they should be divided into two wards ; in cases where there were 18,000, and not more than 20,000, they should be divided into three and not more than four wards ; and in cases where there were not more than 24,000 inhabitants, they should be divided into wards in each of which six councillors should be elected. Sir R PEEL—What time did the Noble Lord think would the Bill get through the Committee ? and what did he mean to propose to do after it should have passed through Committee ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not know exactly. He proposed that when the Bill went through Committee, that either that night or the next night it be re-committed pro forma, and the amendments inserted. He would thus fix another day, when the House would have an opportunity of considering the Report, after it should have been printed. Mr. R. WASON bad received a very strong remonstrance from his constituents upon this subject. They believed that if these new corporations were divided into wards it would in fact be neither more nor less than dividing them into close boroughs. The CHAIRMAN having read the clause, Mr. WILK S wished to know whether it was printed as amended, because it was impossible to proceed usefully without it. The CHAIRMAN stated that only one copy was ready for delivery. Mr. WILKS thought under such circumstances it would be better to postpone the discussion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the clause had been printed, and he believed it would be ready for delivery in the course of the evening. Mr. ESTCOURT thought the cliuse ought to be post poned. If he understood it properly, all the property of the Corporation was to be taken into the hands of the newly ap appointed Treasurers, which be objected to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had no objection to the postponement of the clause, provided it was the wish of the House. Sir R. PEEL wished to call the attention of the House, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General, to the latter clause, which stated that the rate was to be in the nature of a public rate, and the Council were empowered not to receive an appeal against it. If that was the case, what would become of many parishes ? An HoN. MEMBER said that he apprehended that an indivi dual might appeal on the part of a parish. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the appeal must be with the concurrence of the parish to the Recorder. Sir R. PEEL thought the appeal to the Recorder at Quarter Sessions would lead to some confusion, as the poor rates and the town-rates were mixed up. The word " ag grieved" %vas of too vague and general a nature. Mr. WILKES thought the clause certainly required alte ration. The clause, as amended, not being in his hands, he could not come to any satisfactory conclusion. After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. S. LEFEVRE, Sir R. PE EL said the double right of appeal was unne cessary, or, at all events, it ought to be precisely defined in what cases the right of appeal would be granted. Mr. WIL KE S suggested that the borough rate should be separated from the poor rate, and this would obviate all difficulties. Mr. C. ✓ BULLER thought an appeal to the Recorder from the acts of his colleagues, the Town Council, would be ex tremely injudicious. Mr. HARDY suggested that the appeal should set forth the ground on which it was made, and that the appellant should be confined to the grounds so stated. Mr. S. LEFE VRE did not see the difficulties which the Hon. Member (Mr. Hardy) supposed to exist. He thought the difficulties were met by the clause as it stood. Sir R. PEEL thought this one of the most important points of the whole Bill, and he hoped it would receive the most serious consideration of the Government. This clause regulated the mode in which the new taxation was to be raised, and was, therefore, of pecuniary interest to every party in the borough. It would be an infinitely better plan to say that there should be a separate borough rate instead of having one indefinite charge. The ratepayers ought to know the charge for the Municipal Corporation, independent of the poor-rate, After a few words from Mr. WILKs and Mr. BROTHERTON, Sir R. PEEL said, that his only object in opposing the right of appeal granted by this clause, was to save the borough funds, and to prevent unnecessary litigation. This rate was to be levied in the nature of a county-rate, and yet the appeal of an individual against it was permitted ; and that, too, on the most vague ground possible, merely whenever be might think himself aggrieved, without at all specifying the nature of the grievance. An individual appeal against the poor-rate was now allowed. Why should they not rest satisfied with that, and not extend the right to appeal against a rate which was said to be of the same nature as a county-rate, against which the law did not now suffer any individual appeal ? A desultory conversation followed, in the course of which Sir R. PEEL suggested that it would be an infinitely better plan to say that there should be separate rates, though levied at the same time. For instance, that if half-a-crown in the pound were required upon the whole, that there should be a rate of perhaps eighteen pence for the poor, and a shilling for the borough. Every man would then be able to ascertain for which purpose he paid his money. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was disposed to adopt the recom mendation of the Right Hon. Baronet, and would take means of endeavouring to carry it into effect. It was certainly desir able to have the rates collected at the same time ; the one in the nature of a poor-rate, the other in that of a borough-rate. On a subsequent part of the clause, Sir R. PEEL asked who, in certain cases, were to pay the debts of a corporation ? A freehold estate, in the possession of a corporation, but the right to which was disputed, might be in Chancery for a great number of years. The corporation might have expended a thousand pounds in the defence of their right, five hundred of which might have been advanced to them on the security of their funds ; who was to pay their debt ? If it was intended that it should be paid by a borough rate that should be distinctly stated, and provided for in the Bill. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was certainly desirable to an ticipate any possible event, but he did not think that there would be much difficulty in the case adverted to by the Right Hon. Baronet. In most instances although the corporation might lose the estate, the party gaining it would have to pay the costs. If there had been no Municipal Corporation Bill, the existing corporations would be in the same state. Sir R. PEEL observed that the income on which he had supposed that the five hundred pounds had been advanced to the corporation, would be destroyed by the Bill. Sir W. FOLLETT begged to call the attention of the Noble Lord (Russell) to what he deemed to be a very im portant defect in this clause. Much had been said about the power claimed by the existi ng corporat i ons to a li ena t e their property ; but the effect of this clause would be to empower the new corporations to alienate the whole of the corporate prof , :rtY. The clattse stated that the corporati , m3 should pay off all existing debts, before they applied any of the corporate property to municipal purposes. This would compel the new corporations, immediately on assuming their functions, to im pose a rate on the burgesses, which would not fail to excite considerable discontent. He hoped the Noble Lord would take this point into consideration. Again he would ask the Noble Lord what he intended to do with respect, not to the mere bond debtor, but to the mortgages and other real secu rities held by persons from the corporation? If any power were given to the new corporations to dispose of the corporate property, it should only be with a view to enable them to pay off mortgages and other real incumbrances, and not an absolute power to sell the property without reference to those special obligations. He would suggest, however, that it should not he compulsory either on the corporation to redeem, or on the creditors to call in their money on mortgage of corporate pro perty ; but that the Bill should leave it as a matter of private arrangement between the parties. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as he had read the clause, the new corpora'oe bodies would certainly be at liberty to apply the money derived from the corporate property from time to time as they thought fit. He perfectly agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that the rents and profits of the corporate property should be liable to the debts of the corporation ; but that the corporate body should not be obliged to proceed immediately to pay off their debts altogether. He did not think the corporation should have the power of alie nating the corporate property contrary to the purposes to which it had been previously made legally liable, but all necessary powers for the general purposes of the town ought to be granted to them. The clause undoubtedly deserved to be well considered ; and if on the Report being brought up, he should find it necessary to adopt any of the amendments sug gested, he would readily do so. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES hoped the Noble Lord would withdraw the clause, and introduce a distinct measure in re lation to the several subjects contained in it. Lord J. RUSSELL could not quite accede to the sugges tion of the Hon. Gentleman. He thought it was a clause that properly belonged to the present Bill ; but after the dis cussion that had taken place, and considering that there were several points deserving consideration, he did not know whether it would not be better to divide the clause into two clauses on bringing up the Report, or on the recommittal of the Bill. The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 was then proposed ; several amendments were made, and after a long and desultory conversation, agreed to. On clause 96 being put, Sir JOHN WROTTE SLE Y proposed, as an amendment, that after the word " witnesses," the words " together with a proportion of the salaries of the officers of the gaol, and the costs for repairing and enlarging it," should be inserted. Mr. BONHAM CARTER observed that there would be quarter-sessions in most of the corporate towns, at which the greater portion of the offences committed in them would be tried, and of course the expense of them would fall wholly on these towns. The number of cases sent to the assizes would be very small, and the expense so trifling that it would not be worth while to encumber the Bill with this amendment. la answer to a question by Mr. EGERTON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the boroughs would still be liable to the expense of the prisons, as well as to the other charges that were now made on them for the county-rates. After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. The 97th clause was then agreed to. On the 98th clause being read, Mr. C. BULL E R complained that this clause made the mayor the judge of the Record Court in the absence of the recorder. He considered that the great defect in the old local courts was that justice was not properly administered. Mr. BL ACKBLT RNE said that his Hon. Friend had mis taken the clause. It established no court which was not esta blished before, and only rendered the courts in existence more efficient. _ _ _ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was better those courts should be preserved than absolutely abolished; and if preserved, surely it would be beneficial if they were placed upon a better footing. After a few words from Mr. EWART, the clause was agreed to. On clause 99 being read, Mr. WALTER proposed that attorneys' clerks should be prohibited from practising in the local courts. Lord J. RUSSELL acquiesced in the suggestion; and the clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses 100 to 113 were then agreed to. On clause 114 being read, Mr. MILES moved, as an amendment, to omit the word " inhabitants," and insert in its place " inhabitant rate-payers." This would be in accordance with the principles of the Bill, which required a qualification in the voters. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to insert the words " inhabitant householders," which would, perhaps, an swer the purpose of the Hon. Member. The amendment was then put and carried, and the clause was agreed to ; as was clause 115 (the last in the Bill) amidst loud cheers. The postponed clauses were then taken. Clause 10 (an amended clause) was proposed by Lord J. RUSSELL and, after a short conversation, agreed to. Mr. GROTE suggested the expediency of inserting some provision in the Bill, which would afford facilities for buying up the rights of the freemen, in order that the property of the different Corporations might rest in the new officers. Mr. CHARLES WYNN considered that the issuing a Commission for the purpose would be highly beneficial. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had provided a clause to the effect stated by the Hon. Member for the city of London. Clause 30. Lord J. RUSSELL proposed a new clause, to the effect that boroughs containing 12,000 inhabitants might be divided into two wards ; and that boroughs containing any number of inhabitants exceeding 24,000, should be divided into any num ber of wards the Crown might think fit. Sir R. PE EL thought the clause did not go to a sufficient length. Where the population of a town exceeded 10,000, he thought there was sufficient ground for giving the Crown the power of dividing it into wards. If the Crown were to exercise this power at all, he, for one, would rather not, he confessed, place this limitation upon it. In the case of a bo rouA containing less than 18,000 inhabitants, the Crown would be compelled by the clause to divide the borough into two wards, and no discretion was left it to divide it into more. He apprehended it would be found that in some boroughs the business had been always transacted in wards under the present system ; and that in some, with a population even be low 12,000, the usual practice had been to transact the busi ness in this way to the general satisfaction. He might in stance Ludlow and other places, in which, he believed, this course had been the result of long prescription. He did not understand on what principle the clause was founded—whe ther population or rating. He should not divide the Committee upon the subject, but he decidedly objected to the provision. Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not accede to the Right Hon. Baronet's suggestion. He did not think the division of the small boroughs into wards would be at all beneficial. Mr. GROTE trusted that the Noble Lord would not give way on the clause.—( Hear, bear.) After a few observations from Mr. Blackburne, Lord East nor, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Willis, _ _ Lord SA ND ON asked whether the principle on which this clause was founded affected the number of councillors given to towns in the schedules ? for it appeared to him that some had too many, and some too few. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that it would, to a certain extent ; therefore, he proposed that the House should not go into the consideration of the schedules to-night, in order to give time to make the necessary alterations. Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that there should be no divi sion of the boroughs into wards unless there were more than 800 voters on the burgess-roll, and he expressed a hope that a clause to that effect would be introduced into the Bill before it passed. Less than that number would create very unsavoury rotten boroughs, and more than that number would be sufficient to insure popular election. A few observations were then made by Mr. Mills, Lord Stormont, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Rigby Wason ; after which The clause was agreed to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the adoption of this last clause with respect to wards rendered it necessary that some new arrangement should be made in the schedules ; therefore, he proposed that they should reserve the considera tion of the whole of the schedules till to-morrow. He should now move that the Chairman report progress; and he hoped that to-morrow, at five o'clock, they would be able to go on with the schedules. When the debate on the schedules had closed, which he supposed would be after a day or two, be should move that the Bill be recommitted pro forma, to enable Hon. Gentlemen to bring up their clauses. He hoped that this arrangement would afford Hon. Gentlemen sufficient time. He should then move that the Bill be printed, and lte proposed that if they were able to do so, the Report should be taken into further consideration on Monday next. He should certainly move the further consideration of the Report before the motion relating to the Irish Church, which stood for the same day, was brought on. Mr. L ENNARD begged to call the attention of Lord John Russell to a defect in clause 10. By that clause it was professed to preserve the rights of all persons entitled to their freedom now in existence. But this was not done perfectly. One of the most valued rights of the daughters of the free men of Maldon was that of conferring the freedom of the borough on their husbands. But this clause confined this privilege to those only who were married previously to the sth of June last. He contended that the rights of all the daughters now in existence of freemen should be preserved ; and he gave notice that he should move an amendment to this effect, unless Lord John adopted his suggestion. Mr. GLAD STONE said he understood the Noble Lord to intimate that if they were ready he would proceed with the Report on Monday; but lie wished to know whether if they were not ready, the second reading of the Irish Church Bill would be moved ? Lord J. RUSSELL said certainly it was his intention in that case to proceed with the Irish Church Bill on Monday. The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow. Sir J. ELLE Y asked the Noble Lord when the Report of the home circuit respecting municipal corporations would be furnished ? Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member for Hudders field was best able to answer that question. LINEN TRADE (IRELAND) BILL. On the Order of the Da y for the Committee on the Li nen Trade (Ireland) Bill being read, Mr. HUME moved that the Bill be committed that day three months. Colonel PERCEVAL said Mr. Home and Mr. Warburton took au entirely false view of the case. They did not undcr stand the limn ;tnd were iucompetent to pronortue, upon it. If the Bill passed, any one might go to the market and buy his commodity without the risk of being cheated. Mr. E. TE NNE NT said the proposition was merely to revive for three years longer a Bill passed three years ago, and which was about to expire. The Bill did not interfere be tween the manufacturer and the weaver. It was a protection to them and the buyer. If there were not some certificate of the width of the linen there might be fraud. The Bill merely referred to the article exposed to sale in open market. The experience of those engaged in the trade was of higher autho rity for the Bill, than the fanciful theories of gentlemen oppo site against it. Sir R. BATE SON, as a representative of a large section of the linen manufacturers and weavers of the north, would say that they were all unanimous in favour of the Bill. Public meetings were held in all parts of Ulster on the subject, and not one voice was raised against it, but, on the contrary, nu merous petitions were presented in its favour. That surely was strong evidence of its utility.