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

_ the CO l l out anY the Pt' he di", r into c 4i- P l° , zcitcniee an fa lt ; petite , A b l show— attractiro descri be ' is 'no it bat thing a nd lol i g -/e on the. was fasbiol3, A no ;tan— 0 ; ihiona b k i 0( Ri, e ti ls 3farq of,. et el'f ' of sr' ld, Nil Wester! vi pe 2 gaeuv" ai rdf P. 5 $. Shelle .i 1 P ° tes :nets, V a r " e eic • PaYn el e rk lley, 511 - f the Pijo , broke, 1310°a"° 136 Articulto.oo 1, f°r TlO ld one orr iel . 1 Cot ......... " 5 :t the 6t tif ° '7,t,art' before inn° . . r . ...... 5 ••• 1;c:od r r Lo tofu, is piqu carn ielt i o rd Torn , nd 1"' , ONTINIJED). Th L G '— a?le r/ r -E y . f S .); 7 ;h l is liinlonGth Zcio'n\t'Eai,lis ita • it nPurtrait Picture of the late Abraham Collis, who, an eminent surgeon of -extensive practice and wh o di e d towarsis the close of 1843, 'ha ,eventy-first year o f hi s age . W e d o not 4:-4 ever to have heard of this gentleman, but, acd af ing to the biographer's account, he was possesse Ivithrg•rate professional and WAS connected vii th t Tore than one Medical work in high repute nof lef cultY. The upper .part of his countenance Itiouunlike that of the late Mr. Canning, but the finS qngularly large and expressive, apparently, r "Ca iz eeble . ll s and indecision of character.. The at l i ect iTe'n of 1815" is a lengthy notice, ac . coni . - r4e, ben several amusing extracts, of Captain Si- Pai gri eaently published history of the last capi troA.„l,4 Prance and Belgium, which closed with the arti ci 'Lnt victory of Waterloo. Of the •remaining Cati ti r ) ,[ the best is the one headed "Continental presen t which gives a minute account of the Military resources of Prussia. The SPORTING MAGAZINE. ipoi,ti etubellishments to this number are, first, ~ I , %jet:lg sketch-, entitled the " Warrener's Dog," trotstrotamelhibits a very spirited and picturesque back habits "d secondly, a view of the exterior of the f vee rii"lllarket New Subscription Room," which, i hin, a3r fudge from the plate, must be a very im -14441)3 structure. The literary department is, as ikle4Ptifined e.xclusively to sporting subjects ; and, til P 'a i g i ves a minute, matter-of-fact account of ari s Spring Races." S/3 4 ., • f ot ti l liilf t Vi y lV- D B ' COLONIAL MAGAZINE. and carefully digested periodical devoted tat ters, most part to the consideration of colonial Part ati ': , which are yearly acquiring greater iimo ltee,,l4l'd more and more engrossing the attention .-v4lnlunity at large: I N . 1 4 I f A N'sis' ' ` 4I C4 . MONTHLY MAGAZINE. i s , Is the first number of a new monthly per i odical I:lltsCe'redill liingston, Jamaica; and like most first s Meet a s 4 is got up with considerable care, both a ,1 1 ,. t;1 fire choice .of its subjects, and their variety. i lo t e r st place, there are some clever descriptions L tir he, l e s n e ' n erY, and next, some prose tales just of a f ,fl'esr - ,.,"gth, to sa nothing of divers small pieces o 1,,, 41 1iz 0 ;: e ' Which, "Lines on a Curlew" deserves a ''' ' "c 4 ice for the grace and appositeness of its. I' gery. , 4 st a „,, In the details regarding "Jamaica, its iliiikittlti--fishtcPresett State," we . find a curious anecdote shark which was caught - . off that island, ,1544c1 andse stomach, on .opening the brute, ' were '''Wswteen asses' hoofs and legs from the knee ,, ) besides other very indigestible materials., 48 ria 134 -IVKERS' MAGAZINE. • . . \l l ,, .-ay b e - . _ sil y 1, surmised from its title, this vtin. of magazine is op `'i 4 PractiCA, busitiess • character, and en t s s eltie • 14 4 11 uttelligent comments on the " Governmen r ,,, t itl ne3r l‘leasure." These are followed by an , - ',Wh' 1, 41 t he "Prese t State of Banking in Ireland, . 1 6t i st• °e ''tir one or two very sensible and pertinent tans. We.l BRITISH. MAGAZINE. , 44 „ ve here, in addition to sound, sensible, on-. t ,f iti l unications, conuegtO for the most part sla stical matters, a colAous monthly' register "Ns'cius i nfornaation, together with various docu 'Ets:feeting' the state of the poor, and the pro• Information. h 11 / 82 , '4B 1 I,PR Y . OF CHINA AND INDIA. h uor at e work has already reached • its ,Se e -"‘ art, and the interest of the authoress s— d. k,'„ l ti ° },,, r's— narrative still continues unimpaired. ,`, lo 4 s t„ - L O ught a great variety of historical an "er task, which she has apparently digeste o or -4:flPul.ous care, and deserves not less credit f 6 . , ll ,ia e u , h i n, i mpartiality 'of her statements. ach r . 'NR, - "eilished with two, sometimes more, en AZINE. he 1D SPORTING Ikbith besttarticle in the Number before i u s e, a (1111 1 t, '3 Very properly placed ,first l , . Illth 1 life entitled " Hillingdon Ha) e volumes, phi or ,e,,. , itsaltehaotf ith . 4 .ancliey Cross, of the and e is by the " a novel nit ' hr n i ; 11' 4,,„."Published at the commencement sui r'ritl ' de sketch of the Cockney Squire t4i tt nt 4,,,,,. its' way. Ihe Number con ht t. q accurate in is very 1 4b• 'To et* 11. ability. Jeets e ishments, - bo thilustrative of sporting -' at'd executed with very passable . % v gAt A Wer b y the numerous st I Lit 'N 11'.11.11RILT CAP.—If we h, v,-'11•A ilation Cap for the Infan t r y " - ssing utter ' disgust .git ' ' teeet from all ranks, . eto judge. of the expressing ii,v Nve Pe . !al I l • ha W ould be led to, thin it is worthy . of r eg l 'e Lee • soldier. Indeed , force this ob kokriloid,r . 1 1 made by a . . /advisable to k that the selection . could u 4 teasi, ation how, far it is . ertion i us that de , s_ auus lyto,:kl-dress upon our soldiers. uv W n e ee could show letters, 410;11 ktiZllions, all tending ee to trili t N ea es, taken place, r q recruits have refused_ hemen ''ho tl ° 4 t ' in many instance ';he cap in wear ' • 1 • the to ather than wear the ‘J Stit4l% tjltFlrnent that now has the t have some voic . e t. in It is go t , ail , r the cap ou the issue, as . yet,. isvery 11 41 . Lo t l at c , 7 we believe, the g w i l t iole army condemns 1 0 4 .1„, e f , to amend the order; heads on a most suib `iti 5 8, .7; 3 tap placed on the 7 thif,,,,-,t to the Ist of next April the whole aimy ta l e 1 .!!!, , k, it ' All pools, Day." rid of.—Naval 4441. heattil wish the army well Sy G_ y This cap, like other unseemlyal and i, kik,: .ette. Ilk h. V cll ' in 's is PRUSSIANS.— so f a o- e , named il-,14 a'l • Q -Y t thirteen year ,r ,. __,, )(k i lt p. r ors, one a boy abou Police-cou t, r 1-.lverPew On Thursday four of leaf to- Qa1.1 1 , 4 g . e, was chared at the . rrived the tio, t ., ( 41 11) amongst them P which a . (4, 1 0 14 ard the William Frederick, from Dantzie, with a ossession of 611bs. O t P,' 4 Of 3', in the Brunswick Dock, th,' t 0 1, 7 1,, alt. The crew consisted of thirteen found amongst t i „IttkiP's claimed the tobacco, which . n - w e separate bundles, )%leip"°3' Pollaid, a tide-waiter,. in 4 five hands. The the boy Ringe ItSl but The package' claimed The packag x Om 3lbs., and he was disc .eat hulking fellow si it t ` t 4 . lii li 3' t rederick Plinesse—a g.ton, tH: 14'ilaed muscular in proport e l onun ittal—weight . but C;k is 4 i , {i ti l i t r Lit, the prospect a the of the weight allowed feign but who blubbered Lpktitllo4l.B.on little exceeded port ' 0 'iti,,,, rye t a l t ' !Or the use, of d. t 1 1 ,41 h,' u 0 also was isc barged. 131bh. Le All), -"e and Daniel Kunke-, • Tied:wl)* ' I having res . i of Dion of the Board 1. ... But f t r h m e other two, t 4 1,, e ie.r•vrero remanded till the Lti..,„4 eit t 'VnLion be taken speak English, and the p I ° e ll s t e r 4i ° or Ili Pt 'lle boy, could ted as interpreter. tri t kloth e 11 illiani Frederick ac on the case. None of the p er i . remanded f the ot4ba et of th 6 crew, named po Z n '•two packages o . 44C tiv °I. having in 'lie - under seessum similar circum 444 4ghts (X 10Ib. and 131 b. (i d was also pli tthe of his shipmates in the present instance.— r. - 010• 4 / 4144.Aitt ct • tqt,at., to ktr.--'we are hapP?' %Table Earl has con r t e i : it,,,ii 41,r0 Our r eaders, that the \ en five days.- 4: - .r cor r 'n being able to com ,NSit v a'g in health for the last e of the sons of his coati h`''' Ikee Alliwick had the pleasure of learning this favou . 1NP.. 1 .57,tc0 on the 3d instant, from on . k t,L.q18,,.. !ine 21Iercury. lti7tinc,'44.TlON OP VOTERS.— El ep an held at the h ' °f el Surrey was tle t att , , ectors of East d'strict So ber, to lavern, for therPos f forming a i _ . 8- On Monday eyening t e t Surrey Reform 11Ss tooi s o 7 4 branch ofNew Eas g been called t o's Yett;'eLY, of which A. W. Robarts, .E - s v ii. u , has been f0 r ,.4 tO the President. Mr. Palmer, ha I,itvit,r'ilirt tronn.ls, 6 J urged that thq es Pr l en constituency. It , t hat hkretk%•-orts to increase 'the Libera to say 4Aq "alla . 'bad excuse for supineness, „ t was the time Jo t ori e , e.s, , and a ti tti e 4t, rs must wait for a period istra- The reg t cause. N t /t !Lsi gt4kl could be done for the ttide d by constan itatio reachinery which must be cons r of public excitement uld popular feel it, We4ll,,tlsYs of calm, and thus only e moved resolutions, ko i ei t k At ; e, s r it was aroused, ye p o of real (ittitit.traeec,oaltin and other g entlemeng . t't 'Tie' md Ca with a long 4 11 h ociety for the polling districts of Bermondsey, rs as Vice fl influential Reformers -ekid it 1; mberwell, was . then formed , L dent t st of leading and in 4, tr ass, Ilti etninittee. i s ex season, 11,:tisidqii,r,,t,lie Pronch comic singer, who contributed inst., when he on the h / Nl 4 to i.,., - ._‘as alnusement of the public lastt Vtia a n ; • we in this country t ile ii.e Iti ar 4 l l ,e his appearance at the S l t. s J third daughter m o r t I,,,4kit!lihr, ~,',9sge of Miss Murrsaa3:a,_ James's Theatre. t_ilii,j'lo42i, !!ochester and Lady_nesr.ahy Murray, t ( : ) 1 pai•alc took place on Wed e c N Thceremony p e as perf The lii!ttese t oelt b ,4t 13r?inie:' - Father of the brute. t to, p 4%, ~. 3 the 114;ht Res. din w p l o h rme 2; mond. Ha ' Miss Drum 4 t ell, 'ere the Lady Sarah b., t sof the bride. j' 413' of 11, and the three took ,(4 ba t ' yi l Ler, the bride and bride bridegroom degr Marquis of the Marq . i'l'titli,4ll." 4111,411, he 3, in Kent, the seat of -ounger in the occasion 44 "?,Itisi;," etegant dejeuner was sisters their departure given p u diate connexions r q• t kri ( h s" ) suil Lady Sarah to the mime restricted), in- . 6 1'. b 0 1,, , , th v to whom the invitations were he Earl st a te: t 'ra', llt est ~, ,larquis ndMarchioness Camden, t 1„,„a4, ,'rVinnoni a -- Mall Sarah Hay, Lady Georgiara ways, 4,' St s` - ":401 f II and Lady Lady Caroline Strang _ on. V• II t4(14 Sir and Lady Mordaunt, th 3 e 3 .1.1 . 