The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-05 00:00:00

IMPEhIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS , May 4 . The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. NOTTINGHAM ELECTION. Mr. HAYTER, the Chairman of the Committee appointed to try the merits of the late Nottioglaana Election, brought up their Report, declaring the sitting Members, Sir J. C. Hob house and Sir G. De Larpent duly elected. NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY. Mr. H. HINDE moved the third reading of the Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway Bill. Mr. FIELDEN moved, pursuant to notice, that clause 333, which proposed to give powers to eight different Railway Com panies to do that which was not authorised by their respective Acts of incorporation, and for which powers they had not ap plied to Parliament, should be expunged from the Bill. Mr. S. CRA WFORD seconded the amendment. Mr. H. HINDE opposed it, and said that if the Hon. Mem ber for Oldham succeeded in causing the clause to be expunged it would seriously affect the interests of a Company to which that Hon. Member himself belonged. Mr. BROTHERTON said that, though he thought the measure was one of public utility, it involved a very important principle, and one which be thought the House ought to be guarded in adopting. He should therefore like to see the wards proposed inserted in the clause. Mr. LIDDDELL said, that as the Bill had received the full consideration of the Committee, he hoped the House would not interpose any difficulty in the progress of the Bill. Mr. HUME asked if the meetings of the different Railroad Companies concerned had been regularly called, after due no tice had been given. Mr. H. HINDE begged to assure the Hon. Member that such had been the case. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority against expunging the clause —lO5 THETFORD ELECTION. _ _ Mr. PAK[NGTON, as Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Thetford, reported to the House that the Right Hon. Henry Fi , zroy, commonly called Earl of Euston, was not duly elected. and ought not to be re turned for that borough, and that Sir James Flower, Bart., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. DOWNPATRICK ELECTION. The SPEAKER announced to the House that he had re ceived a communication from the agent of the petitioner com plaining of an undue return for the borough of Downpatrick, stating that the petition in that case would not oe proceeded with. HARWICH AND WORCESTER ELECTIONS. The SPEAKER made similar announcements relative to the petitions respectively against the returns for those boroughs. KINCS'I ON ROAD BILL. On the motion of Mr. BAILLIE, this Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. SHIEL gave notice that to-morrow he should put certain questions to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, respecting the case of Mr. Biddulph. On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON, it was ordered that John Thurston should be discharged from her Majesty's gaol of Newgate. PETTY SESSIONS BILL. Mr. BANKES moved the second reading of the Petty Sessions Bill. The Hon. Member said that one of the evils, which he designed to remedy by this Bill, was the demoralisa tion which resulted from the manner in which at present prisoners of all classes were mingled whilst remaining in gaol. Another evil, which he proposed to remedy, was the incon venience occasioned to witnesses by having to attend the ses" sions before the time of the trial, on which they had to give evidence. There was a great inceavenience to jurors as well as witnesses. He had repeatedly had his attention drawn to the evils of the present state of things, from officiating as Chairman of Quarter Sessions. There was another point, which was of less importance than the others, that was the expense. The cost to the county of Dor setsl.ire of each prosecution of an individual was 16/. He telt confident that if his mode were adopted it would con fer unspeakable benefit. Seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department,in his place, he hoped he should hear his views with respect to this measure. It it was his pleasure to think favourably of it, he (Mr. Bankes) wondil be most happy in Committee to adopt any suggestion which the Right Hon. Gentleman, or any other Hon. Member, :might be pleased to submit. The Bill, as it was, was short, but he had no objection to see it still shorter, or to make any additions to it which any Hon. Gentleman might suggest, if it was not incompatible with the principles of the Bill. He was not wedded to the Bill in its present form, but to the prin ciples. He knew that when the Bill came to another place, he should receive much assistance, which he trusted would render the Bill more perfect. He begged leave to move the second reading of the Bill. Sir J. GRAHAM could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that he had listened with the greatest possible respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman. He was disposed to view this measure with a prejudice in its favour ; but from the consideration he had given -the subject it had lei him to the conclusion that it was his duty on principle to oppose the measure. The great objection he entertained to the Bill was, that it in troduced a new principle, it made the jurisdiction of the Magistrates not dependent on the Ministry, but solely at the will of the party accused, because it would allow him to plead guilty in the hope of escaping severe penalties. He doubted greatly whether the object his Friend had in view, that of saving expense to counties, would be effected by the Bill. Mr. TATTON EGERTON objected to the Bill, on the ground that it extended the evil which was proved before the Committee on the Glasgow Police Bill, to prevail to a great extent. For instance, is Glasgow, it fre quently happened that a man, being taken before one of the lour Justice Courts of the City, escaped with a very light pun ishment, by pleading guilty for the first time. and then going into . each of the other districts in succession escaped each in the same evay. Whilst he made this objection to the Bill, he must say that something ought to be done to lessen the very heavy ex penses to which the counties were put, and which were fear folly increasing. 11r. BANKES said that after what he had heard, he would t net be successful were he to press the second reading of the Bill, but he would bring it forward on a future occasion, if he had the honour of a seat in that House. The Bill was then withdrawn. CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND \ BILL. On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Biil being read, Sir J. GRAHAM said the House would remember, that 'when the Hon. Member for Argyle moved for leave to bring in the Bill which now stood for a second reading en the Order liook, he (Sir J. Graham) stated, on the part of her Ma jesty's Government, that he thought, on account of the divi sion which unhappily prevailed in the Church of Scotland, it ' would be useless to bring in a Bill on the subject. It was needless for him to repeat what he then stated respecting the usefulness of that national establishment, and that he regretted every effort made to arrest the progress of the division, which prevailed was ineffectual. It was his .duty on that occasion to state, on the part of her Majesty's Go wernment, that at that moment he had no reason to expect that same Leg.slative measure, consistently with what appeared to elsem to be soend principles, would receive so much acceptance in Scotland as would justify them in bringing in a measure on the subject. This had not been overlooked by her Majesty's present advisers. Before they had been called to the Councils of their Sovereign an effort had been made by one of the principal members of the present Administration to contribute to t he 'settlement of that question. He had not been supported by her Majesty's late Ministers, and as at that time he had reason to apprehend that there was ino such prospect of success as would justify him in pressing /'orward the measure, and that it would not be received in the manner in which it was hoped it would have been, the Astasure was withdrawn. Her Majesty's present servants, immediately after their accession to office, had directed their attention to the subject as one of great and paramount importance. They had endeavoured to ascertain if, on the principles on which alone they could consent to bring forward any measure, such a measure would be accepted by even the least violent of the contending parties in Scotland. They had, however, seen nothing to justify the expectation that any measure which they could bring forward, as a measure to restore peace and harmony between the contending parties, would be so received by the country. They had indulged in a .hope that such might have been the case, but the result was ;not such as to justify such a hope. So matters had stood suntil his Honourable Friend, the Member for Argyleshire, Shad brought in the Bill which was now before the House. si ne , th a t period, the Government had entered into communi cation with various parties in Scotland, whose opinions were 'entitled to the highest respect, and who were connected with the popular party in the Church, and the result of the commu • lineations which had reached her Majesty's Government led them to believe that an opportunity for the settlement of this question was now afforded them, from the -temper of all parties concerned, such as at no former :period had manifested itself. Of that opportunity he was most anxious to avail himself, and in consequence of Chose commu nications he had to state to his Hon. Friend, and 110 the House, that her Majesty's Government had reserved the discussion of efteis question with the parties principally interested; and without *expressing himself so as to induce the House to in tdulge in too sanguine expectations on this subject, he felt bound to declare that he did - not despair of the result of those con munications leading him to a favourable issue. If legislative measures could restore harmony and peace to the Church of Scotland. the means must be introduced upon the res?onsibilitv of the Executive Government. The principles upon which alone the Government could introduce a measure for the settlement of this question were, first, to de tend the civil rights of the patrons, with regard to presentation ; secondly, to defend what he considered to be ti e indisputable rights of the people to make of 'jections to such presentation ; and thirdly, to maintain the righ is of the Spiri t ela Courts to decide on those:objection s . Thee were the prin k., pies on which alone the Government could c( wisent to pro p, se any measure for the settlement of tl cis question. He' had reason to believe that consistently with th, 'so principles a settlement could be obtained. He did not ask the Hon. Ge,scleman for any indefinite postponement of h us measure ; but - .under the circumstances that he had state d, with refe rence to the hope of the settlement of the qaestion which oivided the Church of Scotland, and which now s;'iook the peace and prosperity of that country, he asked him to consent to a postponement fi it a short period, and if within that period a measure for the complete arr a n 4 extent and satisfaction of the question was ,n( it introduced by the Government, the Hon. Gentleman was .quite open to prceeed si - ith his Bill. Mr. CA MPBELL said, he need hardly state to the House, that if it lied not been for what had been just statt xi Oct the part of the Government, he would not think of postponing his Bill. —( Hear.) But when the Government told him th at I hey now had a measutre to propose, he thought he would t es t consult the interest of the country in giving way till he saw wt at that measure was- He would not withdraw his measure, but . simply postpone it. He reserved to himself the right of disci issing that measure, and if it were a measure which the Chum ch of Scotland ought not to acc e pt, he would oppose it. With that under stan di ng h e had no hes i tat i on i n postpon i ng the set and reading of she Bill for six weeks. Mr. FOX MAULE would make a few observations on Ws sat had l fale fia from the Becht