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

A. I p T. 141ktIt. HO USE. LtiLais,Mky 31, Their Lorlshipi'asertibled at Five i) elude; !ihe Dull° eft WELLINGTON, preteate:fa petition from Newbury, praying for an extension of the Great Western Reel:v.ly to the-town of.Newleary: On the motion el.e.he , Earl of RIPON,-the Courts-- martial (East Judie;) Bill was read a first time. • Lerd LURGAN presented petitions from Ireland against the Dissent; rs' Chapels • Bill; also petitions pea) ing their Lordships_ to legalise Presbyterian mar riages in Ireland. Lord 'CAMPBELL ' presented tweliCi petitions from Ireland to elle same effect ; also • a petition ..from Cole r,tife against the Dissenters' Chapels 8if1... - THE LATE MONAGHAN ASSIZES... . • Theitlargais of NORMAN BY rose to call their Lord- . ships' attention to the circumstances which had occurred at the last Monaghan assizes.. A general impression existed hi that part of the country that there bad been a want of sincerity in the ititentions of . . the ' Government in carrying out the directions .which were 'contained in a circular to • the Attorney-General Brady, with respect: . t ► the custom of challenging jurors. His Nole 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 WII AR NCLIFFE--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 father-in-law,• many years since, but he had bedew 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 or 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 ehduld 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 why, hadebeeit isteeidlenff the jury were Roman Catholics, but then It'should beTecolleeted that the offence of • of which the priseiner had been acetisettVwas confined almest 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 or the jury wes. a- discriminating one. —convicting some and acquitting others. Earl FITZWILLIAM—And, therefore, because it was exclusively confined to. Catholics, it -•oaght to be tried exclusively by •Pretestants! Such was the reasoning of his Noble Friend. According to. his (Lord Fits 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 eXelnsively by Protestants tried by an excl usively Catholic jury ?---(Cheers.) . Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that he had said that all Catholics should be excluded from...juries empanelled fur 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. He believed that the Roman , Catholic pr i est hood were among the most active in pat ting it down. ne had thrown no ,imputation on the jury; on the contrary, he had said that they had done their duty. Iletherefore 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 ribliohism was confined al-' . most exclusively to Roman Catholics. . The subject then dropped.. FACTORIES BILL. Their Lordships then_ went into Committee on this Bill. Lord KINNAIIIn 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 shotild not oppose its pass ing. But there was one clause in the Bill which intro ' duced en entirely new principle. The clause would certainly be quite . inoperative, _and he. wished theref o re to know why it bad been introduced into the Bill at all'? When . they came to the 32d clause he should move that . _ it be expunged. The clause was then agreed to. s Clauses 2to 8 inclusive were also agreed to. Oii clause 9 being proposed, Lord TEYNHAM said he thought some 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 WIIARNCLIFFE thought the Bill already pro vided for this. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11. were agreed to. • - Op clause 12 being' proposed, Lord I-tEAUgQ.NT moved that that part of the clause which provided that the coat of the surgeon's certificate should-be defrayed out of the wages of the children, be •strue`k out. Lord AVIAIINCLIFFE said the certificates were for the-benefit of the children, and it was but right that they shnuld bear a portion of the expense. The amendment was nee•atived without a division, and the clans& was then agreed to. Clauses 13 'to 17 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 18 being proposed; • . - *Lord BROUGHAM said he had carefully gone over, this Bilcand he must say that he was not much pre : toasesaed 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, , end not of the year 1844. But in the 18th clause of this pill, thsy had exceeded themselves. This clause enacted the', in all cases in which the tepsand sides of rOomi were not painted with • oil they should be lime-, isailiedat'leastonce d in fourteen months, wherever chit esen and young persons were_ employed in those rooms, sow, young persons meantwomen of from sixty to . seventy years of age--most interesting ypung persons they were—and where the walls were painted with oil; they Should be every 14 months washed with soap and renter_ It. aeatainly, was a., great omission that. the Bill said not state the*exact degree. of - the heat . of the water that was to .be uSed. 7 —(at langh.) ,N4w . he, hoped that Lefore.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 chiuks through which draughts of wind. . or snow, or rain, 'erhail, might pass, should be Stopped alp with chopped hay, or straw, or plaster; and that -the persons living in cottages should be provided with a suffi ciency of warm clothing,: of course at. t h e ex p ense o f their landlords and employers—(Laught er ) s -- an d that a sufficiency of fuel shpeicl baprovitled for them, and that lisedunghills or pigstyes . 'shoula,-be allowed near their dwelling% fir nothing could rh i o r pi j e64 itjarii,us to health than dunghills, and pigstyes. They *gill have a sche - dole_ relating to. eases in which cows houses might be Or mitted.—(A laugh.) He was perfectly disgu.tel with this meddling, , "officious, dabbling, syitem of legislation. • —(The Noble and Learned j.ord then threw the Bill across the table, and resumed his seat, amidst cheers and laughter.) -•' • . • Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the clause was only a renewal of the one in the tiLd. Bill.. The clause was then passed. • Clauses from 19. 4 .02 a were,-pa.iiedmithout discussion. elause 29 being proposed, • .• Earl Atz t yyjLlAANt said it:appeared- that evi I.) - body wag i.z favour of this Bill—(" No, no," from Lord Kinnaird)—that was, speaking abstractedly. '.l:lt Government was for it.-411e : Tories, w. re for it—the Whigs were for it—the political economists were for it ; ,• but these were not quite.