1 , 4 1 ., A , , John and llie Mrs. ai , Hon. tei ) ''ary-"wrray, Lady Sykes, the Mrs. Eger -I', '°T al ta the 11I' - Drummond, Mr. and 4 t v..t . ,,at o t on, an , IT. isses . Sir Alexander Grant the 3'' qt4td suLlMri" Egerton ,_ _ r m and Mrs. 1-n , Shir- Eve 3 _ Mrs. hh , 0 4 „ 1 , s. Merray, • etr e 'ere, is-J°re, Major 'Eardley Wilmot, Ir. Pratt, Mr. rls, "-,r• temple , Miss Scott, - ~ ...e.., t ilt ~'! lie n c• mansion in (; h 'kir& '' Seen Cowper has taken a the Hon. - .LI - 3' of w• week, where to di eio 44 , 'miser, for the Ascot distinguished circle It tl tler has every evening received a Yekntqclit.t,t a the hal 01, •lrheeti,," ANAL COMPANY._Wednes_ay tablish- Qitv - "g of this Company took place at their thee chair. I.l",„l'ad ta.sin, 1. - E. lb. Bethune, Esq., 111 that ot torl4a...si'ort of the general committee itappeared amounted in the ttdisaioetble eoUtinued to improve, and 670 tons, the t 1,,: 04 heuding 3 1st of May last, to 46 . 6, tt e had sold N t 4 t,Y ih r rell were 18,7611. 'The Committee sil at , , ,e, shares at 24/. per share, and fifty shares at 25/. leaving 14 ate, 'the whole number sold being two hundred , hat fund 41 4 14 4 n Wat'll belanging tO the reserve -fund. the Com - Lt444t. th°,r.llnmulated to a considerable sum, the shares ~ l t le , 4 4, r Lit tight to invest the produce of with this (.% Jure', eloaeys a permanent security, and 1 1 'ls. ,sed 4,869/ 19 Bd.stock in the Three per Cent. '257 the .' 8. re 1,,k, 1.168 profits for the last six 17s. 9d. 14 ded ' 2d, from which fi - r cent., or 562/ : r h. qs 4f 4Qted fNe pe : the 8 s p s or the reserve fund. The remainder, o 11::11:t it,;tld., added to 3261 . 2s. 94d., the balance brought sufficient l'teet4.:l itt exd ef,Zr ivlrcinfild give 11,021/. 1. 1 8 5. a 3id , e h re which was 4; 4111 0 . 'itl ed 1 aftere h* 3.e4r of Ws.fp3l2/. Is. aid. would _ awar.,_ W ich a surplus o h t discussion th e rtp o4 ..__ , T toe next account. and tt4L i tittoo \r``!kt accounts were , received unanimously ttrtiett. °tea of thanks having been passed,meeting the l' IN • ehl attlrda at 1,, 4 h 1 y evening last an acre of plantation 4e e " e 'in th • h Earl 01 fit, limb, i-, g t e Right Hon. t e . . of b 14 got', Was destroyed by fire. The origin o f the Y 1 k•n • caused " b ; ,e u r , / _ ' , oft is supposed to have been . eithiele, e'sneSs some of the numerous parties who 140 high near the sr dt at' this ' season- of the year. tOurin, est,eeni in Which his Lordship is held by the 0 nei.jiallu Poorer classes, as well as by all parties in 't th;`2_ourhoood, is, we think a sufficient guarantee " t litt 1 10 t • • • ' • originate 14 ailY 41-feeling. MAAAZINES (C( THE GERMAN DWARFS. ire understand that the fortunate holder of General Tom Thumb has already realised a very pretty sum of money by his speculation ; and it is well for him that lie. has done so in time, for here are three wee-wee things come from Germany, who bid fair to divert a smart share of the public attention in respect of dwarfs, from the Transatlantic imperfection to themselves. The General, who purports to be twelve years old, is twenty-five inches high (though we have just seen an announcement that he is now to be a little longer) ; one of our new visitors, Christian Brocksted, is thirteen years old, bona fide, " right up, straight down, and no mistake," to quote classic Jack Brag, as may be known unto all men by the certificate of 'his baptisin and birth, duly signed and sealed by the local authorities; and yet he is only three inches taller than the abridged American, andweighs but one pound more. • Moreover, the German blows lustily on the horn, and smokes no end of cigars, and takes leading parts .in a ballet of action, and does all sorts of things marvellous to behold in one .so very small: Then, there's his sister, Maria Brocksted, 18 years old, yet only 32 inches high-, and of but 22 pounds weight, a very nice little woman, indeed, chubby, rosy, smiling, apparelled in a an dress of mature form; with a good head of hair, dressed a /tt mode, who sings a song, and dances a dance as 'twere a fairy. of the olden time; or an elfin sprite of more modern Germany; and; indeed, we are by no means clear that these soi-disant Brocksteds are not a party of these charming little folks, to whom Grimm, and Muswus, and other historians of ffiery, have introduced us, come to the earth, as was their wont, at once for a bit of fun on their own account, and to do a good turn to some fortunate mortals, by letting these pass as their guardians and exhibitors. At all events they are something very much out of the common. There's another brother, ITenric Brocksted, 22 years of age, 36 inches high, and weighing but 36 pounds, who takes part in the ballet. Not the least curious feature in the matter is, that these three so small personages had for brothers, born alternately with themselves, three persons rather above than tinder the ordinary proportions. The " Klaverbad," as the diminutive trio are designated when they are at home, have been exhibited before, and have received the patronage and approbation of the King of the Netherlands, the ducal family of Baden, the royal family of Saxony, - Prince Albrecht of Prussia, the regal court of Anholt, the Duke of Altenburg, the ducal court of Saxe- Coetben, of Saxe-Gratz, &c., as ap pears from certificates duly authenticated. We are happy to have it in our power to set at rest all doubt as to the Polish Ball. It will positively take place on Monday next, the 10th inst. At a very full Commateeof Lacbratronesses, which met again onWednesday afternoon, at Willis's Rooms (the Marchioness of Ailesbuty, as usual, in the chair) it was stated that ,there was nothing whatever to in terfere with the ball on that day; and that the prospects of its success were the most brilliant. Three times as many tickets have already been sold as were disposed of at a cor responding period last year. Every arrangement has been mate to prevent confusion, in consequence of the very large number expected to attend. We rejoice in thinking that - this entertainment will be attended with all the eclat and .all the success which the cause in which it is given so well deserves. FRENCH PLAYS.—ST. JAMES'S TMEA.TRE.—Made moiselle Plessy's final performance on Wednesday, attracted a brilliant and densely-crowded audience, amongst whom we observed the Duchess of Roxburghe, the Earl and Countess of Kenmare, Lord and Lady Blantyre, the Countess of Zet land, the Countess Charlemont, the Baron De Talleyrand, Lady Charlotte Talbot, Lady Ridley Colborne, Lady Georgiana Codrington, Lady Domvile and the Misses Dom vile, Lady Deere, the Countess of Mansfield, and the Lathes Murray, Lady Winnington, Sir John and Lady Doveton, Mrs. Chatteris, Mrs. General Grey, Mr. John Sandford, &c. THE SENTENCE ON MR. O'CONNELL, &C.—The fol lowing is the form in which Mr. T. Duncombe has entered in the books of the House of Commons his notice respecting.the judgments against Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers in the late trials in Ireland 1—" On reading the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, or Supply, to move an address to her Majesty, that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that the further execution of the sentence passed upon Daniel O'Connell, Esquire, and others, by the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, be suspended until the writ of error is decided." Thus, it will be seen that no particular day is yet fixed for this important matter being brought before the House ; though, in all probability, the Hon. Member .who has thus taken the subject. in hand will lose no time un necessarily in drawing the attention of the representatives thereto. ,a• A FAIR WIND FOR THE HOMEWARD-BOUND AT LAST.—DOVErt, JUNE 4 —This morning, about daylight, we have' much pleasure in announcing, the boisterous north easterly winds which have prevailed on this coast for the very long. period of seven week's, chopped round to westerly, and continue from that quarter. By these winds the homeward bound and coasting vessels have been detained in hundreds, ay, we might say thousands, in the Channel awl its" chops," some of them for the whole of that period. Not to mention the loss sustained by the owners of the shipping thus de tained wind-bound, the greatest privations have been en- dured by the crews in numerous instances from want of water and provisions; and for weeks back cruisers have been supplying vessels in the channel with these. At an early hour this morning the most busy and interesting scene was presented by the vessels leaving Dover-roads, and by the immense concourse of ships passing from the westward to the river. Beachy-head, the West Bay of Dungeness, Dover, and Margate roads, have sent forth their fleets; and vast numbers of craft that have for weeks been lying in Dover and Ramsgate Harbours, are, while we write, hauling out and getting under way on the top of the tide. Many hun dreds of vessels have passed here to-day up Channel, and if the wind holds westerly, the throng that will be stirring in the same direction to-morrow we have no doubt will be equally great. To add to the magnificence of the spectacle to-day, there is just as much wind as to allow vessels to crowd almost every stitch of their canvass on their poles, and they may be seen, therefore, dashing and bounding over the slightly agitated waters in their most imposing aspect. By the recent gales much loss of property has been sustained, though we are glad to say few lives have been lost; and. though much damage has been done to anchors, chains, spars, sails, and rigging, we have not heard of any vessels becoming total wrecks. There was a report in some of the papers of a schooner having sunk off here on Sunday, the 26th ult., and of all hands having perished, but we are happy to state that the report was without foundation in fact. EXTRAORDINAY 5T0RY.....-The Bombay Courier of Tuesday, April 9, in a letter from a credited correspondent at Kaira, details a sad event which happened to a gentleman who lived at Kaira. He went out tiger shooting and shot himself by accident through the heart. On the body being taken to Kaira for interment, the officer commanding the station proceeded to discharge the last offices to the departed by reading over the grave the funeral service. No sooner was the service commenced than there issued from a hive in a corner of the church, outside, a swarm of bees, which flew at the congregation and stung them in all directions. Every one of the congregation, including the acting parson, de camped, leaving the body exposed to the heat of the sun. The writer of the letter proceeded to the spot, and found that the bees had abandoned their hive and taken possession of the coffin ; their attack upon him and his horse compelled a retreat. What eventually became of the corpse has not transpired. EUROPEAN REGIMENTS IN INDIA.