Hon. Gentleman end the Host. Get t eman who had introduced this Bill, and had made it tb e pro. perry of the House. ifeatwas never more surprised his life, at any course than man who introducer! this measure that taken by the Hon. ( explanation which had been and more especially at ter the. H.nne Department of the nat given by the Secretary ft me nt had at last made upr the theirureof the measure which (le 'Vern nearly as h, could gather fromminds to introduce. F or as the words of the 1 Honourable Baronet, the measure tight enent had been terrified—( Hear,sure which the Got ern was nothing more or less than the measure /—into adop ting upon which the opinion of the people ande Lord Aber& ex res Scotland had been unequivocally of the Church of F. Maule) had asked the Right Hosp. Gentleman 'Whi he (it. Ir. of her Majesty's Government whether it w t as e' r n lat tilt ' 1". ad bring forwasd anymeasue n, measure upon the subject's inten t lon answer which left it open to him to pursue any'co he g I But when .his Hon. Friend the Member for Elginurse he p. leased. see. an Hay), submitted his proposal, which brought (Sir A. L. (justice:l of the present state of the ethhe whole of Scotlaud before the House, the Government state h d dis tinctly that they were not prepared to bring in any xneasare themselves. They did more than that ; for in at isomer to a cha rge made against them for not introducing a met sure , lig bulled round and asked him (Mr, F. Mauls) are; the • Hon. Gentleman who made the proposal, why they did not bring a measure of their own before the House. But now that a measure had been brought forward—a measure which, al though not in his opinion c.lculated to give complete satisfac tion to the people of Scotland, was yet of such a nature as to afford a good basis for the settlement of the question. and might be amended in Committee, the Government came forward and asked the Hon. Gentleman to postpone the measure, because forsooth they had made up their minds to introduce a Bill which, from anything he could understand from the explanation that had been given, was exactly similar to that which had been repudiated by the people of Scotland when introduced in another place, and in a former session. And yet the Right Hon. Gentleman had now taken upon himself to say that he believed the measure which he proposed to introduce would be acceptable to the majority of the Scottish Church. Now he could tell the Right Honourable Gentleman most posi tively that the majority of the Church of Scotland, as re presented by the Non-Intrusion Committee, had not given, mad would not give, their sanction to any such measure ; and if the Government imagined they could settle the ques tion on such a basis, let him tell them that they were only hurrying to a precipitate conclusion, in the very worst form, upon that great question which was now agitat ing Scotland. He had come down that evening to this House assured, both privately and publicly, up to the hour he entered it, that the measure would go to a second reading. He had not only received private assurances to that effect, but he had received a circular that morning inviting him to be in his place to support the second reading of the Bill. Between that and the hour at which ho was speak ing, negotiations, it appeared , ha d taken pl a c e between the Author of the Bill and the Government, and the people of Seotland were thus to be deprived of the opportunity of seeing how the House of Commons was disposed to decide ups) a question in which they felt very great anxiety. He ahsse)d take that opportunity of saying that he would reserve to himself the right of taking any course he might think proper when the motion was made for postponing the discussion. He should first ask, however, what was the motion then before the House. The SPEAKER having said that it was usual with the Hon. Member who took charge of a measure to move that it abeuld be read as one of the Orders of the Day, Mr. CAMPBELL moved that the Bill should be read a second tim.s that day six weeks. Mr. FOX s IJAULE said, he was quite aware that the course which he should pursue, of moving that this Bill be read a second time, was one which was not usual, but he thought there were circumstances which would fully justify him in adopting that course, and the first of those circumstances to which he would 411gde, was, the deep anxiety with which, not only the Church of Scotland, but the people of Scotland, were looking for the decision of the Howie ors the prin ciple involved in this Bill. It was the first time that that prin ciple had been fairly and fully brought before the House; and he gave the Hon. Gentleman, who had brought it before the House, full credit for having done so with the best intentions, although those intentions had unfortunately been overruled. One of the great and principal grounds upon which he thought that this Bill should be read a second time, and its principle either adopted or rejected, was the fact, that the Church of Scotland was now on the point of assembling. He thought it was only fair to all parties that a vote should be taken on the principle, and that the Church of Scotland should know whether or not they had anything to expect from it. Instead of that, the course taken by her Majesty's Government, was, first of all to ask the Honourable Gentleman who proposed this Bill to suspend it for five or six weeks, and in the next place, to reserve to themselves the power of negotiating in terms which had already failed of success for the settlement of this most important question. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that this was one of the first questions to which her Majesty's Government had directed their attention on their accession to office. He was quite ready to give them credit for being anxious for the settlement of the question, but their anxiety only extended to the settlement upon a basis to which the people of Scotland was not ready to submit. Their anxiety was to settle it upon the basis of the Bill introduced by Lord Aberdeen. When the Ho nourable Baronet, who formerly hail a seat in the House, had proposed a clause which contained the Non-Intrusion principle - in its wildest form, it was stated that the Government could not, under any circumstances, accept a settlement of the question upon those terms. Unless therefore, the Government had retracted that opinion, it was in vain for the Honourable Gentleman to deceive himself by any hope or expectation that, if he postponed his measure for five weeks, for five months, or even for five years, he would get any measure from the Government which would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland. Such was the position of the question at that moment, when her Majesty's Government wished the Hon, Gentleman to postpone the recognition of the principles of that Bill to an al most indefinite period. He (Mr. F. Manly) only wondered that the Hon. Gentleman was not asked at once to withdraw the Bill altogether, because he might rely upon it that another postponement would be demanded, and fresh difficulties would be added to all the difficulties that had arisen from the suspension of the question. Under these circumstances he would not attempt to go into the great question, which he had expected to have heard debated that night, because it was hardly fair to the question, nor did be think he had a right se far to intrude on the time of the Members of that House ; and more, he believed that no observation which he had made with respect to the position which he intended to take would explain fully to the people of Scotland the strong grounds for the objec tion he felt to that measure, for he believed it would lead to no good or practical end.—( Hear, hear.) He believed the Government had not at that moment changed their minds one iota from the principles stated with respect to the subject when the Non-Intrusion question commenced. He did not believe that any Bill would come from their hands, greatly extending the principles of the Earl of Aber deen's Bill, and under that conviction he should move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time then. _ _ Mr. PLUMPTRE hoped the Hon. Memberf Mr. Campbell) would persevere in his postponement. He was quite sure the Government would do what it had promised, and when the subject came before the House he (Mr. Plumptre) should give the Hon. Member his support. Mr. CAMPBELL said this was a most extraordinary step for the Right Hon. Gentleman to take.—(Hear.) He (Mr. C.) really could not help being amused at the course which he of all others had adopted. The Right Hon. Gent. had done him (Mr. Campbell) the honour to gi►e him credit for good motives and good intentions, but he did not stop there, for he went on to say that his intentions and opinions were overruled by those of his own friends. Now he (Mr. Campbell) would say most distinctly that of all the gentleman in that House, there was not one who had a less right than the Right Hon. Gentleman to make that attack.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he ever did as much for the Church of Scotland, when his friends were in power, as he (Mr. Campbell) would have done now?—(Hear.) Did he condemn the conduct of Government in delaying to do any thing to get the Church out of her present difficulties ? Did he come forward, as he (Mr. Campbell) had done, with a Bill? No ! he did no such thing.—( Hear, hear. ) An Hort. MEMBER—Your Bill is withdrawn. Mr. CAMPBELL continued—No, his Bill was not with - &awn, it was simply postponed.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman had taken the very great liberty of assuming that the Bill the Government proposed to bring in was precisely the same as Lord Aberdeen's Bill. What right had he to assume anything of the kind?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman gave no definite description of the Bill he intended to bring in. ( Hear, from the Opposition.) Ha only stated the general prin ciples of it ; and he (Mr. Campbell) could do nothing but wait till he saw what that measure was before he went on with his own measure. He left his case with confidence in the hands of the House.—( Cheers. ) Mr. F. MAULE said if the Right Hon. Baronet would get up and assure the House that the Bill he proposed was not the Bill of Lord Aberdeen, he (Mr. Maule) should be contented. Mr. COCHRANE said that he concurred with the Right Honourable Gentleman- that from what had fallen from the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Home De partment, he should imagine that the measure he proposed to introduce would be very like that of Lord Aberdeen. Ac cording to the argument of the Hon. Member, if it weie not Lord Aberdeen's measure over again, it was a measure more favourable to the Church of Scotland. He thought 11 postponing the question, they should be holding out hopes to the people of Scotland which would not be realized. He should think from 'what he had heard that the Bill about to be intro duced was one which he could not support ; at all events, he should at present divide with the Right lion. Gentleman. Mr. P. M. STEWART said, that on one sf the most im portant questions of the day, the House was thrown into a most awkward predicament. How did the Church and people of Scotland stand in the midst of these disputes, and motions, and Bills? They were now placed in a most awkward situation. At what moment had the new light sprung up in the eyes of the Hon. Member for Argyleshire ? Let him ask him, as a friend of the Church of Scotland, if he believed that she would consent to 1 its being withdrawn at the very moment of its second reading ? (No, no.) The Hon. Gentleman said it was not withdrawn, but postponed ; it was a distinction without a difference. ( Hear, hear.) The measure was postponed for five or six weeks, and in the interval the G enera l A ssem bl y of the Church would meet, and the Hon. Member knew, that at the last meeting of that body, it was considered of the greatest importance that the opi n io n o f th e H ouse o f 1 of Commons should be known before the Assembly met again. In what an insulting ignorance were the people of Scotland left by the withdrawal of this measure ; and (lid the Hon. Member withdraw it without knowing what was the measure which was about