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

EUROPEAN REGIMENTS IN INDIA.—The Bombay Times calls the attention of Government and every one concerned to the want of sanatory arrangements for the European soldiers. The cost of an European soldier before tit to de regimental ditty in thii country is about loot, and every death occurring amongst their number is a loss to the Company of this amount. 'But ' little care, however, is used in ;re ference to the men sent out as recruits ; the only know ledge possessed by 'the military authorities of India of the fact of troops corning in is -derived from the Eitg • lish newspaes, . whidh mention the number of troops , that:leave by vessels. for India. Were the troops .re- garded as Manchester prints they could be duly in • - voiced ; bat, under the present system; 4116- notice f rom the home authoritie s simply intimates that , a few scores may be looked for by such and such opportunity. In the course of the rains of 1842, about 100 were, cut off by local cause s i n the barracks at • i comb e , and 80 casualties occurred last year in the • 2d battalion of Artillery in Fort Geroge Barracks en- • tailing at once a loss. Of 18,000 men to the Com , pany. Sir George Arthur has bestowed careful at.: _ tention upon this matter, and recommended a measure than' o n ; to the home authorities which will not , more h a measu re , the above sum, and rid the recruits, in great local sickness. Our Contemporary recommends that the Hugh Lindsay, now lying useless in the harbo ur , may be moored off the lighthouse and metamorphosed into a • floating hospital for the sick of European regiments, who will thus be enabled, at a trifling cost to the'ellniertinient, '' to derive the benefit of sea air. THE ALBEIT CAP.—If we were to judge of the "New Regulation Cap for the Infantry'!, by the-numerous letters we receive from MI ranks; expressing utter disgust with it, we would be led•to think that the seledtion could_ never have been m a d e by,tt soldier. Indeed, it is worthy of fair consideration how far it is advisable to force this ob noxious head-dress upon our soldiers. We could show letters, and quite opinions, all tending to *rdnvince us that desertion ' has, in seine cases, taken place, rather than wear the "Janus cap," and that, in many instances, recruits have refused to enlist in a regiment that now has the cap in wear. Thimen who are to wear the cap ought to have some voice in the matter; and, we believe, the whole army condeinna it. It is not too late to amend the order; the issue, is vet, is very , lim ited7but on the Ist of next April the whole army will have a this fools' cap placed on their heads, nn a Most suitable i i r s. , occasion, 6 . All Foo a' Day." This cap, like other Unseemly . j :: heartily wish the army w e ll r id 0f..-07atid an 4 •it.-tfr % VT* , r ,* ;••• 1 .: , 4-..r...A g • .: t - • d'''' l ' C•"*.„..f ; .,.,' - , • ..,...;,.. y• .. ' —7 ..i. ',..• - ..r.: - .7" - -- • . 4,, .; ~ '''' ---- r" - •ye ,', - C_ ,t,._ ./ , . -_.';'' 'N. Ait ii --461 ISPTRIT of the PUBLIC, JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PIPERS' OF YESiERDAY. GLOBE.—The present session promises to be in no respect inferior to any of its predecessors in the do-little course of legislation. There has been much noise, but little work. One Bill after another has been introduced, to be debated, and withdrawn. Others have been pro mised by the Government as an inducement to Mem bers who had brought forward measures for the Ire moral of acknowledged evils, which Ministers could not defend, but had no disposition to remedy. These gentlemen —we think too readily —consented to with-' drew their measures, on a pledge from the Government, thatßills of a comprehensive kind, in which' the removal of the grievances complained of should be provided for, were to .be forthwith introduced. Week .after -week has crept away, but nothing has been heard of these promised measures. The end was answered. Time was gained by the The ; which, " dicers' oaths," were worthless. The evils which brought gain to a few at the expense of the many, were thus preserved, at least for another se>sion ; and by. some fortu nate chance, may even escape the threatened extirpa tion altogether. When Lord Worsley drew the atten tion of the House of Commons to the disproportionate amount of fees on summary convictions to the penalties inflicted for the offences, and from the returns furnished by order of the House of Commons, established an unan swerable case for legislative redress, what was the conduct of the Government? The evil of the existing system was admitted: it could neither be denied nor defended. The notice of the Government having been directed to the subject, it had already given directions for a Bill to be prepared to abolish the present, and provide a better • mode of paying the clerks of petty sessions. It was therefore to be hoped that the Noble Lord who had brought the question before the House—at whose instance the returns upon its table had been ordered, and by which the evil had been exposed—would leave the matter in the hands of Government, and withdraw his motion. Lord Worsley yielded to the request. Mr. Manners Sutton's bland compliments were irresistible. Lord Worsley did, indeed, venture to ask when the promised measure might bo expected to reach such a maturity of preparation as to be in a tangible shape for the legislative process ? The Hon. Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department could not exactly say when. No time would, however, be lost ; certainly the Bill would be befoie the House during the present session. As the session was yet young, there was Come reason to l oo k f or a f u l f i lment of the pledge. The matter rested thus till last evening, when the Noble Lord (Worsley), who had received the promise, "wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet when the Bill would be introduced by the Government for regulating the fees to magistrates' clerks." Sir J. Graham, with one of his sweetest smiles, gave the matter-of-course intima tion, that the measure inquired after was precisely in that hopeful state which rendered all idea of its making its ap • pearance during the present s ess i on w h o ll y out of the question :—" Te measure was in course of preparation ; but it was now, he feared, too late to introduce it, with any hop e of its p ass i ng i nto a law during the present session." So much for the measure ! But what shall be said of the faith of Government--of the promise which induced Lord Worsley to resign his measure, which he had prepared with great care and diligence ? The information contained i n t h e speech by which his Lord ship brought the subject before Parliament, had made so powerful an impression on the House and the coun try as to insure the passing of his Bill. The obvious inference from Mr. Manners Sutton's language was, that the Government measure would be immediately introduced. And now, after waiting nearly three months, the chief of the department comes forward to announce that nothing can be done in the matter during the present session ;. but without de signing ,to telf why—except the old, worn-out official apology, that at this advanced period of the session it is "too late" to introduce the promised Bill. Thus " The Fees to Clerks in Petty Sessions Bill" is added to the measures_ which were promised—to be postponed, sine Ike —apparently with the hope that they will nev e r b e again called for ; or if ca ll e d f or , i n so faint a tone as to enable Ministers to avoid fulfilling the pledges they bare given to Parliament and the country respecting them. STANDARD.—It would be curious and instructive to trace the history of the "Socinians' Usurpation Con firmation Bill," or, as it is improperly called, the "Dis senters' Chapels Bill," which is, as our readers know, to come before the House of Commons this evening. The inquiry of which we speak would be curious, because we believe that ,the starting into lif e , f u ll y armed and equipped, without any ostensible parent, of a measure of such deep interest and such vital imp:inane°, has no precedent. The inquiry ,would .be instructive, because the process by which these sly imitators of the cuckoo-,- the Socinians, have deposited their odious men -sure in the hands of the Government, might explain the contrivances by which they have furtively smuggled them selves and their accursed doctrines (the Holy Scripture calls their doctrine accursed) into so many chapels raised for Christian worship. Nobodycan believe that the Mi nisters, oppressed as they are with au overwhelming mass of indispensable public business, and frequently as they are compelled, in the faithful discharge of their public duty, to give offence to their friends, have willingly encumbered themselves with the labour and the odium of this unjust and hateful measure. That would be, in deed, to realise what. Sheridan said of the practice of the Whigs," to build a wall for the purpose of knocking their heads against it." Vero must have been seine misrepre sentation, some unwary 'promise made upon that mis representation, hastily' caught up—for the thing is so completely out of the regular sphere of Government measures„ that we are persuaded, though it were just and harmless, as it is iniquitous and mischievous, no Government, unimportuned, would ever think of it for fifty years. We trust, for the sake of the Mini eters, whom we sineerely respect, and whom it is our most anxious wish to support in all their measures, that the true history of the Bill will be given in the approaching debate. If the Government has been entrapped by the crafty and dishonest infidels, who can only benefit by such a Bill, the ex planation of the fraud will at once enable Parliament to relieve them from all difficulty. The difficulty in which the Bill involves the Government is indeed a serious one. It places the Censervative Cabinet, and those who sup port it, in open and direct hostility with all their best friends without exception—with Churchmen of all sec tions, Presbyterians,. Wesleyans, as well as with Baptists, Independents, and all other denominations of Chris tian Dissenters—the only allies, as respects prin ciple, upon whom the Government can count being the Sociniaas themselves and the political