The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF Lt,itllS, May 31. Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from Newbury, praying for an extension of the Great Western Railway to the town of Newbury. On the motion of the Earl of RIPON, the Courts martial (East Indie - 9 Bill was read a first time. Lord LURGAN presented petitions from Ireland against tha Dissenters' Chapels Bill ; also petitions praying their Lordships to legalise Presbyterian mar riages in Ireland. Lord CAMPBELL presented twelve petitions from Ireland to the same effect ; also a petition from Cole raine against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. THE LATE MONAGHAN ASSIZES. The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to call their Lord ships' attention to the circumstances which had occurred at the last Monaghan assizes. A general impression existed in that part of the country that there had been a want of sincerity in the intentions of the Government in carrying out the directions which were contained in a circular to the Attorney-General Brady, with respect to the custom of challenging jurors. His Noble Friend opposite on that occasion had read a letter from the Crown solicitor, Mr. Hamilton, stating his reasons for striking those persons off the jury. He stated that he had struck off John Hughes because he had been servant to a ribbonman. Lord WHARNCLIFFE—Son-in-law to a ribbonman. The Marquis of NORMANBY had understood his Noble Friend to say servant. The fact was that Hughes had eloped with the daughter of his hither-in-law, many years since, but he had had no communication with her family since. With respect to Colfield, it was said that he had attended a faction meeting, and Edward Mackinlay had been struck off for the same offence. Now, with respect to Mackinlay, he was a person of considerable property, who had never been charged with ribbonism, or indicted, or convicted for any offence. Colfield, also, was a respectable person, who had never been convicted of any offence. and who had frequently before served on juries. Mr. Hamilton should have taken pains to have informed himself accurately, before he had brought such charges against these respectable persons. He was anxious to hear what information his Noble Friend could give of these circumstances. • Lord WHARNCLIFFB considered that no imputa tion had been cast by -his Noble Friend upon the cha racter of Mr. Hamilton. The seven persons who had been struck off the jury were Roman Catholics, but then it should be recollected that the offence of ribbonism, of which the prisoner had been accused, wan confined almost exclusively to Roman Catholics. If Mr. Ha milton believed those statements to be true, he was perfectly justified in striking those persons off. The verdict of the jury was a discriminating one. —convicting some and acquitting others. Earl FITZ WILLIAM—And, therefore, because it was exclusively confined to Catholics, it ought to be tried exclusively by Protestants! Such was the reasoning Of his Noble Friend. According to his (Lord Fitz william's) understanding of the theory of trial by jury that was a reason why Catholics should be on the jury. Would his Noble Friend reverse the case, and have offences committed exclusively by Protestants tried by an exclusively Catholic jury ?—(Cheers.) Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that he had said that all Catholics should he excluded from juries empanelled for the trial of ribbonism ; he had only said that under the circumstances Mr. Hamilton was justified in chal lenging these parties. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had heard nothing that induced him to believe that ribbonism was confined, to Catholics. Ile believed that the Roman Catholic priesthood were among the most active in put ting it down. He had thrown no imputation on the jury; on the contrary, he had said that they had done their duty. He therefore regretted that the moral effect of the prosecution had been lost by the exclusion of Ca tholics from the jury. Lord WHARNCLIFFE referred the Noble Marquis to the evidence taken on the Committee he had referred to, where it was stated that ribbonism was confined al most exclusively to Roman Catholics. The subject then dropped. FACTORIES BILL. Their Lordships then went into Committee on this Bill. Lord KINNAIRD said though he was opposed on principle to all legislative interference with labour, either with the produce of labour, or with labour itself, yet, as the principle of this Bill had been the law of the land for years, he should not oppose its pass ing. But there was one clause in the Bill which intro duced an entirely new principle. The clause would certainly be quite inoperative, and lie wished therefore - to know why it had been introduced into the Bill at all ? When they came to the 323 clause he should move that it be expunged. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive were also agreed to. On clause 9 being proposed, Lord TEYNIIAM said he thought sonic provision ought to be made in this Bill, with respect to children who had been absent from a factory in consequence of ill health. He thought a clause ought to be introduced into the Bill, requiring that no child who had been ab • sent, in consequence of ill health, should be allowed to go back to the factory until a certificate had been ob tained from a surgeon. that the child was in a fit state to go back. Lord WTI ARNCLIFFE thought the Bill already pro vided for this. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to. On clause 12 being proposed, Lord BEAUMONT 'sieved that that part of the clause which provided that the cost of the surgeon's certificate should be defrayed out of the wages of the children, be struck out. Lord IVIIARNCLIFFE said the certificates were for the benefit of the children, and it was but right that they s.hould bear a portion of the expense. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the clause was then agreed to. Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive were agreed to. Oa clause Vs being proposed, Lord BROUGHAM said he had carefully gone over this Bill, and he must say that he was not much pre possessed in its favour. One clause provided that a factory record office should be established, and that a suitable building should be erected for that purpose. He protested against such meddling, officious, dabbling legislation. If any foreigner was to look at this legis lation, he would think it was an Act of the year 844, and not of the year 1844. But in the 18th clause of this Bill, they had exceeded themselves. This clause enacted that, in all eases in which the tops and sides of rooms were not painted with oil they should be lime washed at least occe in fourteen months, wherever chil dren and young persons were employed in those rooms. Now, young persons meant women of from sixty to seventy years of age—most interesting young persons they were—and where the walls were painted with oil, they should be every 14 months washed with soap and water, It certainly was a great omission that the Bill did not state the exact degree of the heat of the water that was to be used.—(A laueli.) Now he hoped that before long, equal care would•be taken of the comfort of • the peasantry. He expected to see a Bill ordering the cottages of the peasantry to be whitewashed, and enacting that all chinks through which draughts of wind. • or snow, or rain, er hail, might pass, should be stopped up with chopped hay, or straw, or plaster, and that the • persons living in cottages should be provided with a suffi • cieticy cf warm elething, of course at the expense of their landlords and employers —(Laughter) —and that a sufficiency of feel should be provided for them, and that no dunghills, or pigetyes should be allowed near their dwellings, fur nothing could be more hijurieus to health than dunghills and pigstyee. They might have a sche dule relating to cases in which cow- houses might be per witted.—(A laugh.) lie was perfectly disgusted with this meddling, officious, dabbling system of legislation. —(The Noble and Learned Lord then threw the Bill across the table, and resumed his seat, amidst cheers and • laughter.) • Lord WEIATINCLIFFE said that the clause was only a renewal of the one in the old Bill. The clause was then passed. Clauses from 19 to 23 were passed without discussion. On clause 29 being proposed, Earl FITZWILLIA 3.1 said it appeared that every body was in favour of this Bill—(" No, no," from Lord Rinnaird)—that was, speaking abstractedly. The Government was for it—the Tories were for it—the Whigs were for it—the political economists were for it ; but these were not quite . satisfied with it—they were disposed to carry it a little further. The clause under consideration proved that there was some little return of common sense beginning to be shown on the subject. The clause substituted "eight years" instead of' nine as the age at which children could go to work in factories. He hoped to see a similar return of good sense to the children employed in mines ; but he could not compre hend why all this extraordinary philanthropy exhibited for those employed in factories should not be carried a little further, and why there was such neglect of the moral and physical evils in the social condition of other classes of the community. The landed interest had taken this Bill especially under its protection, but he could not comprehend why it neglected the interest of those with whom it was particularly connected. Those employed in mines and factories enjoyed, at all events, a warm and equal temperature, which was not so injurious as exposure in a cold open field for many hours during the da, which was the case with c hild ren in the agricultu . rat districts who were employed in " scaring" birds, • and other field occupations. He thought that the only cases of interference with labour should be in those where the morals of the people were affected. They were interfering with the rights of the working classes, and preventini them from earning as much as they could. If they did this, they ought, at the same time, to give them the means of obtaining food.