being introduced by the Govern ment ?If the lynx-eye of the Hon. Gentleman had not perceived what was the nature of that measure, he must be wil fully blind, for it was, to all intents and purposes, Lord Aberdeen's, and nothing more. One of the objects on which it was said the measure was founded, was maintaining the civil right of the patron ; so did the measure of the Honour able Member. It gave the people a voice in the rejection of the presentee ; so did the measure of the Hon. Member for Argyle. But then came the fatal 1 link for which the Church of Scotland condemned the Bill of Lord Aberdeen by an overwhelming majority, namely the provi sion that the Presbytery should weigh and consider the rejection. Was not the speech of the Hen. 3lember the Secretary for the Home Departraent enough to silence the expectation of any good Presbyterian? He had stated that the Bill of Lord Aberdeen was abandoned in consequence of the high state of feeling of the people of Scotland. But he knew that excitement had not abated. He co.ild tell them that feeling had by no means abated. On the con trary, and it would be seen by this unfortunate proceeding on the part of the Hon. Member for Argyleshire, it would be seen by the proceedings at the next meeting of the Assembly, that it would put further out of reach any settlement of this painful and harassing question. Scotland had a right to complain of the course that had been adopted by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment. How were they left ? He protested against the course taken by the Hon. Member for Argyleshire. Up to last night his colours were nailed to the mast, but now, at the eleventh hour, they were told that the Bill would be post poned for five or six weeks, and that it would be superseded by one that was intended to be introduced by the Government. If his Right Honourable Friend persisted in taking a division on the question, he should divide with him ; at the same time enterin g his solemn p ro t es t aga i nst t h e co urse taken by the Hon. Member for Argyleshire. He would sit down by saying, Let the blame rest with those who volun tarily undertook the task and now deserted their post. Mr. CAMPBELL admitted that his colours were not only Lailcd to the mast up to last night, but to the middle of that day, as it was not till late in the day that he knew the attention of the Government would be given to the subject. He thought it was too much that he should be accused of doing anything to insult the people of Scotland. Mr. WALLACE said that although he did not approve of the Bill entirely, he would vote for its being read a second time now, in order to have it amended and improved in Committee. The Bill as it stood, did not go far enough for his views, or for those of the great majority of the Church of Scotland. This he asserted confidently; ne knew the fact to be so. The people of that country demanded a restoration of their right to choose their clergymen, without any interference whatever by either clergy or laity, and this, said the Hon. Member, it will be my d, , ty to obtain for them when the Committee sits. That is, a fu ll and fair choice of their ministers, and they having been so chosen." that no interference or any kind of interruption shall be offere d L hereafter to their ministry, by any set of men whatever, be they la.ty or clergy. This, in plain homely language, is what the people of Scotland really want, and no half measures will `satisfy those r ho are conscientious, and thi s w ill induce me THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 5, 1842, to push forward the present Bill, as in Committee what I de manded on behalf of the people can be got. Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., believed that the postponement was proposed for the purpose of delaying the measure until after the sitting of the Assembly on the 15th of June next ; and at the same time holding out fallacious hopes, which would prevent that body from taking the measures which they would other wise take for restoring peace to the Church. Having that opi nion, he would support the motion that the Bill be now pro ceeded with. Sir R. PEEL said that in his Parliamentary experience the usual, he might say the universal course, was to permit a Mem ber who undertook legislation to put off his own measure whenever he judged it expedient—(Hear, hear, from the Mi nisterial benches)—and when a Member not connected with any department of the Government, having undertaken a mea sure for the public good, should see reason to postpone it, the uniform course had been to defer to his judgment. He scarcely knew why the present case justified a departure from that course. He was surprised that the Right Hon. Gentleman should be the person to make that proposition.—( Hear, hear.) He bad been for three years in an office connected with the Church of Scotland, and he never attempted his hand at legislation on the subject.--( Loud cheers.) He could not understand how, con nected as he was with Scotland, and convulsed by division as that country was, he never attempted to bring in a measure on the subject.-- ( Hear, hear ) But an Hon. Gentlemen under took to make the attempt, and proposed a delay of six weeks, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, who acquiesced in the delay for three years, could not now wait for a period of six weeks— (Laughter)—but, contrary to the wishes of the Han. Member who brought in the Bill, insisted that his own Bill should be read against his own wishes.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Gen tleman who acquiesced in the motion of the Right Hon. Gen tleman said, that the admirable measure ought not to be post poned for a day.—( (iear, hear.) Why, then, was not a mea sure brought in on the subject. Mr. P. M. STEWA R 1 —A Bill was brought in in the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir R. PEEL—Why did not the Hon Member bring in a Bill? Mr, RTEWART—I was not then in Parliament.—( Hear. ) Sir R. PEEL did not wish to introduce anything like party feeling into so important a measure.--(Hear, hear.) It was a question of a theological nature.—( Hear, hear.) It was a question of a theological nature, and deeply affecting the peace and tranquillity of the people of Scotland, and he regretted any any kind of angry spirit had been introduced--( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman told the simple truth. 'When out of office a settlement of the question was attempted, but it met with resistance from the then Government, from conscientious motives, he had no doubt, from the belief that the measure would not tend to a satisfactory settlement. On their return to power, however, they directed their attention to the subject, and with no other motive than to attempt a termination of those differences which diminished the influense of those whom they ought to support, namely, the Ministers of Scotland. They had reason to believe that a fruitless and in effectual attempt would only aggravate the evil, and the unfor tunate differences which prevailed; and on that ground they abandoned the attempt and the single motive for resum ing the question, was that they had received from Scotland voluntary communications from men of both parties—( Hear, hear)—stating that if the Government took up the subject there was a rpoonable prospect of their being successful. It was upon these communications that they had acted, and not be cause they were terrified or menaced.—( Hear, hear.) Those communications had reached them at a very recent period, ane they thought it would be for the public interest not to rut a stop to the Bill but to ask for its postponement. They did not esk the Honourable Member to abandon his Bill, but to defer the consideration of it for a period of six weeks. He never had spoken on the subject without feeling the deepest interest in the state of the Church of Scotland, and without the deepest regret at the differences which at present existed in that Church and he should consider it one of the proudest acts of the life of any man, if he could bring those differences, by a just and equitable proposition, preserving alike the just rights of the people, and the just rights of the Church, to a sa tisfactory termination,—( Cheers.) If those collisions between spiritual and civil authority, those appeals from Court to Court —that constant mixing up of questions of civil right with questions of spiritual jurisdiction, could be put an end to with the acquiescence of the people of Scotland,—if there was even a hope that such might be the case, he for one would never abandon that hope, would never close the door against it. He should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he were to do so. He hoped the House would not, by now forcing on the discussion, oblige the Government to give up all hope of being able to bring these differences to a satisfactory termination. He hoped the House would so far place confi dence in her Majesty's Government as not to compel an Hon, IkLember whose purity was u nquestioned—whose motives were unquestioned—to bring on his Bill against his own conviction. Mr. RUTHERFORD was as desirous as any Hon. Member could be, that every feeling of acrimony or asperity should be withdrawn from this discussion. He thought the highest credit would be due to any Member, or to any Government, who should be able to bring about a satisfactory settlement Of this question. He for one would never be found offering any unnecessary otpoeition to any such measures.—( Hear. ) He thought the postponement of the measure instead of assisting the settlement of the question would, en the contrary, greatly embarrass it. If the Right lion. Baronet had eepressed himself clearly and distinctly with respect to the result to which nego tiations on the subject might lead, he certainly would not have proposed that this Bill should not be postponed, but they know who were the organs of the opinions of the people and Church of Szotland on this question, and that no negotiation with those parties could prove satisfactory to the people or Church of Scotland. It was e mere fallacy to suppose that it could. He could assure the Iberia Hen, Gentleman opposite, that they would never settle the question if they shoul t legislate upon it according to the principle upon which Lord A.berdeen's Bill was founded. They would but shake the establish ment of the Church of Scotland to its very foundation, He should observe that they were about to postpone the dis cussion of the question at a time when the General Assembly were on the eve of meeting. The General Assembly would meet in the course of three weeks; and it was certainly of great importance that before their meeting the intentions of the House of Commons upon the subject under the considera tion of the House should be made known. That was one of the principal reasons urged in favour of an immediate discussion of the measure. The explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was nothing but a statement of the principle of Lord Aberdeen's Bill, and it was impossible to get anything more out of him. Under those circumstances he must vote for taking the sense of the House on the principle of the Bill. Mr. HUME said, having lately visited Scotland, he was able to bear testimony to the anxiety of the people, in reference to this question. But he did not recollect during the last 25 years, a single instance in which a question of this importance had been brought forward by any one but the Government, and he believed that if ever the question was settled satisfactorily to the community, it must be through the Government. With these views, he must vote for the postpon ment of the question. Captain WEMYSS entirely concurred in the opinion, that if ever the question was satisfactorily settled, it must be through the Government. He did not think that the people of Scot land could expect very much from the Right Hon. Gentle man's Government, with regard to any Bill that might be brought in to ameloriate the Scotch Church. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Fox Maule's amendment Against it Majority. -83 The Salmon Fisheries' Bill went through Committee. PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL. Captain ROUS moved that this Bill be re•commited pro forma. He intended to take the sense of the House on the third reading. Captain PECHELL said that this Bill had been before the House for six weeks, and there were various provisions in it con trary to the title. He wanted to know what the Hon. Gentleman proposed todo in Committee pro forma, because it frequently happened that some of the greatest changes in a Bill took place in Committee pro forma. He wished to know whether the Hon. Gentleman intended to persist in the clause relative to the steam-boats on the river Thames. He hoped the Hon. Member would strike it wit in Committee. II the Hon. Gen tleman would not strike it out, he (Captain Pechell) wouldgive every opposition to the Bill. captain RODS only proposed that the Bill should now be re-committed pro forma, and that the discussion should be taken on the principle of the Bill on the third reading. The Bill was then re-committed pro forma, ordered - to be printed, and the Report taken into further consideration (as we understood) on Wednesday week. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PAYMENT OF WAGES. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. C. BULLER said that he opposed the motion for a Se lect Committee last night, but he did not object to the mode in which the Hon. Member for Knaresborough appointed the Committee, though he had composed it of people of his own way of thinking. He had dealt very fairly in taking almost an equal number of persons from each side, but he made up the Committee of persons of his own way of thinking. He did not find any persons who were engaged in manufac tures, or any who could conduct the inquiry, with a view to their interests. But the Government having acceded to the appointment of the Members, he thought they were respon sible for the composition of the Committee. There could be no greater mischief than to make a light appointment in this way. The Committee would be attended by persons of only one way of thinking, and they had got a quantity of ex parte evidence which would not be properly sifted. It was not his intention to propose any new names himself, but he considered the Government were responsible for its composition. Sir J. GRAHAM considered the subject to be one rather for legislation than inquiry. It was notorious that the truck system did prevail, and he was of opinion that any legislative measure would prove an effectual interference. As the inquiry was more limited now than in the form in which it was pro posed, he had thought it expedient to accede to it. He su , - , gested that the names of the Hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), and the Hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk), be added to the Committee. Mr: . .MUNTZ was satisfi, d that no good would result either to the House or the country, from the inquiry. It should simply be directed to whether the present laws were as strin gent as they could be made ; if they were so, where was the the advantage, or the policy, of increasing their stringency when they could not carry them into effect? He was convinced that whatever law they brought forward, it would be evaded. Mr. REDHEAD YORKE was of opinion that it would he much better for the interests of the labourer, the manufac turer, and humanity, that the motion should have been carried in its original form. Mr. CHARLES BULLER thought that the Committee, as framed by the Hon. Member, would not do justice between the parties. Mr. HARDY thought on a Committee like the present there ought to be no manufacturers ; such a Committee should be appointed as would satisfy the working classes that the law was sufficiently strong to protect them against their mas ters. Being of this opinion he should decline acting upon the Committee at all. Dr. BOW RING thought that the stringeney of the Act was the cause of its violation. Mr. FER RA ND said his desire was to have the Committee as impartial as possible. To guard against the possibility of a charge of partiality, he had mentioned to several Hon. Alem hers his intention of making Lord Ashley the Chairman of the Committee. He had received a letter, from which he would read a passage, to prove the correctness of his statement as to the ill-usage he had experienced at the hands of the Hon. Member for Stockport.—The Hon. Member read an extract from the letter, in which it was stated, that in consequence of he publication of a notefrona the writer to him (Mr. Ferrand) the public Press and the Corn-law League had assailed him in the newspapersand at public meetings. Mr. COBDEN denied that he had violated any confidence. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough read an extract from a let ter reflecting on his (Mr. Cobden's) conduct to his work people ; and afterwards in the course of the evening wrote him a note, simply stating the name of the writer. There was not a word about confidence, nor anything to imply that he (Mr. Cobden) was under an engagement to keep the name of the writer a secret.—(Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which were inaudible in the gallery, Mr. FER RAND said he would not object to the placing of Sir B. Hall on the Committee in lieu of Mr. G. W. Wood. The SPEAKER read the names of the proposed list. Mr. C. BULLER then said that he would oppose the first name, which was that of Mr. Ferrand. After a very desultory conversation, the debate was again adjourned. The Report on the Punishment of Death Bill, and on the Victoria Park Bill, were brought up, and the Bills were ordered to he read a third time to-morrow. The Report on thz. Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings nil] was also brought up, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The House then adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'Clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Commons. ) TUESDAY, MAY 3. UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ,S-c. Petition of the there undermentioned People of the United Kingdom [presented yesterday] considered ; Motion wade, and Question put, .‘ That the Petitioners who signed the Na tional Petition be heard at the Bar of this House, by them selves, their Counsel, or Agents, in support of the allegations in their Petition :"—(Mr. Thomas Duncembe: )—The House divided Blake, Sir Valentine Blewitt, Reginald Bodkin, J. J. Bowring, Dr. lirotherton, J. 13rowne, R. 1). Cobden, Richard Collins, W. Crawford, W. S. Dalryluple, Captain Dash% ood, G. IL Duncan, Lord Duncan, George Easthope, Sir John ' Ellis, Wynn Elphinstone, Howard ielden, J. Pall, Sir B. NORITY-AYES, 49. Hoßond, Robert Rundle, John Hume, Joseph Scholefield, J. jervis, J. Seale, Sir J. Johnstone, Alex. Somers, J. P Muntz, G. F. Strickland, Sir G. Murphy, F. S. Tancred, H. W. O'Brien, J. Thornely, Thomas O'Connell, D. Villiers, Charles P. O'Connell, Maurice Waklcy, Thomas O'Connell, 4 J. Wallace, R. O'Connell, J. I Ward, H. G. Pechell, Captain Williams, Wm. Plumridge, Captain Wool, Benjamin Powell, Caleb Yorke, H. n.edhead Ricardo, John Lewis Roche, E. B. Roebuck, J. A. TELLEUS. Dutloombe, T. . Leader, J. T. MA, Acland, Sir Thomas Aciand, 'l. D. A'Court, Captain Acton, Colonel Adare, Lord Adderley, C. B. Aldan, William .JORITY—NOES, Ffolliott, John Forbes, William Forester, Hon. G. French, F. Fuller, A. E. Gaskell, J. M. Gill, Thomas Gl.tdstone, W. E. Gordon, Hon. W. Gord n, Lord F. Gore, Montague Gore, W. R. O. Goring, H. D. Goulburn, H. Graham, Sir J. Granby, Marquis Greena 1, Peter Greenaway, C. Greer.e, T. G. arey, Sir G. Grimston, Lord Grogan, Edward Halforrl, H. Hamilton, James Hamilton, W. J. Hamilton, Lord C. Hampden, Itenn Hamner, Sir John Harcourt, G. G. Hardy, John Hawes, B. Hay, Sir A. L. Hayes, Sir E. Heathco e, O. J. Hen?a;e, E. Henley, J. W. Hepburn, Sir T. B. Herbert, Hon. S. Hill, Sir Rowland Hillsborough, Earl of Hinde, J. H. Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Hodgson, F. Hodgson, R. Holmes, W. A'Court Hope, Charle, Hamby, John Howard, C. NV. G. Howard, Lord Howard, P. H. Ftnwick, Lord Jackson, J. D. James, W. Jocelyn, Viscount Johnson, W. G. Johnstone, Sir John Johnstone, Hope .lelliffe, Sir W. Jones, T Kelburne, Lo d ' Kerrison, Sir E. Kirk, P. Knatchbull, Sir E. Knight, Henry Gaily Knight, F Winn Labouchere, H. Langston, J. H. Lascelles, W. S. Lawson, Andrew Lefroy, Anthony Legh, George C. Leicester, Earl of Lindsay, H. Lockhart, William Lowther, J. H. Lowther, Colonel Lyall, George Lygon, General Macaulay, T. B Mackenzie, Thomas Mackenzie, W. F. Mac:GE/achy, F. A. Maher, V. Mahon, Lord Mainwaring, Mangles, R. D. Manners, Lord C. Marshall, W. Marsham, Viscount Marton, G. R. Marty n, C, Cecil Master, T. C. Mas erman, John Meynell, H. Miles, W. Mitcalfa, Henry Mitchell, T. A. 237. Morgan, Octavius Morgan, C. Monson, Wiliam Mundy, E. Millet Murray, C. R. S. Napier, Sir Charles Neville, Ralph Newry, Viscount Nicholl, J N orreys, Lord Norreys, sir D. O'Brie , A. Staffbrd O'Brien, W. Smith Ossulston, Lord Oswald, James Owen, Sir J. Parke, C W. Pakington, John S. Palmer, R. Palmerston, Viscount Parker, John Patten, John Wilson Peel, Sir R. Plumptre, J. P. Polhill, F. Pollock Sir F Praed, W. T. Pringle, A. Protheroe, E. Pusev, Pntlip Rashleigh, William Reade, W. M. Reid, Sir J. 11. [lepton, George J. Rice, E. 11. Richards, Richard Rolleston, Colonel Race, Sir George Round, C. G. Round, J. Rous, Hon. Captain It ushbrooke, Colonel Itus,ell, Lord John Sandon, Lord Scott, Hon. F. Seymour, Lard Shaw, F. Shirley, Evelyn J. Shirley, E. P. Sibthorp, Colonel Smith, Abel Smith, J. A. Smith, Ye; non Smyth, Sir 0. H Somerset, Lord G. Somerton, Viscount Stanley, Lord Stanstield, W. It. Stanton, W. H. Stewart, John Strutt, Edward Stuart, W. Vidiers Stuart, H. Sturt, H. C. Sutton, Henry M 'Ferment, J. E. Thesiger, F. Thornhill, George Tollumache, John Townley, John Trench, Sir Frederick Trevor, Hon. 0. R. Trotter, John Turner, E Vane, Lord Marry Vere, Sir C. B. Verner, W. Vernon, Granville Vesey, Hon. T. Vivian, John Ennis Vivian Hon. Captai Waddington, H. S. kVawn, John T. Welby, 0. carte Wemyss, Captain Wilshere, W. Winnington, Sir 1 Wood, C. Wood, Colonel T. NVorsley, Lord Wortley, J. Stuart Yorke, Hon. E. T. Young, John Mhz, :John Peter Antrobus, Edmund Arbuthnot, Hun. H Archdall, General Arundel. Lord Bigot, Hou. W. Bailey, Joseph, jun. Baillie, Colonel Baillie, H. J. Baird, Will am Bankes, George Baring, W. B. Baring,!F. T. Barnard, E. G. Baskerville, T. B. M. Beckett, William Berestord, Captain Beresford, Major Bernard, Viscount Blackburn, John 1. Boiircin, W. H. Boldero, Henry G. Borth w ick, Peter %Meld, Beriah Bradshaw, James Bramston, T. W. Broadley, Hoary Brodie, W.B. Browne, W. Bruce, Lord E. Bruce, C. L. . Buckley, Edmund Buller, C. Bailer, Sir J. B. Y. Bunhury, 'Thomas Busfeild, W. Campbell, A. Cardwell, Edward Carew, It. S. Carnegie, Captain Cavendish, Hon. U. : - .!iiarteris, lion. F. Chelsea, Viscount Chetwotle, Sir John Cholmondeley, H. Christmas, William Christopher, It. A. Clay, Sir W. layton, It. It. Clements, Lord Clerk, Sir G. ..;ochrane, A. Cockburn, Sir G. Coll.orne, W. Ridley Colville, C. It. Compton, H. Connolly, Colonel Coote, Sir C. H. Copeland, W. Corry, H. L. Ccurtenay, Viscount Cowper, Hon W. Cripps, J. Droner, Hon. Dawson Darby, George Dawnay, Hon. W. Denison, E. Beckett Dick, Quintin Dickinson, F. IL Oivett, E. _ _ Douglas, Sir C. E. Douglas, J. D. S. Ormieswell, W. Drummond, H. H. Dugdale, W. S. Du Pre, George East, James huller Eaton, Richard J. Ebrington, Viscount Egerton, W. T. Eipi ton, Sir P. G. tarot, Lore Ernlyn, Viscount Escott, Bichkum EYi.ns, William prPham, E. B. ~ ;i4&011. Sir It. A. Ferrand, W. B. Filmer, Sir E Fitzroy, Captain TELLERS. Frernantla. Sir I'. Baring, 11 B. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, May 4. ATNORNEV•GENERAI. V VISCOUNT CANTERBURY. The arguments in this case, which commenced yesterday, were resumed to-day, but had not concluded when - his Lord ship rose, shortly after one o'clock, to attend her Majesty's levee, ROLLS' COURT, Mat/ 4. BROWN V. KEATING. The hearing of this part-heard cause was continued to-day The facts present no feature of general interest. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Mayo. (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) Causes of no interest, except to the parties concerned, occu pied his Honour, the Vice-Chancellor of England, the whole morning. His Honour Vice-Chancellor BRUCE did not sit to-day, in consequence, as was stated, of its being levee-day. (Before Vice-Chancellor %Vic RAIL ) MALLAGIEU V. MILLER. This cause was mentioned to-day, and was ordered to stand over until the Counsel had agreed upon a case. COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, May 4. The Court was occupied with the case of the Queen v. Elmes, which was a motion for a new trial, and merely involved points respecting a right of passage. BAIL COURT, May 4. YATES V. LEVI. Mr. EDWARDS appeared to show cause against the rule ob tained in this case, calling upon the plaintiff and his attorney to show cause why the writ of summons, and all subsequent proceedings should not be set aside, a n d w hy they should not pay the defendant's costs. The rule was obtained on two grounds: the first was that the attorney's residence was not endorsed on the writ of summons ; and the second that the at torney had not taken out his certifieate. With regard to the first, the plaintiff's attorney stated in his affidavit that his real residence was endorsed, and that he had lived there for two years, and one of his servants swore that when Mr. Yates called she did not say that her master did not reside there, but that he was not there "at present." With regard to the second ground, the plaintiff's attorney declared in the affidavit that he had been in the country during the months of November and December of last year ; that he wrote to his clerk to take out his certificate, but that, instead of doing so, he left kis employment without his know:edge, and that he did not therefore know that his cer tificate was not taken out. Mr. CI-JAMBE as, in support of the rule, read the affidavit of Mr. Yates, in which he swore that he called at the residence of the plaintiff's attorney, and was told he was not there. The residence of the plaintiff was likewise not to be found in the Master's book. With regard to the certificate, he contended that the attorney being guilty of irregularity, the rule ought to pass His Loansfixe discharged the rule without costs. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 4. The Court was occupied today in hearing causes upon the special paper, none of which involved matter of general interest. CONS IS TOI? COURT, Mop 4. CHURCH-RATES. —THE BRAINTREE CASE. GOSLING V. GOSLING. At the sitting of the Court this day, Dr. LusititsaTose de livered his judgment in th is case, on the admission of the libel. He said, before he procee ded to the principle question ,at issue in this case, it was necessary that he should dispose of some objections that had been m ade to the admie.ability of the libel. One of these objections was, that at the meeting at which the rate was proposed, an amendment was moved, which concluded by finally refusing the rate. No poll was demanded or taken, and on a show of hands the amendment was therefore declared carried. Now, the Churchwardens being in the minority, proceeded themselves to make the rate now in dispute, and it is contended that it was neces• nary, in the first instance, that a poll should have been taken, on the ground that in many cases an individual may be entitled to a plurality of votes, and that the real number cannot be ascertained unless he voted ; and next, that in a show of hands a majority of the individuals present may not censtilute the majority of votes. He thought the objection could not be sus tained, for this reason : that no po 1 being demanded, the whole Vestry must be taken as a cqu i esc i n g i n the deci s io n of the Chairman. If it was n ecessary t h at th ere s h ou ld a l ways b e a poll, though it should not be demanded, it would occasion great inconvenience and a great impediment to the dispatch of public business. It must also b ,be remembered, though the argument was n that if the majority must be considered asonot inamendment, it was a fair presumption that,t altogethert he present conclusive, fayurnf c thea se they were in favour of the rate. That argument was not alway s conclusive. It might be that some voted against the amendment who disapproved of the manner in which it was put, and who at the same time might be dis posed to negative the rate itself. On this head, therefore, the defendant had ne substantial reason to complain, though pos sibly the fact might have some bearing in a subsequent view of the case. It was stated a s an objection to tile rate, that the estimate included the repairs of the Church. It appeared certainly to include the chancel-door, but as it might be the door both of the chancel and the common nave, this could not be considered fatal to the rate, as it was a circumstance that might be expected. The last of these objections arose from the pleading to the conclusion of the fifth article of the libel, where it was alleged that a large number of the inhabitants rated were in such a state of poverty that the rate could not be recovered from them, and that the loss extended to 1,000/. This fact might be urged to meet any objection that the rate was excessive, but he was not aware that it vitiated the legality of the rate itself, or rendered it his duty to reject the libel. It bud been considered that all who were excused from paying poor -rates, on account of poverty, should be excused from church -rates ; but he could not. take upon himself to say that the occusiers in this case ought to be ex cused on account of their povvrtY• Having disposed of these objections, he would now go t o 'the important questions raised upon the admission of this libel. It was necessary, first, that he should give a brief summary of the facts. The decree was issued from this Court, founded on affidavits setting forth that the church was out of repair, and that a rate had for several years been refused, and citing the prohibition that had emanated in the former case from the Queen's Bench, together with the circumstances under which it was issued. The decree called on the Churchwardens and parishioners to put the church into a proper state of repair, and ordering the Churchwardens to call a Vestry on a certain day, at a certain hour, and in a certain place, for the purpose of making a rate, and directing the parishioners to attend and make it. That decree was duly signed, and the Churchwardens declared their readiness to sub mit to the lawful authority of the Court. The Vestry met on 15th of last July, and a rate was proposed ; an amendment of considerable length was proposed, the contents of which it was no part of his duty to examine; the amendment refusing the rate was moved, and on being put to the show of hands, the Vicar, who was in the chair, declared it to be carried. No poll was taken, and all therefore acquiesced in his declaration. The Churchwardens, with severalother individuals, then signed the present rate, which was not again put to the Vestry. In ! the present case then, the question he had to decide was, whether the rate so trade, was legal and valid, If it were a legal and valid rate, the libel must he aannttett ; if not, it inu t be rejected ; but it should be borne in mind, that all the ob servations he was about to make he intended to apply to nothing hut the validity or invalidity of the rate ; this was the sole question he had to determine, and to that his observations would be confined. He was anxious to state his opinion and the grounds of it, and he would consider, first, the case of Gaurdan v. Selby, in its bearing on this present rate; second, the effect of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench on the former Braintree case ; thirdly, the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the same case ; fourthly, he should endeavour to examine the Ecclesiastical and Common Law, and their authority in respect to the vali dity of the rate in question ; and, fifthly and lastly, he should apply himself to the doctrine of the election of corporate officers and Members of Parliament, which doctrine, it was contended, ought to govern the present case, an uphold the validity of the rate. With regard to the case of Gaurdan v. Selby, it appeared to him, that not only had the doctrine laid down in that case been repudiated in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer Cham ber, but the Court of Queen's Bench impugned its authority, and that in very strong terms. He then quoted the decision 'of the Court of Queen's Bench, which im pugned the decision as laid down in the case referred to. Discarding, therefore, the notion that the case of Gaurdan v. Selby was any longer a precedent to govern and bind down his own judgment, he would now consider whether, though no longer lending as a precedent for the position attempted to be established in the former case, yet it ought to be considered as an authority not to govern him, but to which he ought to pay consideration in the present ease. He had carefully examined all the proceedings in that case—he had done so before—and he was not disposed to retract any one observation he had for merly made upon that case. He would not occupy time by referring to all the particulars of the case, but some might be slightly touched on, in order that the grounds of h.e opinion might be clearly manifest, and might not rest on ge neral declaration. He disclaimed having at any time laid any stress on the decision of that case. There were some f acts and circumstances connected with that case which, after ail the consideration he could bestow upon them, and having read all that was written in explanation of that case, still appeared to him to be utterly inconsistent with all regularity of proceeding in those Courts beyond what had ever happened. One of the circumstances which struck his attention on the present occasion was (aid the able Counsel who argued the case had, he was surprised to find, taken no not ice of it), the irregularity in the proceedings. In this case of Gaurdan v. Selby, the same individual was Surrogate in the Archdeacon's Court, the Vicar-General's Court, and the Consistory Court. That would account for the Court sitting in the same place—for the individual pro ceeded against being summoned to the same place; but it could never account for what appeared in those proceedings the utter confusion between the two Courts, so that no man could ven ture to say, after he had examined the original proceedings, in which Court the suit was commenced and carried on. He would not go through all the proceedings in that case from the commencemeut, but would only point out one or two facts or circumstances sufficient for his present purpose. The Court here refereed to the proceedings in the above-men, tioneci case, showing that the citation in it was directed in the name of the Archdeacon alone, and yet the person cited was t o ap pear in the Consistory Court. The libel was in the name both of the Archdeacon and Vicar-General, and the monition to answer the libel was in the name of the Archdeacon only, and cited Gaurdan to appear in the Consistory Court. He would not go through other circumstances in that case which appeared equally remarkable as showing the confusion in it from beginning to end. But there was one circum stance, infinitely more remarkable, to which he would just advert, namely, that in the libel, which was dated November 1796, it was stated that the rate was made by the majority of the Vestry, and yet that rate was proved on evidence nit to have been made by the majority of the Vestry. Those were some of the circumstances which struck his mind in the consideration of this case, but it appeared to him not to have attracted that notice, which, under other circumstances, such a case would necessarily have caused. The allegations and pleadings, that that rate was not made by consent of the majority of the Vestry, were signed by Lord Stowell, then sir William Scott, and were never opposed in the Arches Court. Then there was not a single authority cited one side or the other in the arguments. But with regard to the present case, whether he ought to receive the case of Gaurdan v. Selby as overruling his judgment, or rather, whether he ought to depart from the exercise of his own judgment, and bow to it as a precedent applicable in the present case, it was clear from the report of Dr. Robinson that Sir Wm. Wynn had not the