• satisfied with it,-they were dispotied to carry. it. a Jittleferther. The clatise under consid,ration proved that ther.' was some. little return of common saw's.. beginning. to_be shown on the subject. Theel*.use subsilteleal. :" eight years" instead of nine! as the t lf*Tat . which, chitilieeeotild 'go- to Ark .in factories. il? v 1)4411 to srg a, sunatar .return of, good sense to the ifemplOyeal i iu minesa but he could not cOmpre hendwhy all. this.eNtraordinary philanthropy exhibited for those employed in 'factories should not, he carried a little furthera amid' why there 'was-asuch 'neglect of the inonil and 'phyaielil evils lit the socfal condition of other classes of'the cornmunity.• The•landed'interest had taken this Bill especially under its protection, catild not cfeenPrehend wily it' neglected the interest Pf those with whom it was partieularlys'etinne'etech Those employed in mince and aetoriee enjoyed, a t all event's,awarm se ed ; u equal- temperature,, which was. not. so injurious as • a s A poeurc au ,a-cold open,field for many hours during the s a it y,,which.wai the case with children in the, agrieultu rat. districts. who were employed in ‘ , ,searing", biltds,„ and , other field occupations. ne thought that . the only oases 'of itterferenee with labour should be in those whertt the morals of the people were affected.. bey were interfering with the rights of the working e wes , - an & preventing them frPm earning as much as tbey could, If they did, thiS, they o at the sa me time, to giVe them the means o f obtaining food.- - ,(Cheers.) If they erainr ,ed industry,. they ought to feed ttbe people .:• If the Legislature, were to do this, it would act . cons i s t en tly. 'He wondered ow Partia_n_aent would . receive a Bill which provided that aload :of h ( ay should • slot„he carried after six o'clock in the: evaung,e— H e a r, teat%) Yet this would not be worse .titan the present Big, 801 . was one-sided'legislatioh , • and he could not, 'therefore, give it his support. •• - . .• The.Maiquis of NORMANBY denied that there was any ratrogressionin thii Bill: lie thdught.llo eemParl L 1 Am . : , could be instituted 'between ~the condition of the ' liericultural and manufacturing labourer. : The force "Om nature protected the agricultural labourer, but : the factory laboiwer had no such protection. Ile svisheti•tomminatin ) , Ste Bill in' its present integrity. , Witiu. regard AD L 1, 4).-- ( 4 ~.. argument that the last hour was the maeufactureeit only profit, why, the same thing had been stated. twenty' • years ago,when the late Sir Robert feel had proposed , reduce the hours of labour from sixteen hours. With wegardao the provisions for enforcing cleanliness, Tthere` l could be no,do u bt o f the necessity for those provisions', "where large numb ers of pe rsons were tonegated .044rOutri 4 1 4 I , • _a...-. ki,4 •r ( 1:4 - a The Bishop of y, rejoiceu at' the Yimitation of the hours of labour bythis Bill, and only regretted that the limitation had not been carried further. It was im possible to irnarov. the sugial,_mural, and religious con dition of the population of the manufacturing districts, without limiting the hcurs of labour. Commercial . prosperity niighthtpurchased at too great a price,, and it Was going to great expene,for it to satrifice to it the moral and religious iiithare of our . populatioa. Lord WHARNCLIFFE clefendeil the clause. The Earl of WINCHILSEA regretted that a ten hours' clause had not been adopted ; but be admitted that the present Bill was an improvement on the oldlaw, The clause was agree'] to. Clauses 30 and 31 wore agreed to. 'Oa clause 32, which provides that women shall be con sidered as young persons, being pr,posed, LOrd Ii_INNAIRD 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 \VIIARNCLIFFE 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 interrere withthetn. 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 he would ask if Mr. Thom, whe, 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. Lard.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 vldrk without injury to her health for more than twelve hours aday, 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. He 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 7 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 ono-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 districts. 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-tentha 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 Angleses , theproportion ,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 WINCIIILSEA said it was a notorious fact that where 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 number of illegitimate children born in the whole 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 beets 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 MAtBY, • Lord KINNAIRD said the principle on Which he reeved 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.3s. Clauies 36 to 66 incluiive were then severally put and agreed to withont discussion, and the Bill having been reported to the House without amendthents, was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.. POACHING PREVENTION BILL. The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the third read ing of the Poaching Prevention Bill, in which he wished to prepot e some amendments. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the proper time . to propose the amendments would be on the ques tion that the Bill do pass* The Duke of RICHMOND hoped. the further con . sideration.of the Bill would : be 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. - 1 • After a few - words from the Earl of Radnor,-from Lord Campbell h.- 4514)01i of the views of the Duke of Rich .mold, and from Eaxl Fitzharkliw in sttppOrt of, the Bill, it Was 'read a third,•time, the ainerrdinelfts. were propoied. theßill as amended. was orderedtO be 'Anted, and the debate on the qtte:stien that. the Bill .do pass Was, ad journetttill Moaday. CUSTOMS BILL*. . . The Customs Bill passed through Committee.. . The other pills onthe table were forwarded- a stage, and the House adjoUrned. • • , . HOUSE 'OF COMMONS, May 31. The SPEAsEK•took the Chair at the usual hour. • NEW MEMBER. . Mr: BaitVintiP..- took the oaths and his seat for Kit tuarnock. The Hon: -Member was introduced by Mr. Ellice, jun., tutid'Afr. - ord. - • • ' : p . .ISSESTERS' E CHAPLS BlLL. Petitions against this Bill were preented by Colonel P0w441, by' Mr.. Broadley .from Yorks,hiee, Sir•J. Y. Buller. from Devon, Mr. B. Cresswell float N'orthuiriber land, Major Beresf, , rd from Ilarwich, ,Lord Pollington from Pontefract, Mr. Brotherton. frpm Salford, Mr, B. Hughes frotu Carnarvon and Bangor, Lord Rendlesham from Sufftilk,l4e: Barnard front . Greenwich, Mr. Boyd from places in Irejand, and Colonel Fox from Limehtinse. Petitions in faTOtre of the Bill were pr,esented by .Mr. A. Chaptitan' foim Whi i by, ,and - 51% stet front DerhY: . Mr. W. O. STII k EY pri•sented, a pention frora a . . Wesleyan contkrega 9pin Holyliclai against the DlsSex ters' C 144148, BilL • Lord ASllLEY'presitnte4.,several, tiops to the some eff et. .ro -' oft • Captain ROUSpre , ented.a petition from Westminster :o the same effect. .