The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

; 4 o ft 4 4 THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.) BRITISH FUNDS. /Bank Stock ,' Indian Stock • Pnl. 3 per Cent. Red fB% iDitto Bonds . ....... ....... Pul• 3 per Cent. Cont. ow 4 99% :Ditto Old Annuities ... —3% per Cent. Rod New 5 per Cent. Long Annuities to expire , Uitto Small 77 pm. Jan. 1860..„,„ , „., 1 3 7.15 'B a nk St oc k f or A cct. Oct. 1859 Cotisols for Acct 99% Jan. 1860 ,l dia Stock for Acct.... FOREIGN FUNDS. Austrian, 5 per Cent l l, Portuguese, 5 per Cnit Belgian, 5 per Cent — Ditto, New Ditto Chllian t; per Cent • Di tto, M eta lli c — Colombian, 6 per Cent ...... Spanish, b per Cent 24% Ditto, 1824 Ditto, 3 per Cent 35 Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent 93 Ditto, Deferred 14% Danish, 3 per tent Greek, 18 5, 5 per Cent...... Fxchange —f. —c. Mexican, 5 per Cent ... ...... 35% French, 3 per Cent. —f. —c Ditto, t per Cent., 18,7 Dutch, 2% per Cent....... 61 1 4 Peruvian, 1825, 6 per Cent 2g4 Ditto, 5 per Cent .........100% SHA RES. Btnn'ngham and Gloucester (100 paid) 9 6 1,i bristol and. Exeter ( 0 paid)....... . ..... Bristol and Gloucester (30 p t iti) Caleionian, 5 paid Chester and Holyhead ( !, paid) Eastern Counties MI paid) Ditto Registered (816 s Btl paid) Great Western (75 paid) Ditto Half Shares (50 paid) London and Birmingham (Stock) Ditto New Quarters ( ,t paid) London and Blackwell (161. las 4df) 7% London and Brighton (sii paid) London and Greenwich (I•2t. La. 4d. paid) 4% London and South Western (111. 6s. Ifkl. paid) B., Ditto Eighths (15s. paid) London and Croydon (Trunk) 19% Ditto Scrip (10 paid) l 9O Manchester and Leeds (70 paid Ditto Quarter Shares (2 paid) 5Vt Manchester end Birmingham Midland Counties (100 paid) 9O North Midland (100 paid) Norwich and Brandon ( 2 paid) 9% South Eastein and Dover (3312 s 4d paid) .... Ditto 'yew Shares( 4 pa!d) Yarmouth and Norwich (18 paid) York and Scarborough Branch (•sy. paid) Paris and Orleans (20 paid) Strasbourg and tale (14 paid) lO% RAILWAY RETURNS. We extract from the Railway Magazine the sums received on the principal Railways of Great Britain for the week ending on the day of the month prefixed to each. The return includes the money received for passengers, parcels, carriages, horses, mails, and mer chandise Week Total., Name of Rahway. . ended . ' X. s. d. April 27 Arbroath and Forfar 162 4 3 27 Birmingham and Derby Junction 1,376 0 4 26 Birmingham and Gloucester 2,086 8 3 27 Brandling Junction 543 19 , 2 26 Chester and Birkenhead 532 13 5 30 Dublin and Kingstown 1,721 16 0 28 Dundee and Arbroath 253 0 74 27 Durham and Sunderland 431 5 9 27 Edinburgh and Glasgow 2,363 13 3 28 Eastern Counties and North Eastern 4,420 8 2 •27 'Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr 1,239 8 2 27 . Glasgow _and oGretnock 737 0 0 27 Grand Junction • 4. 7,647 19 10 27. Great North of England 1,353 10 6 23 Great Western 26 Liverpool and Manchester • 27 London and Birmingham 28 London and Blackwall 1,049 16 10 27 London and'BrightOn _ :30 London and Croydon May 2 London and Greenwich 914 18 2 April 23 .London and South Western ....... • -25 Manchester, Bolton and Bury - 736 19 6 27 Manchester and Birmingham • 3,254 1 6 •27 Manchester, Leeds, and Hull Assoc 5,920 5 3. • 27 Midland Counties _ 2,911 7 9 27 NewCA:stle and - Carlisle - -28 NewceStle:and North ShieldS • ' 306 15 0 27 North Midland ' . •-- 4,336 0 1 13 North; Union and Bolton and Preston 1,221 15 3 23 Paris and Orleans- 5,498 18 8 29 Paris and Bonen 4,735 0 0 . 27 Preston and Wvre 241 3 10 27 Sheffiell•and 'Manchester 536 12 2 May 2 South Eastern April 27 Taff Vale . 894 8 1 28 Ulster . 593 17 3 27 Yotk and North Midland SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS FROM THE-EvENING PAPERS OF TEM DAT. GLOBE.-The Duke of Richmond, as head of the Agricultural Protectionists, has taken the field against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Grace had - placed on the notice-book of the House of Lords, a motion against the proposed repeal of the duty on foreign wool, which forms a part of the financial scheme of the year, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday Evening. The motion of the Noble Duke was to have been brought on last evening ' • but, in conseq u en ce o f th e indis position of Lurd Ripon, it was first postponed FRIDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. to Tuesday, and last evening was further pest NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. poised to Thursday, next. The determined hostility J. Shepherd, cabinet maker, Gnisbrough, Yorkshire. manifested by the agricultural monopolists to the pro T. Close, druggist, Halifax. posed repeal of the wool duties, is as impolitic as it is J. Hall, farmer, Bubwith, Yorkshire. unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accompanies R. H. Hoskins, public-house manager, Liverpool. his -proposed relief to the manufacturer with a posi- T. Ingham, farmer, Luddington, Lincolnshire. tire boon to the English wool-grower. The former D. Evans, coach spring maker, Liverpool. would be relieved by the abolition of the duty of one J. G. Hatcher, coachmaker, Tenbridge. g r St. Alban's-place, Edgeware-rd, penny per lb. on the importation of foreign w 00l ; JU.',vl Baker, jug., riroZeofLed: the latter by _the removal of one shilling per cwt. W. Marsden, table-knife manufacturer, Sheffield. on British wool exported. The aggregate annual G. How, butcher, Hammersmith. amount of 'the proposed reduction, as estimated C. Collins, saddler, South Hincksey, Berkshire. by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is 100,0001. The J. Black, labourer, Horwich, Lancashire. prospect of an early attainment of an object for which J. Naylor, hosier, Liverpool. the woollen manufacturers have earnestly pl ea d e d with I. F. Coyle, Alexander-square, Kensington. successive Governments, and have looked forward with L. Alman, musical instrument Seller, Bristol. earnest hope, is again beclouded with fear of disappoint- F. Mitchell, cab proprietor, Briane. went. The House of Lords is the stronghold of mono- T.l s m . ith,g n un w m a r a e k h e o r u , 3 e High Holborn.salesman, anchester. poly. The House of Commons, as at present consti- J A. Aspinwall, Plnwa tobacconist, Manchester. toted, is also avowedly opposed to any legislative con cessions to the manufactur ers , i n matters w hi ch seem to W. Newman, builder, Hammersmith. EL Davis, governess, Gloucester-place, Portman-quart. . trench upon the principle of protection to the landed in- Co. - Frost, licensed beer retailer, Edmonton. terests. The Duke of Richmond's threatened resistance is W. Whiteley, scissor manufacturer, Sheffield. flPerefore regarded by the interests ii hich the repeal of W. R. D. Brett, baker, Suter's-bs., Chapel-st., Somer's-town, the wool duty would largely benefit, as an ill omen. W. H. Webster, coal dealer, Mount-pleasant, Gray's Inn-lane. They fear that the old Adam of corruption in the J. T. Hillen,farmer, Thursford, Norfolk. two (louses will prove too strong for the newly-formed J. Kerby, licensed victualler, Bristol. purpose of the Government to take a step in commercial B. Poc o c k, F uller -str t e e e r t, A:tell:ILI Manchester. n. policy in conformity with right principles. The York- J j. . 11:a ll e i , g r n al , rai l way surgeon, Halifax, Yorkshire. • shire manufacturers are on the alert,-alarmed by a common sense of danger, and encouraged by hope J. Wetenhall,. stock agent, Walcot-terrace, Lambeth. B. Newnhani, tailor, Frith-street, Soho. that a combined and general demonstration will keep p. Stock, piinter, ray's Inn-lane, Holborn. -the Government firm to the purpose it has an- w. Burton, innkeeper, Darlington, Durham. flounced of an " immediate and total repeal" of the E. Brown, Gloucester. • wool duties. Leeds, Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax, T. Cope, baker, Lenton, Nottinghamshire. ' and other large towns in the western division of York- C. Higginson, schoolmaster, Broadwell, Oxfordshire. shire, haVe taken the lead ; public meetings have been J. W. Prentis, Kelvedon, Essex. he'd, and earnest representations have been made both C. W. Spear, waiter, Chester. to individual Peers, and also to Ministers, on the subject. J ,:. Swi e nscoe, t sen., e wo o o l iturner, She ffi eld. ~• The postponement of the Duke of Richmond's motion J u . B Da edfe e r er i r e , u. Sh ffi , pattern-card maker, Charlton-on-Medlock. Will afford time fur more effective and extensive re era- W. Hare, boot maker, Bristol. lions for strengthening the hands of Minist e r s , and thus s. Hall, beer-shopkeeper, East Dean, Gloucestershire. enable them to resist the threatened attack upon the best J. Chandler, market gardener, Mitcham. feature in their financial scheme for the coming year. W. A. Wilson, painter, Granville.place, Bagnigge.wells-road. The Leed s M ercury of to day furnislie , , in a tabular SECOND NOTICES. - form, a statement of facts, derived from official re- C. P. Poole, attorney-at-law, Pitt's-place, Old Kent-road, turns, of the injurious effects of the duty of 6d. per May 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official pound on foreign wool, isoposed in 1819, and repealed assignee. in 1524. The'se injurious effects were not confined to G. V. Rogers, surgeon, Farnham, Surrey, May 9, at two, at the manufacturers. The wool-growers of England and the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee. - Scotland, fur whose special advantage the duty was im- J. Holloway, baker, Heston, Middlesex, May 9, at two, at posed, participated largely in the unlit ious influences of the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee. Court of H. Newman, Stockwell,. Ili i /ay 8, at eleven, at t he C the " protection" thus furnished. The reduction of the Bay Bankruptcy. e ce er impost greatly relieved these interests from the inculais. Green, ie o r ffi ts c m it e a th s, , A n i e e e y . 