slightest notion that he was considering the question which the Contrt was on the present occasion to decide, and consequently Sir W. Wynn could not have decided it. Sir W. Wynn thought he was deciding the question, when the Vestry had re fused a rate, whether it was competent to the Churchwardens to make that rate ; but he never dreamt of the present ques tion, whether such a rate bring made by the Churchwardens and the minority of the Vestry, was a valid one. Looking therefore to these circumstances, and that the case was ex pressly cited as an authority, and yet that, upon at least its original authority, it was not set up by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, for all those reasons he thought that that cane w as not only not a precedent, but not even an authority on the pre • sent occasion. It was more than probable that the pressure of business when Lord Stowell had become Judge of the Admiralty Court, and the little interest excited by the case, that less re search and reference to authorities were brought to bear on the ease, than would be so under other circumstances. Proceeding in the course which he ( Dr. Lushington ) had pro posed to himself on the present occasion, he would next ex amine the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the former Braintree case. What was the derision, and how far was it applicable to the altered circumstances of the case now before the Court? The decision upon that occasion was, that the Churchwardens. after the rate had been refused by the ma jority of the Vestry, could nut make a. valid rate. That was the sole question then, and it was decided with legal strictness. But it was clear the Court of Queen's Bench never contemplated the distinction taken by the Court of Exchequer Chamber be tween a rate made by the Churchwardens alone. and a rate made by the Churchwardens and a minority of the Vestry. The opi • ',ion of the Queen's Bench was clear. That Court derided on the principle that the rate made against the consent of the ma jority of the Vestry was illegal. How was he to deal with that decision? Not as a precedent, battering and controlling the free exercise of his own opinion in the present case, for the Court of Exchequer Chamber had declared that the late decision of the Court of Queen's Bench ought not to be considered. But he apprehended that it was his duty to consider the principles and reasoning on which that decision was founded, and how far they were appli cable to the present case. The first principle was that the law required a clear demonstration that every tax was lawfully imposed. That doctrine was in s•rict unison with the principle laid down by Lord Tenterden in the ease of Cotton e. Hardy, 2d Adolphus and Bingham, a select vestry case, .in which he decided, that with respect to the Church Building Act, he could not give the vestry the power of imposing a church-rate, because that power had not been specifically accorded to them by that Act. The next principle it appeared to lam super fluous to notice. It was that the imposition of a tax must be directed either by Act of Parliament, or common law, or by custom immemorial. The third principle was to the effect, that no usage prevailing in support of such a tax could be received as evidence against it. Fourthly, to impose the tax in a different way was evidence against the power claimed. Fifthly, the absence of such power in the books of Reports, was evidence against it ; and, sixthly, the onus of proving the legality of the power claimed, neces sarily devolved on the parties who claimed it. These seemed to him the chief general principles the Court of Queen's Bench had applied to the case before him. But what did the Court of Queen's Bench do when the case came before it as a Court •,f Error ? It agreed that there was no power of making a rate by the Churchwardens alone, against the decision of the Vestry; but it also held that there was a wide and substantial difference between the Churchwardens alone, and the Churchwardens n d the minority of the Vestry together, as to making a rate. for in case of a refusal by the parishioners to make a rate, if the Churchwardens possessed the power of making it alone, they might do it at a future time, however distant. This was the opinion of the Court, openly and distinctly stated, in the words he had quoted ; and it was to this that be must devote his best attention. But first, it was necessary to know what the Court of Error had declared, what it would not do, and what it had reserved. The Court said it would no' enter into a discussion whether the rate, as made by the Church wardens at the parish meeting, was a valid rate or not. lf, . the election of corporation officers, the majority only protest against the election, the minority have been held to represent the whole number. Again, in the case of a rate made by a minority of the parishioners and the Churchwardens, the Court would give no opinion on it, but desired to reserve to itself the liberty of forming an opinion on it whenever the case should occur. The present case was unfettered by the case of Guardan v. Selby, as the ques tion was undecided by the Courts of Queen's Bench and the Exchequer Chamber, but it received great consideration in the Court of Error, both with reference to the general law of the case, and its possible analogy to cases of frequent occurrence in Corporations. First, then, was the present rate valid by the ecclesiastical and common law, without resorting to the analogy of Corporation law. There is, in the opinion of the Court of Exchequer, a wide and substantial difference be tween a rate made by a churchwarden and the minority of the vestry, and one made by the churchwardens alone in Vestry. It was most important to weigh ants ascertain in what that wide and substantial difference consisted, for on the existence of that. distinction, as far as this view extended, de pended the applicability of the decision ; between the two cases there was one most important and substantial difference, videlicet the time whon the rate was made, whether it was made at the Vestry immediately after the re•usal by the majo rity of the Vestry, or at a subsequent period by the Church wardens alone, for it was obvious if it were not valid when made in the Vestry by the Churchwardens alone. it was impossible to ax any time within which it could be made. There was nothing to exclude the time from being a month, or six months, or even ten months, and the effect of this might be that the churchwar dens, by postponing the making of the rate, might, if they had the power of doing it by themselves, not in the Vestry, snake a rate upon consideration of subsequent . circumstances ins which perhaps ought to hare been submitted . in the first o _ t l a e n s‘ ce itit to . the Vestry. It was true that this difference was .i f . portence, if the doctrine that the Vestry w f asmere y mieisterial, was adopted to its full extent, for the Churchwardens were the only jedges of what was necessary, and the Vestry were bound to raise the money for them without any opinion either of the matter itself, or whether the rate was made by the Vestry or by the Churchwardens afterwards, the difference could not be of so mush importance. But on the supposition that the Vestry had some discretion to exercise, he agreed with the Court above, and should say that the distinction was an important decision. He could not understand how, in the present case, the concurrence of the minority could confer any legality on the act, which would not attach to it if made be the Churchwardens alone. The minority might consist of num . '. hers from a mere minority down to a single indieidual. He could not rely on this difference. He would now endeavour to consider whether there was any authority at common or ecclesiastical law as applied to the present case, so as to render this rate valid, though the former rate was illegal. There was one par ticular circumstance attending the making the present rate which must not he left out of consideration, for he believed it was of vital importance to the case. This rate was made, not at a Vestry summoned in the ordinary manner, but in conse quence of a monition issued from this Court, calling en the Churchwardens to take the necessary steps to put the church in repair, and to call a Vestry for the purpose of making a rate. He had had some doubts, and expressed them ' and they were not now altogether removed, as t o th e propriety of fixing the day and hour of the Vestry in the monition. Be that as it might, the rate was made in pursuance of the direc tion of this Court, and till the contrary should he decided he must consider that direction as legal, and made on competent authority. But with regard to a rate so made, though there were precedents with regard to the issuing of a monition, yet with regard to a late made by the Churchwardens and the minority of the Vestry, he confessed he found in Ecclesiastical law no prece dent whatever in the single case of Rogers v. Davenant, and it was certain that this case was not an authority, for making the rate, in conjuction with the Vestry. Since the last hearing, he had carefully examined the precedents col lected by Archdeacon Hale, but he could find in them no trace of an authority affirming the validity of a rate made by the Churchwardens in conjunction with the minority of the Vestry. There was one case indeed, occurring in 1601, in which a rate was made by the direction of the Churchwarden alone, to reimburse the Churchwardens of a former year. But he thought that none of these precedents came up to the circumstances of the present case. A precedent applicable to the • resent case weuhl be me here a rate was in .'e by the Ciaurchwarders and a minority :if Vestry, and afterwards enfot cell by the Ecclesiastical Court , and where the proceedings were had against individual parish ioners. That was indispensably necessary. ( Hero the Judge entered into a classification of the various questions in cases somewhat similar to the present, in none of which, he said, he could discover a case of a rate made by the Church wardens being allowed, much less of its being enforced. Remembering the deep interest which this question of Church rates had excited, and the laborious and painful investigation which had been made by the most learned persons respecting it ; also, that the questions were nicely divided, and that the present point, and those intimately connected with it, were adjudicated upon by no less than twelve Judges of the land, and that no ecclesiastical authority had been produced upon it, he might venture to say that there was no such case in existence; and as it would be but a mere waste of time, and a false parade of authorities, to go through the other cases, he would abstain from citing them. A similar observation applied to any investigation he had been able to make respecting the authorities of common law. If there had been any authority applying to the case of a rate made by the Churchwardens and the minority of the Vestry, could any one doubt but that it would he produced. En Ventris' reports, there was a solitary case, but there was nothing in it, save conjectures unsupported by facts, and it could not by possitility be made to apply to the present case. All the authorities cited against the validity of the form of a rate, had a strong application to the present case, inasmuch as they spoke of the majority in the Vestries. It would unnecessarily occupy time it he were to advert to those precedents and the Reports which had been published in former cases. This, then, was his opinion, that in the total absence of any authority, of either ecclesiastical or common law, to support the validity of this rate, it was clear that, upon such grounds, it could be supported. If he were, then, to enforce such a rate, he would be making a law, and net declaring one ; and that, too, in a matter where every Court hail been most cautious, namely, the inaeositi ,n of taxes. Those preli minary considerations having been disposed of, he would now address himself to the last question, namely, whether, there tieing no authority, as already states in support of this rate, it was notwithstanding to be sustained by analogy to the law aps pi ieable to particular corporations and to Parliamentary