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

causes of disunion, it wa,s found impossible that these articles of agreement could be sustained as they came to hand. But the willingness of parties to bind themselves was not sufficient 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 agreem ent, 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 sezond 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 to be made on condition of holding office. Most lion. 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 ject from another source. He did not say that the non-sub scription to the doctrine of the Trinity was made a funda mental asticle 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. reused 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 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 more 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 ehich 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.' tally, to give their sanction to the Bill. Aiter 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. Gentl. man, 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 Healey 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 decisitm would have been come to. He would nut 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 froth any feeling of a sectarian character—it was not from any interested motive—hut because the Bill was founded upon the principle of reli g ious 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 and the meek Fcnelon were members, and was as Athanasian as either. The Honourable 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 s He (Mr. Shed) could be actuated by no sordid or party motive in giving his support to the Bill. He supported it heartily, but he sup ported it from a hearty conviction of its merits ; and he could not refrain ft.( m expressing his strong approval of the measure, the promotion iaf 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 bad ample reason to congratulate the House that those Noble and Learned Lords who had been Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland hid approved of the measure. He hoped the discussion which took place to-night would extirguish the erroneous feeling against the Bill, which, if he 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 confirm those principles of toleration by which this great country was so eminently distinguished 1. The object of this Bill was to put en end to that controversy in courts of justice concord." —:(Cheers.) At that time two of the Bishop's of the Church of E n g land 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. lie could not but remember that some of his own ancestors had been Presbyterians, -and bad 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 suite 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 Independent: 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 thoze.with whom it had been his pride hitherto to' act. He stood, therefore, in a painful position hitt 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. He 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, he 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 thd.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 nut only be unjust as regarded the present foun datioos, 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 bound 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. /Co party having . a claim, at present, to ascertain the intentions of a founder could exercise that right after the Bill should hare passed into a law. It was all 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 elect 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 he extended to Ireland until the Presbyterians of that count' y had had an opportunity of beettg beard 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 nut virtually given judgment, had stated the impression on his mind as to what his judgvaetit ought to be; and he was hanging up his judgment until an Act had been passed to tuperteile 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 eonsequenees of which the advocates 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 Homes from consenting to the second reading of the Bill.— ( Cheers.) He had, however, thought it his duty to state publicly; the rounds en which he differed from those by whorh it was -introduced. In the name of those who had 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 he ventured 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 difference 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 Hon. 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 which had brought the most sacred subjects into desecrating ot . that character. H e b e li eve d i t was very mach l ess ow i ng fam i l i ar i ty. — ( H ear, h ear . ) Th e p r i nc i p l e o f t h e Bi l l was to theological animosity than to misapprehension —( Hear ) founded on an enlarged limitation of the principle which His Hon. Friend h a d sa id a l so that the Bill was . an insult regulated private property. It was an Act of Set to the Christian feelings of the English peo le. Ile beli e v e d tl e ment, o f which they stood in great ne e d ; an d that if the Bill was requi re d b y the principles of ju_stice,. so what stronger proof could there ,be of that than far from its passing being considered an insult to the would i hristian the case which the lion. Baronet, the Member for the feelings of the people of England, those feelings ou th c a r t equire University of Oxford, had reluctantly submitted to the Honse them to pass it. —(Cheers. )He was persuaile w d when ino a t —the case of Mary Armstrong.--(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," they had fuller information upon the subject, they would . particularly from Sir Robert Peel.) The principle of equity that demand. A very great prejudice existed in the public e was, h that in an original trust, every subsequent donation, mind from the undefined association between the purpose and original g made with a different intent, was attached to that olsieets of the Bill and the Lady Bewley case. There was ast w , o s o o hi that the consequence was, that any subse sort of family resemblance in all such cases, but he thought he quent grant m apply .ho to h t e h , a a t trust. But what was the case 9 a . tea; t h s er a o l f l a f e n on t gregation should be borne out by a'l lawyers, when he said there was a of Mary Armstrong, in 18C6 ; her husband died in became b odd and essential distinction between Lady Hewley's case Lorde con anti n - anti the general mass of cases to which this Bill applied.-- tributed by the Unitarians. The bequest m came u b ( efO ' r as ( Hear, hear.) Lady flewley was a foundress ; she was a Plunkett, who was the son of a distinguished Arian mi e nister, person who devised a large portion of her property upon trust She had four daughters, and found it difficult to main: for a particular purpose.' But were the parties who instituted lain the painful position between decency and destitution. those chapels founders in the eye of the law? He apprehended if this Bill was not passed Mary Armstrong and her four that they were not parties who devised their property for the daughters would be turned out. The Right Hon. Baronet had benefit of others, but for their own purposes. Undoubtedly felt the force of that case, his good nature had got the better of it was to descend after they themselves had made use of it, but his habitual predilection, and he suggested that a special clause he apprehended that there could be no doubt but there was a should be introduced into the Bill. The case of Mary Arm great and marked Practical difference between the two - ewes. strong was not a solitary instance, hundreds of clergymen The right of a founder to have his intentions ascertained, re- would be deprived of their subsistence if the present Bill did spected, and preserved, was a right entirely different in its na- not pass into a law. The Bill did not interfere with express ture from that possessed by persons who associated together to trusts. If a donor made a specific declaration of his opinion, form a body, of which they themselves were the first members, no matter however fantastical, a court of equity, centuries after and who were to he replenished in the ordinary and natural wards, would carry it into effect; but if the trusts were not way. In the case of Lady Bewley it could not be said that expressed, if they were the subject of surmise and there were no indications of the intentions of the foundress. probability, in that case, after the lapse of twenty-five years She made reference to the Apost!es' Creed, the Till Corn- of uninterupted possession, in that case alone, the present Bill mandment s , an d t h e L or d s ' P rayer. H e h ope d , t h ere f ore, wou ld opera t e , an d i n i qu it ous li t i gat i on wou ld b e put down.