- - ((heers.) If they cramped industry, they ought to feed the people. If the Legislature were to do this, it would • act consistently. He wondered how Parliament would receive a Bill which provided that a load of bay should • not be carried after six o'clock in the evening?—(Hear, hear.) Yet this would not be worse than the present Bill. This Bill was one-sided legislation, and he could not, therefore, give it his support. The Marquis of NORMANDY denied that there was any retrogression in this Bill. He thought no compari • son could be instituted between the condition of the - agricultural and manufacturing labourer. The force of ' nature protected the agricultural labourer, but the factory labourer had no such protection. He wished to maintain the. Bill in its present integrity. With regard to the • • argument that the last hour was the manufacturer's only profit, why, the same thing had been stated twenty years ago, when the late Sir Robert Peel had proposed to reduce the hours of labour from sixteen hours. With regard to the provisions for enforcing cleanliness, there could be no doubt of the necessity for those provisions • Where - large . numbers_ of p ersons were congregated do ethe r. The Bi shop of RIPON rejoiced at the limitation of the hours of labour by this Bill, and only regretted that the limitation had not been carried further. It was im possible to improve the social, moral, and religious con dition of the population of the manufacturing districts, without limiting the hours of labour. Commercial prosperity might be purchased at too great a price, and it was going to great expense fur it to sacrifice to it the moral and religious welfare of our population. Lord WHARNCLIFFE defended the clause. The Earl of WINCHILSEA regretted that a ten hours' clause bad not been adopted ; but he admitted that the present Bill was an improvement on the old law, The clause was agreed to. Clauses 30 and 31 were agreed to. On clause 32, which provides that women shall be con sidered as younce persons, being proposed, Lord KINNAIRD moved that the clause be ex punged, as he considered the clause to be an attempt to establish an interference with adult labour. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place. On our return to the gallery we found Lord WIIARNCLIFFE defending the clause. Lord BROUGHAM concurred with his Noble Friend at the table (Lord Kinnaird), in thinking that the clause ought to be struck out. Duchesses and Countesses were permitted to dance about their children from eleven at night to five in the morning in rooms the atmosphere of which was quite pestiferous, and yet the Legislature never attempted to interfere with them. Why, the ope ratives saw through this, and petitioned the Legislature not to listen to such nonsense as this Bill, because they were convinced that they could never get twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work. Coachmen were kept out all night, sitting on their boxes, waiting for parties coming from routes, but nobody attempted to interfere for them, although numbers of them annually fell victims to the inclemency of the weather to which they were exposed. The Marquis of NORMANBY contended that twelve hours was quite as great a length of time as any woman ought to labour in a factory. The peasantry in the agri cultural districts were better educated than the labourers in the manufacturing districts, as was proved by the re turns of the registrar. Lord BROUGHAM said education was known by its fruits; and lie would ask if Mr. Thom, who, four or five years ago, had, by his delusions, given rise to such dis graceful scenes in the agricultural districts of Kent, would have had ten followers in Barnsley, Manchester, or any manufacturing district. Lord CAMPBELL would support the amendment of his Noble Friend (Lord Kinnaird). This clause applied to the whole female sex. There might be a case of a woman of forty years of age in robust health, who rather than suffer her children to go into the workhouse would work without injury to her health for more than twelve hours a day, yet the law interfered to prevent her, and to force her children into the workhouse. This was an unjust interference with adult labour, and there fore he should oppose it. Lord BROUGHAM said that as this had been dis cussed as a question of morals between the agricultural and the manufacturing districts he would be content to put it upon that issue. lie held in his hand a return of the number of bastards born in the different counties in England in the year 1843. In Bedfordshire, an agri cultural district, they were five and three-tenths in the thousand in proportion to the whole population ; in Dorsetshire they were three in the thousand; and in Herefordshire four and one-tenth in the thousand ; in the North Riding of Yorkshire three and three-tenths in the thousand in proportion to the population. These were purely agricultural districo. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, a manufacturing district, they were only one and five-sixths in the thousand; and in Lancashire they were only one and two-tenths in the thousand in proportion to the population. That was the proportion of immorality of the manufacturing districts. Now let them come to Wales ; there they would find that in Anglesea the proportion of illegitimate children to the population was seventy in the thousand! And in Radnor it was 105 in the thousand!—(Laughter.) He was con tent to put the vote on this issue. Earl WINCUILSEA said it was a notorious fact that whore large numbers of people were congregated to gether, there were not so many children born in pro portion to the population as in places where the numbers were smaller. _ ..... Lord REDESDALE contended that the return which had been quoted did not show the cumber of illegitimate children born in the whola population, but the number of children relieved, which were, of course, pauper children. A return of the whole number born it would be impossible to procure. He had been accused of igno rance, but he was quite correct. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not believe that the greater immorality of the manufacturing dis tricts had been proved. After a few words from the Marquis of NOR AIANBY, Lord KINNAIRD said the principle on which he moved the rejection of the clause was on the ground that it was an interference with all female adult labour. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the clause, Contents Against it, Non-contents Majority for the clause The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 33, 34, and 35. Clauses 36 to 66 inclusive were then severally put and agreed to without discussion, and the Bill having been reported t 3 the House without amendments, was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next. POACHING PREVENTION The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the third read ing of the Poaching Prevention Bill, in which he wished to propose some amendments. The LORI) CHANCELLOR said that the proper time to propose the amendments would be on the quQs tion that the Bill d) pass. The Duke of lIICHNIOND hoped the further con sideration of the Bill would Le postponed in order to give their Lordships an opportunity of considering the amendments. He objected to giving gamekeepers the power of arresting persons on the high road. After a few words from , the Earl of Radnor, from Lord Campbell in support of the views of the Duke of Rich mold, and from Earl Fitzhardinge in support of the Bill, it was read a third time, the amendments were propwed, the Bill as amended was ordered to be printed, and the debate on the question that the Bill do pass was ad journed till Monday. CUSTOMS BILL. The Customs Bill passed through Committee. The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 31. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW MEMBER. Mr. BOUVERIE took the oaths and MI; seat for Kil marnock. The Hon. Member was introduced by Mr. Ellice, jun., and Mr. Ord. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL: Petitions against this Bill were presented by Colonel Powell, by Mr. Broadley from Yorkshire, Sir J. Y. Buller from Devon, Mr. B. Cresswell from Nortlmmber land, Major Beresfird from • Harwich, Lord Pollington from Pontefract, Mr. Brotherton from Salford, Mr. B. Hughes from Carnarvon and Bangor, Lord Mindlesham from Suffolk, Mr. Barnard from Greenwich, Mr. Boyd from places in Ireland, and Colonel Fox from Limehouse. Petitions in favour of the Bill were presented by Mr. A. Chapman form Whitby, and Mr. Strutt from Derby. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from a Wesleyan congregation in Holyhead against the Dissen ters' Chapels Bill. Lord ASHLEY presented several petitions to the same effect. Captain ROUS presented a petition from Westminster to the same effect. Sir W. JAMES presented petitions from several Wesleyan congregations to the same effect. Mr. CHRISTOPIIMt presented a petitiofi from the clergy and adultiuhabitants of Andover to the same effect. SirR.H. INGLIS presented apetition from the wardens and other officers of Winchester College, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill ; also from Cromer, in Nor folk, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. An IIoN. MEMBER presented several petitions to the same effect. Sir THOMAS TROWBRIDGE presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. MURPHY presented a petition from Ireland to the same effect. _ _ Lord 11. VANE presented a petition from Hertford. shire in favour of the BilL _ Mr. H. BERKELEY presented several petitions from Gloucestershire and Somersetshire against the Dissent ers' Chapels Bill. Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented several petitions to the same effect. _ Lord NEWRY presented several petitions to the same effect. Sir C. LEMON presented a petition, from Ireland to the same effect. . . Mr. CARTER presented a petition from Clitheree, and other Vaces, to the same effect. Sir W. YNN presented a petition from Devonshire, to the same effect. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from Stafford shire to the same effect. Mr. G. KNIGHT presented a petition to the same effect, Mr. CHRISTIE presented a petition from Wales in favour of the Bill. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Mac clesfield to the same effect. Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from lloniton in favour of, and one from Huntingdon against, the Dis senters' Chapels Bill. • Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition against the Bill. PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented several petitions from Devon in favour of further protection to agriculture. Lord RENDLESHAM presented similar petitions from Suffolk. Mr. HUME presented a petition from an agricultural society in India, praying for the admission of corn from India on the same terms as corn coming from Canada. The Hon. i•iember gave notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the subject on an earlyday. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. LEPROY presented petitions from Cork against the national system of education in Ireland. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Mr. KEMBLE presented petitions from congregations of Dissenters in Surrey against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Citptsm TAYLOR presented petitions from Hereford shire to the same effect. POOR-LAWS. Mr. FERRAND moved for copies of the correspond ence between Mr. Ryder , a member of the board of guardians.of Chelsea, and the Poor-law Commissioners. —Ordered. Mr. HUME gave notice that, in Committee upon the Bank Charter Bill, he should move a clause for the re peal of the legal tender clause. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Sir a CLERK, it was resolved that the UOll5O at its rising adjourn till Monday. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 1, 1844. COURTS-MARTIAL. The Courts-martial Bill (East Indies) was read a third time and passed. INDIAN ARMY. Mr. HUME called the attention of the Government to the indications of a mutinous spirit among the Sepoys of the Indian army. He considered it a most alarming symp tom, and it was of the greatest importance that the in • justice that had caused it should not be continued. He was consoled by the thought that Sir H. Hardinge would do all in his power to prevent it. TRADE WITH PRUSSIA. Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice, that on Tuesday next, he should move for the production of the corres pondence relative to the commercial relations between this country and Prussia. SUPPLY. On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, was read fur the purpose of postponing it. CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION BILL. The Roman Catholic Clergy Grants and Conveyances (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. SLAVE TRADE. On the Report on the Slave Trade Treaties Bill being brought up, Captain PECHELL asked what treaties it was the intention of Government to legislate upon ? Sir G. CLERK said it was only intended by the Bill to give her Majesty power, by Order in Council, to carry certain provisions of the treaties into effect, till next session, when they would be embodied in an Act of Par liament. GLASS DUTIES. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER., the Glass and Vinegar Duties' Bill was committed proforma. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Brighton against the Bill. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the Law Society of Manchester, praying that a clause should be inserted in the Bill, consolidating the powers of certain of these courts. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to move an instruction to the Committee to abolish all ecclesiastical courts, and to transfer the jurisdiction of those courts to civil tribunals. His object was to take away all jurisdiction from the ecclesiastical courts, and to put an end to the caprice and. injustice that took place there. To effect this there could be no doubt that the whole of Doctors' Commons must be swept away, and that in its place proper tribunals must be appointed to replace the mummeries and impositions that not only disgraced the country, but affected the best interests of religion He did not believe that 658 gentlemen calling themselves reasonable men would attempt to bolster up a system so inconsistent with reason. He wished to see all the doctors and proctors who infested Doctors' Commons cast out, and he for one would be prepared to give them all the compensation they could prove themselves entitled to. In all the proceedings which had taken place from 1829, when the Ecclesiastical Commission was appointed, in all the Bills which had been introduced into Parliament whether by Whigs or by Tories ; they had but pro ceeded from bad to worse till they had arrived at the ne plus ultra of worthlessness in the present matter. — (Laughter.) He thought that the Learned Civilian whom he saw opposite (Dr. Nicholl) would be; obliged to sit down in despair in attempting to improve the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, for he would find that his materials were so rotten and so corrupt that he would be the tinker perplexed, who in curing one hole created two.—(Laughter.) It was true the Bill got rid of some spiritual jurisdictions and offences, such as tithes, and defamation, and smiting in the church-yard— (Laughter)—which subjected the offender to the loss of one ear, and if he had not one he was to be branded on the cheek with the letter F.—(Laughter.) But that the health of the souls of her Majesty's subjects might not be altogether neglected, they left behind , such offences as simony, heresy, brawling, blasphemy, perjury, drunkenness, incest, adultery, fornication, incon tinence, and other evil habits—(Laughter)—over which the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was continued. The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over Church-rates was continued, though the Ecclesiastical Commissioners recommended that it should be abolished. He knew no reason why this jurisdiction should be con tinued, except that it occasionally promoted fraud, and that it brought grist to the mill of the lawyers in Doctors' Commons. He would give one instance in which the Rev. Theodore Williams proceeded ag linst Mr. J. Hall, and upon which a most absurd decision was given by Dr. Lushington. It seemed that there was a meeting in the vestry for a church-rate, at which the Rev. Vicar was expected to be present, but he was behind time, and a motion for adjourning the meeting was car ried. He came after this, and no doubt was very angry. Some dispute took place between him and Mr. Hall, who said he was a disgrace to his cloth, for which he was dragged into the ecclesiastical court. The House would be surprised to hear what the costs were in that case. The first was an item " for the soul's health."—(A laugh.) Gentlemen might laugh, but the words were pro salute animce.—(Renewed laughter.) He suppoed that this was something for the soul to take with it in its travels to the other world—a sort of viaticum, he supposed.—(Great laughter.) But the fee had been transferred from the soul to the stomach. and Peter had been robbed to pay Paul, or rather to pay Theodore.—(lncreased laughter.) Well, what was the next charge ? He did not know very well what the word meant—it was " Sportulage," 3s. 6d. —(Loud laughter.) He really could not throw any light upon the subject. He did not know what the item meant—whether it was Sportulage for the clerk, Sportulage for the court, or Sportulage for the suitors.—(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet opposite perhaps might explain the weaning of these charges ; he did not ask the reason of them, for there was no reason in them, and he would not insult the Right lion. Gentleman, by asking him to find a reason.—(Laughter.) He must come now to the judgment, and he must say, that he never read so absurd a judgment in his life. The judgment was, that Mr. James Hall should be excommunicated from the parish church for one week of seven days. The judge said that the words used by the Rev. Theodore Williams were words of contempt, and that Mr. Hall spoke under provocation when he said that Mr. Williams was a disgrace to his cloth, and he would therefore order that 30/. should be deducted from the costs—(Hear, hear)—but even after this de duction, Mr. Hal's costs amounted to 3801.—(Hear, hear.) But what was the punishment upon Mr. Hall, besides the payment of this money? He was to be shut out for seven days from the parish church, into which he would never enter if he had a spark of spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let them look to the class of offences to which the jurisdiction of these courts extended—drunkenness, idolatry, fornication, incontinence, and other evil practices—•(Great laughter) —for all of which, any of you (said the Hon. Gentle man) may be liable to be cited to tha ecclesiastical _ _ courts—(Shouts of laughter)—for all these they were liable to be called on to do public penance, and in any place which the court might appoint—(The laughter was so great, that it was quite impossible to catch cor rectly the words of the lion. Gentleman)—they might be called upon to do public penance in the church—(Re newed laughter)—and to recant—(Laughter.) Yes, he was serious; they would bs obliged to recant.—(Laugh ter.) He was not speaking of imaginary things, for in the district a hich he had the honour to repre3ent a wo man had lately been obliged to do public penance in the church, because she had spoken, perhaps, too lightly of the chastity of her sister.—(A laugh.) The tbllowing scene occurred in St. John's:—Rebecca, Cohen, the Jewess, having imputed to Deborah, her sis ter, a total want of chastity,a process was commenced in the spiritual court of the Bishop of London, and after about 70/. had been run up in fees, Rebecca was allowed to expiate her offence by going to the church in ser vice hours, and then and there, before the church wardens, overseers, and ministers, recanting. The re cantation was, in fact, a fraud, because, instead of being done publicly in the church, as had been ordered, the parties were let in and out pri vately at the vestry-door, and hundreds of persons who had heard that this ceremony for the good of Rebecca's soul was to take place, were disappoiqted.