The Sun. — London, England, 1849-07-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE- OF LORDS, July 27. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition pray ing for a reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts. CLERGY RELIEF BILL. The Earl of FORTESCUE presented a petition in favour of this Bill. Lord STANLEY hoped the Bill would not be pro ceeded with this session. Lord CAMPBELL could not give any assurance on the subject, as it was not a Government measure, although he cordially supported it. JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS. Earl FITZHARDINGE presented a petition from Bristol praying for the abolition of intramural inter ments. PETTY BAG OFFICE BILL. Lorl CAMPBELL reeved the third reading of this Bill. After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, the Bill vf is read a third time and passed. LAHORE PRIZES. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH asked if the Noble Marquis could give him any answer respecting the jewels, &c., seized at Lahore? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to say that the Government had not as yet received such information as would enable him to answer the question. Instructions had been given to give the army of the Punjaub six months' allowance of batta; that he hoped would be satisfactory. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it was most satisfactory, as many of the troops would receive the batta who could not, by any possibility, have shared in the division of the Lahore prize money. BANKRUPTCY BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of the Commons' amendments on the above Bill, and to state why he thought their Lordships ought to dissent from these amendments. When that Bill had been seat down some five or six weeks ago to the House of Commons, although they fully agreed in the principle of the Bill, and had agreed to the second reading, they had referred it, and very properly, to a Select Committee to examine into the details. Unfortunately upon that Committee it was not possible to expect the attendance of one of the most eminent Chancery lawyers in the other House of Parliament. But a very eminent lawyer, the Attorney- General, took charge of the Bill, and acted as chairman of the Committee. It was impossible it could have the advantage of the consideration of a more able or learned gentleman. There were some other Chancery barristers on that Committee, but they had been called after he (Lord Brougham) had removed bankruptcy business , out of the Court of Chancery. The remaining portion I of the Committee consisted of mercantile and corn mercial gentlemen. The first course taken by the Committee, however, was to object to the form of the Bill. The Committee thought fit to depart from that plan, which he had adopted in accordance with the example of many high authorities. The Bill had consisted of about 378 articles, as he had designated them, and those had been numbered with letters after the Roman fashion. The Committee had considered that this was an innova tion upon the ancient practice—they had considered that the divisions called articles ought to be termed sections, and that instead of numerals there should be figures ; and accordingly they cut down the Bill to 278 sections, numbered with. figures. They could not tolerate such an innovation as that C should represent 100, or V five, or two X's 20.—(Laughter.) They should have it some other way. There was no end to the innovations made, fur besides the alterations he had noticed, the Bill had been distributed ito chapters—into 29 chapters—a thing unheard of in the way of Commons' amendments.—(A laugh.) Ho had felt it necessary to explain to their Lordships how their progeny had been altered by the nursing care of the other House. From a want of suffi cient knowledge of the bankruptcy law and the working of the present system, the Committee of the other place had made several alterations greatly detrimental to the utility of this Bill. In the first place, execution clauses had been left out. In the second place, all the provi sions with respect to the secret and fraudulent transfer of property had been struck out. He did not mean to say that these clauses were not susceptible of improve ment; but, unfertunately, the Commons' Committee had not received the assistance of the heads of the legal pro fession, because they were all engaged in the courts of law, and so not knowing how to improve, the Committee had struck out the clauses altogether.—(A laugh.) Sure he was that it the heads of the profession had been exa mined they would not have advised the striking out of these clauses, or if they had, they would have stated good reasons for so advising.—(Hear.) Another alteration was made, in giving power to receive evidence on appeal, on the supposition that there was an intermediate court of appeal, but which did not exist. He should not omit to state that he bad received that day resolutions, signed by 33 of the principal merchants and manufacturers of Manchester, expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bill as it had come out of the Select Committee, attri buting to the late period of the session the imperfect manner in which it had been elsewhere discussed, and advising the postponement of the measure. He did not agree with them as to the postponement. Nor did the merchants and traders of London, who though they lamented the alterations, and disapproved of the changes, yet considered that the Bill would effect considerable improvements in the law, and would only require, to make it complete, a short additional Bill, which he pledged himself he would introduce next session. As practical legislators, they ought to lis ten to the London rather than the Manchester gentle moo. At the same time he shared in the regret ex pressed by the Manchester men, that the Select Corn mittee had not called before them the men who best un derstood this question—he meant the Bankruptcy Com missioners—Mr. Holroyd, Mr. Golbourn, Mr. Fon blanque, and the other learned commissioners, most of 1 whom had been engaged for the last twenty years in ad • 1 ministering the law. It was somewhat singular, that while the Select Committee were making these altera tions, another Bill had been passed, and was now on , their Lordships' table for a third reading to-night— which restored the clauses of his—or rather of their Lordships' Bill—with the view of their being applied to Ireland. So that they were called upon to enact two codes of law on thOsame subject and for the same people, or they were called upon to make the Bill for Ireland the same as the present Bill for England. In other words they must reject the clauses which the House of Commons had unanimously inserted in the Irish Bill, the same House having rejected these clauses in his Bill for England.—(Hear.) It appeared from the time given by the other House to the discussion of his Bill, that they had allotted just 35 seconds for each clause.— (Hear, hear.) He had been greatly alarmed when he beard that the other House had placed before the Committee a digest of the bankruptcy law, with the view of fully discussing it, because he naturally felt anxious for the fate of the criminal law digest, which comprehended some 1,200 or 1,300 heads. If the House of Commons would not do as their Lord ships did—place faith in the labours of their Select Com mittees, and in the reports of experienced men—but would insist on discussing every one title and article— then the sooner the Criminal Law Commission was brought to a close the better; for no criminal law digest could ever be carried on such terms. Among the per sons examined by the Select Committee was a learned Judge, who, when asked if he had formed any opinion on the Bill before the Committee with regard to the ad ministration and consolidation of the law of bankruptcy ? answered that it was a very large subject—that he could not be expected to enter into a treatise on the bankruptcy law. This witness went on to say that, not expecting to be examined before the Committee, he had paid little at tention to the Bill till it had left the House of Lords; but that, after it had left their Lordships' House, he paid a little more attention to it, and that he found it to be a pamphlet of more than 100 pages. Now he (Lord Brougham) had always had and always should have a profound respect, not deeper than they deserved, for the judges of the land, so long as they adorned the b e nc h y their great learning and practical judicial wisdom. But in proportion as a judge—be his wisdom, learning, and dignity ever so great—was well fitted for defensive operations, so was he, by his station, dignity and wisdom, wrdtchedly incapable of offensive operations. In pro portion as he respected himself he should be cautious of showing that he did not mistake the mysterious for the profound; smart, hasty decisions, for easy and ready sagacity, and flippancy for sparkling wit.—(Hear.) So long as such a person allowed him to respect him, so long should he command his respect. He had no occa sion to defelei e kheir Lordships, to defend himself, or the Bill which IN9' had passed, and which a high judicial authority had decorously termed a pamphlet of 100 pages, but should merely say, th a t th ere were some persons who found it easier to gibe than to read and comprehend, and that of these persons h e , s h ou ld not say whether or n ot the Judge in question was on e . Be s id es th e innovations which he had noticed as having been made in the Bill, there was one which consisted of the omission of the word not " in the schedule, and another relating to the power of making regulations. By the Bill as it formerly stood, the power of making rules and regulations was conferred on eight commissioners, of whom the sen i or commissioner was to be one. By the alteration made, the provision with respect to the senior commissioner was omitted. The effect would be, that as there were twelve country and six London commissioners, the country commissioners might make rules and regulations without consulting the chief commissioner in London. He proposed to agree to all the amendments, with the exception of that omission, and also that of the word "not -" reserving to himself the right, next session, to introduce a new Bill on the subject. Lord CAMPBELL said he had every reason to believe that there was the greatest unani mity on the part of the Committee of the other Rou se t o do jus tice to this Bill. He bad no objecti on to the course which the Noble an d Learned Lord prow to ta ke. After a few rem a from L ord'. WITARNCLIFFE, - 4 Lord REDESD ALE a petition fr om a Mr. Church, clerk of enrolmentseatei the Court o f Bankruptcy, praying that if the o ffic e ia w abolished hi s esi one claim for compensation might not be ov er looked . Lord BROUGHAM said the case wa their Lordships could not apply a remedy, in which The amendments were then agreed to. BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL. Lord BROUGHAM then moved the third reading o f the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill, observing that he had en deavoured to make certain amendments, in order, if pos sible, to accommodate the two Bills. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. DEFECTS IN LEASES SUSPENSION BILL. Lord BROUGHAM. moved the second reading of the Defects in Leases Suspension Bill. Lord CAMPBELL said the object of this Bill was to suspend till the next session the operation of one of the most useful measures which had ever passed. That Bill, which was projected by Sir John Romilly and completed iby Mr. Coulson, was intended to remove a great scandal from the law, and to take away the prejudice which was so unjustly entertained against entails and family settle ments. It was calculated to give great security to pro perty, without inflicting the slightest hardship on any individual. The present measure was intended to sus pend the operation of that Bill, and he should therefore move that it be read a second time on Thursday next. After some observations from Lord BROUGHAM, who proposed to amend the Bill in Committee, it was read a second time. ACCOMMODATION FOR THE PRESS. Lord BEAUMONT brought up a report from the Ac commodation Committee, stating that several gentlemen connected with the public press had been examined, and that their evidence was to the effect, that the experiment which had been tried with respect to the new gallery had been successful. The Committee, therefore, recommended the erection of a permanent gallery, on the plan sub mitted by Mr. Barry. RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL. The adjourned debate on the second reading of this Bill was resumed by Earl GRANVILLE, who stated that he had hoped to be able to introduce such amend ments, or to give such information to their Lor dshi p s as would have induced them to sanction the measure. He regretted, however, that he had no additional informa tion to offer. He was quite convinced that the Bill, if passed, would operate beneficially with respect to the in terests of all parties concerned. The Earl of EGLINTON repeated the objections which he had previously urged against the Bill, and ob jected to its further progress at the present period of the session. One of the arguments urged in favour of the Bill was that it would enable the companies to avoid the great expenses entailed upon them by an application to Parliament. Now, how was that expense to be avoided? If the Commissioners were to examine witnesses and hear the speeches of counsel, he did not see in what manner the expense could be avoided. If they allowed companies to be dissolved on the mere statement of par ties, no great expense might be incurred, but he doubted how justice would be done. He certainly should object to the further progress of the Bill. Lord REDESDALE opposed the Bill. Lord MONTEAGLE approved of the principle of the Bill, but thought their Lordships would not be able fully to consider it during the present session. Earl GRANVILLE intimated that he would not press the measure further, and it was then withdrawn. On the motion of E ar l GRANVILLE, the Turnpike Trusts Continuance Bill, and the Stamps, &c., Allow ances Bill were read a second time. PILOTAGE BILL. On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, the house went into Committee on the Pilotage Bill. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH. objected to the Bill d on the ground that by the Bill the Trinity Boa have power to give any m an a lice nceto r act pilot to any port. Now t he Act G eo. I V .. theserestrictions Govern ment had been in communication with the Trinity Board, with the view of continuing these restrictions, so as to ensure due efficiency on the part of those who received licences to act as pilots. There were several ' other points of importance which might have been pro perly considered in Committee, had the Bill been brought before their Lordships in proper time. The object of the Bill was to substitute for a qualified pilot a pilot of limited knowledge. A letter had been written to the Cork Port Commissioners by Captain Beechey, requir ing that ten experienced pilots should be sent here for the purpose of piloting the Royal squadron. The post script was to the effect that an experienced pilot should be sent to Cowes to be received on board the Victoria and Albert steam-vessel in case the night should be dark. He referred to this letter to show that if the present Bill was in operation it would be impossible to find experienced pilots for any purpose. The long voyage master of vessels would of necessity be incom petent to pilot a vessel into a particular port. He could not trust to his eye, or have an accurate knowledge of the different buoys like a qualified pilot, who was ac customed to the coast; hence the danger of the Bill, and hence the danger that would arise from the appointment of the class of persons as pilots which the Bill appeared to contemplate. Lord BYRON said a few words which were not heard in the gallery. Earl TALBOT said any person bringing a ship home in heavy weather would know the comfort of having a sv pilot on board ,11 acquainted with the shore. He hoped, therefore. the Government would consent to con fine the Bill to steam-vessels. Earl GRANVILLE denied there would be any dan ger in the Trinity Board giving certificates to any one presenting himself. He was afraid the case would be quite the other way, and that so much care would be taken as to limit the number of certificates very consider ably. With reference to the number of Cork pilots ap plied for, he considered that the care and caution that would be naturally exercised in the event of a Royal visit ought not to be considered as having any bearing on the commercial question. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH only wished to have it settled that certificates should be given to qualified persons and with due prudence. The Bill then went through Committee. NUISANCES REMOVAL. The Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Bill was read a second time. NEW FOREST AND WALTHAM FOREST. The New Forest and Waltham Forest Bill went through Committee. • TITLES OF CATHOLIC PRELATES. Lord REDESDALE, on referring to a circular sent to the Governors of colonies respecting the rank of pre cedence of Roman Catholic prelates, said, as the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland had been recognised by the Lord-Lieutenant of that country, it was d.ssirable, in the event of her Majesty's visit, to know exactly how the question stood, and what was the right they enjoyed to title and precedence. The Noble Lord moved for copies of the correspondence that had taken place on the subject. Earl GREY believed that the Bishops had no right to precedence, except as Lords of Parliament. The Irish Bishops had rank and precedence by virtue of a statute. It was an error to give bishops in the colonies, there fore, the style and title of bishops in England. It was felt in those colonies where Roman Catholics formed the bulk of the population that their prelates were equal to those of the Established Church ; and as the bishops of both religions were paid alike by the Government, he (Earl Grey) had instructed the governors of colonies to admit that equality. He had, however, instructed the Governor of New South Wales not to permit precedence to the Catholic prelates over the Protestant bishops. After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, in which he expressed it as his opinion that the Archbishop of Sydney should not be styled " his grace," The motion was agreed to. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill went through Committee. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION). The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 27. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) - SLAVE TRADE (PERSIAN GULF) BILL. _ On the motion that this Bill be read a third time, Mr. ANSTEY opposed the second reading of this Bill. The Bill would certainly militate against our existing treaty with the powers in that quarter, as in the opinion of the Noble Lord this treaty was only valuable inasmuch as it was calculated to secure the obedience of the Arabian chiefs against whom it was directed to the Shah of Persia. It would appear by this that these chiefs were not independent, but that they were in some way or other under the surveillance of the Government of Persia. If such was really the case, he feared that the effect of this Bill would be to increase the difficulties in oar intercourse with those chiefs, which at present was unsettled, and had not many years ago proved both disagreeable and expensive. He was not anxious to excite a vezata questio, but he could sot help remembering that the officers of the navy, able as they had always proved themselves, were still only men, and he was the more induced to remember the fact, because he could not forget another, which was that there were innu merable complaints of the merchant service that these slave-trade treaties continually interfered with their commercial proceedings. After citing several instances, which, from their technicality would be unintelligible in a report, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that seeing the perfect inutility of the system which had been adopted on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave trade, he deprecated above all things the carrying of that system to the eastern seas. They had a trade there which it was their indispensable duty not only to protect but to encourage, and feeling this ho conceived