7, at eleven, at the Court • The British woo -growers felt the folly of their former of Bankrupie g y. Follett, official assignee. clamour for protection against the foreign grower; for J. Crawford, Princes-street. Maida hill, May 8, at eleven, at the price of their produce was reduced by the influence the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. of protection more than One-half: The Duke of Rich- A. M. Sandeman, accountant, King-street, Cheapside, May mond, it seems, was impervious to instr uc ti on , t h ough en- 8, at el even , at the Court of Bank r upt c y. G reen , official forced by experience, that most powerful of teachers. He ass ignee. \V. Sh b 'dge farmer, Mayfield, Sussex, May 8, at eleven, actually endeavoured in 1828 to obtain a re-imposition of at the Court of Bankruptcy. l et e e t Follett, ,s , ,e w e l the duty of 6d. per lb. on wool of foreign growth . ! The 7. Finley, Sea ,e ffic t i e a e l -I assignee. le Government of that day had sufficient discernment to eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. deen, offich , tl as_ gar neat nee. see the folly of the effort, and refused to retrace their J. F. Wright, clerk, Loan Pit-hill, St. Paul, Kent, May 8, steps for his gratification. The Duke of Richmond, and at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assigise. those who coincide with him in this attempt to scare the J. Kibble, clerk, Peckam-grove, May 8, at eleven, at the Government from its - purpose with reference to the removal Court of Bankruptcy. Green, the are assignee. . . of the wool duties, seem to be blinded b,• selfishness. They G. Wallis, saddler, 0: f Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. are prrivoking a reaction, against which, strong as they R. Wells, carpenter, Brewer's- green, Westminster, May 11, may deem their entrenchments, they will find them. selves unable to s t an d. H a d t h e D u k e o f R ic h mon d , at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. G room , o ffi c i a l ass i gnee. E. Burrell, Arundel-street, Strand, May 8, at eleven, at the observes our Contemporary, " wished to relieve the agri- Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. . culturists of a tax , his conduct would have admitted of T. C. Barley , oil cloth manufacturer, Sheffield, May 11, at • defence; hut to insist on fastening a tax upon trade be- eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. cause he ignorantly thinks that it does or may tell in W. C row t h er , c l ot h manu f acturer, Calverley, Yorkshire, favour of the agriculturists, is outrageous." Does the May 6, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, official - Noble Duke deem the .present a 'favourable opportunity assignee. W. White, agent, Sheffield, May 11, at eleven, at th e L ee d s : for carry i ng .out his threat against Sir Rub rt * Peel? I s thi s repea l of I d d. per lb. on f ore i gn wool- District Court. Hope, offici a l assignee. eleven, at the Leeds District Court. -W. Wheelwright, commissio n agent, Leeds, M a y 11, at Hope, official ass i gnee . a ccompanied us it is by the rem ova l o f I s. per cwt. on the exp ortation of British wool-regarded as so serious J. Lister, worsted Spinner, Halifax, May 11, at eleven; at an .innovation on the principle of protection to British the Leeds District Court. Fearne, o ffi cial assignee. agriculture, as to call for the immediate fulfilment of his g clothier, Gaiselev, Yorkshire, May 6, at eleven, Grace's glare in the memorable warning- to Si.* R o b er t Peel from his i ' at T i ti l l . e l is n e n ed; District Court. ° Freeman, official assignee. Honse of Lords .--" Let him mind what roin he Broadley, jobsmith, Sheffield, May 6, at eleven, at the about: the landed interests Placed him where he is; and Leeds Districi ' Court. Young, official assignee. , they can undo that - which they have done!" STANDARD,-TheTintte sW. Denniff, fruiterer, Sheffield, May 11, at eleven, at the of this . g an morn;n Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. nounces that it is arranged W. Hancock, attornev, North Curry, Somersetshire, May 9, h o send Sir H. Ilardinge to succeed Lord Ellenboroue. ats Governor-General of India. We have no authorit oon contradict, and ter- at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hernaman, official assignee. tainly o ne to confirm, this announcement. n Opienjoeuncement. if the W. W. Osborn, tackle-maker, Exeter, May 9, at half-past reader wishes for our ow upon the mat- S . R eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee. , ter, it is . this that the csatlaiteedrnennite o a f hthe Times 9, at ele a v n e d n l , e 'at flo th u e r dealer, Exeter Berry is what ,is his, District Pomeroy, ceert D n ev i o rt n z s e h l i , re e , ffi ll e l i ai l shot," a bold guess upon what app ee , c °°/3' " a assignee. but wholl • rs to be good W. Stokes win merchant Dul Worcestershire May 14, ground of probability, 3 without direct know- at half-ast twelve , at the Birmin g ham D' • Court V 1 g 'strict a py, ledge of any kind. It does not, however, seem likely, official a s s igne e. after all that has occurred within the last week or tin R. Davidso n, . days, that the negotiations between the Board of half-past two, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court. Directors :and the Government can have arr i ved at Baiter, official assi gnee . % sufficient anaturity 'to justify the statement of the lel. Tovev, coach limp manufacturer, Bristol, May 8, at Times. And, we believe, we are safe in saying, e A ri n at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee. that the -negotiations have not, in fact, advanced . i ..weive, at the, bLarding-housekeeper, Liverpool, May 7. at so far. The conrso • which undoubtedly the Govern- signee. o Liverpool District Court. Turner, official as went would wish to be taken, because the safest, per- J. :skate, cabinet-na k • for the twelve at the • a e r e Walcot, Somersetshire, May 9, at baps the-o rescind coure lairfo India, would be . , le Bristol District Court. Acraman, official as- Directors' to their " indiscreet " resolution, sig9ee., ' violent snit I • and spare our Indian empire the risk of a Bristol Dis Cave, clerk, Wells trict Court. May 8, at half past eleven, at the abrupt interference with the Executive Government, ,-. iv Procter, h s i lilner, o ffi cial assignee. ute er, Salford, L If leaving other matters for future arrangement. The I at the Manchester District Court. ali ,o cas ire, May 8, at one, guess of the Times is not, however, a bad one, supposing I J. Bipsham, Manchester May 9, at one °Mciallssi g nee • it a guess, though it seems to us to be certainly i District Court. Hobson, Official assignee,' at the Manchester premature. Sir Henry Harding° is a man, whose 1 W. Maller, publican, Chester, May 7, at twelve, at the Li experience an d talents-we may call talents like his, veool District Court. Turner, official assig nee , g marked by su c h intuitiveHarrison,able-knife manufacturer, promptitude, even by the ' T- -arri s higher name of genius -would ensure the good go- eleven , at the Leeds Distri ct Court. Fearne, official assignee, vernment of aay country committed to his char 4e PRICE OF SUGAR. 1 and besid es , tins he has in an emin en t d egree en- , 1 The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the joyed the instruction and ' week ending April 30, 1844, is 365. 9i-d. per cwt., exclusive of the highest of all a u thorities possessed- the confidence Duties f Customs paid or payable thereon on the tin. Indian Government, anda upon tineations of of the e Great Britain. very high authority, too, ' portation thereof into upon all questions of civil and military g the Duke of Wellington. When the -orernnient- 1 ' time for naming a I The Marquis and Marchioness of Westminster are successor to Lord Ellenborough shall h I " arrins l 7 we I expected to arrive at Grosvenor House to-day for the season. - THE QUEEN powAGER.—The following gratifying bulletin of her Majesty's health was issued this morning : _ "The Queen Dowager has again passed a good night, and as her Majesty's hand and arm appear to be improving steadily, although slowly, the daily bulletin of her Majesty's progress will be discon-. tinued. "DAVID DAVIES, M.D., " R. KEATE. " Marlborough House, May 4, 1844." r know of no one more like than Sir Henry Hardinge to be selected ; but we must still hold to the hope, that the matter has not yet proceeded so far, and that there is still left to the Directors a locus of re , -considering " the read." • MURDER AT BATTERSEA. WA'NDSWORTH. - (THIS DAY.) Augustus _Dams, the unfortunateFrenchmam charged with the murder of Sarah Eleanor M`Farlane, was examined this clay befqre Mr. MVO. - The prisoner .was brought duwn from London in the oust xly of Sergeant Cummings of the D diiision, and police-constable 203 of the same section. He was con veyed init cab, handcuffed to the first-named officir. At half-past eleven the prisoner was introduced into Court, and, despite the heavy charge against him, he seemed of all present the most unconcerned. He stood during the whole period of examination, in a most easy attitude, resting cne hand on the back of a chair, while the other was negligently pressed against his side. He gave every attention to the evidence of the witnesses, and .occasionally interrupted them by asking some questions. The evidence of Mrs. Gibson was literally the same with that detailed in Th e S un on Thursday last. She had been called in to see her sister lying in the Swan Tavern, Wandsworth, and found her dead from the ex tensive injuries inflicted on her neck. Sergeant Cummings, 3 D, was the next and the only new witness examined. He stated that the prisoner Augustus Dalmas had knocked at the door of Maryle bone-lane station about one o'clock this morning; that he requested the reserve constable to show him the in spector ; that the inspector, Mr. Brown, not being pre sent, he was introduced to him (Sergeant Cummings); that he stated.to- him that he had been haunted day and night by the reports which had appeared in the news papers ; and that he was the man described as being the murderer. He (Sergeant Cummings) told him that if he wished to make any statement, he would take it down in writing, but cautioned him at the same • time that such would be produced afterwards. The prisoner again recapitulated the substance of what he had said before, and added that he did not accom pany the deceased upon Battersea-bridge. He also said that the only true evidence, as given in the newspapers on the occasion of the inquest at the Swan Tavern, Bat ters( a, was that given by his daughter Charlotte. l'risoner—Did I su Charlotte, or Augusta ? _ S;:rgeant Cummings—l cannot positively say which. Mr. CLIVE—Did you hear both daughters named, be fore you saw the prisoner ? Cummings—l certainly heard Augusta's name, but do not think I heard of Char lotte's ; but I cannot be certain which of his daughters the prisoner named. Dr. Connor, of Battersea, was examined as to de nature of the wound; and gave precisely the same evi dence as already given by us. Mr. .Hail, the toll-keeper, observed the woman fall, called to his wife and another female to assist, and ulti mately had her carried into the Swan Tavern. The youngest daughter of the prisoner, Augusta, was then called, and merely stated when she was left at her place on the Monday evening, she observed her father and the deceased together, and thought they would walk home. Charlotte, the eldest daughter, was next called, but she added nothing to the statement made before the t..3.)roner. The poor girl was deeply affected, and before entering Court fainted, and in the midst of her evidence before the magistrate was carried out in strong hysterical convulsions. The police constable 36 V, and Mr. Gosling of the Swan, were the last wi nesves. They deposed to the fact that the deceased, in the full knowledge of her dying state, had declared I)almas to be her murderer. Mr. CLIVE asked Superintendent Bicknell if he wished a remand, and being answered in the affirmative, fixed Friday next for the final- examination of the prisoner. THE COURT. Tier Majesty left town about five o'clock this afternoon for Claremont. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of 'Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice, also proceeded from l3uckingham Palace to Claremont this afternoon. His Royal Highness Prince Albert will preside this afternoon at the annual dinner of the Royal Academy, in Trafalgar-square, and in the evening will also proceed to Claremont. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSB: OF LORDS, May 3. The Loni) CTIA.S4I.I;OR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five•o'Clock. RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH. The Duke of WELLINGTON took that oppDrtunity of informing the Noble Marquis opposite (Normanby), that his Noble Friend, the President of the Board of Control, would be in: his place on Tuesday next. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he would, under those circumstances, postpone the question of which be had given notice respecting the communications which had passed between the Government and the Court of Directors, regarding the recal of Lord Ellenborough from India. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented several peti tions in favotir of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Belfast against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from two RoMan Catholic congregations in Lancashire, in favour of the BilL The Marquis of NORMANBY presented several peti tions from various places in Ireland against the Bill. He had also for presentation several petitions on the subject of the Presbyterian marriages, which he should defer, as other Noble Lords . had more important petitions to present. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions for and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill from Thetford, and from places in Ireland. The Marquis of BUTE presented similar petitions. Lord COTTENHAM also presented petitions on the same subject. Lord ICINNAIRD presented a petition from the congregation of a free church, the locality of which we could not catch, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from twelve Unitarian Ministers, of the highest character and long standing in their vocation, in favour of the Bill. Lord CLONCURRY presented (as we understood) a petition against the Irish Registration Bill. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from a Unitarian congregation, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of DALHOUSIE would suggest to his Noble Fri9nd (the Duke of Richmond) the expediency of postponing to a future day his proposed motion for returns with respect to the importation of foreign wool. The Duke of RICHMOND assented, and the motion AN as fixed for Tuesday. On the motion of the Marquis of BUTE, the North British Railway Bill was read a second time. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to movo that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. He expressed his surprise at the opposition which had been shown towards the Bill. The petitions, how ever, against the Bill were generally in the same hand writing, and he had no doubt emanated from the same source, and therefore he did not feel much fear for the Bill he had introduced on account of these petitions. This Noble and Learned Lord went on to state—lt must be remembered, that there are numerous petitions, also, on the other side; but I humbly presume to say they are widely different in character from those I have men tioned, and entitled to much greater attention. There are petitions from members of the Established Church—peti tions from Presbyterians and various denominations of Dissenters, not couched in general terms, but pointing out specific hardships and evi's, and praying a remedy for the complaints which they made. There is an oppo sition, however, of a Very different description which this Bill is destined to encounter—l mean thatof a night Reverend Friend of mine (the:Bishop of London), formi dable not more for his talents than for his character and position. Ido not apprehend, however, considering; the strength and justice of the case, even the effect of that formidable opposition. I 'feel some surprise indeed at the new association into which my Right Reverend Friend has fallen; but great advantage must be derived fro:n it if, as I am persuaded he will, my Right Reverend Friend uses hie influence to t em p er their zeal, and, if possible, to put an end to the differences which unfortunately prevail amongst them. lam happy to say, that as to one part of the Bill—l mean the first section—no ? differ ence of opinion exists as t o th e ne " ess ity o f some change. The Bishop of EXETER, in a loud tone, " No, no, no."—(A laugh.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, this is the only quarter from which I have heard any objection. I be lieve my Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) does F n o r t ela join te. in w t h he at o i p a i n i t o h n e s e entertai nedthis b the y section, n and the ev. state of the law which it is intended by it to correct ? Some charities with respect to places of worship were stablished at a period when by law that species of wor ,' ship was illegal.. Subsequent Acts of Parliament passed legalising the form of worship. Though the foundation was illegal, those charities have since become legal ac cording to our present law. The more liberal character and spirit of the present age have repealed the statutes declaring they were contrary to law. Notwithstanding this, as the foundation of th ose c h ar iti es was ill ega l, i t has been considered, notwithstanding the alteration of the law, that the defect was not completely remedied ; and for the purpose, therefore, of preventing the con scquences resulting from those charities being vacated by process of the courts of equity, I have introduced the present clause into the Bill. The object of this clause is that those charities should be considered as if they were founded sul sequently to the Act which legalised them, What can be more reasonable—what more just ? If they are legal, the foundation of the charity should be declared so also. And what is the object of their being set aside and declared void ? To ves them in the Crown, and thus devote them to other purposes than those for which they were originally intended. Until I hear some argument urged against the Clause, I rest, on this statement and the position I have made out—l rest on the support I expect to receive from my Right Rev, Friends—on the decided opinion expressed everywhere Out of doors on the subject, and I shall not trouble your Lordships further with any observations respecting it. Now, as to the material point to which opposition is di rected. I must state what the nature of the provision is. Nothing can be more simple. Places of worship are established by deed or will, for some benevolent purpose, That place has been established for one hundred and fifty or two hundred years ; but for a long period, say thirty, forty, fifty, or seventy years, the congregation meeting in that place have entertained the same religi ous doctrines and opinions. No change whatever has taken place during that period. It is a matter of speculation what the opinion of the original founder was. He has not in his deed of trust stated the doctrines and opinions which he is desirous should be propounded and inculcated in that place of wor, ship. Why not take the usage which has prevailed for so long a period as evidence of the original inten• tion of the donor ? If in a deed it be declared to be the declared will and intention of the donor that particular doctrines should be preached . and in culcated, to such a state of things this clause did not apply ; but when it was not laid down what parti cular doctrines should be preached, or what the precise object of the foundation was, and yet that the parties frequenting the chapel had uniformly, 'and for a long period continued the same usage as to religious worship and doctrines, I ask your Lordships why we may not reasonably take the usage as evidence of the intention of the donor, and not allow the title to the occupancy of the chapel to be impeached in a court of justice ? My Lords, a Noble' and Learned Friend of mine stated, on a former night, the principle on which this law was founded. It is a principle well known to our law—that uniform possession for a long series of years establishes a title. That great principle of our law is embraced in the law of every civilised country, and is adopted by our selves from the wise jurisprudence of ancient Rome. That principle we apply to our estates—to our civil rights. Why not apply it to a case of this description ? Parties value their rights as connected with property of this description more highly than those appertaining beenningto ordinary property. Those plac es o f worship frequented by their fathers and grandfathers. The burial ground attache .l contains the names of their relatives and parents, and is it not, therefore, most natural and important that the principle applied to civil rights should be put in force as to property of this mixed character ? With respect to civil rights, if a party obtains unlawfully possession of land ; if he acquires property by a fraudulent act, or one