— that Hon oura bl e G ent l emen wou ld cons id er t h e Bill ( Hear, hear.) The Bill was not confined to Unit ar i ans , it ii apart from the case of Lady Howley. He would pass did not make them the special object of favour. There was a by, for , a m omen t, the question, whether these parties cry against them at one time, but they would not hunt a Uni were founders or not, only observing, that if they were tarian when they had a Papist for game.--( Laughter.) But n otit would b e i mpossible to wake out a breach of trust. Even now the spir i t was a b roa d t h at a S oc i n i an should be hunted if there were a breach of trust, he should have to consider the down.—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to give pro length of time during which the chapels had been held, the un- tection to all classes. All were placed upon a perfect level. doubted innocency of the resent generation, and he long The cEstinelri .ns that were supposed to exist between Presby period during which Unitarian opinions had prevailed. He tenant and Uni arians in Ireland were erroneous. The Con would have to consider that the original institutions Oft they th had the lineage and descent of forme I,taking idvantage of the decision in Lady Hewley's case, consider the insuperable difficult edits chapels ; lie would have to and di agraping with the Nonconformers, took a court of equity a good title to the property ; and si t of finding a claimant with as the stage on which to deprive them of apostolic consolation. e inu , t say, without wishing —( Hear, hear.) lie was surprised that the Honourable to give offence to a n y m to consider that for one hundred that h e would have Member for Oxford should have thought it his duty elarsii while U n it ar i an t o i n t er f ere i n a case i n w hich the Church h a d opinions bad prevailed in these e h ap who now came forward proclaiming te class of p ersons no concern.—(Hear.) According to the Honourable themselves the ri g ht- B arone t' s o pi n i on a ll Di ssen t ers oug ht t o b e t re ated with th e ful possessors, had endured in silence the br eac h of trttst and had same disregard. If h e m i g ht ven t ure to make a suggestion fought side by side with them in the acquisitio n of civil liberty. to the Hon. Baronet, he would tell him that the principles he He said, therefore, that if there had been a br each p o ti ftrustth e had broached had a somew h a t ser i ous tendency:. The Hon. case was one ofd most painful and difficult deserioo lint •Member had taiked a b ou t th e a b sur diti es connec t e d w ith th e had there been a breach of trust ? Had there been any viola- o liai ;hest Mary, an d h a d comp l a i ne d o f t h e b reac h es o f trust t h at tion of the intentions of the founders? The custom o taken place in charities conne c ted w ith th e wors hip o f doors was not to argue the intentions of the founders, but ..a tci t. , ho ti r. Was n o t th e ease o f Willi am of Wykham stronger than H assume them. e would maintain that this Bill would go i ,that? Willi am of Wykham founded the College of St Ma to restore the original intentions of the founders of these ry's, at Oxford. He had given directions that a certain ri chapels. After all, the question was one of history, and a tual should be performed in honour of the Virgin Mary, arid very important historical . question it was. If they were to that a statue of her should lto be placed on some high s p o t, an d, eltmine into the history of this matter, they would find that in addition to thi s , directed that certain masses should from generation to generation, almost from year to ye ar , he said for his soul. Had there been no breach of trust in during the se ven t een th anti eighteenth century the question the case of William of Wykham'' At a meeting at T: ! : xe t er -h a ll was the subject of c on ti nua l c h ange . Wh o were the parties into the other day, und er particular. auspices, gentleman n a me d whose views they were th en inquiring? They were not Pres- Hammerton had said, th a t if the saintsa in heaven, only knew purposes on earth was being squandered, thkehytz byterians prior to the Act of Toleration. It was about the manner in which that which they had left for religious the year 1643 that the original Presbyterian faith p :::( I, e d ou t l f h ti e c e was established, and by the year 1690 that very greatest disgust ; and if William of W faith was itself abandoned. Now he asked whether this was that the statute of the Virgin Mary had Wykham, jest of ridicule, and that in the college that he m I thinksut hbe not an important point fur their consideration ? In the yearhad founded 1.,20 Mr. Cotton Mather wrote a history' of the pilgrimage of instead of the " Ave Merles" and " Salve Begin n," lie had f w t a h s e ren 6 L t e : the Fathers who went to New England. That history con- directed to take place, the modern dialect had ntroduced, contained an address, written by Robins, one of the Fathers and if William of Wykham was to know that his col who went over, and which addres was written to the planters lege, which was founded by a bull of Pope Urba own in the color - - ,uld not William in the , rivocated change rented in the flouse of Commons by that terrs, r n o , that if tl Lys college?"—_t triter contended slave and scourge of Rome—( Hear, hear)—wr to this , ild have returned of Wykham say, " Give me back St. Ma to the adhering strict! ( Hear.) Let them put a stop to the ' ,pirit of litigation There ty Tibed p . litigation which time, In 169. nal!), prescl ied about this origin in the worst of human passions. Before e to be drawn, he sat down, ho could not but express nig surprise that men lice. and other I who were asking for lama—who vie'4 calling for alterations that Was taking place—a had _ ..—.. colony, and in that address the wri'.er c( religiousptir l a ~..ho settlers. 1 h ,-., w the origi loifthiefaitif'ili t )iy WI cool world,' zt x riirrt-trat 9 ,4ht of a r6rr nsiWtt_. e - eu* la'rl'origin we * - "' , . Q r: 1 / 4 *0 kit . ptiblishe fro <Q - •Op--14.5,A u,oilisis vver( Mfr 9 t, . V uni. ciifferet ...., •:.-.,: \ \.....A....z. •":.i• - • ...- t_, Li i, r 7, \ -.y :. , .I>.l. • ~fli Ai THE SUN, LON in the law of marriage—should themselves show such little forbearance. Was it not curious that those who asked so much of liberality should give so little of it in exchange? 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 !—(Loud and continued cheering, amid which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman sat down. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. He said, notwithstanding 'he 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 with tut briefly expressing the grounds on which he had letermined with his colleagues on giving it his most decided and persevering support. He had undertaken to give it that support under very different impress lons 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 respect to the justice of the principles on which the Bill was founded, that he and his colleagues were prepared to make every other consideration subordinate to the fulfilment of the duty which it appeared to them was imposed on 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 e 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.) Ile 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 taker. 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 unestion—(Hear, hear)—as to on whom they should devolve. rle 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 founder* 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"—(Bear, hear)—armed with the Ironer of bringing actions, and they would soon in troduce religious discord where there was 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 matter. 