it to be his duty to move that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. Sir ZDWARD COLEBROOKE also deprecated this attempt to carry into the eastern seas a system which had so lamentably failed on the coast of Africa. It was likely to involve us in most unpleasant altercations in that quarter of the world. Then, if it was to be adopted, who was to pay the expense. He surely would not throw it upon the East India Company, who were quite incompetent to bear it; but expense there must be, and somebody must pay, and this, if not the other, was a matter which well deserved consideration. Colonel THOMPSON said that he, if any one, could throw light upon the subject, for he it was who had ne gotiated the treaty with the Arab chiefs, in which the slave trade was declared to be piracy. This was no new matter, for it had been known and considered as long since as the year 1820. Then, with regard to the cases of conscience, which the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Anstey) had made out, he assured him that he might make himself perfectly easy, for these Arab chiefs, of whom he was so much afraid, were not slave dealers at all. In negotiating with these chiefs he had hinted to them with the greatest delicacy that it was the wish of the English Government that the slave• trade in the Gulf should be declared piracy. A ghastly laugh ran round the circle of diplomatists, and they all exclaimed, " Ca pital! capital!" and he soon discovered that they who never had been slave-traders considered it a capital joke that the favourite pursuit of an old ally of ours, of whom they were extremely jealous, should thus be declared piracy. He had the treaty in his pocket, and could produce it to the House if it were necessary. He should support the Bill. Loyd P ALMERSTON said that the sympathy of this country, withregard t o th e s l aves w h oso re li e f was con templated in this Bill was doubly called for by the fact of their bei ng principal ly th Abyssinian Christians. With regard to the chief wi t h concluded, it had been doubtedh wh t e h the e t r re t a h t e ie v s were in be d e e n pendent or not. There was not the slightest w doubt about it. It was absurd to say that the feeling s of Eastern potentates E stern potentates were in favour o f the slave trade when they had the Shah of Persia, the Imaum of Muscat, , and other Arabian chiefs_ joining in a treaty to put it, down, and when the Sultan liad just abolished the I slave-market at Constantinople, and sent w itnesses from Constantinople to Malta to depose against a Maltese who had been tried for trading in slaves on the coast of Tripoli. This measure would not entail any additional expenses on the country, it would be only necessary to give powers to the vessels on that station to carry into effect the agreement which had been entered into with the Imaum of Muscat. Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether there was any likelihood of a better understanding being arrived at with the Court of Brazil with regard to the slave trade. The instance of that country ought to be a sufficient example of the inexpediency of interference by the British Government with other countries to put down the slave trade. He should support the amendment of his Hon. and Learned Friend. Captain PECHELL said that in all matters connected with the slave trade he pinned his faith on the Noble Lord's conduct, and he should certainly support him in this Bill. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he certainly agreed with the inadequacy of the means employed in putting down the slave trade. He was certainly surprised to see the present Member for Ycughal opposing any measure for abolishing the slave trade, since one of his (Mr. J. O'Connell's) chief recommendations to that constituency had been an uncompromising hostility to that infamous branch of traffic. He should support the Government in this Bill. Mr. E. DENISON appealed to the report of the Committee of the House on the slave trade, which stated that naval intervention was quite inefficient to put down the slave trade. That, in his opinion, was quite suffi cient to justify him in opposing this Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not consider that the passing of this Bat would at all commit the House. The report of the Committee and the evidence given before it would certainly form matter for serious consideration to her Majesty's Government during the next session. But he must also remind the House that the report was not an unanimous report, that it was only a majority of one which decided the report. The difficulty on this subject in the Committee, whether the means adopted were sufficient for the suppression of the slave trade, and, in reply from the Committee, the only answer the Government received were some vague generalities, condemning the system. The Government were anxious to put down this detestable slave trade, and only desired to obtain such assistance as would re duce the expense and increase the efficiency of the sys tem which they had adopted. Mr. HUME said that there were . many objections to yaguopnper.essinng histh eosplianvi opinion n trade that f c a a r r t r h y e i r n system, so far from lig htenin g the miseries of the slave tra d e , only tended to aggravate its horrors. And when g tha t n he it s 3 h .s a t d em alre fo a r d they had the fact before them that not less than 500 human beings had during the last year been thrown overboard, in consequence of the pursuit of our cruisers, he was convinced that no efforts whatever could be suf ficient to mitigate the evil. Mr. BERNAL said that, in his opinion, the question respecting the system of putting an end to slavery on the coast of Africa, and in the Persian Gulf, stood upon a very different basis. In the Atlantic it was necessary to blockade a coast some thousands of miles in extent; whereas it was ouly necessary to close the mouth of the Persian Gulf, and the whole of the object was ac complished. Mr. ANSTEY was anxious to explain the way in which his Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Thompson) had misunderstood him, but was interrupted by the impatience of the House, and strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Hon. Gentleman, however, declined to divide the House, and on our re-admittance to the gallery we found him moving the first of the other amendments of which he had given notice. None of these amendments touched the principle of the Bill, and were only intended to show the technical effect of the phraseology of the Bill, and which was, as explained by Lord Palmerston, proved to be perfectly consistent with the object of the Bill. The only one of any importance was the following: —After " Admiralty,",in line 8, page 5, to insert, " Pro vided always that, in applying so much of the said Act or Acts as relate to the indicia or evidences of slave trading, regard shall be had by all such courts respec tively to the general habits and customs of the said tribes, and of their respective countries, with reference to the build and equipment of ships." He trusted that the Noble Lord would assent to this amendment. Lord PALMERSTON said that so far as the mere build and outward appearance of vessels was concerned there could be no objection to the motion, nor any necessity for it either. The grand rule in those cli mates was, to ascertain whether there was an excess of food or water on board any vessels for the supply of the crew, allowing for all contingencies.—(Hear.) After a few words frrom Captain PECHELL, the amendment was negatived without a division. The other amendments were also negatived, and the Bill was then read a third time and passed. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.—CONSIDER ATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that before he pro ceeded with this Bill he would wish the House to have the benefit of the Speaker's advice as to the course which should be taken by that House with regard to the Lords' amendments to this Bill. The SPEAKER proceeded to state the practice of the House. The rule was, that the Lords could delibe rate and propose amendments on any Bill sent up to them by this House, provided that they did not interfere with the amount or disposal of any rates, or with the persons who had to collect such rates. This rule had been strictly adhered to up to the time of the passing of the Irish Municipal Bill of 1834, when a con siderable infringement of these privileges took place. The Irish poor-laws of 1838, and of 1847, also furnished opportunities for like infringement ; and it was for the House to consider whether they would consent to accede to these precedents, and waive their privileges, or whether they would assert them. Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that on the ground of precedent the House was bound to assert its privi leges. He thought that the Legislature would be car ried on more amicably by the two Houses if this House consented to waive its privileges in this case, and pro ceeded to discuss the amendments which had come down to them from the other House. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was with very great reluctance that he had ventured to differ from his Noble Friend on a point involving a question of such import ance. But he could not discharge his duty conscien tiously if be did not state to the House his opinion on this point ; and in doing so he thought it was right to endeavour to separate the constitutional question en tirely from the merits of the enactment which had come Sown from the other House. They had had a declara tion from the Speaker as to what the privileges of the House were, and on what occasions they had been interferred with. In the poor-law of 1848, the Lords entirely changed their area of taxation, and caused the rates to press heavier upon certain parties. The ques tion was now for the House, whether they would consent to waive their privileges as they had done in the case cited by the Speaker; but he would ask of them if they consented to do so, what claim would they after wards have to resist the interference of the Lords in a question of local taxation ? It would be better, if they decided to waive their privileges in the present instance, at once to give up all claim to such privileges ; for they would never again have a chance of asserting it. This question was not a new one ; it had been referred to a Select Com mittee of the House last session, and the opinion of that House had been decidedly against any relaxation being given to the other House. Now, did the alterations which bad been made in this Bill, in the whole of the clauses which regulated the distrainment for arrears of interest and the sale of estates, justify this House in waiving its privi leges 1' Well, supposing they were to waive thosetomshuteehrneedr Government c a ovd tae n uorrs c rnme i y e t niao n nkef t gnet stho saandlota large Parliament,eu Billur ae n fsdtaohorcufar which sacrifice? — ( Hear, undoubted wouldtp(hr r vye m ajorityi a l we afte r f e rht s ee , e were r arr i e a: c l l o t Hm h b e e e_ had no personal feeling whatever in the matter; but be fore they came t o a d ec i s i on on so important a matter he trusted that the Noble Lord—and he was sure their object was the same—would carefully consider the result of the proceeding which he was about to take—(Hear, hear)—for it was his impression that the privileges which they possessed should not be lightly sacrificed when the conjuncture of affairs was particularly important. Sir GEORGE GREY said that there could be no question whatever as to the importance of waiving the privileges of tire House upon any occasion, especially upon this. But yet whilst asserting this, and while per fectly concurring with the lion. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Graham) in the necessity of upholding their privileges, he still did think that at this particular mo ment it was not, in his opinion, either wise or expedient to assert them so strongly at the present moment. Lord Canterbury, when h e sa t i n the chair which the Speaker now occupied, had laid down the doctrine, that while no secession should be made from the ground which they were entitled to occupy on any m a tt er w hi c h c o nc erned money levied for the public service, yet that on questions which merely affected rates levied in local districts, for local purposes, they might, without any constitutional danger, assent to alterations which were made in the Lords. Yet he care fully guarded against the waiving of any general prin ciple, and, therefore, it was that he (Sir G. Grey) was glad the general motion of the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) had not been adopted. On the present occasion, therefore, he thought there was no danger whatever, and he trusted, therefore, that the mo tion of the Noble Lord would be adopted. After a few words from Mr. F. FRENCH in support of the motion, Mr. HENLEY said, that as one of the members of the Committee he felt bound to say that those alterations of the Lords would be greatly detrimental to the Bill, and if they were to waive their privileges now they would nyn c f u uu t t um t r b eE e osp gi do o s u tih n t idautnaatl as oag theemt he House r ob f eu ' i rs o eo m of f u t hL n a d ot e r o r d so t . h m e m i t f t e e e e t he also felt bound to give his most strenuous opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell). The Lords had reduced the area of taxation, and in other respects had entirely taken the virtue of the Bill. Mr. 11. GRATTAN said, that although the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had found fault with the arrangement which was proposed by the Government, he had provided no alternative whatever. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that, in his opinion, al though it was unwise to waive a privilege, which was at any time inconvenient, it was just now expedient, if not indispensable for the welfare of Ireland.—(llear, hear.) Mr. E. DENISON put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether when this House was placed beside the House of Lords, and a rivalry even occurring between the two Houses, anythingthe re was to any fearfrom the encroachments of probability have the House of Lords? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the course which he should suggest would be to take precisely the course which they had pursued yesterday in their two last votes. In one case they had decided to take the Lords' amend ments into consideration that day three months—(Hear, and a lsugh)—in the other, that of the Borough Bill, it had been read a first and second time, committed, read a third time and passed.—(Great laughter.) That was precisely the course which he would advise them to pursue. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the Borough Bill was for the purpose of relieving some boroughs from certain local burdens when they were subject to peculiar county-rates.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. Graham.) By an arrangement between the magistrates of Warwickshire and the authorities of the borough of Birmingham, the Bill was intro duced as a public Bill atter it had been thrown out by the House of Lords as a private Bill, and that was the reason why it was passed so hastily, th e o bj ect b e i ng to f ac ilitate its course early in the next session. Mr. V. SMITH totally differed from the whole of the observations which had been made in favour of waiving the privileges of the House, and if th e Ri g ht H on . Ba ronet, the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), divided the House he should certainly vote along with him. Mr. LABOUCHERE would not touch upon the con stitutional question; but the Right Hon. Baronet oppo site had suggested that the House should follow the same course as it had done in the case of a Bill intro duced with regard to Birmingham. He must e xpl a i n that the cases were quite different. If the House per sisted in asserting their privileges, there was little doubt but that the Bill would not pass this session. Mr. SPOONER said that by waiving their privileges he did not see that any delay would be saved. The Lords would necessarily have to discuss whatever amendments this House made, and there would be quite as much time taken up. Mr. SADLEIR should support the Right Hon. Baro net (Sir James Graham) if he persisted in a division. Colonel DUNNE said` that the question for Irish Members was, whether for the sake of a few clauses, they should be content to sacrifice their pri v il eges . Certainly the whole Bill itself was not worth it, though the Lords' amendments were certainly the best part of it. Sir D. NORREYS thought that great thanks were due to the Right Hon. Baronet for having raised thi s ques tion of privileges. H . , e did not think th a t an y grea t it h a rm would he done this Bill were delayed until next session. He should propose that t h ese amen d ments b e di.scussed this day three months. Mr. MONSELL would not touch upon the merits of the Bill before the House, or of the Lords' amendments, but he thought that if the House was determined to as sert its privileges it would be impossible for the Lords to legislate on poor-laws at all. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the House must now de termine whether the House cf Lords should interfere with the poor-law legislation or give it up altogether. It the House determined to assert its privileges, he should consider it hopeless to introduce any measure at all; fisr he could not undertake to introduce any Bill which should not be open to amendment in the House of Lords. As for himself he thought that the Irish Pour-law did not re quire any alteration. He was quite satisfied with it. Sir J. GRAHAM said it was very difficult to pre serve the unanimous working of two branches of Legis lature without some little concession being occasionally made. He, for his part, would much rather come to something definite as to the privileges of this House than establish innumerable precedents, because in time . the other branch of the Legislature would assume as a right the privilege of interfering with local taxation; they would have to draw a line between poor-law taxation and other local taxation, and he would indeed be a clever man who could do it. And they must consider that they were asked to surrender their privileges after the head of the Executive had told them that he considered the Irish Poor- law needed no amendment. He should certain support the amendment of the Member for Mallow. Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR said that his impression was that the Right Hon. Baronet had quite misunder stood the Noble Lord in his supposition as to that Noble Lord's statement with regard to the poor-law of Ireland. He stated his own impression that what the Noble Lord intended to say was, that although he was satisfied with the principle of the Irish Poor-law, yet he believed that its machinery might be very greatly improved, and that was the reason why be asked them to agree to the amendments of the Lards. And would they then interpose a vain plea of privilege to intercept that advantage which the Bill was likely to produce to the country? Let them remember that while they mere talking of privilege there were parties for whose benefit these privileges were sustained, and whilst they were talking those parties were suffering. Mr. H. GRATTAN said that he never up to that moment felt the benefit of holding his tongue (Laughter.) Why the Noble Lord had cut all their throats.—(Renewed laughter.) He had intended to have given, if not his vote, at least a gentle opposition to the Government, but here, after five months of legislation, they were told that the Irish poor-law required no amendment. It was evident that they had all been bamboozled, and that the whole of this matter was a mere pretence—(Hear)—and he should give to the motion his most strenuous opposition. Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that he had intended to speak in accordance with the view of Mr. Shafto Adair. Mr. HUME said that they, the Members of the House of Commons, were the representatives of the nation, while the House of Lords only represented themselves, and if either House gave way in a collision it ought to be the House of Lord,. Sir J. WALMSLEY said that if there was any dif ficulty in the two Houses working harmoniously toge ther, it was evident that that House required a reform, and a very great reform too; and he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would persevere with his motion. He should certainly vote with him. Sir /I. W. BARRON slid, that if the views of the Honourable Member for Montrose were to be adopted, it was a mockery altogether to send a Bill respeeting poor rates up to the House of Lords at all, and by far the better principle would be to adopt a resolution not to send those 131113 up at all.