The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-07 00:00:00

, ____ tot; , 11 as not their principle, this, that they would i t , a Interfered with hy the Sta - e? And would they 44 4 thD wI 1 the h° , 1‘ generation of men us insincere bec i ais , e , tlikengu. gradually shaped their doctrine to somet iti„, lie 1 ,,,, ‘, I° what it might have been originally? Put 01 41 , 1 4 take the case of the Wesleyan Methodists ps,,,a l e 'vest who were so eager to pre.vent this Bill from mall f t ; \Vas there nothing, in their ors n history . to Opt "ell a little uneasy? he thought he could point they s ,?.. i ne matters which might make them careful how of tha,elted recrimination. What was the doctrine le il it ‘,g . reat and good man, John Wesley, with regard ki11i,tr...1.3' ad ministration? He held that the lay ri ._e , katviesui of the sacrament was a great sin. , he es eetl Y , 44 much debatd, and soon after his death I . t was hsel id by the Conference, therefore every budding tits),, a , s , a Wesleyan chapel was employed every , I 4 f ,' ' ll that 'which John Wesley pronounced. : 4 4, t: that He believa d that if they re '' if s „ - s Pa's this Bill, it would let in 'an amount 'resl,l,7°4 which the Wesleyans, perhaps, little the of. lie owned that it was painful to him to qtsrtal a nner hi w hi ch this Bill was opposed, and the li4 tit o -t t t r uni when ce t h e opposition came. The oypos.ii wts,4o hill on the part of the Established Chuic 1 ssuir,'''; c omparision with that from other quarters; t ke ; tne opposition of the Established Church hale 41 11 ' eXcusable than that from anj other quarter. 41 Itg r yasesisi n inure rational than for supremacy, power, gels 41, and the habit of authority to produce some Char bard' h la n i ,Y separable from human nature . ; and , the 41:tstaii-Cl .csetlgtslalid' with her strength, her rich en( ow . Parliament, and her ancient universi 4het s g e 'l,t be accustomed to something like disdain for 4rfrs,,els settins. In for religious liberty. He was L lt . i l it'ssuaerening6thel feeling, yet lie could in some ' 44 0 , 1 "° 1 1 it. But to see persons who within 17,,a e „, EI memory had, over and over again,. r,,,,r , Y--- a ., ut Q— Pelle t, invoke' the principles of religious f h v.-414 cheers)—on their own bs half—he did si!4.l4,tokstonishinent, not uniningled with a harsher slhry c s ee them call for the aid of Parliament for the_ '4l, i °' othe rs. He would also refer to the question of L'ltatt;a4l-)ortes,bditerians, among . whom lie contended the t il e la tr; 1 . ', 4 t- mixed marriages was identically the b lt4 ris tl r ' n uPle as the possession of the chapels by ss 4 4 th e °ngre , fls er e was ? ( - rations He knew that between these . - k t 're wer e this distinction, ' that Trinitarian DlS thNers rho Powerful body, and likely to unseat those 'llari might vote against them to night. The t f ill i: t lie b rod4,llo.Bl:o4asitatosect, were small in ntimbers we,erie.bi:itiflis tli a ettsdZ 'lad but little political influence I say that he had not the support of rileties-3'''tnight in man • places be the best way to !ri4l44v°l-11% If any persons of an arhitary natnre t t l4l4l eit i ,, °e ,,..hio3' the pleasure of persecuting with per i fec li kd ll the "' e re could be no better opportunity for l s eg r a Present one. But he (Mr. Macaulay) i k , ith- -sts t vu t , us ed the principles of religious liberty. Ilt, L (Lo s li til e,)' were popular, but because they were %Ohs ' , " cheers.) Ile had supported those !Mei lestroe 41 , PPliet1 to by them in a different cause; and te, 4 sr might eoine—and it might come soon—whet; lii . P t be . o l i s • who were now crying out against the Bill Is rin e i to 'ged to appeal, for their ownprotcction e , _t i o e Pt': tl , 4 F t .' s " on which this Bill was based. Becau v . oo l id ii Nt thVellt others from oppressing them, lie le: d (oot t „ e i r ' t from oppressing others; and ill the l m: e e o a n n- . Wi i ` ak s "'"dcl the Right Hon. Gentleman), I ni .. $' It h I vi itis t their intolerance, in the same spit it il i i n 0 11 . ,, (341 d have contended for their rights: . ( d e 'in °-• Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud ti 'in sti". our, he" Pr ` 4°/1 / I TOITN said that one of the great obj , ects . ll t l'ios est lit l3ill sv - stated to be the preventien of 1 / 4 1 1 11 . ,, 1i at now they had it on the authority of the lh, - dirt u ' and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) )/),I)l,ttia:cipreit °f prescription be increased. Ile did not deny e ..r, b prescription with respect to private ° I kl tht ', tit he did its application to public trusts. S h the th s ' s" -(41 . and Learned Gentleman hat : I spo on ft 5,,.., the -4 PPeintinent felt by the Unitarians, teti t s',!;er fi l P i l 'iPit of Dr. Priestly and other Unitarian ° his s tila - t 4I I V h.Y ministers . of other sects ; but he con tot4h-s, 11,,,s cio regret of Trinitarians was quite as grea_t, tetc4teiLle intention of the founders of these ch . apels AO - ` l % Vie Parted from. Let the law adjudicate in the , 11 t.pLef ( 1 0 , - , u ad done so in some cases, and vas in pro- , 4 ilr t t i -41 g so in others ; but with this Bill they N ti lv it4 etta:t°,,d arrested the operation of the law. .The q q the ior the benefit of the few against the inte 4eth,r,,, '!he sil ian sr t4 hY ; for he begged to remind the Hon. I Q him " 1 what was a notorious fact, that the Uni ,l47t ,4hefil' thou s mall in number, occupied a b • t lept,• aPosition in s society. They were remarkable 14 1)e i ri l f li s -s° •PhY and peculiar acuteness of their opinions, Nit e r Nit' 4 -.° 4 ' IndicatiOn- of a high position in . society, and Stil't : Pi, Ntion. The other sects were larger in ,'"e 1 , 11 , 11(1 were likely to feel the loss most. it ri to n't 44 s :grounds for the measure. H . e believed . 14 Y r iJas °C ill, t and impolitic, because it took . the pro )( I '. 13° ° 1 ', and sacrificed it to the interests of K i lltl,, ts tl4fj. " i t 'll ., sa id , when the lion. Member for 11 ' 4 of the he h d no objection to the first it t he the Bill, a l gave e , groan le up the greater part Illst,rlJoie.d"titis of his opposition to the measure. le i'llit l ed ( h - `flat his Hon. Friend had abstained, as i lstithl stimuli. would, from all polemical arguments and l 1114 i i t's : II had presented himself der. t03 11 ,1 - . 411 5t the B e ill, bu - t he . could not . coinci in ; 4 s,, k llar t e Ile looked on the Bill as an honest one t; ' , 4 Z t h _tho: l e t w t h i ,e Government—(Hear, hear)—and lie h i , 14 4 -t e ,, (to were opposed to them generally . ought i i (e kt s th -ltent with gsving a silent vote. • .It was idle - Liki k of 't ',,,, arguments -i - founded on this supposed It t 4 trust Could influence their votes on this occa 01.440r4r'''''nents on this head had been set at rest by h4 l 4t.litY G eneral.Tl is Bill had received the t,c4''‘,l)''4,?,f.theLw Lords, l because they felt the ,ci. t. " tl t °- "le law. His Hon. Friend seemed to dis -47:1,i11k°,t ZP.. h lions . cf the Law Lords, but surely they ' 4 t. 'fle b 's i e considered legal automata or judicial i dl e ' 14 t he ' ' lv- h addressing the other House of Podia- Pllliedir legislative capacity ? He denied that the i th l4 d i llt - ( ! )t ehlsi • ly to the case of the Socinians.. It 114 1 4' tow er 4 s' w n that - several Wesleyan congregations 4 1' 1 0 ( ls th . t doctrines of the Calvinists with kt., h, s ysin,.._ .. e . yeti j a d ollnV es predestinatl l on tenets, which were not 1 44 s lll w o V ley, and . t e grants to such con e9' it ti, under this law, held to be void. 0 4 I" '''s it k s-w o Itigat. stood at present, wouldrise to kh" th e , I n c'?• Was it proper to say give they would k' li k h lii h e S e setnians and Unitarians . of those chapels 1 1 , 4 , 1 1s ki the y . 4 4 been built and beautified by themselves, ',, i t - , h ad "?od on 50 or 60 feet of ground, on which 141 404'th: 1 - s ' b een built, hut of which not a vestige d 4 4 .. 9 44 ~!`.l. Were they to deprive those Socinian an k• sp, 4Zinititrs of the grants which had been left 1, - kiettl.t - „ 4 ARive them to the Church of England ? s t i;'4e 4 of he Baptists, Mungletonians, or 0 1 4 I ,_Ntl ( i ends?, They knew not to b whom_ , and no s 4 Pts, al se gi Lake on himself to say whom religion I,,,°ted h ve n to. Would the honour of . religtoi ‘ II I 4 N'NI CY, t hose disputes ? He was afraid there 4\ 4. '1 I.l' of the odium theologicum in the matter. 4 i St i t 'e: 'l° Petitions the Unitarians were called of 44 h t h ' 4 , iit ' u ,'dY• Ile was afraid that the groun . I :,etl 4 t , s t t,ne 1.1 ,,,".was put forward as a . chez:al de lmtadle, 14 4 11 .0 k il , "'Hits thcologicum remained behind. He L tli ,as 4 ,r,I'V what objections there could be where irohttllst 2,; what use of a chapel, without anything Ni : s li k ,eavi,,'"to indicate the intention . o t t e the donor I ti if q th,R it in the possession of , persons .ae ti, i os the Undisputed use ?—(Hear, heal.) 11 41 r ht , 4 e p t k a -4, st e lieuse to support tlt Government tkillsi t • kt f. .. m it detivours on this occasion. . a a '" ° - kIES felt called upon, from motives of `eel as • 4 ttlr i h Ni c , 44, e, briefly to state the reasons by which os, A, sett s d • • his n the present Ite 'kp h Ile b e ~ in giving vote o . Pt, gle° 4 {l h - ao presented a - petition again i st the mea 144thtollsaelr all the clergy of the boro c ug l s le w an hich he V 4, 4 44 It t..to rekesent. His Hon. o . ,ue had 4 ,01 4 „ . te w itiOn to the same effect from tue leading 11(sithi;tWswit,itat borough, and he therefore trusted (h i ,' th Polk a '', Permit him briefly to state the reasons 04h'ite r8 e \ (i,` it, out of a sense of justice, to sup' ') II verhMent upon the present occasion.— Ne Hof e lied 41 1 t„ 11 s o p s , d derived his first impulse towards - W 3'e )° t,,,' - itict from the consideration of the prin is-h'ittitl',..ol.l) other s as you would they should do hrt,tt I s n t hieti ~:4)---a principle so just, that no theol9- 104 1- to (*-3 Co uld be put in competition with it. le At • 'lsla l '", 44 hel d " . e (l the tenure by which the Church ' 4c l iti q ' 11 ° s her funds arid her property, he could te'l4 l : , if C a l ind fur her blin possession of that f4 e sllt Y s lit in " i d not acknowledge the principle of de- Nkirsati b religion. _ (Hear.) Large sums of , hq l tly 1,51,44 left by our ancestors for prayers ;', l l:;asi";!br t ' 4 , i 'd for other purposes which could . not `os''os a '',al ee"ght within the comprehension of um 1 , 41 14: 1 to t (levei,t;"l, unless we admitted the principle l. of i els lal Priss• Ptuent— (Checrs)—and if they apple( i t . 4 3 ;4 l litt tb:l7)l.e to the Bill before the House, .they tl hli,,, 44 tit to/ 1 , 1 4 would lead to the same conclusions. I,ksm'illie'Airolets"ti.ons were even still more forcible, as "i i , 4 t h.Nh t .tnt. Dissenters who stood up for the Ili kt tt c , tlinwho°l. Private judgment, than they were ''k thi (. 41 dia not admit the right of private judg- Iv 44 Y th e a 44 ad • asur, a loe extent.—(llear.) lie believed !ie,,,til t •Itri, t 1 ,:- would never have been brought for thlttllestskaeral be would for one case of gross abuse. That ttl‘Y° e 'llttt.4l .' ei'irs e of our legislation. Bad laws 4s, rl,y . t arr ed lie dormant until some case of grievous 11, 4 t t , IL believed , a - 1,,...' 1 ' „ - kt ,:. ou they endeavoured to provide a ul t tt ' Isilth•-star,,lthat there were many laws of a 75 1 ,°, 1 11;1 1 th s vis s,`Y Penal character against Roman Ca- Nti t ; ote a " Perntitt d to . remain upon our statute L l et: Ike us e „,_ e p h elslt'g s e r e th e were never acted upon. He had , 'et r , s,;`tireheenal ti ° House the existence of the law 11111 " t th e '34 S uv a P° ll persons who did not go tie :'4 l l , Gov, Ys, and if the House would t he 41 r. , ill Gould roment to carry the Ecclesiastical tis lae t b t Y e4 e n w ould e funnel that by that measure the 11 5 s . 