• • • Sir W. JAMES presented !Petitions' -fro& several Wesleyan congregations.to• the same effect. Mr. ClintSCONIElt 'pre 'it petition'frOm the clergy and'adtilt inhabit tots of Andover to the Paine effect. Sir It. 11. I NG LlSt , r,sented it petition from the wardens and gttiecollicers : of Winchester College, against , the Ecclesiastical Court's Bill ; Jas.) 'from Cromer, in Nor 7 folk, against t he Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Anllo,N.,•MEzanEn , presented several.-petitions to the dame effect. 7 _ • . tiir THOMAS. TROWBRIDGE presented •tyl votition to the satneJefrect. Mr. MURPHY presented a petition from Ireland to the same eftvet. V4NE - presented,a.p4itien frorn nearer& shire in favour orthe .„; , • • 11.BERKF.LE.V presented several pt•titions from G lotteustershire• and soatersetshite- against the pis -4e nt - ers' Chapels Bill. ble-,iCAnTWUIGII-T presented several - petitions to the same effect._ • : •• •- • Lortf - NE‘VlttpreAnted's6veral'petitions to tlio Same • eff..ct Sir C. LtMON presented tt petitiOn; frosnlrelawd to the smile. effett': • - • . Mr:-CSRTER 'presentea -a petition from ,Clitheroe, and other places, to the same,effeet. . • Sir W. WYNN presented a. petition from Devo - n.;thire, ..to.thbsamii effret . ; Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from Stafford shire to the stone; effect. Mr. G. presented a petition to the same effect. • • . 'I • • Mr. CIITITSTIE presented a petitionfrom Wales in favour of the Bill: - 2 • , • rMr...-,11. MMUS' presented a petition„frona- Mae glesfteld thy mime effePt,'" :• . . ' Mr. bp/Err - presented a petition from Uoniton in favoity anft• arid 'one from.-Huntingdon against, the Dis senters' Chapelaßill. • • , BRIOHT presented a petitiowagainst the Bill. • ' PROTECTIO I ..4 TO AOR Icuvr LIRE. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented sO.eral petitions from Delon` in favour of 'further protectli3n tO • agritulttire. lord RENDLESHA presented M preseed similar petitions from'Sutitilk. . . Mr:HUME Presented's petition from an agricultural society in India, praying for,the.admission of corn from Elaa:. on the ssme terms as corn coming front Canada. The lion. Member gavenotice of his. intqntion.. to call the attention of the Housntothet deject naneltrly day. . • ....t - };bU N CATIO: IN IRIIAND. Mr. LEFItOar-p - resente'd pet4loris` from Cork against the flittiolia,l,,s,..s.teln.of education in Ireland. . . D lsS l ;sl r tktitS7 .6 . ' . ' . , 11411'F L 'BILL Mr. I(EMBLE resented pt s titi"9 4 na ' fro . in e.OlVgre'g . ;tions of I)issenterhinSurrey against die Dis,3enters Chapels Bill. , . ~. . . .nte : liP:etitions .sh • i C ee tip to tal t r i l io T s A a l e Lp tfr it et p t r . ese froniilier eford , 1 ) 90R-LAWS. . •• i,..,7! :... -.. • '''i,fr: FERPAND moved lbr jaliti bt" tlid'dn'i r • tn " between" ityder, a ' ineils - r T . , e , ev.ind ,enciMr. , , kieg . p iti lard of guardians,c,fChelsea, .and the ;Poor-law COinnal*lsioners. --Ordgredo ~._ !.! • . • - •'• ic - ... Mr. HUME gave notice that, in Committee upnil the Bank .Charter Bill; he should -.1110!te. •11 . CIAISO !fur , the le peal °Nile legal tenderielattie: : i ... , Tlsri 1., ,e ? „ . ., L ADJOURNMENT OF ,TllE,.(l•lstEizil, . 6 '6ll i•V• 111!Akii of,Bir G;optia,it?,,si *XVI- that the liouiCa 'lts rising hdttiliril a oncia7. 4 COURTS-MARTIAL. The Courts-martial Bill (East Indies) was read a third time and passed. INDIAN ARMY. Mr. HUAIE 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 an Tuesday next, he should move for the production of the corres pondence relative to the commercial relations between this country and Prussia. TSUN, LONDON, SAVITRWAY EVENING, JITNiE On our return to w the gallery, we found Mr. BORTHWICK bringing forward the motion ol which he had given notice. He said the Hon. 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 evening. He (Mr. Borth wick) had voted for the second reading of the Bill merely because ho wished. to affirm the proposi tion that .these Courts needed reform, but as the present Bill way not .such a reform as was re quired, he should (ppose 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 some 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 the right of the conv ocation to meet, although they re frained from the exercise of that right, as it would not be pleasing to the Crown that they should do so. They 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 he shut out on a queatiou of this. nature, especially as they were not allowed representa-: lives from their body in that Rouse. 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. lie feared that all Ministera of the Crown were adVerse to the meeting of convocation, because of the possibility'of their interfering with party queitious and interests, and this was one reason for not calling the clergy together, or consulting them. He should oppose the present Bill as far as it was possible; consistently with the forms of the House. If a reform of the law were wanted, let it be proposed in a proper a l n and n u t attempt t o p ass an ill digested measure of this sort. He should oppose it in every shape, an d wou ld di v id e t h e i d di c g o e n s s te ti l tut a i nodna incom pl ete manner, onii Howe against the motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the motion .Against it Majority for the Speaker leaving the Chair —37 The House then resolved itself into Committee. Sir G. GREY moved that the criminal jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts should be abolished, and. also their jurisdiction with respect to church-rates. Dr. NIC II OLL opposed tho motion. Mr. JF.RVIS trusted that the proposition of the Right lion. Baronet, the MeMber for Devonprt, would be re-considered by the Govdrnment. 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 recoinmendation of the Archbishop of Giniterbury and the other Commissioners, that offences of this nature - should be taken, befOre civil tribunals. - v. • a., Y• Lord J. RUSSELL thought the recommendations of the. Archbiihop of Canterbury, and other biihops, in cluding the late. Bishop of Durham, ought. to be carriod into effect. _ _ _ 'Arr. f.SCOTT said he should vote for the clause as amended. Dr. NICHOLL said he 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 tliis was a hasty. recom mendation. The CoMmission was appointed' in 1830, and their report was made in 1831. Thn recommenda tion was signed by the Archbishop-of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Lichfield, Bangor, St. Asaph, by Sir N.. Tindal, by Sir J. Nieltgli, Dr. Lushington, and other Commissioners; and he .certainly would be rather. guided by the opinions of thiise . persons on a Church question thus so,etnnly expressed, than the opiniem o f 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 Commis . sioners 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 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 Clnitch ought not to exist in the Church. 