elections. In applying himself to that part of the question he felt the utmost distrust. When he approached the subject of manda muses and quo warranto's, he mistrusted himself. An analogy had been attempted to be drawn between the case of members of a Corporation, assembled together to proceed to the election of a member of that Corporation. The majority refuse to elect ; the minority, proceed to the election, and the election of the minority is held to be a validone, and the majority who re fused to proceed to the election, are held to have thrown away their votes. It was contended that the case of Church-rates was analogue to this, and that those refusing this rate had thrown their votes away. In order to come to this conclusion, it was necessary, first to understand the principle on which the case had been decided at common-law, and secondly', to compare the facts of the two cases, in order to ascertain what was the analogy subsisting between them. It was said the cases were analogous. He would endeavour to ascertain if this were the case. In order to du this it was ne cessary to consider the legal origin and usages of Church-rates themselves. That the parish was bound to repair the Church was established by all the ecclesiastical authorities, and by all those of common-law likewise, but with regard to the nature of the remedy to be applied in case of refusal, and with regard also to the means of enforcing that remedy, there Was great difference of o pi n i on . Th e St a t u t e d e circum spectu Reclesice established the fact, first, that before the pass ing of that Statute the parishioners were accustomed to keep in repair the nave of the church ; and, secondly, that the Spiritual Courts of those days punished persons refusing to du so. The Statute further directed that, in all such cases, the Spiritual Judge alone was to judge, and that the Common Law Courts were not to issue any protection against him. That proved that the Temporal Courts had in some cases interfered by prohibition, and that, by that statute, they were restrained from doing so ; and, consequently, that the obligation to repair was to be enforced in the Spiritual Courts only. As it was a natural obligation, nothing was said about it in the Statute, but all the authorities went to show that it was a natural obligation. At that time the whole na tion professed one religion—to profess a different religion from that professed by the nation, was in those days heresy, and a capital crime—to support that religion, was a duty binding on all, and therefore every one was equally accountable for the upholding of the sacred edifice. The religious nature, therefore, of the obligation itself gave juris diction to those Courts for enf ircing it, which were established to maintain the established religion of the land. The Lunde tMn of the whole proceeding was, and still continued to be, that the enforcement of this obligation was pro salute anima, and therefore the Spiritual Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The obligation was therefore clearly a personal one, and independent of property, although it might he measured by property. The ability to bear was the standard by which the extent of the obligation wee to be measured, and, therefore, the ability of every species of property to bear the tax, was to be considered—none was exempt. In those days, land and stock were the only property yielding a profit, and for that reason, as in the case of the poor-rates, land and stock were the only propesty generally assessed, but no property was exempt. In the Poole case, which had been heard about !es euty years since, it was decided that ships and stock in trade were Labia to be rated. It mattered not if the owner or occupier resided out of the parish. He was still liable to the Church-rate. 'I his Poole case was to be found in the 2d vol. of Dr. Adams's Reports, page 33. In that case it had been held that, as it had been the custom to rate stock in trade, the omission of stoic in trade was fatal to the rate. The origin of Church-rates was unknown, nor was there any mode of fixing the exact date when they were first levied. The earliest case was to be found in the year-books in the time of Edward 111. This igno ante of the origin of Church-rates could be easily accounted for. The extent of the obligation to repair depending on the ability of the individual, the Vestry would naturally be led to adopt measures to escertain the ex tent of that ability, and the rate would be a consequence incidental to the obligation. Then eith regard to the remedy in cases of refusal or neglect, it was manifest that that the remedy must be in strict keeping with the obligation, and as the obligation was a religious one, the remedy was to be sought in the Spiritual Courts alone. The obligation was not a common-law obligation. Before the statute de cireum spectu Ecclesice, Spiritual Courts had punished persons, not for not paying rates, but because the repairs necessary to be done had been left undone. Those punishments consisted of excommunication and the infliction of fines, arid of inter dicts. These remedies were all-powerful in those days. Then came the Reformation, but no toletation. one was suffered to entertain a religious opinion different from the religious opinion of the Establishment, and in the Ist of Elizabeth the Court of High Commission was estab lished, and no one who knew what were the powers of that Court could doubt its efficiency for the purpose of enforcing the fulfilment of these obligations. when its powers were wielded by such men as Laud and his coadjutors. That Court was abolished in the time of Charles the First, and the Ecclesiastical Courts were left to their own powers. Those powers, in regard to enforcing Church-rates, hail always beta exercised in a criminal, and not in a civil form, anti that such powers had up to a late period been effective no person could doubt. Those powers which had been given them by the Statute de eircumspectu Ecclesice, were still in existence. That law was not an obsolete law; it had still a legal existence; but the Court had never before been applied to to enforce their payment, or to punish for the non-payment of such a rate as the present. He was unwilling to speak on the subject of mandamuses. It had beers said that a mandamus might be issued calling upon the Churchwardens to make a Church-rate. Now, the question of Church-rates it appeared to him was a matter purely of ecclesiastical cognizance. Church rates were incident to the obligation to repair, and that obligation was a matter of spiritual, and not of lay cognizance, and could not alone be enforced by the Ecclesiastical Courts. Having thus stated his notice of the nature of the obligation, he would now consider the means of enforcing it. It was said the case of a municipal corpora tion refusing to proceed to the election of an officer was a ease strictly analogous to the present—and the case of Olding and Weeks, 2d. Burroughs, had been quoted as establishing a doctrine strictly analogous to the one sought to be established in the present case. Now what were the facts of that case? It appeared that an election was to take place of a Town-elerk fur the town of Nottingham ; that when the elec tors met one portion of the constituency, the minority consi dered the office to be filled by the Mayor having. nominated a person to that office. Tee minority, however, consisting ot nine, proceeded to hold the election, and chose Mr. Segrave to fill the office. The majority, consisting of 11, protested against the election, but no other candidate being nominated no divi sion took place. The Court of Queen's Bench decided that the Mayor had no right to nominate that person to fill rte office, and that the election of Mr. Segrave was a good election. With regard to the circumstances, it was im possible not to see that two cases could not be more widely different than that case mid the present. But it might be argued that in the decision of that case ssoate principle had been laid down, which might be a guide in coming to a judgment on the present. The grounds of that de cision, as expressly stated by Lord Mansfield, were that as the electors present did not vote at all they must he h , •141 to have virtually acquiesced in the election by those who did, There wasanother principle laid down also, which was, that the elector elm voted forests unqualified person, hay ing had previous notice given him of such di-qualitleation, had thrown his vote assay. Now, how could those principles lee applied ti the present case? A Vestry had been held pursuant to a monition from the Court. The Churchwardens had proposed a rate; an amend ment refusing the rate had been proposed and carried by the ma jt rity of the parishioners in Vestry assembled, and the Church wardens had then proceeded to make a rate of 2s. in the pound. That rate had been signed by themselves, and by the Vicar, anti by some of the parishioners ; but it had not been prop sed to the Vestry, or, the part of the Churchwardens, for it appeared that after the show of hands had been taken there there hat been no voting. 'fhe facts were totally different, and the p inciple on which the cases alluded to had been decided were inapplicable us the present cases How could the Court, by declaring the rate a valid one, take upon itself to decide that because a rate was proposed it must be ye ed in a moment; that the Vestry had not a right to consider what re pairs were necessary, how they were to be performed, and how they were to b e paid for, wh e th er by one rate or by several, or in what proportion theinhabitants were t o b e assessed ? In the Nottingham case the election wa s h e ld to b e good, because the voters protestin g agai nst it did not vote at all ; those were the very words of Lord Mansfield; but that had not hap pened in the present instance. The majority hr , d voted in favou r o f the amends cut refusi ng th e r at ; 'I here w as no ana l ogy b etween the cases. The question to het, decided was, n e t w h et h er i t was a natural obligation e.von the parishioners to keep the parish church in repair —snot whe ther the Court could proceed to the enforcing n r s that obli gation, but whether a rate made, as the present one had been, by' a minority of the parishioners, was a valid one whether the votes were not thrown away, and the act which was directed to be done by the parish, was not done by the parish, but by a few individuals. But how could he understand that this was what the law, as received in theta Courts, required it to he a rate made by the majority of the parish,? Then, again —with every diffidence in his own abil'oy to understand, or perspicuity to explain—he was compelled to say, that he did not perceive the analegieswhieh were alleged to exist between this case and that of a corporation, to which a manda mus had been issued. But if a mandamus were issued from the Court of Queen's Bench to compel a corporation to do an act which the majority were bound by law to do, would it. be a suf ficient answer to that writ to say that a part of the corporation bed obeyed that law. Having gravely considered all the alleged analogies of the common law, and care f u ll y examined the cases relied oftfor their suppo r t, the impression on his mind was that none of those principles ur autho rities were applicable to the present ease. Even if he could see similarity where he saw nothing but dis similarity, he should still hesitate before, upon his own judg ment, presiding as he . did over . an inferior tribunal he should introduce here doctrines hitherto unheard of in , these (the Ecclesiastical, Courts. It seemed to him incredible, tha if the law were as laid down in the Exchequer Chamber, in the course of so many centuries during which these Courts had existed, and during which so many great minds had beers ap plied to ascertain what the law of these Courts was, it should I have been first discovered in the year 1841. He would be I still more astonished if such were the fact, as this law would j be a ready remedy for mans - evils, a n d would do away with: many harsh proceedings. Still, until the year 1841, there was a perfect silence an the subject of this mode of ob- I taining judgment; but on the contrary, in all the cases the making