The Sun. — London, England, 1841-03-11 00:00:00

EVENING 14°,DurieNT. IMPEaIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Menem 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. On the motion of Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY, the Church of England Life and Fire Trust and An nuity Bill was read a first time. Mr. BOLTON CLIVE presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Hereford, in favour of the Severn Navigation Bill. Lord WORSLEY brought in the Lincoln Road Bill, which was react a first time. Mr. W. EVANS presented a pe!ition from certain owners', of stone quarries in Derbyshire, against the Peak Forest Canal Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel in opposition to the Bill. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET brought in the Newport Docks Bill, which was read a first time. Mr. COLLIER presented a petition from Ply mouth, against the grant of additional powers to the Poor-law Commissioners. The Sheriffs of London appeared at the bar of the House, for the purpose of presenting a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of London, in favour of the Jews' Declaration Bill.—(Cheers.) Lord SANDON presented a petition from the Liverpool Guardian Society against the Liverpool Gas Bill ; also a petition trom Kingsgreve, in Staffordshire, praying for such alterations in the Poor-law Amendment Bill as might grant out-door relief to the poor. Also a petition from the. Liverpool and Manchester Railroad Company, praying to be heard by Counsel before the Committee on Railroads. Also from the tea-dealers of Liverpool in favour of an alteration in the Import Duties. Also from the Jewish inhabitants of Liver pool, in favour of the Jews' Declaration Bill. Also from the Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool with a similar prayer. Also one from the American Chamber of Commerce, praying for an alteration in the Import Duties, more particularly as regards tobacco, flour, and timber. Mr. B. SMITH presented a petition from Norwich, praying for the abolition of all oaths, and in favour of the Jews' Declaration Mr. BARNARD p-esented a petition from Dept ford against the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Colonel RUSHBROOKE presented petitions from Stow Market and several other parts of Suffolk against the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Mr. JONES presented a petition from the Board of Guardians of Carmarthen, praying for an alteration in the Poor-law Amendment 818. Mr. HUTCHINS presented a petition from Pea ryn, in favour of the Jews' Dechretion Bill. Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from a parish in Shropshire, praying for the abolition of Lay Patronage. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from the Deaneries of Kent and Susses, praying for the repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Also a petition for tho equalization of tithes. Colonel JONES presented a retition from Donegal against intrusion in the Church of Scotland. Also a petition from another part of Ireland against idolatrous worship in India. Mr. FOX MAULE presented petitions from the Presbyteries of Perth, Ayr, and several other parts of Scotland, against lay rwronage ; also a petition from the guardians of a union in Norfolk, playing that no alteration might be male in the Poor-laws ; also a pe tition from Bishop Stortford, in favour of the County Courts Bid ; also a petition from Perth, praying for the rev'sion of the Import Duties. Mr. HUME presente 1 a petition, signed by forty individuals of the town of Manchester, complaining of the unhappy and miserable condition of the productive classes, whieb, in their opinion, was caused by the un jest state of the representation, and praying for an extension of the suffrage, in order that Members might be returned who would have some sytn pathy with the middle and working classes ; also from a society at Alarelebone, raiiing itself the Na tional Charter Association, stating that they view, %vitt' feelings of surprise and regret, the acquittal of the Earl of Cardiger, on the ground of a flaw in the in tliettnent, ea notwithstanding a similar flaw, Messrs. • Frost, Wiliiams, and Jones were banished from tire country ; and praying, that by granting a free pardon to those individuals, the Legislature would give a convincing proof of their determination ro dis tribute equal justice to aril ranks and classes of her Majesty's subjects ; alas from the same Asso ciation, praying that an individual of the name of Petty now confined in the gaol of Beverley, may be released from imprisonment ; and front an individual" in Marylcbone, staving that julfee could not be done to the various classes of her Majesty's subjects unless inquiry were made into the conduct of Lord Cardigan to the officers of his regiment. • . • Mr. ANTROBUS presented a petition from Surigy in favour of Church Extervion. •- - Sir DE LACY EVANS pre . sented "a pz. , titioty' from frneholderseletateholderse_o.nd_h_onacholders, in tbr neighbourhood — of — Buekogbaln Palace, coinfluning'at' the want of good rewera. _ . Mr. fIObGES presented a petition from:Kent, in favour of thri Jews 130,nlaratiun Bill. . • Mr. E. BAINES presented a petition from York shire praying for the total abolition of Church-ratel. Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition from the Protestant. Dissenters of Clitlmsforii, the first signature to whial'. was that of John Thortvood, pray'ong for the total, 'abolition of Chureh•rates, and for the rearse of Mk\ Baines from imprisonment ; and from the Dissent tin of Warrington, from the Baptists of Ebenezer (Chapel, Kettering, from the Independents of Goi:z iborottgb, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and from the Independents of Lanczsbire, Cambridgn, and other placei, to the tame effect. In presenting the petitions, he trusted it woul I not be thought he was violating the rules of the House in st,.tieg' that it very large nu:nber of the petitioners ap• peered to he labouring under a mistake in respect to the pr oper mode of trans itting petitions. A number of th( sendingthe petitions had paid heavy postage, and many others had inquired whether they were 1if . .06 to that impost or net." He trusted that it would t 4,0 forth to the public that no postage crag eharg'ettbl vpon petitions sent to a Member for presentation to that House. _ _ _ Sir H. PEEL believed the Hon. Member was quite correct in his statement ; the fact was not generally known in the country. He had petitions to present upon which heavy postage had been pail. Mr. HUME said the rule laid down by the Post effice was, that all petitions addressed to a Member of the House for presentation to the House, open at the ends, and not exceeding 6 oz., were passed free. Mr. WAKLEY had been de.i't with much more favourably by the Post-t,ffice authorities than it appeared his Hon. Fri...nd had—he had received petitions free of postage which much exceeded 6 oz. They. were charged when they were mule up into packages, and then the Post-office had not the power of preventing frauds. Sir K. PEEL said the mistake, no doubt, arose from the Parlia men t ary P apers being now charged. `rum u , ht to b e di st i nct i n f orma ti on g i ve n to the country t al proper authority. Mr. O'CONNELL said tia:. mistake alluded to by the 'Right Hon. 13o.ronet certainly pr .z ailed in Ireland. It would b e most important that such notice from au thority should be. given. llr. EASTHUPE said it was ale important that it should be clearly understood K . ttit wai tile rule. He thought the Hon. for was labouring under a mistake, for he had received petitions free that weighed much above six ounces. Mr. F. NIAULE quit) agreed with the Rift Hon. Baronet. The public ought to be made fulllyavare of the Post-office regulations upon so important a subject. As he was the only one connected with the Government present, he would charge himself with the duty of conveying the unanimous wish of the House to the Cl ancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Arch deacon Bathurst, of Norwich, complaining of the manner in which tithes were charged to the ponrs'-rate. Stock in trade was now ex A em l pted, and so, in his opinion, ought tithes. s.o N a petition from Nottingham, sign ed b y 4,246 inha bitants,_ complaining of the operatio n of the New Poor-law Bill ; a petition from Kettering, to the same effect ; a petition from Milton, in Gloucestersbire, com plaining of the increased expenditure under the New Poor-law Bill ; from Tadworth, in Berkshire , and f rom Thatchem, in Berkshire, to the same effect ; and from Leicester, praying that the People's Charter might be made the law of the land, as being the only effective and radical remedy for the manifold grievagges of the people. Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Stafford, against any further grant to the College of Maynooth. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the operatives of Manchester, praying for the release of Mr. Feargus O'Connor ; a petition from Barnsley, in York shire, praying for the release of Frost, Jones, and Wil liams ; a petition from the City of Westminster, to the same effect ;,and a petition from Sutton Ashby, in Nottinghamshire, to the same effect, Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition from Sligo, in favour of Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill. Mr. GREG presented a petition from Alanchester, in favour of the release of Frost, Jones, and W i lli ams . -Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the County Palatine of Lancaster, complaining that the rates had been increased by the new Poor-law Bill, and praying that the House would put down a system so opposed to t h e feeling s o f th e p eop l e ; a nd also against the County Consta bulary Bill ; a petition from the inhabitants of Kensing ton and Knightsbridge, praying for a reduction of the tolls on bridges over the Thames; and °petition from the attorneys of Bradford, in Yorkshire, praying that in any measure for the improvement of the County Courts, the exclusive right of commencing suits might be reien ed to the attorneys. Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from places in the counties of Donegal, Kerry, and Tyrone, in Ire land ; also a petition from Warrington, in Lancashire, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Bill for the extension of the franchise, and against Lord Stanley's. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman also pre sented a petition from the carpenters of Dub lin, in favour of a repeal of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland ; and anot Icr peti tion from the formers and land-holders of B Ilymore Eu:tace, to the same effect ; also a petition fr,m Cork, signed by 22 ; 000 inhabitants, against ministers money. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER presented a petition from the inhabitantssof Po tsmoutb, most numerously signed, in favour of the Jews' Declara tion Bill. Mr. COLQUHOUN presented a petition from Glasgow praying for improvement in the registration o f births and marriages. Also a petition against the grant to the College of Maynooth. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a peti tion from Edinburgh in favour of the Jews' Declaration Bill. Also a petition from the same place praying that some change be made in the manner in which taxes arc levied on railway passengers. Lord ELIOT presented a petition from Liskeard, praying that workhouses be exempt from the payment of rates and taxes. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition signed by 1,000 of the inhabitants of Livertaool, praying for a re duction in the duties on coffee and sugar. SEVERN NAVIGATION. The Report of the Committee of Selection on this Bill was brought up, and moved to be printed. COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS. Sir ROBERT PEEL gave notice that in Com mittee on the Copyright of Designs Bill, with a view of protecting copyright for one season, and limiting it to one Session, he should move that the period of copy 'right of designs should be extended to nine months, and restricted to that period. Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice, that if the Right Hon. Baronet should press the motion of which he bad just given notice, he (Mr. Labouchere) should move as an amendment that the period of copyright should be limited to six months. CRIMINAL LAW. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice that he should shortly ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the administration of crimi nal justice in certain boroughs in Scotland. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS UPON LEAVE. The RIGHT HON. AND LEARNED GENTLEMAN Said he would take that opportunity of vindicating himself from the charge made against him last night in his absence, old he was surprised that aoy Gentleman could make such a charge.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It was stated last night that he had set a bad example, in shrinking from the execution of his duty. But the fact was, that he last Session claimed an exemption from attendance in Parliament, on the ground that he had to conduct an important Government prosecution in a remote county. The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth concurred with him, that he was perfectly justified in asking for leave of absence under those cir cumstances. As soon as the trial was over he returned to town, and attended constantly in the House for the remainder of the Scssion.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL entirely concurred with what fell from the Right Hon. and -Learned Gentleman—(Hear, hear)—and hoped, for the satisfaction of his feelings, his (the Attorney-General's) name would be placed upon the first Committee.—(Laughter.)_ POOR-LAWS. Col. EVANS moved for returns re'ating to out-door rel:ef, under the New Poor-law Act. POSTAGE OF PETITIONS. Mr. EASTHOPE-asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had not been in the House when a conversation took place on the subject of the postage of petitions, whether he could inform the House what was the state of the law - respecting the postage of peti tions ? Was it the case that petitions weighing- more than six ounces were chargeable with postage? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that under the law before the Penny-pestago came into operatiOn, all petitions under six ounces in weight were exempted from postage ; and the law on the sub ject is still unchanged. The practice of the Post effiee was net to receive petitions of very great hulk ; but petitions of a fair and reasonable siza were carried, and, if charged with postage, the money was again re turned. If the Postmasters were now under any mis apprehension on the matter, he would take care to set them right. Lord JOTIN RUSSELL moved that the House should on Monday next reso:ve itself into a Committee on South Australian Acts.—Agreed to. In reply to Colonel SIBTHORP, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that be would lay on the table of the House to-morrow a copy of the re turn regarding the appointment of Mr. Vizard at the Home-office. In answer to another question from Colonel SIB THORP, Tue CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Eta ted that if the miscellaneous estimates were laid _on the table any time before Easter, the usual rule would be complied with ; but he had no doubt they would be presented to the House in the course of a few days. Lord J. RUSSELL wished to stme, with regard to the course of business on Fri,lay, that it was pro posed by his R;ght Hon. - Friend the President of the Bolrd of Trade to bring on upon that day the Colonial Customs Bill. The third reading of the Turnpike Ike's Continuance Bill could then be moved, and afterwards the second reading of the Bill relating to County Coroners. SYRIA. Mr. iIUME wished to know nlica the piper's re t' Syria, which bad been ordered a fortnight agn, would Le ldd ou the table ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL c;-ntld not five a positive answer to the question as the rapers were not in his offile, but bad no doubt they would he presented in the emirs° of a few days. JEWS' DECLARATION BILL. On the Order of the al being read for the second reading of this B. 1 1; • Mr. HODGES pre.ented a petition from the Hebrew congregation of F.linburgh in favour of the Bill. Mr. - ANDREW WHITE presented a similar p - titian from Sunderland. Mr. HAWES said that as his Hon. Friend the - Memler for Exeter was not in the House, and had given him no notice of his intention with regard to that 131, he hardly knew if in his abs nee be should be justified in moving the second reading. He did not know if any opposition was to be made to the Bill ; if so he would not press it. Mr. LAW HODGES said the Hon. Member for Exeter had requested him to move the second reading, although it would have been more agreeable to his fecliags to have left the matter in the hands of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, whose name was on the beck-of the MIL In performance of the premise then made to the Hon. Mimber for Exeter, he would now move the second reading of the Bill. Ttie House, he trusted, were already aware of the diffi culties under which persons professing the Jewish reli gion laboured with revcct to certain offieies in the kingdom, aed it slid not require uny lengtnened statement Lon. him to justify the motion that this B II be read a second time.—(Hear, hear.) When the Test end Corporation Acts were repealed, a declaration was required from all persons taking office that they would not use any power which they might acquire to the prciedicp of the EstabLehed Church. The 9th of Geo. IV. re quired that all persons haling office under the Crown should take the declaration within six months after taking office, but in Corporations it was required that per sons holdingoffi• e should make the declaration on catering on the duties of their effice, oryeithin one month after. wards. Now they all recollected a gentleman who had filed the high office 3f Sheriff of London and Middlesex, who bad afterwards appeared at the bar of the House with petitions from the City of London, and who had discharged his duties with the higLest credit to himself. He had afterwards been elected an Alderman of the City of London, but he had not been b a d h ya l c e hei t sd o if thef oanc cou required ncto of dbeeyenrtcthae ce e rtain wordsee c t e o el f n n h tr i o n_ t nto the d rn ic ee l ni a fa r declaration Parlia ment. From that difficulty Quakers, Moravi ans, and Separatists had since b een relieved, and ( hele satrooyue.ohtffiptbirty.3 this Bill to afford the same relief sons professing the Jewish religion. bear.) ee The same gentleman had afterwards seprrvHoehdoatibt.lit of Sheriff of the county of Kent, a n d ow i n i, to that circumstance that his the Member for Exeter had requested Fri endo move the second reading of the Bill, as t o would be more satisfaCtory that some gentlemen connected with that county should have an opportunity of bearing testimony to the manner in which he had discharged the duties of the Sheriff of the county of Kent. Ho High Sheriffs, and he mu s t confess thatknewhe many never k n ew one who discharged his duties with more credit to himself, or satisfaction to the . county, than Mr. Salomons. There w as not which h a charity is tat was brought under his notice,. and fo assist anceandlihtse•arsairlyequeoirhetdr, contribute. —( Hear, olheeadr,idhneeart.)most There cbe wereerfully buildingeven instances o f churcheso f tha gentleman'siththe cocounty contributing n tr Kent.