of violence, still, if he is allowed to remain in uninter rupted possession for a long series of years (and indeed, not a very long period according to modern law) his title:becomes indefeasible. The person kept out of pos session may say" lam wrongfully dispossessed. I h ave distinct e v id ence o f the fact ;" the answer . is " an inde feasible title has been acquired against you by lapse of time, and this has been built on a wise principle of the law." Evidence is lost by lapse of time; witnesses die, and their testimony is gone ; parties ar© no longer able by di st i nct evidence to establish what their rights were. The lapse of time effects all this. It has also its counteracting effects. It establishes continued possession e inca h ihn3 t of le wtdlwhteaai extended tesanother,lost.ematerialdThis thus importance sm iots od abehenaroalnnsa establishedns c d i en consider h and w it t pra h ers e p h i ni t:s e p ci evidencepuibnler principle n e et s rh r e e e ot recognise e f t g t a e e i ww e s e r i " n d i i b m e e e n s a f e t r taabed to it. Everybody knows that the rule I have alluded to did not extend to eas?s where the Crown was concerned, the Crown being supposed to be so much engaged with public affairs, that it had not an oppor tunity actively t o superintend' its own peculiar interests. Perhaps there was another reason for the exception. It was not thought right that the weakness or supineness of the immediate possessor should impair the rights and interests of the successor. This for a long period was the law of the country; in modern acts it was consi dered a false principle to establish this limitation in the case. of the Crown, except so far as to require posses sion for a longer period against it than in the case 'of a sul aect; and after lung discussion the rule, excepting the Crown from the operation of the principle I have named, was abolished. In the case of the Church, too, Lord Tenterden, in our own times, abolished the ex ce'Lition which said that no time should run against the Church. Why enter into this detail for the purpose of impressing on your Lordships the importance of this rule, and the universality of its application? The cir cumstances which I am about to detail, though not coming within the scope of this Bill, will serve to throw light on the species of inquiry which must be instituted, if some such measure as the present be not passed. I allude to Lady Hewley's charity. Give me to say that is not a single case ; many such are now pending, and many more threatened. The Noble an anc d . yet no, i li oa e tur a hois r i Learn ed Lord obryd which h n it w a e p n p t ea o r n ed t t o hat gi belong. f I;ad setpeern hd ae dnh ; tse: v th e e ajudhgiees ta,hriLdee s o , b;qd, question voted on7 s in favour a w e , ,ohuor.mo Theyf didat r h e e ()thws th e ;,f,u cl aimants.nthd the Th s cticetneacertieirthseempartiee intended.'" The report to the Nr in i l c 'e c! onflictitig claims, and skr- The Vice-Chanel dlor had a wend time to sift the most COASIOting ey* THE SHUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1844. and the result was not yetdetermined. One thing, how ever, was determined —the costs amounted to 30,0001. and were to be paid, as usual, out of the charity. He knew that there were at least two hundred suits in contemplation, for the purpose of ousting the trustees of several of those charities, and he thought their Lord ships. would agree with him, that he was perfectly jus tified in calling for the interference of that House.-- (Cheers.) The object of the Bill was to prevent liti• gation, and he felt confident that he would meet with the cordial support of their Lordships. The Bishop of LONDON said, he should not venture ' to oppose so distinguished an authority if he bad not a grave and weighty judgment on his side. He should not say that he was about to imitate a great Roman orator, and appeal from Philip in one condition to Philip is another—(a laugh)—but he would appeal from the legislator to the judge. And here he was reminded of the truth of an axiom delivered by one who was the ornament of the Wools:telt and the Bench, that the opinion of a judge was more certain than that of a senator. Ile should.describe the Bill as one to render lawful that which was at present unlawful. It was true another object was to prevent litigation. Bat litigation was a great though not unmixed good, when by it justice was vindicated. As to Lady frewley's charity, the blame of the expense incurred rested on those who per tinaciously resisted the claims of these justly entitled to it. These chapels were at first founded by persons obliged to subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of England. Before the Act of Toleration it was not allow able for any sect to worship according to any forms, save those of the true Church of England.' At the time of the Restoration, 2,000 ministers were displaced from their benefices in consequence of their refusal to subscribe to the articles of the Church. A great many dissenting chapels were then built and endowed by persons pro fessing and believing in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Dissenters were then permitted to build chapels and endow them under certain limitations. But there was vine remarkable exception. The benefit of the Act of Toleration was not to extend to those who held views denying the divinity of Christ. About 2,000 chapels were built within twenty years from the year 1644, when the Act of Toleration was passed ; and every one of these chapels was built by persons holding Trinita rian doctrines ; nay, more—not one of these chapels was occupied by a minister who would not have thought it the height of blasphemy to promul gate Unitarian principles. The dissenters of these days, then, subscribed to the doctrine of the Holy Tri nity. They had no scruple in doing so. Presbyterians and Dissenters approved of that provision of the Act of Toleration which prevented its benefits from being ex tended to those who held Unitarian doctrines. Diesent ing ministers could not, then, exercise their functions without subscribing to th e d o ct r i ne o f the. Holy Trinity ; and therefore, for tnany4ears, there was no endowment established, but in the firm belief that Unitarian doctrines would never be preached in the chapel to which it re ferred. In 1647 a union took place between the Inde pendents and the Presbyterians ; but still they con tinued strict Trinitarians. At that time a curious in stance occurred to show the abhorrence in which doc trines approaching to Unitarianism were held by the orthodox Dissenters. A very distinguished Dissenting clergyman in Dublin was deprived of his benefice. He held what were called high Arian doctrines, and so strong, on this account, was the feeling against him, that when he came over to London not one of the Pres byterian or Independent ministers would hold com munion with him. He (the Bishop of London) offered at present no opinion upon doctrinal points ; he was merely urging the question historically. So matters went on until 1770, when, instead of the former subscription to the articles of the Church, a declaration was substi tuted, by which Dissenting ministers admitted that they received the Holy Scriptures in - the sense usually adopted by Protestant churches, and that they held them to be the word of God.. From 1689 to 1770, it was next to impossible that any chapels, or, at least, a considerable number of chapels, should have been erected for the promulgation of Unitarian doctrines. Not only were they built with the view of not promulgating Uni tarianism, but they were built with the view of com bating its advance. It would probably, howeyer, be asked why, in the cases of many of these chapels, there were not express stipulations in the trust deeds, pro viding that no doctrines other than those of the founders should be taught therein. Why, for a very obvious reason: the, founders considered that they were protected by the law. They never thought of the possibility of such a change as had occurred really happening. They never considered that Unitarianism could be legally preached. He did not say whether the change was right or wrong, but it was a change which their fore gathers nevercontemplated. This was not his opinion alone: there was a letter, published upwards of twenty years ago by an eminent minister .of the Independent per suasion, in which he found it stated that all who knew the old Presbyterian doctrines, from the writings of the period,-would know that the authors would have shrunk with the deepest horror from lending their support to doctrines which they believed contrary to the Scriptures, and ruinous to the everlasting welfare of man. And here, he would remark, that it could not be said that the Unitarians had had no warning. The note of alarm had been sounded nearly twenty years ago. At that period an action was brought upon the subject, but the uncertain state of the law, until the late decision in the Howley case, prevented it from being proceeded with. A controversy upon the subject, however, sprang up in Lancashire in the year 1825, when it was clearly shown that out of 700 Unitarian chapels in the Duchy of Lan caster, the possession of 274 had been usurpe d b y Uni tarian trustees. Hewould remark, too, that the claim in question was put forward by only -a small body of Dissenters, acid that it was opposed, although not unanimously, by other dissenting sects. The Uni. tarians formed, he believed, about two per cent. of the great body of Dissenters. . The Wesleyan Me thodists had held a meeting ; and agreed to represent strongly their reasons against the Bil. The general body of Dissenters had had a meeting, at which a simi lar address was agreed to. He considered that this Bill was neither more nor less than an es post facto law, rendering necessary to the validity or a trust certain conditions not necessary to its validity when the trust was executed. It proposed to render it necessary to the vali dity of a trust that the purposes of the founder should have been mentioned in the deed, although at the time of itsexecution these intentions were perfectly notorious. And this brought him to the general and sound principle upon which, up to this time, courts of equity had de cided in such cases—namely, that when the intentions of the founder could be ascertained, they should be strictly adhered to. He did not speak on legal matters upon his own authority ; he sheltered