4/1. • WAII,BLTRTON supported the amendment.' 1 ht 3 HMIs then divided, when the numbers were—. .Nor the amendment .................. 44 Against it Majority against the atnendment —lB On the admission of stringers 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 bra.vling 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, WATSON thought . it was a great offence against morals and decency to interrupt -.spy 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 sa id the whole object of th© 'clause was to obtain costs, and such was the object of the sole remnant of the old gigantic papal- power in this oottn ; . try—cll43 e. monkish superstitions e a x b p ou b t ,d i ei t ( s being a ea a churchyard tha n on th e hay, had been long since ,atleast g i r na te cn r o r otraetici. e sense an d ,it was too bad to knock a man down in tirk in this enlightened age to perpetuate sucka le g al absur dity told - injusti ce . He wns one of - those who did not think that the enunciation of a few words from 4 hutatta period of nineteen years, 164 days, and some hours. At length the matter was carried into Chanc, - ry, *here 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 cake ; 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 ab.nninatif m. No sane man could object to the ecclesiastical courts being - deprived of this species of power. • Dr. ELPHINSTONE supportei the atnendtnent, and said that he thodght the Bill ivouid do more harm than good. Mr. ROEBUCK thought ►a . system of registration would be verjr . salutary, but he doubted that such could be rendered compatible with the present constitution of the ecclesiastical law. Ile would suppo.t the motion of the lion. Member for Liskeard. Mr. C. BULLER replied. The Coinmittee then divided, when there appeared For the motion Against it • - . l2l Wority against the motion —63 • On our 'return to the gallery we found that it had been moved by Mr. BrothertOn, that the Chairman (1,) report progress, and ask.leave to sit again. Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was the first day of their meeting after the recess, and he thought the Go vernment ought to be allowed to congratulate themselves upon having passed one Bill. The Coniniittee then divided, when there appeared, For report of progress Against it BB Witlority Dr. BO _ WRING then moved that the Speaker do leave the chair, tale Committee divided, when there appeared, For the motion Against it . B2 Majority against the motion ... —43 The CHAIRMAN 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 10th. 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 liconse , from the Court of the Company of Waterinen and Lightermen. Mr. Cooper, the solicitor to the Company, 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 aaaccurately worded. The LORD MAYOR —The precise charge . against Scott is that he carried eight persons instead of six. All I require is evideuce to that fact. Mr. Cooper proceeded to call witnesses, without mak ing any comments. W. E.llone, beadle t o the ConiPany 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 ashere. 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 te 18 years. Mr. Wolff now would she not carry fourteen passer). 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- s e-No; I think not. Mr. Cooper—That is my case. Mr. Wolff submitted that there was no ease 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 Waterinitn's Act says that the occupier or occupiers 'shall be liable to penalty f o r 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. Wulff 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 la r ge enough to hold eight or ten per eons, and that number, he understood, had gone up the river in her, and returned in perfect Saf?ty. The LORD Maitoie-e-Tbet is an instance of excessive riolatien. The. State of the water might have been such that it large numbeecould have gone in the boat. Now that the river is in almost perpetual agitation by the Fleeing 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 bilt . the other day a person - who fell overboard waedrowned, hectoiee the other person in the boat could not offer assistance to Incii 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 Row before the Court of Aldermen, which are caletilated to remedy the evil earising from the use of boats which cannot be safely used in the present con lition of the river. The Loan Me.eett- e All cases of this' description, in volVing the .hazerd of huMan The, Must be looked to in the spirit .ef the most searching investigation. As this.is the first offence of the defendant I shall he satis fied with inflicting the penalty of ten shillings and six eenee. 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 jihn to break the law again. The LORD MAYOR . mentioned to Mr: Cooper that the reckless Manner in which those who had the manage ment of the eteatn-vessels wind' plied in the river from London to Orevesend celled. eloud for prompt inter ference. On one of the late holidays a steam-vessel wes crowded, and a shower having etinac.on many of themem deck crowded imvo 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 relit ve the over s burdened vessel of about 150 of licepaSsengers. Mr. Coupes said the bye-laws' to 'which he hed alluded, and which he trusted would immediately pass, were cal-. culeted to remedy that evil, as well as the other mis chief to which his Lordship's attention bad been called. John Williamson, the man in:whose boat the children were drowned at - London-bridge on Sunday, the 19.11 of May; was then charged. • " Mr. Cooper slated that in this rase the penalty was twenty shillings for working or allewing to be worked a boat not licensed. The diff e rence bets e n the two cases was, that in the.foriner {ease the occupier or occu piers of a licenied .boat were "blade liable; in the letter the owner or owners of the beet not being licensed were liable, and the difficulty was to find fli t 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 Wiecrinen's Company for not having interfered with other people, w hose boats were constantly crowded, as if the servant s of the Company could be present at all points Where the public are in the habit of embarking. The Loup Meyou—Haye all the bodies of, the chil dren been found?