—(huti g ila to e the ) The 'difficulties under which these parties laboured were not from the provisions of any statute, but from conscientious motives which they had imposed upon themsßves, front making the declaration required of them. • Ile had been told that in the Corporations of Southampton and Birmingham, persons of the Jewish persuasion Were members of the Council, and they had become so because they were not required by those Corporations to make the declaration ; it showed, therefore, that it was in the power of Corpo rations completely to exclude persons from situations of honour and trust. That was a state of things that ought not to continue. It was an act of justice to place these persons upon the same footing of equality., with the Quakers and Moravians. Ho was unwilling to take up the time of the House further, believing that they could not do better than to pass this Bill, which would have the effect of joining all persuasions in one bond of common interest. It was upon these gronnds that he begged to propose the second reading of the Bill. The SPEAKER having put the question, Sir R. INGLIS said .that when last the Bill was before the House, he had stated that it was a Bill to enable Mr. Sslomons to fill the officasof Alderman of the city of London, and the speech they had just heard ve rified that statement. That speech had told them much of the excellent qualities of Mr. Salomons ' but as to the general principle involved in the Bill of un christianizing England for the purpose of admit ting Mr. Salomans to become an Alderman of London, the Honourable Member had said nothing. However reluctant he was to refer to individual cha racter, yet when it was brought forward he could not allow it to pass altogether unnoticed. The liberality of David Salomons, Esq., would prove nothing more than this; that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian. If he were a consistent Jew it was impossible that be could assist Christians in raising a temple to one whom he must blaspheme and regard as an impostor. An instance of the same kind of liberality happened in the United States. A Presbyterian chapel was in pecu niary difficulties, and a Jew came forward• to assist the congregation. It was impossible that a man could act in this way if he sincerely believed in his own religion. All the offices of this country, whether legislative, judi cial, or administrative, had hitherto been exercised by persons professing Christianity, and for the sake of an individual,—at least a particular individual, had been referred to by th e H on . M em b er —it was soug ht to expunge the declaration made by all those who discharged public functions, that they hold _ the true faith of a Christian. It was, in fact, an attempt to unchristianize England for the sake of admitting a single individual to a public office. On former occasions he (Sir R. Inglis) had stated the preliminary objection which he took to this measure—namely; that the Jews were a nation as well as a creed,—that they were a nation absolutely, and, as he bblieved, till it pleased God by his own act to alter their position, irrevocably sepa rated from the rest of the world. The time would come —all who were sincere Christians must beliciehnd desire it—the time would come when every Jew.must become a Christian, but till that time should come, the Jew, whe ther born in Germany, or Portugal, or England, derived his character; not from thesaccidental,sp - Ort of earth on which ho may be born, - but., from the parents from whom he - proceeded, and from the creed by which he was distinguished. He was a member, not of the nation of Germany, or any other country, but of the ancient Israelitish people. This was so distinctly and emphatically the case, that there was hardly any paper written by a Jew in which there was not some reference made to this nation. It escaped them almost involuntarily. The very first sentence of a remarkable letter, addressed by Mr. Hart, of Montreal, to the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when he filled the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department was couched in these terms, " As a member of an oppressed nation I appeal to you." They would all bear in mind that his late Right Hon. Friend Sir R. Grant, was fre quently addressed by the Jews of Germany and Portu gal for his zeal in the Jewish cause, but they never thanked him for interfering on behalf of any individuals, but always for that nation ; they were a distinct nation, and the House were about to naturalize a people and a creed when they only professed to confer civil and reli gious liberty upon part of her Majesty's subjects. The B:11 wasaat very simple looking Bill ; it consisted of only some seven or eight lines, and at first sight appeared to be a very innocent one, but he would call upon Hon. Members to pause before they took a first step in such an unwise course.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would ask whether the public would have been satisfied had a Jew been the presiding Magistrate, when a person named Carlyle was charged with printing or exhibiting a blasphemous print? That person was un doubtedly guilty of blasphemy in the eyes of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies—nay., in the eyes of every Hon. Member in the House. —(Hear, hear.) Would the public have been sat.sfied, or was it right for' the House to put any one in such a false position as to call upon him to pronounce judgment in a case where conscientiously he could not believe any blasphemy had been committed ? Law and legislation were formed of extreme cases, and be knew the danger of beginning. There were many Hon. Members in the House (end he spoke without any personal disrespect) who had been admitted little by little, and whose admission be had always regarded as one of the greatest evils which the country had ever sustained.—(lronical cheers.) The present was a preliminary step to the admission of Jews, and, as the Honourab'e Member for • Kilkenny had said, of Parsecs, Mahornmedans, and Brahmins ; because, in answer to him (Sir R. Inglis) the Honourably Member had said that he saw no objection to their admission, provided they d:scharged their duty as citi zens. That he thought a most mischievous doctrine, and he maintained that in the case of a State like Eng land, Christianity was an integral part of the law of the country. It appeared to him that it they delibe rately expunged from their statute book the words, " I do this upon the true faith of a Christian," it would he preparing the way for expunging these words in all cases es they arose, according as the increasing liberalityof Honourable Members on that or the other side of the House prompted there. The House was not perhaps aware that many members of the Jewish persuasion were opposed to the 13:11 —the Jewish community resident in that country were certainly not unanimous upon the subject. The Hon. Member for Lambeth would recollect that, five or six years ago, he had presented a petition from Ebeaezer. Demur, praying that a similar 8.11, then in progress, might not be passed. (Hear, bear.) He had received a communication from a Jew residing in Cambridge. That individual addressed him (Sir It. Inglis) privately by letter ; and also in a public pamphlet. The substance of both were the rime. In the pamphlet, which he held in his hand, and which was written in answer to one on the emancipa t ion, the writer addresses his Jewish brother as follows :—" Brother," said he, " you are mis taken greatly—you are no Englishman." And again addressing the Jew claiming the privileges of an Eng lishman, the writer said, " Though You were born in England, you are no more than a foreigner —you have no home in this land, or in any other country—are you not a Jew ? If so, you must. describe yourself as an English Jew, btlonging to Jerusalem, and a free man of the land of Canaan." It was a Rabbi, residing in Cambridge who wrote thus. That Rabbi steted distinctly that a man could not ho a Jew and an Englishman at the same time.—(Laugh ter.) He (Sir R. Inglis) bad quoted a Jew in sup port of his views on the present question, Ana Hoe. Gentlemen did not contradict him (Sir R. Inglis) but they were attempting to contradict that Jew.