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 he 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 th e ir Chancery lawyers, which he ( Sir H. Peel) after reading Lady Hewley's case, and the judgment of I ord Chancellor Sngden, 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 indicting any injury, or throwing any discredit on that great establishment 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 at bitrator 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 diseassion in the public 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 frith 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 ene thing greater—that comprehensive • charity which induced them to be tolerant even 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.) He 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 Bill 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 his place, and bestowing that lucid argument on every subject which he took up—(Cheers) —it was scarcely necessary to hear the brilliant speeches of his Right Hon. Friend near him and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had treated this subject as one of oroperty, but it was not so treated in the petitions sent to that House, and he observed that the 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 perty, let it be thrown out on that ground, but not on the ground that.it was by others giving support to a dangerous ' 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 prescription in their favour, and no prescription be extended in cases of this kind. Those eases were much more difficult, the law-suits were more numerous, and the ultimate decision would involve much greater confusion. A question as to the right heir to property was a ques tion between individuals, and if one individual were deprived another would be placed in possession. But atter persons had held a chapel for one hundred years—after they and their fathers, and their grandfathers, had continued in uninterrupted possession—if the property were taken from them by the decisions of the courts of equity, there was no person to whom it could pro perly be transferred. The consequence would be endless liti gation, including the discussion of various creeds, and the representation of what had been the opinions of various religious sects. He said, then, that the Bill was entitled to support, as tending to settle the question of property. ( Hear; hear:) He had already said that he would 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 to bind 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 307 Against it Majority in favour of the _ • •• ......... - The Bill was then read a second time. The Forestalling, &c., Bill, and the New South \Vales, &c., Government Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Vinegar and Glass Duties 13111 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 CH ANCELIOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of this Bill. Mr. STEWART hoped that there would be no objection to the principle of the Bill being discussed on going into Committee. Io answer to a question from Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. GLADSI ONE said, a certificate of origin was re quired on the importation of sugar from foreign countries. The 13ill 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 I'ECHELL 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 Wale=, 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 value 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, end the House adjourned at a. Quarter to One o'clock. THE REFEALERS OF LIVERPOOL. — The repeaters of Liverpool had a crowded meeting at the Repeal-rooms, in Paradise street, on Sunday evening, at which resolutions of sympathy with O'Connell and his fellow-sufferers, and of un diminished zeal and determination in behalf of repeal were agreed to unanimously, after which the sum of 681. was sub scribed for the Proalotioa, of the cause.—Licerpc,ol Times. LAW INTELLIGENCE HOUSE OF LORDS, June 4. The House sat to-day in a Committee for Privileges. Among the Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. The Annandale Peerage counsel were heard on this claim, and the further consideration of the case was ad journed till Tuesday next. The VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND sat to-day St ten o'clock, but in consequence of the absence of counsel, and parties not being ready, his Honour rose shortly after half-past ten o'clock. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT June 6. (Before Sir JAMES WIcIRAM.) KIRK V. EDDOWES. His HONOUR pronounced judgment in this case. He said he did not expect that his decision would satisfy the parties, and in the state of the authorities he had no right to expect much deference to it. The case was this, Henry Eddowes, the testator in the cause, by his will gave' , his real and per sonal estate to his son, the defendant, John Henry Eddowes, absolutely charged with an annuity of 1001. to the testator's brother, Storor Edwards, for life, and with a capital sum of 3,0001. to his daughter, Mrs. Kirk, for her separate use, with remainder to her children. The plaintiffs, who were children of Mrs. Kirk, hadifiled their bill to recover the 14000/. The right to 2,500/. was admitted; but John Henry Ed dowes contended that the remaining 5001. had been redeemed by an advance made by the testator after the date of his will. Evidence in suppiirt of the de fendant's case had been tendered by the defendant, but as to part of it, it was objected to by the plaintiff. lithe evidence were admissible, he thought it established that the testator did, at Mrs. Kirk's instance and request, give her husband 5001., by giving him a note of one Warner, declaring at the time he did so, that he gave it in part satisfaction of the share of his property given to Mrs. Kirk by his will. The ques tion to be decided was, in fact, whether the gift by the will was &deemed pro tunto by the gift of Warner's note. Where questions similar to the present had arisen on two in struments • 'in writing, the law as to admitting evi dence was 'perfectly settled. The question in such cases had been, what effect, if any, the second transaction had in repealing the gift by the first. In the present case, he thought the rule against admitting evidence to prove the situation of the parties did not apply ; the ques tion was whether any other rule would exclude the evidence. The defendant's evidence was not objected to, po far as it went, only to show the gift and amount of Warner's note ; the ob jection referred only to the testator's declaration accompany ing the gift. Those declarations were the essence of the transaction, and the truth of the transaction itself could not be known to the Court without them. His Honour then re ferred to the authorities on the point, all of which, he said, were in favour of the admission of the evidence in a case like that. The circumstance of the 3,0001. being given to Mrs. Kirk absolutely for life, for her separate use, with the remainder to her children, made no difference. The money waa given as a provision for herself and her children, and was to be considered as a marriage portion She requested her father to advance a part of it to her hus band, and, in acceding to the request, he made a declaration as to his intention in so doing. Upon the whole, not inti mating an opinion that extrinsic evidence was in any case to be admitted, to alter or vary an instrument, or to prove with what intentions it was executed, and distinguishing between ademption and revocation, he thought that in this case the evidence was admissible. .The case was referred to the Master to inquire in what manner the 2,500/. was invested. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 6. (Sittings in Banco,) The Court was occupied the whole morning in hearing the arguments in the case of Scott v. Van Sandon, which was a rule to set aside an arbitration. None of the facts were of any interest except to the parties concerned. BAIL - COURT, June 6. (Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.) THF. QUEEN v. MOTT AND ANOTHER. Mr. JAMES in this case moved for a certiorari to remove two indictments for conspiracy from the Central Criminal Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. The application was founded on the affidavits of the defendants, who stated that they believed the indictments were instituted by a person named Crow, for the purpose of extorting money, and that they could not have the benefit of Queen's counsel at the Central Criminal• Court. Motion granted, the defendants undertaking to try at the sittings after the present term. - - THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF SANDWICH. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL in this case moved for a manda mus to compel the Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of the borough of Sandwich to pay certain costs attending the application fora mandamus made on behalf of Murillion, who had been town-clerk of the borough. This gentlemen had been removed by one of the political parties of the borough, and he applied to the Corporation, under the Mu nicipal Act, for compensation. They having decided that he was not entitled to it, an application was . made to the L or d s o f th e Treasury, who decided that Mr. Murillion was entitled to sixty pounds a year. Not being satisfied with this, he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench who decided that the Lords of the Treasury had no power to grant compensation where the Corporation had decided that none was due. Mr. Murillion afterwards applied to the Cor poration, who decided that ho was entitled to 60/. a year. On application to the Lords of the Treasury a second time they, on fuller in ves ti ga ti on , decided he was entitled to 112/. a year. The present application was to compel the Corpora tion to pay the costs of the former mandamus, which was decided in January, 1842. There were two objections which he (the Solicitor-Ci'eneral) felt bound to mention to the Court. One was the length of time which elapsed since the decision of the former mandamus was given. The other objection was, that the Court did not grant the mandamus in the terms it was prayed for by Mr. Murillion. The Court considered the second objection was fatal. Rule refused. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 6. (Sittings in Banco.) BORON V. THE IiON. CAPTAIN_ DENMAN. This case which occupied the Court during the whole of yesterday, when it was adjourned until to-day, was resumed at the sitting of the Court. It was an action for trespass brought by a subject of the Queen of Spain against the lion. Captain Denman, for seiz ing, taking, and releasing a number of slaves, and seizing and destroying certain bills of exchange and various articles of merchandise, the property of the plaintiff, at Galinas, on the coast of Africa. . The defendant pleaded, in justification, that he was the Captain of her Majesty's ship the Wanderer, and was com manded by her Majesty, in pursuance of a treaty with Spain for the suppression of the slave trade, to use the force under his command for preventing that illegal traffic, and that the slaves in question were natives of Africa, reduced to slavery by f o rce, and duresse, and that it w as ill ega l, an d contrary to the treaties, to traffic in slaves, and that the plaintiff had procured and become possessed of the slaves in question for the purpose of carrying on the above trade, and of having them transported beyond the seas. As to the bills of exchange, and other property destroyed, as alleged in the declaratio n, the defendant pleaded that by the plaintiff for the of carrying on the traffic purpose and i s i t i ß' s h lay p e r s ipe c r o t n yw tr i a twh r i .t 'a- tsi t i o ec' t jil l il i le e teel p iet r di o o v n isions of the treaties, &c., and that the defendant acted by command of her Majesty in destroying the said bills of exchange and other property. To ed, that the place where the not within the alleged odpfl trespasses Majesty ef l e 7 i e n r i te a h i e l t r ,o e e p oi committedof w a g Spain, or of her Britannic Majesty—nor was it on the high seas, but upon land on the coast of Africa. To these d e c larations there was a demurrer. Sir andhon Thomas Wilde thaty esterdaye the appeared to support the de murrer, defendant was not liable to an action in a court of law, and argued at some length that he was entitled to judgment on the demurrer. Mr. Kelly, for the plaintiff; admitted that if there was no Act of Parliament to justify the seizure and destruc tion of the plaintiff's property, it could not be justified at law. The treaty between the two countries offered no justification for the trespasses complained of, and were committed where the treaty did not apply ; and that it could. • have no effect beyond the dominions of the Queen of Spain and the Queen of England. It was mon d bills oefstr exchange, tliem. li e further contended, strous to suppose that be caus e the plaintiff intended to trade a British officer was at l ik e s r l t a y t:e t os wseizeitl and i that the pleas were bad, and that tke judgment must pass for the plaintiff in the demurrer. At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. Baron PARKS su gg e sted to Sir Thomas Wilde the alteration of the pleas respecting th e aut h or i ty un d er w hi c h Captain Denman acted. He merely threw out this 'sugges tion for his consideration. He might take time to consider, and bring the case before the Court again. Sir T. WILDE said he would avail himself of the opportu nity which the Learned Baron had afforded him, and resume the case on Saturday. THE RUNNING REIN CASE. COL. PEEL. V. WOOD. The Learned Counsel on behalf of the parties in this case respectively applied to the Court to frame the issues, and to decide between the parties, also who should be the plaintiff and the defendant in the action now pending, and where the case should be tried, whether in the county of Surrey, in which the venue was laid, or in Middlesex. Mr. PLATT, who with Mr. JAMES, appeared for Mr. Wood, said, that •no difficulty would arise in respect to the wording of the issue. The question of dispute was, that " Running Rein " was net of the requisite age at the time when he ran for the Derby stakes. After a good deal of conversation between the Learned Counsel, • Mr. Mamas (on the part of Colonel Peel) applied to the Court to have the issues to be tried framed in the following Manner, in which the Court agreed to:—Whether Running Rein was foaled in the year 1841, whose sire was "Saddler," and whose dam was "'blab." And that Mr. Wood on the trial be at liberty togive in evidence the declarations of Abra ham Leivite Goodman, if it can be shown that he is interested in the stakes. The time and Court in which the case should be tried was then argued. Mr. Martin contending that if the action was tried in Middlesex, a great saving in expense would be effected, and that great expense would be entailed on the parties if it were tried in the county of Surrey. • Mr. Platt and Mr. James contended that the action ought to be tried in Surrey, where the cause of action arose, where the witnesses resided, and where there was every probability of the parties having a fair trial. The Learned Barons having consulted for some minutes, Mr. Baron PALM: said that he thought the case ought to be tried in Middlesex, and that one of the Barons would try it in the sittings after term, but he could not name the day on which it would be taken. Mr. Ours: then applied, on behalf of Messrs. Weatherby, who held the stakes, which originally amounted to 3,6001., but which, since the commencement of the action, have been considerably augmented by various large sums which they have received, to be no parties to the action, and to be allowed their costs.—The application was acceded to by the Court. SHERIFFS' COURT, June 11. (BeforeMr.Uuder-SheriffliENNEDY and a Common Jury.) BLACKMORE V. FORTY. This was an action brought to recover the sum of 41. 14s. 6d., fur nine weeks' board, lodging, and washing, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and that she was under age at the time the necessaries were supplied. The latter plea, however, was given up. Mr. Ryland appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ballantine for the defendant. The circumstances out of which the action arose are of a somewhat singular nature. The plaintiff is a car penter, residing at No. 24, Palace New - road , Lambeth, and the defendant is a young lady, who came of age on the 14th of February, 1843, and under her grand father's will became entitled to the sum of 9161. 12s. 9d. Three per Cent. Consols. She \vas educated for a go verness, and resided with her mother, a widow, at Richmond, up to 1837, when she was apprenticed to Miss Richardson, of Blackheath, as a teacher, with a premium of 1001. She possesses very considerable per sonal attractions, and the plaintiff's son, William Robert Blackmore, who Is as shopman to a pawnbroker at itichraond, fell in lo ye with her at first sight. Up to that period (July, 1840) young Blackmore was a total stranger to the defendant and her mother, but he intro duced himself by the following letter, dated " Richmond 17th July, 1840. " Dear Miss,—You will, I hope, pardon die liberty used upon this occasion, when you are informed, with all due submission, that it is the irresistible effects of a passion I conceived fOr you from having had an oppor • tunity of minutely observing the charms of your person a few days , since on the Green. From the awe with which I am affected by your preSence; I stand in this predicament—as lost to the power of expression on the' one hand, as to that of restraint on the other. Though at present I address you as a stranger, if you Will honour me with an interview, or a few lines, I will satisfy you, as well as all who may be concerned, with respect to every particular of my situation in life and family con nexions that may be deemed necessary to be known, previous to an allowed intercourse. As my designs are thus apparently honourable; flatter myself you will, if not pre-engaged, comply with my entreaty, and deign me the honour of an opportunity of paying you my per ' sonal respects. Waiting yeur pleasure, " I am, yours affectionately, " W. R. BLACKMORE. " To Miss Forty, Green-side." An acquaintance was subsequently formed, and young Blackmore, as it was alleged, invited Miss Forty and her mother to his father's house, where they remained as visitors from the 28th of September to the 30th of De cember following, in 1840. A dispute then arose be tween the parties, and Miss and Mrs. forty ceased to board in the house, but continued to occupy an apart ment up to March, 1841, for which they paid ss. per week. For the plaintiff, Emma Blackmore, the plaintiff's daughter, and other witnesses were called, and stated that they had heard Misi Forty say that she and her mo ther had agreed to pay the plaintiff 10s. per week each fur board and lodging, and 6s. for washing. For the &readmit, Mrs. Mary Diana Forty, the mo ther, was called, and positively asserted that herself and daughter were inducecl,bY the earnest entreaties of the plaintiff's son to go to his,rather's on the 9th of August, and remain there as visitors.' Witness did not consider it a suitable match, and her daughter broke it off. She had never entered into'any agreement with the plaintiff to pay for their board and lodging. Mr. Ryland having replied, and the Learned Under- Sheriff summed up, the jury, after a few minutes' consul tation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 41. 