Romanists. This is an unpleasant view of affairs to the many who, • like ourselves, wish to see the present Government strong in the confidence of the country and in the affections of their countrymen, and not relying altogether upon the strength of pliant votes secured merely by the consideration that the only choice lies between the present. Government and a worse Government. Such a title to office is surely below the pretensions Of her Majesty's present advisers, both from their character and their talents. What in the world has her Majesty's Government to do with Socinian chapels ? Is there nothing else in the law that requires reform, that they will stumble upon this unhappy question, on. which they must give to nine-teuths of the people of the United Kingdom that kind of offence which is never forgiven by conscientious men, because it' is believed, and, as we think, rightly believed, to be an offence against religious truth ? It was painful to many to be compelled to oppose Sir Robert Peel's Government upon the factory ques tion, and doubtless the consideration which made it painful to those who opposed the Government upon the occasion referred to, was the motive that ral lied so many supporters to the Ministerial bendhes This, however, is a more serious question th an t h e f ac t ory question, either mor a lly or politically considered. Clearly convinced as a great majority of the nation probably is of the sinfulness of affording unjust facilities to the pro pagation of Socinian doctrines, men cannot com promise with conscience themselves upon the point, or forgive those whom they suspect of making such compromise. One holding the opinions that are gene rally and justly held of the nature and tendency of Socinian doctrines would no more, upon considerations of expediency, promote the propagation of these doc trines, than he would, upon such considerations, join in the opprobrious vote of the tenth Thermidor. Here there is a line which conscientious Christians cannot pass themselves, and which, if passed by others &H -berately and with their eyes open, must operate as a Wall of perpetual separation between those who pass it and those who do not. LAW INTELLIGENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 6. The House sat to-day in a Committee for Privileges. Among the Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. The Annandale Peerage counsel were heard on this claim, and the further consideration of the case was ad journed till Tuesday next. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT June 6. - _--The-V_lpE-CnaNcELLon of ENGLAND at to-day at ten o'clock, but in consequence of the absence of counsel, and parties not being ready, his Honour rose shortly after half-past ten-o'clock. SHERIFFS" COURT, June 6. (Beforelir.Under-SheriffKENNEny and a Common Jury. BLACKMORE V. FORTY. This was an action brought to recover, the sum of 41. 14s. 6d., for nine weeks' board, lodging, and washing-, to which the defendant pleaded the general issne, and that she was under age at the time the necessaries were supplied. The latter plea, however, was given up. Mr. Ryland appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ballantine for the defendant. The circumstances out of which the action arose are of a somewhat singular nature. The plaintiff is a car penter, residing at No. 24, Palace New-road, Lambeth, and the defendant is a young lady, who came of age on the 14th of February, 1843, and under her grand father's will became entitled to the sum of 9161. 12s. 9d. Three per Cent. Consols. She was educated for a go verness, and resided with her mother, a widow, at Richmond, up to 1837, when she was apprenticed to Miss Richardson, of Blackheath, as a teacher, with a premium of 1001. Sh e p ossesses very cons iderable per sonal attraction?, and the plaintiff's son, William Robert Blackmore, who was shopman to a pawnbroker at Richmond, fell in love with her at first sight. Up to that period (July, 1840) young Blackmore was a total stranger to the defendant and her mother, but he intro duced himself by the following letter, dated " Richmond, 17th July, 1840. " Dear Miss,—You will, I hope, pardon the liberty used upon this occasion, when you are informed, with all duo submission, that it is the irresistible effects of a passion I conceived for you from having had an oppor • tunity of minutely observing the charms of your person a few days since on the Green. From the awe with which I am affected by your presence, I stand in this predicament —as lost to the power of expression on the one hand, as to that of restraint on the other. Though at present I address you as a stranger, if you will honour me with an interview, or a few lines, I will satisfy you, as well as all w h o ma y b e concerned, with respect to every particular of my situation in life and family con nexions that may be deemed necessary to be known, previous to an allowed intercourse. As my designs are thus apparently honourable, I flatter myself you will, if not pre-engaged, comply with my entreaty, and deign me the honour of an opportunity of paying you my per sonal respects. Waiting your pleasure, " I am, yours affectionately, " W. R. BLACKMORE. " To Miss Forty, Green-side." An acquaintance was subsequently formed, and young Blackmore, as it was alleged, invited Miss Forty and her mother to his father's house, where they remained as visitors from the 28th of September to the 30th of De cember following, in 1840. A dispute then arose be tween the parties, and Miss and Mrs. Forty ceased to board in the house, but continued to occupy an apart ment up to March, 1841, for which they paid ss. per week. For the plaintiff, Emma Blackmore, the plaintiff's daughter, and other witnesses were called, and stated that they had heard Miss Forty say that she and her mo ther had agreed to pay the plaintiff 10s. per week each for board and lodging, and 6s. for washing. For the defendant, Mrs. Mary Diana Forty, the mo ther, was called, and positively asserted that herself and daughter were induced by the earnest entreaties of the plaintiff's son to go to his father's on the 9th of August, and remain there as visitors. Witness did not consider it a suitable match, and her daughter broke it off. She had never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff to pay for their board and lodging. Mr. Ryland having replied, and the Learned Under- Sheriff summed up, the jury, after a few minutes' consul tation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 41. 14s. 6d. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) CLERKEN WELL. lIORSE-STEALING. - John Robinson, having the ap pearance of a country labourer, was charged on suspicion of stealing two horses, value about SOL, the property of a person unknown. Police-constable Cole saw the prisoner riding one of the horses, and leading the other, between seven and eight o'cloek on that morning, on the Holloway -road. His manner seemed timid and singular, and witness ques tioned him. The prisoner could give no satisfactory account of how he came by the property. He could not tell who the owner of the horses was, and would only state that he had been employed by a drover, and that he was a native of Bedfordshire. One of the cattle is a handsome mare, about three years old, and nearly tho rough bred ; the other is a powerful car t h orse, more than 15 hans high.—The prisoner w as reman d e d. Six boys, varying in age between fourteen and twenty, named Williams, Smith, Jones, Gibbons, Martin, and Markham_ , were charged with h av i ng re f use d to per f orm the work assigned them in the Holborn union work house. Nothing could exceed the squalid, miserable appearance of their persons, literally covered with filth and vermin, their ragged garment s h ar dly concea li ng their nakedness. One of them, Zachariah Williams, was covered with putrid ulcers, resulting from neglect e d cutaneous disease ; and S m ith was a martyr to the same loathsome malady. They had been admitted into the workhouse as destitute poor on the previous night, and, having received their suppers and bed, as well as break fast this morning, were requested to pick oakum for four hours, the time assigned by Act of Parliament. They refused, and were brought before the Magistrate. 'Williams said the ulcerated state of his hands would not permit him to work, and Smith urged the same excuse. Mr. GREENWOOD urged Mr. Wilkes to take these two lads into the cutaneous wards of the workhouse, and have their cases attended to by the physician. Mr. Wilkes promised to do so. The other four lads said they would do the work if they were allowed to re turn to the workhouse. This was agreed to, and the prisoners were discharged. John Johnson, alias William Curtis, having a variety of other aliases, who had been sentenced to transporta tion at the Old Bailey for felony about a year ago, was charged with numerous robberies. Police-constabl e , 49 E, recognised th e prisoner as having been on board the hulks afterhaving received sen tence, and eould not say whether the prisoner had es caped thence or had been pardoned. Mr. GREENWOOD remarked that the offence•of escap ing from the hulks was punished with transportation for life, and inquired if the prisoner had any certificate of discharge on his person ?