The Sun. — London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

PROVINCIAL BANK OF ItELAND. This annual meeting of this banking company was held yesterday afternoon at the offices, Old Broad-street; Oliccr Ferrer, Esq., in the chair. The four retiring directors having been re-elected, the report of the directors was read to the meeting, from Which it appeared that, in spite of the agricultural and commercial distress which had prevailed in Ireland during the last year, the bank had maintained its position, and been enabled to give its usual accommodation to its customers. The net profits far the past year were 43,343/. 10s. ld., and better prospects were entertained of the coming harvest than had been the case for the preceding four years. The balance of last year's " rest " was 110,0381. 16s. 3d., out of which two dividends had since been paid, amounting to 43,2001., l eav i ng a b a l ance o f , " rest ' of 66,8381. 16s. 3d. ; to which adding the nett profits of the past year, made the present " rest " 110,182/. 7s. 4d. From this the directors proposed to pay the usual dividend of 81. per cent. per annum. After a short discussion, in which the directors and local managers were complimented for their exertions and management during the last year, the report was adopted, and a dividend at 81. per cent. agreed to. A vote of thanks having been passed to the Chair man, the meeting separated. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. A special general meeting of the proprietors of the Great Western Railway was held yesterday, at the Paddington station, for the purpose of considering and determining upon all or any of the matters referred to in the report of the directors presented to a previous meet ing; Mr. Charles Russell, chairman of the board of di rectors, presided. The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings of the day, reminded the meeting that the matters now to be dis posed of had been fully explained in the reports of the directors and the reports of the committee of consulta tiOn, which for some time past had been in the hands of the proprietors. He should have contented himself on this occasion with that simple statement, had it not been for $ letter which Mr. Williams and two other members of the committee of consultation had thought proper to address to the directors, and which the directors themselves had felt it necessary to circulate amongst the shareholders. In the first place, then, he denied the imputation contained in that letter that he unfairly dissolved the last meeting.— (Hear, hear.) 'However that might have been, this let ter, it would seem, embraced the views of Mr. Williams and his friends, which they had wished to address to the previous meeting had it sat long enough, and it was now for the meeting to decide upon the question of salaries between the directors and the committee.—(Hear, hear.) All .the information which the directors possessed upon this subject had been supplied to the committee without reserve, and he hoped the proprietors would not further delay the settlement of this matter, but dispose of it before they separated to-day.—(Hear, hear.) Already had the dilatory proceedings of the shareholders shaken the confidence and disturbed the harmony of their executive body. Some of their most able officers had quitted their service for employments in which they were likely to meet with good faith and equitable remu neration for their labour. That they were entitled to this no honest man could deny, while it was equally un deniable that the very stability of this great undertaking required the speedy settlement of the questions which had so long agitated both the executive and the proprietary bodies.L-(Hear, hear.) Nothing was so much calculated to shake the confidence of the public in commercial speculations like this than angry disputes between its malegera and proprietors.—(Hear.) The mischief pro duced by such a course as that took years of labour and energy to remedy, and he therefore trusted the meeting would see the expediency and propriety of car rying on any discussion that may now arise in the course of to-day's proceedings.—(Cheers.) Three resolutions would be proposed for the consideration of the meeting, which would have the effect of adopting the recommen dations contained in the reports of the directors, and em powering the directors to carry them at once into force. Mr. GRIFFITHS asked if it was true that Mr. Saun ders, the secretary, volunteered a reduction of his salary from 2,000/. to 1,5001.? The CHAIRMAN said it aas not. The directors were compelled, at the instance of the committee of consulta tion, to request Mr. Saunders to consent to the reduc tion, but the directors were of opinion that 2,000/. a year was not at all an extravagant remuneration for the ser vices which Mr. Saunders rendered the company. Mr. SAUNDERS said, as this was a matter personal to himself, he might perhaps be allowed to say that be was quite prepared to abide by the decision of the meet ing upon the question of his own salary, but he begged it to bo distinctly understood that he had been forced into the reduction, and it was by no means a voluntary act of his' own.—(Oh, oh, and hisses.) Now, really, was this generous treatment fsr a man who had devoted fifteen years of his time and energies to promoting the interest of this company?—(Cheers.) The CHAIRMAN hoped those gentlemen who objected to what they heard would do so in a manly and open manner, and not disgrace themselves and the meeting by indulging in such unseemly noises as they had just heard. s e (Hear, hear.) He would now move the resolu tion adopting the report of the directors.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WILLIAMS, the chairman of the committee of con sultatioe, entered into a lengthened defence of the past proceedings of that body, and justified the redact ions they had recommended in the salaries of their superior offi cers, on the ground that similar services were rendered to other companies of equal magnitude, and by officers of equal talent, at a much less remuneration.—(Hear, hear.) There were no less than 2,250 persons in the service of this company who were in the receipt of salaries to the extent of 144,7541., and engaged in working 230 miles of traffic. There were 17 superior officers in the receipt of 10,030/. per annum; and principally at the instigation of the directors, or rather through information which the di rectors supplied to them, the committee had confined their proposals for reductions to these officers. The reduction upon the total, 144,754/., recommended by the committee amounted to 2,000/. a year, while those which the directors recommended did not amount to 251. a year.—(o6, oh.) The Government accounts, relating to upwards of 20,000,000 L, were simple and easy compared with those of this company, and the committee of consultation had therefore recommended certain changes on that head.-- (Hear, hear.) It was for. the meeting to accept or re ject these propositions, but if they wished to see the railway placed on a safe and solid foundation, the pro prietors would not hesitate to adopt the recommenda tion of the committee in preference to those of the di rectors.