—( Cheers.) The trade was prospering under the Bill--it was almost the staple trade of the country—and he hoped the good sense and justice of Par liament would not now destroy it, in deference to the quack doctrines of modern philosophers.—( Hear, and laughter.) Mr. S. O'BRIEN, Mr. JONES, and Lord COLE supported the measure. Mr. GROTE said a few words against it. Mr. HUME thought it but justice to Ireland to place her on the same footing as England and Scotland, and allow her some of those protections and restrictions.—( Hear, hear, and laughter, from the Irish Members.) But if Irish Members chose to wear halters round their own necks—if they chose to go to the —. (Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," and laugh ter.) Well, he would just only say, let them go on their own way, and they would be sorry for it.—( Laughter, and cries of " Divide.") The House then divided, when there appeared-- For the original motion 124 Against it Majority -99 The House went into Committee on the Bill. After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. CALLAGHAN against the Bill, and from Mr. J. GRATTAN in support of it, Sir R. PEEL said he supported the Bill in deference to the almost unanimous opinion of the Irish Members, who ex pressed themselves so warmly in favour of it. The linen trade was certainly one great branch, indeed the greatest, of the trade of Ireland, which it was said the Bill would cherish, and he did not think it necessary to force even right principles in such a case. It was important that this trade, which tended so much to promote the moral habits, and encourage the industry, and advance the comforts of the the people, should flourish : therefore did he support the mea sure. But he doubted whether any permanent good could be effected by the Bill. If such a restrictive measure were good for Ireland, why might not other restrictive measures be equally good for other countries? Would it not, in general, be better to trust to the caution and exertions of the manufac turers, and let every trade take its chance in the general market ? He thought a system of surveillance was bad. But let the Bill be considered in Committee, and the advantages likely to result permanently from it be canvassed. Though doubtful of any permanent good to flow from that species of legislation, he thought that forcing the opi n i ons o f th e I r ish embers at present would countervail any permanent advan tage that might flow from throwing open the trade, and he hoped to see the day when the Irish linen trade would rival the cotton trade of this country. Lord MORPETH justified the course adopted by the Government. A short conversation then ensued, in which Sir R. Peel, Dr. Baldwin, Sir R. Bateson, and Mr. Call ag h an t oo k p a rt s when the Bil passed the Committee, and the House resumed. Mr. FIT ZS IMON complained of a petition which the No ble Lord opposite, the Member for South Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had that evening presented, without giving him a nd his Hon. and Gallant Colleague (Colonel Westenra) that notice which courtesy generally induced Hon. Members to afford each other on occasions relating to the interests of their constituents. He regretted this the more, as the petition con tained many unfounded allegations, and he trusted an oppor tunity would be allowed him of rebutting those charges, ema nating as they professed to do from the High Sheriff, Grand Jurors, and some of the freeholders of the King's County. Colonel WE STE NRA expressed a similar hope. ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES BILL. On the proposition for the second reading of the Aberdeen Universities Bill, , Dr. BOWRING presented a petition upon the subject, praying that due time should be taken for a careful considers. tion of the Bill. Sir R. PEEL said he was friendly to the principle of the measure • but he must express his earnest hope th a t am ple time would be allowed for its proper consideration—( Hear.) He had heard of a history of Aberdeen somewhat pompously commencing with the announcement that " England, like Aberdeen, bath two Universities."—(Laughter.) This clearly showed the importance of the subject.—(Laughter.) But ho thought, for the convenience of all parties, it should stand over to next session. After some further desultory observations the Bill was real a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 23d of Julf• PIERS (IRELAND) BILL. The Piers (Ireland) }Jill was then read a second time. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and, on the motion of Mr. Brotherton, the House adjourned At half-past twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS. (Appeals before Lords Brougham, Alinto, and Tenterden' yesterday.) SIR WM. BAILEY AND OTHERS V. THE EDINBURGH OIL "5 COMPANY. This was the re-hearing of a case of appeal from the Scottish Courts of Session that was argued a few weeks ago before their Lordships, when an arrangement was agree d on, which not proving satisfactory to the parties, an ap plicr tion was made to the Committee of Appeals on an a fficly vit of Counsel for the appellant, stating that they were taken by surprise on one of the points, whereon the present re' hearing was granted, the appellant paying the costs of the proceedings. The appellants appeared as the executors of a decease, solicitor in the Supreme Courts of Scotland name°, Clyne, who brought an action against the Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company, to recover 1,183/. 10s. 50., the "iv lue of certain shares which he held in that Company, cot!' blished by Act of Parliament the sth of Geo. IV., cap. 76 ' and which, not succeeding, had sold its interest to the Coal Gas Company. A cross action had a l so been brought by the respondents, who were directors of that , Company ( o f whom the late Sir W a lt er S co t t was one, ) to compel him to execute a valid transfer of o _ l 6 shares w hi c h h e h e ld on th e i r re -p ay i ng hi m t h e pr i ne iri sum, with interest, expended in their purchase. Both ac , i tions were, by mutual consent, referred to arbitration, a n the present appeal was in fact against the award therei n pronounced by Mr. M'Neill, who found that in the action brought by the Gas Light Company against Mr. Clyne' the former were entitled to a decree for 260/., with intereel from the date when two instalments became payable, an d in that brought at the instance of Mr. Clyne he fown,. that the pursuer was entitled to a decree for 7801., wit" interest thereon from Whit-Sunday, 1828, under deduc" tions of the sums due to the respondents. Mr. TINNEY, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and the AT TO RNO' GENERAL, were respectively heard, after which Lord BROUGHAM recommended the Committee to Ns t ; pone their final decision, until he had given th e p r inelP points further consideration. EDUCATION. Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the mecha nics of Cork, praying for the adoption of a better system of education in Ireland. Mr. WYSE thought that Government should give a por• tion of its funds for the furtherance of so excellent a purpose, The SPEAKER made some observations which were not audible in the gallery. From what followed we understood that he objected to the petition, on the ground that it was an application for public money. Mr. CALLAGHAN had some difficulty in knowing whether he ought to present the petition ; for though it did not pray for a grant of money, it prayed for the establishment of a s) s tern of education, with lectures, and these must be paid out of some fund or other.—(A laugh.) As, however, it did not ask for money, he was told he was regular in presenting it. The same HON. MEMBER presented a petition from the parish of Carrigaleen, in Cork, complaining of actions for tithes instituted by the rector, who was a non-resident. They complained that the expenses they were about to enter into were very tyrannous, and prayed that the House would take the matter into consideration. STATE OF THE POOR IN IRELAND. Mr, S. CRAWFORD was charged to present two peti tions upon a subject which did not demand less attention than any other subject before the House. One of the petitions was from Borrisloon, and complained of the starving state of the peasantry. He trusted the House would permit him to read a short extract from the petition. It stated that the popula lation of the parish amounted to 11,671 souls ; of these 7,841 depended upon agricultural employment, and only ens-half of these were employed at Bd. a-day. There wore in the pa rish 3,931, without ordinary clothing, and 9,338 persons slept upon straw or rushes, and of these 5,731 slept on the ground without any species f bed. The petitioners prayed that there might be some legislation to remedy this state of things, and they offered to prove the truth of the statements contained in the petition at the bar of the House. The other petition was from Oughavale, in the county of Mayo, and the statements of this petition referred to the evils of absenteeism, and prayed for the introduction of Poor Laws. He trusted the House would see the importance of taking this subject into early consideration.