1 , llt ri ., ould b, I- l ic 4.he 4, 11t.0. • re pealed.—(Hear.) They owed 171 4 ,..e4 sr eori e i a ,,, to the th ese of Lady Hewley's Che tvy. th e uo l es "01) of case had been followed by s,,,,soNeass, the than Oct'flt different suits, and such N:es a w ar . tl the iliovernment could not do less than "ir nise,) ;.:th irate not .'lt id, and lie hoped they would ttp t ` , is t ili st ,_ a tthstanding all the opposition : — , iy 4f th e I, h eed en stated that there w 4as no ()cc. on N I 4 th. ()ti ler lye there was not an , intention on the kl:ctllit's 411;°.hapeial.ss-I,',er.s to wrest from 3 the Unitarians t, l 'ithi,lv e ,, e ( - by th e _ t that were the case what harm slynt t h e nOt patss'aleaS_Ure ? If some such measure k,,' ti t of the effec t ~r _ ,' , et the House imagine what , j 4 „ch ntl e ,.‘ , pr esen t: ottused in large towns by the ejects : ( t rt q i a t j eet o tb erti ‘ t o oe.ssors from their chapels, and I,rlll, ari, ni t t', e . n.t woulath:r parties. He believed that 4 ; "44lv°4l (l 4 f ru ' wh ich d r id ise uP a sympathy in favour t tilt" th e el that the __ript at present exist. The !h . , ,. s lid i we r , w,,..,{ Unitarians had been oppressed c,t,,,tittlita'littittt.litieisieeTls a.,7,l.;ltrii.aatindentthebnodthbeor tDtibssecti,loteurrsagwe'etroe t !k tl. t, , vi lade _ gUttlent, that the introduction of At s t•it, t h str o ,, " ,a gra.dual process armlied he , ti Iri 1 4 } "ots is,ee in f , '' .ri . , r l c g d st th e i ( s m tl r l , than tilli 4 1)ri '(' ea r l y IV Ile] 1,0 part ofTh u e --44 4tI n ' P g'b la ri , el 80 i.l.lsinuated itself, not onl3:Long ' 44 s, *l.lt ihto the church itself, that ste pro ,r - f Court th ° e ore) 55 rs relating 31V to rei er f a judge t) in those o f led Judg e, le (Sir 13 ' his )nd.g . in rolls houglit, at ;clai w o nt that the e ndmen t, v hich b od ive 661 ; wernrooo: rest~n toe surr° sa nction (as not 00' od, en d lie t would be• • su o )e uie was le i '', d from ste pi.' . 0 'nciPl eg position Ra king VP °~'~°~: rnE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 7, 1844 it was impossible to tell when it had first appeared in theology. The celebrated Richard Baxter had, when he was'told that even Catholics and Unitarians would sub scribe to the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, replied " So much the better ; there is the greater reason why it should be made a matter of concord." —(Cheers.) At that time two of the Bishops ofthe Church of England professed Unitarian doctrines, and many of the professors in our Universities held similar opinions. On these grounds, he felt compelled to support her Majesty's Government. He could not but remember that some of his own ancestors had been Presbyterians, and had afterwards adopted Unitarian opinions, and this perhaps had saved him, a member of the Church of England, from falling into the same abyss of bigotry into which so many friends whom he esteemed appeared to have fallen. He implored the House to remember that this question was not now as if it had never been started. Most important consequences might ensue. Virtuous and impassioned men would take up this question, and bad men would take it up also. False suits would be instituted by persons who had no object in view but their personal gain. They would also have acts of retaliation on the part of the Unitarians—suits of inquiry as to how far the Wes leyans have carried out the doctrines of John Wesley, or how far the Independents profess the doctrines that were held by Harrison and the Independents of the Commonwealth. There was no solution for these diffi culties but by the present Bill.—(Cheers.) Mr. FOX MAULE wished to make a few remarks upon the Bill, differing as he did upon this measure, from those with whom it had been his pride hitherto to act. He stood, therefore, in a painful position but he had not placed himself in that position without duly con sidering the question. It was his firm conviction, that if he agreed to that Bill he should be agreeing to an act of injustice, and therefore he opposed it. lie agreed that that House was no fit arena for theological discus sion, and therefore he should not go into it. He saw with regret, that this Bill was supported by such an array of talent in the other House. It was supported, lie must admit, by Noble Lords for whose legal ac quirements- he entertained the highest respect, although he differed from them in political opinion. Compara tively ignorant as he admitted himself to be of the state of the law, he felt that this Bill was an act of injus tice, and felt bound to act upon his own individual opinion, as an independent Member of Parliament, and oppose it. The Bill proceeded upon the principle of the introduction of a prescription of twenty-five years in matters in which legal prescription had not hitherto been permitted to operate. They intended to permit this pre scription to supersede the intentions of the founders of trusts for religious and charitable purposes. In all cases he believed there were means of ascertaining the inten tions of the founders. It might be expensive to do so, but that would be a reason which would deter parties from entering into litigation. If this Bill were passed, it would not only be unjust as regarded the present foun dations, but it would affect all future donations, for no one could feel assured that the intention with which he left his money would be followed out after the lapse of a few years. This principle was now, for the first time introduced into the law. The Bill professed to apply the same principle to this as applied to the tenure of all other property; but it was the first instance in which an Act of Limitation was made to have a retrospective ope ration. In all other cases of limitation the law had a prospective operation only. The Act of Limitation of James I. enacted that persons bringing suits should be hound to bring them within a certain time after the passing of the Act. Such was not the case in the present Bill. In the statute of limitations, the right to bring suits was reserved to parties fora certain time after the law was enacted. Such was not the case under the present Bill. No party having a claim, at present, to ascertain the intentions of a founder could exercise that right after the Bill should have passed into a law. It was an act of in justice, to which he, for one, would not subscribe. But it was said that if the Bill were not passed, its rejection would give rise to an enormous mass of litigation. Judg ing from the past, he denied that such would be the case. In England, with the exception of the Hewley case, there had been but one suit to recover possession from the Unitarians. There was a case which came before Lord Eldon, in 1817, and that suit had not been instituted by Trinitarians against Unitarians, but it was an attempt made by Unitarians to eject from one of their chapels a minister who had returned to Trinitarian doctrines. It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government had not been decided about this Bill. There could be no question that when the Bill was first introduced it was not so malignant, as regarded the rights of property, as it was at present. It was not till the Bill was read a third time that it became so stringent, and, as he main tained, so notoriously unjust. When the Bill was intro duced, it did not extend to Ireland. The Lord Chancellor had stated that the Bill should not be extended to Ireland until the Presbyterians of that count!) , had had an opportunity of being heard against it before a Committee of the House of Lords. That body, however, had not had the smallest opportunity, before that House, of being heard, either by them selves, or by counsel, against that portion of the Bill which had been so materially altered. There were no cases in England to which the Bill could apply ; it was, in fact, a Bill against existing cases in Ireland. In the Eustace-street case, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, although he had not virtually given judgment, had stated the impression on his mind as to what his judgment ought to be; and he was hanging up his judgment until an Act had been passed to supersede the rights of these individuals.-( Hear, hear.) He believed that if this Bill passed, so far from having a ten dency to diminish litigation, it would create litigation without end, and introduce into congregations elements of discord, the consequences of which the adiocates of this Bill would be the very first to regret. He knew it was quite in vain, with the state of feeling in that House, to attempt to dissuade the House from consenting to the second reading of the Bal.— ( Cheers.) He had, however, thought it his duty to state publicly, the grounds en which he differed from those by whom it was introduced. In the name of those who bad intrusted him to represent them in that House, he protested against the measure, as one fraught with injustice, de priving as it did other parties whom he repre sented from prosecuting a claim which the courts of law had declared to be just. Mr. GLADSTONE said, that having felt it his duty to look into this question for the purpose of arriving at the best conclusion he could with respect to this Bill, and having made up his mind that it was incumbent upon them to pass it if they would not sacrifice their character for regard to the sacred principles of justice, he desired to take his share of any re sponsibility which might attend the introduction and sup port of that Bill.—(Cheers.) He must be allowed to say first, that he distinguished broadly between the substantial purpose which they had in view, and the precise form of the legal instrument by which it was proposed to effect that pur pose. He had before him a great question of justice. That question he apprehended to be, whether those who were called in England Presbyterian Dissenters, and who were, as he believed, a century and a half ago, universally of Trinitarian opinions, ought or ought not to be protected at the present moment in the possession of the chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of those cha pels. Upon that question helventured to propound the strongest opinion. The speeches against the Bill had not contained one syllable of argument upon the principle. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, had used divers arguments as to the effect which this Bill, if it were passed, would have upon particular parties ; but he had not heard either of those gen tlemen argue this question as a question of justice. He would not enter into the question whether Unitarians ought to be protected 'in the possession of property which was originally given for Trinitarian purposes—upon that question there could not be the smallest ditTcrence of opinion ; but what he now proposed to argue was, that although the original founders of these meeting-houses might have been, and were, in the vast majority of instances, persons of Trini tarian opinions, yet, upon the principles of justice, the present holders, being Unitarians, ought to be protected.—( Hear.) His Him. Friendhad said that the opposition to this Bill was an opposition which the Government ought to respect. He trusted that the Government would pay every respect to every opposition to this Bill which was founded on sincere and con scientious opposition, and he did not doubt that this opposition of that character. He believed it was very mach less owing to theological animosity than to misapprehension.—( Hear. ) His lion. Friend had said also that the Bill was an insult to the Christian feelings of the English people. He believed that if the Bill was required by the principles of justice, so far from its passing being considered an insult to the Christian feelings of the people of England, those feelings would require them to pass it.