himself behind a long array of witnesses, whose evidence was unexceptionable. The Right Rev. Prelate here proceeded to read a number of judgments pronounced by various judges in various cases, to the general effect, that where it was possible to ascer ttin what were the religious tenets of:the founder of a chapel, that it ought to belong to and be in communion with the sect who maintained these tenets. That it was not in the power of the trustees of chapels to alter the purposes for which their founders endowed them. One of these judgments (continued the Itigh tßev. Prelate) had been delivered by his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack,, and it was to the effect, th a t i n any case o f charity, whether the object of the ch ar i ty was f or c i v il or religious purposes, it was the d u t y o f the court to give effect to the intentions of the founder, provided that oinfringing g ear and preci s e, b o th as any known r u le of law. c if uld be done thete.rms without o fofthe d i e nf d r to language and application, the cour se o f t h e court wou ld e in b g e not be difficult ; but if, on the eontrary, the terms were doubtful and obscure, it then beeitue the duty of the court to ascertain by means of evidence, as clear as could be laid before it, what were thel intentions of the founder, and the moment the fact was known the application of it became clear. Such:were the legal opinions of the Noble and Learned .Lord on the woolsack upon the point ; and it would be scarcely necessary for- him to cite other au- thorities in support of a principle so clearly laid Own, and so evidently in accordance with common sense and common justice. But well-founded as that principle was, this Bill went to subvert it. His Noble and Learned Friend said, and said truly, that they could not believe that Lady Hetvley, a' pious and well-meaning lady,could have given funds to promote and encourage the promulgation of doctrines directly at variance with _those opinions she entertained, as regarded points universally considered as essential in matters of religious belief. No; she never in tended her bounty to be applied to the encouragement of the teaching of Unitarianism. It was almost superfluous for him to add another word to this argument of his Noble and Learned Friend. But his Noble and Learned Friend's Bill went directly in contravention to the principle he had himself so luminously laid down. It was now pro posed that 'the usage of a congregation for the last twenty years should be taken as convincing evidence of what was the purpose of the founder—it might be 150 years ago—and of the nature of the religious doctrines which he intended to be taught. He should have thought that they could have a better test of what those inten- tions and what those doctrines were by taking the usage of the first instead of the last twenty years after the founder's death.—(Hear, hear.) If they could, prove what was the usage for those twenty years they could settle the question at once, but surely twenty years preaching of a doctrine which the founder held to be blasphemous was not so conclusive. -It was argued in favour of the Bill that it would prodtiee a feeling of peace and security amongst many congregations of Dis senters but he objected to upset equity and justice for the sake of at best a doubtful peace. Ho believed, in deed, on the contrary, that, if carried into effect, it would excite a spirit of watchfulness and jealousy as to the doctrines and words of the preachers in many dissent ing congregations. The dissent of many of the chapels to which he had allucied, from what was generally called orthodox doctrine to the depths of Socinianism, had been effected by slow degrees. .The history of these chapels showed that that din en% usually commenced through the instrumentality of some minister holding the doctrines of what was called H igh Arianism. The congregation became habituated to his doctrines and forms of expres sion. Then he or his ' .successors ventured on the plain Arianism ; from thence they proceeded to Socinianism; and thus Unitarian doctrines came_ regularly to be preached in the chapel in question. He should like to know what security there was, if this Bill were carried into effect. of chapels not being ultimately claimed by So cialist preachers ?--(Hear.) The Act,was so vague that he did not know but that any party of individuals claim ing . to be a religious body at all. might not advance claims to chapels under it. Another question he would put to the serious consideration of their Lordships was whether, as was now proposed, the same principle of law should be applied to trust which was applied to private property. He maintained that the duty of the legisla ture and of .the judges, in respect to trust property, was quite different from their duty as respected private pro perty. The former required more protection, more careful guardianship, than the latter. It appeared, then, to, him that, by passing this Bill, Parliament would, without any sufficient cause having been shown, be pur suing a course tending to enrich and endow Unitarianism with the spoils of orthodox Dissenters. Anxious as he was to do ererythinia his pacyel , to prevent uimecessary I litigation, and to settle doubtful titles, when these objects could be accomplished without gross injustice, he must ; still oppose the Bill, at least the second clause, as in ! volving a principle inconsistent with justice, equity, and • the interests of true religion.—(Hear, hear.) The •! Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day six months. Lord BROUGHAM gave this Bill his entire support. He- thought the Right Reverend Prelate had quite mis taken the object of his Noble and Learned Friend in bringing forward this measure, for this gal did not pro vide that the doctrine of the elders of the chapels for the last thirty years should be held to be the doctrine of the original thunder of the chapel. The object of taking the doctrine which had been preached in the last thirty years in these chapels, was to prevent litigation, and to . save the funds of the original founder of the chapel. He did not think that the judgments to which the Right Reverend Prelate had alluded ought to be referred to as evidence against this Bill, because the judges did not lay down in their judgments what the law ought to be, but they stated in those judgments what the law was. The administrator of the land and the lawgiver were two very different officers. His (Lord Brougham's) opinion was that this Bill would he very beneficial in its opera tion. He thought nothing could be more consistent with justice and common sense than the -measure now proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, because he thought it might well. be surmised from the religious tenets of the founders what their intentions were respecting the doctrines to be taught in thoSe foundations. Because he felt the necessity of putting an end to vexatious litigation, and fulfilling the original intdntiou of the donors, he returned his sincere thanks to his Noble Friend on the Woolsack. for the Bill he had introduced, and hoped that it would meet with every support from their Lordships. The Bishop of EXETER certainly felt it to be his duty to oppose this Bill most strongly, and more parti cularly its first clause, because he thought the objects and intentions of the Bill were to set aside all the sacredness and integrity of those • trusts. If the principle recommended by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack were true and just, it should be carried out to the fullest extent. He would oppose this Bill, because he contended its tendency was to dis regard the intention of the founders; for if they had no means of knowing what those intentions were, the Bill would be wholly useless, and all they would have to de pend upon was the general usages with respect to those trusts. He also thought it tended directly to counteract the principle of the statue passed upon this subject, namely the 53d of Geo..M. Their Lordships must be aware, common ecclesiastical law tip - plied to a vast., number of offences—he should, perhaps more properly term them sins- 7 .0f which the ordinary criminal law of the couatry took no cognisance, amongst which he might enumerate incest, which was not declared a crime according to the Statute law. He feared that he was pursuing a hopeless task in opposing this Bill, because he 'knew how vast was the power of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack in that House. The Noble and Learned Lord was sure to triumph, for he was in that House a giant—a Briarmus—(Laughter)— with a hundred arms, for a hundred of their Lordships were ready to rise up and support him. He (the Bishop of Exeter) most heartily concurred in the amendment that had been moved by his Right Rev. Friend, that this Bill be committed that day six months. Lord COTTENHAM was ready to share in any odium which might be thrown upon the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for bringing forward this measure ; and he should support the Bill, notwith standing the, dark insinuations which had been thrown out by the Right Rev. Prelate. He would ask their Lordships whether, after what they had heard, they felt the slightest doubt as to the propriety of making this Bill the law of the land? Their Lordships had heard all that could be said against it. Both the Right Rev. Prelates had argued upon the law of this case, and upon the policy, as if it were a question depending between the congregations now in possession and some other class of persons who had been dispossessed. This was quite an erroneous view of the case, and he had no doubt that their Lordships would see that it was. The Right Rev. Prelate who had just sat down had evidently referred lately to a great number of law books, but he had omitted one which would have set him entirely right upon the subject. Had that Right Rev. Prelate, in the course of his legal investigation, turned to the case of Lord Cholmondeley, he would have found that the view of the subject of this Bill which he had taken was entirely erroneous, at least with respect to the law of the case. The Right Rev. Prelate, in the course of his speech, had said that heresy was still punishable. It was punishable, it was true, but in what courts was it punishable? Why, it was punish able in those very courts which the Right Rev. Prelate himself had so strenuously defended, namely, the diocesan courts. Now he (Lord Cottenham) trusted that what the Right Rev. Prelate had said that night would be represented to the House of Commons.