— ( Ileir.) The Jews were not like the French Pro iestants, who came over here to England, and in one or two generations became absorbed in the great mass of :he English people, so that one could scarcely dis tinguish, in the present mass of 'English society, the descendants of the French Protestants. So also with the Dutch who came over with Ring William, and the. Normans who came over with the Conqueror —they were all soon amalgamated in the general mass of t're English per ply. That was not the case wth the Jews: Tue object of 4he present Bill was to introduce into the Corporations, and next into the Legislature of England, men who of a ecessity and beyond the powers of all human law, were unable to become the citizens of a country in which they might rojoure. c if it is as a claim of justice be would not oppose it, but it was not—it was a claim of expediency. What ever was done in the Legislature was done on the true faith of Christians, and by seek ing to introduce a few individuals according to the pre sent Bill they were preparing to expunge that declaration. Tho:e Jews who came into England knew what the law of England was. We did not invite them. They came for their own objects. Were they degraded or despised here ? Had they not complete and absolute protection of all social and personal rights ucconeected with power? Two centuries ago there was not a single Jew in England. They had gradually come in since that period, and there was. nothing to justify us Of oThiseiu e in altering on their account our social system. Oue of two arguments must follow. Were they prepared by their legislation that night to declare that the al ternative of their own religion should follow ? The Jews declared Him whom they all honoured and adored, to be an impostor—that He in whose name alone they hoped for salvation was a -deceiver. When the Jew came to the table of that House, he must state that as solemnly as any man could state it. Thank God it. was not yet proposed that that measure should pass the House, but he warned them that if they passed that initiatory mea sure, the other would soon follow after ; and that her ms e e a rv f . t e e rc r alu they would soon have to legislate for the Christianity of England. MembersMM I NCr r o ß s eR simultaneouslyU CE addressm e t i t o h n e . House and great confusion ensued, until the Speaker, a m r g ed p u u c t ed the to am on e e nd b m et ent, called upon Lord John intolerance R u ssell. Lord RUSSELL was glad the question was having Honourable Genawtnleeeemenan speech, that we stated religious tated in liberty severalon p e t r h t e e one hand and on the other. The religion m f u a s l t consider our religion true, of his and the Jewish of false, end that, therefore, the rights to who Dissentersopposed Jews are incapable Sir, I do not think that municipal offices. willing al t w o ay p s u a t nx t i h o e u i s r which the State and Roman Citholicts were iD the extension . . t o o p p p o u s t a t i ohne question i t:t i a , :t a g ti . r p o o u n n d s was concerned.--(Cheers.) Their principal argument was that those who dissent from the Church had not the same interest in the State, and would not be so stead fast in the it allegiance as those who wer e mem b ers of the Church which was connected with, and, as it were, a part of, the State.—(Hear, hear.) That argument had been overruled by the Parliament, and Dissenter s were admitted to equal civil rights with their fellow subjects of the Established Church.--(Hear, hear.) In the case of Roman Catholics, those who were 'eta posed to their cla 7 ms took every care to avoid saying that they did so, because the Roman Catholic religion was false and ours true. They said that the Roman Catholics had another allegiance, namely, to the Pope THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 11,1841 of Rome, and that: the State could not rely upon their acting in Parliament and in civil offices, with a faithful regard to the interests of the State and the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects. But that argument also has been, lam glad to say, over ruled by Parliament, and Roman Catholics .as well as Dissenters are placed upon an equal footing as to civil rights with Protestants. Now, Sir, when we come to this case of the Jews, there is nothing to meet it but the bare naked principle of intolerance—(Cheers) — because they differ from us in religion.—(Renewed cheers.) Sir, the principle whigh I would prefer is directly opposed to that.—(Cheers.) I think that, with respect to civil offices, where we find persons fitted to fill them, difference of religion is no ground for exclusion. But with respect to the Church, it is another matter. We cannot admit persons to hold offices in the Church or connected with the Church, who hold opi nions different from those of the Church. But in respect to civil offices, we have no reason to inquire the religious opinions of any candidate, pro vided he is qualified to discharge the duties—(Great cheering)—and that he can be relied upon as respects the Sovereign and Parliament for allegiance .and obedi ence to the laws and fidelity to his fellow-citizens.— (Cheers.) Is not this the case with respect to Baron Rothschild, Sir Moses Montefiore, Mr. Salomons, and other men whose families have long been established in this country, and who are known to those who adminis ter the affairs of the country as persons as deeply in terested in the welfare, and honour, and liberties of this country as any other subject of her Majesty ? (Renewed cheers.) Could you say that such men are not to be relied on as members of the Common Council of the City of London ?—(Hear, hear.) Really, Sir, I do not understand the principle on which this opposi tion is founded.—(Cheers.) I have heard with sur prise that a Jewish gentleman is accused of insincerity. because he gave a contribution' to the building of a Christian church. Sir, I do not think that it is any reproach to that gentleman, that when he saw a large number of Christians in his neighbourhood unpro vided with the means of religious worship and instruc tion, he came forward to supply those means that they might be made good Christians, instead of becoming pagans. Is there anything extraordinary in this ? I think it exhibits the greatest wisdom and prudence, as well as liberality.—(Cheers.) My Hon. Friend ar gued that it was a principle of the Constitution of this country, and I think he added of the colonies also, that what he called the Christian character should be preserved ; and that, therefore, the Jews should be ex cluded. Now, with regard to the colonies, I can inform my Hon. Friend of one, at least, which is an exception. —(Cheers.) In the colony of Jamaica Jews aro ad mitted to an equality of privileges with their fellom subjects.—(Loud cheers.) The Assembly of the Co lony, .with the assent of the Governor, has decided that Jews shall be admitted to all offices, and I can see nothing to call for the intervention of the Crown to prevent that decision from being carried into effect.— (Cheers.) My Hon. Friend goes on to say that this is a religious question, and that the prophecies declared that the Jews were to be a separate nation ; and that by the incorporation of them we were acting against the sacred interpretation of Scripture. Now that is not a point for the consideration of the House.—(Cheers.) If it were necessary to enter into a discussion on that subject here, I should say that the fulfilment of the prophecies was perfectly compatible with the persons of that nation holding corporation offices. In my opinion, Sir, the Divine power a nd the D:vine institutions require no assist ance f rom us. My Hon. Friend does not see the absurdity of his argument, which ren ders it perfectly unavailable for his purposes.—(Cheers.) If I mistake not, in 183.5 we passed an Act, almost un animously, authorising Jews to hold the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex. Now, if a Jew being an Alderman is against the prophecies, the same argument applies to the Sheriff of London and Middlesex.— ( Loud cheers.) Therefore these consequences have already taken place, and the force of the Hon. Gentle man's argument, as I take it, isthat Jews must be cut off from office a!together ; for if you once admit them to any office there is an end of his argument.—(Cheers.) They now hold many offices, and in places in which there are no corporations the Act of Parliament does not require any declaration ; and there Jews exercise the office of trustees of towns,, of Commissioners of Paving, Lighting, and Police. It so happens, that in the town of Devonpcit a Jew held the office of Trustee of the I town for Paving, Lighting, and Police, and it was only when the town was incorporated that he was deprived of his office. So that at the present moment a Jew he town not incorporated may exercise offices per fectly analagous to Li e office of Town Councillor. My Hon. Friend cannot carry his principles into effect, be cause the Jews may hold many offices now.