The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

Of t ° nol o otre ht 6 broue' be' rerfier, ty in 1t4 , 5 ) 0f ?Aso . ' be P' b o to t bee ave bu t i t ; d e _ O O , ver ihe rel'y _ A d leno itiL rk e , ; e ow - 100 is dtbwo. 1g t he , ; :i te letter' b........ ,.. ........ S A ------- - ORTING _INTELLIGENCE. lIIBURY CLUB MEETING.—THURSDAY. ~,,,,r,nal Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 50 added; . three and a l, 9st 71b ; four yrs, Ilst ; five yrs. 1 Ist 911.); six yrs It t l te g e d, 12st ; the second horse to receive 10/. out of the ( 5 , and the winner to be sold for 100 L, &c. Two miles 1 1; °llb s.) ~ t-t ,1 h i — aY's M 3 tchanic, 4 yrs .........(Captain Williams) 1 kr:r bab ieston's Escrick, 3 vrs kr7 ll er's Ali ce L owe, 3 yrs 1 4. „,. Sadlees Fanny Callaghan, 4 yrs .. 4, g • Etivall's Queen of the Chase, 3 yrs 0 oidullStakes cf 10 sovs. each, with 100 added, for three yrs )I .;' 9 st 71b ; four vrs, lOst 121 b ; five yrs, list 61b ; six wis and a ged, list 101 b, &c. One mile and a half. The ks ner to be sold for 6004 &c. (10 Subs.) iI t S PrYs Subduer, 4yrs 1,..„07,41's Palladium,' 5 yrs D entinek's Bramble, 4 3 rs Wby rts of a len. —mover Sta on kes Of three 5 soya. pa each, with th 50 added. Last ,k t, (9 Subs.) 4 LN (Zip mile. 5 yrs, llst 41b ...(Capt. White) 1 ,r• k ~,, 3 0 a s Brother to Pharold, 4 yrs, 12,t 4113 lir, p' reel nd. Sistez• to Gobbo, 3 yrs,'9st 4 1 farce's Foxberrv, 5 yrs, list 41b 11, Z. Bentinck's The Great Mogul, 3 yrs, 9st 91b '' '' ll4 '3' Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 25 added, for the t t•t ri ,_ beaten horses. Half a mile. .• , t iv g,,k,tad's S[r Bok, 3 yrs, lOst...(Hon. S. Erskine) 1 lir, n • u Alalley's Nora Crema, 6 yrs, llst 101 b kr, rhaldeston's Escrick, 3 yrs, lOst 121 b kr, s' NYs Vat es, 3 vrs, 12st - 0 lb:' ` Miet's Fanny Callaghan ; 4 vrs, list. 61b 0 t•twall's Spanish Ox, 4 ' yrs, 9st 101 b kat h S IITTON PARK RACES.—WEDNESDAY. ii st : ey. . sirs.-51r. R. Barton's Glideaway, 3 yrs t, beat Mr. Fowler's Filby by a neck. . 1 , in dley Pool Stakes of 10 sovs. each (handicap), with ittv:Westley'so added. Twice round and a dis. ~ 14 8 Councillor, 5 yrs (A lad) 1 sr, irtoo nd Pickwick, aged T il awltin's Nix-my-Dolly, 5 yrs )I fle e ,f °ll "viag also started, ' but were not placed :—Mr. s vs Il latch . less,ag ed, Mr. R. Peel's Cane, 4 yrs, and Mr. k it 1, aientina, 5 yrs. corl t e " 501. --Mr. Holland's Outcast (Stagg) beat Mr. The r 8 The Bell. lir ti!atton Park Stakes of 5 sovs. each, with 30 added. 14: .44., Heats, once round and a dis. , P r i , s The Rhine, 4 yrs (Ennis) 1 1 I, 4 ".li art te a Vldentina, 5 yrs '4t - 511's Glideaway , 3 vrs k Selling Stakes of 5 ' sovs. each, and 20 added. Heats, r, l ir , once round and a dis. Ll'he e ,„ bb 8 N r ictoria, - 6 vrs walked over. "ltir•,:ralrY Stakes were won by Mr. Btntley's Major, , two others. ) ka ,a, THURSDAY. 14 0 ele t- R„ 2 °L, one mile and half, over four hurdles—Mr. Ottee,, --4, aged (Saunders), beat Mr. Mills' Major, aged. Leta elakes of 5 sovs. each, with a purse added, heate, 'a . °ll ill two heats by Mr. Bradley's Tantalus, aged, Ili t ' r , i g kr w• ,, S, , • dcox s Northern, and two others. i. "'"a Stakes of 5 sovs. each, 3 ft, and 10 added ; heats, itt 11.• Pli ti ,„,,, s once round and a distauce. i'• Jon." ..,, Countess of Lichfield, 3 yrsAPilsby) 1 2 1 V. li a ,`, b CaiLiff, 5 yrs Th e p" , rd's Pickwick; aged 2 3 dr. lk,,llti band Stakes of 3 sovs. each, with 15 added once ) .4 ` o. a u a distance over four hurdles, were won in two "k ‘ lt i t . ', air. James's ' Jack, aged, (Saunders), beating Mr. I , h e 8 Little Dick and two others. The t„ KNIGHTON RACES.—WEDNESDAY. 3 if 6,7, 401- shire Handicap of 10 soya. each, h ft, and only h t,, i 'mared ; the second saves his stake; with 30 added; i lfr 1, , e .e round and a distance. ilr.o4 tl ia e or's, , Tippoo, aged (G. Francis) 1 f ,'. k in 4?, , 8 I austa, 6 yrs I,`‘Pt •l i,;',' s Sinbad, 4 yrs uct,qo ',Joker's Montezuma, aged 4 ~, • I r 11 l 'gled Aimwell, aged 4441rorth's b f by ' Giovanni, out of Cracksman's dam 6 i t —4id ea Stakes of mile and each, with 20 added; heats, one li n ti, mile and a quarter. 14.1/ ', B Brilliana, 3 yrs (Clay) 2 1 1 Ilp,Taal's La Polka, - 3 yrs, 7st 21b k "1° ' r. k i „ r Brother to Donna 3 3 2 ~, ' l ° l 'B Sinbad, 4 yrs '4 p, STCCKBRIDGE RACES.—THURSDAY. h'it -°4ll Ce Stakes of 50 soya. each, h ft, for three-yrs old ~a i„ 8 ' 8 8t 91b, and fillies, Bst 61b. New mile. (30 Subs.) 40•6 1 44 Richmo n d' s Red Deer (Rogers) 1 fir ' ‘ll,ent,inck's All-round-my-hat ..... 2 r . Iv ‘ ° rY s Barricade ••• reford's b by Camel, out of Margellina g, 4 Won in a canter. ~Th, f ._, FRIDAY. 1 4 1 i 'Teat Hampshire Stakes of 25 sons. each, 15 ft., 748 - 1 ., 111 Y if declared, with 100 added ; the second 'od a 11 ' 8 stake. 2 miles. (38 Subs., 25 of whom It rect) r t, Coiscllpr's Idleness 3 yrs, 6st (A. Day) 1 r l'11; ee l s f, by Slane, out of Seakale, 3 yrs, sst 10lb 2 mla - 'c'llowing also started, but were not placed : (!tif, Qlonlyon's Ben-y-Ghlo, 4 yrs, Bst 101 b—M r ,. , h 4 ttf u t i t's Cattonite 5 yrs, Bst 51b—Mr. Jahn Days ~ a l y i;', Dodger, 5 ' yrs, 7st 10Ib . —Mr. John Day s 44 , 6:1 11 ', aged, 7st 41b—:-Mr. Bristow's, Freystrop, 3 2i, ' i i i, lit ,' agst Freystrdp-2 to 1 age, Idleness-2 to 1 tal,;', 4 raburini--4 to' 1 agst Ben-y-Ghlo -4 to 1 agst 1 1 -r° P. Won by half a neck. g ' 041 Stakes of 50 soya, each, h. ft. New mile. Ltt li G b6 .) ; , ,e ll s - • 13 entinek's All-round-my-Hat, Bst (Rogers) . 1 4 4: r b 4 dler nd Emerald, Bst 6lb 1 6 L'reen's Barricade, Bst 61b 1 4 t t ,i;: a ps t Emerald, and 6 t0..4 agst Barricade. Won 4 e '.'k ards' Handicap Plate of 801, with a S,ew eep f:es of 3 sovs. each,' II Cats, 25 sovs. added. ats, kttoile and a half. (31 Subs.) , .- ill% ?, a dler' Bellissitna, aged, .list 41b 0 0 1 1 te p w alrs Venatrix, 4 yrs, 9st 0 1 0 2 I t: - 1 . P C ha el nd Pi eisni . z, aged, 9st 121 b 0 0 2 dr & 1 -4 arce's Jack, 5 yrs, lOst 61b i 1 , 1 4' . n ):) , a Ys Artful Dodger, 5 yrs, list llb 1 0 dr I ‘ ', illiam'snd Windsor, 6 yrs, 10st 21b 0 0 dr ‘iP '.4 , ll ; 4 nd New Forest Deer, 3 yrs, est 101 b 0 3 dr i'ir, j ' 4) l ,ay's Tamburini, aged, llst ` o l . l. rci a' Q ' u . .,aY's . Vol , tri, 3 yrs. lOst 2113••• 1 40,..1entinck s Great Mogul, 3 yrs,Bst 81b 3 .dr 1 Th 4, 4 , 4 s Hampton, 5 yrs, lOst 1011) 4 dr ort c'° ll owing also started, but were not placed:—Mr.. Pie's Walking-stick 4 yrs, list 121b—Lord Matd ',ol(e„''s Alechanic 4 yrs, ' lOst 61b—Mr. England's Spring °st is',..Yr_s, Bst l'Olb—Mr. ' Bottler nd Alice Lowe, 3 yrs, 4 1r -4)---- I . lr. E. Batson nd Pelerine, 6 yrs, Bst 31b—and, I? at tersall's aid Russell Frost, aged, Bst 31b. % I t :. first heat was won by three lengths, the second by t he f °artb and shoulders, the third by half a length, and I,_ wi„,,-.. by nearl twent lengths. - "aur broke down in the second heat. T REFORM CLUB. ' Parliamentary Library, now in course o f forma. 144 9 1 4 establishment,* will, if carried out according . this laid down, be commensurate with the ma bh m- t • i t ttc4,_ tlf the building, and the n . umber of members t a ea 'nu:iodates ; and the admirable system which has • h a i 4°Pted of arr anging and indexing the papers , w ill L ,(- 1 f great value to the practical Membe rs of the '4E.; (4 Commons, and still more so to those who wish Th o einl e SO. 'ett l ai,!eports and papers published by the H . ouse . of 41 0t16, ‘ , 1 1a during the present century,. commencing im `‘viati.Y after the union of Great Britain and Ireland, h' eel l taken first. The whole of these papers, at a 'go o calc u l at i on about 12,000 in number, will be sorted *44 1 'bjects and ' sub-divisions, and arranged unde r the 4 eb,, 41 the order of their dates. Each subject wi l l then Diti ceti vil 9 up complete in itself, and the several subjects • I tlsy I n alphabetical order upon the shelves, so that Ith tre e ; upon facility. given subject, can be referred to A.. greatest • hi: ln gle example will show the advantage of such an • - ,,R,e,lrnent better than any other means, and we select 4 4 ,'"Ject of education, bound up as follows 1) . AV 41 114 4s and returns relating to England and 5 vols. Itt o bit Scotland it e t ° Ireland and the Colonies bi kr ts, England and Wales tto t to, Ireland and Scotland 1 1 1 :let .. i . lv venty-two volumes, containing the subject co.m -' - 4 -re 're 1801 to 1842, both inclusive, and comprising 441 ) , 2, 4° separate publications, which, under the ordi 1-„`rargeinent, are distributed amongst, perhaps, half L' il e, i 'l 3 ;_,,vi•lumes, and which must first be looked out in L'1•I d'Werent indices in general, including together the . Nle:;,'801-1838, and a separate index for any session ttcee latter year. ,tittle "'" e tk bard-wo r ki n g statistician alone can fully appre "laY e value of such an arrangement ; but e ver y o ne • 4 t 11 1. a , , some idea of the immense saving i n time, la• ti t ; 1 disappointment that must result. • bel t a rils of 400 volumes are already placed upon the tt, 4t, Comprising nearly the whole of the Reports— th e : 11 .e ‘1 ; eeMplete - to 1842, will form 900 to 1,000 vols. v t „ a PerB of subsequent sessions will be added,. from . th e to those already bound, so as to maintain t,-11,tinuity of the arrangement. t „? t ete t t ,', volume is furnished with an excellent table of - ael e -s t with rJerences to pages, and a copy of the Rql l , iat f these con t en t s will be bound up together for a thr ap intl ex , i n w hi c h, h owe ver, will be inserted an t aitt e P ° eurober of references to relevant matter coil ht -11 nder other heads This index will then exhibit 41 thie e % all ee th e w h o l e o f the publications upon any given r e , t) aviat; rtn g th e arrangement still more to perfection, and difficult) , 'arising from former habits or tech- C o l - % a opyof the indexes, published by the House • h., "aat raon:will be marked in red ink, in such a manner . '" l per i- can be seen at a glance what situation any single \\reoccupies in the new arran gement. _ t i ßar l j e ;.?atmeild the simple and admirable plan of this ~,, .. e L - arlia mentary Encyclopaedia to the careful study tity bibliographers who, instead of s tudying . si , m t. p e. i- r tett:plip-Plex everybody, classifications not excepted, b) 11, up I vith :lated philosophii al , nicely wound . k ellc( t e . h eti on miscellaneous, in which we would reconi . tatty - t he student always to look first for any book he a „ lit— the chan ces are gr eat that he will find it there. 