--(Hear, hear.) He should therefore move as ate amendment the scheme propounded by the committee of consultation, which was as follows I. That hereafter for all expenditure an estimate in &lei! should be submitted at each half-yearly meeting, ands should be confirmed by a vote of the proprietors, on the same principle as the estimates for the expenditure of.the public departments are annually submitted to and voted by Parliament. ," 2. That a more detailed account of the expenditure shOuld be submitted to the proprietors at each half yearly meeting, especially a statement of the increase or decrease of the salaries and wages of each of the officers and servants. "3. That, viewing the great depression in the re sources of the company, and the very large diminution in the cost of, ail the necessaries and luxuries of life, the redactions in the salaries and wages of the officers and servants recommended by the committee of consultation Afield be fully carried out, as well as their other recom mendations for reducing the expenditure, which may be effected without in the least impairing the efficiency of the company's service. "4. That the present mode of constituting the board of directors is highly objectionable. inasmuch as it le sults in their being self-elected, which is opposed to the interest of the company, and to the intentions of the-Act under which it is constituted; to remedy this iniuriuue practice, one-fourth of the board should retire annually, and be ineligible for re-election for ono year, which;wouthe - establish principle on which the direc ot the East India Company and of the Bank of England are appointed;h and also that the number of the diiieetorsp.oshnosiuhltditt: reduced, which would more concen trate res and without additional cost, the re muneration for their might be increased. " 5.. That a Solicitor should annual salary, Whoa© wholecompany time should be devoted to by which a large saving would- he effected, and that t a company' s recor d s an d title (leech should b e deposited so in in saf e custody on the 7. 40 amendment . having been sc u e ti d ditors, told ti Or. J. DICKINSON, one of th e ° e r n o G as m osingeler, together with Messrs. accounts to and Glad toththe very stage, of Liverpool, had sifted the ac bottom, and he staked his reputation that strictly correct. It evss .. nothing but right to oayddwere the' directors had facilitated the labours of the auditors to shy utmost of their power.--(rs —ear, hear.) Now, ° if w overboard the reduction recommended in e . they thre porters and policemen, e e sataries of the c., there was of 8004 between the di rectors only a - difference and the committee of consultation —(N o, no.) He gathered thi s information from the pub_ lished report of the committee itself, and again he repeated the only difference was 8001. a 3 ear.— (Sear; hear.) W h y th e n should they troubl e themselves with trifling reductions of the salaries they paid to their superior officers, who were perfect pro digtes in their respective departments? — (Laug hter. ) a. Moilox thanked the comm ittee of consultation for . the'able exposition which they had published of the affairs of this an but really Nampa , they wore waiting time in keeping up a struggle of this nature, which, after all, onlyinvolved a sum of !,8001.—(hear, hear.) Mr. Wtwials said the committee had recommended a geUCttal redaction of salaries, which would save them thousands per annum, but at the request of the commit• tee they now confined themselves to the salaries of the superiee offieere. Mr; igOrIGAN Still insigtel that the difference between the cetsimitte-e and the directors was oaly 1,600/. The question then for them to consider was simply had they confUenee in the direction? Judging from their past v o w s , b e concluded that they had. Why they keep up thole dissensions which had no other effect but to depress their property. Those disputes had brought the price ('f their shares down from 2061. to 501., and that fact alone ought to be Suffi3iclit to stop this discussion. Mr.:SttrruEns supported the scheme of the com mittee, on the ground that (luring the period of the mania, when the work was heaviest, the salaries paid were much less than those now proposed. lair. SLADE said this was a question of confidence in the direction._(" No, no.") lie maintained that it wal; and if the meeting adopted the amendment, it would beAantamount to a vote of want of confidence.—(" No, no:) Companies, however, like individuals, could some times be penny wise and pound foolish; and he put it calmly to the . meeting whether, in carrying this amend ment, they would not be realising that axiom.— No, no.") Follow the recommendation of the di rectors, and they would secure a contented and efficient executive staff, but pass the amendment for the of 2d. per s h are on eac h h a lf sake of a paltry saying TITE year's dividend, and their railway would be conducted by a discontented and defective body of officials. Mr. WITHERS, another member of the consulting com mittee, said all the force which was brought to bear upon Mr. Saunders to induce him to reduce his salary was nothing more than this. It was urged upon him that, as the head of the executive, a voluntary reduction on his part would have a good moral effect upon the lower branches of the executive.—(Hear.) The scale of remuneration now proposed by the committee was agreed upon in consultation with a deputation sent from the executive itself, and he called upon the meeting to adopt it without further delay.—(Hear, hear.) After some further discussion the amendment was put to the vote and declared to be carried. A poll was demanded, and fixed for a future day. Thanks were then voted to the Chairman, and the meeting broke up after a most protracted sitting. METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL. A public meeting, convened by the Anti-State Church Association, was held yesterday at the London Tavern; C. Gilpin, Esq., in the chair. The object of the meeting ' was to take into consideration that part of the Metro politan Interments Bill which will have the effect of securing a perpetual sinecure to the clergy in compensa tion for the loss of fees, which a discontinuance of in terments in existing burial-grounds will entail upon them. The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, wished it to be understood that the object for which the meeting was called was not to uphold the great abuses which existed in the present practice of burying the dead among the living ; the pro moters of this meeting had as much desire to re medy these matters as the promoters of the Bill could have. What they sought to oppose was the extortion of those who sought:to create a,permanent sinecure in the Church, and who opposed themselves in this manner to the, progress of the really valuable portion of the Bill. Mr. N. GRIFFIN moved the first resolution : " That this meeting, while it recognises the necessity of discontinuing the practice of interment in populous localities, demands that any legislative measure having in view that object, shall be framed on sound and equitable principles. "That without pronouncing an opinion on the ge neral provisions of the Metropolitan Interments Bill now before Parliament, this meeting regards those por tions of it which are of an ecclesiastical character with strong feelings of dissatisfaction. " That, in particular, it objects to those clauses by which it is enacted that the incumbents of parishes in which burial grounds may be closed by the operation of the Bill, and whose present duties in connexion with interments will be discharged by a body of salaried chaplains, shall receive, both they and their successors, a perpetual annuity as a compensation for the loss of fees for services which they will no longer be required to perform." "That whatever view may be taken of the claim of the present incumbents to suo h compensation, this meeting denies the justice of taxing the community by making a similar provision for their successors, and enters its firm protest against the creation of additional sinecures in an already burdensome ecclesiastical esta blishment." It was a painful thing for him to reflect that this mea sure had proceeded so far as it had done in a British Parliament. He did no deny that legislation was neces sary in this matter, but it ought to be simply on the principle that the public health should not suffer by the