—The constable replied in the negative ; and promised to inquire from Mr. Cope, go vernor of Ncwgate, if the prisoner really were a returned convict. • The prisoner declined saying anything on the subject. The first case was stealing three pairs of boots from the shop of Mr. Louis, a bootmaker, residing in Brown low-street, Holborn. The prisoner went into Mr. Louis' shop on Saturday last, between eight and nine in 'the evening, and finding nobody in it, coolly took the boots from the shelf and ran away with them. He was ob served, however, by Mr. Kimble, of 162, Goswell street, who chanced to be passing at the time. After a smart race police. constable 75 E, overtook and arrested him. The second case was stealing a fur-trimmed cloak, a gentleman's blue coat, and other articles of wearing ap parel, value 1.51., from the house of Mr. Veltinhofer, a German gentleman, residing at 10, Shadwell-street, Islington. The prisoner having ascertained that a Mr. Leonardo, n literary gentleman, lodged in the house, - took a ficti tious note to him, offering him a salary of 1201. a year for his services, as teacher in a school in Hounslow. The note was written in the German language, and was deli vered by the prisoner on the 3d ult. Whilst Mr. Leo nardo was penning an answer to the note, the prisoner decamped with the garments, which wero hanging in the WI. The third case was stealing a Cheese, weighing 59 lbs , frthic the shop of Mr. Coggin, Dean-street, Holborn; on the 2d of May last, which was established. Depositions for trial were taken down in the above three Lases, and Restaux stated that a great number of other cases of a similar nature could be completed against hini, but, the _Magistrate said it would be sufficient to commit him for trial on these three. In the ease of - .tlfark Need alias Perkins—a father beating his child with extraordinary cruelty, and the facts of'which appeared in this paper, among the reported proceedings of Clerkcnn•ell Police-court, Mr. Scar ill, clerk to the board of guardians of Clerkenwell parish, announced to the Magistrate that it was the intention of the board to prosecute the father at the ensuing Middle sex sessions, and Mr. Greenwood expressed his satisfac tion at the information. GUANO.—A lively interest was excited last week' An the Colonial market, owing to a sale by auction of the first cargo of guano imported into London from the re cently discovered island of Ichaboe, on the western coast of Africa. The interest was increased by a similar sale in Liverpool, a few days before, of the largest quantity that has hitherto come . from the same place, in one bottciPt, namely, the ship Blake, Of one thousand tons. The competition at both sales was very spirited, and each cargo was sold in about twenty minutes. The desire for Ichaboe guano has arisen from the fact, that all the emi nent chemists who have analysed it, have found it to possess the fertilizing properties in the highest degree ; and the results of its application by practical agriculturists has proved the correctness of their analysis. The farmers in the northern and some of the western districts in England and in Scotland, were ogm S fu o e e u an t tn h c4see A 0 7 , fise kingdomr m e t r tr f t o among the first' to try Guano, wher introdnced from theauir years g tcbo nsi tsasugymoe, year rt o n n d• have had the best qualities: i . ncre n a s e t T d h h e e s a. e t e p o le n a as s r e t i s - . twenty times above that of last year , being no small evidence of the superior merits of this invalu able manure. Be s id es t h e demand for home consump tion, several ships hav e di sc h arged in the West Indies, and there are large orders for various ports on de Continent. 'The immense benefit to the shipping inte rest, from this new branch of commerce, may be eon ceived, whep it is known that about four hundred ships are on their way to Iclaboe and the adjoining islands for the next year's supply, and that from this cause the value of shipping has advanced fifteen to twenty per cent. We perceive that a cargo of Ichaboe Guano is to be sold tir public auction, at the Corn Market,Atark lane, Olt onday,.the 10th ijuottult, THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 7, 1844, SHOCKING ATTEMPT at MURDER NEAR LOUTH. On Thursday evening (30th ult.), about nine o'clock, the utmost consternation was created in Louth, from the galloping into the town of a mounted messenger, who sought the assistance of the police in endeavouring to discover the retreat of a ruffian who had made an at tempt to murder an old man, named Jacob Gainsley, and his wife, who keep the toll-bar on the Spilsby -road, about two miles from Louth. About eight o'clock on the above evening, a tall, stout, banker-looking fellow called at the bar, and asked for a biscuit and a cup of water, which were sup plied to him by old Gainsley, and of which he sat down and partook. When he had finished he went out, and on his return said he would hare another biscuit and a bottle of ginger beer. These were also supplied, and soon afterwards he rose from his chair, went up to the fire, and taking down a brace of loaded pistols which were hanging over the mantelpiece, said to the old man, " What do you keep these for?" to which he replied, "To protect myself from robbers." The ruffian in stantaneously levelled a pistol at Gainsley, and fired. Providentially the ball missed, and lodged in the opposite wall. He then pulled from his pocket a heavy hammer, with which he began to beat the poor old man on the head. The noise brought out Gainsley's wife, who was in a little parlour, who seized the assailant by the necker chief, when, to release himself, he took hold of the fiire finger of her hand with his teeth, and completely bit off the first joint. He then began beating the old woman on the head with the hammer until she was nearly insensible. All this was but the work of a moment, and at this stage Gainsley's son, a stout young man, who was in bed in another part of the house, rushed into the room in his shirt, when the vil lain fired at him with the second pistol, the ball of which must inevitably have proved fatal, had it not entered the thick part of his right arm, where it lodged. The poor fellow grappled with the wretch, and in the struggle he was severely cut about his right hand with a razor, which his opponent pulled from his pocket. He succeeded, however, in wresting from him the hammer with which he gave him several se vere blows on the head, its shaft being broken in the struggle. At this time, also, the old man recollected that he had a sword stick, with a stiff square sword (four edged), about a foot and a half long, and with this wea pon he several times stabbed the fellow, and it was sub sequently found stained with blood l The father and son then rushed into the parlour for a loaded gun, which was hung up there, when the fellow followed them and seized it ; but the cap having been lost,- it was rendered useless. The struggle in this little parlour was severe, and so much blood was lost by the whole party, that the walls were literally besmeared with it. The old woman escaped by the window to give an alarm, when the other three returned to the room in which the attempt' at murder was first made, each too faint from exhaustion and loss of blood to struggle any more. The ruffian then (having unobservedly locked the door inside, and put the key in his pocket), finding the old woman was gone to give an alarm, took out his razor and swore he would cut his own throat, drawing the razor across it as he spoke, if they would not let him go. Whether from fear or otherwise, he was then suffered to make his escape, and took a direction towards the woods on the Spilsby road. e Mr. DIVETT presented petitions from Gloucester shire against the Bill. Mr. WYSE presented several petitions from Ireland in favour of the Bill. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY asked - the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether they were aware that an enactment had passed the Legislature of British Guiana, sanctioning the rais ing of a loan in this country ? Lord STANLEY said he had received dispatches from Demerara that morning, to the effect stated by the Hon. Gentleman. Dr. BO WRING said, perhaps the Noble Lord would be able without receiving notice of his intention to put the question, to state whether he was able to lay on the table the papers which had arrived yesterday from China, containing some important declaratign i ssue d b y the Government of Hong-Kong on the subject of slavery and the slave trade. - - Lord STANLEY said he had not seen the papers to which the - Hon. Gentleman referred. BANK CHARTER. , Mr. MUNTZ wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government a question with respect to the Bank Charter, in order to remove the doubt which existed in the public mind. In the event of such an export of gold as should withdraw from circulation all notes ex ceeding the 14 millions issued against securities, were the said 14 millions, or any part of them, to be payable in gold on demand ; and supposing that three millions issued against the Exchequer to be withdrawn from cir culation, how were those notes to be redeemed which were issued against the 11 millions of debt due to the Bank ? Sir R. PEEL said he would really rather not answer the question. He thought the intention of the Bill was quite manifest. Any demand made upon the Bank must be paid in gold. The Bank was allowed to issue notes on securities to the amount of 14 millions. The debt due from the Government to the Bank, to the amount of eleven millions, was assigned as part of those securities. The remainder of those securities were securities over which the Bank had an entire control. It was of no use to put extreme hypothetical, cases.—(Hear.) The Bank should have free con trol over the three millions, and if it should be necessary no doubt the Government would have credit enough to pay the demand upon them. In reply to a question from Lord J. RUSSELL, Sir R. PEEL stated that the sugar duties would have precedence on Monday next. Mr. BORTHWICK wished to learn from the Right Hon. Baronet when the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the County Courts Bill, and other Government measures, would be brought forward? Sir R. PEEL could give no pledge on the subject. It was most desirable that the subjects should be properly discussed. On Monday next he intended to proceed with the Sugar Duties, on Thursday with the question of the Bank Charter, and if to-morrow, he could state what question would be brought on Friday, he would do so, hut he would not pledge himself on the subject. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL trusted that sufficient notice would be given of when it was intended to bring forward the Irish Registration Bill. Sir R. PEEL would take care to give such ample notice respecting the Bill that all her Majesty's subjects should have full intimation of its introduction. POOR-LAWS. On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Dissenter's Chapels Bill, Mr. BOR HINVICK gave notice that he should on that day fortnight move for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the existing Poor-laws. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Sir B. HALL presented petitions against the Dis senters' Chapels Bill. Mr. MACAULAY presented 100 petitions from different parts of Scotland to the same effect. Sir GEORGE STICKLAND presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Preston against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. . Mr. SCOTT presented petitions, in favour of the Bill, from various Dissenting congregations, and also various petitions, with a similar prayer, from the lineal descend ants of many of the founders of these chapels. Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Wolverhampton, in favour of the Bill. Mr. HUTT presented several petitions against the Bill. Sir JOHN SEALE presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Dartmouth against the Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions in favomi of the Bill. -- Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition frOm. a congregation of Wesleyans against the Bill, and to a petition from Selby in favour of the Bill. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented thirty-six petitions from congregations in London, So u th war k, an d Lambeth, against the Bill ; also a petition signed by the Right Hon. Fox Maule, as Chairman of a meeting held in Exeter Hall, against the Bill, which petition stated twelve distinct reasons why the Bill should not pass into a law. Mr. COBDEN presented twelve petitions against the Bill, and three in its favour. Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from various Wes leyan and Presbyterian congregations in Ireland against the Bill. Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Birkenhead against the Bill. Lord H. VANE presented petitions from various con gregations in Durham against the Bill. Sir J. TYRRELL presented petitions from Essex against the Bill. Mr. WATSON presented eight petitions from dif ferent Roman Catholic bodies in Ireland in favour of the Bill. Mr. GIBSON presented petitions in favour of the Bill. Captain PECHELL presented three petitions from Brighton against the Bill. Mr. BOUVEBIE presented a petition in favour of the Bill. Mr. P. S. BUTLER presented two petitions from Kilkenny in favour of the Bill. Viscount BARRINGTON presented a petition against the Bill. Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON presented petitions against the Bill. Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. STANSFIELD presented a petition from Hud dersfield against the Bill. Sir B. INGLIS presented petitions against the Bill. Mr. COWPER presented four petitions against the Bill. Sir J. PARKER presented petitions fur and against the Bill. Mr. EWART presented a petition from Liverpool in favour of the Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions against the Bill. Colonel FOX presented petitions from the Tower Hamlets against the Bill. Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition in favour of the Bill. Mr. HAWES presented 63 petitions, some in favoUr of, and some against, the Bill. Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Kendal against' the Bill. Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions from mem bers of 'the Established Church, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters .of various denominations, in the county'of Down, in favour of the" Bill. Mr. BELLEW presented similar petitions from the _counties of Down and Antrim. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on moving the, second raiding of this Bill, he would endeavour to state to the House as clearly as he could, the object which was contemplated by it ; and he was the more anxious to do so, because he was satisfied from what was taking place out of doors, and from the language : many of the petitions presented against the , Bill, that much misapprehension prevailed upon the sub ject.—(Hear, hear.). Petitions had been presented against the Bill from various denominations of Dissenters, and, amongst others, from the classes who -claimed to-have -an interest in the property which was the subject-matter in dispute, and who said that if the ' Bill were passed they would be deprived of property to which- they were now entitled. He would deal with that allegation in_another part. There were petitions from the Wesleyan body. He could not think there was any provision in the - Bill which could in any way whatever affect the property , of the Wesleyan body—(Cries of "Hear, hear")—nor would it affect the pro perty of the members of the Church of England, fur its operation was confined to Dissenting chapels. The costs of the suits which had been going on for nearly fourteen years had almost. destroyed the property in dispute, and although the House of Lords had come to a decision, it was at that • moment as much a question what class of Dissenters were . entitled to the benefits of this charity as when the suit was instituted fourteen years ago. He did hot know whether gentlemen were aware that a fresh infor mation had been filed on the part of the Independ ents against the Presbyterians, alleging that the latter did not agree in doctrine with Lady Hevvley, the founder of the charity, and that they were no more entitled to it, therefore, than were the Unitarians.:— (Hear, hear.) That suit might probably go through all it 3 different stages. The litigation might last another fourteen years ; and the whole charity would be dissi -pated before an ultimate decision would be given as to who would be entitled to it. Neither the members of the Church of England nor the Wesleyan Methodists Were affected by the Bill. He felt every respect for the conscientious feelingg which induced them to present pe titions against any l3ill which they thought likely to en courage a faith hostile to , that which they themselves professed ; but he could not help thinking that it was too late at that time fur them to be inquiring whether the Legislature had done wisely or not in extending a com plete system of toleration.—(Hear, hear.) That had been the spirit of the Legislature of this country now for some years—(Hear, hear)—it was in that spirit that the Legislature passed the Bill, of- 1779, which relieved the ministers of Dissenting congregations from the necessity of subscribing the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England ; it was in that spirit that they bad repealed in 1813 the clauses of the Toleration Act against Unita rians, and in 1817 the Act making it blasphemy to deny the divinity of our Lord. The same spirit of toleration had been acted upon with respect to the Unitarians in Ireland, who had been placed upon the same footing as regarded all civil rights, as regarded all civil property, as regarded their chapels, as regarded their schools, as re garded their charities; as other classes of Dissenters.— (Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that they would not be acting in the spirit of complete toleration, or in the spirit of the Acts which had been passed, if they allowed any feeling which they might entertain to pre- Went them from legislating for them in the same spirit legislated for other Dissenters.—(Hear' hear.) apprehension that this Bill would encou this country was wholly un did not believe it would other ; and even 'he propo "f Lti%, „ the attention of the House to the circumstances which had induced her Majesty's Government to adopt this Bill, on the recommendation of high legal authorities in the House of Lords. The measure came down to that House recommended by the authority of such men as the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. Her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward the measure, had no other object in view but that of doing justice, and put ting an end to vexatious and cruel litigation.—(Hear, hear.) He would now state the nature of the provisions. He believed that no objections were entertained with re spect to the first clause, but. still it must not be forgotten that that was a most essential clause.—(Hear, hear.) Before the Tolerati on A ct passe d , any gift for founding a chapel for the purpose of putting forth doc trines contrary to those propounded by the Church of England, would be held bad either in a court i of equity or a court o f law. Before the passing of that Act, all Dissenters stood on the same foundation . ; none of their acts were legal. By the Act of Toleration, however, Protestant Dissenters were placed in a very different situation, their acts were declared legal, but the Catholics and Unitarians were excluded from the operation of that Act. After the passing of that Act, all other Protestant Dissenters, if they founded schools or any other chari ties, those foundations would be recognised by the Court of Chancery and the courts of law, and they would perpetuate the trusts. Such, however, was not the case with respect to the Catholics and the Unitarians. Very early indeed there appeared to be a repugnance on the part of Dissenters to subscribe to the provisions of the Toleration Act. In 1772 an Act was introduced for the purpose of putting an end to persons subscribing the ar ticles of that Act. That Bill passed the House of Com mons by a large majority, but it was thrown out in the House of Lords. In 1772, however, the Bill passed, and no Protestant Dissenter after that pericd was called upon to sign any of the declarations of the Church of Eng land. After the passing of that Bill any foundation for the benefit of Unitarian chapels would be held legal. The first clause of the present measure put all Protestant Dissenters, Unitarians among the rest, upon the same footing as the Roman Catholics, it gave, in fact, a retro spective effect to the operation of the Toleration Act. Such was the first clause. He understood there was no opposition to the clause, and certainly it was a most important part of the Bill. The second clause was in tended to afford relief against an evil which would rise to a monstrous height if remedy were not applied; he meant that spirit of litigation among the Dissen ters to which the decision in the case of Lady Hewley's charity had given rise. —(Hear, hear.) The first clause related to all charitable foundations ; • the second clause related to chapels only. It was said that, according to the existing law, no lapse of time could be pleaded to a breach of trust. If the breaCh were of such a nature as to call on the Attorney-General to interfere, on behalf of the public, it was