—(Hear.) Sir J. YOUNG said, that, in his opinion, the idea of the encroachments of the Lords was a perfect chimera. The Members of the House of Lords were, in his opinion, from their position both as legislators and as large land owners, more fitted to deal with this question than the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSM AN said that it appeared by the Noble Lord's declaration that after five months' legislation they were called upon, for a supposed advantage, to give up a great and important privilege. If there were to be a large advantage to be gained by this, he would be one of the first to assent to it.—(Hear, hear.) Such, however, according to the intimation of the Noble Lord, was not the case. They had had a tub thrown to them, and a tub had been thrown to the Committee up-stairs, and they had been amused during the whole of these months' discussion for nothing. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the consideration of the Lords' amendments 111 Against it... ... ... 62 Majority for the Government —49 tajo. ••• ..• The House then adjourned till Half-past Six o'clock. The House re• assembled at a Quarter-past Six. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Lords amendments in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, omitting clauses 1 and 2 of Commons Bill, were agreed to. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the Lords' amendment, inserting clause 5 of Lords' Bill, Mr. O'GORMAN MAHON said that he rose simply to make an announcement, which he believed to be of the utmost importance, and would fill with gladness the hearts of thousands in this country and in Ireland. With out further preface he would read a communication he had received from a distinguished chemist, Mr. John Walker, M.D., of South•place, on the subject:—" I beg to acquaint you, that a discovery has been made in Ire land which will materially enhance the value of landed property in that country. It consists in the aptitude of its millions of peat acres to produce at trifling expense (little more than of manual labour) oil naptha, naptha line, parafine, muriate of ammonia, vicomar, pittical, candles, pitch, tar, and other principles, by a new pro cess of distillation. These several materials were sub• mitted to me some months ago by Mr. Owen, and from what I have seen and tested, I have no hesitation in pronouncing it one of the greatest discoveries of the age, and one which will become a source of unbounded wealth. I can easily let you have a list of the several products derivable from the distillation; and you have my permission to give this most important matter whatever publicity you please. Some of the products have been seen by, I believe, the Marquis of Lans downe and others here, and I know the Irish Court are already cognizant of the discovery." The most unequivocal testimony, both to the accuracy of the science involved in this invention and the facility of its practical application, had been furnished by Mr. Pei louse, of Paris (in whose laboratory the patentee made his preliminary experiments and perfected his discove ries), whose reputation combined the highest attributes of science with eminent skill in application. Similar tes timony had been afforded by Professor Leibig, Dr. Hodges, Professor of Chemistry in the Belfast Institute, and by many other eminent chemists who had been con sulted on the subject. Under the sanction of these au thorities the capitalists who preliminarily undertook the investigation of Mr. Reece's invention, had within the last three months erected experimental works in Ire land on a scale of sufficient magnitude to test its merits. Their success had been complete in obtaining the pro ducts enumerated by the patentee, and in establishing the practical value of the discovery.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then produced what he termed a spermaceti candle made from the oil extracted from the peat, and handed it to Lord John Russell across the table for examination. He appealed to a Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) to state what he knew of Mr. Owen, the gentle man to whom they were mainly indebted for this inte resting information. Lord ASHLEY said that he could bear testimony to the high character of Mr. Owen. one of the gentlemen upon whose authority the truth of these statements rested, and who had practically carried out the experi ment. A more discreet, sober, and high-minded man, or a person more capable of carrying out these experi ments, he did not know. To make sure that the infor mation conveyed to him (Lord Ashley) was correct, he requested Mr. Owen to call upon him that morning, and he repeated his experiments, so that this was not a mere matter of theory, but of actual experiment.—(Hear, hear.) He had invested c onsiderable capital, and made large ,profits, by his operations in these peat bogs.— (Hear, hear.) All he desired was to do good to Ire- land, and to show the people how they could make a profit:of the soil. Out of 100 tons of peat,which would cost 81., with labour expended upon it, which would cost 81. more, making in the whole an expenditure of 201., this would be the issue of the o perations. The produce of all the processes would be as f o llows:—carbonate of ammonia 6301b5, soda 2,1181b5., naptha 30 gallons, candles 6001b5.. that was of ingredients out of which candles could be made superior to spermaceti oil, 600 gallons common oil, and other chemical ingredients to a large extent; and he showed him by calculation out of every 100 tons of peat a profit of 311. 16s. Bd. He added, that when the peat was cleared away, the oil was fertile beyond description, being saturated with ammonia. Even if one-half-of what he stated was true, something very great was about to be effected, and persons now owning 100,000 acres of Irish bog would find it far more valuable than the whole region of California. He de sired to state again, that he had the fullest reliance as to the high character of his informants.—(Hear.) Mr. P. SCROPE said that if what had been stated by the Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord opposite was true, he should deeply regret his motion for taking possession of the waste lands of Ireland had not been carried, because if they had done so it would have been easy to pay off the national debt.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the amendments under consideration, having opposed the maximum rate, he could not be expected to regret that it had been rejected by the other House. But at the same tirae that being in the estimation of the Government the best mode of aiding the distressed unions, he wished to know what was to be done now that the maximum clauses were struck out. He feared that as the House had rejected all the constructive and auxiliary measures he had proposed, that the striking out of these clauses would inflict upon these unions a vast and intolerable amount of misery. His opinions on this subject had never varied. Twelve years ago be had predicted what would be the effect of passing such a poor-law as they had since done, and his predictions had been fully verified by the actual working of that law. He felt, therefore, justified in calling attention to the measures he had so often recommended, namely, the re productive employment of the able-bodied poor in those permanent improvements, such as arterial drainage and similar works, which would open up the country to labour and capital. If two millions instead of two hundred thousand pounds had been spent on arterial drainage, it would have been most beneficial, not only to the people and landlords of Ireland, but also to the tax payers of England.—(Hear, hear.) Colonel DUNNE expressed his regret that the Go vernment had given up the principle of the maximum rate. He thought that principle was a just one, and it certainly did surprise him to find, after supporting that principle in common with a majority of the Irish Mem bers, that the Government had abandoned it. He could not think this was an amendment on the existing law, and the conduct of the Noble Lord in first taking the subject out of the hands of the Irish Members, and then abandoning the principle of his own measure, certainly gave him as much surprise as regret. Ile felt perfectly satisfied that the workhouse test could not be applied in Ireland, and that if they were to give up the futile at tempt to enforce it, the cost of poor-law administration would be much reduced. He protested against the with drawal of the clause, which contained a principle that would have been extremely valuable in Ireland. Mr. H. GRATTAN observed that one thing was per fectly certain, namely, the poor-law had been a complete failure in Ireland. So far from having had the effect they anticipated—that of causing landlords to employ the people—it bad had the very reverse effect. Many landlords had laid down their land in grass which was formerly arable. They had, in fact, taken away all stimulus to continue the usual agricultural opera tions in Ireland—butter, bacon, wool, and corn, had follen in price, and they might depend upon it that they were decidedly mistaken in supposing that the poor-law would act as a permanent measure of relief. For his own part, he believed that no measure whatever would do any good to that country, except the plan he had so ofte❑ urged, namely, a resident gentry, living among the people from whom they drew their rents, and spending their incomes in encouraging the industry of the people and the improvement of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Government would have done much better if they had withdrawn the Bill altogether, and have called the Irish Members together, to devise means for sending back the absentees to Ireland. Mr. F. FRENCH supported the proposition of the Noble Lord for agreeing to the Lords' amendments, be lieving that those amendments were in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people. The amendments, omitting clauses 1 and 2 of the Corn • mons' Bill, and inserting clause 5, were then agreed to. Clause 6 was disagreed to. Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that they should agree to the Lords' amendment, omitting clause 10, as they had omitted the clause imposing a maximum rate. Sir H. W. BARRON thought the clause ought to be restored. The property rated to the support of the poor was quite insufficient to -carry out the principle at tempted. lle begged to move that they should disagree to the amendment. Mr. SADLIER urged the Hon. Baronet not to press the House to a division. Mr. O'FLAHERTY thought the annuitants ought to pay their proportion of the rate. Mr. W. H. BROWN withdrew his amendment, and the Lords' amendment was agreed to. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that they should agree to the Lords' amendment, inserting clause 10 of the Lords' Bill, with an amendment omitting the word " resident" in line 6, page 8. Mr. AUGUSTUS STAFFORD moved the omission of the clause. After a short discussion, in which a number of Mem hers took part, Mr. AGLIONBY said it seemed to him, after the conflicting opinions he had heard expressed by the Irish Members, that the best thing they could do would be to omit the clause altogether.—(Hear.) The House then divided, when the numbers were— Fur the clause 60 Against it ... ... 25 Majority ... ... —35 The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. Sir G. GREY moved disagreement with the Lords' amendments omitting clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19. no hoped the Rouse would agree to retain these clauses. After some discussion the House divided, when there appeared in favour of the Lords' amendmen ) ts to omi clauses 16, 17, and 18— Ayes Noes Majority ~. ... 22 ... -59 Lord J. RUSSELL moire,' to agree to Lords' amend ment, inserting clause 18 of Lords' Bill, which was agreed to; as was clause 19, with a verbal amendment. It was then agreed to insert clauses 20 and 21 of the Lords' Bill. On the motion to disagree with the Lords' amend ment, inserting clause 22 of the Lords' Bill, some dis cussion took place as to the difficulty of obtaining infor mation as to the rating under the clauses. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that by the 17th Geo. 11. every ratepayer had a right, on the pay ment of a specified sum, to have a copy of the rate-book, but this clause did not provide for such a copy, and only gave the power of obtaining an account of what was due front each ratepayer. In order to do this the rate-books would have to be taken from the collector, and thus the collection of the rates would be stopped. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but the motion to disagree with the clause was ultimately carried with out a division. The Lords' amendments, inserting clauses 23, 24, and 25 of the Lords' Bill, were agreed to. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved to disagree with the Lord' amendment inserting clause 27 of the Lords' Bill. A conversation arose, in the course of which Sir G. GREY stated that the clause would ope❑ the door to colluSion between the boards of guardians and ratepayers, by which the rates for emigration might be substituted for the rates intended for the bona fide sup port of the poor. The rate for emigration was intended to be additional, not supplementary, to the poor rate. The motion was ultimately agreed to without a divi sion, as was clause 29 of the Lords' Bill. On the motion to agree to so much of the Lords' amendment, inserting clause 30 of the Lord,' Bill, as was contained in the proviso, commencing line 10 of page 18, and ending line 31 of the same page, and to disagree with the rest of the clause. Colonel DUNNE declared his intention to divide the House against the whole clause. After a desultory discussion, Sir H. W. BARRON said he should support the Hon. and Gallant Member (Colonel Dunne), for this clause was distinct and different from the English law. Mr. MONSELL supported this opinion. The House then divided:— For first part of clause 30 ... 100 Against it 26 Majority for agreeing to first part —74 Colonel DUNNE moved that the House divide on the 31st clause The division took place, when there appeared— For the disagreement on this clause... 103 Against it 24 Majority for Lord J. Russell ...-79 The 32d clause of the Lords' Bill was also disa greed to. The 33d clause of the Lords' Bill was agreed to. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Eleven o'clock. THE HUNGARIAN REFUGEES.—On Monday evening next the members of the Apollonic Society will give a Miscellaneous Concert, in the hall of the Literary Institution, John-street, Fitzroy-square, in aid of the fund now being raised for the Hungarian Refugees at Folkstone, on which occasion they will be assisted by the following ladies and gentlemen, who have generously given their services:—Miss Norman, Miss Leslie, and Mrs►. Jennings ; Mr. H. E. W. Bonner, Master Frank Bonner, and Mr. J. Dobson Collet. The Hungarian Singers will also be present, and perform several of their celebrated national songs and churusses, being their last appearance in London previous to their departure for Ireland. SUDDEN DEATH.—An inquest was held on Wed neiday, before Mr. Wakley, in the library of Middlesex Hospital, respecting the death of Mr. John Robinson, aged 67, of Nuneaton, Warwickshire, a gentleman pos sessed of great wealth, including large estates in the counties of Leicester, Warwick, and Stafford, who died suddenly in Regent-street, under the following singular circumstances.—Deceased had arrived in London on Monday last, in company with Mr. W. Shelton, one of his tenants. They had during the day visited the Na tiocal Gallery, Westminster Abbey, the Polytechnic, &c., having only partaken of a pint of sherry between them. After leaving the Polytechnic, they had proceeded as far as the Quadrant, when deceased suddenly fell backwards ; on endeavouring to raise him he was found to be dangerously ill, and on a police. constable coming up, he was placed in a cab, and conveyed to the above hospital. On arriving there, from the evidence of Mr. Corpe, the house surgeon, he was quite dead, doubtless from disease of the heart, called the breast pang. Mr. W. Nason, of Fleet-street, surgeon, said he had known deceased for many years. Witness's brother was his medical attendant. Deceased was a healthy and tem perate man, and would, but for this melancholy affair, no doubt have called upon him. Deceased was subject to a pain i❑ the breast, with which he wes frequently seized when out shooting or engaged in violent exercise. There was no reason to suppose that his death had been other than natural. Two nephews of the deceased, who were present, concurred in the latter opinion, and the jury accordingly returned a verdict of " Natural Death." LAW INTELLIGENCE. V/CP, • CHANCERY COURT, July 27. (Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.) ATTORNEY- G ENEBAL V. GIBBS AND ANOTHER-ST. STEPHEN'S, WALBROOK„ This was the petition of Charles E. Martins, of Back lersbury, and John Lucking, of Walbrook, who dc• scribed themselves as being churchwardens of St. Ste phen's, Walbrook; and of B. Horner, of Bucklersbury, of Budge-row, and Frederick Izant, of Bucklersbury, who were described as overseers of the same parish. It prayed that two sums, the one of 1,0044 13e. 10d. Bank Annuities, and the other of 1,4611. 6s. 9d. cash, might be paid to the petitioners as the churchwardens and over• seers of the parish, to be applied by them towards pay ment of certain debts of the parish; that the receiver ia ho had been appointed in the cause might be directed to pay to the petitioners, as such churchwardens and overseers, and to their successors for the time being, the whole of the rents and profits of certain freehold premises, except one-third of them, arising from the parsonage-house, to be paid and applied from time to time by them for the use and benefit of the parish in aid and relief of the poor-rate; and that the petitioners, as such church • wardens and overseers, and their successors for the time being, might be at liberty to attend before the Master, and upon all proceedings under the order of the 11th of March last, for the appointment of new trustees of the freehold premises. The pe tition was presented upon the information filed in 1844, in which Mr. W. F. Rock was the relator, and Mr. Alderman Gibbs and the Rev. Dr. Croly were the de fendants. The petitioners stated that, in consequence of the parochial liabilities, they had been obliged to levy two rates for the poor, the one at is. 61 the other at Is. 9d. iu the pound, and this had produced some ex citement and resistance in the parish, who were aware of the sufficiency of the funds belonging to the parish to meet their liabilities ; that the debt duo to the City of London Union for the care of the poor, and to other creditors, amounted to 3,000/. and that the City of Lon don threatened them with proceedings. Mr. Russell and Mr. Biggs argued the case in sup port of the petitioners, and observed upon the rival claimants for the office of churchwarden. His HONOUR observed that there appeared to be a very laudably ambition on both sides. It appeared there were two conflicting vestries, two conflicting vestry-books, and two conflicting sets of church wardens. The counsel for the petitioners having been heard, The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without calling upon the respondents, said—There appears to b e a su b stan ti a l question, hether the two petitioners, who allege themselves to be the churchwardens of the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrook, are or are not de jure churchwardens ; and the Master in the cause either has appointed or approved, or is in the course of appointing or approving, new trustees of the property, from the rents of which has arisen money or the fund which is one of the objects of this pe tition. Without pronouncing any opinion for or against the title of these two gentlemen, who thus allege them selves to be de jure and de facto the churchwardens, the circumstances that I have stated are sufficient of them selves, without entering into any other matter, to render it impossible, in my opinion, t o ma k e any order for the transfer