carelessness of private individuals. To that extent only ought legislation to proceed. But the present measure went much further than this; but the meeting would find in the 29th clause the particular reason why the Anti-State Church Association had interfered, and why the meeting had been held, It was the clause which provided compensation for incumbents, &c., and he begged it to be understood it was not simple and equitable compensation that they objected to—they would have been quite ready to agree to that; but not satisfied with compensation to the present incumbent, it went on to lay the foundation of a perpetual sinecure to the suc cessors of the present incumbents, and that too to be paid in a most unconstitutional manner. As far as he was concerned, he should advise an opposition to the entire Bill, though he agreed in the principle of it; but it had so mueh of wrong and injustice tacked on to it that those who had mixed up right and wrong in such a manner must take the blame, if the good which was in the Bill were to be rejected. He objected to the principles and manner of taxation which wa3 contained in the Bill. He did not think, when he looked at the growing spirit in the country, that it would be possible for the Board of Health to levy such a tax as was proposed. The Rev. T. H. HINTON seconded the resolution. Mr. P. H. HOLLAND rose to more an amendment to the motion, which he thought would be calculated to carry out the views of the mover of the resolution, without bringing them into a collision with the sup porters of the Bill. He was a member of the Sanitary Reform Association, and had a great desire to see the Bill pass as soon as possible. He believed the compensation clauses were an impediment to the Bill, and he wished to see them modified. Ile did not, however, think that the occasion of an Interment Bill was a time to make an inroad on the Church; and he was more dis posed to content himself with guarding against any future encroachments on the part of the Church. He should, there fore propose, in place of the last clause of the resolu tion, to insert a clause which would agree to the grin , ciple of compensation to those who might be injuriously affected by the Bill, and that the amount should be settled by arbitration. Mr. EDWARDS seconded the resolution. 1 Mr. PARIS, who announced himself as the agent for the London Association for the Abolition of Burials, which created some merriment in the meeting, depre cated any opposition to the Bill oa the ground of compen sation, as it would have the effect of retarding the passing of a good measure. The Hon. Gentleman was pro ceeding with his speech, but was greeted with so much uproar and derision that his speech became inaudible. The resolution was supported by Mr. ROGERS, and also by Mr. S. CRAWFORD, 311. P., who expressed his pleasure, as an old supporter of civil and religious liberty, at join ing the Anti-State Church Association in opposing this flagrant violation of both. He himself was a mem ber of the Established Church, but ho had ever de clared himself against its connexion with the State, which ho thought had inflicted a mortal injury upon it. It was, then, from a feeling of regard to the Church that he should oppose these clauses, both in his place in Parlia ment and everywhere else that he was able. Mr. E. IthALL and others having addressed the meet ing, the proceedings terminated. LAW NOTICES. CAUSE LISTS FOR TRINITY TERM, 18i0. SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER IN TRINITY TERN, 1850. Hien COURT OF CHANCERY.-(Before the Lord Chancellor.)-Appeal modons and appeals, May 22, 30, June 6, 12; (petition day) petitions, May 23; appeals, May 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, June 1,3, 4,5, 8, 10, 11; (peti tion day), unopposed petitions and appeals, May 30, June 7. N.B. Th e d ays h i s Lordship hears appeals in the House of Lords excep t ed. (Before the Vice-Chan cellor of England.)-Motions, May 22, 30, June 6, 12 ; petition day, May 23 ; s h ort causes, pleas, demurrer s, exceptions, causes, and further directions, May 24; pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further direc tions, May 25, 27, 28, 29, Jane 1,3, 4,5, 8, 10, 11; (petition day), petitions (unopposed first), short causes, and causes: May 31, and June 7. (Before Vice-Chan cellor Knight Bruce.)-Motions, May 22, 30, June 6, 12; pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further di rections, May 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, June 3,4, 7, 10, 11; short causes, petitions, and causes, May 25; bankrupt petitions, &c., May 29, June 5; short causes, petitions, &c., June 1, 8. (Before Vice-Chancellor Wigram.)- Motions and causes, May 22; pleas, demurrers, causes, exceptions, and further directions, May 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, June 3,4, 5,7, 10, 11; short causes, petitions (unopposed first), and causes, May 25, June 1,8; mo tions, pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further directions, May 30, June 6, 12. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-New Trials remaining undetermined at the end of Easter Term, 1850 : Doe dem. Warren and another v Brydges-The Queen • Smith and others-Job v Hudson-Brown and another v Coleridge-Drew and another v same-Mayne v same -The Queen v Betts-Edwards • Knowles, part heard -Morton • Tibbett-Humphries v Brogden-Living stone and another • Whiting-Doe dem. Davenish v Moffatt-Leary v Patrick and another-Hurst v Hurst -Gates • Gosden-Dimes v Petley-Philpotts and others v Evers and others-Banks v Baldwin-Doe dem. Sayers • Hutton-Griffiths v Marey- Williams and others v James-Page v More-Johnson v Clark- Goodman v Pocock-Chard v Fox-Duke of Brunswick • Harmer-Moorwood and another v Steer-The Queen 7 Walker-The Queen v Cutts-Farnham v Thorne- Malpas v Clements -Mann and others v Houble and Walker -Jones • Alexander- Job v Knowles - Crowther and Harland v Biuks o the rs v The Queen v • others v Job - Hooper the inhabitants of Lordsmere-Doe de w. Witty and Mallalieu • Rod Carr-Singleton v Bree oe dem. France v Andrews and another-Agss'tl);: Hams v Lord Beresfordv and another-Nield v Ratcliffe tpear-Baker • Rush-Wil- Hollis - Hounsfield • curteercross vßussell-Delfosse v Whalley Doe dem. Constable and another v Stevenson Curtis- Doe and others :YRT. B ramwell -Bartlett v -Doe dem. Biddulph and Otheichards-Same v Same Mellnxish v Collier-Smith • Ar r e i t i li v ba Hole and others - Williams v Morgan-Hales v Firmild and another another v Grey and others-Blaucad- Trail° and Lloyd • Howard-Walton v Gavin-G alva n ise d ßiley Company v Osier-Barker v Goddard-C am pbell Iron Hewlett-Miller v Alexander -Hay Aylir pbell cultural Cattle Insurance Company v Fiao•eraidgVuri v Challis and another-Woudhead and others v -et Berry- Taylor v . Hawkins-Governor and Company of the Copper Miners of England v Fox and others-Griffiths v Hicks-Austen and another v Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Had way Company-Husband and ano therichard v M v Cattlin - Pr M ullins and anoth er -N odin v Johnson and another-Doe de m. Compton an d w if e v Hannah Carpenter - Same v 11'illiam Carpenter-S ame v Isaac Carpenter- W a kefield v Dixon-Roger s an d Staffordshi re another v Drivcr-Armtlstead v No rth Doe dem. Armitstead v sam e - Baron v Bricknell-The Queen v Inhabitants of Tur weaton-Stainea and wife v Eastern Union and Hadleigh Junction Railway Company-Doe • dem Hastings v Wet soe-Peardon v Underhill -Mayor of Rochester v Lee- Roberts v Hunt-Couchman v Ward-Bottomley v Smith Thompson v Nye-Elliott v Clayton -Godfrey v Lewel lin and another-Bishop v Cook and others-Fielder v Fie lding -Strong • Gadsden-Davies v Williams-Gil bertson • Joseph. Special Cases and Demurrers stand ing for the Judgment of the Court:-Adams v Andrews -Cook v Field -Knight