—( Hear.) It was proposed that the surplus revenue of the Irish Church should be appropriated to pur poses of education; he thought they should rather, in the first place, provide for the existence of the poor. The measures relative to education would be soon brought to an end, if the population were cut off by starvation. It would therefore be a matter of consideration whether some portion of these funds should not be applied to the support of the people. He would not claim relief for these unfortunate persons from the charity of the people of this country ; he did not pray relief out of the general funds, but he asked - some provision, by which the poor of Ireland would be entitled to be supported out of the produce of their own industry. He would move that these petitions be printed and circulated with the votes ; and he would move on Wednesday next that there be laid before the House a copy of such communications as the Government may have received from Ireland, upon the condition of the peasantry in the distressed districts. Mr. DOMINICK BIiOWNE thought the Hon. Gentle man would do a great deal more harm than good, if be pressed his motion at the present moment. He was aware that the matter was at present in the hands of the Irish Government, and there he thought it would be most judicious to leave it. Mr. SINCLAIR believed that so far from the Hon. Mem ber for Dundalk doing more harm than good, he would only be doing his duty by pressing his motion. Mr. D. BROWNE explained. He understood the Irish Government were at present making inquiries, and he was sa tisfied they would do what was right. Mr. O'BRIEN hoped some legislative provision for the poor of Ireland would be shortly brought forward. THE IRISH BALLOT. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from several hundred electors and inhabitans of Aylesbury, praying that they might be protected in the exercise of the elective franchise by the introduction of vote by Ballot. THE CHURCH. Mr. PEA SE presented a petition from Hartlepool, in Dur. ham, expressing the satisfaction of the petitioners at the in. troduction of the appropriation clause in the Irish Church Bill. The Hon. Member then presented a petition from the city Bristol, complaining of the increase of dram-shops and beer. houses, and praying for their suppression. BRITISH SHIPPING. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from the shipowners of Sunderland, complaining of the action of the Reciprocity Duties Bill, which they alleged had been most in jurious to the British shipping interests. The Hon. Member concurred in the prayer of the petition, and presented a petition from the same place, complaining of the increase •f spirit shops, and another from the members of the medical pro. fession of Sunderland, complaining that the clause, granting a remuneration of one pound to medical men for their 'attend ance at inquests, was omitted in the Coroner's Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Cirencester. Mr. BARCL A Y supported the prayer of the latter peti tion, as also that one relative to the Reciprocity Duties Acts. Mr. G. F. YOUNG had been induced to postpone his mo tion for the repeal of the Act in question, in consequence of the political changes which had taken place. He would not however, fail to bring the question before the House in a fu ture session. GENERAL DARLING. Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Cap tain Robinson, who is at present confined in the King's Bench, for a libel upon General Darling, praying the House to enquire into his case, and professing his ardent desire for an examination into it, and his willingness to stand by the decision of the House. The Hon. Member trusted he would be allowed to bring on his motion upon this subject on the 30th July, for which it stood in the book. He had been anxious for an earlier day, but that was the only open one that he could find. TAXED NEWSPAPERS. Dr. BO WRIN G presented a petition from Renfrew against the impressment of Seamen. He trusted the House would never pass a Bill legalising the right of the King to impress seamen. Also from the young men's association of Dor chester, praying for a repeal of the taxes on knowledge. No greater boon could be conferred on the community than the removal of these taxes, and he was of opinion that by cheapening newspapers to the public, they would promote tem perance in the country„.for then the labouring man might have his own paper, in place of, as at present, being obliged to look for them in the public house. Mr. O'BRIEN presented a . petition from the physicians and surgeons of Limerick, praying for the regulation of the fees paid to surgeons on post mortem examinations. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from St. Stephen's, Edinburgh, in favour of the Established Church. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Haddington for an alteration in the Spirit Duties. Sir M. W. RIDLE Y presented a petition from a person named Cooke, against certain clauses in the Corporation Re form Bill. CORPORATION REFORM. Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. Sir W. FOLLETT gave notice that he should at the pro per opportunity propose the insertion of a series of clauses re lative to Courts of Record. IRISH TITHE BILL. Lord STANLEY wished to ask the Noble Lord the Se cretary for Ireland when it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce an Irish Tithe Bill, and when it would be read a second time ? Lord MORPETH, who replied in a very low tone, was understood to say that the Bill would most probably be ready to-morrow, and that the second reading would be proposed on Monday next. Lord STANLEY felt it his duty to take that opportunity of explaining to the House the course he intended to pursue with regard to that Bill. Of course he was only speaking in his individual capacity, but as he had taken a great interest in this question, he thought himself bound to state his opinion. The Noble Lord had so prepared his Bill, that it consisted of two questions; the one was very desirable—the other was so objectionable that no persuasions or considerations would induce him to support it; he was therefore placed in this difficulty, that upon the second reading, though he was willing to give his vote in favour of the second reading, he couli not agree to the second principle of the Bill ; then fre if he voted for the second reading, it must be underrood that he was still opposed to that principle, namely, that which would go to appropriate the property of the Church to other than ecelotiastical purposes, Ht , hoped. then, COURT OF CHANCERY. EX PARTE FLETCHER IN RE JOBHERNS. In this matter an order was applied for in April last' under the authority of the 6th Anne, to compel the Pr e ' duction of a Mrs. Esther Jobherns, the plaintiff Fletche r alleging that her death was concealed by a person narnel Tomlins, and that he, as heir-at-law to some proper*" e t which Esther Jobherns had been tenant for life, had th, 3 o interest required by th e s t a t ute w hi c h ent i t l e d hi m to te remedy it provides against fraudulent concealment of Pe r : sons suspected to be dead. Under the circumstances the:: stated and supported by the plaintiff's affidavit Lord Lyn ,_t i o hurst granted the order, which required that, under 01 _ penalty of a forfeiture of the property in dispute, Esth er Jobherns should be produced within a stated period in th e church of St. Mary, Islington, between the hours of to and twelve o'clock in the forenoon. 11Ir. ROUPEL now moved to discharge this order. se Mr. Fletcher, th e pl a i nt iff, appeare d i n person to oPP ° the motion. Sir C. PEPYS repeated that the discharge must, od er the circumstances, be without costs. The Court rose at four o'clock, VICE - CHANCELLOR'S COURT• WILKINS AND CO. V. TUCKER. Mr. DIXON moved ex parte for a special injunction t° restrain the d e f en d ant f rom using the name " C. Wi lki ro and Co." on hi s c l ot h s, an d from selling any of his clo t with that name upon t h em. Th e p l a i nt iff s h ave obtaieo. great cel e b r it y as c l ot h •manu f acturers at T werton , n e ti t Bath, whe re th ey carry on t h e i r manu f acture to t he ext e l i c of 140,0001. a year . They mark their cloths in yellow : 1 j with the name of their firm " C. Wilkins and Co." rip they have lately discovered that the defendant, who liv! s f e . London, has been placing the same mark upon verY jo rior Yorkshire cloths, which we understand are know' the trade as rubbish. His HONOUR granted the injunction MARRIED. On the Ist inst., at St. Jam es ' s Ch urc h, L or d Arthur Lett; to to Miss Adelaide Constan ce C am pbell, daughter of Lady 01 1 )0 10 Bury and Colonel Ca m pb e ll, o f Sh an fi e ld, an d niece to the of Argyle. AWNS. I,olldOn Printed and Published by 11.11.7RD0 YOUNG, of ~4 I'2, Strand, at Tit:: f. , an .No. 112, Strand, in the I:',"` cf to A Iffi s TAITER geven, Gentle Prornote • The 6 F. L. S. Prre 51,4 At can, lzhless L cc Investme] the patro influence Partiet ofheads of 1 'and th e c ,pricy to ti niter* El i brother 1 GE:S cc HARE and s aps and Suety Prom I firsui NIC()LA n ifty• Si --LaAGEN eve ry w oci ..ro gru i rw Tares, Ch Panio ng by the Gre warp Pr.el !integer,. A splen will shoal I NTW' Post-ofilee returning dusail Far, OSTEI ing ovary CALM returning BOULI Tuesday, and Wedn FRIG} returning BR I Gl tnrniug ev Applied to be made ett the oth, Informato Custom-h< Agent, Ra and Son enl ' in: kat; at th. Oftiee of t street. Pewerfu •ions. General ~........... 1 : II ." s e 4 1 1: 1 l e l7 t a i lul t i : nt i i "i l ; 4 ' 1 4 rest er . lumi na • Slii;(lßit earl and o. by dam p , e;:ereiae. Th; s ?felcistenc 1 us 11 14;i 0 e N(Yri . Nvraiper, V T 1 1, All oth( *e'rfeit.g 14 8.17 fully Lolicit rio u , -‘• (E:;:traci " harcs of tl') this place, h t o without '.fr Your n(Av a roue tified at. its ( magnifica " To A, anyth and celcbt world has s principled to the gree The Ori spectßblc UNDER t TH( IGH 1,3 AC IRTHS. .. OS On the 6th inst., in Upp er Seymour-street, Portman-s(pla r-e, f b lady of Lieut.-Colonel Walton, of th e C o ldstream Guards. ° (laughter. VA' At South Bersted, near Bognor, the lady of Robert Coffin) of a daughter. __.----'" I I I ■