't -a V t tes lli es of the subjects and sub-divisions, and t he ''for e ara fay lettered upon the back, and standing , as "ffe t ex p l ained in alphabetical order upon the shelves, LO t y, 410 eye a conspicuous synopsis of the index. not Paper s p r i nte d by the House of Lords, which are the s uPli cates of th ose of the Commons, will complete ki n9d e o ies °l' the Parliamentary Papers of the United 1 110 ;t 1, 41 , thus rendering available an enormous mass of e atir c i alll ahle information, a great portion of which was th e w( 3r t . useless, from the impossibility of finding it under 1, 111 : 41 'Y arrangement. 9) , " seherae for which we understand was suggested til e 14 .3 f the oldest and most persevering labourers in liberal cause. - tt 44,. C ornunission f or M etropo lit an I m p rovemen ts had tikee: lll 4 on Wednesday, at the office, in "Whitehall 'tditi Coannissioners present were the Earl of. J. Lord L - ttelton Lord Colborne, Right Hon. kr. "e Y rri&s, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. H. Gaily Knight, Ch arle s —r nan Humphery, Mr. A. Milne, the Hon. k,._Gore, and Sir Robert Smirke. y•eateus_urawford had an interview with Mr. Gladstone, • "laY, at the office of the Board of Trade. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 21. Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock. The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from Cork, in favour of the Thrkenhead Docks Bill. • Lord COMBERMERE presented a petition from Cheshire in favour of protection to agriculture. • DON CARLOS. The Earl of CLARENDON, after referring to a cor respondence which had taken place between Don Carlos and the Noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,, with reference to a proposal of Don Carlos for the mar riage of.his son to the Queen of Spain, expressed a wish to have some explanation on the matter from her Ma jesty's Government. He wished to know if her Ma jestfs Government had any objection to produce the correspondence which had taken place on the subject ? The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that whatever part her Majesty's Government might take with respect to the marriage of the Queen of Spain, due atttention would be paid to the honour and independence of that country. It was perfectly true that a Noble Lord had submitted to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) a letter from Don Carlos, in which his Royal Highness referred to the Noble Lord bearing the letter as being in possession of his (Don Carlos's) intentions, and of the sacrifices which he was inclined to make for the pacification of Spain. That Noble Lord stated that Don Carlos was ready to relin quish his claim to the Spanish throne upon his son's marriage with - Queen Isabella. Whether the Queen was to marry his son as a subject, or as sove reign, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) could tot say. Upon receiving this communication, he had im mediately informed the Spanish GovernMent of it, but he had not thought it his duty to press for an answer. •He did not think it was expedient to pro duce the correspondence which had taken place. Several petitions in favour of the legalisation of Pres byterian mixed marriages were presented. LAW OF LIBEL BILL. Lord CAMPBELL postponed the discussion on this Bill until the third reading, in consequence of the absence of Lord Denman. The report on the Bill was then brought up. INSOLVENT DEBTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Lord BROUGHAM moved that the report on this Bill be brought up. The object of the Bill was to amend the Bill by which the arrest in mesne process was abolished. That Act had been found to be defective in many of its parts, and it was to remedy the evils which were complained The Bill was also intended to reach the culpable debtor, while it would give protection to the unfortunate one. There were cases in which this Bill would retain the system of imprisonment for debt, but in substance this system, by this Bill, would be abolished. The Bill would only retain it in very extreme cases, or in cases of absolute and distinct fraud ; and against a contumacious debtor. Under the former Bill on this subject which he had introduced in 1942, not less a sum of money than two millions had been distributed amongst creditors. He therefore had great confidencein the present Bill, seeing that the last had worked so well. He said they ought to abolish imprisonment in all cases where the debtor could show that he was an unfortunate, and not a guilty or contumacious debtor. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had intro duced e dill on this subject, but his Noble and Learned Friend proposed to abolish imprisonment for debt in in all cases absolutely ; and he proposed that in the case of a fraudulent debtor, the insolvent should be indicted. This provision never could be carried into effect, as very few creditors would be found to prosecute; whereas the provision in his (Lord . Brougham's) Bill would carry itself into effect. This Bill was not to apply to any per son before the Ist of January, 1845. He would at pre sent rest contented with the step he had taken, but he would, probably, in the next session of Parliament, in troduce a measure with respect to the distinctions which at present existed in the law relating to debtors and creditors, between traders and non-traders. He did not believe that a sum of 1001. had been lost in the City of London by the abolition of arrest for debt on mesne process. He had made many inquiries, of tradesmen, and none of them had experienced any loss in conse quence. All he asked of their Lordships was, to com plete their m eisure of 1842, which had been found to work well, and with advantage to the public. Lord COTTENHAM had not expected to be called upon to discuss a subject which their Lordships had dis posed of in the last week in April, when he moved the second reading of a Bill on this very subject, namely, the Debtors and Creditors Bill, which stood this night for a third reading, and the principle of which was unani mously affirmed on the 30th of April last. He ex pressed his surprise that his Noble and Learned Friend should now object to the abolition of imprisonment for debt. It was true, his Noble Friend intended to relax the system of imprisonment for debt, but he retained the principle. He (Lord Cotten ham) was surprised that such a change had taken place in his Noble and Learned Friend's opinions in so short a time. In April last his Noble and Learned Friend had advocated the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and, in proof of this, he need only refer to what took place on the second reading of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill in the month of April last. The Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend would alter all the existing bank ruptcy laws, while it took away one of the most im portant functions of the courts of equity. He thought their Lordships had a right to adhere to the decision to which they came in the last we in April, and not, by assenting to the Bill of his Noble Friend, rescind the vote to which they came on that occasion. He admitted that if his Bill did not to pass, the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend would be a very useful measure. - Lord ASHBURTON thought there were cases in which imprisonment for debt should be still continued. He thought the Bill of the Noble and Learned Lord who had just sat down was quite as stringent with respect to imprisonment for debt as the Bill of his Noble Friend opposite (Lord Brougham). He thought the man who took the property of his neighbour, under a promise, to pay for it in a month, and did not at the end of that time do so, was as much guilty- as the man who committed theft; and, in his opinion, a man so conducting himself ought to be deprived for a time of his personal- liberty. He thought there ought to be imprisenment for debt in all cases where the insolvent could not make a fair and open disclosure of his affairs. The LORD CHANCELLOR said their Lordships were placed in a considerable difficulty, inasmuch as they were called upon to decide between the two measures of his two Noble and Learned Friends (Lord Brougham and Lord Cottenham). One Noble and Learned Lord said that his Bill was better than the other, and how were their Lordships to come to a decision upon the re lative merits of the two Bills ? He would recommend their Lordships to refer the Bills to a Select Committee, in order that the best parts of each Bill should be adopted and placed in one Bill. This appeared to him to be the only way in which they could get out of the difficulty in which they were placed. lie thought they ought not to make such great alterations in the la* of the land as had been proposed without due consideration. By the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham) a prince of the blood might be sum moned before a Bankruptcy Commissioner, interrogated, and, if his answers should not be satisfactory, committed to prison. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not mean to say that there should not be this equality in the law— God forbid that he should—but this he said, before they proceeded to make such large changes in the established law of the land they ought to have ample opportunity of well considering the subject. He thought that the system of imprisonment for debt acted in terroretn over persons, and restrained them from running into debt. He ad vised their Lordships to be cautious in considering this question, and not to come to any conclusion upon it without first having fully investigated the subject. Lord BROUGHAM was ready to accede to the pro position of his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) of referring these Bills to a Select Committee. Lord CAMPBELL had heard the speech of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack with much sur prise and mortification, for it now appeared that impri sonment for debt was not to be abolished during the present session of Parliament, although they had arrived at the third reading of this. Bill. It was now, after the Bill had passed through all the " stages up to the third reading, in the end of June, that his Noble and Learned. Friend on the Woolsack came forward to oppose it. He (Lord Campbell) could not but regret that his Noble and Learned Friend had thought it his duty to take such a course. On the second reading of this Bill his Noble and Learned Friend had supported it, and now he came down and opposed it. He (Lord Campbell) could assure his Noble and Learned Friend that this change of con duct would not meet with the approbation of the country. To reject the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) would be to reverse a decision which had already passed that House. The Duke of WELLINGTON said they were not called upon to reject that Bill. There were two Bills before their Lordships, and the proposition before their Lordships was to refer the two Bills to a Select Com mittee. Lord COTTENHAM said the effect of sending these Bills to a Select Committee would be to reject this Bill ; and he believed that that was the object of the Fro position.—(Hear, hear.) The Th LORDs Earl lof eNHCIETILEOAR ex d. abolition of imprisonment for debt would have the most pernicious effect, and therefore he should oppose the Bill of the Noble and Learned Lord (Cottenham). The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved that the Bill be re-committed. The Bill was then ordered to be referred to a Select Committee. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS' BILL. Lord COTTENHAM then moved the third reading of this Bill. - The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that this. Bill also be re-committed. Lord DENMAN•supported the original motion. He regretted that the decision which had been arrived at on the second reading of the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) was not to be carried out ; for he thought it was of the highest importance that impri sonment for debt should be abolished without delay. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that if the Select Committee on these two Bills should be appointed, he would suggest that the Committee should proceed with its labours some day next week, and continue sitting de die in diem, so that there would be very little loss of time, as the report could he made in a few days. The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was not intended to overthrow this Bill by referring it to a Select Com mittee. dheth2elystmofigAhtugeuxspte.ct Histhe ret of that d CommCommittee E a lj b L o u s t a ! sition of referring the Bill to a Select Committee was virtually to reject the Bill ; and he would recommend his Noble and Learned Friend to wash his hands of the Bill, and leave the blame of its defeat to those to whom it was justly due. After a few words from Lord KENYON, Lord COTTENHAM said he had no hope of getting this Bill passed this session, but he had done all is his THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 22, 5844. , - power to relieve those who were now suffering from the existence of the system of imprisonment for debt. The Earl . of MINTO looked upon the preposition of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack as an in direct way of getting rid of the Bill. He should cer tainly support the Bill. Their Lordships then divided on the motion that the Bill be read a third time, when there appeared— Contents 4 Not Cont nts - 28 Majority — 24 The Bill was then ordered to be referred to a Select Committee. Messengers from the Commons brought up the Parishes (Scotland) and other Bills. The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a Bill for securing the better administration of charitable trusts in England and Wales. Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Nine. for-Abingdon, the newly-elected Member had at his chairing distributed 50/. among the crowd from a bag of money in his lap ? The following ac::ount of the chairing had appeared in the newspapers. (Here the Honourable Gentleman commenced read ing a description of the chairing,, of the Solicitor- General. It stated that ' the procession started from .the Town Hall, which consisted of a brass band, with twenty pensioners. The Solicitor-General sat in a chair ornamented with flowers and ribbons ; the chairing of a Member was considered important, for it was customary for the gentlemen who were elected to take a bag of silver money with them, which they distributed among the crowd. One gentleman, Mr. Mabberley, distributed 1201. in this way, Mr. Duffield not more than 701.—(A laugh)—and the L( arned Solici tor-General threw away but 50/. It was amusing to see the old women holding out their aprons to. receive the money which the Hon. and Learned Member, like an elegant gentleman as he was, threw away.—(A laugh.) There was a great deal of scrambling, scratching, shout ing, and fighting, such a scene took place as baffled all description, and thus terminated the Abingdon election.) —(Much laughter.) He (Mr. Christie) believed that the words of the late Act of Parliament did not apply to the custom of " scramble-money," but one could see that with a little arrangement it could be converted to the purpose of direct bribery. It could not, at all events, tend to exalt the purity of election ; and he therefore begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, whether it was true or false that he contributed, in the manner he had just described, to promote the purity of Parliamentary election ?—(Hear, hear.) ' sentiments sentiments which did not pass - merely . from the lips, but which he felt in his heart. He knew' it was now in vain to appeal to her Majesty's Govern • went ; but 'if there were any there who would make a motion on the subject, he would most willingly join them in opposing the measure ; but he would not make any motion. Lord J..RUSSELL said he would state in a few words the error in which he thought the Hon. Gentleman, whom he believed to be perfectly sincere in his opinion, was involved. He had received several communications from his constituents, saying they would withdraw their 'support from him if he supported the Bill. Now, he could not but think that the Hon. Gentleman, and others out of doors, had mixed up two questions which ought to be kept separate. —(Loud cheers) They laid stress on the religious opinions of the Unitarians, but then they ought to accept them as they were accepted by the Act of Toleration. If the Unitarians were to have the benefit of the Act of Toleration they ought :to be treated on the same footing as the other Dissenters. — (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman did not think so; but if that were the case their legislation should be in conformity with it, and they ought to make laws to dis courage the Unitarians. He should call that religious persecutiour-(Hear. hear.)—but then their legislation would be direct. As to the question of property, that question bad been fully argued, and he had had no an swer to the objection, that they could not ascertain to whom these trusts were to be given, if taken from the Unitarians. He was of opinion that there should be some limit as to time where there was such a variation in religious opinions as there was amongst the Dissen ters, who were not hound together by an establishment. The utmost that could be done was to let such property fall to the ground. Though by law toleration was hot given to the Unitarians until 1813, yet, for practical pur poses, toleration had existed for the last century. And if such cases had come forward in the time of Sir IL Walpole, and Lord Chatham, it never would have been permitted .that such persons should be divested of their property. He must say that he never was more tho roughly convinced that a Bill was necessary than at present. It was only right that impartial justice should be done to hll classes of their fellow-subjects, without any reference to their religious tenets, and he would give the measure his entire and cordial support.—(Cheers.) Sir R. EEL said, it grieved him very much that his Hon. Friend behind him could have supposed for a mo ment that recent circumstances.could have had anything whatever to do with the present question. He assured his Hon. Friend that nothing that had occurred would induce him to vary the opinions he had formerly enter tained and expressed, and the able arguments which had been advanced pro and con. on the late dtsctssion only seemed to confirm him in the truth of his opinions as to the rectitude and necessity of the Bill. Ile should consi der it disgraceful in a Government to withdraw a Bill under such circumstances. It had been rightly said that the Government could have no party interest in bringing forward the measure, and that they were wholly influ enced by better motives. The Government gave no assent by their advocacy of the Bill to any particular class of religious opinions. It was a question not of faith, but of property—(Hear, hear)—and, if Parlia ment did not interfere, there would be a general crusade against, those holding that property. The Bill was in troduced for the sake of religious peace and concord, and to quiet long-established possession, and prevent The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a very in correct and, he believed, irregular practice had been intro duced into that House of putting questions not relating to matters before the House, or with regard to Bills with which Members might be charged, but upon matters wholly foreign to it, and occurring in a different place, and; which might excite the curiosity of Hon. aiembers. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it was true, gave him notice of his intention to put this question so long ago- , as yesterday week, but circumstances prevented him (the So:icitor-General) being in his place at the time for askinj . questions. Ile had, however, hoped that the opportunity afforded the Honourable and Learned Gentleman in the interval for reflection, would induce him to consider what extreme impropriety there Was—(oh, oh !)