— (Laughter)—before they passed the Ecclesiastical - Courts Bill. With respect to the Bill before their Lord ships, he would remind the House that many of the chapels to which it referred, had been considerably en larged at great expense by the present congregations, and he would ask how were they to deal with such cases? From the statements which appeared in the petitions which he had presented on this subject, it would bo seen that in some cases chapels of the petitioners had been held by them and their 'predecessors for 150 years, in others 100, and so on. The intention of this Bill was to afford that protection to property of Dissenting con gregations which every other person or species of pro perty possessed. It was.merely to protect that property which had been enjoyed by those congregations for so many years, and he therefore hoped their Lordships would feel perfectly satisfied that, in passing this Bill, they were only protecting those persons from injustice, inconvenience, and loss. The Bishop of EXETER said the Noble and Learned Lord who had just sat down mistook his (the Bishop of Exeter's) meaning. What he had said, and what he would again repeat, was, that he would wish to see all power which the Established Church possessed over the Dissenting clas'es abolished, provided that they were prevented_from interfering with the rights and privileges of Churchmen. Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill, because he thought, that on, the broad principle, and in the spirit of the law, the Dissenters were entitled to the same protec- tion with reference to their property as other persons, and because he felt assured that the law, as it at present stood, inflicted much hardship and inconvenience upon those bodies. Such being his conviction, he could not help expressing his hope that it was not the intention of the Right Rev. Prelate opposite to divide the House upon this question. The Bishop of LONDON said it was not his intention to divide the House. Lord TEYNHABI would oppose the Bill, because he thought it was calculated to inflict much hardship upon many parties, and also because of the number of peti tions which- had been presented by various bodiei of Dissenters disapproving of the measure. He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that something re quired to be done, but certainly this Bill would not at all provide a remedy for the evils which now existed. It was true that these congregations had had possession of those chapels for many years, but then they , also bad enjoyed all their concomitant advantages. He felt that passing this Bill would b© a gross injustice, because those sums of money were granted, not for the promotion of parti cular. doctrines, but for • the purposes-of trurh. Such being his opinion, he felt justified in coinciding in the expression that this Bill was one of spoliation, a& he much regretted that it should be sanctioned by any high and honourable body of her Majesty's subjects. He questioned very much whether this Bill would prevent litigation, for if the , trustees of any of these chapels should find that their ministers were preaching doctrines contrary to the doctrine of the- particular sect to which they belonged, it would then be the duty of those trus tees to bring those ministers into Court. Believing that this Bill would open a wide door to litigation, he should oppose it. The amendment was then put and negatived without a division. The Bill then passed through Committee, was re norted, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday. The Eastern Counties Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. The Pontop and South Shields Railway Bill was read a .third, time and passed ; as was also the Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway Bill. Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS moved that the Liver pool Docks Bill be recommitted, and that Lord Gran ville Somerset be added to the Committee, for the pur rose of adding a new clause to the Bill. The'motion, after a short conversation, was agreed to. The Leeds and Selby Railway Purchase (No. 2) Bill was read a third time and passed. Col. WOOD presented a petition from a place in Bre ton, signed by 3,000 persons, praying for a repeal of the duty on lime used for manure. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Roch dale in favour of a Ten Hours' Factory Bill. Lord INGESTRE presented a petition from Bolton, in the county of Durham, against the union of the sees . of Bangor and St. Asaph. Mr. W. PATTEN presented a similar petition from the Hundred of Amounderness. Mr. PARKER presented a petition from Sheffield, praying for aCommittee of Inquiry into the principle of atmospheric railways. Sir E. COLEBROOK brought up the report on the Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill. Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from Ton bridge and one from Tonbridge-wells, against the South- Eastern and Hastings Railway Bill. Colonel WOOD presented a petition from the coal factors of London, against any additional tax on coal ; one to the same effect from Uxbridge ; and one from the Enfield Coal Club. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Waltham-chase, in Hampshire, against the Commons Ineosure Bill. Mr. AINSWiTIiTiI presented ten petitions from the persons employed in ten factories in Bolton, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. _ _ _ Mr. KEMBLE brought up the rf.port on the London Gas Bill, which was ordered to lie on the table. The Thetford Inclosure and Drainage Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the inhabitants of Devizes, in which they complained that the duty on tobacco was 900 per cent. on the value, and prayed that it might be reduced ; also a petition from Montrose against the Commons Inclosure Bill. RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGIT. Mr. HUME gave notice that on Tuesday next he should move for a copy of all the correspondence be tween the East India Company and the Government relative to the recal of Lord Ellenborough from the Governor-Generalship of India. MARINE INSURANCES. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the aggregate amount of the stamp receipts upon marite insurances for the ten years ending 1843, with the rates in each year, and the amount under each rate ; also, for a return of the amount of the stamp duty received on bills of lading during the same ears.—Ordered. THE NAVY. Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that on Thursday, the IGth of May, he should bring the state of the Daly list under the consideration of the House. Mr. C. WOOD presented a petition from Halifax against the ten hours clause; also a petition against the County Courts Bill. Mr. ELLICE, jun., wished to know from her Majesty's Government when the report of the `..catch Poor-law Commissioners would-be laid before the House ? Sir J. GRAHAM said he should not be prepared to answer the question before the early pin of next week. Mr. FRENCH wished to ask the Right Hon: Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whe ther it was the intention of .her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the extension of bail in error. It was reported that a statement lo that effect had been Made by the Lord Chancellor in the other Ilouse. Sir J. GRAHAM was nat aware that any statement of that kind had bean made. If the Honourable Gentle man would repeat the question on Monday, he would en deavour to. answer it. • CRIMINAL LAW. Mr. WATSON wished to ask of the Right Hon. Bart. at the head of her Majesty's Government whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to intro duce any measure founded on the report of the Criminal Law Commission ? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman hav ing some weeks ago given him private notice of his in • tention to put this question, he had since directed his at tention to the subject. The Criminal-law Commissioners suggested the repeal of obsolete statutes; as that involved the consideration of various details, many of the statutes passed in the reign of Elizabeth, and James the First, having, it appeared, fallen into disuse, it was the inten tion of her Majesty's Government to direct the attention of the law-advisers of the Crown to that subject. BANK CHARTER. Mr. F. BARING wished to know what course it was proposed to follow on Monday with reference to the Bank Charter. He wished to know if the First Lord of the Treasury intended on Monday merely to make a statement of his preposition without calling for the decision of the House, or if it was intended at once to ask ;Or the decision of the House on the propositions which would be laid befere it ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not had an opportunity of seeing the First Lord of the Treasury since he had had notice of the Bight Hon. Gentleman's question; but he believed that it was his Right Hon. Friend's intention not. to call upon the House to agree to any resolutions on. Monday, if there should be any objection to his propositions. SIR A. HENNIKER'S CHARGE. Mr. T. DUNCO'IBE rose to call the attention of the House to a letter which he had received on the subject of a quotation which he had made from a Charge of Sir A. Henniker to the grand jury of Suffolk. From the noise - in the House, which continued during the whole time the Honourable Member was speaking, we had great difficulty in collecting even the purport of his observations. We understood him to say that in the debate on the Masters and Servants Bill he had quoted from a charge of Sir A. Henniker to the grand jury of Sutfilk, in which that gentleman stated his belief that unless the landlordS did something to alleviate the con dition of the labouring Classes incendiaristn, would con tinue to increase, and not the whole of the metropolitan police force could keep the country quiet. That was • the .puruort of his remarks ; and he begged to sey that he hail nut intentionally misrepresented Sir Augustus Henniker. In a lets er which he had received on this subject, it was stated that Sir Augustus had said that he could not close his eyes to the wide-spread spirit of discontent. (The Hon. Member here read the letter alluded to, and it appeared, as far as we could gather, that the version of Sir Au gustus' speech given in the letter did not