—(Hear, hear.) Well might the parochial authorities and the ecclesias tical courts be ashamed of such a proceeding ; but that House ought to be more ashamed if it continued its sanction of courts from which emanated such an amount of absurdity. What a hardship was it up on th e su bj ect that this individual had to pay 701 far this process. Now, with regard to the brawling, what had happened to Mr. Theodore Williams within the last few days ? He had been brought before the bench of Middlesex magistrates for inciting to a breach of the peace one of his own pa rishioners, a respectable freeholder. He certainly did not do this in the church-yard, but on the highway. The House would recollect the language used by Hall to Williams : let them now compare it with that used by Williams to Mr. Smith. He said to him " You are a thick-headed fellow," and shook his fist in the complainant's face. The clergyman then said, " You are a dirty fellow—you are a shabby fellow —you are a coward," and he added, " You dare not fight." On complainant saying, "If I am a coward, I will meet you in any spot you please ;" the defendant e xc l a i me d, "What, what, we'll discuss the question, Sir."—(A l aug h .) What was the result ? Why that the magistrates in flicted the highest fine which they could impose under the Police Act, namely, 40s. ; so that, in point of fact, there was one law in the ecclesiastical courts and another in the civil courts ; whereas 40s. was the highest fine which could be inflicted in the one, 180/. for costs, and seven days' banishment from church, could be imposed in the other. Well, then, were all these offences to remain upon the statute book ? He had the authority of a Right Rev. Prelate in favour of his views. A Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the Bishop of Exeter, for the purpose of putting down incontinency, fornication, and all those other evil habits ; proving that these courts had neglected their duty and were not adequate to suppress the immorality of the age. A Bishop might have better opportunities of ascertaining the truth than himself. The Hon. Member was then proceeding to quote the Bill, when he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who stated that, as the Bill was not before the House, it could not be quoted. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE proceeded—The ecclesias tical courts would do well to confine themselves to the affairs of their own courts. He could not see why the courts of assize were not competent to decide questions that were usually brought before the eccle siastical courts. Such tribunals were founded on com mon sense and common justice, and Lord Hale and Lord Holt had denounced the ecclesiastical courts as tri bunals against common justice and common sense.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the motion of which he had given notice. Mr. 111JME seconded the motion. Dr. NICHOLL said that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed on the second reading, so far as related to the retention of certain portions of ecclesiastical juris diction; but the lion. Gentleman Was not eatiafied With that, and wanted to have the ecclesiastical courts abolished altogether ; but at the end of his speech the Hon. Gen tleman said that he was prepared to maintain an eccle siastical jurisdiction for the discipline of the clergy. It was absolutely essential for the maintenance of the Esta blished Church, that it should possess a criminal jurisdic tion. With regard to the case alluded to by the Hon. Gen tleman, he begged to remind him that where there were two litigious persons, a caso would be attended with large costs in any of their courts of equity or common law ; but the case alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman would be put an end to by the Bill, if the brawling did not take place in:the church ; but if it took place in the church surely the Hon. Gentleman would not, for decency's sake, wish that there should not be a means to prevent it. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to a Bill brought in by the Bishop of Exeter. He had never heard of it, and it would not meet with his approbation if it came to that House. The Hon. G en tleman alluded to him as being personally connected with those courts. Now he had ceased to have any connexion with them since 1841, and he would not for the future have any interest in them directly or in directly. There were two Commissions appointed, the Real Property Commission and the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission. The Real Property Commission made their report in 1833, and they recommended the transfer of testamentary matters to the Chancery Court. Both these reports were afterwards referred to a Select Committee, before which persons of the highest eminence were examined, and they arrived at the conclusion that it was not desirable to act on the report of the Real Property Commissioners, and accordingly Bills had been brought in, both under Lord Grey's Go vernment and under the Government of his Right llon. Friend, leaving matters of testamentary jurisdiction to the ecclesiastical courts. He thought, upon the whole, that the Bill was one of the best which could be devised, and he hoped the motion of the lion. Gentleman would be rejected by a large majority. Sir G. GREY said that the question had been sub stantially decided by the House as stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman in the second reading, but as he (Sir G. Grey) was in the minority on that occasion, he was not precluded from speaking now.—(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that a criminal jurisdiction was absolutely essential to an established church. He (Sir G. Grey) did not wish to deprive the ecclesiastical courts of such jurisdiction with regard to offences against discipline, but he objected to their retaining the criminal jurisdiction which the report of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners said they ought not to have. He understood from the Right Hon. Gentleman that, with regard to brawling, he intended to repeal the statutes of Edward VI., and to leave untouched the common-law jurisdic tion. With regard to incest and adultery, it appeared from the report that offences of such description were brought before the court for a series of years, and they were of opinion that they ought to be abolished altogether. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that no Bill. which had been introduced into that House went the length of abolishing all the ecclesiastical courts. But every Bill had proceeded, on the assumption that there she uld be only one court to exercise jurisdiction, although that court should be one which exercised the jurisdic tion which now belonged to the ecclesiastical courts. They had now the option either of abolishing these courts altogether, or of submitting to about five-and thirty ecclesiastical courts, not merely retained but reorganised. Under these circumstances, and looking at the altered circumstances in which they were then placed, he should support the amendment of his Hon. Friend. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he had listened with great attention to the speech of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and derived from it great entertainment ; but his reasoning seemed to him rather inconclusive. He was not there to justify the course of proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts in all particulars ; but it did not follow from that admission that all the powers possessed by the ecclesiastical courts should be abolished. He was quite sure that the Hon. Gentleman had not consi dered the utter impossibility of the civil courts, as at pre sent constituted, exercising the powers of the ecclesiasti cal courts. Now, he had had some experience of the ecclesiastical courts, and he saw no reason to complain of the mannerin which they exercised their jurisdiction. He could not see that the slightest benefit would result from transferring their powers to the civil courts. He did not understand the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport to be disposed to do more than abolish a part of the powers possessed by these courts. He thought no case had been made out for the course proposed the Hon. G en tleman. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Rouse divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it ll5 Majority _ _ —45 _ On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. BORTHWICK bringing forward the motion o, which he had given notice. He said the lion. Member for Finsbury should have made his motion as an instruc tion to the Committee, and not on the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, so that now, even if his (Mr. Borthwick's) motion were carried, it would not go to the entire rejection of the Bill, which might still be committed again on another craning. He (Mr. Borth wick) had voted for the second reading of the Bill merely because he wished to affirm the proposi tion that these Courts needed reform, but as the present Bill was not such a reform as was re quired, he should oppose it at every opportunity. He objected to this Bill upon two grounds, -first, that it was in itself a bad Bill ; and, secondly, that it did not come before the House with the sanction of the convocation of the clergy, the only proper autho rity, to which the subject ought to have been submitted in the first instance, and not to a Commission, which was an anti-constitutional body. No one could dispute tha right of the convocation to meet, although they re frained from the exercise of that right, as it would not be pleasing to the Crown that they should d o so. Th ey were as much a constitutional body as that House, and had as good a right to meet. Now, if the present Bill were carried, what, he would ask, would become of the principle of the Bill of last year ? Either the entire fabric of these ecclesiastical courts should be swept away or they ought to be maintained. The advice of the clergy ought not to be shut out on a question of this nature, especially as they were not allowed represents lives froza their body in that House. It was no answer to say that they were represented in the House of Lords by the Bishops, for that was not the case. The Bishops sat in the House of Lords, not as the represen tatives of the clergy, but they sat as Barons for the con venience of the Crown. He feared that all Ministers of the Crown were adverse to the meeting of convocation, because of the possibility:of their interfering with party questions and interests, and this was one reason for not calling the clergy together, or consulting them. H e should oppose the pre.sent Bill as f ar as it was poss ibl e consistently with the forms of the House. If a reform of the law were wanted, let it be proposed in a proper and constitutional manner, and not attempt to pass an ill- digested and incomplete measure of this sort. He should oppose it in every sh a p e , an d wou ld d i v i de the Hou-e against the motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the motion 62 Against it _ _ 25 Majority for the Speaker leaving the Chair —37 The House then resolved itself into Committee. Sir G. GREY moved that the criminal jurisdiction of he ecclesiastical courts should be abolished, and also ,heir jurisdiction with respect to church-rates. Dr. NIC ROLL opposed the motion. Mr. JERVIS trusted that the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonport, would be re-considered by the Government. • Sir JAMES GRAHAM said a very strict jurisdic tion existed in the Scotch Church. Dr. ELPHINSTONE said it would be far better to carry into effect the recommendation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Commissioners, that offences of this nature should be taken before civil tribunals. Lord J. RUSSELL thought the recommendations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops, in cluding the late Bishop of Durham, ought to be carried into effect. Mr. ESCOTT said he should vote for the clause as amended. Dr. NICHOLL said ho considered the recommenda tion of the Commissioners was a hasty recommendation in this respect. Lord J. RUSSELL was surprised at the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman that this was a hasty recom mendation. The Commission was appointed in 1830, and their report was made in 1832. Tho recommenda tion was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Lichfield, Bangor, St. Asaph, by Sir N. Tindal, by Sir J. Nicholl, Dr. Lushingtou, and other Commissioners, and he certainly would be rather guided by the opinions of those persons on a Church question thus solemnly expressed, than the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, who now said it was a hasty recommendation. Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Bill, in its present form, had come down from the House of Lords with the sanction of the heads of the Church. The question was not now whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were right in changing the opinion they appeared to have en tertained in 1832. They had changed their opinion, and it was a very grave question whether the Ch Church should not have a power of correcting abuses within itself. He thought the Church should possess a power of repul sion. The question was not now whether the present tribunal was the best to try those offences, but the ques tion was, whether it was not right, that till such a tri bunal was established, the power here claimed for the Church ought not to exist in the Church. Mr. WARBURTON supported the amendment. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment 44 Against it Majority against the amendment —lB On the adinission - of strangers we found Mr. WARBURTON contending against the clause which gave to the ecclesiastical courts a criminal juris diction in cases of what was called brawling in churches. Mr. JARVIS insisted that brawling in churches ought to be dealt with as other breaches of the peace. Dr. NICHOLL said that the sacredness of the house of worship required peculiar protection. Mr. IVATSON thought it was a great offence against morals and decency to interrupt any congregation of worshippers in divine service. But the criminal law of the country was sufficient to repress any such outrage, without the necessity of extraordinary powers to the ecclesiastical courts. Mr. ROEBUCK s a id the whole object of the clause was to obtain costs, an d su ch was the object of the sole remnant of the old g i gan ti c papal power in this coun try—costs—money. Those old monkish superstitions about it:, being a greater offence to knock a man down in a churchyard than on the highway-, Ind been long since exploded, at least in a moral sense ; and it was too bad in this enlightened age to perpetuate such a legal absur dity and injustice. He was one of those w h o did. not think that the enunciation of a few words from a human being like ourselves, made that spot the more sacred ; and he, therefore, considered that the punishment for assaulting a man on the highway should be as great as for the same offence in the churchyard, and that there was no reason why it should not be tried in the same manner. Sir G. GREY wished to be understood. He wished to take away ecclesiastical jurisdiction altogether in criminal matters—to leave such matters for the decision of the common law courts. Mr. WARBURTON wished to know why the same regulations should not apply to the churchyards of Dis senters as to those of Episcopalians. Dr. BOWRING put the hypothesis to the House, if a man who wished to hear the tenets of the Established Church, and yet from religious and conscientious scru• pies would not take his hat off, was such a man to be punished by the ecclesiastical court ? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said such a man should stay away altogether.—(Hear, hear.) If he committed any indecency or indecorum in a house of Divine wor ship during Divine service he certainly was punishable according to the ecclesiastical law.—(Hear.) • Mr. JERVIS deprecated a system which at present existed in rural districts where the clergymen of the parish turned out sheep and other cattle to graze in their churchyards. Colonel SIBTHORP, in reply to the question from the Hon. and Learned Member for Bolton, as to what would be done to a person, such as a gentleman who wore his hat in a church from conscientious motives, stated that it was his opinion such a man ought not to be turned out only but afterwards placed in the stocks. Dr. BO WRING spoke a few words in explanation. The Gallant Gentleman had misunderstood his question. What be asked was whether if a Quaker should act so injudiciously as to wear his hat in a church, would the oommon law reach him, or was that Bill necessary to punish him? Mr. BULLER could see nothing in an offence com mitted in a churchyard which should prevent it being dealt with by the common law of the land. After a few words from Mr.WATSON and Mr. ROE BUCK, the galleries were cleared for a division. None, however, too place, and on our return to the gallery, we found Sir R. PEEL addressing the House. He was under stood to say that there were undefined offences, which could only be dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts. Mr. HUME said it was then to be understood that the offences which wore to be left in the hands of ecclesiastical courts were offences which could not be described.—(Cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK said there was no offence cognizable by the ecclesiastical courts which was not also cognizable by the common law courts of the realm. He challenged the Solicitor-General to point out a single instance in which this was not the case, and he also challenged the Right lion. Baronet to instance any case which was cognizable by the ecclesiastical courts that was not also cognizable by the common law courts. Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was very kiugnacious.—(Laughter.) As the Hon. and Learned tsentleman had appealed to him, he could only say that jurisdictions had been established for the purpose of maintaining order, independent of the courts of common law. Now, for instance, the Speaker of the House of Commons exercised a jurisdiction for main taining order—(Hear, hear,)—and he (Sir R. Peel) had never heard that a court of common law could punish a Member for a breach of order in that House. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that his Hon. and Learned Friend was certainly well acquainted with one portion of the lair of the land, and that was the law of peremptory challenge.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend had challenged him to instance a case which could not be made the subject of an indictment at common law, but which could be brought before the ecclesiastical courts. He had already given ono instance, which was that of a man sitting with his hat on in church during Divine service, and he would have thought that many other instances would have suggested them selves to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman him self. Why, there was the subject of brawling itself. That offence might occur when no congregation was assembled, and it was only an ecclesiastical offence in such a case by reason of the sacredness of the place. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew that for such an offence there could be no civil or criminal proceeding in the common law courts.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he had answered the challenge of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, by adducing this instance, and he was sure that others must occur to his ingenuity. With re gard to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale, he had dealt with him in all courtesy, but he must, of course, be allowed to retain his own opinion. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared, For the amendment 6l Against it Majority against the amendment —4B Sir G. GREY proposed an amendment in the clause, taking from the ecclesiastical courts the power of impo sing church-rates. Dr. NICHOLL said he could not accede to the amend ment. At present there was no other jurisdiction what ever to decide the question of the validity of church. rates except the ecclesiastical courts, and, at any rate, until that objection were removed, he would not consent to the proposal. After a few observations from Mr. COLLETT and Dr. NICHOLL the House divided on the amendment, when there appeared— For the amendment .... Against it 66 107 Majority against the amendment —4l On our admission to the gallery, we found Mr. BULLER on his legs moving an amend ment to the clause, that all testamentary matters should be taken from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiasti cal courts and given to the civil courts. As a specimen of the necessity of such a provision, he would refer to the will of Mr. James Wood of Gloucester. The question upon that will, after going through the prerogative courts, went to the Privy Council, where the will was held to be good, though it was considered bad in the court below. The imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court was a great absurdity. It decided only on the general question of the validity of the will; it could not adjudge any point connected with separate bequests, the administration gas obliged to be conducted by the Court of Chancery. This was a great anomaly, and he had the opinion of the best property lawyers of the kingdom fur saying that it ought to be abolished. These Courts kept -up a limited bar, a legal monopoly of the business of attorneys, under the name of proctors, who were alone allowed to practise in them, and which had merely the effect of loading clients with additional fees, for persons always entrusted their business to their own solicitors, who conducted it through a proctor; and the effect of the monopoly was only to create a bad bar, bad attorneys, and bad judges. The mode of taking evidence by these courts was also very objectionable; there were many modes of taking evidence in this country ; in the common law courts it was done viva voce ; in the equity courts it was taken in writing. But the ecclesiastical courts had hit on a mode that com bined the disadvantages of both without the advantages of either. There was one defence of these courts which he must allude to; it was often said that it was necessary to keep up a body of civilians, who, raising themselves far above the mere law of England, would devote them selves to those great principles of international law which sometimes carne to be argued before the Court of Admiralty. Now, he did not wish to speak disrespect fully of the doctors; he merely wished to put an end to them altogether —(A laugh)—and he should wish to do that in a manlier that would be the least disrespectful to their feelings.—(Laughter.) But he really thought it monstrous that this body should be kept up for this pur pose at the expense of the suitors in these courts. .It would be better that they should be salaried and sup ported in some kind of school for the purpose—if it was of any use to the country. It was said that it was necessary there should be a body of men versed in tho principle of the Roman law. Now the Spanish law involved the principles of the Ro man law to a great extent ; so did the Scotch law. Now if there was this great proficiency among the doctors of the eclesiastical courts in this Roman law, they would be required in the House of Lords when questions in volving its principles came before it. But was this the case ? He might appeal to the Learned Doctors in the House to say whether the public did not always trust to the counsel taken from the other courts ; they scarcely ever saw a doctor retained on appeals before the House of Lords. He need not go into all the details of the sub ject, but should conclude by moving his amendment. Dr. NICIIOLL, in opposing the amendment, said, neither the House nor the public would consent to trans fer the jurisdiction of these courts to the courts of com mon law, unless it could be satisfactorily shown that, up to the present time, the business in them had been in efficiently conducted, of that the change would be attended with some singular advantage to the public. He believed that their business had been well con ducted, and conflicting decisions between the ec clesiastical and common law were extremely rare. The ecclesiastical courts merely decided the question as to whether the will propounded was the real will of the deceased. The construction to be placed upon that will was decided by other courts, and it certainly was convenient that these questions should be decided by different tribunals. He therefore thought that it would be well that this jurisdiction should be reserved to the ecclesiastical courts. Mr. WATSON thought they ought to have some mercy upon the public at large. It was all very well for ecclesiastical lawyers, common law lawyers, and chan cery lawyers to wish to have a share in the plunder of the estate of an unfortunate deceased, but really he thought the public had a right to expect that all these questions should be decided by one tribunal.—(Cheers.) Now he would put a case. Suppose the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite made his will in these terms, " I give and devise all my estate, real and personal, to A. 8." Lord STANLEY—To Mr. Watson.—(A laugh.) Mr. WATSON was much obliged to the Noble Lord for the suggestion.—(Cheers and laughter.) Well, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was gathered to his fathers, and then the will was to be proved in Doctors' Commons. Then commenced the most expensive part of the most expensive system known in this most expen sive country. Formerly, there was an inventory pub lished of the property for the information of all the parties concerned ; that, however, was now abolished, in order that the Chancery lawyers, and the common lawyers might get their share of the plunder. Well, the will was disputed —the sanity of the testator was called in question. Then another system of law came into operation. The common law lawyers came in. In this stage of the proceeding the only legitimate mode of getting at the truth of a question was adopted. They examined witnesses who gave their testimony viva voce, and were subjected to the test of cross examination. Now,. this course mi g ht be adopted Pny time within rill , t- n - 1 , 0 . 1 or the testator, although the estate might have been sold four or five times over. It ought to be known by country gentlemen, that when they devised their estates, those devises were open to litigation for a period of nineteen years, 164 days, and some hours. At length the matter was carried into Chancery, where the trusts of the will were to be litigated. At this time of a day an end ought to be put to this expensive, tedious, and unmeaning sort of jurisdiction. The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted that the jury was the proper tri bunal in one case ; then why should there not be one tribunal to legislate for all ? At present the ecclesias tical court had one opinion about a will, the courts at Westminster-hall another, and the Court of Chancery the Lord knows what ; so that the suitor was in a con stant state of perplexity and doubt. Mr. JERVIS opposed the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard, who he could not think was serious in introducing it on this occasion with any hope of carrying it. Mr. HUME wondered that those persons who ex claimed so much against Popery should cling so tena ciously to this abomination. No sane man could object to the ecclesiastical courts being deprived of this species of power. br. ELPHINSTONE supported the amendment, and said that he thought the Bill would do more harm than good. - Mr. ROEBUCK thought a system of registration would be very salutary, but he doubted that such could be rendered compatible with the present constitution of the ecclesiastical law. He would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Liskeaid. Mr. C. BULLER replied. The Committee then divided, when there appeared For the motion Against it Majority against the motion —63 On our return to the gallery we found that it had been moved by Mr. Brotherton, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was the first day of their meeting after the recess, and ho thought the Go vernment ought to be allowed to congratulate themselves upon having passed one Bill. The Committee then divided, when there appeared, For report of progress Against it BB Majority Dr. BOWRING then moved, that the Speaker do leave the chair, The Committee divided, when there appeared, For the motion Against it Majority against the motion ... —43 The CBAIR3XAN then reported progress by consent, and the House then proceeded with the other Orders of the Day. Mr. HUME said that as several bills: had been post pened, he wished to know what measures would come on next week, aid when the Bank Charter Bill would be proceeded with. Sir R. PEEL said it was most inconvenient to men tion any time, but he would say the lath. The other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. George Scott, apprentice to his father, appeared before the Lord Mayor to answer the complaint of James Ed ward Cutler, beadle of the Watermen's Company, charging him with having, in a skiff, in the river Thames, on Sunday, the 26th of May, at London• bridge, eight passengers, the. said skiff being licensed to carry six passengers only; and John Williamson was sum moned by the same party for allowing his skiff to be worked in the river Thames, on Sunday, the 19th of May, without first having obtained a license from the Court of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen. Mr. Cooper, the solicitor to the Company e attended for the prosecution in each