--(Cheers.) He was persuaded, that when they had fuller information upon the subject, they would make that demand. A very great prejudice existed in the public mind from the undefined association between the purpose and °Ejects of the Bill and the Lady Hewley case. There was a sort of family resemblance in all such cases, but he thought he should be borne out by all lawyers, when he said there was a oad and essential distinction between Lady Hewley's case and the general mass of cases to which this Bill applied.— ( Hear, hear.) Lady Hewley was a foundress ; she was a person who devised a large portion of her property upon trust for aparticular purpose. But were the parties who instituted those chapels founders in the eye of the law? He apprehended that they were not parties who devised their property for the benefit of others, but for their own purposes. Undoubtedly it was to descend after they themselves had made use of it, but he apprehended that there could be no doubt but there was a great and marked practical difference between the two cases. The right of a founder to have his intentions ascertained, re spected, and preserved, was a right entirely different in its na ture from that possessed by persons who associated together to form a body, of which they themselves were the first members, and who were to he replenished in the ordinary and natural way. In the case , of Lady Hewley it could not be said that there were no indications of the intentions of the foundress. She made reference to • the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Com mandments, and the Lords' Prayer. He hoped, therefore, that Honourable Gentlemen would consider the Bill apart from the case of. Lady Hewley. He would pass by, for a moment, the question, whether these parties were founders or not, only observing, that if they were not it would be impossible to wake out a breach of trust. Even if there were a breach of trust, he should have to consider the length of time during which the chapels had been held, the un doubted innocency of the present generation, and the long period during which Unitarian opinions had prevailed. He would have to consider that they had the lineage and descent of the original institutions of these chapels; he would have to consider the insuperable difficulty of finding a claimant with a good title to the property ; and he must say, without wishing to give offence to any man, that he would have to consider that for one hundred years, - while Unitarian opinions had prevailed in these chapels, the class of persons who now came forward proclaiming themselves the right ful possessors, had endured in silence the breach of trust, and had fought side by side with them in the acquisition of civil liberty. He said, therefore, that if there had been a breach of trust the case was one of a most painful and difficult description. But, had there been a breach of trust ? Had there been any viola tion of the intentions of the founders? The custom out of doors was not to argue the intentions of the founders, but to assume them. He would maintain that this Bill would go far to restore the original intentions of the founders of these chapels. After all, the question was one of history, and a very important historical question it was. If they were to examine into the history of this matter, they would find that from generation to generation, almost from year to year, during the seventeenth and eighteenth century the question was the subject of continual change. Who were the parties into whose views they were then inquiring? They were not Pres byterians prior to the Act of Toleration. It was ' about the year 1643 that the original Presbyterian faith was established, and by the year 1690 th a t very faith was itself abandoned. Now he asked whether this was not an important point for their consideration ? si the year lti2o Mr. Cotton Mather wrote a history of the pi',grimage of the Fathers who went to New England. That *history con contained an address, written by Robins, one of the Fathers who went over, and which address was written to. the planters in the colony, and in that address the writer adt(ocated change in the religious faith of the settlers. The writer contended that if the original founders of their faith could have returned to this world, they would not have thought of adhering strictly to the forms which they themselves had originally prescribed. There were many other works published about this time, from which the same deductions were to be drawn. In 1694, on account of the doctrinal differences and other i causes of disunion, it was found impossible that these articles of agreement could be sustained as they came to hand. But ; I the willingness of parties to bind themselves was not sufficient 1 to bind posterity. When they came to look at the trust de clared in the deeds, they found that the terms of that trust declared, in the most general words, that the parties them selves, when about to confer the trust, did not refer to any par ticular doctrine, but used a general phraseology, which showed, irrefragibly showed, that their intention was not to bind their successors to any particular form of doctrine. Well, but an objection had been made by the opponents of the Bill. They declared that the executor of the trust never could have for a moment supposed that the doctrine of .the Holy Trinity could be questioned. Did those opponents recollect—did they alto gether forget the continual changes in religious opinions which were going on at the very time that trust was executed? Could any reflecting man suppose that in the rapid changes of the seventeenth century, our forefathers who lived in that age would have calculated on an entire agreement, and that those differences in religious opinion would at once cease ? Why, that was the very period of change ! Did those men forget that it was about that time that the Act of Uniformity was passed; and that Nonconformity was legalised? and could it be imagined that men living in such a period would believe in the doctrine of religious finality? Controversy was at that period raging on the subject of the Trinity. Did they forget the works of such men as Biddle and Irvine ? From 1690 to 1710, there were all sorts of pamphlets teeming from the press on this very subject. The Act of Queen Anne sufficiently proved that subscription to the faith of the Trinity was not peremptorily demanded. A few years after that date, liberty or license upon this point came to such a height, that, in 1718, the whole Presbyterian body was divided on it. A Bill was then brought forward to repeal this operation of the schism and Nonconformity Act, and it was called " A Bill for the strengthening the Pro testant interests." In 1719 the Bill passed a secood reading, and in going into Committee instructions were moved to it, that a clause should be added, to the effect that belief in Divine Scripture, and a belief in the Trinity, should form a por tion of the oath. Now here was a plan directing reference to the doctrine of faith in the Trinity, and it was proposed tt) be made on condition of holding office. Most Hon. Mem bers might have heard of the celebrated Salter's Hall contro versy. In 1718 two Dissenters were charged, before a Com mittee of Presbyterian congregations, with preaching Anti- Trinitarianism, and those doctrines were condemned before the congregation, and it was decided on that occasion that the non-subscription of a minister to a faith in the Trinity was a sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the congregation from his preaching. About this time the Dissenting ministers of London formed a central body, and they met in large numbers, and the subscription to the faith of the Trinity was a loud sub ject of discussion. It was warmly debated, whether the de claration concerning the doctrine of the Trinity should be for warded to the ministers of different congregations in a letter of advice, and it was carried by a majority—a small majority he owned, of four—that that doctrine should not be declared. Yet still it was the opinion of the majority of the large, and it was to be presumed, the most intelligent, of Dis senting ministers, that subscribing to the doctrine of the Tri nity should be made a distinctive form of communion. He thought it necessary to remind the House that that meeting was composed of Presbyterians and Independents, in fact, a large portion of the meeting was of the latter class. He would mention to the House a most essential testimony upon this sub -1 ject from another source. He did not say that the non-sub scription to the doctrine of the Trinity was made a funda mental article in the Toleration Act, but from the year 1719 the non-subscription was established to all intents and purposes. What was the opinion of Mr. Wilson, who claimed the first part of the controversy? He said that it was a matter of historical notoriety that the English Presbyterians, at the time that charity was bequeathed, refused to subscribe to any declara tion of faith, because they would not bind themselves to the words and terms of any human composition ; and Mr. Wilson added, that the English Presbyterians of that day were all now subscribers. But he was now going to quote to the House the opinions of two gentlemen still more distinguished, one of whom was Dr. Calamy, the.other Dr. Doddridge. Dr. Calamy, who wrote in 1719, said that he was willing to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, but at the same time, he would not recommend that it should be made absolutely essential. He said, in the words of Chillingworth, let all men believe the Scriptures, and in them only, and endeavour to take from them their true sense, their rule of faith, and no mere was required of them, for that would restore union and abolish heresy. They could hardly have a more unequivocal testi mony than that. Dr. Doddridge used these remarkable words in the latter part of the year 1737—" You cannot be too care ful in giving countenance to that narrow spirit of bigotry which had already done so much mischief in the Christian Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity, if enforced, would cause much dissension." In short, with such a mass of autho rities as he had quoted to the House, he did not think there was room for any difference of opinion ; and he thought it was therefore unnecessary to occupy the time of the House by quoting further testimony. He hoped the Bill would pass— indeed he had very little doubt but it would pass through the House by a large majority, but he had a still further and a still more earnest hope to express, and that was that it would allay the bitter and hostile feeling which at present prevailed out of doors. He did not believe the Hon. Member for Kent, when he stated that in passing this Bill, they were passing a measure for the encouragement of error. Suppose the Hon. Member had been a judge in a case in which two litigants were contend ing for an estate, and one, the rightful claimant was as profligate and abandoned a character as could be, and the other most benevolent and just ; would the Hon. Member, under such circumstances, be deterred from awarding the estate to the profligate suitor on the ground that the award would encourage error ? He called on the House, most earnestly and emphati. cally, to give their sanction to the Bill. After some further observations, the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, the highest use he could make of his religious belief was to ap ply it to the decisive performance of this important Act—an Act which, in its spirit and tendency, was, as he hoped he had in some degree proved, founded upon the everlasting principle of truth.