differ mate rially from that which the Hon. Member had previeusly given.) He (Mr. T. Duncombe) begged to express his regret if he had misrepresented the purport of the charge, but it appeared- to him that the only injustice of which he had been • guilty was in not having expressed himself sufficiently strong. FACTORIES BILL. On the motion that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Factories Bill, be read, Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to call the attention of the House to the Belfast petition, but he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who said that the Hon. Member was out of order, inasmuch, as the question had not yet been put: Mr. ROEBUCK rose amidst loud cries of 'c Order," but at length gave way. The question that the Order of the Day be read was then put, and agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM moved that the Speaker do leave the chair. Lord ASHLEY presented several petitions in favour of the ten hours' clause. Mr. ALDAM presented a petition from persona em ployed in the woollen mills at Leeds, against the half time clause. Mr. ROEBUCK then rose for the purpose of moving— ." That it is the opinion of this House that no interference with the power of adult labourers in factories, to make contracts respecting the. hours for which they shall be employed, be sanctioned by this House." He believed that he was perfectly in order in moving this resolution before the House . went into Committee on the Bill. It had been objected to him that he might have moved the resolution in Committee, but, in his opinion, great advantage would be derived from moving it as a resolution of the House. It appeared to him (Mr. kinebuck) that the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite was alternating between various practices—that at one time the doctrines of non-inter ference with labour prevailed with him, and at another time the opposite doctrine. He was anxious to learn from the Right Hon. Gentleman the principles upon which his conduct was governed. He, therefore, should first apply himself to the general principle which ought to prevail in order to deprive the Right Honourable Gentleman of the power of apply ing his own principles in any way that he liked. He meant to throw upon the Right Honourable Gentleman the onus of showing why he took froth the working classes the power of contracting for themselves; and then lie should address himself to the Noble Lord opposite, and throw upon _him the onus of proving the advantage he proposed to confer on the working classes by legislation. He should grapple with two anta eonists who were opposed to each other ; but lie wished first so to place them, as that then should not be able to draw from an armoury which did'not legitimately belong to them. But, before all, he wished to relieve himself from the odium which was cast upon him, and others who thought with him. He meant the charge of inhumanity —(Hear, hear)—of disregard for the people—of un natural selfishness —nay. of celd-bloodedness, which had been charged upon them. For himself he could say he had a sincere sympathy for the working classes, and so sincere was it that it could only be satisfied by seeing them vested with the power of governing themselves. The professing friends of the working classes would not agree in this. He (Mr. Roebuck) said to those professing friends give them the power to speak themselves—give them the power to legislate for themselves in this House. When they gave to The working classes that power—when he found those who professed themselveS so exceedingly anxious for the rights of the people voting for their proper representa tion in that House, then he would believe that they had some real sympathy for their sufferings. Now to his propositions. He (Mr. Roebuck) took it as a general rule that the labouring man had the greatest interest in forming a contract for himself. The next proposition was, that the working man had the best knowledge of his own circumstances, and that no general rule_ could be framed so well c alc u l a t e d t o affect his interest as his own strongly inclined views, his wants, and necessities. , The general rule, therefore, must be taken to be, that they could not interfere with private interests on this subject—that the partiei them selves were the best calculated to make their own contracts. Those who differed from this principle and who advocated interference, must show the grounds for that interference ; the onus lay upon them to do so. Now, what right - had they to interfere with them? First, he held that the parties having strong interest and pecu liar knowledge, it was incumbent for the party inter fering to show that they had greater knowledge ; that they had greater interest, or that they had a greater power of judging. But the Noble Lord said there was a pe culiar ailass of men in this country called " factory men," that there were peculiar things connected with their con dition that called for the interference of the Legislature, and that those peculiarities were overwork and under pay. Now, upon that the Noble Lord had collected a great mass of evidence which he had flung upon the table of the House, stating that that evi fence showed great immorality and great misery. Such were the Noble Lord's premises, but the next step that the Noble Lord took was a most remarkable one—he stated that great misery existed from overwork and underpay, and he stated that the person that did not suppoi t him in that proposition was an enemy to the working classes, to humanity, and to all the best feelings Of the human heart, and that as such, he ought to be branded as the enemy of his kind. Now, between the Noble Lord's premises and his conclusions, there was in his (Mr. Roe buck's) opinion no connection whatever. Having este.= Wished that an evil existed, he ought to have gone on to show that the proposition which he had. brought forward was a remedy fur that evil.—(Hear, hear.) However anxious he might be to ameliorate the distress, he might be a bad, he might be an ignorant physi cian. and what he proposed, instead of relieving might increase the misery he described, and so far from ameliorating a single misfortune, might bring a curse upon those for whom be legislated. This, he thought, described the position of the Noble Lord. • He had been misled by his sym pathies, and he came to that House to show that great misery existed in a particular class of labourers. Now it was very easy for the ranting demagogue to go, a sort of wandering instrument, round the country ; for the dissemination of Ignorance and ill-feeling ; that was a very easy thing to do ; it was •assumed by the most vulgar and the most ignorant of mankind ; that was an object easy of attainment, but what the House required was something beyond that ignorance —something beyond that blustering weakness, something beyend that coward following out of opinions which in that House dared not be maintained. That was easy ; but what that House required was that they should not only prove the existence of evils, but show also the efficiency of their remedy ; that they should not accuse that House, by its legislation, of being the cause of those evils which arose out of the circumstances of our condition as human beings ; that they should not throw, on any class in this country, the odium arising. from that which was the mere necessity of our nature. • Il e , had said that that class of mind, which thus sough" to obtain notoriety, was among t h e l owes t ' 111 • Most vulgar which c o uld d e p rave h uman i t y ; and which, though in a time of excitement might nic et with some transient favour from that House would, '' e hoped, when the H ouse came t o it s r i g h t senses , be, 032 s ought to b', declared a calumny and a falsehood: ' r iv e first step the Noble Lord had taken was to show that th e factory labourer was in a peculiar position—that lienca s in a situation which distinguished him from all others--; that there 'was that in the . peculiar . incidenti his history which enabled a Legislative bc' tls to interfere in his behalf. NOSY, they wanted to 10 0 " whit were the peculiar characteristics of the factory 10 " bower. First, he found that the factory labourer w 55 quite as well feel, to say the least of it, as any other ly bourer in the community, and he should be enable ] t o shy w that the factory labourer was better fed than .11 1 ”: whet': He then found that the factory labourer was Day subjected to worse toil than other classes of the commit" lefty, and he would beg the House to remark that it was not enough to get an undigested mass • Of evident:6 on this point, for if he chose to turn the Noble Ler° weapons against - himself, he could draw from it ed ' s mass of proofs of the exist ence o f m i sery o f neer), kind among the laboure rs o f thi s co u ntry .—(Rear') Now he would take one in this t own . Th e one fie IT about to mention might excite the merriment of Is ° House ; but he mentioned it •becanie' he' believes they were a more sorely taxed class ; of labourers than any in the community —he meant th e women-of-all-work in the 'city of Louden.-(Sea t ' hear. Let them compare their condition wi th that of the factory girls, and the condition of the latte r would be found a paradise compared with that of; th e former.—(Hear, hear.) Let them compare the ur ea who worked in factories w ith th e men w h o were edgOr v _ e , in agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He found that asn s who worked in f a c tor i es were covere d an d- eleatireu from all the inclemency of th e seasons; b e f oun d- tb le : they had good pay, and th a t th e y were f ar happier 65 ,7 the agriculturists, who w e r e ex p ose d t o co ld, an d /I and frost; and to have bad pay, bad clothing, and ln a lodging.—(ilear, he a r.) Th e f ac t ory workers red better pay, less toil, b e tt er c l ot hi ng , an d better lodging. Anal what was there s to disdl r guish factory men in such •a way as to ietew' the interference of the Legislature in their behalf?' (Hear, hear.) He found two circumstances to distill' guish his position. Those who worked in factories we re congregated into masses which invited investigation' which insured inspection—which brought their condition continually before the public.