—The Bombay Times calls the attention of Government and every one concerned to the. want of sanatory arrangements for the European soldiers. The cost of an European soldier before fit to do regimental duty in this country is abdut 1001., and every death occurring amongst their number is a loss to the Company of this amount. .But little care, however, is used in re ference to the men sent out as recruits ; the only know ledge possessed by the 'military authorities of India of the fact of troops coming in is derived from the Eng • lish newspapers, which mention the number of troops that leave by vessels for India. Were the troops re garded as Manchester prints they could be duly in voiced ; hut, under the present system, the notice from the home authorities simply intimates that a few scores may be looked for by such and such opportunity. In the course of the rains of 1842, about 100 AN ere cut off by local causes in the barracks at Colaba, and 80 casualties occurred last year in the 2d battalion of Artillery in ' Fort Geroge Barracks en• tailing at once a loss of 18,000 men to the Com pany. Sir George Arthur has bestowed careful at tention upon this matter, and recommended a measure to the home authorities which will not cost more than the above sum, and rid the recruits, in great measure, of local sickness. Our Contemporary recommends that the Hugh Lindsay, now lying useless in the harbour, may be moored off the lighthouse and metamorphosed into a floating hospital for the sick of European regiments, who will thus be enabled, at a trifling cost to the Government, to derive the benefit of sea air. A NOVEL INSULT TO THE FRENCH FLAG.—MALTA, MAY 29, 1844.—An affair occurred at Messina on the day the Geyser was to start which may form the subject of a newspaper article, headed somewhat as follows : " Insult to the French flag by a British steamer :" and as the French will have the first tale, I feel it im perative on me to put you in possession of a plain fact, that having heard the alteram partem, you may give its full weight to whatever rhodomontade may appear in the French papers. The facts are as follow: Miss Tomlinson, the Bishop of Gibraltar's sister, having expressed a wish It) land at Messina a boat was placed at her disposal by Commander Kitchen. As there were several -shore boats alongside, and the descent of *a lady by the ladder might excite vulgar curiosity, the captain ordered a flag to be thrown over the ladder to prevent intrusion. The flag used for the purpose was the signal, No. 2, the French flag with the colours re versed. At this moment a French war steamer was coming in, and the captain seeing, as ho sup posed, the flag of France submitted to such an' office, rounded to, and became very noisy and boisterous, com plained that the flag had been trampled on by a woman, and consequently degraded. All explanation was useless; the irascible Frenchman was deaf to all but his own clamour, and was even so rude as to refuse giving the name of his boat, referring Commander Kitchen to her stern, where the name was painted. The captain of the Geyser went on board in order to pacify the doughty Frenchman. If he suc ceeded in doing so, still the affair is too rich, the oppor tunity of puffing up their national honour too tempting, to induce others on board to be quiet. It is a positive fact, one on which I can stake my reputation, that on board of the Geyser at the time there actually was not a French flag. THE AMERICAN EMBASSY TO CHINA.—His Excel- lency the Hon. • C. Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America to the Court of Pekin, with his suite, arrived in Macao roads on Saturday last, the 24th instant, on board the United Staws flag-ship Brandywine, Commo dore Parker. • His Excellency's suite consists of six gentlemen, Mr. F. Webster, Secretary of Legation, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. M'lntosh, Dr. Kane, Mr. West, and Mr. Hernisz. And we understand that the Rev. E. C. Bridgman, D.D., and the Rev. P. Parker, have been ap pointed joint Chinese Secretaries to the Legation. His Ex• ceilency has apartments on the Prays Grande, where he will remain until the Brandywine shall have taken in her stores and made other necessary arrangements, to proceed on her voyage to the mouth of the Peiho.—Canton Press. A WOMAN' KILLED BY A BEAR.—On Friday last the wife of Mr. Hesselgrave, of Back-lane, Wakefield, came to her death in the following manner :—Her husband keeps a plea Sure garden, and amongst other things . to be seen there was a bear, which was confined in a pit, in which there was a pole. On Friday, Mrs. Hesselgrave was near the bear pit, when the bear climbed the pole, sprang from it, and reaching the wall of its den, made its escape, seizing Mrs. Hesselgrave, and mangling her dreadfully with its teeth and claws, tearing away one of her breastPand other wise seriously injuring her. Her screams brought assist ance, and the bear was with great difficulty beaten off, and was shortly afterwards shot. The poor woman lingered in great . agony until Sunday morning, when she died. Her sister, who came to her aid when attacked, was also bitten, and she still lies in a dangerous state, but hopes see enter , tAintti other ;cove'. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 7, 1844. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HO USE OF LORDS, June 6. Their Lordships assembled this afternoon at a Quarter before Four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The . House of Commons having been summoned to the bar of their Lordships' House, the Royal Assent was given by Commission, in the usual form, to the undermentioned Bills :—The Customs Duties Bill, the Stamp, Duties Bill, the Edinburgh Boroughs Bill, the West Indian Colonies Bill, the Lancaster and Car- lisle Railway Bill, the :North 'Union Railway Bill, the Carlisle and Maryport Railway Bill, the Eastern Coun ties Railway Bill, the Salford Improvement Bill, the Leeds Gas Bill, the Globe Insurance Company Bill, and two Inclosure, Bills. The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Earl of Dalhousie. The Commons having withdrawn, their Lordships ad journed during pleasure. Their Lordships resumed at Five o'clock. The Assaults (Ireland) Bill passed through Com• mittee. The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition against Sir Thomas Wilson's Estate Bill. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Earl FORTESCUE piesented petitions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. He gave his cordial thanks to the Noble and. Learned Lord on the woolsack for having introduced this Bill, and he trusted it would pass into a law. WILSON'S ESTATE BILL—INCLOSURE OF HAMPSTEAD- H EATH. The Earl of EGMONT moved the second reading of this Bill, and in doing so he denied that it was intended to apply the powers of the Bill, should it be passed, for the purpose of inclosing Hampstead-heath. Lord DENMAN felt it his duty to oppose this Bill, for he was at a loss to know what grievance there was of which Sir Thomas Wilson could complain, and there fore there was no necessity for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The will under which Sir Thomas Wilson held his property, provided that Hampstead-heath should not be leased for more than twenty-one years. It had been said that this' Bill was not for the purpose of inclosing Hampstead 'heath. It was true that it was not intended to cut up the heath into small portions, as was the case of an inclosed common ; but it was meant to give by the Bill power to certain parties. to build over 400 acres of land, which now made the heath a healthy and happy place, and the resort of thousands on every Sabbath-day in the summer time ; and, this, he thought, ought to be more gratifying to the proprietor than any trifling increase in the value of that property. •The holders - of copyhold property near to the heath were greatly annoyed. at the prospect of hav ing 400 acres of the heath built upon. It had been said that the will of the late Sir Thomas M. Wilson was a very strange will, but he (Lord Denman) thought it was a very humane will, for he believed that Sir Thos. Wilson as much devised the enjoyment of Hampstead heath to the public as he did any of his property to his son. Under these circumstances he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Earl of COLCHESTER supported the Bill. Lord CAMPBELL thought the Bill ought to be re jected. The same powers existed with respect to the property of Sir Thomas Wilson, as were possessed by his ancestors. Why then should he come to Parliament for further powers as to the disposal of such property as that on Hampstead-heath ? Why should Par liament give powers to a private individual, at the expense of public convenience and comfort. This Bill was precisely the same as the Bill of last session, which was brought forward to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to lease Hampstead-heath for periods of sixty and seventy years. He (Lord Campbell) hoped their Lordships would reject this Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW said that within the last ten years thirty Bills similar to this one had passed, and he would ask what objection there could be 'to this Bill going before a Committee of their Lordship? House ? He should support the second reading. The Earl of MANSFIELD argued that if this Bill were unsound in principle, there was no necessity for going into"the Committee, and therefor& he should op pose it in the present stage. Lord COTTENHAM said, this Bill if passed would not interfeie with Hampstead-heath at all.—(Hear.) The Bill contained nothing which in an ordinary case would prevent its passing, and, therefore, if they refused to pass this Bill, they would forfeit their character for doing equal justice to ell. Lord BROUGHAM was surprised that his Noble and Learned Friend should defend Sir T. Wilson in an at tempt to dispose of his estate by statute, in such a manner as to be in opposition to his father's will. Lord COTTENHAM explained. Lord DENMAN said, that from the plan which he held in his hand, it appeared that it was proposed to build upon 400 acres of Hampstead-heath; and this, if carriedinto effect, would very seriously inconvenience the public in the enjoyment of the heath. The Earl of EGMONT replied. _ . Their Lordships then divided-- Contents Non-contents Majority against the second reading The Bill is consequently lost. . GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA. 20 31 -11 The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter from Lord Ellenborough, stating that he had received the thanks of the House of Lords, expressing their Lordships' appro bation of the services rendered by the army in India. The letter was ordered to be entered on the journals of the House. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 6. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. ROYAL COMMISSI )N. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and summoned the House to the bar of the Souse of Peers to hear her Majesty's Commission read for giving the Royal Assent to several Bills, for which see Lords' report. The Epsom and Croydon Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The Taff Vale Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the cler gymen of the Established Church in the county of Dub lin, 100 Members of the Irish bar, and several fellows and scholars of Trinity College, against the Bill. Petitions against the Bill were presented by Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Antrobus, and Mr. Mundy from nume rous congregations of Wesleyans, Independents, and Baptists. Mr. WALKER presented a petition from a body of Wesleyans, who stated that upon examining the Bill, they found reason to withdraw their opposition to it, and they prayed the House to allow them to withdraw their• petition against the Bill. Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition numerously signed from Roman Catholics in the county of Cork against the Bill. Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a great number of peti tions from Irish Catholics in favour of the Bill, amongst others one from Kildare, signed by 5,000 persons. Mr. MUNTZ presented two petitions from Birming ham, one in favour of, and one against it. Mr: GODSON presented a petition in favour of the Bill, and several against it, from places in Northum berland. • Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from Warrington, in 'Preston, and one from places in Lan cashire, in favour of the Bill. Mr. TEIORNELY presented several petitions in favour of the Bill, from places in the West of England, and from Abby Lara, in the county of Westmeath, and from several other places in Ireland. Mr. TAYLOR presented petitions from several places in Worcestershire in favour of the Bill. Petitions against the Bill were presented from Mon mouth, by Mr. Blewitt ; from Cumberland, by Mr. Gore Langton ; from Birmingham and places in Gloucester shire, by Mr. Scholefield ; and by Colonel T. Wood, from Finchley and other places in Middlesex. Mr. RICE presented a petition from Dover against the Bill. Mr. BUSFEILD presented petitions from congrega tions in Bradford, in favour of the Bill. Mr. BROTHERION presented six petitions, signed by several thousand Roman Catholics in Manchester and Salford, against the Lord R. GROSVENOR presented several petitions for and against the Bill.—(Laughter.) He had carefully examined these petitions, and he found the signatures so nearly balanced each other in point of numbers, that he was unable to say whether he was petitioning for the Bill or against it.—(Laughter.) Mr. BOYI) presented 51 petitions against the Bill. Colonel TREVOR presented' a number of petitions against the Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a similar petition from Margate. Mr. 0. GORE presented petitions against the Bill from Pershore, and other places in Worcestershire, and also one from Sligo. Dr. BOWRING presented petitions from Wesleyans, and other Dissenters at Barnard' Castle and Manchester, in favour of the Bill. Dr. STOCK presented a petition, signed by 50,000 Roman Catholics in the county of Dublin, in favour of the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from a congre gation in Leeds in favour of the Bill. Sir J. HANMER presented a petition against the Bill. Colonel ACTON presented petitions from Dublin to the same effect. Sir G. STAUNTON presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. SHAW presented petitions in favour of the Bill from the Roman Catholics of Dublin. • Ms. WAWN presented petitions from South Shields against the Bill. Mr. E. TENNENT presented fifteen petitions from the north of Ireland against the Bill ; also, nine petitions in favoar of the Bill. Mr. MILNES presented a petition from the deanery of Pomfret against the Bill. Mr. RICHARDS presented petitions to the same effect. Lord MARSHAM presented petitions from Kent to the same effect. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented several petitions from Lancashire in favour of the Bill. • Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against the Bill. Lord DUNCAN presented several petitions from Bath against the Bill. Mr. SHEIL presented fifteen petitions from Roman Catholic congregations in Ireland in favour of the Bill. Colonel VERNER presented petitions from the North of Ireland for and against the Bill. Viscount ACHESON presented petitions for and against the Bill. Mr. DIVETT presented petitions from Gloucester shire against the Mr. WY SE presented several petitions - from Ifeland in favour of the Bill. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY asked the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether they were aware that an enactment had passed the Legislature of British Guiana, sanctioning the rais ing of a loan in this country ? Lord STANLEY said he had received dispatches from Demerara that morning, to the effect stated by the Hon. Gentleman, ' Dr. BOWRING said, perhaps the Noble Lord would be able without receiving notice of his intention to put the question, to state whether he was able to lay on the table the papers which had arrived yesterday from China, containing some important declaration issued by the Government of Hong-Kong on the subject of slavery and the slave trade. Lord STANLEY said ~he had not seen the papers to which the Hon. Gentleman referred. BANK - CHARTER. Mr. MUNTZ wished IQ ask the. Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government a question with respect to the Bank Charter, in order to remove the doubt which existed in the public mind. In the event of such an export of gold as should withdraw from circulation all notes ex ceeding the 14 millions issued against securities, were the said 14 millions, or any part of them, to be payable in gold on demand ; and supposing that three millions issued against the Exchequer to be withdrawn from cir culation, how were those notes to be redeemed which were issued against the 11 millions of debt due to the Bank ? Sir 8.. PEEL said he would really rather not answer the question. He thought the intention of theßill was quite manifest. Any demand made upon the Bank must be paid in gold. The Bank was allowed to issue notes on securities to the amount of 14 millions. The debt due from the Government to the Bank, to the amount of eleven millions, was assigned as part of those securities. The remainder of those securities were securities over which the Bank had an entire control. It was of no use to put extreme hypothetical cases.—(Hear.) The Bank should have free con trol over the three millions, and if it should be necessary no doubt the Government would have credit enough to pay the demand upon them. In reply to a question from Lord J. RUSSELL. Sir R. PEEL stated that the sugar duties would have precedence on Monday next. Mr. BORTHWICK wished to learn from the Right Hon. Baronet when the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the County Courts Bill, and other Government measures, would be brought forward? Sir R. PEEL could give no pledge on the subject. It was most desirable that the subjects should be properly discussed. On Monday next he intended to proceed with the Sugar Duties, on Thursday with the question of the Bank Charter, and if . ..to-morrow, be could state what question would be brought on Friday, - he would do so, but he would not pledge himself on the subject. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL trusted that sufficient notice would be given of when it was intended to bring forward the Irish Registration Bill. Sir R. PEEL would take care to give such ample notice respecting the Bill that all her Majesty's subjects should have full intimation of its introduction. POOR-LAWS. On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for the second - reading of the Dissenter's Chapels Bill, Mr. BOR rEiwicK gave notice that he should on that day fortnight move for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the existing Poor-laws. • DISSENTERS' CHAPELS 81T.T., Sir B. HALL presented petitions against the Dis senters' Chapels Bill.' , • Mr. MACAULAY presented 100 petitions from different parts of Scotland to the same effect. Sir. GEORGE STICKLAND presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Preston against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Mr. SCOTT presented petitions, in favour of the Bill, from various Dissenting congregations, and also various petitions, with a similar prayer, from the lineal descend ants of many of the founders of these chapels. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Wolverhampton, in favour of the Bill. Mr. HUTT presented several petitions against the Bill. - Sir JOHN SEALE presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Dartmouth against the Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions in favour of the Bill. - _ Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from a congregation of Wesleyans against the Bill, and also a petition from Selby in favour of the Bill. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented thirty-six petitions from congregations in London, Southwark, and Lambeth, against the Bill ; also a petition signed by the Right Hon. Fox Maule, as Chairman of a meeting held in Exeter Hall, against the Bill, which petition stated twelve distinct reasons why the Bill should not pass into a law. Mr. COBDEN presented twelve petitions against the Bill, and three in its favour. Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from various Wes leyan and Presbyterian congregations in Ireland against the Bill. Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Birkenhead against the Bill. Lord H. VANE presented petitions from various con gregations in Durham against the Bill. Sir J. TYRRELL presented petitions from Essex against the Bill. Mr. WATSON - presented eight petitions from dif ferent Roman Catholic bodies in Ireland in faiOur of the Bill. Mr. GIBSON presented petitions in favour of the Bill. Captain PECHELL presented three petitions from Brighton against the Bill. Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition in favour of the Bill. Mr. P. S. BUTLER presented two petitions from Kilkenny in favour of the Bill. Viscount BARRINGTON presented a petition_ against the Bill. Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON presented petitions against the Bill. - Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. STANS]IELD presented a petition from Hud dersfield against the Bill. Sir R. IRGLIS presented petitions against the Bill. Mr. COPPER presented four petitions against the Bill. _ Sir J. PARKER presented petitions for and agains the Bill. J. RUSSELLART presented several petitions against presented a petition from Liverpool in the Bill. Colonel FOX presented p e titi ons f r om the Tower fav i. M o jo u r r r . d E of the Bill. Hamlets against the Bill. Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition in favour of the Bill. Mr. HAWES presented 63 petitions, some in favour of, and some against, the Bill. Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Kendal against the Bill. Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions from mem bers of the Established Cliurch, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters of various denominations, in the county of Down, in favour of the Bill. Mr. BELLEW presented similar petitions from the counties of Down and Antrim. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on jneving the second reading of this Bill, he w ou ld endeavour to state to the House as clearly as h e could, the object which was contemplated by it ; an d he was the more anxious to do so, because he was satisfied from what was taking place out of doors, a n d f ro m the language of. many of the petitions presented against the Bill, th a t much misapprehensio n prevailed upon the sub ject.—(Hear, hear.) Petitions had been. presented against the Bill from various denominations of Dissenters, and, amongst others, from the classes who claimed to have an interest in the property Which was the subject-matter in dispute, an d w h o s aid that if the Bill were passed they would be deprived of property to which they . were now entitled. H e would deal with that a llegation in another p ar t. Th ere we r e petitions from the Wesleyan body. He could not think there was any provision in the Bill which could in any way whatever affect the property of the Wesleyan body—(Cries of "Hear, hear")—nor would it affect the pro perty of the members of the Church of England, for its operation was confined to Dissenting chapels. The costs of the suits which had been going on for nearly fourteen years had almost destroyed the property in dispute, and although the House of Lords had come to a decision, it was at that moment as much a question what class of Dissenters were entitled to the benefits of this charity as when the suit was instituted fourteen years ago. He did not know whether gentlemen were aware that a fresh infor mation bad been filed on the part of the Independ ents against the Presbyterians, alleging that the latter did .not agree in doctrine with Lady Hewley, the founder of the charity, and that they were no more entitled to it, therefore, than were the Unitarians.— (Hear, hear.) That suit might probably go through all its different stages. The litigation might last another fourteen years ; and the whole charity would be dissi pated before an ultimate decision would be given as to who would be entitled to it. Neither the members of the Church of England nor the Wesleyan Methodists were affected by the Bill. He felt every respect for the conscientious feeling which induced them to present pe titions against any Bill which they thought likely to en courage a faith hostile to that which they themselves professed ; but he could not help thinking that it was too late at that time fur them to be inquiring whether the Legislature had done wisely or not in extending a com plete system of toleration.—(Hear, hear.) That had been the spirit of the Legislature of this country now for some years—(Hear, hear) —it was in that spirit that the Legislature passed the Bill of 1779, which relieved the ministers of Dissenting congregations from the necessity Act ey against of subscribing the doctrinal Articles of the Church of spiritera t t i h o a n t they England lthe ;had repealed in clauses itwas of the Unita rians, and in 1817 the Act making it blasphemy to deny the divinity of our Lord. The same spirit of toleration bad been acted upon with respect to the Unitarians in Ireland, who had been placed upon the same footing as regarded alt civil rights, as regarded all civil property, as t t h h e a t rrol regarded their chapels, as regarded their schools, as re garded their charities, as other classes of Dissenters.— (Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that they would not be acting in the spirit of complete toleration, or in the spirit of the Acts which had been passed, if they allowed any feeling which they might entertain to pre vent them from legislating for them in the same spirit as they legislated for other Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the apprehension that this Bill would encou rage Unitarianism in this country was wholly un founded.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe it would hare any effect, either one way or the other ; and even if it would, the time for interference was on the propo sal of the Bills of 1813 and 1817, for the extension of complete toleration.—(Hear, hear.) He would now call the attention of the House to the circumstances which had induced her. Majesty's. _Government to adopt this Bill, on the recommendation of high legal authorities in the House of Lords. The measure came down, to that House recommended by the authority of such men as , the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, I Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. Her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward the measure, had no other object in view but that of doing justice, and put ting an end to vexatious and cruel litigation.—(Hear, hear.) He would now state the nature of the provisions. He believed that no objections were entertained with re spect to the first clause, but still it must not be forgotten that that was a most essential clause.—(Elear, hear.) Before the Toleration Act passed, any gift for founding a chapel for the purpose of putting forth doc trines contrary to those propounded by the Church of England, would be held bad either in a court of equity or a court of law. Before the passing • of that Act, all Dissenters . stood on the same foundation ; none of their acts were legal. By the Act of Toleration, however, Protestant Dissenters were placed in a very different situation, their acts were declared legal, but the Catholics and Unitarians were excluded from the operation of that Act. After the passing of that Act, all other Protestant I Dissenters, if they founded schools or any other chari ties, those foundations would be recognised by the Court of Chancery and the courts of law, and they would perpetuate the trusts. Such, however, was not the case with respect to the Catholics and the Unitarians. Very early indeed there appeared to be a repugnance on the part of Dissenters to subscribe to the provisions of the Toleration Act. In 1772 an Act was introduced for the purpose of putting an end to persons subscribing the ar ticles of that Act. That Bill passed the House of Com mons by a large majority, but it was thrown out in the House of Lords. In 1772, however, the Bill passed, and no ProtestantCissenter after that pericd was called upon to sign any of the declarations of the Church of Eng land. After the passing of that Bill any foundation for the benefit of Unitarian chapeli - would be held legal. The first clause of the present measure put all Protestant Dissenters, Unitarians among the rest, upon the same footing as the Roman Catholics, it gave, in fact, a retro spective effect to the operation of the Toleration Act. Such was the first clause. He understood there was 'no opposition to the clause, and certainly it was a most important part of the Bill. The second clause was in tended to afford relief against an evil which would rise to a monstrous height if some remedy were not applied; ho meant that spirit of litigation among the Dissen ters to which the decision in the case of Lady Hewley's charity had given rise.- I (Hear, hear.) The first clause related to all charitable foundations ; the second clause related to chapels only. It was said that, according to the existing law, no lapse of time could be pleaded to a breach of trust. If the breach were of such a nature as to call on the Attorney-General to interfere, on behalf of the public, it was perfectly true no lapse of time could be pleaded against the Attorney-General ; but, in cases of breach of trust, in which private parties were concerned, a lapse of time could be pleaded ; and with regard to this Bill, he trusted he should satisfy the House that it contained no violation of the existing principles of law, but on the contrary, it was framed in strict analogy with those principles. There was was no doubt but that a party might give land or money in trust for purposes of religion, and if such a person said that a chapel which he founded was intended 'for the use of Roman Catholics alone, the will of the donor would be strictly abided by, and such would be the case with regard to every other sect ; but he did not think that in every case of charitable foundation of that nature, in which the doctrines to be taught were not stated—he did not think they were bound to assume that in 'every such case the founder intended that those doctrines only should belaught which he hithself pro fessed. They had no right to assume such to be the case, for this reason : many of these chapels had been founded by bodies of Dissenters who were conscien tiously opposed to the subscription of any articles of faith, and they had no right to assume that these persons would impose burdens upon others which they shrank from themselves.—(Cheers.) In no case in which it was distinctly stated in the foundation deed what were the doctrines to be taught in these chapels would the present Bill interfere. He could not understand what was meant by saying that the present Bill would encourage a violation of trust, as it would not interfere in any case in which particular doctrines were directed to be taught. In what cases would it interfere then ? It should — be recollected that these Unitarian chapels were not founded by deed ; they were generally built in this manner : a congregation dissented from the Church Establishment, they wished to establish a chapel ; they formed a voluntary association ; they sub scribed funds and built the chapel, which, in the first in stance was vested in trustees, because it was necessary by law that it should be so ; but so little had the trustees to do with the management of the chapel that in all the small chapels the original trustees had fallen off, and new ones had been appointed. The congre• gations relied upon possession. Who supported the minister ? Not the trustees, but the congregation. Who paid him ? The congregation. Who re moved him ? The congregation. The trustees had no more power than any stranger. Supposing a cer tain number of persons to have purchased a chapel— to have appointed a preacher—supposing that son had succeeded son, and supposing that in the lapse of time the clergyman had preached doctrines different from those of the original founder—supposing that to be the case, yet, after those persons had laid out their money in purchasing a chapel, and after it was possessed from generation to generation, he thought it was extremely hard they should now be deprived of it.