or payment of any part of the fund or any money under this petition at present. The only remaining question is whether, considering the position in which Mr. Gibbs stands, it is reasonable that, under a reserva tion of all costs, both of this petition and also of the at tendance of the petitioners before the Master, or any service upon them for that purpose, they should, without prejudice to any question, and without the (!enial or ac knowledgement of any title, be allowed to attend the Master, an allowance which, if given, cannot extend to their successors, but must be confined to these gentlemen, and until further order. If the Attorney-General, or the respondents who have not been heard, wish to oppose that, let the argument proceed. Mr. R. PALMER, who appeared.for the relator, and the parties who claimed to have been duly elected church wardens, was then heard upon the latter point, and con tended, that, as the receiver's accounts had been passed, and the Muster had approved of gentlemen as trustees, the attendance cf the petitioners before the Master could only lead to useless expense and delay. The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I am of opinion that, under the reservation I have mentioned, the petitioners ought to have liberty to attend the Master under the orders, which are now before the Master, so far as anything re mains to be dune. The Court reserves the consideration of the costs, and of all costs to be occasioned by means of this order, and it is to be without prejudice to any luestion, and there is to be liberty to apply. The Master is to be informed that the Court does not intimate any opinion whether he ought. or ought not, to release, or go back, upon any proceedings that have taken place before him. Mr. Bites appeared, with Mr. R. Palmer. Mr. Lloyd, for Mr. Alderman Gibbs, and Mr. Rogers, fur Dr. Croly, took no part in the argument. _ (Before Sir J. WIGRAM.) BROGDEN V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (NORTH KENT LINE). This case was again mentioned to-day. It was stated that the parties had been unable to come to any amicable arrangement ; that the Government inspector had re ported that the line was fit for working, and that the It.iilway Board had given leave to the company to work the line from and after Monday next, but expressing their wish that the company would take such steps as would ensure the restriction of the trains to a moderate speed until the new embankments were completely con solidated. WHISTON, CLERK, V. THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OP ROCHESTER. The Court has been engaged during the greater part of the day with a motion for an injunction, restraining the Dean and Chapter of Rochest°r from removing the plaintiff from the office of master of the free grammar h 001 of the cathedral church of Rochester. The case turns mainly upon the construction of the deeds of foundation in 1542, and upon a very lengthened corre spondence between the reverend plaintiff and the Bishop of Rochester, as well as with the Dean and Chapter. The Sol.c tor-General had not concluded his opening of the case when the Court rose. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 27. (Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) ALLEGED FRAUD.—IN RE DAVIES AND DAVIES. To-day was fixed for a dividend meeting. The bank rupts were builders. Mr. BROWN, for the London Gas Light Company, ap plied for a short adjournment of the case, and also for a summons to compel the attendance of certain parties, especially a discharged servant of the Gas Company, who, it was asserted, had been in collusion with the bankrupts in charging the company for work done five times over. Messrs. Davies owed upwards of 3,0001, and there were no assets (only 1241., the solicitors' bill being 701. or 801). There was property to the extent of 900/. in the hands of a third party, which was be lieved to belong to the bankrupts, one of whom (Daniel) had absconded to Australia ; and it was feared that the other would follow suit if a short adjournment were not granted, which was asked upon public grounds, at the expense of the Gas Company. His HONOUR said that, under such circumstances, he would grant the applicotion. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MAR YLEBONE. Mr. George Edward Lawrence, a well-known fre quenter of china sales, was brought bef ire Mr. Broughton, charged with having stolen from No. 6, Kensigton» garden terrace, two valuable Dresden china orna ments, the property of the executors of the late George Robins, Esq. William Chanter, a porter in the employ of Mr. John Robins, depo3ed that during a sale which took place yesterday at the residence of the late George Robins, Esq., he observed the prisoner looking about a table in the boudoir, on which was displayed a quantity of rare Dresden china, amongst which wero the two china orna ments produced. Witness had occasion to leave the room for a few minutes, and on his return the prisoner had left the house, and as the china ornaments were no where to be found, he suspected that the prisoner had taken them. He immediately sent one of the other por ters after the prisoner, who was brought back in custody of a police constable, who had taken from him the stolen property. As several other articles were missing, witness was instructed to apply for a remand till the sale was over. The prisoner, who seemed to feel deeply the degraded position in which he had placed himself; was then re manded till next Friday. WE:S TM IN STE R. FennEnsEs.—A man and woman, who gave their names as Joseph Pye and Mary Myers, were finally ex amined, charged. with forgery. The circumstances are briefly these. On the 7th in stant, the sum of 25/. was deposited in the Westminster Savings Bank, in the name of Joseph Pie, and on the 11th notice of withdrawal was given by the female pri soner, who was then informed that the depositor must attend to receive the money. On the 18th the prisoners both presented themselves at the savings' bank with the depositor's book, the male prisoner personating the Joseph Pye who had opened the account with them, and signing that name in the receipt book; but owing to the dissimilarity of his signature to that give at the time the money was deposited the actuary refused to pay him. The male prisoner declared he was the depositor, and pretended that the writing differed owing to having been drinking at the time he first signed; but after a detention of some time the female admitted that the male prisoner was not the depositor, but alleged that the money be longed to her. They were given into custody, but re fused to state where they lived, assigning as a reason that they did not please to have their residences searched by the police, and the male prisoner admitted that he had assumed the name of Joseph Pye. His com panion, after giving three or four names at the station house, made her election in favour of the one in which she was subsequently committed. The real Joseph Pye now attended, and stated that he had for three years resided in the house of the female prisoner's mother, who died a few weeks ago, since which he had continued to occupy a room under the female prisoner, who became the landlady of the house. He left his banking-book in his apartments, from which it must have been taken during his absence. During the time the last witness was giving his tes timony the female prisoner conducted herself in the most OUtreg ,. ous manner, abusing him in the most dis guting language, and declaring that he had made her a present of the money in the bank. She then threatened that if he said another word against her she would have her revenge, and finding that this did not deter him from continuilig his testimony against her, which was grin n apparently in a plain aeel straight forward manner, she uttered scene iii t h s . expses shins, and mate a desperate at!€rnpt to rush from t:e felon's dock towards him, hut was firmly pLioned by the gaoler and prevented. In the course of the prose outor's testimony, he denied iu the most p os iti ve terms that he had ever given the female prisoner or any other person the money, or any authority to touch his bank book. He had, indeed, not been in town from the time of the deposit being made until after the prisoners were in custody. _ On th 3 accused being called upon for their defence , the male prisoner doggedly replied that if he was gothg to be sent for trial he should like to go to the Old Bailey; while the female, on her part, expressed a preference is favour of the Middlesex Sessions. Mr. BURRELL observed that as there had been a fur- fiery it would be his duty to send them both for trial At the Central Criminal Court. They were committed accordingly. Mr. William Burrells, described as the proprietor of the Paviour s ' A rms p u bli c - h ouse , J o h n - stree t, West minster, was charged with f o r g i ng th e name of a der - Sitor at the W e stmi n ster S av i ngs ' B an k, f rau d u l e ntly t° obtain 201. 16s. 7d. The first instalm ena" of the above amount was der sited in 1847 by Henry Harrison, On the -:Bth instant notice was given by a female, signing herself . C. Ba r i rells, to withdra w 201. 16 3 . 