—Mr. Cutler (the officer of the Com• patty) said that three had been found, and that one fe male was still missing. The Loan Mevon—l 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 employment. The Lome lleesoe having been infurmed:that ihe in- K ll y a rre s Th°ll' ..6 tv_ l quest was still sitting, said, that as hi all. probability the defendant would be at sufferer by the verdict of the jury, ALARMED. er-30 31" 1A's* in the shape of a deodantl, he should limit the penalty to " ten shillings and eoets; and his Lordship ordered, that if n ilsv.rnHor.niDngic,kaints.a,-GReiceirigared's, e'3westrYete Clara Maria, only daughter o' e for t ;o ReT h . the amount was not immediately paid, a distress war- _Es q., Dinham Ludlow.. rant should be issued against tbe goods and chattels of Th:s morning, at St. Pancras C i ! ure g a nd-r° 44 '• 0 ( 0 the defendant. • Spencer, of Illeeheirn-terrace. g -r-/ Krirlrancis o ar.° . cote Mr. Barn 'on—For seventeen years the Watermen and Emma, the eldest daughter of Mr. ce , 0 Lightermen's Company have been endeavouring to ac- itreet,.Edgewere-road. h - Je rs . 0 4 complish the okeet of regulating theeiumbers to be re- Om the 28th alt., Pe j o i l Dorset, Eleanor .ceived on.board the steamers, and we trust that we: shall Balstoe, e, Est! of PlTot r en t ri fe of the late Edmund Locker, e receive your Lordship's aasistance•to.effect sce great a • • - the 7. - public good. • . , f oy? Settle, - • 1 , 1 Ile The Lonn MAtnn—T shall certainly bring 'forward On the 26th .tilt., at klneld, near o _ oo, ,00 the question at the next Court of Aldermen. the Rev. IL J. Stve!; e , a ge d's. • steve t St. Saviour's Chure .4stor, An experienced old smuggler, named Thomas Myers, 4. 1" at HOY bourne, Alto n ' 00 0 'was charged by the solicitor to the Customs' with having On t 28th t., _ _ nos Themes Frederick, abe d 2n t l l , l 28 0 : `lllt at Stamford, William Lieute e 110 been found in possession of five pounds of,tsbacco. • cl• guilty: • The defendant, in a.whiningtene, pleade Es a ci Han, YOrkehire, Thornal li4r thc °te t ry The solicitor to..the Customs informed the ,Lord •. n t e n a ' a :cute lt t Tottenham, lees f On the alt., t o . tre7.lt'eley . -'selu ai ' e r .11 Pigett, . to Mayor, and Alderitan , PlotattelArood, who sat in jurtac- On the . 20t1i . .... A. ti..n wilhAtiteleirdship e that the smugglers were under the Mecklenburgli-siiitare. - m ir garet , re Vincent -squa r e; impseesien that, - if. they were caught with floe more Onehe 29th'ult e in • tobaecti ie their posseeeion at one, time thate.fite.peund;' late W. Tarte, Esti., aged 82. °l) .' l wi:.ight, the Act Of Parliament.could not touch them for a heavier fine than Si. The consequence' of such an im- eye. 112; "Stiiiid,. . TI ` 3 . l `rj l i ` LS Pressien was that' hey sometimes nuide3.each of them, a London : Printed' and • Published_ Ofecee se leg7 Strand;ln• the Piedfact of the SitVY 'clbzon - t4 - iteantaitiotatt and • Budakipigibiguiroooki Mr. Lmeci said he would commit him -(the pnsop en trial, and asked if he had anything to say in defeac a „is` V The prisoner, who Was bathed in tears, had nothivg ' and he was removed to the lock- up cell. is ° Mr. Burgoyne, solicitor to the banking house of Sire Scott and Co., attended to prosecute, and another P r ' d for .gentleman, whose name we could not learn, apPai r . e ' prisoner. CLERKEN WELL. 1 4 al , A man - . nailed George Welfare, who is emPloY e d Islington toll-bar, and who has been repeatedlY ct ar t° assaults on the police and on civilians at thus charged with the following conduct On the-previous night, at eight o'cloCk, police-cflietly ,Harris being en duty in King-street, was PassleL shop, at the door of whichthe prisoner was standieg, 000 prisoner)! exclaimed,'" Oh', there goes b— but I'll have a mug at' him." Kiddy Harris wag tb 04 of a most diabolical character; who was som e y°,sl executed at the Old Bailey for the murder a' t - ,ItY .wom.woman!,lel oan under circumstances of extraordinary cr n "„eri repeated this offensive language, and having been,: !Pi ' from the beer-shop in consequence followed lia r ' - v eil 0 him by the throat, and thrusting his hand bet' lotj leather stock and the skin pressed his knuckles ag a n A Windpipe. A polieeman ' , fortunately came up a n v ile l y Harris from his grasp. , The prisoner, however fa s ,ity,,,, Harris again, and clung to - him with desperate te n3 s o . _kicked him on the leg, and cat, and bruised the " co o face. Police-sergeant North, 14, deposed that nothilled exceed the pnioner's violence-at , the station-house. ctery,, 'an associate of thieves and the most depraved ch ar3 t 59 1 1 Mr. GREENWOOD said it was very disgraceful tha,tol. person should be employed in such a capacity as 114 a public toll-bar, and he was surprised that Mr• to io), e could tolerate it. The prisoner had done his best, OtV the constable, and he would send him to' prison, wi tu° for ten days. - • • A PROFLIGATE WIFE.---garah Duch, the wife of Duck, a French polisher, .residing in Kingsgate-str eet ' born, was charged with assaulting her husband. t ,l O It . appeared, from the evidence, that the defean_,,'" i;r woman of dissipated habits and unfeeling disposit„ r; Olu'lol,''; J husband, a hard-working man, deposed that she f squandered in drink his week's - 'earnings, l e aving- " oi ( o little children in a condition bordering on r ,, r e tion. She has been frequently brought th e o f Court,' and bound over to keep the peace towaru'' o ve" plainant. On Saturday night last he gave her a ° T o for the housekeeping expenditure for the week- °II tor:er last she said she had taken two of her little child rea„, Chapel, but, instead of doing so,. spent the eveniagl'A,fici shop with two low fellows, and returned home a t 'e<` o 4 toxicated, having squandered the whole soveraig ri pee e i fivepence. When her husband wanted to have the,,i i elO b e from her to get something for s u pp er , she flew at "'she l ee tigt•ess, tore his face, and knocked him dawn; d i e c°; l seized_thepoker, which,- haVing been disarmed dopy" held of the tongs. , Of/hese, too, she fortunate!, ty before she could inflict any serious injure. tlea to In default - of die payment of fine, she "W as comnli tt. I 'Muse of Correction for-a month. ileg George Rogers Was coffin - fitted for trial for stea,,cw.,, pounds of tea, value fifteen shillings, and other 10;40 property of Mr Jenny, a-grOcer • residing In Flat ° , 1 14 3 whosti-service he was engaged. thick Thomas Watson, alias John Boyle, a notorious &11. charged . With stealing w necklace, the proPe rl Y s .ll ol ,V l Hone, a poor woman, living in Peter-street, Sa o . l.n tiv e 0 11# The prosecutor Was in bed with her children a t iee p, be 1 on that morning, when she was aroused from 5 ',01 0 1 4 prisener haVing opened a box inthe room, from o g o t y had abstracted - the necklace. She screamed, 1 - 13 `„ 04 . 