perfectly true no lapse of time could be pleaded against the Attorney-General ; but, in cases of breach of trust, , in which private parties were concerned, a lapse of time could be pleaded ; and with regard to this Bill, he trusted he should satisfy the House that it contained no violation of the exi s ti ng pr i nc i ples of law, but on the contrary; it was framed in strict analogy with those principles. There was was no doubt but that a party might give land or money in trust for purposes of religion, and if such a person said that a chapel which he founded was intended for the use of Roman Catholics alone, the will of the donor would be strictly abided by, and such would be the case with regard to every other sect ; but he did not think that in every case of charitable foundation of that nature, in which the doctrines to be taught were not stated—he did not think they were bound to assume that in every such case the founder intended that those doctrines only should be taught which he himself pro fessed. They had no right to assume such to be the case, for this reason : many of these chapels had been founded by bodies of Dissenters wlio were conscien tiously opposed to the subscription of any articles of faith, and they had no right to assume that these persons would impose burdens upon others which they shrank from themselves:—(Cheers.) In .no case in which it was distinctly stated in the foundation deed what were the doctrines to be taught in these chapels would the present Bill interfere. He could not understand what was meant by saving that the present Bill would encourage a violation of trust, as it would not interfere in any case in which particular doctrines were directed to be taught. In what cases would it interfere then ? It should be recollected that those Unitarian - efrap - ers — were not founded by deed ; they were generally in this manner : a congregation dissented from the 'Church Establishment, they wished to establish a chapel.; they formed a voluntary, association ; they sub scribed fun& and built 'the chapel, which, in the first in stance was vested in trustees, because it was necessary by law that it should be so ; but so little had the trustees to do with the management of the chapel that in all the small chapels the original trustees had fallen off, and new ones had been appointed. The congre gations relied upon possession. Who supported the minister ? Not the trustees, but the congregation. Who paid him ? The congregation. Who re moved him ? The congregation. The trustees had no more power than any stranger. Supposing a cer tain number of persons to have purchased a chapel— to have appointed a preacher—supposing that son had succeeded son, and supposing that in the lapse of time the clergyman had preached doctrines different from those of the original founder—supposing that to be the case, yet, after those persons had laid out their money in purchasing a chapel, and after it was possessed from generation to generation, he thought it was ex t reme l y hard they should .now be deprived of it.—(Hear, hear.) Why, if this plea were good, although for a hundred or a hundred and fifty years Unitarian doctrines might have been preached, all the money subscribed for such a chapel—all the money left for the benefit of the clergy man or his family during this time, would be handed over to strangers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not, at least, founded on a principle of justice and equity, supposing it were even founded on law. He would here assume it to be law—what, he would ask, was it right that the property which had come for the support of such chapels should be given to those who were perfect strangers?— (Hear, hear.) But it ought not to be assumed that the law was clear ; it was the novelty of the law in the case which induced the Noble and Learned Lords to recom mend the Legislature tp interfere. If, on the face of the deed, it appeared that the trust was for the support of Trinitarian doctrines, or any particular sect, the Bill would not interfere in such a case. It was only where they had not, on the face of the deed, any particular system of doctrine mentioned, that the Bill would inter fere. When there was no particular system of doctrines mentioned, were they to assume it was the intention of the testator that it should be applied for any particular sort of doctrines ? How were they to know that the testator was Of the same faith with themselves? In the case of Lady Hewley her deed was produced, and cer tain documents and catechisms were produced, for the purpose of showing that she was a Trinitarian. Sup posing that to be so, had she declared that this trust was .for the benefit of Trinitarians ? It was very doubtful whether such evidence was admissible. Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in his judgment, stated that pa - ale views or seeret intentions were not ad missible in evidence. He admitted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was of a contrary opinion. But he would ask was it not mischievous and improper ' that the most solemn points of Christianity should be discussed in courts of law? This was not the proper tribunal for theological discussions. What he recom mended was, that they should introduce a certain test which might be applied to cases of this nature, and which had been applied in other analogous eases. There - was no single case in private life that did not depend more,or less on usage. Under the old law if a question had been set up the modus 'would be proved by twenty years' usage, and by a recent Act of Parliament a ques tion could not be set up after a modern usage of thirty years. It was necessary that there should be some guide, some landmark in order to 'prevent tho se scan dalous conte n ti ons w hi c h had hitherto taken place. The proposed Bill did not disturb existing rights. It did not take anything from congregations who might be in pos session of a benefice, and which they might have for many years been enriching. The Bill confirmed existing rights, but it did not perpetuate injustice. It might be urged that particular trusts might be misappropriated, 'but they were misappropriated only through the minister, and there was no great danger of such perversion through him,, as he was liable tio be dismissed upon proof of such perversion, and any mem ber of the congregation could prefer the complaint. There was, therefore, no danger of Presbyterians being ousted from their property. The Bill was not meant to interfere with the religious tenets of any sect; it had perfect regard for every form of Christianity.—(Loud cheers.) _He did not, thinkit was at all open to those charges which had been made against it ; he hoped and believed it would prove beneficial to the great body of Dissenters, and that it would annihilate that spirit of litigation and dissension which had been the production of so much scandal and _ hear.) The de tails of the Bill might be discussed in Committee, and he trusted the second reading of the Bill would have the general concurrence of the-House.—(Loud cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS, although wishing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman joy of the manner in which he had been received by 'the House, must say, that he was unconvinced by the arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend, and came to a different conclusion from the premises laid down. He looked, upon this as a question of law and of property, and on that ground he opposed the Government measure. He did not say the Bill interfered with any sch em e ofChristianity,but he hoped they would act as men interested in the cause of truth and justice. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had fortified his praise of the measure by the approbation of the Lord Chancellor, but he (Sir R. Inglis) appealed from Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords to Lord Lynd hurst 9n the Bench, and to the opinion of that Noble and Learned Lord in Lady Ilewley's case.—(Hear.) The Bill did not affect any property in which the inten tions of the founder of the trust were clearly marked out; but he would ask his Right Hon. Friend how liti gation was to be prevented by the Bill, which left open the Court of Chancery to, all those who chose to con test the measures of trustees. At a meeting held this day, a resolution was come, to, condemning the Bill on the ground of its opening the door to litigation. A. petition was agreed to, signed by " John Wilks," for merly a M e mb er o f this House, and recognised as the representative, if not the leader of the Dissenting body. The third clause was one of great importance. As it was brought into the House of Lords it was a very sim ple clause, and the marginal note was actually lar ger than the clause itself. Whilst the Bill was passing in the House of Lords alteration was made in the clause, with such breathless haste, that whereas the clause itself was essentially changed, the marginal referenee remained the same.—(A laugh.) The clause was originally worded so as to affect suits commenced before the first day of March in this year; and the alteration was made to enable parties to plead the Act, in suits tbat'might be instituted after the passing of. the Bill. There migLit be good reasons for the Bill, although he 4 not benable-to.disoover them) .yetle WAS' sure that I it would not effect that most important ota; r i „S objects, the prevention of litigation. leiPorS. Chancery had now as much power (and ° eters. Bill would give it, for deciding disputed 1 0 7 no s to trusts of a religious character. He d en , si • to a recent decision of Sir Edward Sag ~,,,010 whom he could not speak in other terms reliejJ the highest respect and esteem. Th wh at / I b ( 4 however, had, upon some grounds, ie Inglis) could not comprehend in deferred bi, ment, because this measure was prog re ment. In conclusion, he would say that 700' all events, the 3d clause might he so ine,LettO more his objections. He moved an amenw:ii., Bill be read a second time that day six men's Mr. FLUMPTRE, in secOnding the said that he thought the opposition bn been given to the Bill ought to Go , mended the attention of her Majesty's, It was said the Wesleyan body bad no. sinter matter. Supposing they had not, was it tos . , that on such a ground they would:give thf,,. error? But then it had been said the Bill derstood. He asserted it was fully tinde r !, t , l . would say if it was carried, as he was afratti'l„ the Christian public of this country, woulee and cruelly used by this measure. Ji's in that House, but he was not to be oe".