14s. 6d. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) CLERKEN WELL. HORSE-STEALING. -- John ' Robinson, having the ap pearance of a country labourer, was charged on suspicion of stealing two horses, value about SOL, the property of a person unknown. Police-constable Cole saw the prisoner riding one of the horses, and leading the other, between seven and eight o'clock on that morning, on the Holloway-road. His manner seemed timid and singular, and witness ques tioned him. The prisoner could give no satisfactory account of how he came by the property. He could not tell who the owner of the horses was, and would only state that he had been employed by a drover, and that he was a native of Bedfordshire. One of the cattle is a handsome mare, about three years old, and nearly tho rough bred ; the other is a powerful cart horse, more than 1.5 hands hi- 7 gh.The prisoner was remanded. Six boys, varying in age between fourteen and twenty, named Williams, Smith, Jones, Gibbons, Martin, and Markham, were charged with having refused to perform the work assigned them in the Holborn union work house. Nothing could exceed the squalid, miserable appearance of their persona, literally covered with filth and vermin, their ragged garments hardly concealing their nakedness. One of them, Zachariah Williams, was covered with putrid ulcers, resulting from neglected cutaneous disease ; and Smith was a martyr to the same loathsome malady. They had been admitted into the workhouse as destitute poor on the previous night, and, having received their suppers and bed, as well as break fast this morning, were requested to pick oakum for four hours,.the time assigned by Act of Parliament. They refused, and were brought before the Magistrate. Williams said the ulcerated state of his hands would not permit him to work, and Smith urged the same excuse. Mr. GREENWOOD urged Mr. Wilkes to take these two lads into the cutaneous wards 'of the workhouse, and have their cases attended to by the physician. Mr. Wilkes promised to do so. The other four lads said they would do the work if they were allowed to re turn to the workhouse. This was agreed to, and the prisoners were discharged. 'John Johnson, alias WiUiam Curtis, having a variety of other aliases, who had been sentenced to transporta tion at the Old Bailey for felony about a year ago, was charged with . numerous robberies. Police-constable, 49 E, recognised the prisoner as having been on board the hulks after baying received sen tence, and could not say whether the prisoner had es caped thence or had been pardoned. Mr. GREENWOOD remarked that the offence of escap ing from the hulks was punished with transportation for life, and inquired if the prisoner had any certificate of discharge on his person ?--The constable replied in the negative ; and proniised . tb inquire from Mr. Cope, go vernor of Newgate, if the prisoner really were a returned convict. The prisoner declined saying anything on the subject. The first case was stealing three pairs of boots from the shop of Mr. Louis, a bootmaker, residing in Brown low-street, Holborn. The prisoner went into Mr. Louis' shop . on Saturday last, between eight and nine in the' evening, and finding nobody in it, coolly took the boots from the shelf and ran away with them. He was ob served, however, by Mr. Kimble, of 162, Goswell street, wbo chanced to be'passing at the time. After a smart race police-constable 75 E, overtook and arrested him. The second case was stealing a fur-trimmed cloak, a gentleman's blue coat, and other articles of wearing ap parel, value 151., from the house of Mr. Veltinhofer, a German gentleman, residing at 10, Shadwell-street, Islington. The prisoner having ascertained that a Mr. Leonardo, a literary gentleman. lodged in the house, took a ficti tious note to him, offering him a salary of 1201. a year for his services, as teacher in a school in Hounslow. The note was written in the German language, and was deli vered by the prisoner on the 3d ult. Whilst Mr. Leo nardo was penning an answer to the note, the prisoner decamped with the garments, which were hanging in the hall. The third case was stealing a cheese, weighing 59 lbs , from the shop of Mr. Coggin, Dean-street, Holborn, on the 2d of May last, which was established. Depositions for trial were taken down in the above three cases, and Restaux stated that a great number of other cases of a similar nature could be completed against him, but the Magistrate said it would be sufficient to commit him for trial on these three. In the case of Mark Need alias Perkins—a father beating his child, with extraordinary cruelty, and the facts of which appeared in this paper, among the reported proceedings of Clerkenwell Police-court, Mr. Scargill, clerk to the board of guardians of Clerkenwell parish, announced to the Magistrate that it was the intention of the board to prosecute the father at the ensuing Middle sex sessions, and Mr. Greenwood expressed his satisfac tion at the information. SHOCKING ATTEMPT at MURDER NEAR LOUTH. On Thursday evening (30th ult.), about nine o'clock, the utmost consternation was created in Louth, from the galloping into the town of a mounted messenger, who sought the assistance of the police in endeavouring to discover the retreat of a ruffian who had' made an at tempt to murder an old man, named Jacob Gainsley; and his wife, who keep the toll-bar on the Spilsby -road, about two miles from Louth. About eight o'clock on the above evening, a. tall, stout, banker-looking fellow called at the bar, and asked for a biscuit and a cup of water, which were sup plied to him by old Gainsley, and of which he sat down and partook. When he had finished he went out, and on his return said be would have another biscuit and a bottle of ginger beer. These were also supplied, and soon afterwards he -rose from his chair, went up to the fire, and taking down a brace of loaded pistols which were hanging over the mantelpiece, said to the old man, " What do you keep these for?" to which he replied, "To protect myself from robbers." The ruffian in stantaneously levelled a pistol at Gainsley, and fired. Providentially the ball missed, and lodged in the opposite wall. He then pulled from his pocket a heavy hammer, with which he began to beat the poor old man on the head. The noise brought out Gainsley's wife, who was in a little parlour, who seized the assailant by the necker chief, when, to release himself, he took hold of the fore finger of her hand with his teeth, and completely bit off the first. joint. He then began beating the old woman on the head with the hammer until she was nearly insensible. All this was but the work of a moment, and at this stage Gainsley's son, a stout young man, who was in bed in another part of the house, rushed into the room in his shirt, when the vil lain fired at him with the second pistol, the ball of which must inevitably have proved fatal, had it not entered the thick part of his right arm, where it lodged. The poor fellow grappled with the wretch, and in the struggle he was severely, cut about his right hand with a razor, which his opponent pulled from his pocket. He succeeded, however, in wresting from him the hammer with which he gave him several se vere blows on the head, its shaft being broken in the struggle. At this time, also, the old man recollected that he had a sword stick, with a stiff square sword (four edged), about a foot and a half long, and with this wea pon he several times stabbed the fellow, and it was sub sequently found stained with blood ! The father and son then rushed into the parlour for a loaded gun, which was hung up there, when the fellow followed them and seized it ; but the cap having been lost, it was rendered useless. The struggle in this little parlour was severe, and so much blood was lost by the whole party, that the walls were literally besmeared with it. The