1 seen' him before, upon which he said he bad CO"nibe house with - his brother and a young woman', 01 turned out to be false, and the necklace Was , n person.—He was fully committed for trial. i f) TO Y COURSE OF EXCHANGE........(yES. - ' ..43 Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gibraltar ............ # Ditto, at sight l2 4 Leghorn .............. P Rotterdam 2U.12 6 Genoa .......... . ..... 41 . • Antwerp , 25 9 0 Milan ....... ...... ...... , Hatnburgh MM.. 13 14 - Venice .......... F Altona ... • 11 13 14i Naples ....... 1 - • Paris, 3 daySisight 25 65 Palermo per oz • ••• Ditto, 3 months 125 85 Lisbon .... . ........ • ."1. . . . . Marseilles ..... ....... 25 '9O Oporto. ...... 0 •''... . .. ~ Bourdeaux 25 90 Rio Janeiro ........ • FrAnkfert on Maine Petershurg,h, 3 LTA 364 .Buenos Ayres.. ''':,:it Berlin . 7 NeivVork ,21dys slb 1 ,/ o p Vienna, effee. 11.3 M.' 953 Philadelplaia ..... ~ 11;, 9 , -Trieste, ditto • • 954 PRICES of SUL L 'l3' s 7 Madrid 37 • Foreign Gold, b a•- rs ii 0 ri 3 . Cadiz %thee 36 New D0ub106115.-' 0 0 ,1 , Barcelona 36 t New Dollars ..... .••• 1 3 • Siiiille — Silver in rarB-".• „ 41 . J, ALLEGED URDER AN!) ROBB”' P. - 0 1h; 7 curF.—On 'Thursday Mr. Baker and : a jury sa t ;i • time at. , the TOwn of Whitby publie-honse, WaPP" determme the cause of death of Luke Williarns.,/0919frt witness was examined on Thursday, a charity School otiepsj Lane, who stated that on the afternoon of Se n ,t, 'll , o 6 inst hearing . a disturbance in B run swick-P l i,roWipif",j there, and saw the windows of Nicholson's houFe d 0,4 g ;t.. 1 looking through he observed the prisoner Hor.st e old nun, who was lying on the floor. Ire also 5 4 r, 4 , / iO,,,cV jump on the lower part of the old man's Et omacht.n.ell oci! that his heels slipped o ff the body, and he n eat7 .o 01, wards. , There were present . .A . short an d e o rcsi er / e j but they . did', - not interfere any way. .Til e de e itot r bein:4-tbe.whole of the evidence, read over the ftcontjsfteA the tom. previous inquiries, and pointed out wh l en u t, murder and manslaughter. The jury then retireuthe 10 1 1 , 0 0 an absence of four hours and a half, retuined c b ci e o nc e o ! e , room, saying that they wished the inquiry cou ld 11 ,11 adjourned, in order to 'see whether evidence a s l i r e, found to implicate some of the other F? ea Horsted. The inquiry was accordingly adjourn day next. Re ct°f Letts h On the 28th ult Harthe lady of t h e Rev. Joir„,„hW• n i tP 6 of St. Olave, in . -street, Mark-lane, of a ' l l7jacti , On the 28th ult.; at Charterhouse- square' t" Rev. William Goode, of a daughter. endi slr''' ' On the 29th -ult., at Wimpole-street, C'3l the lady of William Tillotson, Esq ,of a sea- e are' On the 29th ult., the lady of C o lonel GaseaYD ' Guards, ofa son. Rolf °f • On the 30th ult., at Bryanston-square, '"" Higgins, of a daughter. SUPPLY. On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, was read for 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 PECIIELL 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, t►ll 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 pro .forma. 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 fl-6 , .,0he Law Society of Manchester, praying that a ellg ould be inserted in the Bill, consolidating the paw!, of certain of these courts. Mr. T. DUNCOMBErose 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 appriinted, 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. Nichol!) 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 subject: might not be altogether neglected, tiny 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-rites 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 iinst 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- 'med. He came after this, and no doubt was very angry. Some dispute took place between him and Mr. Hail, 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 aninue.—(Renewed laughter.) He supposed that• this was something for the soul to take with it in its travels to tho 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 i t was Sportulage for the clerk, Sportulage for the court, or Sportulage for the suitors.—(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet opposite perhaps might explain the maeaning 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 Hon. Gentleman, by asking him to find a reason.—(Laughter.) He must come now to the judgment, and ho must say, that he never read so absurd . a judgment in his life. The judgment that Mr. James Ball should be excommunicated front the parish church for ono 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 304 should be deducted from the costs—(Hear, hear)—but even after this de duction, Mr. Hall's costs amounted to 1801.—(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 clasalkoffencea 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 lion. Gentle men) may be liable to be cited to the ecclesiastical cotirts—(Shouts of laughter)—for all these they were 'fable 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 het:ailed upon to do public penance in the church—(Re newed laughter)—and to recant—(Laughter.) Yes, he was seritinaf they would be obliged to recant.—(Laugh ter.) -He was not speaking of imaginary things, for in the district which he had the honour to represent 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 tollowing 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 rim up in fee:, Rebecca was allowed to expiate her- offence by go , ng t) 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 hid heard that this ceremony fur the good R-becca's soul was to take place, were disapp minted.—(Hear, hear.) Nell might the paroChial authorities anti the ecclesias tical arts be ashamed of such a proceeding ; but that Ilmire Sought to be more ashamed if it cont i nue d i ts sanction of courts from which emanated such an amount of - absurdity. What a hardship was it upon the subject that this individual had to pay 70/. f-r this proses:. Now, with regard to the, brawling, whit had happened to Mr. Theodore Williams within time 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, " Y ou d are not t i ght. " On -complainant saying, "If I am a co war d, I w ill meet you in any spot you please;" the defendant exclaimed, "What, what, we'll discuss the question, Sir."