• yr dressing the House when he found Christualo:p assailed. He would perseveringly give his 5p Pr ' the Bill, and in doing so he believed he was sentiments of thousands out of that Hous e ' the Mr. MACAULAY then rose to a ddress, He despaired of addi ng m uch to the excelletibe of the Learned Attorney-General, whom , l , all must be happy to see again in his P tlis' hear.). He h a d th oug ht it right, h°"'ev• gent 1 person on that side of the House should 11 1 ,0 0 his conviction of the excellency o f this Bill.. it to observe the temp e r a te manner in w i t t se Friend the Member for Oxford had treates, tb He had considered th e ma tter as one not ca : 0 0 character, but mere meum and teens Thes‘teabtf,.i ever, that had been p u r s ued by the Hon. 'riliffere/01 had seconded the amendment was very nett!' had made the question one, no t of Pos „ A rt, ss divinity.—(Hear, hear.) Now, for his owe I chro Bill was in favour of Catholics, the Secessionoidi, Scotland, or the Free Church, his langnagals6 same, and he should vote in precisely the nsbe t p .s‘ he should do thai night.—(Hear, hear) 0 . 00 1 , 1 point, he considered, on which any ques ti° l l 4 to ss ° would be the second clause.—(Hear.) L'•by clause, no objection had been made to it, eve% t y7 Friend the Member for Oxf or d. Then c a t - t eg st r ' clause, which rested on th e principle of A few hours ago he should not have suP,,P ° ,se °r lo 4 Hon. Member would have got up in that Pn o tef t i y where, and denied its necessity r he had , ", e ) sbP, lj d painfully undeceived. A conclave at e ' s ti co ni;,ed sent in a resolution of certain proceedings tb place there, from which it appeared, that al tin'AS the principle of prescription as untenable Ocirostd of a British Legislature, and. that it was in, c o f P i ;l,o the Government to bring forward principl e , s Lion.' If these gentlemen were right, the ; $ O lll ef men had been governed for ages were t ° , e serl ie r The law of prescription had been known i n . the ° I V lised age.—(Hear, hear.) It was knownget bunal of Athens ; and even after the Frenei`rorti)oli it was admitted in the Code Napoleon; i n s s o trie' ss r trine of prescription was known even in e ° '' d t o h f e th n e am gr e c o a f t Jchusatrtineiranofhthadisnceovuenrubyenjhbeearrt.io",ro j oy It must be clear to any well -thinking ° f i bs rid! principle of prescription was necessary te; es stit, tion of property, and there would ba 30 or t° lar cee if it was taken aw a y. W as it t o b e so's' bill lis°be, that a man should be c om p e ll e d to pay ile by his great-grandf a th er i n th e year 1660? - ' nt4 t i t ee j ( i r Well, then, if it was desirable that a certsl o °Te t scription should be mad e t o li m it rights , r eselV see why it should not be applied to the p as te But then it was said they wanted to pass an , 009; law. Why, let th em go t o w h a t Act the? e r, would find none that h a d no t a re trospecis v t hee ae i and till religious bigotry stepped in 13 s a u1 b no objections offered t o suc h Ac ts ' l O , OO, it was said that th e y ma de t h e it sh°,. time for doing wrong the reason why continued. The present question, in hi s ss o i - st , ` ° ; one on which the principles of linsi„„ta' 3 o , - . briL, apply most forcibly .—(Hear, hear.) the ,b 9 ; 7 4 Members bestowed much attention O f o froti o " had they compared the petitions in fav ° %eitie s s with those against it? If they had, they „Ay the one sound arguments, and in the other, t he re s ee et declamation. L e t th em l oo k to t h e cases c ' s Ci Ar s chapels in the country. T a k e the case O'• e e l Large sums were laid out on th e c hapel ti ler l 4lV A been derived fro m sources f ore i gn W to 4 4 ; then worshipped ther e . L e t them • c°.", then. There wa s a l arge c h a pel, i m tion of which, u p t o 1774, were fin ts jt i There the chapel was filled with the rae r ' l ltatV4 tarians ; it had a library and school-house:oV which had been erected at the expense ° s . one s elf; and at this moment the members of the; e b , t r ts,,, were sitting still, not daring to repair thea: i tbeloiS daring to build or make improvements , ~t id ilo s what would be the result of this Bill. It " 1 s d Y' where they went ; this was the common asgrety, history of Unitarian chapels and e ° „ l3 f tbe, siAhtb G icr juear o tydnti bee t cLb ede o sederhttehnaaadint Manchester,—he was not quite sur e ", i t o r l _,, s ‘9, laid been i t y he f o o ug r t atrseaueangvtdehpnttray.t monumentsrl l y r l e i a a e n s r e t s lhyea himself a e l md e r s a ; be s f ee :: t b f d o repairs at the th presente great m o u ni n e i n ta t, ri : l , l o o o b i oei fund was 'Ting idle, because they dared 11 0 t: House decided whether it could afford therd s - ttl,A At Maidstone there was the same story • for ' not matter where they went; but at Maids'teeeol years Unitarian principles had been taughhoirliejt, had been subscribed; at Exeter the same LI be 130!„; been taught for eighty years; there 29° ca d ~ n subscribed. It was the same at Rotherhet°', 1 7 , ‘ and other places. And were these the elt e ; ,, e- ted i tj a British Legislature would allow to be stlu?, - , robbery? He really could not use any ° t ` l " 0 0- 0 how would it be viewed with regard to aill o oe" was really Would it be borne for a sing le , h p fe el ,lo,i was really painful to think what must be ",:f e tbe',d' s these who cried out for the ejectmen t i sb°o4; viduals; why what were the claims of thof ° to eject them, compared with the claioss h e t,e d remain? What were their associations ,`" ;‘ , l- s s hl l in` e ; of a Priestly or a Lardner? What fe eP liaa in connection with the monuments of lln it tb e „, What feelings had they in connection wins bs' se °i • stones which the piety of four genera dot 0 0 4 over -the ashes of sisters, and wives a ° plciJi s s Yet they came forward to eject men ' fr ° Ti s h c e boe s were to them invaluable, and the loss of w fe l e ir be supplied, while to the intruders thoseotherf had no more value than any, ore s°, they might have a so% i heads. If the House threw out this Bi'" to fr eb ll 7 , not merely be robbing one party to g iv ,, c hl ( f ags? which would be bad enough, but theY s ,;,• one party of what they considered Wal e '; bestow it in a quarter where it could ordY. h ores t ak) trophy of an inglorious war—a tropllY. wh s o d rive no value except from the humiliation ototo'he tion of those who were driven out. An iiP s P ...--0 1 0 0 J been thrown out in some of these petition friol Roved it had been repeated elsewhere--of part of the Unitarians. It was .asserted s es s se have known what was the intention of t h o r s ders of these chap e l s —th a t t h e y must ha v- o d late t , were attached. to Trinitarian doctrin% r ef o jel. o l this they must • have inevitably, down to pr e csees:; riod, either have been Trinitarians or ha_ ve r y o fti's be so. For, it was urged, till 1779, ev e v iew so";;; aoc a teacher was obliged to subscribe to the an of the Church of England, which, if he w s , s s iei° °.4. o f. P ; man, he could not do, if he held Unitarian s - o 'sii 9 / , r and inference, therefore, was clear, that down en a A O r. ) senting minister must e ither have h' b oief,c' e s tarian or a rogue I Now, h e t he , . r ail°, l o l were neither th e one nor the ° , l t his,' ' O l 'pol The very eminent person who had use , i i s tort t ; of was no doubt well acquainted with the . . fo en af s Church, of which he seas so bright an in t ' be lo 4 - e r Y, he questioned if he was so well read iat serl 41b' non-conformity. The truth was tha : t oed t he d period those articles ceased to be suu s t .,tion ie ht" t et senting ministers. Even in the first geu e t he e e t he scription was refused, among others hy, ,s t er to se e , 1 Calmet; this was in the first generatil the coasi.es passed, and they all knew the force . ee p e e l 1 ie di e which told them that new brooms s b e vy not is (Ikar, hear.) In 1711, the Whigs, h e . hste , b lc ll ',,s they formed a coalition with Lord Not i tt ° ! i 0 s isupt Bill passed through the House of L cil l e 'sted l o sti' e t if order to favour the Dissenters, they t he :13104 asstwich really took away the stringencY atst -010 the subscription of the a rticles. st P o ol 0 1 any information should be laid agauLticies Lion 'ss minister for non-subscription ,to the m ietb oas ri ons any time between the lodging of ti n s t.er s rtb t , s ° lo the delivery of the judgment, the min` shOtijche ip scribe the articles the costs of the s o ul reer , d idso cast upon the shoulders of the inf.f ie proc4,sen t at: was, that in 1773, as proved both by l e t he ,v is sertse Parliament and the publications n.; t he 1- f he d ,toe, party themselves, the majority su bscl be rv i i to preachers then alive had n ever _root, st fs' l s articles at all ; the whole of t he arglivrs rs ti ,r0 „0 founded on the insincerity of the Dissent t he A! the ground. Was it necessary to proeae:,_(7ry,,hooeo pee General had very simply and ably state and naturally these congregations, noIV oi l be fi x ed, o' c c o ip n l f e es o s f io th n e o f P f r a e i s th ba a - Presbyterians having a o v f i t n h g e da yt o s -d ild t si h t i a n t et o tl; c h a l i 3 r ii i i icl ll olll l ol° which the divisions of sects could , tog eth „,0 subscription of articles, and only ho t :in: as i5 0r,,e 0 01,7 0 1 principle they religious freedom—wh o d insee'i s y ' er e t 5 he hhneae intond o t le another, tarti doctrines es p r s e w u hi l e c t l dh g oi l ui i l d t t e hi f en r co a a u japn a cs l . l b Y edoy : i tohn c; tz t l . t i l d e l ? uttl on 511 1 0 10 "tbe r U to identically the same as those pre o _, l to 0 41 _ might venture to refer his Hon../ c e u` ba a re e ; li of ecclesiastical history, with w hill .o n_ io . tit r i voier e were lieve he was perfectly intimate. . 