—(Cheers.) Now with respect to the particular frame of the Act we are now considering. When the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was trade: consideration before this House a declaration was proposed by the Right Eon. Gentleman the Member for Temworth. That declaration did not contain the .words "on the true faith of a Christiai.," but they were inserted in the House of Lords, and it was only in consequence of wishing that so important a measure should not be de 'eyed, that I did not raise an objection to those words? I believe if I had raised that objection th it House would not have agreed with the House of Lords in waking a new exclusion of the Jews. However, I de clared at once that I wished the Bill to be passed, and those amendments were agreed to ; but what is the practical and I believe the legal effect of those words. .They do not altogether exelure Jews from corpuretions. The corporations may, if they please, require the &- claret:on to ha taken upon the assumption of office, but if they do not think fit to enforce the put ting of the declaration the Jew may hold the office, and woull afterwards be covered by the Indemnity Act for so acting. In the case of the City of London, the de: legation was put in the first instance, and the Judges decided that the Aldermen had acted legally in putting that declaration ; hut I do not believe there is any rea • son for obliging Town Councillors to put that declara tion before the office is taken. This is certain, that there has been more than one instance du Jew holding office in corporations. There is an instance in which a Jew held office in Southampton, and I am informed there is another instance in the town of Birming ham. Therefore what is now proposed is not to introduce a thoroughly new practice, but to allow that which has been done in Southampton and Birmingham to be done in our corporations and boroughs. The last argument of my Hon. Friend is that this concession may be carried further, that you may have the Jews asking to have scats in Parliamcet. and every other privilege allowed to British subjects. I do not know what the Jews tray think fit to do with e s whether, if they g a i n thi s concess ion, thufurther concessions, and seek to respect to ct ay to not that, ask or for obtain the full privileges of British subjects ; but of thii I am sure, that if they do ask that I shall support them— (Tremendous cheers.) I have not the smallest hesit rtion in shying that I shall carry the principle to its lira ex tent—(Cheers)—that with regard to civil privilege., I twill ask for civil qualification and no.other, but when I am satisfied those civil qualifications arc possessed, I shall then admit to office those persons who may think proper to claim them. With respect to religious offices and offices connected.with the Church Establish ment, I wish again to guard my se lf by s a ying the case is entirely different ; but with regard to the possession of all other civil privileges enjoyed by British subjects, I think, whenever it is asked for, you should carry out the prin ciple to its full extent, and I am sure I shall give my hearty support not only to this Bill but to every measure that is founded on a similar principle.— (The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) Mr. E WART said if he had rose somewhat prema turely that evening the House must attribute it to the imwtienee, he had ;almost said the indignation, with which he had heard some of the statements of the Hon. Baronet , opposite. He (M?. Ewart) deprecated that House being made the theatre for theological discussion. The Hon. Baronet had introduced theology instead of reason. The claim of the Jews was founded upon the com mon right of all men to be admitted to equal rights with their fellow-citizens. The Hon. Baronet had said that the Jews had proclaimed themselves a separate people. What, he would ask, would induce them to persevere more in that than drawing the line of demarcation} which the Hon. Gentleman wished to be kept up. The argument of the Hon. Baronet with respect to the Vansittarts and the Keppels did not apply to the pre sent case.—(Cries of .4 Divide, divide.") It was not worth while to press the Hon. Gentleman's arguments further—the House was impatient at his theology, and he would therefore content himself by cordially sup porting the second reading of the Bill. Cdptain HAMILTON observed that if he bad not heard any arguments in favour of the Bill, the speech of the Hon. Member for Oxford would have decided him to vote in favour of it.—(Hear.) He believed it would be found that the Right Hon. Baronet had not a majority even on his own side of the House. Mr. MILNES differed from the Right Hon. Baro net, the Member for the University of did Oxford, on this subject. The Bill before the House not appear to him to involve those national peculiarities which his Hon. Friend had so eloquently clescribe ques tion was simply whether gentlem en of the Jewish s per suasion should or should not execute those corporate -rThe h h e Jih offices, which being entirely of a local nature, they were from their position and acquaintance with the particu lar locality as likely to execute well as any other class of individual!. The question was neither reli gious nor political, and protesting against the principle of exclusion, he should giire his vote in favour of the Bill. House divided— . 137 For the second reading ........ ......... Strangers wore then ordered to withdraw, teed the Against it .................................... 24 113 MMajority 113 ajority ................. The Bill was then read a second time. COUNTY CORONERS. Mr. PAKINGTON moved the second readin g o f the C ounty C oroners ' Bill. it contained the same provisions as a Bill which had been introduced in that House in 1835, and which bore on it the name of the lion, Member for Bridport, namely, that the election SUPPLIES, of Coroners should be vested in those who were en titled to vote for Members of Parliament. He truA:d, therefore, his Bile would meet with no opposAion from that Hon. Member. Mr. WARBURTON said, it did not follow that because the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill put upon the back of it the name of another Hon. Mem. ber, that tbt Hon. Member was bound by all the pro visions of the Bill. His objections were principally to the clause which proposed to render the election of a county Coroner the same as the election of Members of Parliament ; because, by adopting that mode, the Ma gistrates would have a voice in the election, which be deprecated, because it ought to be remembered that the Coroner had often to sit in judgment even upon Magistrates themselves, and therefore he thought the election of that officer should be as little as possible connected with the Magistracy. He thought the election of Coroner ought to approach as near as pos sible to universal suffrage. It was upon these grounds he opposed the Bill, and would divide the House upon its second reading. Mr. FOX MAULE hoped the Hon. Member for Bridport: would not insist upon dividing the House on tae second reading of the Bill. He thought, looking at the state of the law with respect, to Coroners, the House was much indebted to the Hon. Member who had introduced the measure. With respect to what had been stated as to Coroners' Courts being open ones, he thought there was great room for argument upon all sides ; but his opinion was that a large dis cretion should always be given to Coroners to clear their Courts, or not, as justice required it. Colonel SIBTHORP thought depositions ought to be taken before Coroners as they were in Courts of law. He hoped the House would let the Bill go into Committee. _ Mr. HUME said that whilst he agreed with the Hon. Gentleman that a Bill ought to be passed to prevent fraud in the election of Coroners, he could never agree to any measure which would narrow the suffrage. He dissented entirely from that part of the Bill. Ile trusted, however, that his Hon. Friend would not divide the House upon the second reading, but let the Bill go into Committee, on the understand ing that he would then oppose what he considered as objcetionable. If the Hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill would leave the suffrage on the same footing as it had hitherto rested, he (Mr. Hume) would sup port the measure. Mr. \VARBURTON said he would not divide the House. Sir G. STRICKLAND would give the Bill his hearty support, because the system at present in force was very expensive, particular.y in Yorkshire, where each Coroner, although he was to act for only a district, was elected by the whole county, in which there were at least 50,000 electors. No one could go to that expense, and the consequence was that the election was carried by a law freeholders near the county town. He did not agree to all the clauses in the 13111, but he would sup port the second reading, in the hopes that it would be amended in the Committee Mr. WAKLEY would support the second reading of the Bill as several of its provisions were very good, but he must decidedly object to the Magistrates having anything to do with the election of the Coroner—the Co roner had often to sit in judgment on the conduct of the Magistrates, and he must decidedly oppose giving them any more power over the Coroner—they bad too much already. Upon principle, and generally, the Coroner's Court ought to began open Court, but cases might arise, when, if the Coroner had not the power to take evidence in secret, the ends of justice might be, and he had no doubt had been de!ea!e It was said that the murder of Mr. Westwood was in the room where the inquest was held, and afterwards escaped to America. In such a case, where no suspi cion attached to any individual, it would be very inju rious to the pubic interests, if tho Coroner had not the power of closing his court. With regard to the clauses relating to the franchise, the constituency in Middlesex