—( Loud cheers.)' Mr. SHELL then rose, and said he could assure the House he was glad to hear from such high authority that the mea sure was reconcilable to the principles of State conscience— (Laughter and cries of " Hear")—and that the Right Hon. Gentleman, a Cabinet Minister, had become the champion of freedom of conscience.—( Hear.) He very much regretted that the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were not used in the Hewley case, for if used with such surprising effi cacy and applicability—if such irrefragable historical evidence were brought to bear, he could not help thinking that a very different decision would have been come to. He would not have ventured to address the House in this debate if any other Roman Catholic had spoken ; but he thought it right to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him to state that the entire of that great and powerful community were in favour of this Bill.—( Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.") It was not from any feeling of a sectarian character—it was not from any interested motive—but because the Bill was founded upon the principle of religious toleration.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever sins the Catholic Church might commit in connection with the State, he had no doubt but that at the present moment the Catholic Church in Ireland was thoroughly tolerant.—( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Conservative benches, and cheers from the Opposition.) He supported this measure though professing that creed of which the haughty Wolsey am! the meek Fenelon were members, and was as Athanasian as either. The H onoura bl e Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford reprobated the ' measure, but at the same time gave credit to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Sheil) could be actuated by no sordid or party motive in giving his support to the Bill. Ha supported it heartily, but he sup ported it from a hearty conviction of its merits ; and he could not refrain &cm expressing his strong approval of the measure, the promotion of which the Attorney-General had, in his ad mirable speech, so advanced, and which had been received in so approving a manner by all sides of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman adverted to the opinions of those Noble and Learned Lords who were Members of the other House, and he certainly had ample reason to congratulate the House that those Noble and Learned Lords who had been Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland had approved of the measure. He hoped the discussion which took place to-night would extinguish the erroneous feeling against the Bill, which, if be could judge.from the number of petitions laid on the table of the House, was so rife among a large portion of the community. The object of the Bill was to oonfirm those principles of toleration by which this great country was so eminently distinguished. The object of this Bill was to put an end to that controversy in courts of justice which had brought the most sacred subjects into desecrating familiarity.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the Bill was founded on an enlarged limitation of the principle which regulated private property. It was an Act of Set tlement, of which they stood in great need; and what stronger proof ' could there be of that than the case which the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, had reluctantly submitted to the House —the case of Mary Armstrong.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," particularly from Sir Robert Peel.) The principle of equity was, that in an original trust, every subsequent donation, though made with a different intent, was attached to that original trust, so that the corsequence was, that any subse quent grant would apply to that trust. But what was the case of Mary Armstrong, who became a teacher of a congregation in 1806 ; her husband died in 1839. A small fund was con tributed by the Unitarians. The bequest came before Lord Plunkett, who was the son of a distinguished Arian minister, She had four daughters, and found it 'difficult to main- . tain the painful position between decency and destitution. If this Bill was not passed Mary Armstrong and her four daughters would be turned out. The Right Hon. Baronet had felt the force of that case, his good nature had got the better of his habitual predilection, and he suggested that a special clause should be introduced into the Bill. The case of Mary Arm strong was not a solitary instance, hundreds of clergymen would be deprived of their subsistence if the present Bill did not pass into a law. The Bill did not interfere with express trusts. If a donor made a specific declaration of his opinion, no matter however fantastical, a court of equity, centuries after wards, would carry it into effect; but if the trusts were not expressed, if they were the subject of surmise and probability, in that case, after the lapse of twenty-five years of uninterupted possession, in that case alone, the present Bill would operate, and iniquitous litigation would be put down.— ( Hear, hear.) The Bill was not confined to Unitarians, it did not make them the special object of favour. There was a cry against them at one time, but they would not hunt a Uni tarian when they had a Papist for game.—(Laughter.) But now the spirit was abroad that a Socinian should be hunted down.—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to give pro tection to all classes. All were placed upon a perfect level. The distinctions that were supposed to exist between Presby terians and Unitarians in Ireland were erroneous. The Con formers, taking advantage of the decision in Lady Hewley's case, and disagreeing with the Nonconformers, took a court of equity as the stage on which to deprive them of apostolic consolation. —( Hear, hear.) This Bill, then, does not interfere with express trusts; it does not interfere with the Established ofC h u o r x c h f 0 . r d —S not r o a t n i ge nd e t e h d a ti in the h this 1 H i s H on H. 0 u l‘ s l e e m t h b e e r v for isi b l t e h e h e U a d n i v o e f r s t i h t y e Church, but its fearless, undaunted, and dauntless champion— should have thought it his duty to interfere in a case wherein the Church has no concern. From the vantage ground of . truth—if I may venture to use an expression employed by Lord Bacon in translating a passage of Lucretius—which the Right Hen. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment a few nights ago so happily quoted—all Dissenters should be seen with equal disregard. If then the Right Hon. Baronet would but borrow a little of this philosophical commiseration— if he would look down on its in the spirit expressed by the great follower of . Epicurus, from his clear and serene elevation of orthodoxy—(Laughter)--Lpoor wanderers in the labyrinth of adoration, there might be some hope of a better understand ing. But let me hint to the Honourable Baronet that the principles he broaches are of a somewhat serious tendency. i What I am going to suggest to him has occurred to my own consideration from a notice he has given himself— " Sir Robert Harry Inglis—to insert in the seventh section the words, in the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Winchester," I think the case of William of 1 Wykeham's College at Oxford, even stronger than that of Winchester. Does not he know that William of Wykeham, the founder of St. Mary's College, selected, as mentioned in his life, the Viigin as his peculiar patroness ; that he gave di rections for a ritual to be performed in honour of the Virgin, and that her statue should be placed in some high spot, as a conspicuto intimatioa of his tegard?—(Rear, hear, and laughter.) Does not he know that William directed that mass should be said three times a day for the repose of his soul, and that Ave Alarias and Salve Reginas should be every night per formed by the choir? Now, I ask, has there been no breach of trust in the case of William of Wykeham ? At a meeting lately held in Exeter Hall, under very peculiar auspices, a gentleman named Hamilton said, that if the saints of heaven, meaning thereby the Presbyterians —(Laughter)—could only guess the desecrating purposes to which these donations were applied, they would shed tears such as immortals shed. If William of Wykeham knew that the statue of the Virgin, which he caused to be set up, had been made the subject of iconoclastic profanation—that the images had been subverted, the mass suppressed, a liturgy in a modern dialect substituted for the ancient, the imperishable lan guage of Rome ; if he were to hear—oh, worse than the demolition of the Virgin's statue, than the fall of her altars, than the suppression of the mass—that 'his own college, founded by a bull of Urban VI., was now represented in the House of Commons by the Hon. Baronet—(Laughter)—the terror of cardinals. the dismay of the conclave, the sc urge of Rome—how would he grieve, how would he be indignant for the non-performance of his trust !—( Cheers and laughter. ) No; restore the precepts of Urban, and when you have done so, then become the abettors of the orthodox Presbyterians; but until you have done that, do not become the anixiliary of those who avail themselves of a court of equity to perpetuate a si:nal injustice. Let us, for God's sake, put a stop to that litigation in which controversy and chicane are combined—in which the mysteries of Calvin are rendered darker by the mystification ofjnrisprudence—in which the rapacity of ortho dox solicitors is associated with the still more accumulative spirit of divines.—( Hear, and a laugh.) I have done ; but before I sit down, let me express, following the example of my. Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, my surprise that men who are themselves asking for favours from the Legislature, and complaining of the effects of the existing law of marriage, by which property is mainly secured, should them selves show so little forbearance to others. Is it not wonder ful that them who allow so small a participation of liberty, should themselves demand so large a measure ?—( Hoar, hear.) They, whose ancestors suffered persecution to the death fur the cause which they thought the truth, were now the foremost to call for pains and penalties upon others ; sitting in the iron chair of nonconforming infallibility, they converted the Scrip ture into a code of intolerance, reading it by that lurid light with which Geneva was illuminated when Servetus was con sumed I —( Loud and continued cheering, amid which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman sat down. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. He said, notwithstanding the preponderance of argument on one side of the question, unexampled within his recollection on any former debate— ( Hear, hear)—still he was unwilling to permit the debate to close without briefly expressing the grounds on which he had determined with his colleagues on giving it his most decided and persevering support. He had undertaken to give it that support under very different impressions with regard to the success of the measure than he now entertained. He undertook to give it his support at a time when he had good reason to doubt whether it would be conducted to a successful issue; but he entertained so strong a belief with reaped to the justice of the principles on which the Bill was founded, that be and his colleagues were prepared to make every other consideration subordinate to the fulfilment of the duty which it appeared to them was imposed ou them, of supporting a Bill founded on those principles. He was bound to say that he had formed his opinion without any elaborate consideration of the historical truth of the legal doctrines which had been presented for consideration. He was not about to undervalue the great doc trines to be found in the law of England ; he held in venera tion the great doctrine of trusts, as contained in the English law • but he did say, that if this, or any other doctrine, im• posed the necessity of inflicting a great wrong, he would al ays look out for a mode of remedying that wrong—first, because individual justice required it ; and, secondly, because in pro portion to the importance of the doctrine, so in proportion was increased the necessity of not subjecting it to the odium of being made the instrument for inflicting wrong.