—(Hear, hear.) The), did not live, like the agrieulturists, far distal" tram the gaze of local superintendents, W b° might bring their misery and t o il b e f ore t h e wor ld, wba eould bring down indignation upon the masters, an make their agricultural tyrants tremble. Now such not the condition of the factory workmen. Their con'ti' . tion was to be congregated in multitudes, which multt" tildes made of themselves a force which invited a tter . , tion, from the very -fact of th e i r b e i ng congre gated into masses, which covered them with an aegis of era' tection from the mere fact of bei ng th us ex hibi te d to.the public gaze.—(Hear, hear.) Th a t h e f oun d was the firs t cnaracteristic of their conditio n , an d one conse q uen ce ° f condition was the p resent me ddli ng wi t. t their position.—(Lo u d c h eers .) Th e f actory l a b o ura , t worked in conjunction with mac hi nery , w hi c h being 11" into fair ordinary En g li s h meant t hi s , t h at the 10' chinery had all the hard work, and that the l a boure r , had that which rsqui r ed menta l l a h our .—(H ear, hear.) It would not do for the Noble Lord and Gentlemen - er polite to say that as machinery was impro . ved, the l a bour of the operative was increased. He (Mr. Roebuck) dallied that proposition. In every process, as machinery advanced, its peculiarity was absolutely to imitate d° huthan mind—that it discharged offices which, a prieristt v° centuries ago; if any one ant i c i pated, he would htiv a, i been described as a d reamer . I t rel i eved the labour of the operative, and reduced him, in reality, to be a we re superintendent of a certain line of superhuman pow er ' He denied• that such improvements in machinery in; creased the labour of those who -superintended the machinery. He put f orwar d t h at propos i t i on w itiles l himself having the slightest doubt of its accurst He invited every man who knew or who wisher, to know anythin g a b ou t th e matter, to WA it to the utmo s t ; an d h e asserte d t hi s, t h at every 3" , , vance and improvement in m ac hi ner y h a d l ess ens' human labeur—had lessened it in time and in infer sity. Now, he found that the peculiarities attaching to the factory men were two. One, that : I I were congregated in masses ; th e o th er , t h at t h ey wait in conjunction with machinery. He could find no otile a : and if the general rule were accurate, that they l e/ . had the mu s t i n t erest , an d t h e greatest knowle d ge , E judge of their own affairs, ought to make a coot for themselves, he asked the Noble Lord opposit e ': how it - came that those two elements, having el;i -tered into the composition o f thi s complicate d case, should render it a ground for him to terfere in their case, when he did not interfer e '` in the case of the agric u lt ura l l a b ourer ? Th ere was 611 thing he wanted to clear up. It wou ld not d o to eo Bs f. down there with exaggerated d escr ipti ons o f misery, °f deformity, of want, and of suffering. He (Mr. 11 141 buck) denied them all.--(" Hear, hear," and "Ow " Oh," said the Honourable Member for Porel d (Mr. M. Mimes). He (Mr. R oe b uc k) wan! 4 to know if that Hon. G en tl eman h a d aver i nves tigste b, the case. It was very easy to make propositions n e ,'itn jingling sounds an d ji ng li ng sy ll a bl es, b ut h e (Mr. 04 wanted knowledge before he legislated.—(Hear, hear' ) That being the condition of the people f at ; . whom they were about to l eg i s l ate , h e would rtf trouble the House with a mass of evidence. I n d ee d, I ",` . ought to apologise to the Ho use f or h av i ng a l rea dy 01) ; dressed them at suc h l engt h upon the matter.—(Hear') He stated it broadly, and he called upon the Nobl e Lord to deny it, that the Factory Commissioners of 1 833 declared that the condition of the factory-labourinf. population o f thi s country was super i or to any other labouring popnlation.—(Hear, hear.) He knew the) could pick out individual cases here and there of suffe, r l :l ing, and far was it f rom hi m to speak of' them id the slightest degree with anything like levi t li He felt for the misery of the labourer in the factory. s ° ,a for the misery of the agricultural labourer, and he wean by and bye argue that question with the l'O bl Y Lord and tho se w h o supported him.—(l - lear' u s' What he said, h owever , was t hi s. It Was very eesel; to bring forw ar d i n di v id ual i nstances of deformity, il,", they must m a k e out t h at i t was the consequence o f le e system, and besides tnaking out that it was the col 0e ; quence of the system, they must know that by legislati c , • i enactments they could relieve it. U n l ess t h ey es t a blish eu t these two propositions they did nothing. N o w ' had: t the Factory Commis s i oners , i n 1833, d ec l are d distinew and clearly that the labourers of the manufacturing pulation were better off in every particular than any other class of the labouring population of this co untr): l - „ They were better off i n ever y p art i cu l ar . A s he had e S alreac'y said, they were bett er p a id, b etter lodged, t u ' better fed. And now he came to that which - he klf` would be treated as the ad ca pt an d um argument on that I occasion. The Noble L or d sa id, " Wh at have so little regard for a woman, as to wish that v . ' should be taken from those labours which are her ref liar sphere, which make her the solace of our livT which make her the instrument of oar early educatil and in fact prove her an d f orm h er to b e t h e fries of man ? Are you willing to destroy her ( "d power, to make her a machinee to unfit her to rear 5 , 0 , e , make her race ? In tact, are y ou w illi ng to a:, grade the hum an race by ma ki ng t h e i r mo ther s 'iv miserable beings ?" Th a t was t h e ki n d o f argu ss went which was used. Now, h e wou ld as k, fi rs t, , ; the labouring woman in the f a cto r y worse o ff th a n 6 i ) f „ would be if she were not in the factory? Judging; 1 7 ,1 her situation as an agricultural labourer, he 1 01 • e say that her situation eas fax better. I,r had this pec u li ar ev id ence i n h i s f a iroti b- that all the medical men who had investigated the I lse ject in 1833, declared that the labouring woman Was eto be:ter able to cope with the labour in the factory t" iis the man. He could understand why. It Ic e ,„ in-door work—it was Warm (so far it was co fortable), and all that was required of her was c O- f tinuous attentio n . I t was t h e pecu li ar c h aracter i s tic ° , l woman, that she could give this continuous attention, s , not suffer in her health ; while man, when bound,o give continuous attention to in-door labour, o _ 2 r e, did not task his intellect, usually did suffer in bezm et es Every medical person who had examined into the state cq-- es , labourers in the factory districts had declared without one sr ception that the women in the factories bore the factory liw - ehe ir, the best—that it was better suited to their habits, and to physical and psychological conditions than any other s pecie t t ei labour, that it w as anyt hi ng b ut hard labour, and that t i o n were in a far better state for the maintenance and prepae re el of their s pe c i es th an th e agr i cu l tural labourers. He "A.-, that part of th e a r gument answere d b y the Noble Lo 0 0 (Hear, hear.) Then as to the men. Were the men wer s l,ol in any way th an th e l a b ourers i n any other business ? ~. shown that they were better paid, better fed, better Cl than the agricultural labourer. Now he asked if ther e t ion anything peculi ar i n t h e i r con di t i on with respect to t h e rele tics which they b ore t o t h e i r masters, wh i ch rendered leki„.l,.*ltsd interfere n c e necessary . I t h ad b een said that the magt;sef power ove r hi s manu f actur i ng l a b ourers, wh i ch he had es',,e.se his agricult ura l l a b ourers . —(H ear .) T hat h e den o f of (Hear.) Th e same i nc id ents regu l ate d t h e rate ' of wetferl persons employed in factories that regulated them in rs other case ; and they acted with more certainty and e'°' 4 to pidity whenever 'a multitude of p ersons were con gregate w ' her e gether as they were i n th e manu f actur i ng districts than a gri' they were cong rega t e d an d se p ara t e d as they were in the to cultural districts. In th e l a tt er case eac h m an was ft ) ! n , is act for himself. There were never any c ombinati°, oo l- the country—there were always combinations in th,e._,,t the facturing districts.—( Hear , hear.) This showedr" ths o agricultural labourer was in a worse condition d re ro the labourer in the factory. The agricultural lit . l .! cild op dare not combine.—( Hear. ) That man who - should e v e% his hand for a combination would be crushed. They . s A „ g, an d that combinations existed in th e manufacturing dist.ro± so far the manufacturing lab o u rer s t oo d lass in need e ." ll l ey re lative assistance than the agricultural labourers. of the quired no a ss i s ta nce . S o much for the conditiotlnfiosly. labourer in the man u fa c t ur i ng di s t r i c t s , which eras ! jo wl!' superior to the condition of the labourer in the egL ie Lerd; districts. He now came to the proposition of the S'° /., '" or d has Let it be for one moment allowed that the Nelm e he f a ctorY made out his case—that he had established that t a m ore ' the kinittorn salons labourers were worse fed, worse paid, worse clothed , .__ a i n et het miserable than any other labourers in and see what could be drawn from it. In the first P ,A . /40 0 throw the Noble Lord's statement into a distinct pr i o a p n o n, vi . Ley them were over-worked; in the second, they werennudneleret'payPawlmas the whole panacea for this overwork and Let fining the houra of labour to ten hours a . day. , an d te of lim t i b te e ce jabous ert s suppose the hours of labour to be thus see what would be the condition w ould g o f The limiting of the hours of work to n hours en er day rid of the question of over- work ; he wow a d under-pay. The labour- r game forward, best price b e (Mr. labour into the market, offering i t a t the 13 hint • se get for it from the manufacturer. That broug ht . ._ O l the . rn e t d Roebuck) to the main question, which was b lue' y e , that n b e le • • And here be must o ser to the v r featuring capitalists. n tipatuY , j o o. seen in that . House a curious feeling of a would uu race of manufa, taring capitalists. If they of prig. a destruc tion„ abroad, amid ask who lifted them from theydY and 51..„ -hand gatuoghthetaahuii; which was yawning for them—who grapp_sow came Napoleon Buonaparte—his (Mr. ii""