—(Hear, hear.) Why, if this plea were good, although for a hundred or a hundred and fifty years Unitarian doctrines might have been preached, all the money subscribed for such, a chapel—all the money left for the benefit of the clergy man or his family during this time, would be handed over to strangers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not, at least, founded on a principle of justice and equity, supposing it were even founded on law. He would here assume it to be law—what, he would ask, was it right that the property which had come for the support of such chapels should be given to those who were perfect strangers?— (Hear, hear.) But it ought not to be assumed that the law was clear ; it was the novelty of the law in the case which induced the Noble and Learned Lords to recom mend the Legislature to interfere. If, on the face of the deed, it appeared that the trust was for the support of Trinitarian doctrines, or any particular sect, the Bill would not interfere in such a case. It was only where they had not, on the face of the deed, any particular system of doctrine mentioned, that the Bill would inter fere. When there was no particular system of doctrines mentioned, were they to assume it was the intention of the testator that it should be applied for any particular sort of doctrines ? How were they to know that the testator was of the same faith with themselves? In the case of Lady Hewley her deed was produced, and cer tain documents and catechisms were produced, fur the purpose of showing that she was a Trinitarian. Sup posing that to be so, had she declared that this trust was for the benefit of Trinitarians ? It was very doubtful whether such evidence was admissible. Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in his judgment, stated that private views or seeret intentions were not ad missible in evidence. He admitted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was of a contrary opinion. But he would ask was it not mischievous and improper that the most solemn points of Christianity should be discussed in courts of law? This was not the proper tribunal for theological discussions. What he recom mended was, that they should introduce a certain test which might be applied to cases of this nature, and which had been applied in other analogous cases. There was no single case in private life that did not depend more or less on usage. Under the old law if a question had been set • up the modus would be proved by twenty years' usage, and by a recent Act of Parliament a ques tion could not be set up after a modern usage of thirty years. It was necessary that there should be some guide, some landmark, in order to prevent those scan dalous contentions which had hitherto taken place. The proposed Bill did not disturb existing rights. It did not take anything from congregations who might be in pos session of a benefice, and :which they might have for many years been enriching. The Bill confirmed existing rights, but it did not perpetuate injustice. It might be urged that particular trusts might be misappropriated, but they. were misappropriated only through the minister, and there was no great danger of such perversion through him, as he was liable to be dismissed upon proof of such perversion, and any mem ber of the congregation could prefer the complaint. There was, therefore, no danger of Presbyterians being ousted from their property. The Bill was not meant to interfere with the religious tenets of any sect; it had perfect regard for every form of Christianity.—(Loud cheers.) He did not think it was at all open to those charges which had been made against it ; he hoped and believed it would prove beneficial to the great body of Disienters, and that it would annihilate that spirit of litigation and dissension which had been the production of so much scandal and ill-will.—(Hear, hear.) The de tails of the Bill might be discussed in Committee, and he trusted the second reading of the Bill would have the general concurrence of the House.—(Loud cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS, although wishing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman joy of the manner in which he had been received by the House, must say, that he was unconvinced by the arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend, and came to a different conclusion from the premises laid down. He looked upon this as a question of law and of property, and on that ground he opposed the Government measure. He did not say the Bill interfered with any scheme of Christiani ty,but he hoped they would act as men interested in the cause of truth and justice. The Right HOn. and Learned Gentleman had fortified his praise of the measure by the approbation of the Lord Chancellor, but he (Sir R. Inglis) appealed from Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords to Lord Lynd hurst on the Bench, and to the opinion of that'Noble and Learned Lord in Lady Hewley's case.—(Hear.) The Bill did not affect any property in which the inten tions of the founder of the trust were clearly marked out; but he would ask his Right Hon. Friend how liti gation was to be prevented by the Bill, which left open the Court of Chancery to all those who chose to con • test the measures of trustees. At a meeting held this day, a resolution was come to, condemning the Bill on the ground -of its opening the door to litigation. A petition was agreed to, signed by " John Wilks," for merly a Member of this House, and recognised as the representative, if not the leader of the Dissenting body. The third clause was one of great importance. As it was brought into the House of Lords it was a very sim ple clause, and the marginal note was actually larger than the clause itself. Whilst the Bill was passing in the House of Lords alteration was made in the clause, with such breathless haste, that whereas the clause itself was essentially changed, the marginalyeference remained the same.—(A laugh.) The clause was originally worded so as to affect suits commenced before the first day of March in this year; and the alteration was made to enable parties to plead the Act, in suits that might be instituted after the passing of the Bill. There might be good reasons for the Bill, although he had not been able to discoVer them; yet he was sure that it would not effect that most important of its professed objects, the prevention of litigation. The Court of Chancery had'now as much power (and no more) as the Bill would give it, for deciding disputed matters relating to trustb of a religious character. He bad now to refer to a recant decision of Sir Edward Sugden, a judge of whom he could not speak in other terms than those of the highest respect and esteem. That Learned Judge, howeveri, had, upon some grounds, which he (Sir It. Inglis) could not comprehend, deferred his judg ment, because this measure was in progress in Parlia ment. in conclusion, he would say that he thought, at all events, the 3d clause might he so modified as to re- mote his objections. He moved an amendment that the Bill be Lead a second time that . day six months. Mr. rLUMPTRE, in seconding . the amendment, said that he thought the oppositidn which had been given to the Bilk ought to have com manded- the attention of her Majesty's Government. It was laid the Wesleyan b;:dy., had no interest in the matter. Supposing they had not,. was it to be supposed that ontsuch a. ground they would give their sanction to error? But then it had been said the Bill was not un- derstood. fle asserted it was fully understood, and he would say if it was carried, as he was afraid it would be, the Christian public of this- country, would be insulted, and cruelly used by this measure. His voice was feeble in that House, but he was not to be deterred from ad dresiink the House when he found Christian principles assailed. lie would perseveringly give his opposition to the Bill, and in doing so he believed he was speaking the sentimOts of thousands out of that House. Mr. MACAULAY then rose to address the House. He des aired of adding much t o th e exce ll en t argumen t s of the Learned Attorney-General, whom, he was sure, all mutt be happy to see again in his place.—(Hear, hear.) He had thought it right, however; that some person on that side of the House should rise to express his conviction of the excellency of this Bill. He was glad to observe the temperate manner in which his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford had treated the subject. Ho had considered the matter as one not of a theological character, but mere meum and tuum. The course, how ever, that had been pursued by the Hon. Member who had seconded the amendment was very different ; he had made the question one, not of property, but of divinity.—(Hear, hear.) Now, for his own part, if the Bill was in favour of Catholics, the Secession Church of Scotland, or the Free Church, his language would be the same, and be should vote in precisely the same way as he should do that night.—(Hear, hear.) The great point, he considered, on which any question would arise would be the second clause.—( Hear.) As to the first clause, no objection had been made to it, even by his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. Then came the second clause, which rested on the principle of prescription. A few hours ago he should not have supposed that any lion. Member would have got up in that House or else where, and denied its necessity ; he bad, however, been painfully undeceived. A conclave at Exeter-hall had sent in ti resolution of certain proceedings that had taken place there, from which it appeared that they considered the principle of prescription as untenable and unworthy of a British Legislature, and that it was inconsistent for the Government to bring forward principles of limita tion. If these gentlemen were right, the laws by which men had been governed for ages were totally wrong. The law of prescription had been known in every civi lised age.