and Surrey would be enlarged, and would not be so open to fraudulent practices. The registra tion would have a great effect in doing away with such practices. The constituency under the Bill, in West Middlesex alone, would amount to 25,000, whereas at present, in the whole county, they did not amount to 14,000. He objected to any chaege being made in the Coroner's districts by the Magistrates, without his consent. The districts in Middlesex had been settled years ago, and his colleague and himself never interfered with each other. The Coroner was one of the hardest worked and worst paid officers in the country. The Gallant Colonel was anxious to have the depositions taken at length. Now, as the inquiry was as to whether a person had died a vio lent or a natural death, many questions were asked, which afterwards turned out to have no connection with the subject, and which would give great pain, if they were published. He was glad his Hon. Friend did not intend to divide against the Bill. With regard to the deputy, the 15th clause provided that such deputy should be a barrister or ahattorney. Why not a qua tfied medical practitioner ? He had been Coroner for a sufficient length of time to know that it was absolutely necessary that the person holding the office of Coroner should have ;received a medical education. He beleved that when the Hon. Gentleman moved that clause he wool I find a large majority against it. With respect to appointing deputy-coroners he was op posed to such a measure, unless the Coroners ap pointed their deputies on the same terms that the She riffs did—namely, that they themselves should be re sponsible, and not the deputies. Unless that were done, whenever any difficult or doubtful cite occurred the Coroner would absent himself, and act by h:s de puty, and the decision made in such CilSO would not he valid unless the Coroner were unavoidably. absent. The greA inconvenience of that course must be then appa rent to all. 'Film was another point in the Bill to which he wished to advert—the table of fees to be paid by Coroners as disbursements. By returns laid before the House relative to that sub ject, it appeared that the claims were not situ hr in all the counties of England. In the county of Middlesex, cue farthing was not allowed to jurors who attended at inquests, whereas on the other side of the river each juror was allowed ls. The clause which would amend that state of things would meet with his cordial support. After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Wednesday, the 24th March. Tile Double Costs Bil lwas read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next. The Houghiew * of Catde (Irehnd) 1311 was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. On the motion of Mr. lIAWES that the Report of the Committee of Su;rply be brought up, Captain BOLDER° said that, during tire last eighteea months, a large sum, 500,0001. (as we under stood) was voted by the House to supply arms and ammunition for maintaining the integrity and inde pendenee of the Ottoman empire. 500,0001. had on a former occasion been voted also by that House to sup ply military stores for the service of the Queen of Spain, who was now their debtor to that amount. He wished then to know whether the stores sent to the Grand Seignior were voted on the same terms as those which were sent out to Spain. That was a question which he would put to-morrow evening, when he expected to receive a satisfactory answer. The Report was then brought up and agreed to, with the exception of she vote for Orcicianee stores, which, on the suggestion of Mr. Hume, was postpcmed till to morrow (this) evening, to give an opportunity of ask ing the question already mentioned by the Hon. and Gallant Member (Captain l3oldcro), and also some other questions rel itive to Syria. . . On the motion that the Evidence Bill 63 reid a second time, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that he highly approved of the B 11, but he must request the attention of those who had charge of it to look to one proviso. The Bill went so far as to allow parties to speak as witnesses for themselves. You could not allow the defendant to prove his own case. He thought that the landlord ought not to be allowed to give evidence in favour of the tenant in a case in which a verdict for the latter would be beneficial to the former ; and that in other cases the evidence of parties interested in the issue of a trial should not be received in favour of that side with which their own interests were identified. He hoped that gentlemen who had charge of the Bill would look to that proviso. If it were properly framed, he would support the Bill ; but otherwise it would be his principal duty to oppose it. Mr. HAWES said be would attend to the sugges tion of the Attorney-General. Mr. HUME said there was one defect in the law of evidence which he wished to see altered in this Bill. The Judges were in the habit of telling witnesses that they must not criminate themselves. Now, every man ought to tell the truth, even if it were against himself, and the object of the trial was to get at the whole truth. After a few words from Colonel Surritoar and Mr. PRYME, the Bill was read a second time, and or dered to be committed on Wednesday next. Mr. HUME then said, that lest his observations respecting the Judges giving caution to witnesses should not be understood by the Attorney-General, he would refer to a particular case in point—the trial of Lord Cardigan in the House of Lords, where the Judge who presided officiously interfered, and desired a witness ❑ot to answer any question which might tend to criminate himself. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no difficulty in saying that Lord amlinan acted in accordance with the laws of E ng l an d, an d was per f ec tly j us tifi e d in giving the caution which he did to Sir James Anderson. as he (the Attorney-General) who conducted the pro secution, had informed their Lordships in his opening address th a t th e w i tness was li a ble to indictment as an accessory before the fact. _ . WAYS AND MEANS. On the motion of Mr. GORDON the House went into a Committee of Ways and Means. A sum of 8,000,0001. was then voted out of the Con solidated Fund. Tao Report was ordered for Friday next. The LORD-ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring. in a Bill to provid.e for the better regulation of Muni cipal Corporations in Royal Burghs of Scotland. Mr. BOLTON CLIVE moved that the petition from the Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Hcreford Union, in support of the Poor-kw Amend rn-nt Act (presented 9th March), be printed with the Votes.—Agreed to. The House then Adjourned at Eight o'clock. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. (From the Globe.) The Times this morning opens its columns, with tardy compassion, to a vindication of Sir R. Peel from the Tamworth philippics of " Catholicug,'"lle corre spondent who plays the fair-weather part in this Dutch barometer, and calls himself a " Member of Parlia ment," defends Sir It. Peel's book-club harangue on the ground that " there was nothing extraordinary, nothing perhaps not common-place" in it. This is an admirable Tory imprimatur, and speaks the sense of the party—that portion of the party, we mean, who are not stark-staring mad. Sir R. Peel has transgressedin nothing the bounds of circumspect mediocrity. He has shown him self as safe a man as ever. Ile will not set the Trent on fire. " In all this," to pursue our citation from the " Member of Parliament," " there was nothing extra ordinary, nothing perhaps not common-place—nothing that looked for any wider fame than the county news paper. Indeed, anything snore than this would have been intolerable to that fine sense of propriety, that feeling of the fitness of things, which characterise the slightest action of Sir R. Peel." Philosopher Square had a fine feeling of the fitness of things ; but was not thereby exempted from some husnaan weakness. We do not doubt that Sir Robert Peel is more consistent in acting on that feeling ; but with reference to the extent of the fame looked for, on this occasion, by, or for the Right Hon. Baronet, we have only to say that we hear from a Tamworth cor respondent that a reporter was sent for express to take down the effusions of Sir R. Peel's wisdom and elo quence, and the speech has been carefully corrected and published in pamphlet form. We agree entioely with the " Member of Pcrliament," that there was nothing but common-place in the whole affair : but we suspect there is nothing in Sir Robert Peel's ideas of " the fitness of things," that will ever prevent him parading common•-place for the many common-place folks who like it. We shall be more surprised when we .find him sporting anything else on the like occasion. There was a most amusing contrast between Sir R. Peel's avowed common-place, and the fine frenzy into which it threw Catholicus. The Right Hon. Baronet may thence learn how vain the attempt to flatten liberal views into common-place, sufficiently to please bigots. His fate, indeed, in this business, has been that of the miller, with his son and his ass. He has sought to please everybody, and, it would seem, has succeeded in pleasing nobody. (From the Standard.) As the attempt is made to perplex and obscure the question of the San Sulpice incorporation by appeals to the faith of