—(A laugh.) What was the result ? Why that the magistrates in flicted the highest fine which they could impose under the Police Act,.natnely, 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 cou'd be inflicted i a the one, 1801 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 Ez©t. r, for the purpose of putting down incontinency, fbrni - c4l , t hy 4 those other evil habits ; proving that ales ; • M, 110 'neglected their duty. and: were not-adeq • ^ 4ppteo the. immorality of the agen*Bishop might are:hretter opp.)rtunities of ascertaining the- truth than himself. The lion. Member was then proceeding to quote the Bill, when he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who stated that, as the Bill was sot before the House, it could not. be quoted, ,T. DUNCOMBE proceeded—The eeolesitub. 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 trion sense and common justice, and Lord Hale and Lord Holt had denounced the ecclesiastical courts as tri bunals aukinst gpminpn inst:Cp and egmpion scn§e..-r: (Hear, hear) .The Hof.. dentleraan concluded by moving the motion of which be had given notice. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Dr. NICHOLL said that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed on the second reading, so far as related to AU retention...of certain .portions of .ecclesiastical _juris diction; but the lion. Geatleman was not satisfied 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. Jt was absolutely essential for the maintenance of the Este- Wished 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 case would be attended with large costs in any of their courts of equity or common law ; but the ease 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 Caine to that House. The Hon. Gen tleman alluded to him as being personally connected with those courti. Now he had ceased to have any connexion with them since 1841, and he would not fo'r t' le future have any interest in them directly or in directly. There were two Commissions appointed, the Real Property Commission and the Ecclesiastical Courts Cominis,ion. 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 Hon. 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 heped the motion of the Hon. 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 reeding, 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. Be (Sir G. Grey) did not wish to deprive the ecclesiastical courts of such j urisdiction 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 the) ofronces of such description were brought before 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 introducqstinto that House went the length of abolishing all the ecclesiastical courts. But every Bill had proceeded, on the assumption that there should 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 courta , 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 tint 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 Mouse divided, when there appeared— ' For the motion • 70 Against it ll5 Majority . _ _ _ 1844. 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• seaters as to those of Episcopalians. Dr. BO WRING 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 ples 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.—(llear.) Mr. JERVIS depresated a syst-m 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 lion. 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 nut to be turned out only but afterwards placed in the stocks. Dr. BOWRING spoke a few words in explanation. The Gallant Gentleman had misunderstood his ques:iun. What he asked Wa3 whethex if a Quaker should act so injudiciously as to wear his hat in a church, would the common 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 Irsm Mr.WATSON and Mr. ROE BUCK, the galleries were cleared for a division. None, however, took 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 were 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 Hon. Baronet to instance any case which was cognizahle by the ecclesiastical courts that was not alio cognizable by the common law courts. • Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was very pugnacious.—(Laughter.) As the lion. and Learned Gentleman had appealed to him, he could only say that jurisdictions had been established fur 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. Thee SOLICITOR•GENERAL said that his Hon. and Learned Friend was certainly well acquainted with ono portion of the law.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 one 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 hini 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 ifi such a case by reason of the sacredness of the plac'. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew that for suc an o ff ence there could be no civil or criminal proceedin e in the common law courts.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he had answered the challenge of the lion. and Learned Member for Bath, by adducing this instance, and he wiis sure that others must occur to hie ingenuity. With rd gard to the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale, 116 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 . 109 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 consmit to the proposal. After a few observations from Mr. COLLETT mid Dr. NICHOLL the HoUse divided. on the amendment, when there appeared For the amendment 66 Against it M :ajority against the amendment --41 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 suck 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 ho good, though it was considered bad in the court below. The imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Ecclestastical Court was a great absurdity. , It decided' only ow the general question of the validity, of the will; it could not adjudge any point connected with . separate bequests, the administration was obligedto be conducted by the Cotirt of Chancery. This .was a great anomaly, and he hitt! the opinion of the best property lawyers of the king(l492, for 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 additiegal fees,. for persons always entrusted their business to their own solicitors, who conducted it throitgli a proctor; and the effect of the monopoly was only, to create a bad bitr, bad attorneys, anti 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 vka voce in the equity courts it was taken ia writing. Rut the ecclesiastical courts had hit on a mode that coin-. billed the disadvantages of both . without the advantages of either. There was one defence of these courts which he must alhide to; it was often said that it was.necessavy to keep up a folly of civiliansovho, raising, theinselites far above the mere law: of England, would devote them selves to those • great prinCiples of international law which sonietitnes came to - be argot d 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 latigh)—and he should wish t 0 , 4 10 that in a manner that would be the least disrespectful, to tht.ir 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 salari e d at: d sUp ported in some kind of school for the purpoie-if it Was of any use - •ito the country. It was said that it was . necessary there should be a body ;of men versed in... the principle of the Roman law. Now the Spanisli 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 tclesiastical courts in this Roman law, they would be requiredin the House of Lords when questions ire yoking its principles came before it. But.was this th e case lie might tipped to the Learned Doctors in the House to say whether the public did not always trust to the counsel tiken from the other courts ; they scarcely ever saw a doctor retained wt appeals before the. House of Lords.