case, and Mr. Wolff, from Mr. Flower's office, appeared for the first defendant. The subject caused great interest in consequence of the late loss of life in the river. In the case of John Scott, which was first heard, Mr. Wolff took a technical objection to the summons, which, he contended, was in the form of an indictment, and ought to be as a ccurate l y wor d e d. The LORD MAYOR —The precise charge ' against Scott is that he carried eight persons instead of six. All I require is evidence to that fact. Mr. Cooper proceeded to call witnesses, without mak ing any comments. W. E. Hone, beadle to the Company deposed, that on the day specified in the summons, between 7 and 8 in the evening, he saw Scott row four men and four women in the skiff, No. 3,524 ashore. The boat was not licensed to carry more than six. Witness saw those in the boat pay the lad who acted as waterman. The witness, upon his cross-examination, stated that he had seen the boat for about three minutes, and that the ages of the passengers varied from 14 to 18 years. Mr. Wolff now would she not carry fourteen passen gers comfortably? Witness—Certainly not ; neither comfortably nor safely. Mr. Banyon, the clerk of the Company, stated that the boat was licensed on the 12th of May, 1842, by George Scott, the elder, to carry six passengers. She was li censed to carry six, as that number was the most she could carry safely. Cross-examined—lt was by measurement the boats were regulated as to the numbers they were allowed to carry. Mr. Wolff—Have you never known a boat able to carry eight licensed to carry no more than six? Wit ness—No; I think not. Mr. Cooper—That is my case. Mr. Wolff submitted that there was no case at all to go to the Lord Mayor, as it at least ought to have been proved that the father of the defendant was a freeman of the Waterman's Company. The LORD MAYOR—It has been proved to be a licensed boat, and the Waterman's Act says that the occupier or occupiers shall be liable to penalty for breach of the regulations. The penalty attached to transgressions in this case is stated not to exceed forty shillings. Nothing can be more clear than this case. Mr. Wolff trusted that his Lordship would treat the young man leniently, as the violation of the Act was certainly committed in ignorance of the law. The boat in question was large enough to hold eight or ten per sons, and that number, he understood, had gone up the river in her, and returned in perfect safety. The LORD MAYOR—That is an instance of excessive violation. The state of the water might have been such that a large number could have gone in the boat. Now that the river is in almost perpetual agitation by the passing of steamers, the danger to life is imminent. I dare say that in Chelsea Reach many a life has been lost in consequence of over-lading. Some of the boats in use are so slight that a man's foot will actually pass through them. It was but the other day a person who fell overboard was drowned, because the other person in the boat could not offer assistance to him without en dangering his own life by overturning her. Mr. Banyon observed that the Watermen's Company had no authority over wager-boats, which were made of the most flimsy materials. Mr. Cooper—There are bye-laws now before the Court of Aldermen, which are calculated to remedy the evil arising from the use of boats which cannot be safely used in the present coniition of the river. The LORD MAYOR—AII cases of this description, in volving the hazard of human life, must be looked to in the spirit of the most searching investigation. As this is the first offence of the defendant I shall be satis fied with inflicting the penalty of ten shillings and six pence. In every other instance proved I shall inflict the full penalty of forty shillings and costs. The defendant paid the penalty, and said that nothing should ever induce him to break the law again. The LORD MAYOR mentioned to Mr. Cooper that the reckless manner in which those who had the manage ' merit of the steam-vessels which plied in the river from London to Gravesend called' aloud for prompt inter. ference. On one of the late holidays a steam-vessel was crowded, and a shower having come on many of them on deck crowded into the cabins. Fine weather having re turned a great many more rushed into the vessel, which then became crowded to suffocation. The consequence was that another vessel was obliged to relieve the over burdened vessel of about 150 of her passengers. Mr. Cooper said the bye-laws to which he had alluded, and which he trusted would immediately pass, were cal culated to remedy that evil, as well as the other mis chief to which his Lordship's attention had been called. John Williamson, the man in whose boat th e c hild ren were drowned at London-bridge on Sunday, the 19th of May, was then charged. Mr. Cowper stated that in this case the penalty was twenty shillings for working or allowing to be worked a boat not licensed. The difference bete em the two cases was, that in the former case the occupier or occu piers of a licensed boat were made liable, in the latter the owner or owners of the boat not being licensed were liable, and the difficulty was to find the owner. As a coroner's inquest was being held on the bodies already found, the proprietor became known. The defendant made a rambling unintelligible set of excuses in which he endeavoured to throw the blame upon the officers of the Watermen's Company for not having interfered with other people, whose boats were constantly crowded, as if the servants of the Company could be present at all points where the public are in the habit of embarking. The Lon]) MAvoaL-Have all the bodies of the chil dren been found?—Mr. Cutler (the officer of the Com pany) said that three had been found, and that one fe male was still missing. The LORD MAYOR—I shall in this case inflict the full penalty, and costs. The defendant threw himself upon the mercy of the Lord Mayor, and declared that he had a wife and six children to provide for, and little or no em ployment. The LORD MAYOR having been informed that the in quest was still sitting, said, that as in all probability the defendant would be a sufferer by the verdict of the jury, in the shape of a deodand, he should limit the penalty to ten shillings and costs; atid his Lordship ordered that if the amount was not immediately paid, a distress war rant should be issued against the goods and chattels of the defendant. Mr. Banyon—Fer seventeen years the Watormen and Ltghtermen's Company have been endeavouring to ac complish the object of regulating the numbers to be re ceived on board the steamers, and we trust that we shall receive your Lordship's assistance to effect so great a public good. The LORD MAYOR—I shall certainly bring forward the question at the next Court of Aldermen. An experienced old smuggler, named Thomas Myers, was charged by the solicitor to the Customs with having been found in possession of five pounds of tobacco. The defendant, in a whining tone, pleaded guilty. The solicitor to the Customs informed the Lord Mayor, and Alderman Thomas Wood, who sat in jurisdic tion with his Lordship, that the smugglers were under the inapr:;s:3lott tIo if thLy I%cre witl3 tobacco iu their possession at onetime than five pounds' weight, the Act of Parliament could not touch them for a heavier fine than 51. The consequence of such an im pression was that they sometimes made, each of them, a dozen visits to steamers and other receptacles, • and d smuggled goods every day, s u pp o sing that, if - e 00 0 all they would ha ve t o p ay cou ld nut ex ceed tlud A 00 The Commissioners of Customs, however, har p ot power, by the 6th an d 7 t h o f William, t ° ,o a penalty of 1001. f or every o ff ence of grain however small the q uant it y smugg l e d, as ha d lately decided in the Court of Exchequer• defendant in this case very plainly showed , being apprehended, that he was one of those who 14 0 under the mistake of supposing that he would luny more than 5l to pay. " Oh," sa id h e , " I amu n " e s t e weight." As the old sm ugg l ers were making.grelf tbs ertions in their trade, it was the determinatio n °. s u Commissioners to go for th e f u ll p ena lty of 10 01 . 1 ;d; , cases, however small th e quan ti ty smugg l e d by tbe 1 vidual. t 10 1 ' 1 The LORD MAYOR and Ald erm a n T. WOOD Itt same view of the quest;on w hi c h h a d b ee n takell: t o solicitor to the Customs, a n d hi s L or d s hip struck l o pt into the defend an t by t e ll ing hi m t h at h e was fin eu , ho tiO and that he must stay i n p rison unt il t h a t a mount , be paid. Fd h It is but fair to mention th a t th e s t a t eme nt w.. -e iv oibi , made to the Lord May or a f ew d ays ago , that 2 3 10 weight of tobacco had b een l a t e l y s m ugg led in a ,or cheeses into this count r y, was not ma d e b y Mr._,P a ."„g's any other person i n t h e emp l oyment o f h e r Ok Customs. The defendant was committed to prison. MARYLEBOIVE. m ontl e Daniel Wright, the y oung man w h o h a d been tt," from Friday last, on a charge of having received 30 ,, 1 0 1 T the banking-house of Si r Cl au d e S cott an d Co., Cn square, by means of a forged cheque purporting n or been drawn on the Bank of England by William G jati . Esq., of 11, Hyde-park-terrace, in favour of Mr• mayne, the eminent silk mercer of New Bond-str ee placed at the bar for final examination this day. A igili C l The evidence taken on th e p rev i ous occasion, rtF, was fully reported in Th e S un o f M ay 25, was alien F, over. A brief recapitulatio n o f th e pr i nc i pa l f a cts er a t with the case may be g i ven . Th e pr i soner 011'01 Claude Scott's bank on the'3d May, and presenting Li for 3901., said that Mr. Redmayne would feel obllg` 7 , l were cashed for him. Mr. Taylor, one of the clerks bank, as Mr. Redmayne had an account there, did 6 . 