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would be unjust to permit any rule of law to be so applied that chapels now held by Dissenters from the Church of England should be taken from them, and ap plied they knew not to whom; for after they had taken them from their present possessors might arise a very complicated question—( Hear, hear)—as to on whom they should devolve. He found that before the year 1813, there were a number of chapels founded with trust deeds, some of which expressed that the doctrines of the Trinity should be preached in those chapels, founded by those who dis sented from the Church of England, but who agreed with it in that doctrine. Where it was clear that the intention of the founders was that Trinitarian doctrines should be preached there, it was not intended to disturb them, they were to re main intact. But there were other chapels in the deeds of _which there was no mention of the particular doc trines, further than that they were to be devoted to the " worship of Almighty God, by Protestant Dis senters, of the Presbyterian denomination." He could understand why Unitarian founders should say nothing of their intentions; the principle of the existing law was against them; there was a motive for concealing their inten tions; they were obliged to deal generally, because the law as it existed, told them if they contravened the doctrine of the Trinity, their endowments would be forfeited. But there was no reason why the Trinitarians should remain silent. The law respected their endowments, if their intention was expressed. What motive could they have for not being more explicit? Was it not probable that they objected to any conformity, and did net wish to bind their successors to one rule of faith ? He was also determined to support the Bill, from a knowledge of the injustice that would be done without it. He instanced the case of the Unitarian chapel at Tam worth, which had one bequest left by the daughter of the mi nister, who had preached there for fifty-three years. At pre- . sent they had in the town of Tamworth congregations of all sects and churches, living in peace and concord; but once let in a " speculative attorney"—( Hear, hear)—armed with the power of bringing actions, and they would soon in troduce, religious discord where there Ns now re ligious peace. He also instanced the case of the remon strant Synod of Ulster. Would the House of Commons permit the grievous infliction on every chapel that had been done to the remonstrating Synod of Ulster? In 1829. the Synod separated from the General Synod, and were to remain in possession of all their chapels, privileges, and immunities. They continued to hold them till after the decision in Lady Hewley's case, when actions were brought against them by parties most interested in the roaster. Those who in Ireland would be injured, if this Bill did not pass, came to the Government and stated that they were generally opposed in polities to the present Government,- but that they knew that the Executive Government would not tolerate such a wrong.—( Hear, hear. ) They explained their case to the Government when the Bill of the Hon. Member for Kendal was before the House, which related to the English Unitarians, but as they knew there would be a great opposition to the mea sure if they were included in the Bill, they did not wish to in terfere with the English Unitarians. The Government thought this would be a manifest injustice towards them, and they depre cated passing the Bill in that way. Before coming to Parliament he had made strong attempts towards an amicable arrange ment. He asked the Synod of Ulster to leave the decision of the question to four Members of Parliament chosen from both sides of the House, or to a Commission chosen by the Queen, but they refused both those offers, and proposed to leave it to their Chancery lawyers, which he ( Sir R. Peel) after reading Lady Hewley's case, and the judgment of Lord Chancellor Sugden, in his turn refused.--( Hear, hear.) It was not till they had exhausted every effort for the purpose of bringing about an amicable adjustment and failed, that they came to Parliament.--( Hear, and cheers.) He doubted whether they were not injuring the principle of law in perseveringly demanding its application to effect an in justice. He did not believe that in the part the Government took he or his colleagues were inflicting any injury, or throwing any discredit on that great estalelishment the Church of Eng land, whose interests and welfare they were bound to consider. —( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he believed that it would conduce to the character of the Church of England to exhibit herself as the aiiiitrator of contending sects.—(Hear, hear. ) The Church of England had no interest in the adjudication of the matter. To the Church the funds could not belong. But was it not better for the char acter of the Church of England to say, that she did not want to profit by the weakness of others by sending them to courts of law, or referring to Masters in Chancery the religious opinions held by men one hundred years ago? He did not be lieve it would be for the interests of religion, that the religious opinions of those persons who founded those chapels, should undergo discus sion in the p u blic courts,—(Cheers;) Not withstanding the obloquy cast on those who supported the Bill, notwithstanding the imputations cast on their re ligious belief and opinion, he believed after the lapse of a time those stipulations would carry no weight with them. He believed the sincerity of one's religious opinions was much better established by his acts and conduct than by professions made in the House of Commons.—( Cheers.) The faith of the Church of England differed from that of others ; their hope of salvation was different ; but it was not inconsistent with the spirit and precepts of that religion which they pro fessed to bear in mind—that, though faith was great, and hope was great, yet there was one thing greater—that comprehensive charity which induced them to be toleranteven of the errors of others whom they supposed to be wrong.--(Loud cheers.) But they ought to be specially careful not to inflict penalties on those who differed from them in creed, on the ground of those religious differences, but which ground they dare not avow. Lord J. RUSSELL said he entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had never heard a case in which the arguments were so overwhelming on one side.— ( Hear, hear.) Ho should not, therefore, think it necessary to state the reasons which induced him to support the Bill, and he rose merely to say that he considered this Bill had been brought forward upon sound principles of policy and justice, and to add his testimony in favour, both of the Bat itself and the conduct of the Government. With regard to' the argument, he thought that after the able speech of the Attorney-General, whom he rejoiced to see again in hts place, and bestowing that lucid argument on every subject which he took up—(Cheers) Member h utit was for not Oxford sotreithtedad —it was scarcely necessary to hear the brilliant s pee c hes of his Right Hun. Friend near him and t he Ri g ht Hon . Gentlem an treatediopposite.nth e this petitions s h u e h s i c e l e n o t nt as goßt onehara Baronet Horse, o property,uths e and he observed that th e e first resolution passed at the meeting presided over by a Right Hon. Friend beside him was, that the measure would interfere with the rights of property, and would tend to maintain a dangerous heresy. If it shook the rights of pro ground that it was by others g.v.ng angerous perty, let it be thrown out o nthat sti g p r p o o u r ri t de to bu a t act on the ;; heresy. Those who had opposed the Bill, had done it upon two grounds, when one ought to have been sufficient. He did not see why the rights of property should have prescripti on i n their favour, and no prescripti on be extended in cases of thi s kind. Those cases were much more difficult, th e n in um ue e h rous g , reat a e n r d e t o h n e fusie u n it . ima A te law-suits decision property wereeou courts taken there was no person f question as to the right hei r to p ro p ert y was a ques tion between individuals , an d if one individual w ere would were involve more deprived another would be p laced in possession. But after persons had held a chapel for on e hundred years--after they and their fathers, and their g randfathers, had conti nued would creeds, be en dl a e n s d s litthie representation of what had be en the o pi nions of v arious g in rn n e unin th te e r m rupte h d y possession e — cis if onts the of beproppeartileyn,i transferred. The consequenceT d h is eeussienefvarious religious sects. lle said, then, that the Bill was entitled to support, as tending to settle the q uestion of p ro perty . (Hear, hear.) He had already said that he w ould not add anything to what had been already so ably stated. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.—( Cheers.) Lord SANDON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." He said he merely rose to suggest that while they were making the usage of a number of years the interpreter of the founder's in tention, they should take care not tolsind congregations not to change their opinions in future.—( Hear. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared — For the second reading of the Bill ...... 3 0 7 Against it Majority in favour of the Bill The Bill was then read a second time. The Forestalling, &c., Bill, and the New South Wales, &c., Government Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Vinegar and Glass Duties Bill went through Com mittee, and was ordered to be reported this day. The Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill went through Committee. SUGAR DUTIES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the_EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of this Bill. Mr. STEWART hoped that there would be no objection to I the principle of the Bill being discussed on going into Committee. IA an wer to a question from Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. GLADSTONE said, a certificate of origin was re quired on the importation of sugar from foreign countries. The Bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday. Mr. BELLEW moved—• That that part of the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee on the Croydon and Epsom, and South-Western and Epsom Railway Bills, which includes the evidence of the engineers examined before the Committee, with reference to the working of railways upon the atmospheric principle, be printed.—Ordered. Captain PECHELL moved for a return of the number of paupers relieved in-door and out-door, with the expenditure for in-maintenance and out-relief in each union and parish not united under the Poor-law Amendment Act in England and Wales, for the years 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843, distinguish ing the amount expended in medical relief, together with the amount of the population of the same according to the last census.—Agreed to. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the date at which each colony or foreign possession of the British Crown was captured, ceded, or settled, the number of population, and those having legislative assemblies, or governed by orders of the King in Council, stating also the ♦alue of exports and imports, and number and tonnage of vessels entered inwards and cleared outwards in each colony in the year 1842. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock. ASCOT HEATH RACES. YESTERDAY. Repeated descriptions have so completely shorn the Cup day at Ascot of every particle of novelty, that without any dereliction of duty we might pass at once to the customary matter-of-fact details of the sport, were it not that the pre sence of the Queen, made the more welcome by the disap pointment on Tuesday, accompanied by her illustrious visi tors, gave it an interest that the racing itself failed to pro duce. It was not unreasonable to expect that the excitement of the review would prove injurious to the attendance, and that it did so to a slight extent. is beyond a doubt ; in fact, but for the stimulus given to the public appetite by the gratifying announcement in our last, we should have had to record one of the least attractive " grand days" that it has been our duty td describe. Such, however, was not the case ; the morning it is true was cold, showery, and gloomy, in fact anything but inviting ; but the attraction was not to be resisted, and long before the arrival of her Majesty, the assemblage on the course, if less numerous than on some occasions, was im mense, comprising a phalanx of rank, beauty, and fashion, that is seldom seen now-a-days at a race meeting. As we intimated yesterday, the arrival of the royal party was not expected to take place until after the commence ment of the races ; accordingly, the departure from the Cas tle was so arranged that the cortege entered the new mile about two o'clock. Its appearance was hailed with delight by the company, and its progress up the course elicited the warmest expressions of loyalty and attachment towards her Majesty and the Prince Consort, and of respect towards the august personages by whom they were accompanied. These greetings were warmly repeated on the appearance of their Majesties in the royal stand, and were most graciously acknowledged. Leaving to the Court reporter the task of speaking more in detail, we need merely state here that the procession consisted of ten carriages and four, and a pony phaeton and pair, preceded, as on Tuesday, by the Earl of Rosslyn, the Royal Huntsman, and several of her Majesty's grooms with led horses. In the first carriage were her Ma-. jesty, the Emperor of Russia„ the King of Saxony, and Prince Albert. The second carriage contained their Royal High nesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchess of Buccleuch, and the Earl of Jersey. In the others were his Grace the Duke of Wellington, who was loudly cheered, the Princes Vassiltchikoff and Radzivill, Count Orloff, General d'Alderberg, M. Minkwitz, and the various members of her Majesty's and Prince Albert's suites. The departure of the Royal party took place after the Cup race, which was over a little before:four o'clock ; the passage of the Royal carriages down the course was accompanied by cheers and waving of hats and handkerchiefs, which ceased not until they were out of sight. The course was then cleared for the Grand Stand Plate, which was over a few minutes after four o'clock ; the walk over succeeded, and then a shower, just heavy and long enough to lay the dust, and make the journey homewards an agreeable one. The exceedingly crowded state of the Grand Stand must be an apology for a very meagre selection of fashionables : —Duke and Duchess of Montrose, Duke of Rutland, Duke of Bedford, Duke of Richmond, Marquis of Normanby, Marquis of Clanricarde, Marquis of Worcester, Marquis of Exeter, Marquis and Marchioness of Londonderry. Earls of Strad broke, Albemarle, Verulain, Sefton, Chesterfield, Wilton, Suffield, Lonsdale, March, and Countessses of Chesterfield, Sefton, and Albemarle. Lords—S. Osborne, Forester, C. Manners, W. Powlett, E. Russell, Paget, Lennox, Villiers, A. Fitzclarence, Maidstone, Leveson, Cantilupe, Macdonald, Gardiner, &c. Sirs—R. Bulkeley W. W. Wynn, D. Baird, W. M. Stanley, W. Codrington, C. Cockerell, J. Shelley, M. Farquhar, G. Heathcote, J. Gerard. Honourables—H. Rous, G. Anson, S. Herbert, A. Paulett, G. Fitzroy, Cecil Forester, Chas. Forester. H. Forester, Boyle, F. Villiers. J. Villiers, H. Pitt. Generals—Grosvenor, 'Wemyss. Colonels—Peel, Challenor, Bouverie, Knox. Messrs.—Greville, Payne, S. Stanley, J. Stanley, Batson, Newton, Neville, Shelley, Sheri dan, Martyn, Bastard, Bouverie, &c., &c. Lord Exeter's party at Buckhurst consisted of the Dukes of Montrose, Rutland, and Bedford, Earl of Stradbroke, Hon. Capt. Spencer, &c. Of the sport, and the conduct of the owner of Bloodstone, the winner of the New Stakes, we subjoin full particulars. The Windsor Forest Stakes, of 50 sous. each, h ft, for three year old fillies, Bst 71b each ; the winner of the One Thou sand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, or Coionation, to have carried 51b extra. Old Mile. (4 Subs.) Lord Verulam's Charlotte Mr. Phillimore's Skeleton Mr. Ford's Eccola _ _ 6 to son Charlotte, and 6 to 4 apt Skeleton. The run ning was made by Skeleton, Charlotte waiting; at the Stand they closed, and ran a fine race home, Charlotte winning by a neck. The New Stakes, of 10 sous. each, with 100 added for two - • year old colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 31b ; winner before start ing of a stake of 1001. value, including the winner's own stake, 51b extra. T.Y.C. (33 Subs.) Mr. R. Newman's Bloodstone, by Bubastes (Bell) 1 Mr. J. Day's Old England Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr. Story's Young Eclipse, Mr. Chapman's b f Alice Lowe, Mr. Bristow's Carissima, Lord Lonsdale's c by Jerry out of Tur quoise, Lord Lonsdale's Loadstone, Colonel Anson's Piquante, Mr. G. Ongley's Mystery, Lord Albemarle's Scarmentado, Mr. J. Minor's Birdswing, Mr. May's Corinthian Tom, Lord Rosslyn's f by Marciam, dam by Blacklock, and Lord G. Bentinck's Pulce. Betting-2 to I agst Old England, 7to 2 agst Pantasa, 5 to 1 agst Mystery, and 10 to 1 agst any other. The winner was backed for a trifle at 10 .to 1, but can scarcely be said to have been in the betting. Although there are some curious circumstances connected with it, the race itselfmay be described in a few words. The start was excellent, but the moment he was off, Bloodstone took the lead, made strong running all the way, and won by six lengths, Old England second, Pantasa third, the Tur quoise colt fourth, and everthing else tailed off. On going to scale John Day claimed the stakes, on two grounds—first, that the winner is three years; and, secondly, that he is im properly described, as by Bubastes. Both points stand over un til the horse shall have been examined by persons to be selected by the Stewards. The most notable portion of our tale re mains to be told—Mr. Newman engaged Bell to ride his horse on Wednesday, and on doing so instructed him to run a quarter of a mile, and "get a taste of Old England," and then to pull him up ; " on no account to win," as the horse had some heavy engagements for which he wished to reserve him (the Derby and St. Leger, besides several others). Bell hehad The corn crdlie whose ee t his opinions intentions coincided we Is-itl have at.vh _ e e already determination rea dy shown. Th mun i ca ted his orders to one of his masters, the same eveni ng , a nd on the day of the race to a gentleman well known on the he turf, previously a made, viz., to do his best to wi n ; h ow effectually incident is as creditable to the jockey as it is disgraceful to the owner. The Stewards, we believe, do not mean to let it pass unnoticed. A Sweepstakes of 50 sow. each, for three yrs old colts, Bst 91b ; fillies, Bst 51b, which never won before the closing of this stake ; the winner of the Riddlesworth, Column, 2,000 Guineas, 1,000 Guineas, or Oaks, 61b extra ; of any two of them, or of the Derby, 101 b extra; no horse to carry more than 101 b extra. New mile. (3 Subs.) Sir G. Heathcote's Campanero (Chapple) 1 Mr. Ford's Sir Diggory Diddle 2 to 1 on Campanero, who won in a canter by two lengths. The Gold Cup, value 300 guineas, by subscription of 20 sovs. each, with 200 added from the Fund; the second to receive 50 sovs. out of the stakes ; three yrs old, 6st 101 b ; four, Bst slb • five, 9st ; six and aged, 9st 31b ; mares and geld ings allowed 31b. About two miles and a half. (21 Subs.) Lord Albemarle's ch cby Defence (Whitehouse) 1 Mr. Townley ''s Corranna, 5 yrs Col. Peel's lonian 3 yrs The following also started but were not placed :—Sir R. Bulkeley's The Bishop of Romford cob, 4 yrs—Sir G. Heath cote's Sirikol, 4 yrs—Duke of Richmond's Lothario, 4 yrs— Mr. Ford's Poison, 4 yrs—Col. Anson's Attila, 5 yrs. Betting-5 to 2 agst lonian, 3to 1 agst Lothario, 4to 1 agst Corranna, 6 to 1 agst Bishop of Romford cob, 8 to 1 each agst Sirikol, Poison, and Attila, and 10 to 1 agst the winner. Corranna made play at a good pace, followed to the top turn by the Bishop of Romford cob, and thence alter nately by Sirikol and Lothario, the cob fourth. lonian next. the Defence colt behind Poison, and Attila, who was beaten before he passed the stand, last. No change of moment took place until they reached the turn for straight running, where Defence colt passed his horses, and took his place at Corranna's side ; in this position he waited to within three or four strides of the chair, and then making his effort, surprised owner, trainer, jockey, spectators and all (being in every respect an untried horse), by winning by a length. lonian was a bad third, and Lothario fourth, beaten off ; the others were tailed off before they reached the distance. Lord Albemarle won the Ascot Cup last, year with Ralph. The Grand Stand Plate of 501., added to a Sweepstakes of 5 sous. each. Once round and a distance. (11 Subs.) Lord .klbemarle's Delapre, 3 yrs, 6st 131b...(Whitehouse) 1 Lord Exeter's Maria Diaz, 4 yrs, 7st 61b - 2 Sir G. Heathcote's f by Velocipede, out of Miss Wilfred, 3 yrs, sst 41b Sir it. Bulkeley's m by Bay Middleton, out of Adriana, 5 ___ . yrs, Bst 71b . Captain Martyn's Emilian, 5 yrs, 7st 101 b 0 Mr. Withy's.Ellen, 5 yrs, 7st 61b Mr. Jaques' Advice, 3 yrs, sst 51b 0 Mr. Reeves' Tarquin, 4 yrs, 7st 41b • 0 7 to 4 agst Delapre, 4 to 1 agst Miss Wilfred, and 4 to 1 agst Adriana. Won by a length; Miss Wilfred a good third. The Dinner Stakes of 100 sovs. each, h ft ; for three years old. Old mile. (18 Subs.) .. _ Colonel Peel's Orlando STATISTICS OF THE ASCOT GOLD CUP. Yesterday was the thirty-seventh anniversary of the race for this splendid purse, the gift of Royalty, it having been first run for in 1807, when Mr. Durand was the fortunate winner with Master Jackoy. On that occasion there were twelve 'subscribers,' four of whom only started horses, and from that period to the present there have been considerable fluctuations, both as regards entries and starters. In 1835, when Earl Jersey won with. Glencoe, there were th i r t y -six subscribers, while nine appeared at the post, and on the pre vious year, when the Earl of Chesterfield carried oft' the prize, there were twenty-seven entries, and ten started. His late Royal Highness the Dukeof York was a winner on two occasions, in 1815 with Aladdin, and in 1821 with Banker. Lord G. Cavendish was the first nobleman that ever bore off the cup two successive years. This was in 1824 and 1825, and with the same horse, Bizarre. Sir Mark Woqd was a winner three years in succession, in 1830, ,with Lucetta (Robinson), 1831, Celus (Robinson), and 1832 Camarine (Robinson). me Marquis of Westminster, likewise, was a winner two successive years, and on each occasion with Touchstone, the celebrated stallion. The Earl of Chester field twice won, in 1834, as before stated, with Glaucus, and in 1829 with Zingaree ; likewise Lord Darlingto n , i n 1823 , with M arc ellus, and in 1827 with Memnon. A mong ot h er no bl em en and " sporting charaqers," well known on " the turf," who have carried off this regal prize with their bigh-mettlecl racers," may be named the Marquis of Exeter, in 1833, with Galata ; Earl Jersey, in 1835, with Glencoe; Lord G. Bentinck, in 1838, with Grey Moms; the Earl of Albemarle, in 1843, with Ralph ; Captain Berkeley, in 1839, with Caravan Mr. Pettit, in 1840, with St. Francis ; Mr. Ramsey, in 1841, with Lanercost ; and the late Mr. Orde, in 1842, with the famous old mare, Beeswing. Robin son, the celebrated jockey, has ridden the winner of the Gold Cup no less than six times, and three years in succession. COURT CIRCULAR. Wtspson, TITURSDAY.