old woman escaped by the window to give an alarm, when the other three returned to the room in which the attempt at murder was first made, each too faint from exhaustion and loss of blood to struggle any more. The ruffian then (having unebservedly locked the door inside, and put the key in his pocket), finding the old woman was gone to give an alarm, took out his razor and swore he would cut his own throat, drawing the razor across it as he spoke, if they would not let him go. Whether from fear or otherwise, he was then suffered to make his escape, and took a direction towards the woods on the Spilsby APPREHENSION AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE OF THE CRIMINAL. LOUTH, SUNDAY, ONE O'C LOCK . -011r correspondent further writes : — We have j ust received information that the perpetrator of the diabolical outrage recorded above has been discovered, and has attempted self-mur der by cutting his own throat, though not so severely 64 to destroy life. His name is Markham; he is about 45 years of age, and was originally apprenticed to a baker in Louth, and was formerly a keeper at the. Lincoln Lunatic Asylum. Having some time ago threatened to revenge himself upon old Gainsley, having informed upon.a brother of his for riding upon the shafts of his waggon at the .time.Gainsley kept the Ashby toll-gate, he took the opportunity referred to to carry his passion into effect. By some means or other, he became acquainted with a Mrs. Desforges, a widow, possessed of some little pro perty, residing at Bilsby, near Alford, to whom he was actually paying his addresses at the time he attempted to carry out his sanguinary intentiong. - • From information received the prisoner was traced to ' the house of Mrs. Desforges; at Bilsby, during the night of Saturday last, where Superintendent Cathpbell arrived at half-past eleven o'clock at night, accompanied by Chapman (Louth police) and Biggs (Alford police). 'On arriving at. the house the superintendent knocked at the door. Mrs. Desforges asked " Who's there ?" The answer was, " A friend." She. then ran up stairs, looked out of the window, and repeated the same question, asking, " What was wanted ?" He answered, " You need not be afraid, I want to speak to you." She then came down stairs, and opened the door. Campbell then asked who' she had in the house ? She said, " I have only my children and Mr.. Mark - hani." He then said he wanted to speak to Mr. Markham, and requested her to show him the bedroom, which was only seven steps from . the front door. She- went up, and. the officers followed. The door was open. ' Mrs. Desforges observed, " Do shut the - door, . Mr.-Markham ;" but, on looking into the room, blood - was seen, and it was immediately discovered that he had eta his throat. Mr. Handsley, of Alford, was sent fir," and he very promptly arrived, and sewed up the wound,. - which extended four inches across his 'throat. The. prisoner said it was his intention to wound Gainsley, and to give him a desperate fright, for having about three years back, laid an information against his brother for riding on the wag gon-shafts. The prisoner was wounded by Gainsley in several places, and he stated that it was with difficulty he had made his escape. He had determined to cut his throat rather than be apprehended, atid had his razor with him for that purpose ; he did the desperate act directly Mrs. Desforges. went down for the purpose of opening the door. He was left in the custody of Biggs. Since Mr. Handsley, surgeon, of Alford, sewed - up the . gash in the man's throat, he managed while alone to tear out the stitches, and now lies in a most precarious state ; indeed, with scarcely a hope of recovery. DREADFUL MURDER. On Wednesday the pleasant little watering-place,Weston super-Mare, 21 miles from Bristol, was the scene of as barba rou s *murder as has been recorded for a long period—viz., the murder of a wife by her husband, a man moving in a re spectable sphere of life, possessed of a small independence, and carrying on a prosperous business in the town of Wes ton. We have ascertained the following to be:the particulars connected with this horrid transaction :—The unfortunate victim is Mary Fisher, the wife of (the murderer) Joel Fisher, who keeps a house called the Devonshire Inn, in High-street, Weston. The deceased, it appears, was formerly married to a man named Hyatt, who, however ' left her with two chil dren, and was absent and supposed to be dead for about ten or twelve years, during which period the deceased was mar ried to the man Fisher, with whom, it seems, her life was anything but a happy one. In consequence of his penurious disposition there were frequent quarrels between them, and on more than one occasion she has left him, but has subse quently-been induced to return. On the evening preceding the murder her husband and she had a desperate quarrel, arising from the circumstance of a lodger having left the house, on account of (as was alleged by Fisher) her conduct to him. The quarrel continued up to the period of bedtime, and her husband frequently threatened her, that he would "do for her." The consequence was, that she refused to sleep with him, and at about eleven o'clock retired to bed with a female servant. After she had retired to bed her hus band was still heard about the house in a state of great ex citement, uttering horrid threats, to the effect that he would murder her, and that that night should be her last. From the appearance of his bed when examined in the `morning, it was evident that he had not slept in it all night. Shortly after five o'clock yesterday morning, the servant girl was alarmed by his bursting open the door of the bed-room where herself and mistress were sleeping in one bed and two of his children in another. On seeing him rush into the room the children, although only of the respective ages of ten and twelve years, began screaming, and the servant girl begged him to withdraw. He was then armed with a square iron bar, with which he had forced the door, and having jumped upon the bed, he instantly struck hisunfortunate vic tim with it upon the head. The servant and children begging him to desist, he coolly replied that he would not injure any of them, and in the most fiendish manner struck the unfortu nate woman two or three more blows with the bar, which literally smashed in her skull, after which, as though to render his butchery doubly certain, he left the room, but in less than a minute returned with a carving -knife, with which he cut her throat in so dreadful a manner as to nearly sever her head from her body. Being thus satisfied of her death he immediately went into the bed-room of one of his lodgers —a young man—whom he informed of what he bad done. The servant in the meantime had alarmed the neighbour hood and procured a policeman ' who, upon his arrival, was coolly shown upstairs to the chamber where the corpse lay by the murderer himself. There is but little doubt that the first blow caused the death of the unfortunate woman, as the servant girl states that her mistress never spoke and scarcely moved after it was given, but that the man Fisher jumped upon the deceased and placed her head in such a position as to be able the more easily to effect his murderous purpose. On his being arrested by the police he was quite collected, and accounted for his having cut her throat by stating that he thought it better to put her out of life as quickly as possible. The deceased was t 1 itifty years of age, and her murderer perhaps a year jr t ( older. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. LONDON, JUNE 6.—Wind S.W., light breeze, with rain. Bins - rot, JUNE s.—Arrd. Anna Maria, West, China; Chebar, Harrison, Calcutta; General Colston, Lovell, Ashan tee ; Lovell and Timbuctoo, Davis, Africa ; Pomona, Smith, Trinidad; Adelaide and George, St. Vincent's. DEAL, JUNE s.—Wind S.W., moderate.—Arrd. Duke of Roxburgh, Hobart Town ; Eleanor, Barnett, South Seas ; James Campbell, and Harmony, China"; Palatine, Gardner, Batavia ' • Princess Sophia, ditto for Amsterdam ; Jonge Jan, ditto forßotterdam ; Falcon, Bombay ; Louise Sophie, Bahia for Hamburgh ; Nickerie Packet, Nickerie for Amsterdam ; Mary, Porto Rico for Bremen ; Borna and Fiction, Havannah for Hamburgh ; Harriet and Premier, Jamaica ; Brothers, and St. James, New York ; Fortuna, ditto for Antwerp ; En chantress, Phillips, St. John's; Florence, Webster, Madeira. Sid. Kingsdown, South Seas, and several of the outward bound. FALMOUTH, JUNE s.—Wind - S.S.W., -fresh breezes, and cloudy.—Arrd. Guthridge, Ichiboe ; Philometer, Bell;Buenis Ayres; Cornish Diamond, Hod, Port Republicain. OfF, Herald, Jones; and Europe, Longwood, Ichiboe ; John . Peat, Guthrie, Rio Grande; Vanguard, Sabeston, Ichiboe ; Mar quis Breadalbane, Reid, Callao, sailed Jan. 22. A large barque ofabout 450 tons, coppered, is now entering the port with loss of fore and mainmasts. PORTSMOUTH, JUNE s.