6 gA paid hini in six 50/. notes, four 201., and ten sovereignV On the succeeding morning a messenger' from th e d England returned the cheque as a f orge d one; _ dtbs evening of the same day M r . P u l s f or d ca ll e d, a nd sti` t o tr . , the handwriting was not hip. I n f orma ti on w as given 47 police, and one of th e o ff icers i n th e D etect i ve f or ce tit o d o prisoner to Birmingham, and subsequently back tc ) b and at last succeeded in t a ki ng hi m in t o cus t o dy in , toria Hotel, near the railway terminus at Eustonlo where he had lived w ith a companion (ti female) f° be r ior; days. In his possession was 51. 4s. 6d., and in a dospdt ing to him was a further sum of seventy sovereign O r handsome gold watch and append ages , b es id es sever%t articles of jewellery. There being no ev id en ce aga ll itP : female she was discharged on the first examination. 00 stated on that occasion that the prisoner had run UP the hotel of 361. in the few days he had been there. efl t , The evidence taken this day waa of very little In 0 ';,1!' Mr. Arthur . Maitland, from the Bank of England , 54. 00 0 it was the practice of th e B an k, t o pay no c h equ es e% c d such as were drawn upon the regular printed forms t thc' 4 Bank. The cheque in q ues ti on was no t upon one °f forms, neither was the writing like Mr. Pulsford's. s e, Mr. Pulsford, 11, Hyde-pa r k T errace , sa id that the bee Lure was not his. He did no t k now any thi ng of the e t The prisoner's father was a clothier in Conduit-streead., gent-street, and had supplied witness with clothing• not know Mr. Redmayne, of Bond-street. P art Mr Redmayne said, he knew nothing of any dor' the case. Oa looing at the cheque, it appe ar ed it's 4 with the name of ; his clerk, Mr. Cates, but the wrinurt widely different, and the name was also differently s l t ' he ro" . the cheque it was written Keats). The prisoner S f3rigOPl a most respectable man, and one of his sons, the younger brother, was in his (Mr. Redmayne's) emP e t belg i s Mr. Cates, clerk to last w it ness , sa id h e k n ew 1 1 ° 0 ,0 the draft whatever, neither did he know the young the bar. „net/ Mr. LONG said he wo u ld comm it hi m (th e prix" trial, and asked if he had anything to say in defenc e " to ld' The prisoner, who was bathed in tears, had nothing ~, and he was removed to the lock-up cell. Mr. Burgoyne, solicitor to the banking house of Si tos io,, Scott and Co., attended to p rosecu t e , an d ano ther el fat" gentleman, whose name we could no t l earn , a ppenrc prisoner. CIERKEN WELL: d tt Y A man named George Welfare, who is emplaYe d ict A Islington toll-bar, and who has been repeatedly e° ll "' assaults on the police and on civilians at this Co _ tj l ,ll charged with the following conduct : On the previous night, at eight o'clock, police-0174 Harris being on duty in King-street, was pass iffg he(l . shop, at the dcor of which'the prisoner was standing,, osnr, prisoner)! exclaimed, " Oh, th ere goes Kidi s but I'll have a mug at him." Kiddy H arr i s was " e ars k. of a most diabolical ch ar a c t er , w h o was s ome Y yost executed at the Old Bailey for the murder at a p it . , ;„:l woman under circumstances of extrao r di n ary col - repeated this offensive la n g uage , an d h av i n g beee e " from the beer -shop in consequence, followed Barri: el t'' him by the throat, and thrusting his hand betwitot leather stock and the skin , pressed his knuckles ag A s re ser o windpipe. A policeman fortunately came up ee' tes edy Harris from his grasp. The prisoner, however fa s ty, Harris again, and clung to him with desperate tenee!,o4 kicked him on the leg, and cut, and bruised the com face. Police-sergeant North, 14, deposed that. n otlthigi e 10 . exceed the prisoner's violence at the station-house - e ri y an associate of thieves and the most depraved char ct o cil„ Mr. GREENWOOD said it was very disgraceful t ha .,"tset: person should be employed in such a capacity as as s pi c ky, a public toll-bar, and he was surprised that Mr. -- 40). tir could tolerate it. The prisoner had done his best tv,qt the constable, and he would send him to prison, with °o for ten days. A PROFLIGATE WIFE.-Sarah Duck, the wife Of Duck, a French polisher, residing in Kingsgate-stree , " born, was charged with assaulting her husband. It appeared, from the evidence, that the defend. woman of dissipated habits and unfeeling dispositiee' oe ptS husband, a hard-working man, deposed that she fret tr, squandered in drink his week's earnings, leaving 13 ' 4 4 little children in a condition bordering el l , tion. She has been frequently brought he li r i - e a?'„, Court, and bound over to keep the peace towards w ere' / ' plainant. On Saturday night last he gave her a 5' , 1 %,c10( for the housekeeping expenditure fur the week. On :0 Pelt, last she said she had taken two of her little childree,: 101: Chapel, but, instead of doing so, spent the evening I '; ‘ ,l l t 1,4 shop with two low fellows, and returned home a n i b c ,,Cn ce toxicated, having squandered the whole sovereigllcepee, fivepence. When her husband wan t e d t o have the from her to get something for supper, she flew at hii; tt; tigress, tore his face, . 5 and knocked him down- be cse.r o i seized the poker, which, having been disarmed nt;, s , d e pn . hold of the tongs. Of these, too, sh e w a s fortunate* I before she could inflict any serious injury. committed ot tt In default of the payment of fine, she was Conlin' House of Correction for a month. th °4 f George Rogers was committed for trial for steak es, ill pounds of tea, value fifteen shillings, and other arts .014 property of Mr. Jenny, a grocer residing in Hatt on ' whose service he was engaged. thi ef " , Thomas Watson, alias Joh n Boyl e , a notorious of charged with stealing a necklace, the property i ll Hone, a poor woman, living in Peter-street, Sal/ 1 ' 0 4 , 1 . 1 ; e Poo The prosecutor was in bed with her children at . 11 , e pbitie on that morning, when she was aroused hie l ei prisoner having opened a box in the room, froUi had abstracted the necklace. She screamed, ha y n o te r f seen him befi)re, upon which he said he had com e st o o house with his brother and a young woman. dos turned out to be false, and the necklace was foal' person.—He was fully committed for trial. (rE.—gESTE gDA ) tar Gibral .............. . s o Leghorn ............... 05 Genoa ......... ......... • ":„, Milan .................. • 4/ Venice .................. 59 Naples .... .............. 11/ Palermo, per oz. .... Lisbon .................. "of Oporto ................. 0 Rio Janeiro ............ Bahia ................. .• Buenos Ayres .......... NewYork,2ldys sig h i .1, Philadelphia .......... v 9 mucus OF uutTo43 I , 5 Foreign Gold, bast 3 1/ 0, Portugal Geld Co " w o 0 9: New Doubloolls••••• New Dollars ......... „ 4 Silver in Bars ...... 1 . $1,:0 COURSE OF EXCHA] Amsterdam CF. 12 . 6 Ditto, at sight l2 4 Rotterdam 2U. 12 6% Antwerp 25 90 Hamburgh M.B. 13 14 Alton l3 14% Paris, 3 days' sight 25 65 Ditto, 3 months 25 85 Marseilles Bourdeaux 25 90 Frankfort on Maine Petersburgh, 3Us 364 Berlin 7 Vienna, effee. fl. 3 M 953 rieste, ditto Madrid 37 Cadiz Bilbao i 36 Barcelona 36 Seville — THE ALLEGED MURDER AND ROBBEIa e 't - tberO cunr.—On Thursday Mr. Baker and a jury sa t !,, ° '-e's' o ol time at the Town of Whitby public-house, WaPP l '7)o l o e determine the cause of death of Luke Williams. ,vs witness was examined on Thursday, a charity schoolnbeihos Lane, who stated that on the afternoon of Sunday' be ifi j inst., hearing a disturbance in Brunswick-plecetA"sli, there, and saw the windows of Nicholson's house b'"•yo,'ted looking through he observed the prisoner Horst ed _.,""Or o tlf old man, who was lying on the floor. He also sa' i 0 " .0 cr jump on the lower part of the old man's stomach , s° fe,l l v ; 1 10' that his heels slipped off the body, and he nearli wo 00, wards. There were present a short man andLo' ae l :'osl but they did not interfere in any way. The , being the whole of the evidence, read over the ne,frosT 3 iter the four previous inquiries, and pointed out Wb at i SO° lid murder and manslaughter. The jury then retire 0 1 0 0 an absence of four hours and a half, returned t° ' a ce be room, saying that they wished the inquiry to be u icl f ic ii adjourned, in order to see whether evidence 04.,, del found to implicate some of the other parties till Horsted. The inquiry was accordingly adjou rn° day next. ite ct° IRTHS. On the 28th ult., the la dy of the Rev. John 1 1 t er. f th e of St. Olave, in Hart-street, Mark-lane, of a dtoloy ° On the 28th ult., at Charterhouse-square , t" Rev. William Goode, of a daughter. o ciisly'' On the 29th ult., at Wimpole-street, C ave eti3j the lady of William Tillotson, Esq., of a son. Ile, WO' On the 29th ult., the lady of Colonel Gaseo, Guards, of a son. ROY of On the 30th ult., at Bryaneton-aquare , the `iggins, of a daughter. MARRIED. re, bi o f This morning, at St. George's, Hanover-sclui- pil•tys, Rev. W. H. Dickinson, Richard Kyrke rensori, Oswestry, to Clara Maria, only daughter of J° 4l3 I L4ti Esq., Dinham House, Ludl w frig "to Th:s morning, at St Pan o cra; Church, Mr. Georaiicite,, Spencer, of Blenheim-terrace, Kingsland-road, sf f OOP' Emma, the eldest daughter of Mr. Francis Barlow, e o f _ d e G street, Edgeware-road. On the 28th ult., at St. Saviour's Church, Jerses,laughtc Balaton, Esq., of Poole, Dorset, to Eleanor gArAp. of the late Edmund Locker, Esq., of Plymouth, o' DIED. f the On the 2Gth ult., at Ingfield, near Settle, IN.LarY, theSwale, aged 25: VT el On the 28th ult., at Stamford, William Stevensoll, c o oli On the 28th ult., at Holybourne, Alton, Lieutentlilt" 10' Thomas Frederick, aged 80. 'IVO On the 29th ult. in Berkeley-square, Thotna s - Esq., of Fixby Hall, Yorkshire. _,„,. ]!s~ ,feett On the 29th ult., at Tottenham, Thomas Pon , '' '-' sv• On the 29th ult., Mrs. J. A. Pigott, itil° MPcklenl . inrgb-square. , re ci C On tllo.29tti ult., in Vincent..- M^ ' 'arc` 'll • ....itiare, ...If, t late W. Tarts, Esq., „ aged 82 Hexthcote• London: Printed and Published by DIVRDO yro. Na. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun. o , k irCol ol Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, I n 14 Middlesex, liaturclay, Jima 1, 1544. lii 11. g. 1 •••.,,:. 4 841 k~~,