of rates was held to he in the majority 0: the V • ! ,,y. The ;,r f irrn. , nt th remedy i. no iouge' to thin .me,. -a; he , ni ans.,ered by a hi;4h s uthnrily—t he Giurt of Queen's Bench itself. Th, decision of the Court of Queen's Bench to which he alluded, was given in reference to the " Wager of Battle," which was as revolting and unchristian a practice as had been handed down from the times of ancient darkness. What said Lord Ellenborough? That " the wager of battle, however re volting it might appear to many, was the law of the land, and he was hound to atiminisfer it." One more observation occurred to him (Dr. Lushington) before he quitted this case. It he were willing (which he was not) to admit the doctrine laid down in the Exchequer Chamber, that the rules of law governing elections was analogous to this case, the law was no such thing. He was bound to decide this case not by the common law but by the ecclesiastical ; and he could not find. in the whole body of that law, or in all the records of eases and decisions, the faintest testimcny of any analogy between proceedings in the matter of Churah-rates and elections, Par liamentary or corporate. He was therefore bound to reject this , libel, and to pronounce the rate invalid. He was avvarr of the responsibility which rested on him in this matter. lies knew how many evil cowequences would be ascribed to his mit carriage, if he had failed to find what was the law. He had en deavuured honestly, fearlessly, and assiduously, to find the law, and having found it, he would not resort to subtle re finements to defeat it. He was well persuaded, file:* the history of this country, that the continuance of bad laws, and the prevention of good ones had, in no small measure, been occasioned by laudable, though mistaken ende a yours to make the law measure out according to particular notions of justice, and to make subtle d , stinctions to ward..og evil and injurious results, which, if they be the effect of the law, ought to be remedied not by the "Judge but by the Le gislator. LLOYD'S SHIPPING LONDON, MAY 4.—Wind this day at noon variable. DEAL, MAY 3, A.m., wind N.W. moderate.—tith, W.S. W. light.—Arrd. Minerva, Furlong. Mauritius ; Anna Victoria, Arocina, Tenerife; Porcupine, Cleveland, Firnyrna. Arrd. from the river, Lori Lowther. for China; ditto and sld. Adelaide, China; Berk,hire, Inglis and Margaret, Bombay; Medora, Cape Circassian; Montreal, Jane Lowden, .Zlirarnichi. OFF DOVER, MAY 3.—Arrd. Pawasso, westward, for London. fiutsToL, MAY 3.—Arid. Eliza, Saunders, Matvitius. MlLroan, MAY 2.—Arrd. Recovery, Sierra Leone. PORTSIWITTH, MA 3.—Wind Y.N.W.—Arrd. Alert, Hurth, St. Cruix, for Copenhagen. ' " . FAL LOUTH , MAY 2.—Wind variable and high..—Sltl. Oriental steamer, Alexandria; Montrose steamer, Gibraltar. , . . POOLE, MAY 3.—Sid. Lord Nelson, Prince Eugene, watt Liebe, Newfoundland. MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. TIMES.—The premium on gold at Paris is 10 per mille, which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. 10id. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 25. 404., and the exchange at Paris on London at short being 25. 64, it follows that gold is 0.88 per cent. dearer in London than in Paris, By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 433 per mark, which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. lOid. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13.9, and the exchange at Hamburgh on London at short being 13.111, it follows that gold is 1.02 per cent. dearer in London than in Hamburgh. A correspondent, whose statements were used on Sa turday in various matters relating to railway statistics, is said, by better authorities, to be incorrect in many of them. For example, the general receipts for 1841, in stead of 1,500,0001., were near 3,000,000/.; the cost of the Liverpool and Manchester was not 27,000/. but 46,0001. per mile ; and the average cost of English railways, in stead of being 12,0001.. is believed, in round numbers, to be nearer 40,000/. per mile. STATE OF TRADE. There is no change in our market since last week: ; the same depression, and the same gradual and progros sive reduction of prices still continuing, as the excess of suply over,demand, and the necessities of the spinners and manufacturers, place the control of the market almost entirely in the hands of purchasers. With the exception of good qualitities of twist, suitable.to the Russian mar- ket, which are at present in fair demand, almost every article of yarn or manufactured goods is rather worse ' to sell than last week ; and we think that parties, who attended the market yesterday, must have rerad with some astonishment the accounts of improvement itt the condition of the trade, which have recently peared in some of the newspapers, both local and - metropolitan. Those accounts, we are sorry to ; gay,' have no better foundation than the wishes of the p.sr' ties with whom they originated ; for at no period wt re general prices so low as yesterday ; and, with the e: eeption of the descriptions of yarn above alluded to, se. dom has there been greater difficulty in making sales t ( 7 , any considerable amount. We regret to learn that timer !' have been two failures, of some magnitude, in the wool. ' len cloth trade at Leeds ; but they do not affect this dis' trict in any material degree. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MAY 2.—There ha # been a better feeling manifested in the market to-day and more inquiry for goods. Considerably more piece - have been sold, but at extremely low prices. The ii t creased sales may be partly accounted Rr by th e ne: is approach of the 14th of May, which is a general ren day in Rochdale; and it is well known by the merchants thut many of the small makers are under the necessia; of selling on that account. The wool market has bee quite as flat as usual, and prices looking down. HUDDERSFIELD MARKET, MAY 3.—This market vir much the same to-day as last week. • Perhaps there vi a better. demand for light summ e r moods for the Ist 3 " trade ; but generally there was little done; "nor -1,r9 there any improvement in wools. P r i ces are In f c ",.. ii to nal. In the warehouses business is flat. l e s bOt at this season, business on the whole was never km toW n , to be worse ; and week after week records fresh fai Or e " amongst the manufacturers. BRITISH AND FOREI G N 818 LE SOCIETY. The Thirty-eight Annual Meeting of this Society, w'Aiell ha s for its object the propagation of the Scriptures both at bogi e and abroad, was held yesterday in the large room r j f E xe ter Hall. The chair was taken at eleven o'clock by Lord Bexley , who entered, accompanied by the Bishops of Winches..er, Chester, Worcester, and Norwich ; on the platform we also observed the Chevalier Bunsen, the Earls of Chichester and Harrowby, Ih s Alargnis Cholmondeley, Lord. Teignmouth, Lord Glenelg, Vis count Sandon, M.P., Sir T. D. Ackland, 'M.P., the Dean 0 , Salisbury, the Hon. and. Rev. M. S. Villiers, &c. &c. The body of the Hall was crowded, the audience consisting princi pally of iadies, and there were a few persons also in the gallery. The Report was read by the Rev. Mr. Brandram, fro m which it appeared that durimg the year thr, total amount of re* ceipts from all sources was 6,0961. 4s. F9d. ; that the Society had issued during the year, 815,551 copies of the Scriptures and that the total issue of Bibles and Testaments, since the for mation of the Society, was 14,036,934 copies. rtd On the motion o f t h e Bi s h o p o f CHESTER, seconded b 7 . — T. ° d ; GLENELG, the Report was ordered to be received and vet° under the direction of the Committee. Other resolutions, declaratory of the determinatioc of t he Society to prosecute its labours with renewed energy, and el"' pressive of thanks to the Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Tr es ' surer, Committee, &c., of the Society, were moved and se' conded respectively by Viscount Sandon,; M.P., and the Bev Dr. Vaughan ; the R e v D r . Ti ng , o f Philadelphia, and the Rev. Mr. Ward, of Ireland ; the Hon. and Rev. Montag,' Villiers and the Rev. Mr. Pritchard, from Taihete ; the Bee. Mr. Bungaren, from Prussia, and the Rev. Mr. 3lestrand. from Switzerland. On the motion of the Lerd Bishop of WoacrsTze., seconded by Sir 'F. 1). ACLA ND, M.P., a vote of thanks was unani, mousley passed to their venerable Chairman and President, Lord Bex,ey. The well-merited compliment was briefly acknow ledged by his Lordship, and the meeting adjourned at three o'clock. The whole of the p rocee di ngs were con d ucte d w i t h a s pirit of tolerance and f or b earance w hi c h, we are sorry to say , are" ! ' seldom the characteristics of Exeter Hall meetings. 2. THE MARKETS-YESTERDAY 5. CORN EXCHANGE. • The arrivals of all sorts of Grain this week have beer. pad' dhfate, having had some genial rain. The trade was very dui' ' for every article at the terms last quoted. Flour sold very iLe . '„ differently. NEWGATE AND LEADENHALL. The Markt.t was tolerably supplied, and the saresr nen ask 6ci. rather higher prices for Beef' and Mutton, which / e some il l ; stances was paid. Large Pork heavy of sale, kk e sm all ars' prime kinds met a ready sale at former rates. B , ee f, '2s. 4c l . tJ 3s. Bd. ; Mutton, 3s. to 3s. 10.1. ; Veal, 31. 4d. to 4s. Bd *: Pork, 2s. Bd. to 4 s . Sd. ; an d L am b, s s. 4sl . , 6s. 4 ( 1. Egt dull of sale at 4s. 6d. to 6 s . 6d. Poultry 7,uod supply, Wt .- bLisk, and prices as last quoted. . _ COL6NIAL MARKET'. There was a fair business transact e d by, the Home t er e- , but the shippers i.per a ied w ith eau ti, in ; pi a ces, however , firm fur nearly all articles. TEA MA'RKET, Th. The market is very dull, rusid prices looki ng d o wn. . n '" news from China has iv creased the inactivity. CorDP.'"' Congou Is. 90., cash. TA.LLOW MARKET. There wei a very few buyers, hut priites kept up. P Candle 465. 3d. t' a the spat, and, 48s. 6d. fur delivery to tL last three month,. The stock. o f R oug h being mall, SALTPEfRE. for some tr i e, nt h s, caused holder s to have confidence, and they have ob:ai'aed full rates; but fnere Was only a limited bus tram ctttd. and likely to continue 6° COAL MARKET. Ships arrived since last maricet.day, 115 d•I Ana t Buddies West Hartley lt; 0. C:irt's Hartley Hebburn Main l7 9 New l'anlield door l3 ti Old 'Fantleld Walls End Hilda ...... IB 0 Walls End. Hotspur Wails End rintur.berland 17 di vs E. lnaddyll'srlettuti ....'0 91 Walls End Hamel!. ...... 9: Walls End Hetton 2O 91 Walls End Lainbton 20 s. Walls End Morrison 5 • Walls End Musgrave: 1F ti Want End Russell's. Heston -7, g Walls End Stcwart•, Walls End Whitwo IY lJ Walls End Cisrados• ......... ? !Walls Eno C:issop Walls End tiartlep00l Wills End H eug h H.all .... Walls End Coundon Walls End Tees Hetton . 11 6 7 6 Walls End West Tees ,12.3 Anthracit ---- [ADVERTISEMENT.]-01.11- readers' attention is di rected to the following communication (translatod frail the German), addressed to Messrs. Rowlands' Agent e t Cologne :—" 13, Streitz-eu ,,,, ass?, Cologne, May 23 ' 1841.—T0 Th. S. Ditges.—Sir,—l have much pleasure in informing you of the extraordinary effects of " Roo" land's Macassar Oil :" for above nine years I had not 41 ' particle of hair on my head, when I eras casually recora mended to give this celebrated Oil a trial. I according l i purchased two bottles at your establishment, and strictly followed the printed directions : in the course of two months my head was covered with fine short hair, I had cut off, and continued to persevere in the use ° the Oil. The result is, that after five mont h s ? perse verance, I can now boast of as good a head of hair se any man in this city. In justice to the inventors I uleiff a 1 " nd shall f ee l greet p l ea sure . this acknowledgment, satisfyinc , any inquiry.—l salute u with reil)°q; ADAM BAUER, Bth Artillery Brigade."—" Boylan ,— Macassar Oil" prevents hair fro m falling off, or turn ing grey ; changes grey hair to its original colour ; free' from scurf and dandriff, and makes it beautifully 9° ' and curly.—Ask for " ltowland's Macassar Oil.' London: Printed and Published ty MI , RDO YOUN ,,, 0 N. 112, Stmt.:, at 7'/z e 5 711. Office, No 112, Stran d, the County of Uddlesei, Thursday, &lay 5, 1842. A 6 Ire Si' sui NI;