—Wind W.S.W. to S.S.E.—Arrd. Her Majesty's ship Pearl, Rio, and sailed East. Ski. Royal Albert, China. Off, Plantagenet, Dornett, Calcutta, left St. Helena April 18 ; • Vernon, Gimblett, Calcutta, left Cape April 10, St. Helena, 23d; Maidstone, Nash, Calcutta. Cowns, JUNE 5.--Arrd. Soboken, Bahia ; 'Princeton and Cherokee, Matanzas ; Grace Darling, Madeira. OFF SALCOMBE, JUNE 3. = Van Spyck, Surinam, for Am sterdam. PLYMOUTII, JUNE 5. —Wind —Arrd. Bowes of Stroatham, Fleming, Sonabaya ; Golden Spring, Telliboe. OFF TILE LizAnD, JUNE 4.—Emma Jones, China. CL;:DE, JUNE I.—Sid. Jean Baptiste, Buenos Ayres; Maria Brennen, St. Thomas's ; Lyra, Jamaica ; 3d, Abigail, Montreal. Orr WIUTEICAVEN, Jusr, 4.—Royal Archer, Ichiboe. Lmutroor., JUNE s.—Wind S.S.E. to S.S.W.—Arrd. Ann and Jane Smith and Blorage, Hawks, Oalcutta ; Peruvias, do, ; Sir John Burford, Treadwell, Ceylon ; Vibilia, Ichiboe ; Golden Fleece, Hubbock, Bahia ; Violet, Paterson, Porto Rico ; Glengariff and Jamaica, Jamaica ; Abbot Lord, Aure lius, Bora Dea ; British King, Harkaway, Lamport, Lord Sandon, Oromocto, and Pioneer, New Orleans; England and Gertrude, do. ; Britannia, Williams, exas ; Ritson, Johnson, Savanilla ; Coronation and William Goddard, Mobile ; Charles Joseph, Caroline, Envoy, Laurel, and Tamerlane, Savannah ; Enterprise, George Canning, and Huron, Charleston ; Ash burton and Robert Isaac, New York ; Elizabeth Bentley, St. John's, New Brunswick. Off, Lord Althorp, Calcutta; Su sannah, Coiling, La Guayra • St. Vincent, St. Vincent; Sarah Trotman, Barbcdoes ; Lydia, Antigua ; Yorkshire, New York; Otterspool (supposed), Calcutta ; Elizabeth (ditto), Bombay; Chieftain, ipnella, and Woodville, —. Sid. Balnio, Africa; Calder, Siiyapore; Magellan, Lima; Siluas, Rio; Grace, Brown, Baltimore; Champion, Philadelphia ; Potomac; Boston ; Blake, Kitty', Lord Seaton, Quebec ; Aber deen, Montreal. OFF DUNMORE, Jurro; 3.—Sarah SteNyart, Charleston. CORK, JUNE 3.—Aircl. her Majesty's ship Albion (90), Lisbon. Sld. Mary, Newfoundland. Off, Harbinger, New York, for the Clyde. SHIELDS, JUNE 4.—Arrd. Adeline, Sierra Leone. HULL, JUNE s.—Arrd. Harlequin, Charleston. GUANO.—Alively interest was excited last w(zelf in the Colonial market, owing to a sale by auction of the first cargo of guano imported into London from the re cently discovered island of Ichaboe, on the western coast of Africa. The interest was increased by a similar sale in Liverpool, a few days before, of the largest quantity that has hitherto come from the same place, in one bottom, namely, the ship Blake, of one thousand tons. The competition at both sales was very spirited, and each cargo was sold in about twenty minutes. The desire for Ichaboe guano has arisen from the fact, that all the emi nent chemists who have analysed it, have found it to possess the fertilizing properties in the highest degree ; and the results of its application by practical agriculturists has proved the correctness of their analysis. The farmers in the northern and some of the western districts in England and in Scotland, were 'among the first to try Guano, when introdnced from South America, four years ago, and have had the best means of ascertaining its qualities. The conse quence is that the consumption in these parts of . the kingdom is, this year, increased at least twenty times above that of last year, being no small evidence of the superior merits of this invalu able manure. Besides the demand for home consump tion, several ships have discharged in the West Indies, and there are large orders for various ports on the Continent. The immense benefit to the shipping inte rest, from this new branch of commerce, may be eon ceived, when it is known that about four hundred ships are on their way to Ichahoe and the adjoining islands for the next year's supply, and that from this cause the value of shipping has advanced fifteen to twenty per cent. We perceive that a cargo of Ichaboe Guano is to be sold by public auction, at the Corn Market, Mark lane. on Monday, the 10th instant. Yesterday was the anniversary (June 6, 1814) of the arrival of the King of Prussia, the late Emperor of Russia, and other continental Princes, in London, after the termina tion of the war, when a round of fetes took place. IMPORTATION OF BUTTER.--On a recent represen tation to the Board of Customs by the principal practical officers, stating that it has hitherto been the practice to allow a tare of 141bs. each for each cask containing butter im ported froth Rotterdam, and commonly known among the trade as " Black Jacks," whereas the weight of the casks varies to a considerable extent, and after the report of the Surveyor-General on the subject, stating that they had con ferred with the wholesale importers of the article, who con curred in the recommendation, it has been decided by the Board that in future an uniform tare of 101bs. be allowed for the casks in question, instead of 141bs. as at present. This order is of much importance, as immense quantities of the article are daily brought over to this country from ... ~.'l'.. THE FRENCH RAILWAYS• (From the Railway Record.) " We have not, for two or three weeks past, adverte d fo the French Railways, because such is the tardinss,.° all legislative proceedings in the Chambers, that wee° plies away without, apparently, anything being dote for the Commissions (Committees) sit with closed doors, listless they call for " persons and papers" to eluci date some particular question, or unless some parties inte rested demand to be heard before them. tints w e ‘ e ‘ k T i h s e t chhei triumphantef material pin f a ae ss tw g o we have pelier and Nismes Railway, by a very large rouPritY (190 to 60) in favour of the pro et de lot presented by the Minister of public Works. " This is a most significant sign of the times,' as r e. a t v h e e Bteillafeo aretehneeDeloi gards the other Bills now before the Chambers , and ren ders the question of their being pas3ed, and in 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 pe rmseen way . entirely done ; and, we believe, even the locoin. tr tive power partLelly provided. ti It therefore afforded tpe most favourable specimen of a line to be whol l y in hands of the State, ' as an experiment;' but the proposir: tion having been negatived in so unequivocal a menu'. t is conclusive as to the adoption of the Minister ial prof t with respect to all the other lines now be!ore'the Cho u ' ' bers, and for which draft leases are proposed in the PT; sent session. All will be passed as presented by t Minister—that's certain. • The report on the Orleans, Tours, and p ordesu line was presented on Wedi,esday last; it is not Ye rinted, but it is understood that the only a lteration re " " ommended by the Commission, in the con ditions fr ° ' posed by the Minister, is to reduce the proposed te r ; of the lease to forty-one years sixteen days, in acc,_', b ante with the offer of a company, at the head of wai n are persons of well known skill and tried experieuc e 4o railway matters. This will be the first Bill to pass ' 0 session, and the passing of all the others will follow , of course. " The line from Bordeaux to Toulouse will not be presented this year, any more than that. from Lyou!,,, t Avignon. We may take the opportunity of and "'„. it is utterly futile, and a perfect waste of time and troc ble, to get up companies for railway projects in Ers- r . l o , not sanctioned by the Government, or which the ! , to vernment have no present intention of carrying I „ ti e d effect, or which, at best, must necessarily be postlifi-df for a considerable period. Some of them have alres,', been brought before the public, and others, for a u g ht know, may follow,with no better claims to notice ; AS ~" aeral rule, we advise the railway public to coutiteinw - t h, only such projects as are presented. to them in en: n ll 7fli ligible slApe, either as being the subject-matter now actually before the French Legislature, or cuf prised in the great Railway Bill of the 1 1 th of Ju""' 1842, sure to be carriedout, sooner or later. Verb fort "Before our next publication the Bills for the iv),be line, and the Lyons line, will have been reported to !