- He need net go into all .the details of the sub ject, but should conclude by moving his amendment. Dr. NICEIOLL, 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 itcould be satisfactorily shown that, up to, the present time, the business in them had been in efficiently conducted, .or that the change would be attended with • some •singular advantage to the•public. fle 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 hive 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 as unfortunate deceased, but really he thought the public had aright 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 atad 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 suegestion.—(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: p u b. 'fished of the property for the information of all the parties concerned ; that, however, was now abolished, in order that the Chancery lawyers, and the• Couinion lawyors 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 can* 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 Now, to the. test of erOss examination. , Now, -this course might bj , Adopted any time within nineteen years of death o f the testator; although the estate mightThaVe been gold four or five 'times over, Xi' oug h t : to b e knoWn by country .genticreen i . that , Iyhen they' devised 'their estates, those'. tlevitieajwargt):4R., Ist : iiiigati9A jot., a. _ ' tta smuggled goods every day, s upp o sing that, if deter go all they would have to p a y c ou ld no t ex ceed that so The Commissioners of Customs, h o wever, .104 power, by the 6th . an d 7th o f William, to a penalty of 100/. for every offence of srl i g ke eo however small the quantity' s m ugg led, as , lately . decided in the Court of Exchequer• no, defendant in thiS case very plainly showt4 , being. apprehended,- that he was one of those Who pa under the mistake of supyosing that be would bolo more than ato pay. " Oh," said he, lam uu de t r e s weight." As the old smuggl ers were m aking gres tbt ertions in their trade, it w as th e d e t e rmination 0f Commissioners to go for the full penalty of 1001. cases, however small the q u antity smugg l e d by the 1 vidual. The Loup MAYQR and Alderman T. Wool) too same view of the question which had been taken by r s solicitor to the Customs, and his Lordship struairoi, into . the defendant by' telling him that he was "CIO and that he must stay in prison until that amount . . be paid. I It is but fair to mention th a t th e s t a t e ment which made to the - Lord Mayia. a few days age, that 23,°,, i1te l v , eight of tobaCeo hadleen Ltely smuggled in cheeses into this country, was not made by Mr. PIO any other person in ihe e m pl o y :l4e ..t o f her 3 1 . e/ Cuitows. The dofendant was contmittell to prison. -- ' MA BYLEBOIVE. WO ' Daniel Wright, the young man wh o h a d been re li t otitft from Friday last, on a chierge el' having received 3 vv„„asl - . the banking-house of Sir Claude Scott and Co,, Can so square, by means 'id a forged cheque purporting t e D O been drawn on the Bank of England by William 1 ete Esq., of 11, Hyde-park-terrace, in favour of Mr. nlayne, the eminent silk mercer of New -Bond-str ee , placed at the bar for final examination this' day. A t ibl7 j The evidence taken on the, previo u s o cc asion, an Ori was fully reported in The . Sea of M a y 25, was tus - 0 0' over. A brief recapitulation of the p r in c ip a l facts tonal g with the case may be giYen. The priAiner calle d A Claude Scott's batik on the:3d May, and presenting 3 a if' for 3901., said that Mr. Redmayne wou ld feel obligy were cashed for him. Mr.' Taylor, one of the clerks.' oi bank, as Mr. Redmayne had an account there, did 5 . , ,,,11 paid him in six 50/. notes, four 201., and t en so vereigns pi On the succeeding morning a messenger from the, nu ts, England returned the cheque as a forged one; u""2" c itY evening of the same day Mr. Pulsford called, and sts'etdo the handwriting was not his. Information was giv en .o police, and one of the officers in the D e te c tive force trs.."._„go prisoner to' •Btriiiingharn, and subsequently back to .1-ive"ji: and at last succeeded in taking him into custody in t AO, toria Hotel, near the railway terminus at Euston'''sf where he had-lived with 'a companion (a female) fe b r e ioa,. days. In his possession was 51."45. 6d.; and in a box ing to him was a further sum of seventy so vereign o lV e handsome gold watch and'appendages, besides secert4 articles of jewellery. There being •no evidence ags t 'itir female she was discharged - on the first examination bill' stated on that occasion that thoprisoner had run up " the hotel of 36/. in the few days he had been there. ... p t. The evidence taken this day was of very little nj o dtl# Mr. Arthur Maitland, frem - the - Bank of-En la nd, it was the practice of the Bank to pay no cheques eN c ; such, as Were drawn upon the regular printed forg' s d tr # Bank. The cheqtia in question was not upon . one " forms, neither was the writing like Mr. Pulsford's. s iss r Mr. Pulsford, 11, Hyde-park Terrace, said that thee, tore was not his. - He did not know anything of the The prisoner's father was 'a clothier in Conduit-streeip gent-street, and had supplied witness with clothing• d , not know - Mr. Redmayne, of Bond-street. Mr Redmayne said, he knew nothing of an end the case. On looking at the cheque, it appearet,,.e, with the name of his clerk, Mr. Cates, but the va l 'lt ( r widely different, and the name was also differently sil e rti the die:pie it was written Keats). The prisoner s farm a most respectable man, and one of his sons, the younger brother, was in his (Mr. Redmayne's) en l llo, Mr.leates; -- clerk to last witness, said he knew n ° o . the draft whatever, neither did he know the voting the bar. _ • )0 ' ? hi, Ti eO . ° N 4 l "t th 4. th