11 _ w oo :' s ion , r ons sets' t t hhee doctriness h a i m s to e r a y ns otoh‘fye held original g b r y e ad theo cI S I vvr c iiins( , atilticgsohet(4l bit tt2...l b cnie y o t t sc : ,b3frottteh e c troef e " rripc ssi ,; —(Hear.) He had talked suasion, and they all ackno , ri d 0 jesi which were considered vital annnovv e. cond e . ° a be s'ss generation of seceds were_ r 0 maint me t e i tso e ci with h ir° 'ailfe re'l a whentrineP r esb tofht e et rhi the great n s. connexionGT George e rge first v h s ct betweenfiedeoled went to tboon (row_ 51'coil''‘,4, a Presbyterians would not unit _ aloe ' he s _ as miring his abilities and pieth,",_ ° eoer iers„ u a r t , r estr 1,1 them on this point. The aw l ' state . connexion between Church and &s erYi'Thers the PreSbyterians of the Pres en ...AA ' 2 ' voluntary ,system, and the 6eP3A"'- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT , 110 USE OF LORDS, June 6. Their Lordships assembled this afternoon at a Quarter before Four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The House of Commons having been summoned to the bar of their Lordships' House, the Royal Assent was given by Commission, in the usual form, to the undermentionedßills:—The Customs Bill, the Stamp Duties Bill, the Factories (No. 2) Bill, the Bailiffs of In ferior Courts Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement Bill, the West India, &c. Relief Bill, the Courts-Martial (East Indies) Bill, the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Bill, the Blackburn and Preston Railway Bill, the Maryport and Carlisle Railway Bill, the Northern and Eastern (Newport Deviations) Railway Bill, the Salford Im provement Bill, the Birkenhead Improvement Bill, the Leeds New Gas Bill, the Globe Insurance Company Bill, the Haltwhistle Inclosure Bill, the Farrington and Gwmgilla Inclosure Bill, and Rodbard's Name Bill. The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Earl of Dalhousie. The Commons having withdrawn, their Lordships ad journed during pleasure. Their Lordships resumed at Five o'clock. The Assaults (Ireland) Bill passed through Com• mittee. The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition against Sir Thomas Wilson's Estate Bill. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. Earl FORTESCUE presented petitions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, Ile gave his cordial thanks to the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack for having introduced this Bill, and he trusted it would pass intoalaw. WILSON'S ESTATE BILL—INCLOSURE OF HAMPSTEAD-HEATH. The Earl of EGMONT moved the second reading of this Bill, and in doing so he denied that it was intended to apply the powers of the Bill, should it be passed, for the purpose of inclosing Hampstead -heath. Lord DENMAN felt it his duty to oppose this Bill, for he was at a loss to know what grievance there was of which Sir Thomas Wilson could complain, and there fore there was no necessity for this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The will under which Sir Thomas Wilson held his property, provided that Hampstead-heath should not be leased for more than twenty-one years. It had been said that this Bill was not for the purpose of inclosing Hampstead •heath. It was true that it was not intended to cut up the heath into small - portions, - us was the case of an inclosed common ; but it was meant to give by the Bill power to certain parties to build over 400 acres of land, which now made the heath a healthy and happy place, and tlPc; resort of thousands on every Sabbath-day in the summer time ; and this, he thought, ought to be more gratifying to the proprietor than any trifling increase in the value of that property. The holders of' copyhold property near to the heath were greatly annoyed at the prospect of hav ing 400 acres of the heath built upon. It had been said that the will of the late Sir Thomas M. Wilson was a very strange will, but he (Lord Denman) thought it was a very humane will, for he believed that Sir Thos. Wilson as much devised the enjoyment of Hampstead heath to the public as he did any of his property to his son. Under these circumstances he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Earl of COLCHESTER supported the Bill. Lord CAMPBELL thought the Bill ought to be re jected. The same powers existed with respect to the property of Sir Thomas Wilson, as were possessed by his ancestors. Why then should he come to Parliament for further powers as to the disposal of such property as that on Hampstead-heath ? Why should Par liament give powers to a private individual, at the expense of public convenience and comfort. This Bill was precisely the same as the Bill of last session, which was brought forward to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to lease Hampstead -heath for periods of sixty and seventy years. He (Lord Campbell) hoped their Lordships would reject this Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW said that within the last ten years thirty Bills similar to this one had passed, and he would ask what objection there could be to this Bill going before a Committee of their Lc;rdships' House ? He should support the second reading. The Earl of MANSFIELD argued that if this Bill were unsound in principle, there was no necessity for going into the Committee, and therefore he should op pose it in the present stage. Lord COTTENHAM said, this Bill if passed would not interfere with Hampstead-heath at all.—(Hear.) The Bill contained nothing which in an ordinary case would prevent its passing, and, therefore, if they refused to pass this Bill, th e y wo uld forfeit th e i r c h aracter for doing equal justice to all. Lord BROUGHAM was surprised that his Noble and Learned Friend should defend Sir T. Wilson in an at tempt to dispose of his estate by statute, in such a manner as to be in opposition to his father's will. Lord COTTENHAM explained. Lord DENMAN said, that from the plan which he held in his hand, it appeared that it was proposed to build upon 400 acres of Hampstead-heath; and this, if carried into effect, would very seriously inconvenience the public in the enjoyment of the heath. The Earl of EGMONT replied. Their Lordships then divided— Contents Non-contents Majority against the second reading —ll The Bill is consequently lost. GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA. The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter from Lord Ellenborough, stating that he had received the thanks of the House of Lords, expressing their Lordships' appro bation of the services rendered by the army in India. The letter was ordered to be entered on the journals of the House. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 6. The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and summoned the House to the bar of the House of Peers .to hear her Majesty's Commission read for giving the Royal Assent to several Bills, for which see Lords' repOrt. The Epsom and Croydon R a il way Bi ll was read a Railwaypassed.Eßs' CHAPELS BILL. Bill was read a third ti me t end passed. third The t i T m aeDgalvnsdsa vale N T 1 ay., M Mr. HAMILTON presented a p et i t i on from the cler gymen of the Established Chur c h in . t h e county o f Dub lin, 100 Members of the Irish b ar, and several fellows and scholars of Trinity College, aga i nst t h e B i ll . Petitions against the Bill were presented by Colonel Sibthorp, rous congregationsl Independents,undyfrom nu unFl an e d Baptists. Mr. WALKER presented a p e ti t i on f rom a b o d y o f A ntro o b f lis W' an d leans Mr Wesleyans, who stated that upon examining the Bill, they found reason to withdraw their opposition to it, and e o they prayed the House to allow them to withdraw their petition against the Bill. Mr. M. O'CONNELL pr esented a petition num e rously signed from • Roman Cath o li cs i n the county of Cork against the Bill. Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a grea t number. of pea tions from Irish Catholics in f avour o f the Bill, amongst petitions by from persons. Birming ham, others i 8 rr ...one oneGIIc G ODSON I; from onis T sfTaovzNo Kildare, ld o a 4 r e and one against it. Al ls presented tw presented iglid apetition in favour of the Bill; and several again s t it, p from places in Northum berland.. Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from Warrington, in Preston, and one from places in Lan cashire,Mr. ITIORNELY prese n t e d severa l petitions in. in favour of the Bill. favour of the Bill, from places in the West of England, and from Abby Lara, in the county of Westmeath, and from several other places in Ireland. Mr. TAYLOR presented petitions from several plaOs in Worcestershire in favour of the Bill. Petitions against the Bill wer e presente d f rom Mon mouth, by Mr. Blewitt ; from Cumberland, by Mr. Gore Langton ; froth Birmingham and places in Gloucester shire, by Mr. Seholelleld ; and by , Colonel T. Wobd, from Finchley and other places in Middlesex. 1 . Mr. RICE presented a petition from Dover against the Bill. Mr. BUSFEILD presented petiti ons from congrega tions in Bradford, in favour of the Bill. Mr. BItOTHERTON presented six petitions, signed by several thousand Roman Catholics in Manchester and Salford, against the Bill. Lord R. GROSVENOR presented several petitions for and against the Bill.—(Laughter.) He had carefully examined these petitions, and he found the signatures so nearly balanced each other in point of numbers, that he was unable to say whether he was petitioning for the Bill or against it.—(Laughter.) Colonel TREVOR presented a number of petiti ons Mr. BOYI) presented 51 petitions against the Bill; i against the Bill. Mr. PLU3IPTRE presen t e d a s imilar petition from Margate. Mr. 0. GORE presented petitions against the Bill him Pershore, and other places in Worcestershire, and also one from Sligo. Dr. BOWUING presented petitions from Wesleyans, and other Dissenters at Barnjtrd Castle and Manchester, in favour 'of the Bill. Dr. STOCK presented a petition, signed by 50,000 Roman Cath o li cs i n t h e coun ty of Dublin, in favour of * the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear. ) Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from a congre gation in Leeds in favour of the Bill. Sir J. RANMER presented a petition against the Bill. Colonel ACTON presente d p e titions from Dublin to the same eff ect. Sir G. STAUNTON presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. SHAW presented petitions in favour of the Bill from the Roman Catholics of Dublin. Mr. WAWN presented petitions from South Shields against the Bill. Mr. E. TENNENT presented f i ft een petitions from the north o f Ireland against the Bill ; also, nine petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. MILNES presented a petition from the deanery of Pomfr e t aga i nst the Bill. Mr. RICHARDS presented patitiOnS to the same effect. Lord MARSHAM presented the same effec t. Mr. M. PHILIP S presented several p et.. Lancashire in fa vour of the BiiL pot i t ;2lo from Kent to Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against the Bill: Lord DUNCAN presented several petitions from Bath I as they _ I rage . Unitarranis - m . . tgainst the Bill. Mr. SHEIL presented fifteen petitions from Roman ennded.