—At the Grand Banquet given by the Queen, yesterday evening, in the Waterloo Gallery, her Majesty's Illustrious Guests, and also the Members of the Diplomatic Corps, the Noblemen and Gentlemen in the suite of the Sovereigns, the Officers of State, and the Officers of the Royal Household, all appeared in uniform, or in their respec tive official costume, and wore their different insignia of knighthood. During dinner, her Majesty's Piper, in his full costume, walked round the tables where the august party were seated, playing national airs. this moniing his Majesty the King of Saxony, attended by his Excellency Baron de Cetto, went to Clewer. Sir Robert Peel left the Castle early this morning for town. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, and his Majesty the King of Saxony went, this forenoon, to inspect the Farm, in an open pony carriage and four. After viewing the Farm, his Majesty and the Prince returned to the Castle, shortly before one o'clock. His Excellency M. Dedel, the Netherlands Minister, the Marquis of Anglesey, the Marquis of Londonderry, Viscount Combermere, Lord Saltoun, the Right Ho nourable Sir Henry Hardinge, the Right Honourable Sir George Murray, Lord Fitzroy Somerset, Major-General the Hon. E. P. Lygon, Sir James Clark, Sir Willoughby Gordon, Sir John Macdonald, and Colonel Cleveland, R.A., took their departure from the Castle to-day. Baron de Thile, Prussian Chargé d'Affaires, the Earl of lladdington, Sir Edward Codrington, Sir George Cockburn, Colonel Glasenap, Baron Nicolay, M. de Berg, and M. Koudriaffsky, arrived at the Castle to-day, on a visit to the Queen. Mr. Sheriff Moon paid his respects, yesterday, to his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia, through his Excellency Baron Brunnow. The whole of the illustrious party at the Castle went, to day, to the Ascot races. The Earl of Liverpool, Lord Steward, the Earl Delawarr, Lord Chamberlain, and the Hon. Charles A. Murray, Master of the Household, went early to be in readiness to receive the Queen and Prince Albert, and their august visitors upon their arrival at the Grand Stand. At a quarter before one o'clock, some of the Royal visitors took their departure for Ascot in three open pony carriages and four. The first carriage contained Lord George Lennox, Lord in Waiting to Prince Albert ; le General d'Adlerberg, Aide-de- Camp General to the Emperor; M. de Minckwitz, Grand Maitre de la Garderobe to the King of Saxony ; and Count Albert. Vitzthum, Chamberlain to his Majesty. The second carriage contained Sir Henry Wheatley, Mr. George Edward Anson, Baron de Reichart, Aide-de-Camp to the King of Saxony; and M. d'Adlerberg, Aide-de-Camp to the Emperor of Russia. The third carriage contained Captain Francis Seymour, Groom in Waiting to Prince Albert ; Baron Knesebeck, Equerry to the Duke of Cambridge; and Dr. Cants, Physician to the King of Saxony. - The gentlemen of the royal household all wore the Wind sor uniform. _ _ quarter past one o'clock her Majesty and her august visitors left the Castle for Ascot. The illustrious party occu pied seven carriages and four, the postillions in State liveries, and preceded and attended by outriders in scarlet liveries. The Queen was conducted from the Royal apartments to her carriage by the Emperor of Russia, and his Imperial Majesty sat by her side. His Royal Highness Prince Albert and his Majesty the King of Saxony sat opposite. The Prince wore the Windsor uniform. In the second carriage were their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchess of Buccleuch, and the Master of the Horse, the Earl of Jersey. In the third carriage were the Baroness Brunnow, the Duchess of Sutherland, the Countess of Gainsborough, and the Duke of Wellington. In the fourth carriage were the Maid of Honour in Waiting, the Lac Caroline Cocks, Lady Peel, the Russian Minister, Baron llrunnow, and Count Orloff. In the fifth carriage were, the Maid of Honour, Hon. Miss Devereux, the Duke of Sutherland, and the Earl of Aberdeen. In the sixth carriage were, the Lady in Waiting on the Duchess of Cambridge, the Baroness Ahlefeldt, the Hon. Mrs. Anson, the Bavarian Minister, Baron de Cetto, and the Lord in Waiting, Viscount Sydney. In the seventh carriage were, the Saxon Mi n i s t er , B aron Gersdorff; the Lord in Waiting on the Emperor, the Earl of Htirdwicke ; and the Lord in Waiting on the King of Saxony, the Earl of Morton. Sir W. Otway and Colonel Drummond went in a pony phaeton and pair. The gentlemen of the royal household all wore the Windsor uniform. Lord Charles Wellesley (Clerk Marshal), Col. Arbuthnot, Equerry in Waiting, Major-General Sir Edward Bowater, and Colonel Wylde, Equerries to Prince Albert, were on horseback, in attendance on the august party. The Royal Procession passed from the Queen's entrance round the Grand Quadrangle of the Castle, under George the Fourth's gateway, to and through the town of Windsor. His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch rode on horseback from the Castle to the races. At a quarter before five o'clock the Illustrious party re turned to the Castle, and were received by the Master of the Household. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, the Emperor of Russia, the King of Saxony, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, alighted at the Queen's entrance. The Emperor of Russia and Prince Albert walked to St. George's Chapel in the forenoon, his Imperial Majestyandhis Royal Highness afterwards went and inspected the royal stables. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice were taken airings yesterday morning in the grounds of the Castle. In the afternoon the Royal Family were again taken in the walks and pleasure grounds. At eight o'clock last evening the august party sat down to dinner, which was served in the Waterloo Gallery. Side-tables were placed round the apartment, on which were displayed a number of the largest and finest shields and salvers of the Royal Treasury; the former embellished with a variety of classical and mythological subjects in basso relievo, and the latter engraved with the Royal Arms, en circled by a deep border elaborately chased. The magnificent chandelier, suspended from the centre of the ceiling, had a very pleasing effect; it is composed of ground glass, ornamented with the pattern of the collars and badges of the several Orders of Knighthood of which her Majesty is Sovereign. It has a border of small circular divisions, each containing a single star of the different British Orders of Knighthood. The Queen and Prince Albert, the Emperor of Russia, the King of Saxony, and the Duke, and Duchess of Cambridge, sat beneath this chandelier. The table on which the Royal banquet was placed had been tastefully arranged by Mr. Elliott, her Majesty's table decker, and presented a very elegant and splendid spectacle. Two rows of gold candelabra, filled with wax lights, extended the entire length inclosing the plateau, on which were epergnes and other centre pieces richly sculptured in gold. Among these splendid specimens of art were introduced a number of rare plants in flower, fitted into gold vases. The magnificent " St. George Candelabrum" formed the principal ornament in the middle of the table, opposite to the seats of her Majesty and her august circle, but two other candelabra of larger size than the rest were placed at both ends. A succession of gold dishes on each side of the table, and other articles of the same precious material, all richly chased and burnished, added to the surpassing splendour and magni ficence of the banquet. The company included his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia, his Majesty the King of Saxony, their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, the Dowager Lady Lyttelton, the Russian Minister and the Baroness Brunnow, Baron de Cetto, Bavarian Minister; Baron Gersdorff, Saxon Minis ter ; Baron de Thile, Prussian Chargd d'Affaires ; the Duke of Wellington, the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland, the Earl of Liverpool, the Earl Delawarr, the Earl of Jersey, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Haddington, the Earl of Morton, the Earl of Hardwicke, Lady Peel, Sir Edward Codrington, Sir George Cockburn, Sir Henry Wheatley, Mr. George Edward Anson, Lord Charles Wellesley, the Hon. and Rev. C. Leslie Courtenay, Lieutenant-Colonel Berkeley Drummond, Lieutenant-Colonel Wylde, Baroness Ahlefeldt, Baron Knesebeck, the Provost of Eton, the Rev. Dr. Probe, Baron Nicolay, M. de Berg, M. Koudriaffsky , Count Orloff , le General d'Adlerberg, M. d'Adlerberg, le Prince Wassilts ckikoff, le Prince Radzivill, Colonel Glasenap, Dr. Reinolds, his Excellency M. de Minckwitz, Count Albert Vitzthum, Baron de Reichart, and Dr. Carus. The Band of the Scots Fusilier Guards attended during the banquet, and performed the following pieces : March ... II. Leslie. Overture, " Oberon" British Homage Waltzes Fantasia, on Russian Airs Romberg. Selection, "Alma" .• The English Quadrilles ... Musard. Polka Tolbecque. After dinner her Majesty's private band was in attendance at the Castle, and in the course of the evening (conducted by Mr. Anderson) performed the following pieces : Sinfonia, C Minor Priere et Bolero, " Violoncello," Herr Offen- bach Offenbach. Allegretto, " Lobgesany" Mendelssohn. Fantasia, Harp, Di. Parish Alvars, sur des Themes de Lucia di Lammermoor Parish Alvars. Finale, " Sinfonia, No. 6" A Deputation, consisting of Mr. Chute, M.P., Sir Thomas Wilde, M.P., Mr. Kemble, - M.P., Mr. Charles Potts (London), Mr. Edward Evans (Worcester), Mr. John Underwood (Norwich), and General the Hon. H. B. Lygon, M.P., had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of the vinegar duties. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-office, from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. Dispatches were also received from the Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land. Lord Whanicliffe returned to town yesterday from Folke stone. Lord Eliot had an interview with his Lordship at the Council-office yesterday. Sir Robert Peel arrived in town yesterday. from his visit to her Majesty at Windsor Castle. FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. ARRIVALS. The Earl of Mulgrave, stree t , from Mul p g o ra r ve o C r as e a :t in Hyde Clarendon Hotel, Bond let, h ne near Whitby, Park-place Westire the Countess o f tm • the Coun i tess Portman -square, u in ar U ef pe fr r o G ni ros s r t e o n n o e r ie s i t g r h eet A ; b L b o e r y , d Leigh, n run near Coventry ; Mrs. Wellesle y , in Low ndes - street, Belgrave-square ; Mr. and Miss Trent, at Christie's Hotel, from Dublin ; Hunter, Esq., and Mrs. Hunter, at ditto ; Lady and the Misses Gardiner, from Sir R. Gardiner 's seat, near Esher; Colonel Gore, in Grosve nor-street West; Lady Georgiana Fullerton, at Earl Granville's, Bruton street; Mr. George Rabett, R.N., and Lady Louisa Rabett, at the Count ess Dowager of Winterton's, East Villa, Regent's Park, from Brighton; Le Count de Coulonges, at Cooper's Hotel, Grosvenor street ; Colonel Preston, at ditto ; the Earl and Countess of Seafield and Miss Mansell, at Christie's Hotel, St. James's-street, from Castle Grant, N.B. ; Lord and Lady Polwarth, at ditto, from Brighton ; Stokes, Esq., and Mrs. Stoles, at ditto, from Bath •, the Mayor of Liverpool Lind Rushton, Esq., at the Bur lington Hotel, Cork-street ; Sir Clifford and Lady Con stable, in Cunkherland-place ; Miss Leveson Gower, in Wilton Crescent ; Sir J. W. Drummond, Bart., of Haw thornden, at the Burlington Hotel, Cork-street, from the north ; Captain Wilson, at Fenton's Hotel, St. James's street ; Lieut.