engagements, and to natural justice, it is proper that the matter be made plain. In the first place, then, it is to be remembered that the act of incorporation is an act without precedent since the Reformation. Nothing of the kind has been done in the British Empire for three hundred years. Secondly, it is to be remembered that this is the act of a merely provisional legislator. These two conside rations must satisfy every reasonable man, that not merely a very strong case of policy and justice, but a very urgent case, too, is required to justify the act in question. We arc not aware, however, that any at tempt has been made to prove the case so urgent as to command that the provisional legislator of the Canadas must anticipate the decision in the matter of the permanent constitutional Legislature about to come into existence. We must, therefore, deal with questions of policy and justice alone, merely protesting, that though Lord Syden ham's proceeding might be politic and just as an Act of the Canadian Parliament, it does not follow that it is either the one or the other on the part of a Governor armed with legislative autho rity for a limited time and for a special purpose. This protest will be thought of more weight, when it is borne in mind that what Lord Sydenham has done had been left undone without exciting any com plaint of the neglect during seventy years, and that, as we have intimated, no particular motive for hurrying the Act at present is suggested. The property which Lord Sydenham would alienate for ever by his ordinance is of immense value, com prising the fee of the whole island and city of Montreal, the fee of the lordship of the Lake of the Two Mountains, and the fee of the lord ship of San Sulpice. We have no means of esti mating the value of the lordships of the Lake of the Two Mountains and S.tn Sulpice ; but we know that the island of Montreal is 30 miles long, and on the average 12 miles wide, generally allu vial land, the richest in No:th America, and that the city of Montreal is a thriving commercial city, of between 20 and 30,000 inhabitants, with every fair prospect of a rapid and great increase in wealth. Such (the island and its city) is a part of the property, the fee of which Lord Sydenhatn's ordinance would alienate for ever—a part, we need scarcely say, worth half-a-dozen German principalities. To speak of less or more in a question of right is, however, as Mr. Burke has said, to commit treason against property. If the fraternity of San Sulpice have the right to this immense territorial wealth, It t them enjoy it ; but if they have not the right, then the question naturally recurs, ought so much to be given away without some good reason shown for the gift ? That the fraternity of San Selpice have no legal right, is plain upon the sur face of the transaction ; for if they have such a right, the ordinance is unnecessary, THE HON. E. 8. PLUNKETT AGAIN. It will be recollected that this sprig of nobility, who has now become Accost as noted as the equally worthy Marquis of Waterford, was sentenced at the last March Assizes, by Mr. Justice Coleridge. to eighteen months' imprisonment, for an assault and attempt to rescue at Wigan. By some means or other, which will doubtless lead poor men to believe that there is one law for the rich and another for themselves, the sentence was commuted, or, rather, the prisoner was liberated zt the end of six months. Just at the time he was about to leave the Castle at Lancaster he assaulted one of the ja lers, for which he was sentenced to three months' im prisonment ; this period terminated on Wednesday, the day of the steeple cha,e, when the honourable young man was liberated ; but before yesterday morning's sun had made his appearance in the cast, the Honour able Edward Sydney Plunkett was again in durance rile. It appears that, about a quarter-past two yester day morning, the young nobleman and two friends went to the Stork Hotel, Queen-square, and asked for a Mr. Heys. The wailer told them that Mr. Heys had gene to bed two or three hours before, and, of course, they could not then see him. They then desired to go up stairs, but were, of course, pre vented ; and, subsequently, they walked into the hotel, and wished for a bottle of champagne. Fail ing in this object, Mr. Plunkett insulted a Mr. Ho garth, who happened to be in the room, and struck him in the face. Mr. Hogarth seized the poker in his own defence, when Plunkett took up the castors and threw them at his head. This somewhat alarmed Mr. Hegarth who immediately left the room, leaving Mr. Plunkett alone. A noise was subsequently beard by the waiters, and on their looking into the room they found the newly-liberated dealing destruction to every thine around him. He had the poker in his hand smashing all the cruets and decanters ; he broke the sideboard and door, and almost everything that was in the room he instantly destroyed. The assistance of the police was speedily obtained, but it required five of them to take the depredator into cus tody. Yesterday morning the prisoner was brought before Mr. Rushton, at the Police Court. Mr. Daven port appeared for him, and after the case had been gone into (the damage to the glasses, furniture, &c., was stated to be to the amount of 301.), Mr. Rushton stated that the question of damages was placed out of his jurisdiction, which extended only to cases under 51. value. After strongly alluding to the wanton outrage committed by the prisoner, he said it was his duty to prevent persons in the garb of gentlemen from commit ting such offences with impunity, and for the destruc tion ho had made he must pay Si. and costs, or be im prisoned two months ; and further, that he must find bail, himself is 1001., and two sureties in 501. each, to keep the peace, and that he should give twenty-four hours' notice of his bail. Mr. Davenport applied for the release of the prisoner on his finding sureties this night, but Mr. Rushton said the case was one which would admit of no relaxation.—Liverpool Mercury. LAW INTELLIGENCE. ROLLS' COURT, MARCH 10. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BIRCH.--.-JUDGMENT. This was an information filed at the relation of Samuel Kendrick, a parishioner of Handsworth, in Staffordshire,against certain trustees appointed for repair ing and maintaining the bridges within the above parish. It appeared that by a deed, dated t2oth of Oct., in theteeth year of the reign of James 1., Nicholas Hodgetts, the cousin and heir of John Hodgetts, the surv:ving leoffee of hereditaments before given fur the mainte nance and reparation of bridges within the parish of Handsworth, at the request of some of the inhabi tant 3, enfeoffed and conveyed to Edward Somford and other inhabitants of the parish certain mes suages and pieces of ground on trust, to apply the rents towards repairing and maintaining the bridges within the parish, and to apply the surplus, if any should remain, towards other good and charitable uses within the •parish. The information prayed that the trusts and funds might be ascertained and administered according to a'scheme to be approved of by the Court, for an account of the trust estate, and other similar inquiries. The case was are; and a1t...0 partly d",poEed of 0' the Court. yesterday, 110 MASTE.a of the ROLLS 01)3CrVilUrt th a't vll4' ther, if the Attorney-General had ktio..;il the bridge's which were county bridges :vete supported in the vial that bridges of that class always were supported, 001 by rates levied on the rich, he would have sanetleer this infermatic rno o, which was to cc • el the application 01: the funds in case of those rate ,, , and therefore the /4 draws! of any large surilus kr the benefit of the Pe°l:; was more than his Lordship could very well take tiFe bt himself to say. However, as the ease had been ho u k Ek e before the Coart, it became necessa r y to kle-e such directions as were proper. The re must be an inquiry by the Master of what the uh°.irl, property consisted, and what bridges the trasieco were bound to repair, as the trustees wer e , r i d, doubt how they ought to apply the funds.. Ills ° be ship did not apprehend it would be prop er for ibt trustees to interfere with a county bridge , which oug to be sustained by the proper authorities ; and he ie W A s ;, of opinion the character of the trustees h ad been tie d;' catcd by the course Oat had been adopted b y the r',,'rf tors, who had abandoned the personal eharegs p"ts' had made by their information. The ques tion of c°s he would consider. In all these cases it had 1)000 quite necessary for the Court strictly to observe the ; duct that was pursued by the relators. There was 0 t l ' when informations, which came before the Court re; commended the name of the Attorn e y -Gunc"l" might with great propriety, and certainly with Or; great safety, be at once entertained ; so that it vi_A necessarily supposed that that which he ba d sanetiou ; and lent his name to was deserving of the most se ri° ,.. attention, and parties who had to resist t hese inform tions, were forced to prove that every thing' whic il l s : alleged against there was untree. But of late Y - 4 informations had been filed of such a character that„'• became absolutely necessary, for the protection of Il e property to examine and scrutinise most carefully rye evidence brought forward in support of them. I t 1,4 not to be denied, however, that