—(Hear, hear.) ' rit. 7atholic He thought t congregations in4reland in favour of the Bill. I Colonel VERNEIt presented petitions from the North 'have ; any effect, either one way o r z. , ‘„ 'lreland for and against the Bill. Viscount ACHESON ' eft ' pie tftibri - lbe-itnd ,if it would, the time for interkren %e as inst the Bill. sal of the Bills of 1813 and 1817 ‘' ' vl °I "-- complete toleration, --mear, f for the extension ~.. present hear.) kl e would no r . rats ~ `:tions from APPREHENSION AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE OF THE CRIMINAL. LOUTH, SUNDAY, ONE o'cLocK.—Our correspondent further writes : —We have just received information that the perpetrator of the diabolical outrage recorded above has b een di scovere d, an d h as attempted self-mur der by cutting his own throat, though not so severely as to destroy life. His name is Markham; he is about 45 years of age, and was originally apprenticed to a baker in Louth, and was formerly a keeper at the Lincoln Lunatic Asylum. Having some time ago threatened to revenge himself upon old Gainsley, for having informed upon a brother of his for riding upon the shafts of his waggon at the .time Gainsley kept the Ashby toll-gate, he took the opportunity referred to to carry his passion into effect. By some means or other, he became acquainted with a Mrs. Desforges, a widow, possessed of some little pro perty, residing at Bilsby, near Alford, to whom he was actually paying his addresses at the time he attempted to carry out his sanguinary intentions. From information received the prisoner was traced to the house of Mrs. Desforges, at Bilsby, during the night of Saturday last, where Superintendent Campbell arrived at half-past eleven o'clock at night, accompanied by Chapman (Louth police) and Biggs (Alford police). On arriving at the house the superintendent knocked at the door. Mrs. Desforges asked " Who's there ?" The answer was, " A friend." She then ran Hp stairs, looked out of the window, and repeated the same question, asking, " What was wanted ?" He answered, " You need not be afraid, I want to speak to you." She then came down stairs, and opened the door. Campbell then asked who she had in the house ? She said, " I have only my children and Mr. Mark ham." He then said he wanted to speak to Mr. Markham, and requested her to show him the bedroom, which was only seven steps from the front door. She went up, and the officers followed. The door was open. Mrs. Desforges observed, " Do shut the door, Mr. Markham ;" but, on looking into the room, blood was seen, and it was immediately discovered that he had cut his throat. Mr. Handsley, of Alford, was sent for, and he very promptly arrived, and sewed up the wound, which extended four inches across his throat. The prisoner said it was his intention to wound Gainsley,' and to give him a desperate fright, for having about three years back, laid an, information against his brother for riding on the wag gon-shafts. The prisoner was wounded by Gainsley in several places, and he stated that it was with difficulty he had made his escape. Ho had determined to cut his throat rather than be apprehended, an d h a d h is razor , with him for that purpose ; he did the desperate act directly Mrs. Desforges went down for the purpose of opening the door. Lle was left in the custody of Biggs. Since Mr. Handsley, surgeon, of Alford, sewed up the gash in the man's throat, he managed while alone to tear out the stitches, and now lies in a most precarious state ; indeed, with scarcely a hope of recovery. MAY 29, 1844. A , NpvEL I N — S U A L n T T aff o a T i r H E o c F c itz urr rt e r ay juLAeGss.—inaMAL day the Geyser was t o s t ar t w hi c h may f orm the subject 'a newspaper article, headed so m ew h a t as follows — " on he Insult to the . French flag by a British steam er :"nd as the French will have the first tale, I feel it im perative on me to put you in possession of a plain fact, that having heard the alteram partem, you nay give its full weight to whatever rhodomontade triay appear in the French papers. The facts are as follow— Miss Tomlinson the Bishop of Gibraltar's si s t er , h av i ng expressed a wis h to land at Messina, a boat was pl4ed at her disposal by Commander Kitchen. As there were several shore boats alongside, and the descent of a lady by the ladder might excite vulgar curiosity, the captain ordered a flag . to be thrown over the ladder to prevent intru s io n . The flat , used for the purpose as the signal, No. 2, th e French flag with the colour s a- . versed. 'At this momen t a F renc h war steamer N, OS coming. in, and the c a pt a i n see i ng, as he stip i 'posed, the flag of France su b m itt e d to such an office, rounded to, and b e c ame very no i sy and boisterous, com plained that the flag had been trampled on by a woman, and consequently degraded. All explanation was uSelciss; the irascible Frenchman was deaf to all but his oyi'n clamour, and was even so rude as to refuse giv . ng tha : name of his boat, referring Comman er Kitchen to her stern, where the name as painted. The captain of the Geyser went on board in order to pacify. the doughty Frenchman. If he shc ceeded in.doing so, s till the affair is too rich, the oppor tunity of puffing up their national honour too temptihg, to indace others on board to be quiet. It is a positi ve fact, one on which I can stake my, reputation, that ton board of the Geyser at . the time there actuidly was not a French flag. . , 1 THE AMERICAN EMBASSY TO CHINA.—His Exciel lency the Hon. C. Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary d Minister Plenipotentiary from the Unit e d States of n America 'to th e C our t o f P e ki n , w ith hi s suite, arri v ed in Macao road s on . S a t ur d a y l as t, th e 24th instant, on board the United St a t es ,fl ag - s hi p B ran d ywine, Commo dore Parker. His Excellency's suite consists of six gentlemen, Mr. F. Webster, Secretary of Lega t lon, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. M‘lntosh, Dr. Kane Mr. 1 lest, and Mr. Hernisz. And we understand that the Rev, El C. Bridgman, D.D., and the Rev, ,P. Parker, have been ap pointed joint Chinese Secretaries to the Legation. His Ex cellency has apartments on the Freya Grande, where he will remain until th e B ran d yw i ne shall have taken in her stores and made other necessary arrangements to proceed on her voyage to the mouth of the Peiho.—Canton Press. I 1 EXTRAORDINAY STORY.—The Bombay Courier of Tuesday, April 9, in a letter from a credited corresponden at Kaira, details a sad event which happened to a gentle an who lived at Kaira. He went out tiger shooting and of himself by accident through the heart. On the body b 'rig taken 'to Kaira for interment, the officer commanding the station.proceecled to discharge the last offices to the departed by reading over the grave the funeral service. No socner was the service commenced than there issued from a hive in a corner of the church, outside, a swarm of bees, which illew at the congregation and stung them in all directions. Every one of the congregation, including the acting parson, 'de camped, leaving the body exposed to the heat of the sun. The writer of the letter proceeded to the spot, and found that the bees had abandoned their hive and taken possession of the coffin; their attack upon him and his horse compelled a retreat. What eventually became of the corpse has rot transpired. SMUGGLING fly PRUSSIANS.—Con Thursday film Prussian sailors, one - a b o y a b ou t thi rteen years of age, nathed Albert, Ringe, was c h arge d a t th e P o li ce -court, Liver poi, with having amongst. them possession of 611bs. of leaf.to bacco, on board the William Frederick, which arrived 'the previous day, in the Brunswick Dock, from Dantzic, with a cargo of grain. The crew consisted of thirteen hands. The four prisoners claimed the tobacco, which was found amongst the grain' by Pollard, a tide-wiiter, in five separate bundles, as their own. The package claimed by the boy Ringo weighed but 31bs., and he was discharged. The package claimed by Frederick Plinesse—a great hulking fellow six feet high, and muscular in proportion, but who blubbered like a baby at the prospect of a committal—weighed put 61bs., which so little exceeded the weight allowed by the Custom -house for the use of a sailor in port from a foreign country, that he also was discharged. But the other two, Joseph Jacke and Daniel Kunkel, having respectively 131bs. and 161b5., were remanded till the opinion of the Board of Excise in London be taken on the case. None of the gli mmers, except the boy, could speak English, and the super cargo of the William . Frederick acted as interpreter. Yester day another of the crew, named Zond, was also remanded on a charge of having in his possession two packages of the respective weights of 101 b. and 131 b. under similar circum stances to those of his shipmates in the present instance.— I Liverpool 'Journal. SCENE .AT TILE CIaMSKIRE. POLLING,BOOIII.-ne turniug officer :—" Well, who do , you vote for, - my man?" Voter—" I votes for —for—for—I votes for Master Blue." Returning officer—" What do you mean ? Who do you vote for?" Voter , —" Why I votes for—(after a long pause)—l votes for this (sholimg an Entwisle riband)." Returning officer—" That won't do."' Voter goes .down to consult his friends, then cornea up primed and loaded. Returning officer a " Well, who do . kon vot e f or? " '" Twizzle."—Limpoo/ 21in-ea. ;Voter—, Wtiy;;lv - otea fo r al