_d Chamber of Deputies. It is understood in well -infor the circles that the North line will be assimilated tow s other long lines, in the general terms and conditi°ll4; and that the opinion of the very slender majority c' t " t he in the Commission will be but feebly embodied 1 1... n0 , report, and not at all supported in the Chamber. •P',f M. Rothschild will take, and will get the North lie to e [The Paris paperLa Presse s differs from the coneluseu. here arrived at by the Record, which is usua ll y Iv bet informed on all that relates to the French railways; to , then the editor of La Presse is a highly-talented em of ber of the corps of the Ponts et Chaussees, a ph eil tbe the Hon. Deputy, M. Muret de Bort, and both P ' r be persevering champions and advocates, in the Ch a d t he and out of doors, of the system of short leases, 1113 s ys te proximate possession. of all the railways by M. Muret de Bort has perpetrated several breelinble support of his opinions. Both have spoiled an the quantity of paper and ink in labouring to ine`" - 0 001 Government to accept an offered loan of 20,v v"..:04 sterling to complete the railways, and keep the w`"This of them in their own hauls, but to no purpose . hie s colossal bubble, which never had any real existen i c e . 2 o of at last burst. Poor Jacques Laffitte and his, I lbers 500,000,000 f. both died the same day ! The sue s ' ....` are invited to receive back their deposits. hTr e.' With the numerous demands upon th e Frenc h o w, Bury for external, as well as internal objects, jus t tbso no more money can be spared for the railway 15A what was contemplated in the mixed system of t; t he of June, 1842, now about to be carried into e ffect Wi th Bills before the Chambers in the present session. 500 the death of the colossal loan, therefore, we P r o „, e ts will vanish the last hope of the partisans a the tb° Chaussees, and the completion of the railways State.—ED. Sun.] -I-% A. • MARKET NEWS.-YESTER TEAT MANLIEXTS. 31 03;1 SMITIMELD.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 313 s to 0 ful ditto, 3/ 12s to 41; fine Upland ditto 43000 lOs ; Clover Hay, 4/ to 5/ lOs ; Oat Straw, 118 s t° 'stssl f Wheat Straw, 11103 to 1112 s per load. Both Hay sio l sold briskly, at very full prices. e 55 ; • CustnEni.AND.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3l 8s to - 411 ' ful ditto, 3/ 18s to 4/ 53; fine Upland ditto, 4165 t° Clover Hay, 4/ to 5155; Oat Straw, 1185 to 1110si 30 Straw, 1/ lOs to 1113 s per load. Supply but mode llb "" trade active. Prices on the advance. 51 19 0 ; WurrEcuarEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 31 5s "'i t its useful ditto, 31 16s to 4/ 2s ; fine Upland ditto, Oda"`l/101,; 4/ lOs ; Clover Hay, 41 lOs to 5/ 103; Oat Straw, 11 81 ` Wheat Straw, 1/ lOs to 11 12s per lead. A supply, and a ready sale. lT VIA3tZETS. tile f all SournaLL, JUNE s.—For the time of year, Tre, - t o -A an extensive supply of each kind of fat stock on oast . rn aces l while the general demand was heavy, at, in some 1 .05 ' - gs depressed rates :—Beef, from 2s 8d to 33 10d ; Motto:1'1,00', 4s • Lamb, 4s fid to 5s 6d ; Veal, 3s 4d to 4s 6d ;2 1 ],t . * 40; 3s le 3s 10d per 81bs, to sink the offal. Supply--0"- st Sheep and Lambs, 3,649 ; Calves, 60 ; Pigs, 54. ROMFORD, JUNE s.—Prime Downs were in dollit,, ti ° very full prices. In other kinds of stock comparativ,ecfb was doing.—Beef, from 2s 8d to 3s 10d ; Mutton, 25 „" 25 1 S Lamb, 43 8d to 5s 6d ; Veal, 33 6d to 43 6d ; aadrfriet ` to 3s 8d per 81bs. Sucking Calves, 183 to 28 s; s o ' Store Pigs, 16s to 20s ; and Milch Cows, with the 0 calls, 161 , t0 19/ each. - 9 ttO. , opt , ' LEWES, JUNE 4.—Beef, from 2s 10d to 43 • 310- poll' 4s 2d; Lamb, 43 6d to 53 4d ; Veal, 3s 4d to 45 2 ??_7 4 ; duo' 3s to 3s 6d per 81bs. Supply but moderate and tm" CORN AVERAGES.. co o :0 of GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF RRITIS.. getur,oi For the Week ended :dune 1. 1E44, made up Cron' th e ,,,sls B ' the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in ...•-• ( si Wales, per Imperial . Wheat......... 555. 6d. Oats . 310. ' i d Oats 8ar1ey......... 30s. 9d. 1 Rye 9ls. Od 1 Pease...», ..o, AVERAGES OF TICK LAST SlI WEEJES•kw, Ii ' WHEAT. BARLBY.I OATS. 1 RYE. 1 $$ .-.1 -.- ----/-4 0 1 55 6 32 7 20 1 3 1 1 .------ 2, 31 9 51 5 55 3 31 5 20 1 3C II ' 3l 5 5i 1 5.5 1 31 5 20 5 :it 4 H.,, 32 3 V 1 55 10 91 1 21 0 31 2 1 '"',4 ; I _ 51 ' 55 10 BO 7 21 2 31 7 , „, A '''' 10. ',O 55 6 30 9 21 7 34 0 ,"" , Alfrija AGGREGATE AVERAGES or •ros f...... 50, .0, 5.. 6d I Oats ... 2O, 241 8ean0.... ;$l4 Is. 41 I Rye DUTIES 011 'DESIGN CORTI. ....1" ei 17s. 04. I Oats 7s. Od. I Rye lO,. ad. Peale.... nto .1 P esi( ;d * The Opera, on Saturday night next, wi a b e A in scene of extraordinary brilliancy—three cr",„re,lo,4i• The gratifying sight of the most powerful Emit; m ost ''' hand with the most constitutional Monarch of t" t lised and powerful nation in the world. the Y t ici TEE WEEK AT BOULOGNE.—During sa w° t o week our streets have been enlivened by a v as t,l4 s sok visitors from England. The cold, nay bitter a nt)" early part of the week, with the anything but a nt Oh. prevented many more coming that we othervilae,oo ti lot seen. On Saturday week upwards, we be o_f p : iati ; of st for an excursion to Boulogne, were sold in L0_ . ..„ - ter r o tli number only 300 arrived, and certainly the w ok In those whom we saw land on Sunday iv°1„ 0 1 la $00; have been far better pleased to have reui°"„ l , — a npei• li''' (s)tfontehetnlhanhadhayeevibdeeenntlyshaken On the ,-.• s pree , e pi fame of our brandy had o p n e l c y uli c a o r ui del f i o g rh i ' re f :t r e dt . l3* e ilt; but when glorious, they were certainly slept is DO indulgence by the police. Only twenty 01 1 , e isere 0400 street all night, from total forgetfulness of , 'l i i fere„ or taken up their abode; they declared, so fatigt1700111:0 by the railroad and the sea voyage, that f a th er olde e l i eto they 004 convenience from their hard beds, indeed sve are g ~,,G l i a 00 stones of Boulogne must be very soft. f w o i u t n h d a so. bot O tl n e, th m e e n it e e x d t ci d u ay ie - ttlhyefrSoumndoaury grot:.:jstourgield rest of the week the weather became more geFLI:,-.13 0 increase of travellers from England took pi 6 v — _60) 11 Gazette. Weeks endingl April 20 ..... 1 27 May 4 11.... IMPICILIAL Wheat......... ... 1 Wheat Barley lEe!=nl2 ----------- 00P f th e On the 26th ult., in P li o i r ß tla T n ir d- S place , the ladlem Lieutenant-Colonel Wilbraham, of a daughter. ( .1, COs' Esq.,o o th f e a 2 d B a t u h o u it l e t r .,. in - Alfred-place, the may 0 ot On the 29th alt., the lady. of James D 3 14°' 94 , '' 'it. Cambridge-place, rttihidieegel2-89:tliahnesuet,.1:1-.aftyadDtea-nopgsaxrfktoe,rindof:tianerrdsaaussuceg,eh:te,;.der_.,ek, DS I°. ji 0 INL C v3 . o:oowneu, Edwards, Es g.O o f f a a s on. daughter. A f Of I t° • On the 2d inst., in Albion-street , the bi -, g l i h St:: , w F e , r s s q , . ,Eosfqa. daughter. f a son }cycle-Pe r ' lip 1 i Of 1414 On the 2d inst., at lbstone. House, th e " ad " 1 9 ' .420 0 lady fiVilli''- • On the 2d inst., at Wimbledon, the ° - gel - Al ei° _, Esq., of a son. On the 3d inst., the wife o f Richard par t ' -.' dir street, Hyde-park, of a son. Luc ke, he I . t On the 3d inst., at Wolverton Vicarage, ne e 7 - 9 0 51 the Rev. Henry Read Q artl f daughter. ..0,- u y, 0 A On the 3d inst., at the Rectory, Little- YeIPP - of Didi 3lrs. J. Gaselee, of a son. the p not* ~kts On the d inst., at Wonston Rectory, A 4 ., dilua the Rev. Alfred B. Hill, Curate of Wonston, of ,j, 211ARRIED. P ' tli yen ecl ei llir ebe er On the 6th inst., at St. Ge o r ge'os, gen° e , to / pi/- youngest son of Mr. Taylor fhe Home-ni.gche of 1 , , Caroline, second daughter Of the late Mr. 1 "' _. fe ,1 11 ,, f '.0-• Eaton-street. Cook,On tlhaetelsotfiEnsotn.,lfaotrdS, t E . s G s e x or , ge to 's , street, Berkeley-square, only daughter oi ' Po Hulme, Esq. Tranover Atilioiasti, On the 4th ina., at St. George's, --. to tier W' Ralph Ormsby Gore, Esq., Groom in Waltiog Tore OILOI:f12.aln 110" e, Dl2 for orts6e•••"' . ob e to Sarah, youngest dahlhter of Sir John Tyseen I, DIED Gbe ite ifiCi l ' UM' 50 9re ' ill' 4 On the 25th of May, at Welling of ~,,, goo. , he mlliassnrie_l7rhie7soielto,bert Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Barron, ' 4 ! , ~i f of '- Company's Service, Bengal Establishilr_bi)etb, Too d On the 29th ult., at Harrowgate, }-. l l :_f, 1,00;1180r late John Butler, Esq., of Tavistock-sq of •-- Cb" On the Ist inst., George, fourth son Of .10' neir a Godalming, Esq., aged 28. h Oh c Gilling . A s „i. th - On the Ist inst., at Nile Cottag , relic t v ham, Mr. Michael Austin, aged 72. ~,-,vv, re" t, On the let inst., at Coombe, Sus ses, " 13-6tjw f 0 414 e 4 late Sir George Shiffner, Bart. . . OA% °- On the the 2d inst., Captain William Ise' Commercial -road, Stepney • g •tor , - r 'nee's. place, le lluili ed I * ------' On the 4th inst., at ri of Cornifail, 4 — O a ''' . of the late H. Minster, Esq., OTO It I .1(s. si --------- i g1:1 1 D ,4-e• - "I London : Printed and Published ~,I) S c". O''''-001" No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 1 Stool,e n the Strand, in the Precinct of the laiddleaex, Friday Julia 7, 1844. C i r k is' l l l ' i ,t k e ; . r 1 S „ le, Botic St4 r Ell D -4' ..'llll by C" 11 Pktpo, hZdit '°lll kla 41 )7 40