—in putting a question ,of this description. He certainly should not give sanction to the practice which had been introduced ; and, therefore, he begged leave most distinctly, at the same time with out any want of respect for the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, to decline answering such a question. Mr. CHRISTIE said that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could take what course he liked, either to answer or not the question which be had put ; but he put it to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as a Mem ber of her Majesty's Government, which brought in a Bill to disfranchite Sudbury.—f(Cheers.) COMMONS' INCLOSURE BILL. In answer to a question from Lord J. 'MANNERS, respecting the Commons' Inclosure Bill, . . 'the Eitrl of LINCOLN said that it was not true that the Government had taken charge of the Bill. On Monday, probably; he would be able to state what were the intentions of the Government with regard to it, as he intended before then to have an interview on the subject with the Noble Lord who introduced it. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. SHEIL wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether he had given any directions to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with regard to the distribution of the patronage of the Church with regard to education. Sir R. PEEL said he did not know upon what the ques tion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was founded, and what he stated to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land was that he was desirous that the patronage of the Irish Church should be appropriated to those who had the best claims on the ground of professional merit and character, and that he hoped he should never bear a word respecting any appointment on political grounds. He gave his cordial approbation to thesystem ofNationel schools, but it was untrue that he desired the Lord Lieutenant to require any test on the subject of education. He would again caution Honourable Gentlemen not to place implicit credit in reports which appeared in news papers.—(Hear, hear.) SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the sugar duties. litigation. Mr. SHAW believed the first clause of the Bill was founded en justice, but thought the second clause most unjust in its nature, and would move an amendment to it in Committee. He thought the Synod of Ulster ought to he excluded from the operation of that clause. He had been informed, that the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sergeant Wilde) had been in structed by a large and influential body of Presbyterians to oppose the Bill, and did not sigrify his intention of declining to give that opposition until the very night before the Bill was introduced. A large body of Pres byterians in both countries were opposed to the Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE explained. Sergeant MURPHY defended the conduct of the Hon. Alember for Worcester. His declining to oppose the Bill was the very best proof of its utility. He thought the measure both just and necessary. Mr. DARBY said his objection to this Bill was to be found in the fact that it excluded evidence with respect to one class of persons, and admitted it with respect to other classes. As to the suggestion of the Right Hon. Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), to extend the period of adverse possession to sixty years, what was that but ad mitting the principle of the Bill ? Colonel SIBTHORP said the Hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Plumptre) was the proper person to decide whether or not he would yield to the suggestion which had been made, and withdraw his amendment. If, how ever, he persisted in pressing it to a division, it should have his most cordial support. Mr. COLLETT said he should give his support to the Bill, because he thought religion was a matter between man and his Maker, and with which no human power had any right to interfere. Sir Ir. JAMES said the second clause of the Bill was the clenching clause in his mind, and if the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would consent to withdraw it, he should then have his support to the other portions of the Bill. A prescription as to property was one thing, and could be established ; but a prescription as to doctrine was another, and not capable of proper regulation. The Bill, in his opinion, was calculated to increase rather than to diminish litigation. Mr. WARD said, if the second clause were omitted, then the Bill itself might as well be withdrawn, for in that clause was its virtue. It seemed to be forgotten that the object of the Bill was to put a step to litigation, and not to regulate articles of faith. He supported it entirely from an impression of its justice, and not on political or on religious grounds. It was a Bill, in his opinion, that did infinite credit to the Government. Mr. LAWSON said he should oppose the Bill; but in doing so he begged it to be understood that he was not moved to that course by religious hostility, but merely by legal grounds. Colonel VERNER considered the Bill to be a great injustice ; if Members had understood its tru e cha racter, thre would have been a great majority against it. He regretted whenever he was compelled to vote against the Right Hon. Baronet, but, on this occasion, he felt it his duty to do so. Mr. M. PHILIPS said the Bill was a measure of simple justice and equity. Ile did not believe that Chris tian toleration and charity would be at all promoted by allowing the law to wrest the chapels from those who now held them. He should give his support to the mea sure, and tendered his thanks to her Majesty's Govern ment for having risen superior to the influences that might have been brought to bear on it. Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the Bill might safely be allowed to go into CoMmittee; it had been very fully discussed, and the whole force of the Bill was contained in one clause, and that would be discussed in the Committee. Mr. ESCOTT hoped it would be allowed to go into Committee; and he hoped, also, that no alteration would then be made in it that would injure its operation. He did not think the Government was deserving of all the praise that had been given to it for its disinterestedness in bringing in this Bill, for it was calculated greatly to increase the power of the Government. Mr. PLUPTRE, after the expression of opinion on the part of the House, would not press his motion to a division. The motion being withdrawn, the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. GREENE in the chair. On clause 1 being proposed, Mr. HARDY said the great body of the Dissenters were against the Bill, and he therefore objected to the terms of the preamble. Mr. BERNAL said that the preamble had been post poned; they were then on the first clause. Mr. HARDY had the same objection to the enacting part of the first clause, and proposed that the words, " being Unitarian Dissenters," should be inserted. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Hon. Mem ber totally misunderstood the nature of the clause. It was necessary for the protection of all classes of Dis senters. During the greater part of the last century all Dissent was illegal in England, and till a lattr period in Ireland. If any question should arise as to tha founda tion of a chapel established during that period, the Chancellor would be obliged to decide that the endow ment must be taken from those who held it, and given. to a form of worship legal at the time. As this was intended to be a measure of justice to all, if the amend ment of his Hon. Friend were passed, it would defeat the very object of the Bill, and he should, therefore, oppose it. The amendment was withdrawn. The clause was then agreed to. On clause 2 being proposed, Mr. S. WORTLEY said he felt great objection against throwing the protection of Parliament over those cases where there was not merely a change of doctrine, but where there was a clear misappropriation of the trust funds, almost amounting to a fraud. He should, there fore, be anxious to know what was the precise force of the words in the clause relating to this point. He looked upon this matter as a question of law and property, and not as a religious one. Mr. SHAW proposed the following amendment : " Providing that, where the particular religious doc trines or opinions appeared in documents contempora neous with the endowment, and preserved amongst the authentic records of the congregation, the usage should not be taken as evidence contradictory of such docu ments." He made this amendment in order to meet the case of the Presbyterians of the Synod of Ulster. The Bill did not apply to cases where deeds existed, or to cases where documents as good as deeds existed. Under this last principle the Wesleyan Methodists were ex empted from the operation of the Bill. The Presbyte rians of the Synod of Ulster had not deeds, but they had documents, which were as good evidence as deeds. The Synod of Ulster had existedfor 200 years. From 1691 they had public records of their proceedings, and they were in the nature of courts of justice. They held the discipline of the Church of England. They were a sort of quasi Church Establishment in Ulster from that time to the pre sent ; and they had records setting forth their reli gious doctrines as indisputable, and as satisfactory in the way of evidence as any records could be. In the report of a law case which he held in his hand, those records were received as evidence. The Presby terians of the Synod of Ulster required subscription to particular doctrines, and on this ground he claimed exemps tion for them. In 1698 it was moved and carried in the Synod, at Antrim, that young men when licensed to preach should be obliged to subscribe their confession of faith. A similar condition was repeated in 1705. When the Toleration Act was passed in 1716, it became a question with the Synod of Ulster on what terms it should be accepted, and the subscription to the West minster Confession of Faith was still retained. From the earliest period down to the present time there was no difficulty in ascertaining what were the doctrines of the Synod of Ulster ; and to those doctrines every minister was required to subscribe. It was a monstrous thing to tell the Synod of Ulster, as they did by this Bill, that the whole of its property would be placed in danger. These were only 