—(Hear, hear.) It was known to the old Tri bunal of Athens ; and even after the French Revolution it was admitted in the Code Napoleon; in short the doc- trine of prescription was known even in countries where the name of Justinian had never been heard. It was part of the great charter of this country's liberties.—(Hear.) It must be clear to any well-thinking mind, that the principle of prescription was necessary to the preserva tion of property, and there would be no security for it if it was taken away. Was it to be supposed or tolerated that a man should be compelled to pay a bill accepted by his great-grandfather in the year 1660?—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, if it was desirable that a certain time of pre scription should be made to limit rights, he could not see why it should not be applied to the present case. But then it was said they wanted to pass an ex post fuck) law. Why, let them go to what Act they would, they would find none that had not a retrospective operation; and till religious bigotry stepped in there was no objections offered to such Acts. But then it was said that they made the length of time for doing wrong the reason why it should be continued. The present question, in his opinion, was one on which the principles of limitation ought to apply most forcibly --(Hear, hear.) Now, had Hon. Members bestowed much attention on the subject, had they compared the petitions in favour of the Bill with those against it? If they had, they would find in the one sound arguments, and in the other nothing but declamation. Let them look to the cases of the different chapels in the country. 'fake the case of Cirencester. Large sums were laid out on the chapel there, which had been derived from sources foreign to the parties who then worshipped there. Let them go to Norwich then. There was a large chapel, the congrega tion of which, up to 1774, were Unitarians. There the chapel was filled with the monuments of Uni tarians ; it had a library and school-house attached to it, which had been erected at the expense of Unitarians ; and at this moment the members of that congregation were sitting still, not daring to repair their chapel, not daring to build or make improvements, till they knew what would be the result of this Bill. It did not matter where they went ; this was the common and ordinary history of Unitarian chapels and congregations. Go to Manchester,—he was not quite sure of the dates, but certainly fur seventy years at least, Unitarian doc trines had been taught at Manchester ' • there large sums had been laid out and monuments had been built : he be- lieved that the great Dr. Priestly himself preached there. At Leeds, at the • present moment, 4,000/. were sub scribed for repairs of the great Unitarian chapel, and the fund was lying idle, because they dared not use it, till the House decided whether it could afford them protection. At Maidstone there was the same story ; indeed it did not matter where they went; but at Maidstone for seventy years Unitarian principles had been taught, and 1,7001. bad been subscribed; at Exeter the same principles had been taught for eighty years; there 2,0001. had been subscribed. It was the same at Rotherham, and Bath, and other places. And were these the places which the British Legislature would allow to be subjected to this robbery? He really could not use any other word, for how would it be viewei with regard to any other pro perty? Would it be borne for a single moment? It was really painful to think what must be the feelings of these Who cried out for the ejectment of these indi . . viduals; why what were the claims of those who wished to eject them, compared with the claims of the others to remain? What were their associations with the pulpit of a Priestly or a Lardner? What feelings had they in connection with the monuments of Unitarian divines? What feelings had they.in connection with the grave- stones which the piety of four generations had placed over the' ashes of sisters, and wives, and daughters? Yet they came forward to eject men from places that were to them invaluable, and the loss of which could not be supplied, while to the intruders those very houses had no more value than any other place where they might have a roof over their heads. If the House threw out this Bill, they would not merely be robbing one party to give to another, which would be bad enough, but they would be robbing one party of what they considered invaluable, only to bestow it in a quarter where it could only be felt as the trophy of an inglorious war—a trophy which would de rive no value except from the humiliation and mortifica tion of those who were driven out. An imputation had been thrown out in some of these petitions—and he be lieved it had been repeated elsewhere—of fraud on the part of the Unitarians. It was asserted that they must have known what was the intention of the original foun ders of these chapels—that they must have known they were attached to Trinitarian doctrines, and knowing this they must have inevitably, down to a very late pe• riod, either have been Trinitarians or have pretended to be so. For, it was urged, till 1779, every Dissenting teacher was obliged to subscribe to the doctrinal articles of the Church of England, which, if he was an honest man, he could not do, if he held Unitarian opinions. The inference, therefore, was clear, that down to 1779 -a Dis senting minister must either have been a Trinita tarian or a rogue ! Now, he believed they were neither the one nor the other.—(Hear.) The very eminent person who had used this argument was no doubt well acquainted with the history of that Church, of which he was so bright an ornament ; but he questioned if he was so well read in the history of non-conformity. The truth was that at a very early period those articles ceased to be subscribed by Dis senting ministers. Even in the first generation the sub scription was refused, among others by the celebrated Calmet; this was in the first generation after the Act passed, and they all knew the force of the proverb, which told them that " new brooms sweep clean." — (Hear, hear.) In 1711, the Whigs, •he believed, when they formed a coalition with Lord Nottingham, got the Bill passed through the House of Lords, in which, in order to favour the Dissenters, they inserted a clause, which really took away the stringency of the enactment as to the subscription of the articles. It stated that if any information should be laid against a Dissenting minister for non-subscription to the articles, and if at any time between the lodging of the information and the delivery of the judgment, the minister should sub scribe the articles, the costs of the suit should th en be cast upon the shoulders of the informer. The truth was, that in 1773, as proved both by the procee,dings in Parliament and the publications of the; :B:nnt t l i ng g z party- themselves, the majority of the,,, . ! .n t n h g e preachers then alive had never u b r) articles at all ; the whole of the argument, ssQ tlir f e a f l o l r t e o , founded on the insincerity o f the Dissenters must the ground. Was it nece ssar y to it—how General had very simply ably stated simplytheAttorne a nd s hold e i b e d i fi s t x i i e l c d t , a h r a t v i c i i l i e g s bbyand naturally these congregations, ofga t ti h o e ns d , ay—th n a g t t o h f e h o a n v e ingno prin ciple of the Presbyter confession d ef iv f i a s i i t o h ns a t o f all, see l t ia s vi c n o g uld no no subscription of articles, and only bound together by the principle of religious freedom—what was more natural than that they should glide gradually and insensibly from one into another, without knowing with certainty that the doctrines preached in the chapel on one Sunday were identically the same as those preached on another? He might venture to refer his Hon. Friend to another part of ecclesiastical history, with which he had reason to be lieve- Ike:was perfectly intimate. Ile might refer him to the history of the great Scotch secession, where the doctrines now held by the Scotch Presbyterians were the same as the original docrines of the Scotch seceders. —(Bean) He had talked with many men of that per suasion, and they all acknowledged that the same points, which were considered vital and essential by the first generation of seceders, were now condemned by the Presbyterians. The first seceders maintained the doc trine of the connexion between Church and State, and when the great George Whitfield went to Scotland the Presbyterians would not unite with him, though ad • miring bis.abillties and piety, because he differed from them on this point. The old seceders supported the connexion between Church acid State. But were not the Presbyterians of the present day crying out for the voluntary system, and the separa tion of Church and State? Was not their principle this, that they would not be interfered with by the State? And would they brand the whole genet-mien of men - as insincere because they had gradually shaped their doctrine to something different to what it might have been originally? But he would take the case of the Wesleyan Methodists themselves, who were so eager to prevent this Bill from- • • passing. Was there nothing in their own history to a out mak e s o t n hc ie rn m a a t littleters uneasy m ? ig l h l t e m th a o k u e g t h h t em h e c c are oul f d ur po .hoir in othfe3;hpartogvroekaetdanrdecgroirnodinmataionn, John. What Wesley,w was the do r e e t ga te to the lay administration? He held that the lay ad ministration of the sacrament was a great sin. The point was much debated, and soon after his death it was conceded by the Conference, therefore every building esel as a Wesleyan c h a p e l was employed every -- Sunday in that which J o h n W es l ey pronounced to be a sin. He believed that if they re- fused to pass this Bill, it would let in an amount of litigation which the Wesleyans, perhapk little dreamed of. He owned that it was painful to him to see the manner in which this Bill was opposed, and the quarter from whence the opposition came. The opposi tion to the Bill on the part of the Established Church was mild, in comparision with that from other quarters; - 1 yet would the opposition of the Established Church have been more excusable than that from any other quarter. 