and others v Faith and another -Toiler v Attwood-Morris v Walker-Chabot v Lord Morpeth and others, For Argument:--West Cornwall Railway Company v Mowatt—Sanderson v Dobson and others—Keyse v v y aad Parkes v Smith—Davies v Cary—Ruilston v York, Ne w castle, and Berwick Railway Company—Wagstaff v Booth—Berry r Huxtable and another—Gallard v Gil christ—Scattergood v Sylvester—Reynell and another v Lane—Daniel v Morton—Walsh and another v Treva nion and others—Bainbridge v Wade—Pim v Wilson— Doe dem. Blagrave v Stephens—the North American Colonial Association of Ireland—Hayward v Albony— Day v Smith—Walker v Clements—Thompson and another v Whatley—Jackson and others v Charing-cross Bridge Company—Langbourno and another v Chadwick —Doe Evers and wife v Challis—Marsden v M'Lean— Rochdale Canal Company v Walmesley—Walton v Holt —Evans v George—Mudford v Lowe and others—Trot ter • York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company —Crow v General Ship Loan and Insurance Company— Leeming and another v Snaith—Worsley and another v South Devon Railway Company—West v Jackson and another—Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway Company • Logan—Francis and another v Bailey—Perkins v Tidd—Backhouse v Coulthard— Griffiths v Fenton—Gallini v the Earl of Courtoun and others—Bank of Australasia v Nias—Tarleton v Liddell and another—Bank of Australasia v Rous. En larged Rules (First day): Re the Westminster Improve ment Commission and the Churchwardens of St. Marga ret and St. John, Westminster—Caudwell v Mostyn and others—Clegg and others v Dearden—Re Wright and another and the Cromford Canal Company—Richards and others v Tints—Cater and another v Chigwell— Mackenzie v Sligo and Shannon Railway Company— Doe dem. Davies v Davies—The Queen v James Rowlands —The Queen v J. Egginton—The Queen • Thomas Fir bank and another—The Queen • Robert Tyrwhit. (Second day): Re Ralph Lindsey and the Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Company—Cooling v Great Northern Railway Company—Doe dem. Warren, v Young and another—Re Sunderland Dock Com pany—Witmer v Lewis and another—Re John Oldtield—Re John Lloyd—Re Charles Richard son—Ashley v Brown—The Queen v Recorder of Liverpool—The Queen v Copper Miners' Company— The Queen v the:Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company—The Queen v Norfolk Railway Company. (Fourth day): Re 11. W. Hall—Owen v 0 wen—Daniels v Ellaby, stands for arrangement. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS .—Remanet Paper: Water. fall v Chappell—Moss and another v Smith and another —The Queen v the Sheriff of Leicester in Arden • Bing ham—Hamilton v Cochran—Hudspeth v Yarnold—The Electric Telegraph Company • Brett and another — Chubb v Marshall—Canaan and another v Hartley— Laycock v Pickslay—Fothergill, jun. v Todd—Somer ville v Hawkins—Jones and another v Broadhurst— Newton v Chaplin—Mayor, &c., of London v Parkinson and others—Hilcoat v Archbishops of Canterbury and York—Callender • Howard—Wetherell v Julius and others—On the behalf of the Lord Bishop of Exeter— Mavity v Beveridge and another—Elves v Crofts—Same v Same—Doe and Prior and others • Ongley. Demurrer Paper—Special Arguments for Wednesday, May 29: Robinson v the Magistrates of Bristol and others —Kepp and another • Wiggett and others—Bank of Austra lasia v Harding—Sharland v Leifchild—Dean, &c., of Christ Church, Oxford v Hill—R. Sham v Eastern Union Railway Company—S. Shaen • Same—Temple v Sleigh—Yates v Hill—Bulligieg v Booker and others— Ackroyd • Smith and another—Watson and another v Eastern Counties Railway Company—Phelps v Pro thero—Kingsford • Dutton—Serrell v Derbyshire and Staffordshire Railway Company—Lord Portman v Flood —Williams and another v Gray and another. Friday, May 31—Special Argument: Williams and another v Nonnansell aad another. Wednesday, June s—Special Arguments. Friday, June 7—Special Arguments. Crown Paper: Regina • Caledonian Railway Company —Regina v Midland Railway Comp an y —R eg i na v Ed mund Godfrey and others—Regina v Same—Regina r Inhabitants of St. Marylebone—Regina • Clerk of the PE ace for West Riding—Regina v Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales—Regina v William Owen—Re gina r Dean and Chapter of Chester—Regina • Com missioners for Improving High and Low Harrogate— Regina v Birmingham &c., Junction Railway Company —Regina v Guardians of Teesdale Union, &c.—Regina v Betts and another—Regina • Commissioners of Sewers —Regina • John Williams and another—Regina v Inha bitants of County of Brecon. LAW INTELLIGENCE. SHERIFF'S COURT, May 16. CRIM. CON.-COLES I. MARSHALL. This was an action for criminal conversation. In this case judgment went by default, and the question was the damages to be awarded. Mr. Parry was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Allen for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff, a very young man, was married to his wife, who was about 20 years old, in 1848. Ile was a carter in the employ of Mr. Lanham, a wholesale provision -merchant in the Borough, to whom the defendant, who was more than 40 years old, was foreman, at 51. a week. The plaintiff's wife, who was the daughter of a laun dress, kept a cigar-shop, and was visited by the defendant. The plaintiff had his suspicions excited, and refused to live with his wife, on which she ap plied to a magistrate, and he denied his liability to support her on the ground of adultery. The evidence to affect the defendant was not considered conclusive, and the result was that the plaintiff was discharged from his situation at Mr. Lanham's. Subsequentl = y to the hearing before th e mag i s t ra t e , th e plaintiff a wife and the defendant were traced to a coffee-shop in Newington-causeway, where a bed had been taken for the night, and there the officer who had watched them found them in bed. Mr. Sergeant ALLEN made an energetic speech for the defendant. He endeavoured to show that the plaintiff had exposed his wife, and that a plan had been laid to entrap the defendant. The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said the jury would consider whether the evidence warranted the course pursued by the Learned Counsel in his :eloquent speech, because if it did not they would consider whether the injury already inflicted on the plaintiff, a young man, by a person twice as old as himself, had not been aggravated—whether it was not a reason to increase rather than to diminish the damages to be awarded. The jury, after a short consultation, assessed the damages at 2001. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 16. Before Mr. Commissioner EvaNs there was a certi ficate meeting in the matter of Joseph Wilbraham, a builder in Whitechapel. Mr Lawrence supported, and Mr. Duncan opposed. The certificate was sus pended for six months, on the ground of imperfect book-keeping. Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnunN, General Roumigny, who had been aide-de-camp to Louis Philippe, was adjudicated a bankrupt. slightest deviation from his testimony in chief was eacittd. Police-constable Causton, 38 G, corroborated the evidence of his brother constable, and said that when he came up at the time of the alarm he found the prisoner on the top of the prosecutor. Witnesses were called for the defence, who stated that the prisoner was a very harmless and inoffensive man, but was given to frequent habits of intem perance. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The Learned Counsel for the prisoner said that he had already suffered severely from the broken limb, and hoped that would weigh with his Lordship in passing sentence. The Learned JUDGE said he had no doubt the of fence was committed while in a state of drunkenness, and taking into consideration the punishment he had already undergone, instead of months he would re duce the penalty to six weeks' imprisonment. He would, while in confinement, be placed in the infir mary, and when his term was expired he trusted that he would pursue a more creditable course of life for the future. The prisoner was then removed, and the Cour adjourned. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Mortimer Kealy was brought up in the custody of Sergeant Mitchell, of the City police, upon charges of having fraudulently obtained goods at the houses of warehousemen in the City. The justice-room was crowded with tradesmen, and the matter occupied a great part of the day. Mr. Clarkson for the prosecution, on the part of Messrs. White and Co., said the evidence illustrated an ingenious system of fraud. The following cone tains the additional accusations against the prisoner:— Mr. T. M'Gregor, warehouseman, of Cheapside, and Mr. E. T. Spencer, waterproofer, of 110, Fen church-street, proved that the prisoner had called on them last week, urging them to take the composition of 10s. offered on the estate of Kealy, of Galway, and represented himself to be the servant of David Scott and Co., a Dublin linen-house. Mr. John Baggally, a partner in the firm of Spence, Baggally and Co., of Love-lane, Cheapside, warehousemen, said—On Friday, the 10th, the pri soner called at our warehouse, and on Saturday he called again, and I saw him and asked his name. He wrote " Messrs. Kealy and Co., Galway. I asked who composed the firm ? He gave me the names of Mortimer, Thomas, and Michael, and he wrote a re ference to Welsh and Margetson, of Cheapside. He looked out gloves, silks, and other goods, to the amount of, I believe 801. As I was ret urn i ng I met him corning out of our warehouse. He told me that he and his brother had a balance of 2,000/. I told him that a firm similar in name to his own had been bankrupt or insolvent lately. He said it was a relation of his, and afterwards that it was his sister Margaret. Ile again said that his firm had a balance of 2,0001., and then he said he would pay for the goods. _ - Mr. Goddard, the solicitor to the London Mer chants' and Traders' Association, produced a note in the prisoner's handwriting, of which the following is a copy, addressed to creditors of the estate : " Galway, Feb. 16, 1850 " Messrs. Dent, Allcroft, and Co. " Gentlemen,—lt is impossible, from the state of our affairs now, that you can get paid in full. There is an execution in for 8631. at the suit of Margaret Kealy, and a second execution at the suit of a Manchester creditor, and unless all the creditors agree to the composition a sale must take place, and we shall not have another op portunity of asking you.—Your respectfully, " M. KELLY and Co. " Tho terms are los., at three, six, and nine months, secured by Margaret Kealy. If all agree, you can have your composition in ono note. Inspector Mitchell said, I fetched the prisoner's trunk from Anderton's Hotel, in Fleet-street, at his request, to the Bow-lane station-house, and it was opened with a key which was found upon him. This paper was found in the trunk with others. Here the witness produced a letter purporting to be written to the prisoner by his brother, and dated Galway, April 28, 1850. The following are quotations : " We received your letters to-day. However it is useless fur me to say any more 3n this unfortunate sub ject; but you put your foot in it the day you h a d any thing to do with this nice association. That vagabond Hunt is a limb of the devil. Now you might very well give a guess to these houses that are memb ers o f t h e as sociation. Without referring them at all you might sound them with half cash, and then you would know if they heard anything about you. If they did they would refuse even half cash. As to whether it would be ad visable for you to go near M‘Gregor, or the other par ties who are holding out, I cannot say; or would you send some to me from you. At all events, the matter must be settled with them. The fellows might be impu dent to you if you let yourself be known to them. I think it is better not." IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 16. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition azainst the Bilt authorising a marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti tion from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of Dublin against the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland. DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR. Lord BROUGHAM drew the attention of the House to the sudden departure of the French Ambassador from this country on her Majesty's birth day. That Ambassador had left this country, as he understood, and he regretted his departure, be cause he considered it of the utmost importance that the greatest cordiality should subsist between this country and France, more especially as France was at present almost the only country of Europe with which we had of late been enabled to entertain cordial relations. The Marquis of LANSDO WNE regretted the sudden departure of the French Ambassador, but he could as sure his Noble and Learned Friend that it was not of that great importance which he supposed attache - I to it. The departure of the French Ambassador was owing solely to circumstances which rendered his presence in the French capital necessary. It was the desire of the French Government that that most excellent person should proceed to the French capital, because it was thought that his presence there for a short time would be more useful than could be his presence here. In his opinion, the presence of that excellent gentleman in Paris would be more useful to the connexion between the two countries than it could be for the present here. Lord BROUGHAM had expected that answer, and he only wished that as good en explanation could have been given of the absence of the Russian Ambassador. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to know whether any notice bad been given to Russia of the in tended resumption of hostilities against Greece, because it was monstrous that ono of the protecting powers should undertake hostilities without giving notice to the others. The Marquis of LA.NSDOWNE said that the papers about to be laid on the table would give full explana tions on the subject. GREENWICH HOSPITAL IMPROVEMENT BILL. This Bill was read a second time. PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. DISTRESSED ADVANCES AND REPAYMENTS (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third readinc , of this Bill. After a short conversation the motion was agreed to, and the Bill was passed. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF CO3IIIIONS, May 16. The SPEAKER, took the Chair at Five Minutes before Four o' clock. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The Lords' amendments on the Buckinghamshire Railway Bill were considered and agreed to, with some verbal amendments. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed : Peterborough Improvement, Police, and Cemetery, &e. Waterford and Kilkenny Railway. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED BILLS. The following Bills, as amended, wcre considered:— Chester and Holyhead Railway. Pontypool Gas Light and Coke Company. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. Oa the motion that the report on tbis Bill, as amended, should be agreed to, Mr. H. BROWN moved that the consideration of the report should be adjourned to the 4th of June. Mr. W. PATTEN opposed the amendment. Captain BERKELEY supported the amendment. Lord SEYMOUR thought it would be desirable to postpone the further consideration of the report till after the Whitsun holidays. After some further discussion the consideration of the report was postponed till to•morrow. REPORTS. The reports on the following Bills, as amended, were considered and agreed to : South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway (Amendment of Acts, Deviation at Doncaster, &c.) South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway (Amendment of Acts, Deviation to Woraborough, &c.) SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to be committed : Clerkenwell Improvement (Amendment of Acts and Transfer of Powers). Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junction Railway and Glasgow College Lands. TYNE NAVIGATION BILL. William Henry Thompson book-keeper t o M essrs . Welsh and Margetson s a id—l know the prisoner. I saw him frequently at our house within the last ten days. I heard him make a statement, which I took down in writing. " May 7, 1850. " Mr. Kealy states that, at their stock-taking in January last, their bal ance was upwar d s o f 2,000 4 , having been in business five years, and cleared about 2001. per annum over and above their expenses." The prisoner had purchased goods evidently for the purpose of making us a house of reference. Three or four houses came to us in consequence of the prisoner's references. Cross-examined—We had dealings with the pri soner in 1849, to the amount of about 201., which was paid. We have dealt with him since, for the amount of which an acceptance will be due in July. In the course of examination several objections were taken by Mr. Ribton, counsel for the prisoner. Mr. Alderman GIBBS, after a long investigation, said he had made up his mind to commit the prisoner upon the charge preferred by Messrs. Spence and Bag gaily. With respect to the accusation made by Messrs. White and Son, he considered that there was a point or two to be added to the evidence to render it complete. He therefore should leave it to that firm to use their discretion as to the pr o secution of that charge at the Central Criminal Court. The depositions in the case iu which the prisoner was charged with having endeavoured to obtain goods from Spence, Baggally, and Co., in the amount of 80/. by means of false pretences, were then ordered to be made out ; and the prisoner, who said he should leave the defence to his counsel, was ordered to be committed for trial. Sir J. Y. BULLER brought up the report on this Bill. MERCANTILE MARINE BILL—SHIPOWNER'S PETITION. Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition, to which as being one of more than ordinary importance, he begged the attention of the House. It was a petition from ship owners, ship-masters, and others assembled at a public meeting in London on the 17th April last, and was signed " Joseph Hume, chairman of the meeting." In consequence of misapprehensions which he understood existed as to the character of the meeting, he was able to state from personal knowledge, having been pre sent at it, that it was more numerously and respect ably attended than any of a similar kind which he had ever seen in London. It was attended by a considerable number of Members of the House repre senting the principal sea-ports; by delegates from asso ciations of shipowners at most of the great sea-ports; by directors or representatives of the steam shipping interest; by many of the most extensive shipowners of the kingdom, and by a great number of masters, mates, and other officers of the merchant service; although the parties composing it held very opposite opinions relative to the navigation-laws, the resolution upon which this petition was founded were carried unanimously. The petition stated " that from the assurances given by her Majesty's Go vernment, more especially during the discussion in Par liament on the repeal of the navigation-laws, the ship ping interest of the United Kingdom confidently relied on the speedy removal of the many harassing impedi ments and disqualifying burdens to which shipowners are exposed from the operation of existing laws and re gulations affecting maritime commerce; that it is with extreme disappointment your petitioners have viewed the introduction into your Honourable House of the Mercantile Marine Bill, which, so far from extending relief to the shipping interest, is calculated to increase its burdens and embarrassment, and further to disqua lify the shipowner for the maintenance of that competi tion with the shipping of all foreign nations, which he is now called on to sustain, while many of its provisions are opposed to all sound principles, and are ill adapted to improve the character and condition of the British seamen—an object which your petitioners cordially and anxiously desire to promote; that in the present unsa tisfactory, confused, and deective state of our mari time law, it is of the highest importance that a comprehensive and impartial inquiry should be forthwith instituted into the various legislative enact • ments and regulations now in force affecting British shipping, with a view to their consolidation and simplifi cation as far as practicable, and to the establishment of a system adapted to the present times, and to the pre sent position of the navigation of the empire." The peti tioners, therefore, pray that the Bill may be postponed, and that the House would take itnmeliste measures for the institution of a comprehensive and efficient in quiry by a competent tribunal into the several questions. PETITIONS. Mr. HARRIS presented a petition from Leicester in favour of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. Mr. J. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Bed ford against Sunday labour in the Post -office. Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE presented a petition from Peebles against the Marriage Bill. Colonel MUIR presented petitions against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a petition from Leicester against the Marriage Bill; also a peti tion in favour of international arbitration. Mr. GREENE presented petitions from different parts of Lancashire against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Mr. ELLIS presented a position from Leicester agains the Marriage Bill. Mr. GIB'SON CRAIG presented a petition from Edinburgh, signed by 6,000 persons, in favour of the Marriage Bill. Mr. FAGAN presented a petition from Limerick against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Mr. J. B. SMITH presented petitions from Inver keithing, and other places, in favour of the Merriage Bill. Mr. F. SCOTT presented petitions from Langholm, Berwick, and the Presbytery of Dunse against th© Mar riage Bill. Mr. OS WALD presented petitions from the Presbytery of Ayr and places in Ayrshire to the same effect. Mr. EWART presented a similar petition from Dum fries. Mr. REYNOLDS presented petitions from spirit dealers in county Down and Sligo praying for a draw back of the duty on spirits in bond. Mr. WALTER presented petitions from Nottingham and the Nottingham Union against the Parochial Assess ments Bill ; also a petition from Nottingham against the Savings-banks Bill. Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from Wake field against the Burgess List Bill. Mr. HENLEY presented petitions from Independents and Wesleyans in Oxfordshire in favour of an ocean penny postage. Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from• St. Michael, Wood -street, in favour of the Interment Bill ; also a petition from the managers and trustees of the savings bank at Bridgenorth against some provisions in the Savings-banks Bill. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from a place in Dorsetshire against the Marriage Bill, also a petition against church-rates. _ _ Mr. SMOLLETT presented a petition from a place in Dumbartonshire against any alteration in the present parochial system a education in Scotland. Mr. CONOLLY presented several petitions against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Mr. I'. WOOD presented a petition from Oxford against the Bill for revising the burgess lists. Lord R. GROSVENOJ presented several petitions from the metropolis in favour of the Government Bill for extramural Interments. Mr. 13. OSBORNE presented a petition from Brent ford in favour of an independent college of medicine. Mr. W. MILES presented a petition from a place in Somersetshiro, against the increase of bear-shops. Mr. NE WDEG ATE presented a petition in favour of international arbitration; also a petition a ga i ns t S un d ay lab ur in tho Post-office. lIILDYARD presented a similar petition from a place in Nottinghamshire. SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 17, 1850. Mr. A. ITASTIE rreqentrd a poition from Glas7ow t.;,0 Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh, and one from Glasgow, against , the Marriage Bill. EMPLOYMENT OF PAUPERS. Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that on an early day he should move that all persons maintained at the public expense should be employed on some remunerative em ployment with a v:e at to the saving of their maintenance, and their striving in some means for their self-support. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. B. OSBORNE gave notice that on the Secretary of the Treasury moving for a vote of money for the Houses of Parliament, he should move that the vote be refused, and if be succeeded on that motion he should call the attention of the House to the fact that the original estimate i❑ 1837 was 770,1041, and that the amount incurred at present was stated at 2,045,9231.; that the estimate was stated not to have received the assent of the Commission. He should move a resolu tion that the House had no efficient control over the architect, and that the expenditure was lavish and injudicious; also that the Commissioners be directed immediately to furnish an estimate of the expense to be incurred; and that they be directed to suspend all works of decoration and the fine arts. Mr. HUME said he had also intended to propose a similar 'motion to that of the Hon. Gentleman. UNITED BENEFICES. Mr. FREWEN moved for a return of all the bene fices, rectories, or vicarages which have been united under the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 106, stating the names ot the united benefices, with the names of the incumbent or incumbents, the amount of the population, and the yearly value of each, and the distance that the churches ot each of the united benefices are from each other, with the county and dioce.e in which each is situated. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE ON THE DERBY DAY. The lioN. MDMBEIt .Iso moved, that the House do meet at twelve clock at DOOR on Tuesday, the 28th instant, and not continue to sit after six o'clock in the evening ; and that orders of the day have precedence of notices of motions on that day, without` giving priority to Bills introduced by the Go vernment. That the House do meet at a quarter before five in the afternoon on Wednesday the 29th instant, and that if forty Members are not present before five o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House ; and that notices of motions which stand in the Order Book for Tuesday, the 28th, shall have precedence of orders of the day on Wednesday, the 29th instant. There being no seconder of the motion, it fell to the ground. PRECEDENCE OF ORDERS OF THE DAY. Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that on Thursday, the 13th day of June, orders of the day have precedence of notices of motions, without priority to Government orders. Agreed to. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, May 16. IN RE PATRICK WILLIAM MACMAHON. This insolvent, a captain in her Majesty's 44th Regiment of Infantry, but now a prisoner in the Queen's Prison, came up for hearing upon his petition to be discharged. Mr. Nicholls appeared to oppose, for Captain Archibald Taylor; Mr. Dowse for several creditors, named Bate, MacFadden, Homan ' and Smith. M r . B ag l ey appeare d f or Messrs Schmidt and Kohler ; Mr. Parnell for Mr. Toole ; and Mr. Sargood represented Captain Donnellan, insolvent's uncle. Mr. Cooke (with Mr. Lucas) supported the insolvent. The case was protracted until seven o'clock, and was even then but very partially opened, so that it wo u ld not only be unjust to the parties, but unintelligible to the reader, to do more at present than simply mention the case. The case was ad journed. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, May 16. (Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge.) The Court sat this morning at Clerkenwell for the purpose of disposing of bail cases. THE ARGYLL -ROOMS, GREAT WINDMILL-STREET. —Emile Laurent, Robert Bignell, George French Bryan, and Christopher Brown, stood severally in dicted for keeping an unlicensed music and dancing room, at Great Windmill -street, Haymarket. For reasons which were given at the last sitting of the Central Criminal Court, no evidence was offered to-day when the cases were called on. The jury, therefore, under the direction of the Learned Judge, returned verdicts of Not Guilty in the whole of the cases, and the parties were therefore discharged. Sarah Thorn, the young woman who was convicted at this Court, on Wednesday" week, of decoying away and stealing Hannah Sarah Dean, a child four years of age, and who was remanded so that inquiries might be made into her character, was brought up for judgment. she a A also At the same time he could not see what motive she could d The Learned JUDGE addressed the prisoner, a n d said that inquiries had been made as to her character, b w e b e i n c hc,ointvappeare d, n w a a t s te v m er p y t to b commit a'l'aad suicide. have had for stealing the child. The sentence of the Court was that she be imprisoned, and be kept to hard labour for six months. James Hebbron, an elderly man, who walked with crutches with great difficulty, was placed at a bar charg e d w ith assau l t i ng J o h n Taylor, a polic e-1 k t he e d c h o is ns i t a ab ty le . of the G divisi on , w hil s t i n the execution of From th e ev id ence of the prosecutor (who was still very ill from the injuries he had received) it appeared that i n M arch last he was on duty in Hatton-wall, and at about three o'clock in the morning he was accosted by the prisoner, who inquired of him the way to Short's -gardens, Drury-lane. He directed him the usiway to g o , b ut had scarcely done so when the prisoner, using a most offensive epithet, knocked him down. Upon this prosecutor, on gaining his feet, attempted to take him to the station-house, but on reaching Crawford-passage the prisoner kicked him, and swore that he would.murder him. A scuffle hereupon ensued, and they both fell to the ground, prosecutor falling first, with the prisoner on him. Prosecutor called for assistance, and on another constable coming up, he removed the prisoner from him, who exclaimed that his leg was broken, which turned out to be the fact. Prosecutor was much injured, and spit up blood for a long time. The witness was cross•exatained, but not the , NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. B. OSBORNE was sorry to be so troublesome to the Hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Greene) — (Laughter)—but he wished to ask that Hon. Member if it was in contemplation to take down the gallery in the New House of Commons, which was at present at the back of the Speaker's chair, and which was intended to be devoted to ladies. Mr. GREENE said it certainly had been suggested that the removal of the screen behind the Speaker's chair would leave a space at that end of the House which would form the best place for the public. Some alteration was rendered necessary in consequence of its being proposed to allot the gallery at the bar end of the House to Members.—(A laugh.) It was not, however, thought desirable to make any alteration whatever till the House should be occupied temporarily by Members with the view of trying it.