some informations6d,„ in a very extraordinary manner had nevertheless le a very great deal of good, but there had been ° dr others in which the result had Leen the absolute struetHiston of the IP pr. LORDSII, in o coming into Court this 111°311 d 1 :b g ; stated that he had read oser the information Oleest answer, and it appeared that there had -be en a %tett variety of circumstances stated which ant°ll-tbs to erroneous, if not false charges, agtlit ta l t t ot trustees, and he was of opinion the relator ollguitost to have any costs up to the hearing. The subla costs upon the prosecution of the inquiries he wall " ntitled to. G ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. NVIMBORNE ItIINSTER MAR SUOOL._JUDGMENT. His LORDSIIIP also gave jdugment in this eas e ' d, 0 was argued seine time ago, upon a point reeetv-kes. to the time from which the account ought to ba It appeared to his Lordship that the plainti ffs , re acted in precisely the same manner with resPec"tbe the trust that their predecessors had acted fr° l l the f undation of the charity ; and the justice oihnuld case did not, therefore, require that the accounts 57,00. hs carried back further than the filing of the in fortna- V ICE- CIiANCELLOR'S COURT, YlA Bcil TURNER V. TRELAWNEY. , „O The suit in this ease was instituted for the Pt` t iott of having it declared by the Court that the &tee° it was the trustee of certain mining shares for tabs signees of two persons of the name of Grol dr it; eett were bankrupts in 1819. The plaintiff, Mr . el ."„ r dlit was the sole assignee of Thomas and John i n - le l l who were formerly traders in Cornwall, and de fied' interested in certain mining concerns, and the 'f o ols ant, Mr. Trelawney, was a gentleman of cons° TO landed i‘i property iu the neighbourhood of Helsto°' e t. essrs. Guudry, previous to their bankrupt e Y , der' bo largely concerned in mines which were n° Tbo land of the defendant, and which were calle d err f Wheal Vor Consolidated M the ines." Up to Or 1819 there were about twelve persons ist; ses l rested in there mines, the Gundrys 1 )° , 4 5- Job° between a third and a half of that interest, an 0 . 0 4 Gundry acted as the purser. For some time tue the went on prosperously, but in consequenc e • °", be; Gundrys becoming embarrassed and i quarrels twten the patties, the concern became unprofitanted it was then discovered that the Gundrys were ittuijegerS' to a considerable amount to the partnership 0;01 The Gundrys admitted the debt, and in Nw ie c ige° 1819, they executed a deed by which they s - ` e itf nineteen shares to trustees to hold them as an,sehe for the balance due from them to the concern. The as 0 41 cumstances of the Gundrys becoming more ernbolc, every day, in Jan., 1820, a commission Of ,; 1 00° rupt was issued against them, and it n v- e c t t s , necessary to come to some arrangement with resr -c d elP, the future working of the mines in this arrasngc-0 a Mr. Grylls, who was the manager ; for the V uk ho oof Leeds, who had large property in the n eiglib° lir k and who was also a solicitor and banke-, t° l ° 001 its s tivc part ; several other parties joined bin), a° l : 42 itet found necessary that additional J l 'o' should ein h g e raised, it was resolved that they 5 11 „ °° dee' S s c leevour to sell the mines through the Vice;"s'oea ourt, and induce other parties to take slicreses,lll.4l the plan of paying 5001. per share. INlr.':t'ioo, who was active in carrying. out this nr°P ° 7l,eit 3 P was shortly afterwards, together with a M r : a chosen assignees of the Gundrys, who PO re relinquishment of their shares n the tn iPe te gj riii‘ serving, however, their interest in the 01 1. 3- Vie; Certain procee.lings were then instituted in t , Pc i, 00; Warden's Court, and in the end Mr. Grylls - :Pe" the mines ; the parties then proceeded to form - 4 0 concern, and among the parties whO applied t ° 00 shares were th e tru tees of the defendant, tgb°o3° then under age, Mr. Grylls representing 000 unless the new shares were taken the tnin„e,s,. Tit' stop working, which would great! • injure „,.,"`,;; tear lawney, both as land and boundary } owner. t`',: t tees were averse at first to takine shares , "" h - , ntr mately they agreed to take four shares, upon t -- 0 0e9 derstanding that Grylls was to lend them th e for the purpose. The concern having tut ° init' u protitabk to ail parties, the present suit was instioccg for the purpose of having it declared that tb° L a ce! were h,ld by the defendant as trustee for the as t ,„ of the Gundrys. The cause, which has been:s'n'ticast' times before the Court upon interlocutory al'P h- d t b° both (luring the time of Lord Lyndhurst present. Chancellor, now came on for hearing . ~,, or Mr. Jacob, Mr. Richards, and Sir W. Va",;tsrli°4, peered liar the plaintiff, and submittel teat, Li c ts et_ A c ' to tile practice of the Court, and the ci rcurv ele tcy that had taken place, the defendant must b e c°°s' as the trustee for the assignees of the GlundrYs%. t tb ° , Mr. JACOB, is opening the case, observed Lt'3Coet" cause would be memorable in the annals of ttle , erte r ,l' of Chancery, for having in it one of the lonosA'e,...to°- rogateries ever known in that Court. I V / F P n ig: i i that one cross interrogatory extended to 15 , -' The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I suppose it ism "- t G or reach to the Land's End.—(A laueh.) The arguments oa behalf of the 'plaintiff bad 13° eluded when the Court rose. Ito lls „e@ THE LEARNED HORSE EXH J ' IBIT" - HER MAJESTY. --It Kill be remembered that , °ijr frrisili; or four months age, a " learned h orse " and a ‘ s Aibe rt d fox" . users exhibitef to her Majesty and Pric es ao rdili a b , Windscr Castle. The horse, amongst other Ot t :" feats, spit the names of the Queen and iris 11°) I c Arel e o nest, told Ler Majesty the time of day, 110d ,foroetj several tricks upon the cards, highly to the ar% 0 , its illustri Jus visitors. The proprietor, betse v b r e 'se 11 '0 recently become involved in difficulties, botb , ect s p, derful animals were last week sold by auction, "Abisgclool of execution from tie Sheriff of Berkshire, at c a t ° by Mr. Harris, and knocked down (it is svPrAs Pd. aglit of Mr. Duero%) for a mere song- tbs° D t iodise I only fifty guineas, and the fox not vi 4s e% , 10e. During the time the roprietor, Mr. "ho Windsor, he was offered a la p, ge sum for the her d ost bibit in London, which he refused. It is s tate d at party who made the offer, would not IrwitLs Pe r for , 7 • SPOONS, FORKS, &0., superior t o Siiv e rks i s o; rability, equal in appearance. Table Spoons or t°oo ll , i or Dessert, 10s. ; Tea Spoons, fis. per dozen; Table` .f w e e tu o 8 inches high, is. per pair; the particular sle' o oy a c• these articles are made is so like silver, that it vCer on' from it by the stamp ; every article made i o silO et tured in this material by ford' stree 've g. lIIPPON and BURTON, Wells-street, Ox fo r there° Who, to prevent imposition, confine the sale of it to Catalogues of prices gratis. - . . . BIRTHS. t i ter. the At Elm Park, Limerick, Lady Clarina, of a clang — dace , On the 9th inst., in Spencer House, St. Jarnes 5 ' lady of the Hon. Richard Watson, of a son. 10,. lIIARRISD. ;ff OD, ht t• On the 9th inst., at St. Mar} Abbott's, N-e ng ''' t clog Thew,of Hyde Park-gate, to Anne Catherine, eldest en of C. Thompson, Esq., of Kensington-squ are. 5 ftog o , On the 9th inst., at St. Jame s's Church. SYl v3nu t Cat e only son of R. Partridge, Esq., of Queen Henry Anne -Wee 'fla' V dish-square, to Emily, youngest daughter of T. t ot Es o q. n , tohfeC9'ltihffoifirts,trae.tets,ta.ni‘d;alS.kid,s7 -place, gent: ~ •ont i g t. son of the late Arthur Shepherd, morland, to Jane, eldest daughter of H. Carne, Esq. KEesqn.n,inogftonshaJZ.nen':do,fl;atest, road, Stockwell. ' -------- t, u" - Fis O he n r, tl a ie ge 2 d 7:ll o. of Februaßry,lßSiDr .W. L. Cromie , B a Ch fA r son of Sir Michael Cromie, Bart , and grandson of the Ow of On the ' jo bil the Ist inst., at Dunkeld, North Britain, Mrs' • Pe On the 3d inst. Mr. W. illitchell, of road,Regent-street, 111110- aged 88. I Yarn Vernon, n the 4th inst., in Broad-street -buildings, city! "" . ()o Esq., aged 86. 331 Y ile ' the 7th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, the Rev. B. ' mo O ro n ha th n e r, 7t o h f :I s is i t h . , , o E r. r s n rr e o s e t for 34 years Rector of Limpsfield, Surrey, aged 63. , ate ' t, fo ß ur lo th orn so s n bey °2 Oxford, aged 7. f Will iv. On the Bth inst. Frances Cotes, eldest daughter 0- r Yatman, E.-,q., of Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury-10:011, Esq., On formerly eBrtlhy.ionfstiii,sabtorlY,oark.e-d'ou7i9ld.ings, Islington, 11- L utairndcotAill ,thoef theBth inizos)ta.,laittrlrNrinko,rlwich, Mrs. Luard, wife. of .--- __ _____ ...-......r.- .arfiadtons,r.l3ciate..,4, -- --- ;, - opi Lis • London: Printed and Published by MIJIIll() Yu`:_...netli No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112; 5 i.44 1. 7. 1/ ' the county of lkiiddleseis.—Thursdah Mar ch 1— . EVENING EDITION O Azr a 11 . + . 1R A C P I ,A g0 u ,,,, ' 4 laltee b yti 4 ,4 r -14 threii TtioN• ~ , 11:1dtw e +44 1 4t e b:0 :4 07 : 1 1Ot iv : That 11 he It la as tl -. s uited rt! l 'a„ eree " 3 Prod That 144 h e l°° ad Pos4 e t Cbt tfat Ind P 3tan, re Vect s th e fr 6 ' o lo _ . In - s4lf, 4 4 , 0 4 ,ttirt