'Nothing was more rational than for supremacy, power, dominion, and the habit of authority to produce some faults, hardly separable from human nature; and the Church of England, with her strength, her rich endow ments, her seats in Parliament, and her ancient universi ties, might be accustomed to something like disdain for` ct'ier sects setting up for religious liberty. lie was far from defending the feeling, yet he could in - some way pardon it. But to see persons who within his own memory had, over and over again, been compelled to invoke the principles of religious liberty—(Loud cheers)—on their own behalf—he did feel an astonishment, not unmingled with a harsher feeling, to see them call for the aid of Parliament for the injury of others. He would also refer to the question of the Irish Presbyterians, among whom he contended the question of the mixed marriages was identically the same in principle as the possession of the chapels by Unitarian congregations. He knew that between these cases there was this distinction, that Trinitarian Dis senters were a powerful body, and likely to unseat those Members who might vote against them to night. The Unitarians, as a sect, were small in numbers, were un popular, and had but little political influence. Perhaps for a candidate to say that he had not the support of that body, might in many places be the best way to public favour. If any persons of an arbitary nature wished to enjoy the pleasure of persecuting with perfect impunity, there could be no better opportunity for him than the present one. But he (Mr. Macaulay) had espoused the principles of religious liberty. not because they were popular, but because they were jast.—(Loud cheers.) Ile had supported those princi ph s when applied to by them in a different cause; and the time might come—and it might 'come soon—when some of those who were now crying one against the Bill might be obliged to appeal, for their own protection, to the principles on which this Bill was based. Because he would prevent others from oppressing them, he would prevent them from oppressing others; and in the mean time (concluded the ight Hon. Gentleman), I will can tend against their intolerance, in the same spirit in which I would have contended for their rights. (The Right lion. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheering.) Mr. COLQUITOUN said that one of the great objects of the present Bill was stated to be the prevention of litigation. But now they had it on the authority of the Right lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) that litigation would be increased. He did not deny the principle of prescription with respect to private property, but he did its application to public trusts. The Right lion. and Learned Gentleman had spoken of the disappointment felt by the Unitarians, on seeing the pulpit of Dr. Priestly and other Unitarian preacher filled by ministers of other sects ; but he con tended that the regret of Trinitarians was quite as great, on seeing the intention of the founders of these chapels completely departed from. Let the law adjudicate in the matter. It had done so in some cases, and was in pro gress of doing so in others ; but with this Bill they stepped in and arrested the operation of the law. The Bill was one for the benefit of the few against the inte rests of the many ; for he begged to remind the Hon. Gentleman of what was a notorious fact, that the Uni tarian body, though small in number, occupied a dis tinguished position in society. They were remarkable for the philosophy and peculiar acuteness of their opinion., in itself an indication of a high position in society, and superior cultivation. The other sects were larger in numbers, and were likely to feel the loss most. He could see no grounds for the measure. He believed it to be both unjust and impolitic, because it took the pro perty of the poor, and sacrificed it to the interests of the rich. Mr. BERNAL said, when the Hon. Member for Oxford said he had no objection to the first clause of the Bill, he gave up. the greater part of the grounds of his opposition to the measure. He rejoiced that his Hon. Friend had abstaine4 promised he would, from all polemical arguments. and political stimuli. He had presented himself several petitions against the Bill, but he could not coincide in their prayer. He looked on the Bill as an honest one on the part of the Government—(Hear, hear)—and he thought those who were opposed to them generally ought not to be content with giving a silent vote. It was idle to say that the arguments founded on this supposed breach of trust could influence their votes on this occa sion. The arguments on this head had been set at rest by the Attorney-General. This Bill had received the.. approbation of the Law Lords, because they felt the hardship of the law. His Hon. Friend seemed to dis regard the opinions of the. Law Lords, but surely they were not to be considered legal automata or judicial mannikins, when addressing the other House of Parlia ment in their legislative capacity? He denied that the Bill applied exclusively to the case of the. Socinians. It was well known that several Wesleyan congregations inclined towards the doctrines of -the Calvinists- with regard to will and predestination tenets, which were not held by John Wesley, and the grants left to such con gregations would, under this law, be held to ba •void. The law, as it stood at present; would give rise-to useless litigation. Was it proper to say they would deprive the Socinians and Unitarians of those chapels which bad been been built and beautified by themselves, because they stood on 50 or 60 feet of ground, on which a chapel had been built, but of which not a vestige now remained. Were they to deprive those Socinian and Unitarian ministers of the grants which had been left to them, and give them to the Church of Englaad ? No. To the Anabaptists, Baptists, Muggletonians, or Society of Friends? They knew not to whom, and no person could take on himself to say whom they should be given to. Would the honour of religion be promoted by those disputes ? He was afraid there was a good deal of the odium theologicum in the matter. In several of the petitions the Unitarians were called a a two per cent. body. He was afraid that the ground of a breach of trust was put forward as a cheval and that the odium theologicum remained behind. He wished to know what objections there could be where there was a 2:5 years' use of a chapel, without anything in the trust deed to indicate the intention of the donor against leaving it in the possession of the persons who had this undisputed use ?—(Hear, hear.) He called on the House to support the Government in their honest endeavours on this occasion. Mr. M. MILNES felt called upon, from motives of a personal natnre, briefly to state the reasons by which he was influenced, in giving his vote on the present occasion. He had presented a petition against the mea sure, signed by all the clergy of the borough which he • had the honour to represent. His Hon. Colleague had presented a petition to the same effect from the leading' inhabitants of that borough, and he therefore trusted the House would permit him briefly to state the reasons which impelled him, out of a sense of justice, to sup port the Government upon the present occasion.— (Cheers.) He had derived his first impulse towards. this line of conduct from the consideration of the prin ciple " Do unto others as you would they should do unto you"—(Hear)—a principle so just, that no theolo gical distinctions could be put in o,ompetition with it. When be considered the tenure by whieh the' Church of England held her funds and her perceive no ground for her holding possession of _ th at pi o peety, he could property, i f he in e did religion.n o t _ 7 cil e ( Hear .) e the Largeprinciple sumse fde velopmento t which could not f ol o o r n t e h y ew. h s a o d uls b , e a e n n d left by obtyheroupruzscoesstors. for . prayers ednicoittuptedrethheenspiroinncioplf principle of oprooslseisbilyastibeoarooruegedh,t nwnliethssinwetha religious development—(Cheers)—and if they applied . the same principle to the Bill before the House, they must admit that it would lead to the same conclusions. Nay, those conclusions were even still more forcible, as against the Protestant Dissenters, who stood up for the unlimited right - of private judgment, than they were against him who did not admit the right of private judg ment to nearly the same extent.—(Hear.) He believed that this measure would never have been brought for ward had it not been for one case of gross abuse. That e a r n e d p thenerm pena l i ttethh;dayrt character endeavouredeeremain againstai uponti o loout pro vi d e as was the general course of our legislation. Bad laws were permitted to lie dormant until some case of grievous remedy. He believed ' that there were many laws of a injur ic y extravagantly s, w l. ioccurred,ehl t most hol i b n r fl o i u e g t l i - i n t g be p fo e r n e alt t i h e e s H up o o u n se p th e e rson ex s ist w e h nc o e d o id f th n book only because they were never acted upon. He had : the lap la go w to church on Sundays, and if the -.House -Would permit the Government to carry the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill it would be found that by that measure the law in question would be repealed.—(Hear.) They owed the present measure to the case of Lady Hewley's Cb k t - rity. The con c lusion of that case had been followed ~: notices of no less than forty, different suits, and we being the case, the Government could not do rasa OW bring forward the present Bill, and he hoped the/ wonla persevere with it notwithstanding all the oppointion. (Cheers.) It had been stated that there was no occasicia for this Bill, because there was not any intention.on.the part of the other Dissenters to wrest from the I:l_nitr ar an m e any of their chapels. Jf that were the case o wh in s e h asure 32? the e what could be done by the measure ? • If some . su b . would be the e ff ect produced in large townsb yl n eject mentas this were not passed, let the House : H believed the transfer of them to other parties. e th in favou r of the present possessors from their chapels, and such an ejectment would raise up asyrnpa exist. y of Unitarianism, which did not at pres ent The d the other Dissenters were because . they were weak, an strong, and because Parliament had not the courage to people would feel that the Unitarians had been oppressed *Unitarianism had been a gradual process, applied, he protect them. The argument, that the introduction a thought, with stronger force in favour of this Bill than against it. In the early part of the last century, the Unitarian principle had so i nsinuated itself, not only among all the Dissenting bodies, but into the Church itself, that it was impossible to tell when it had first appeared in theology. The celebrated Richard Baxter had, when he was told that even Catholics and Unitarians would sub scribe to—the Creed the --Lord's Prayer, and: the Ten - Commandments, replied " So much the better ; there is the greater reason why it should be made a matter of 4 10