82 deeds amongst 500 congregations ; Mr. EWART said that, in the absence of the Hon. Member for Montrose, who, not being able to attend himself, had requested him to embody the motion of which he had given notice, he begged to move that slave and free labour sugar might be admitted into this country on the payment of equal duty. He (Mr. Ewart) objected to the Bill of the Government, because it was uncertain, and the merchants of the country would not know how to act under it. He also ob- jetted to . the Bill, because it left a discre tionary power in the hands of the Government. They had, in vain endeavoured to put down the slave trade, by means of gunboats and of treaties with foreign States. Sir Thomas Awell Buxton, and, in fact, nearly all persons who had written on the subject, steknowleged - • the inefficiency of such proceedings. With whatever object the Bill might have been framed, it was based on false principles. Such, briefly, were the reasons which .. Jed him to.bring this subject .before the House. lie g fCalled on the Governmeut to adopt one of two alternatives—either to define on what terms they intended to admit foreign free-labour sugar, or at once to admit foreign slave labour sugar. The queL tion:was not one of party,v•but strictly one of principle, and as such he entemted - the House to consida. it. Be begged leave, theredre; to.move---" That slave and free labour sugar be admitted upon the payment of equal duties." Mr. JAMES said he dpeply regretted that the Hon. Member for Montrose, wbo had put this notice upon the paper, was prevented by domestic affairs from attending in his place th at evening. The present motion wasneither more nor less than the motion which had been brought for ward on a former occasion and had been then disposed of. And how did the Hon. Member for Montrose speak and vote upon that occasion ? Why he spoke against it, .and he voted against IL He said it was impossible for the West India colonies to compete with the foreign growers of sugar, tied up as they were. If any thing, then, could astonish him (Mr. James) at his time of life, and after all he had seen, it was to find that Hon. Member putting on the paper such a notice as.this. Ile recommended the 'adopting measures that should insure a supply of free labour to the West India colo nies, and suggested • that the Government should afford the planters a supply of convict labour. Illany parts of the colonies were heal k ; the expense of the transport would be lees while the punishtnent would be greater. He stated that convict lahour was thus employed in Bermuda. He could not support the motion, and de nounced it as unjust. Mr. BARCLAY said it was impossible for the colony to prosper till this question was finally settled, and he hoped the _present arrangemeht would be definitive for a great number of years. As long as they were exposed to these harrassing discussions, capital would be prevented from going into the colonies. The House then divided, and the numbers were— For receiving the report For Mr. Ewart's amendment Majority for Ministers —llB Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know when the Right Hon. Baronet intended to proceed with the Bill. Sir IL PEEL said, in case there should be a disposi tion to enter into a lengthened discussion upon the Bill on Monday, he proposed that the Bank Charter Bill should have precedence on that day, and that the further con sideration of the sugar duties should be postponed till Thursday. He would name Monday for the third read ing of the Bill with that understanding. The report was then received, and the Bill was or dered to be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. - Messengers from the Lora brought down .certain Bills. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. On the motion that the order of the day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Dissenters' Cha pels Bill being read, Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Kendal in favour of the Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE had clung to the hope that her Ma jesty's Ministers would have given up this Bill. He be held the progress of this Bill with the deepest pain. He had hoped that what bad taken place out of the House would have induced them to withdraw this Bill. The petitions against the. Bill had '-received 350,000 signa tures, and the petitioners comprised members of the Church Establishment, Wesleyan Methodists, and all classes of orthbdo*Dissenters. He considered the Bill as of no ordinary nature, and was surprised that it had received the sarction of her Majesty's Government. A large body of their general supporters had opposed them on the last occasion. If the Government had depended entirely on their general supporters, he doubted if they Would - have carried their measure. If a measure of this kind had been proposed by the Noble Lord opposite when he occupied the. Treasury benches, it would have met with the strenuous and the united opposition of the Gentlemen who then occupied the Opposition benches.— (Loud Opposition cheers.) The appropriation clause of the Irish Church Bill was absolute honesty—(Renewed Opposition cheers)—he repeated it, absolute honesty, and perfect purity compared with this measure. To withdraw means from the Church of Ireland, and apply them to the pirposes of the general education of the people of Ireland, was absolute honesty compared with a measure which would apply funds, left for a religious purpose, to a purpose of a totally different nature. The Attorney-General had said that the Bill was not well understood. Now, although the people could not follow a lawyer through all his legal subtleties, yet they tho roughly understood that the object of the measure was to legalise a violation of a sacred trust, and to operate practically in favour of a class of men whose opinions were held by the great majority of the Christians of this country to be an awful and a fatal heresy. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that, although a considerable feel ing existed at present on the subject, he trusted that that feeling would soon subside. He could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that the wound inflicted by this Bill Wisirat a superficial one • ' it was deeply and keenly felt, and 'Would not be soon healed. The Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon had said that they now wished to hunt Socinians as formerly they . had hunted Papists. There was no hunting of Socinians or Papists now; but it was one thing to hunt a Sociniati, and another to endow and establish him. The most offensive part of the Bill was, that it went to the vitals of our Christian constitution. He should not have spoke thus if he had not felt the matter most acutely. The majority of the Christian community of this country regarded a measure like this, for the endowment of the Socinians, as a withdrawing of the keystone from the arch of Chris tianity. The Right Hon. Gentleman who had succeeded him when the subject was last under discussion, had taken occasion to run him down. He knew he was not able to compete with the Right lion. Gentleman, but ho would honestly, however feebly, always express his HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 21. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. The Lords' amendments to the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill were read and agreed to. Mr. WODE HOUSE presented fourteen petitions from places in Norfolk against the eorn-laws.—(Laughter.) Dr. BOWRING prevented a petition from Douglass, complaining of the lstem of licensing adopted in the Isle of Man, and praying for inquiry into the subject. SUNDAY TRADING. Mr. COPELAND presented a petition, signed by the shopkeepers of Clare market, who were engaged Lin Sun day trading, praying the House to take steps to abolish Sunday trading. Sir E. KNA'fCHBULL presented petitions from Kent against any alteration in the corn-laws. .DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition in favour of this Bill. Petitions against the Bill were presented by Mr. PLUMPTHE and Lord ASHLEY. SCOTCH PRISONS BILL. Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition from the Proxost and Magistrates of Hamilton against the Scotch Prisons'. Bill. • Mr. WALLACE presented a similar petition from the Corporation of Greenock. Mr. WORTLEY presented several petition from va rious places in the West Riding of Yorkshir?, signed by upwards of 20,000 persons, praying that the House would pay no attention to the Anti-Corn-law League in their endeavours to repeal the corn-laws. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the church-, wardens and other inhabitants of St. Clement Danes against Sunday trading ; and a petition front the'eon gregation of Brunswick Chapel, Dover-road, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. _ _ PRECIOUS METALS. Mr. WODEHOUSE moved that an humble address be prostnted to her Majesty, praying that she would be gra ciously pleased to give directions that there be laid be fore this House, through the medium of her Majesty's Ambassador, or other diplomatic agent at the Court of Russia, an account of the produce in gold'of the wash ings of the mines in Siberia and other parts, carried on upon account of the Crown and of individuals, from 1830 to 1842 inclusive.—Agreed to. ANNOYANCE JURIES. Captain ROUS moved for returns from the High bailiff and Court of Burgesses of Wesftinster, of the grass amount of the amerciaments and fines levied by the Annoyance Juries and Court of Burgesses, under the Act 29 Geo. 11. c. 25, since the year 1830, distinguish ing the amount levied in each year, and how the sums levied were appropriated ; of the amounts and particu lars, as bet forth in the presentments, of the amercia ments levied by each Annoyance Jury during the years 1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844, and of the number and amount of the amerciaments remitted or mitigated during those years, dintinguishing those remitted from those mitigated, and stating to what amounts the same were mitigated ; and of the names, addresses, and descriptions of the par ties who served on such last mentioned juries. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from the inhabitants of the Liberty of the Rolls against Sunday trading. IRISH LINEN. Mr. GLADSTONE moved that the Committee on the Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Bill be postponed till a future day, which w as agreed to. ISLE OF MAN. OR the motion of the same RIGHT HON. GENTLEMAN, the House resolved itself, pro forma, into Committee on the Customs' Duty (Isle of Man) Bill, when several amendments were moved, ana ordered to be printed. COPYHOLDS BILL. On the motion of lir. HOPE, the Committee on the Copyholds' Enfianchisement Bill was postponed till a future day. Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE presented several petitions from Hampshire, in favour of agricultural pro tection ; and a petition from Basingstoke against the clauses in the Bank Charter Bill, restricting country bankers' issues. G A ME-L AW,S. Mr. ESTCOTT gave notice that it was his intention at an early period next session to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the preservation of game. NEW POOR-LAW. Sir WALTER JAMES gave notice, that on an early occasion he should put a question to the 'Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department as to the truth of the statement, that there was in operation any system of denying out-door relief altogether, except in cases where a certificate should be signed by the em ployer of the labourer, which was said to prevail in the counties of Norfolk and suffolk. COURT OF REQUESTS. Mr. O. STANLEY, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet,. the Home Secretary in his place, begged to repeat a question he had put to the Right Hon. Gentleman, at an early period of ' the • session, with regard to the prison of the Court of Requests at 'Birmingham and also with respect to the prison-of the Court of Re quests at Kidderminster, which was stated to be badly constructed, while great complaints were made by the prisoners of the diet, which was only bread and water. Ho wished to know whether any inquiry had been. instituted with respect to the prison at Kid derminster ; whether the Right Honourable Gen tleman, as Home Secretary, bad felt satisfied with the correspondence with the authorities at Birmingham, as to the state of the prison there, and if be had instituted any inquiry into the state of the prisons of the Courts of Request in other parts of the kingdom. He wished to know, likewise, whether the Bill - brought into the other House of Parliament (the Abolition of • Imprisonment for Debt Bill) would do away with these prisons ? Sir J. GRAHAM said, with respect to the prison of the Court of Requests at Kidderminster, he had thought it his duty to send down an inspector, for the purpose of making a report, which he understood had been completed, but he had not yet received it. With respect to the prison at Birmingham he had not as yet received a satisfactory report. The proper course to be adopted in such a case was to apply to . the Court of Queen's Bench, for the Secretary of Slate had no power to interfere. With reference to the question of the Honourable Gentleman on the subject of the County Courts Bill, he had to state that there certainly were provisions in the Bill which would remove these objections. But there was before the other House a' Bill which went to the abolition of imprisonment for debt altogether, and if that passed into a law, it would altogether remove the necessity of legislating on this subject. EMIGRATION TO DEMERARA—WEST INDIAN LOAN. Mr. HAWES seeing the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies in his place, wished to ask him if it was true that her Majesty's Government had received from the Legislature of Demerara an ordinance for the pur pose of raising a loan for the promotion of immigration into the colony, which ordinance was accompanied by another, voting a civil list for a number of years; but this ordinance was contingent upon her Majesty sanc tioning the first ordinance. . He also wished to ask whe ther any measures had been adopted with, regard to emi gration for India, and he trusted there wild be no ob jection to lay before the House any documents connected with the subject. Lord STANLEY said the Hon. Gentleman had been correctly informed as to the terms for the vote for an emigration loan for Demerara. He had received that ordinance by the last mail. Ho stated to the colonial authorities that it appeared to him that the Bill had been passed in great haste, only two days having elapsed between the time of its introduction and the time of its passing, and that as it was clear sufficient time had not been afforded for the colony to expre:s its opinion on the subject, he should postpone . submitting the ordinance to her Majesty, until the colony had had an opportunity of expressng its opinion. All the papers relating to emigration to the .West Indies had been laid before the House with the exception of one dispatch, and that he had no objection to lay before the House. With regard to emigration from India, a correspondence - . had been going on with the Governor- General on the subject ; and he could state that a meaL sure requiring that a certain number of females should accompany every batch of emigrants from India was at present under consideration ; but the question had not been decided as yet, because great difficulty existed in prevailing on respectable females to ac company their husbands in these emigrations ; and if it were insisted on that a certain number of females should accompany each batch of emigrants, the class of females who would so accompany them would not be likely . to conduce to , the reputation of the country for ntorality.—(A laugh.) With regard to the ordinance for the civil list it certainly depended en the other ordinance, but the civil list related to the year 1847, so that there was ample time to take it into consideration. FEES. TO CLERKS OF THE PEACE. Mr. B. ESCOTT wished, in order to prevent mis apprehensions, that the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department would explicitly state that the Bill to which he had alluded last night related to a totally dif ferent class of fees than those to which he (Mr. Escott) had alluded, and the receiving of which was at present illegal. Sir J. GRAHAM agreed that the fees to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had alluded were illegal. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, it was agreed that the House, as its rising, do adjourn till Monday, MEDICAL PROFESSION. Sir J. GRAHAM,, in answer to a question from an Hon. Member, stated, that ho should certainly intro duce the Bill for the regulation of the Medical Profes sion during the present session. Whether he should be able to pass it would be another question.—(A laugh.) ABINGDON ELECTION. Mr. CHRISTIE, seeing the Solicitor-General in his place, wished to put to him a question. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Government had introduced a Bill for - the disfranchisement of the borough of Sudbury on account of bribery. He wished to- ask if it was true that, at the recent election but there could be no question as to the right of property. They did not wish to take away property from the Unitarians hich -properly belonged to them ; but this Bill afforded an encouragement to a change of doetrine.—(llear, hear.) lie could not conceive it pos sible that her Majesty's Government intended to shake the foundations of the property of the Synod of Ulster. It was not intended by the Unitarians of Ireland that the founders of these chapels held the same opinions as them selves; they admitted that the change had been gradual. The measure would render it necessary for the Synod of Ulster to bring actions whenever they suspected that a minister was preaching erroneous doctrine. That he con caved would be a very great hardship to a body which was by no means rich. The lion. and Learned Mem ber concluded by proposing to insert the following words to limit the operation of the Bill :—" Or where no parti cular religious doctrines or opinions are contained in any book or other documents preserved amongst the authen tic records of any recognised synod or religious body, concerning the congregation frequenting such meeting houses." The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he must object to the insertion of these words, and he could not conceive any words which, meeting the Right Hon. Gentleman's object, would be consistent with the spirit of the Bill.— (Hear, hear.) What the Government proposed was, that wherever there was any deed, will, or instrument, in which the intention of the founder was expressly de clared, or which referred to documents or books con taining certain doctrines, in such cases the will of the founder should be inviolably observed to the end of time; no one was to interfere with the original intention of the trust. But the Right Hon. Gentleman now pro posed to enlarge the exception to an extent which would involve great injustice. The Committee would observe, in the first place, that it was very difficult to construe the expression " authentic records."—(Hear, hear.) Who was to say what were authentic records ? Mr. F. SHAW—The court which tries the case. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL continued—What means would the court have of ascertaining what were regarded by the congregation as authentic records ? There was no reference here to the will of the founder. Any document which was found amongst the " authentic records" was to be taken as expressive of the religious doctrines which were maintained at a particular period. According to the proposal of his Right Hon. Friend, although the intention of the founder might have entirely differed from the documents contained in the " authentic records ;" yet the insertion of the document amongst the "authentic records" was to be conclusive evidence of the religious doctrines of the congregation at that particular period.—(Hear, hear.) If these words were inserted, or any equivalent words, which would reach the object of his Right Hon. Friend, they would produce the most monstrous injustice.—(Hear, hear.) He would take the case of the Synod of Ulster. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that that existed for 200 years. The first document which was found among its " authentic records" was of the date of 1698. Mr. F. SHAW-1691. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he would give the Right Hou. Gentleman the seven years. Now, this document was no evidence as to the intention of the founder, because the Synod of Ulster existed before the year 1691. He might take for granted that the Right Hon. Gentleman bad no document containing any information as to the intentions of the founder with regard to the particular religious doctrines to be pre ached to the congregation. The Right Hon. Gentleman, therefore, proposed to take the document which contained no evidence as to the intentions of the founder, and to apply that document as a proof of the religious doctrines which prevailed in par ticular congregations. He believed that in the year 1726 several congregations seceded from the Synod of Ulster, to and formed themselves into the Presbytery of Antrim. From that year Unitarian doctrines had been preached in those churches, and in many cases new churches had been built; and until this time the idea of stripping them of these meeting-houses had never been mooted ; yet the Right Hon. Baronet said, " You pro pose by this Bill to take from the Synod of Ulster their property." If his Right Hon. Friend could get the words he proposed inserted in that clause the effect would be that the Synod of Ulster would be enabled to say, " We have a right, under the provisions of this Bill, to take back our own property." He thought that it would be a gross injustice to put the property of the Presbytery of Antrim under the control of the Synod of Ulster. He was anxious to confine himself to the question before the Committee, and would not, there fore, follow his Hon. and Learned Friend throughout his very discursive argument. He should refuse to accede to the amendment now proposed, as he thought the granting of the proposition would be a monstrous in- justice. Mr. SHAW explained. What he wanted the Govern. ment to do was to give equal justice to all parties; bu by this Bill they were infringing upon the rights of the Synod of Ulster, by giving Unitarians a power to which they were not entitled. He could see no difficulty in doing justice if they but set their minds to it ; but while they protected the rights of the smaller class, they should extend a similar protection to the larger. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) ought to have explained what claim the Synod of Ulster had to these chapels. The Synod of Ulster did not found them. They could not, therefore, claim a property in their. His Right Hon. Friend could not show that the intentions of the founders had been to confine the doctrines taught in those churches to the particular dogmas of the Presbyi terian Synod of Ulster. Surely his Right Hon. Friend knew that the property of these churches did not lie with the ministers of those churches, but with the congrega tions; and were they, after having been allowed the rights of those meeting-houses for so many years, to be now deprived of them? Ile should resist the amend ment of his Right Hon. Friend. Mr. SHAW contended that the property now in ques tion had been left to the Synod of Ulster for particular educational purposes, which purposes were not fulfilled by the present possessors. His object was to restore the property to the original and proper parties. Sir R. PEEL would only to one single point, which would show the absolute necessity of legislating on this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman had pro posed a clause, and when his attention had been drawn to the state of the Remonstrant Synod and of the Presbytery of Antrim, he said that the Synod of Ulster had no desire to meddle with them, and yet he proposed a clause which would give the Synod of Ulster the right to seize the property of those two synods, one of which had seceded a hundred years ago, and the other in 1829, by consent. No doubt that declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman would relieve the Remonstrant Synod and the Presbytery of .Antrim of the apprehen sions which they entertained—apprehensions which had been made known to the Government, and had convinced them of the necessity of legislating on the subject. Now, although the Synod of Ulster disclaimed any intention of interfering with the Remonstrant Synod or with the Synod of Antrim, yet in December, 1842, just after the decision of the Wolverhampton ease, the Synod of Ulster had come to a resolution, to the effect that in relation to the judgment in that case, it was competent, immedi ately, for congregations, which had been so spoliated, to recover their property, to be devoted to Trinitarian pur. poses—(Oppositioncheers)—and that resolution was fol lowed by another:—" Resolved, That copies of this re solution be transmitted to the Remonstrant Synod and to the Presbytery of Antrim."—(Renewed cheers.) - This resolution had certainly excited the apprehensions of the Remonstrant Synod and of the Presbytery of Antrim, but he had no doubt but that these apprehensions would be relieved by the declaration of the Right Honourable Gentleman. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when there appeared — For Mr. Shaw's amendment .... 43 Against it Majority against the amendment-118 On our readmission to the gallery, we found Mr. SHAW on his legs, proposing that sixty years should be the term of usage required, instead of twenty five years, as originally proposed. Sixty years was the limitation in cases of advowsons. Five-and-twenty years would be no protection at all, and would encourage deceit on the part of those who wished to get posses sion of those chapels for Unitarian purposes. He there fore moved that the word sixty be substituted for the words twenty-five. Mr. HARDY sai 1 that the only usage with respect to the doctrines of Dissenters was the usage of the minis ter. The only u: ago of the congregation was to sit down at the sermon ind t stand up at the prayers. The only evidence as to doctrine was the evidence of the minister, and as his ministry might extend over a longer period than twenty-five 3 ea - s, he thought they ought to adopt the proposal of sixty years. Colonel SIBTHORP was against the'Bill altogether. The term of 25 years was then agreed to without a division. Lord JOCELYN moved, that instead of the words " any suits relating to such meeting-house," the words " the passing of this Act" be substituted. After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, he withdrew his amendment. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN wished to know the meaning of the words " usage of the congregation?" The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the object of the clause was, that where a particular religious congre gation had been in the habit of listening to certain doc trines, that usage should be evidence of the usage of the congregation. Mr. COLQUHOUN would like to have the opinion of the Law-officers of the Crown as to what would be the effect of this clause in such a case as the case of Frost street Chapel. Mr. Motterhead had been the minister of that chapel for forty years. When first appointed he held high Calv . inistic doctrines, be subsequen tl y became an Arian, anMEhen again, towards the close of his life, he resumed his Calvinistic doctrines. Now, in the case of Mr. Motterhead, he wished to know what was the usage of the corgregation ? Ho wished to know what view her Majesty's Government took of cases like Mr. Motter head's, and what course they intended to pursue under such circumstances ? The SOLICITOR -GENERAL wished to know whe ther Mr. Motterhead had, for twenty-five years, held the same religious opinions?—(Laughter.) Sir R. PEEL said the opinions of Lord Eldon and of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland were, that when religious trusts were treated, which became doubtful in course of time, the title should be decided by the usages of the congregation. Mr. HARDY proposed as an amendment that the fol lowing words should be added to the end of the clause: — "Shall, nevertheless, be applied for such purposes and promoting such doctrines as are expressed in the deed, or instrument." Mr. CARDWELL made some suggestions, which Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would take time to consider. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the clause as it stands For the amendment 62 blajority for the clause Lord ASHLEY inquired of the Chairman in what manner he could proceed to introduce the clause he pro posed to substitute for clause 3? Mr. GREENE said the Noble Lord must first ; noo se that the clause, as it stood, be negatived, and then pro--,, pose his own instead of it. Lord ASHLEY feared, if that was the case, that he should be prevented from bringing on hiS clause:that night, as he did not wish to give the Committee, the trouble of dividing against the clause. The substitution he had intended to make was meant to restore the clause to the state in which it was when it was read a third time by the House of Lords, by which the Lord Chan cellor was enabled to sever that portion of the property' of a chapel which had been given by the original en dowment and that i'hich had been acquired by the outlay of the congregation themselves. ile should not, • however, press his amendment. Mr. SHAW objected to the third clause that it intro duced an entirely new principle into legislation, that of putting an end, by enactment, to pending suits. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL denied that there was the least injustice in doing so, citing the cases of the Eustace-street and Strand-street Chapels, Dublin. These suits were instituted by parties who had no interest whatever in the question, who did not proceed by Bill, but by relation, through the Attorney-General, and the only result was that the endowment was ruined. All that the parties could get by the success of their suits was secured to them by the clause, which gave them all their costs. Mr. SHAW was not personally acquainted with the facts of these two cases, but he believed that in one of them the parties proceeding against the chapel were not strangers. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would ask them why they did not proceed by Bill, as parties interested would do, instead of by relation, through the Attorney-General? Lord ASHLEY said that the ease of the Strand-street Chapel had this particular feature, that the Lord Chan cellor of Ireland had given his judgment on it, and only reserved his decree, not because he had any doubt, but that he might average the terms of it. He decided that the endowment must belong to the Presbyterians. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Eustace street Chapel was much the strongest case, because the Lord Chancellor said he had evidence before him that Unitarian doctrines had been preached in that chaPel for 77 years.—(Hear ' hear.) If they gave the parties their costs, he could not see any reasonable ground of complaint. Mr. GODSON said the clause was not without pre cedent. A similar enactment had been passed to protect non-resident ministers of the Church of England against certain actions with which they were threatened. The clause was then agreed to, the House resumed, the report was brought up, and ordered to be received on Monday. POOR-LAW BILL. The Committee on the Poor-law Bill was fixed for Friday next. The County Rates Bill was read a third time and passed. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL. On the motion that the order of the day for the third reading of the County Coroners' Bill be read, Mr. HUME said he was determined to take the sense of the House on the subject of that portion of the Bill which went to increase the allowances of coroners for mileage. The time was come when they ought to put a stop to any further increase of the county expenditure. , He, therefore, wished to see the twenty-first clause expunged. Mr. I'. HOWARD thought a case had been made out for allowing the increased mileage, and he believed the' counties in general did not object to it. Mr. ESCOTT supported the Bill; and as the measure had last year received the sanction of the House, he hoped the matter would not be pressed to a division. Mr. DARBY supported the clause. Mr. HUME moved that the 21st clause be expunged. The Bill had been lost last year in the other House, in consequence of the increased allowances proposed to be made to coroners. General JOHNSON supported the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. On all occasions of va cancies in the office of coroner, there was no lack of com petent candidates for the office. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY had wished to introduce a clause, enacting that the coroner should, at every assize, give in an abstract of the inquests he had held in the interval between the assizes; but as the Government was opposed to the clause, he would not propose it. Mr. WAKLEY contended that the mileage allowed to coroners ought not to be reduced, seeing that they were compelled to perform a duty for which no public provision was made. The coroner was not appointed by the Crown ; and, therefore, he met with no favour. •Ho was elected by the people, and his -accounts were very closely scrutinized, and every endeavour was made in all cases to reduce his charges. He regretted that an alteration had been made in this Bill by the Hon. Mem ber for Kendal with respect to the time of polling. As the Bill originally stood, the polling was to last only one day ; but an alteration had since been made in. creasing that time. He trusted, that when the Bill went to the House of Lords, the time for polling would be again reduced to one day. Mr. EVANS thought the present payment to core)• ners was sufficient. After a few words from Mr. DARBY the House divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Hume's amendment 23 Against it Majority The Bill was then read a third time. Mr. WATSON moved that the petition of Lieutenant- Colonel Leslie Frith (presented 20th June) be printed with the Votes.—Agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the better protection of purchasers against judgments, crown debts, lis pendens, and commissions of bankruptcy ' • and for providing one office for the registering of all judgments in Ireland ; and for amending the laws in Ireland respecting bank rupts and the limitation of actions. After a few words from Mr. SHEIL and Mr. REDING TON, approving of the measure, leave was given, =Me Bill was brought in and read a first time. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS. 41 . From Ilse Votes and Proceedtngs of the Muscat Commons.) -- n - THURSDAY, JUNE .. 0 .., SUGAR DUTIES BILL.—(IN THE COMMITTEE.) "Fourth Clause (Sugar not to be admissible to entry for home consumption at a Duty of one pound fourteen shillings the hundred weight, unless the master of the ship importing the same shall have delivered to the collector at the pert of impor. tation such certificate as hereinafter mentioned, and subscribe a declaration that such certificate was received by him at the place where such Sugar was taken on. board, and that the Sugar is the same as is mentioned therein):--Question put. " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill ;" The Committee divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 114. ' • Ackers, James Escott, B i c kh am Mackenzie, W. F. Acton, Colonel Flower, Sir James M'Neill, Duncan Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Forman, T. Seaton Manners, Lerd C. Archdall, Captain Fremantle, Sir T. Masterman , John Arkwright, George Ciaskell, James M. Mundy, E. M. Baring, W. B. Gladstone , W. E. chop, J. • Bating, Thomas Gladstone; J. N. O'Brien. A. Steffan/ 1 Baskerville, TB. M. Gibson, T. M. Palmer, G. Bateson, Thomas Gonlburn. Henry Patten, J. Wilson Beckett, William Graham, Sir Jame* Peel, Sir Robert Blakemore, R. Grimsditch, Thomas Feel , Jonathan Bodkin, W. H. Grogan, Edward Plumptre, J. P. Borthwick, Peter Haltord, H. Pusey, rellip Bettield, Beriah Hamilton. J. H. Rushbrooke, Colonel Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, G. A. Sandon, Lord nroadley, H. Hanmer Sir John Shaw, John F. Brooke, Sir A. B. Hardy, Sheppard, T. Bruce, Lord Ernest Harris, E. A. J. Smith, Abel Buckley, Edmund Hepburn, Sir T. B. Smith,Rt. Hon. T. B. a Campbell, Sir H. Herbert, Sydney Smollett, Alexander Campbell, John H. Hervey, Lord Alfred Somerset, Lord O. Cardwell, Edward Hope, Charles Sotheron, T. H, Chapman, Aaron Hope, G. W. Stanley, Lord Chute. W. L. W. Hornby, John Sutton, Hon. H M. Clerk, Sir George Hussey, Thomas Thesiger, F. Clive, R. H. Irton, Samuel Tnompson, Ald. Cockburn, Sir G. Irving, John 'Trench, Sir F. W. • Corry, H. Jernayn, Earl Trevor, Hon. R Darner, lion. G. Jolliffe, Sir W. Trotter •J. Darby, George Kemble, Henry Vesey, lien. Thome. Denison, E. Lockett Kerr, D. Vivian, John EnnaDodd, George Knatchbull, Sir E. Whitmore, T. C. Douglas, Sir H. Lawson, Andrew Wodehouse, E. Douglas, Sir C. E. Lincoln Earl of Wortley, Jas.. , Douglas, J. D. S. .Lockhart, William Wortley. Hon. John Dowdeswell, W. Long, Walter Young, John Drummond, H. H. Lopes, Sir Ralph TELLERS. Egerton, W. T. Lygon, General Young, John Eliot, Lord M'Geachy, F. A. Lennox, Lord A. MINORITY—NOES, 60. Aglionby H. A. Hawes, B. Protheroe ' E. A rmstrorg, Andrew Hobhouse , Sir J. C. Putsford, Robert Bannerman, A. Howard. C. G. W. Rice, E. R. ' Baring. F. T. Howick, Viscount Roebuck, J. A. Barnard, E. G. Hums, Joscp Scholetield J. J Bernal, Captain James, William Seale, Sir J. Henry Bowring, Dr. James, Sir W. C. Stanton. W. Henry Brocklehurst J. Labouchere, H. Stewart, P. M. J Brotherton, J. Langston, J. H. Strickland, Sir G. Browne, W. M'Taggart, Sir .1, Talbot, C. R. blr. Buller, E. Mangles, R. D. Tancrod, H. W. Busteild, W. Marsland, H. 1 borne% Thomas Chapman, Benjamin Mitchell, T. A. Troubridge, Sir T. Clive, E. B. Monis t David Waktey. Thomas Colebrooke, Sir T. Ogle, S. C. H. Walker, R. Collett, John Ord William Wawn, John T. Collins, W. Palmerston, Visct. Wood, Charles Duncan, George Pendarves, E. W. Wyse, Thomas Belden, J. Philips, M. TELLERS. Forster, Matthew Plumridge, Captain Smith, R. Vernon Guest, Sir John Power, James Hill, Lord:Marcus d PREVENTION ;riotio II2 m LL ad . e, and t bceo nAsirAmendments considered be now read a Question propose . second time : —Amendm,nt proposed, to leave out the words " now read a second time;' in order to add the words " taigas Lor N . ds i A G m il e T ndru O en A ts, C ,Pu T rl h tNh a e t Gr into further Consideration upon this day six months," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be hit out stand part of the Question:" The House divided ;—.. 111AJ 0 RIT Y— AYES, 63. Ackers, James Goulburn, H. O'Brien, A. $. Archbold, Robert Graham, Sir James Pechell, Captain Balfour, J. M. Greene, T. Pcel, Sir Robert Berkeley, C. Grimston, Lord Peel, Jonathan Berkeley, Captain Hamilton, J. Hans Rashleigh, Wm. Blackburne, J. I. Henley, J. W. Eushbrooke , Colonej Boldero, Henry G. Hepburn, Sir T. B. Siothorp, Colonel Borthwick, Peter Howard, P. H. Smith, T. B. C. Bruges, W. H. L. Hussey, Thomas Saiollett, A- Clerk, Sir George Irton, & Stanley, Lord Cripps, W. Jermyn, Earl Sutton, Hon. H. M; Darby, George Jellilte, Sir W. Thesiger; F. D'Eyncourt, C. T. Knatchbull, Sir E. Trotter, John Dougla-, Sir C. L awso n, Andrew Tufnell, Henry Drummond, H. H. Lennox, Lord A. Waddington, H. Sr Buncombe, A. Lincoln, Earl of W a w n , J. T. Egerton Sir P. G. Lockhart, William Whitmore i T. C Eliot, Lord Mackenzie, Wm. F. Worsley, Lord Flower, Sir James M'Neill, Duncan Young, John FremantlwEir T. Marsham, Viscount 'mum os killer ,J- E. . Martin, C.'W. Wallace, Robert • ,p a sdeirtes Mines Masterman, John Berkeley, H. F. MINORITY—NOES, 12. • Brotherton, J. Hume, Joseph Roebuck, J. A. Col'ett, John WGeachy, F. A. Wyse, :thorns" Dickinson,_ F. H. Mainwanng T. irs.s.Eas. Duncan, Viscount Mitchell, T. A. Escett, Bichkans Duncan, George Morris, David Bouverie, E. P. TTIE WEATHER AND THE CROPS.—The accour.ta from the country on the whole are favourable. Thfre has been a good deal of rain in many districts, which has given new life to the crops. One of the provinc:a journals states that " the crops are improving an.a.. zingly ; indeed, we had no expectation of seeing the brown roots of a fortnight ago converted into the thick.. ening braids of this date. The pastures are also much mended, and there is some little inquiry again for gray. irig cattle that were scarcely saleable on any terms. The o nly thing we hear of going wrong with the farmer the potato crop." - lan 03 etzal • d