-General Lord and Lady Keane, in Jer myn-street, from their seat, in Hants ; Rev. -- Hume and Mrs. Hume, at Christie's Hotel, St. James's-street ; the Hon. .Major Keane (37th Regiment), in Mount street ; Baron Giordano, at the Brunswick Hotel, Hall,Jer myrt-street, from Paris ; Sir J. Hall , Bart., Lady and family, at ditto, from the Continent ; Sir George. Talbot and family, in Grosvenor-square, from Paris. DEPARTURE. Sir B. and Lady Cunliffe, from Cooper's Hotel, Gros venor-street, for Acton .Park, Wrexham; Mr. and Mrs. Champion, from ditto ; Mr. Henry and Lady Mary Vynor and family, from Earl De Grey's, St. James's square, for Earl Cowper's, Pansanger, Herts ; Hon. Gardner and family, for Carlton -crescent, Southampton; Lady William Hotham, on a Continental tour; Major General and Wrs. Wynyard and family, for Swanage, Dorsetshire ; Sir Charles Bannerman, from the Bur lington Hotel, Cork-street, for his seat in Aberdeenshire; Sir Francis and. Lady Lawley, from Grosvenor- square, for Middleton Park, Warwickshire ; Captain Cooter from the Cavendish Hotel, Jermyn-street. CHANGES. Lord and Lady Milton, from Plymouth, on a cruise in the Channel in the 'Merlin yacht ; the Dowager Countess of Hardwicke, on a visit to the Earl and Countess of Mexborough, at Methley Park, from Tittenhanger Hall, Herts ; Sir William and Lady Foster, at Bath, from their seat in Norfolk the Earl of Oxford, at Bath, from his seat, Brampton Park, Herefordshire; the Earl of Tyrconnel, from Cowes, on a cruise in in his yacht, the Intrepid, on the coast of France; the Hon. Captain and Mrs. Carey, at Bath, from a tour; the Earl of Leven, at Edinburgh, from Ba!gowie House, Fifeshire; Lieutenant-General and Sir Thomas and Lady E. Reynell, at Bath, from their seat, in Sussex; the Bishop of Salisbury, a.t Bath, from the Episcopal Palace.. MAGAZINES (CONTINUED). DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE. The Portrait Gallery for this month contains a full- length picture of the late Abraham Collis, who, it seems, was an eminent surgeon of extensive practice in Dublin, and who died towards the close of 1848, in the seventy-first year of his age. We do not happen ever to have heard of this gentleman, but, ac cording to the biographer's account, he was possessed of first-rate professional ability, and was connected with more than one medical work in high repute with the faculty. The upper part of his countenance is not unlike that of the late Mr. Canning, but the mouth is singularly large and expressive, apparently, of feebleness iind indecision of character. The " Campaign of 1815" is a lengthy notice, accom panied by several amusing extracts, of Captain Si borne's recently published history of the last cam paign in France and Belgium, which closed with the crowning victory of Waterloo. Of the emaining articles, the best is the one h ea d e d " e„rontineutal Countries," which gives a minute account of the present military resources of Prussia. SPORTING MAGAZINE. The embellishments to this number are, first, a sporting sketch, entitled the " Warrener's Dog," which exhibits a very spirited and picturesque back ground, and secondly, a view of the exterior of the "Newmarket New Subscription Room," which, if we may judge from the plate, must be a very im posing structure. The literary department , is, as usual, confined exclusively to sporting subjects; and, inter alia, gives a minute, matter-of-fact account-of the " Paris Spring Races." SIMMONDS' COLONIAL MAGAZINE. A skilfully and carefully digested periodical devoted for the most part to the consideration of colonial matters, which are early acquiring greater im portance, and more and more engrossing the attention of the community at large. JAMAICA MONTHLY MAGAZINE. This is the first number of a new monthly periodical published in Kingston, Jamaica; and like tnost first numbers, it is got up with considerable care, botb is respects the choice of its subjects, and their variety. In the first place, there are some clever descriptions of local scenery, and next, some prose tales just of a fitting length, to say nothing of divers small pieces of poesy, one of which, " Lines on a Curlew" deserves a passing notice for the grace and appositeness of Its imagery. In the details regarding Jamaica, its Past and Present State," we find a curious anecdote' of a monster shark which was caught off that island, and in whose stomach, on opening the brute, were found " fifteen asses' hoofs and legs from the knee downwards, besides other very indigestible materials." BANKERS' MAGAZINE. As may be surmised from its title, this magazine is wholly of a practical, business character, and opens with some intelligent comments on the " Government Currency Measure." These are followed by an article on the "Present State of Banking in Ireland," in which occur one or two very sensible and pertinent suggestions. BRITISH MAGAZINE. We have here, in addition to sound, sensible, ori ginal communications, connected for the most part with ecclesiastical matters, a copious monthly register of religious information, together with various docu ments respecting the state of the poor, and the pro• gress of information. HISTORY OF CHINA AND INDIA. This elaborate work has already reached its Se venteenth Part, and the interest of the authoress's— Miss Qorner's—narrative still continues unimpaired. She has brought a great variety of historical infor mation to her task, which she has apparently digested with scrupulous care, and deserves not less credit for the uniform impartiality of her statements. Each part is embellished with two, sometimes more, en gravings. OLD SPORTING MAGAZINE. The best article in the Number before us, is that which is very properly placed first ; it is a tale of country life, entitled " Hillingdon Hall," and is by the author of " Handley Cross," a novel in three volumes, which was published at the commencement of . the , season. The sketch of the CockneT Squire is very piquant and accurate in its way. The Number con tains two embellishments, both illustrative of sporting subjects, and executed with very passable ability. THE FRENCH RAILWAYS. (From the Railway Record.) " We have not, for two or three weeks past, adverted fo the French Railways, because such is the tardiness of all legislative proceedings in the Chambers, that weeks apparently, anything being done ; p fo a r ss th a e waywithout, Commissions (Committees) sit with closed doors, unless they call for " persons and papers" to elucidate some particular question, or unless some parties inte rested demand to be heard before them. " The chief material fact we have to announce this week is the triumphant passing of the Bill for the Mont pelier and ISlismes Railway, by a very large majority (190 to 60) in favour of the projet de loi presented by the Minister of public Works. " This is a most significant sign of the times,' as re gards the other Bills now before the Chambers, and ren ders the question of their bein g p asse d , an d i n the shape presented by the Minister, no longer doubtful. " ThiS little line is completely finished, at the cost of the State—the laying and ballasting of the permanent way entirely done ; and, we believe, even the locomo tive power partially provided. It therefore afforded the most favourable specimen of a line to be wholly in the hands of the State, ' as an experiment ;' but the proposi tion having been negatived in so unequivocal a manner, is conclusive as to the adoption of the Ministerial projet with respect to all the other lines now before the Cham bers, and for which draft leases are proposed in the pre sent session. All will be passed as presented by the Minister—that's certain. " The report on the Orleans, Tours, and Bordeaux line was presented on Wednesday last; it is not yet printed, but it is understood that the only alteration re commended by the Commission, in the conditions pro posed by the Minister, is to r educe the proposed term of the lease to forty-one years sixteen days, in accord. ante with the offer of a company, at the head of which are persons of well known skill and tried experience in railway matters. This will be the first Bill to pass this session, and the pissing of all the others will follow, as of course. • _ _ ..The line from Bordeaux to Toulouse will not be presented this year, any more than that from Lyons to Avignon. We may take the opportunity of saying that it is utterly futile, and s perfect waste of time and troue ble, to get up companies for railway projects in France not sanctioned by the Government, or which the Go vernment have no present intention of carrying int o effect, or which, attest, must neeessarily be p ostponed for a considerable period. Some of them have already been brought before the public, and others, for aught we know, may follow,with no better claims to notice. As ase neral rule, we advise the railway public to countendhce only such projects as are presented to then* in an intel ligible shape, either as being the subject-epattei of Bills now actually before the French Legislature, or com prised in the great Railway Bill of the 11th of June, 1842, sure to be carried out, sooner or later. Verbunt sdp. "Before our next publication the Bills for the North line, and the Lyons line, will have been reported to the Chamber of Deputies. It is understood in well-informed circles that the North line will be assimilated to the other long lines, iii the general terms and conditions ; and that the opinion of the very slender majority •of one in the Commission will be but feebly embodied in the report, and not at all supported in the Chamber. Err, M. Rothschild will take, and will get the North line." [The Paris paperLa Presse, differs from the conclusion here arrived at by the Record, which is usually well informed on all that relates to the. French railways; but then the editor of La Presse is a highly-talented mem berthe the perseveringth e l o i f o t n ec Deputy,oerhp as champions p f oi t n. h s e laf nu Punts dre ta ddve c o t possession of all the railways by the State. proximate l brochures in t oa n induce incrediblethe , and out of doors, of the system of short leases, and the f a C t o e iri s at , u i : n es e(ls t the Chambers nephew M. Muret de fort has perpetrated several loan of 20,000,000 i. t Government to accept an . o ffered sciunpain)otiryooffhipsaoppeirnianonds. in ß k ot in h have laiv labouring g ed of them in their own , I anis but to no purpose. This l bubble, which never had any real existence, has sterling to complete . the railways, keep the working a t b otoi r o s f t. bu l t : h oo d r ie J d ac ti g le u• - : am L e a d ffi ay tte l a T nd he h s i u s bs l c o r a i n be o rs f are invited to receive back their deposits. b c a o oto lo l,as s o s oo, With the numerous demands upon the French Trea• sury for external, as well as internal objects, just now, I no more money can be spared for the railways than what was contemplated in the mixed system of the law of June, 1842, now about to be carried into effect in the Bills before the Chambers in the present session. With ~i