7d., being the arnount ° f various deposits, with the interest. On Wednesday t he pris , ner went to the bank with the depositor's book, and appl eel for the money, signing the name of Harrison. As it did not at all correspond with the former signature the actuary told him that it c o uld no t b e hi s m oney, 01 , 4 that he was not the deposit o r. H e a t fi rs t stow, „ affirmed that he was, and alleged t hat hi s w if e had put the first instalment, and signed his name for him, but vr 'i informed that that was impossible, as females were n et allowed to do so. Subsequently he admitted that be pas not the depositor, and that it was not his mony. le a In defence the prisoner said there was not the intention on his part to defraud. Mrs. Harrison depositor), who was out of town, gave him the boo previous to her departure, and told him to take th e money out, and apply it to the use of her alarrisolfli children during her absence, and keep the r emainder tl her return. The prisoner was brought up again yesterday, $ nd discharged. WORSHIP-STREET. George Andrew Bartlett, foreman in the service of i. 1:: Alexander Osborne, a bonnet-shape manufacturer, 11 Somerset- place, Hoxton ; Priscilla Sarah Bartlett, 1211 mother; Mr. Win. Bourne, also a bonnet-shape inanufa c turer Old Castle -street, Bethnal-gr een; and Mr. T ho s. Attie, a tradesman in the neighbourhood, were place" i t the bar for final examination before Mr. Haw n ?: charged, the former with having stolen a large quant" l o of stock from their employer's warehouse, and the tt. latter with having feloni ous ly rece i ve d a por tion of to' property, well knowing it to be stolen. The evidence received to day was corroborative of 03 0 which has already been published. Mr. HANNILL said that it was clearly a case for th e decision of a jury, and though he must discharge the woman Bartlett, against wh om th e ev id ence was insup!" cient to insure a conviction, he should order the deP °sl : tions to be taken for the committal of all the other Pr l : soners; but would extend the sureties already put i n b o l f Attie, and accept substantial bail for the appearance the two others. LAMBETH. Yesterday, Henry William Dewhurst, alias the Rev, Dr. Dewhurst, the notorious begging letter writer lc? ipostor, who has been remanded f or a wee k, on a antrg of stealing a blanket and two glasses, the propertff e Thomas Bevan, was again plac e d a t th e b ar , before te Hon. G. C. Norton, for further examination. Web Mr. Norton produced a l arge b un dl e of letters T/--I,d, he had received from the vi ct i ms an d intended viethe of the prisoner, in conseque nce o f t h e pu b lication o f '" - f proceedings at the last examinations; and the writers i : e all expressed a fervent hope th a t Dewhurst migh t yj punished to the utmost extent of the law, for his grs' hypocrisy and imposture. Romaine, the officer engaged in th e case , an d who bad , 0 . been obliged to resort to the m os t extraor di nar y str• % . gems to secure the prisoner, s aid th a t s i nce the last e a u ; amination a female who was present had been to e a different places where the prisoner lodged, and had r o e both threats and entreaties to p revent the parties , t hot i appealing against the prisoner. The same femal e , his also threatened to writ e t o th e C omm i ss i oners aboto (Romaine's) conduct, and to have, as she expressed c, at taken off his b ac k, f or a p pre h en di ng the prisone r ' s . The female alluded to was h ere, b y d es i re o f the vi th a gistrate, placed in the witness box, and, ia reply t° ,, es th questions of Mr. Norton, s a id h er name was Hotebw he e that she lived at 9, New- s t ree t, L am b et h , an d that " to husband is a printer. She said she had heard o°, t he officer Romaine had sent a lett er t o th e emp loyer eL i o o, son of the prisoner, stating th e f ac t o f hi s appreheris and this she thought was very hard. afr Mr. Ftrgusson, the cl e rk a t t h e M en di c ity-cu,r'er'S tended, and produced a large bundle of the prls e l f to begging letters, in which h e h a d represente d hiruge,.ooo be in the most precarious state of health from va diseases. men° Mr. NORTON, after r ea di ng over severa l doc.° — „ for by which it appeared th a t th e p r i soner c arried I : 3l `" so id many years a most extensive system of i m posture: 3 oi that an end must be put to s uc h a scan d a lous I f tbe and he most sincerely hoped th a t th e pu bli c ation ° one / fact that the whole of the enormo us su ms of , rn as eo• which he, the prisoner, had obt a i ne d f ro m the v e eo t is lent by his scandalous misreprese n t a ti on s, was sPtiatt to drunkenness, dissipation, and filth, would be a ca n s ub' the public, and prevent them for th e future froreodea scribing a shilling for such a rascal. He then reran the prisoner until Thursday next. THAMES. a t FELONIOUSLY WOUNDING.—John Barrett, -5 b • o 001/ residing in East Smithfield, was charged with fel °l/1° wounding Edward Eustaoe. lagu The parties had a quarrel a b ou t some ',voile"' :h Barrett went to his lodgings, f rom w hi c h he b r oug h t knife, ar d stabbed him in the eye. Air. INGRam seemed at first i nc li ne d to s end the cs!s. ro for trial, but ultimately fin e d hi m 5 / . , or two months' pris nment. He WAS locked up in default. HOP INTELLIGENCE. lit tle WORCESTER, JULY 25.—We have to report a A — t he improvement „ j this week in some of the hop groUl' bite rains having cleared away some of the verip 4 ",,, fi e bb given vigour to the plant, which i s throwing " t o shoots, and here and there s h ow i ng burr; still, .° h ° t o whole, the reports are very unfavourable, and, w i tbe most forcing weather, not more than half a croP c';,,ett grown, a large portion of the plantation being P s° , - ielt a partial recovery. Our market on Saturday 'w'¢ 3 y e t of though prices were well supported. The duty 15 ()59 7,0001. New Worcester's, 755. to . 985.; choice, i( j' 4 Worcester's, 1846'5, 425. to 655.; choice, 703.; 0 , 1 ",„ -1 0 4 265. to 40s. This (Wednesday) is St. James's•osi' as the old adage says— Until St. James's-day is come and genet There may be hops, or may be none." —Worcester Journal. RAILWAY SHARE itIARKA. S. BRISTOL, JULY 27. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market continues firm, thougu,„— pe'ry The transactions to-day were principally confined to South Fifties, which closed at 12. LIVERPOOL, JULY 27.? Let STOCK Excnertaz.—The business done in the share m o pe day was rather more than for the last few days. Price,s' ho a rg t 3 , f fat still continue in a depressed tone. The sales are—D",3h i: Northern, 10% Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock, (Lou ''7don Northern (Preference, 5 per cent.), 2% dis.—Dittofermi : York Extension), 1% dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire , ;"'". t itie., 12% —Ditto, Halves (L. and B.), 9% di s. —Di tto, Fifths (iv e it ' to , Union), 86a. &I.—London and North-Western 133 c.—P; Quarters, 3 3 / 4 , p. — Manchester, Sheffield, and North-Western, 133 ari l ence, 1134—Midland, Halves, 12% di s . —Y or k, Nevi c kr. — J . Berwick (Extension No. 2, N. a n d B.), 634 di s .—Ditto ' Purchase), 6 per cent. till 1850, 4 dis.—York and North Preference, 6 per cent. till 1850, 2% c. dis. 3IANCHESTER, JULY 27. foll° `f re. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were L eed s , p i , _ Manchester and Sheffield, Preference, 11%—Ditto and Le,!:," 9 - f?r:ence,. 1 . 234 7: Ditt0,. Fifths, 3 3-16 dis.—Grimsby Dec d West Riding Union, 4 5-16 dis. . 10%f: BIRMINGHAM, JULY 27. _ to_ SToca ExcnANGE.—The transaction.s to-day were 2 5 ,; min gtil, e l r — e :c h e r , e Birmingham i 6 n l g . h l ar . 3 a d n . d di S s t . o — ur p V it al to l , ey p , re l f shire, al. 3s. 9d. dis. x sbu p ry .— an x d or i t t soop. YORK, JULY 26. Pl' n 0 -al STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day have been ~ ~. low : —Great Northern, Preference, 3X—Shefneld, Rotherba..,:we Goole (N. Div.), guaranteed 5 per cent., 13s. 9d. ex in.—Yorlg. ;;04 castle, and Berwick (G. N. B. Purchase), 3/. 18s. 9d. ex In.—yor. North Midland, 3 034—Ditto, Preference, 7% ex in. GLASGOW, JULY 26. STOCK Excrwsoz —The transactions to-day were as il°A 9O. Aberdeen, Preference,s —Glasgow and Greenock, Preference , " —Great Northern, Preference, 5 per cent. guaranteed, 76g. is o ' THE READING ELECTlON.—Appearances Prtar a sharp contest for this se a t. B es id es Si r John ""'„Z r e Mr. John Frederick Standford, of Foley House, .joe land-place, London, has announced himself enn,u l or ge upon " Moderate Liberal" principles. Mr. vi e "„is , Bowyer, of North-court House, Abingdon, and T h li °ol trate for the county, is also in the field upon the L . ' interest. 0 1 : 1 ` - ‘ , rADVERTISEMENT.]—THE EARL OF Als% 11l COW AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding cure by this 10 $ 0 1 - medicine, alter every other means had failed. See extract 21 Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb%l,o4t Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that yetir Pr th e 0 3 %1 fected a cure of a diSorder in my liver and stomach which au 701 Sv ar eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the contineut A , of 1110 been able to effect ; nay, not ever the waters of Carls":,0111 rienbad. (Signed) " ALDBOROUGH." These wonderful F o ss./ cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also / tut, Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, str— by e.ll medicine vendors throughout the eivillse3 world. BIRTHS. Ed dir On the 25th inst., in Gr s venor-crescent, the Lady bury, of a daughter. I,IIW ~.,. On the 17th inst., at Wi es b a d en, the lady of ~ x. - bert Annersley, Esq., of a son. We ° NO' r. On the 24th inst., th e w if e of the Rev, G . F. ..,,,bta, vicar of Crosby Ravens wort h, W estmoreland, o f a 61 -7 1 (5. Vi ‘ On the 25th inst., at T av i s t oc k- square, the w ife ° Lydekker, Esq., of the I nner T emp l e, of a son. On the .:sth inst., at Tur n h am • green, the wife o f 0 3° Se if, E. C. Jenkins, of a daughter. Di f° ' On the 26th inst., at Holly-house, Turnhanrgr e- ' John G. Lye, of a son. iw ocil MARRIED. On the 2:th inst., at St. G eorge ' s, Hanover-squ are, ' Yorl‘ a ° youngest son of Willi am Rhodes, of Branhope .hall, w . p• shire, to Charlotte M ar i a, e l dest daughter of the lot° Darwin, of lston-hall, ottinghamshre. areesi At Blairhill, Perth s hi re N , on the 18th i inst., Andrew' lo ge% Esq., Captai n 48 t h R, g i ment, to Alexandrine Ilaig'Y ° _,... ..---' daughter of the late John Berry, Esq. O W DIED On the :" . 3,1 inst., at Old-hall, East Bergholt, Sus an • Vi r • beth, Countess IX wager of Morton, aged 57. vO l „.. On the 21d inst., at Hillington-hall, Norfolk, JJ' a vfolkw - B. Ffolkes, Esq., eldest son of Sir William Browne " , Bart , aged 31 On the ,th inst., Jane, the wif e of Edward Shepherd' Esq., of Southamp on. 13t ir ci On the 2 tth inst.. at Ealing, Henrietta RichardOn' ViC daugter of J. Ponsfor, Esqßev.' on h tip. 26th inst., Hdephzibah, the wife of t he Re v. W alford, of Uxridge-common. On the 24th inst., at Coolfham, Berks, Mr. D• gewardt of Saville-row, Walworth______ • Inn Yu I radon : Printed and Published by bliiß.- -- ~.._ No: .-2 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun ".7,; opoti " Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in *-- lkilddlooes, Saturday, July 28, 18491 ~ ~~ J THE