—[A Voice—" Take it down altogether.") He felt it his duty to Mr. Barry, the architect, to state, that that gentleman submitted to a Committee of the House, in 1844, a plan of the New House, exactly iu the mode in which he had constructed it. According to the original direction received by the Committee, the ventilation of the corridors and passages were still entrusted to Dr. Reid, and the ventilation of the other parts of the building was confided to Mr. Barry. The New House of Commons would be venti lated under the direction of Dr. Reid. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know if there had been any deviation from the plan sent into the Committed by Mr. Barry ? Mr. GREENE said it was originally proposed by Mr. Barry that a gallery should be erected behind the Speaker's chair to accommodate 120 Members, but the Committee thought the collection of so many Members in that particular spot would be very objectionable, and the gallery was therefore dispensed with.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME wished to know when the experiment would be tried, and whether, when tried, the House would hold half the Members or not ? Mr. GREENE replied that the experiment would be tried to-morrow, but in this intensely cold weather he did not think many Members would venture into the House. The new House, including the galleries, was estimated to hold as many Members as the present House. ,THE GREEK QUESTION. Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know from the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek question was entirely settled, and whether, if settled, there was a good understanding between the French and the English Governments as to the mode in which the settlement was effected. Lord PALMERSTON said all hostility between the British and Greek Governments had been entirely closed, and there was no prospect of their being re commenced, but an investigation was still going on with the view to a settlement of all the de mands of the British Government, and all that now remained to the final termination of the Greek question was that investigation. As to the other ques tion, the French Government would have preferred having the matter settled by the intervention of the French negotiator ; but circumstsnces had interposed to prevent that taking place It was well known that the French Ambassador went yesterday to Paris, in order to be in more direct com munication with his Government, but ho (Lord Palmer ston) confidently trusted that nothing would arise out of that circumstance which was likely to disturb the friendly relations between the two countries. PROTECTIONIST MEETING AT THE CROWN AND ANCHOR. Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take any proceed ings against the parties who made use of violent lan guage at a meeting which was held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern oa Tuesday week last?—(Laughter.) Sir G. GREY was understood to say that he could not answer the question. THE GREEK BLOCKADE. Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether the parties, who had been injured by the Greek blockade were de barred from having any redress. Lord PALMERSTON said no part of the stipulations made by the negotiator debarred parties from having legal redress for the injury they might have sustained. THE ESTIMATES. Mr. HUME wished to know at what hour of the night the Government intended to proceed with the estimates to-morrow? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that they would merely take a vote on account of three items; it was absolutely necessary that Government should have some money to pay certain individuals with. LIFE POLICIES ASSURANCE BILL. On the motion of Mr. MULLINGS the House went into Committee on thii Bill. On clause 1, Sir F. THESIGER said it had always been the policy of the law to prevent any dabbling in these properties. He considered this Bill was a most impolitic measure, and as he had had no previous opportunity of stopping its progress, it was now only left for him to defeat the Bill by moving that the Chairman do report progress. Mr. FAGAN bad no fault to find with the course pursued by the Hon. and Learned Member (Sir Frederick Thcsiger), but he begged to inform him of a fact of which he appfared nut to be aware, namely, that this Bill had emanated from a Select Committee of the —.— House. It Wai precisely the same Bill that the House passed last ses.ion, and which the Rollie of Lords threw out without any discussion on the merits. Formerly it was a great inconvenience to the commercial world that promissory notes were not negotiable, but a Bill was passed of this nature, and the inconvenience was at once got rid of. Now the same inconvenience was felt in the commercial world with regard to policies of insurance, and this Bill was proposed in order to get rid of it. If they became assignable at law the banks in Ireland would give accommodation to the public on those securi ties. Bills of exchange were choses in action and were assignable at law; and up to the present moment judg ments in Ireland were also choses in action and assignable at law. Why, he would ask, should policies of insurance be made the exception? Mr. MULLINGS supported the Bill, from having, in the course of his practical experience, lasting over a period of twenty years, witnessed the incon veniences which the Bill was intended to remedy. He had no personal motives in supporting the Bill, he thought it was the best Bill which had been laid before the House on the subject, and ho hoped the House would not be led away with the statements of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the great objection which ho had to this Bill was, that it in fringed upon the general principles of English legisla tion i❑ en exceptional case. He felt compelled to agree with the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon in his opposition to this Bill. _ After some observations from Mr. F. FRENCH, The House divided, when there appeared— For the Chairman leaving the chair ... 69 Against it ... 66 Majority _3 The Bill was consequently lost. PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill on the motion of Mr. EWART. Mr. EWART, on the first clause being proposed. moved the addition of certain words making it lan ful to adopt the Act in any municipal borough. Colonel SIBTHORP considered there were already taxes enough, and a Bill of this sort was the last sort of Bill he should be inclined to sanction. Any law that would increase expenses indefinitely he considered to be bad in itself, and he was quite sure that a large por tion of those persons for whose benefit the Act was professedly passed would be quite unable to avail them • selves of any advantages which other classes might de rive from it. The Bill was partial in its operations, and therefore he thought it proper thus early to say ho would give the Bill his opposition, though. at the same time, h was always ready to promote and increase the means of amusement and information of the inhAbitants of the borough he represented ; but then he should give the requisite funds oat of his own pocket, and :not let them come on the public purse. Mr. STANFORD said it had been understood that a clause should be framed so as to give t t he e B ra i t l e l - , p p a r y o p y r i s d o d f a borough the opportunity of adopting the ~1 -et te - retbirds of their rember eee , ented. 'A • Obeli .eseee. d o.iii dee:. .ie , pear to be lik e ly to attain the object he advocated . Hon. Member had not given the rate-payers the 0 1%, tunity of judging and deciding for thetnselves. ,r. whole of the Bill n ow cons i s t e d o f t h e title; for the Pu, Member had struck out the original clauses, 10(1 , 13 e ,h proposed to frame a new Bill b y the introduction ofif,,o, clauses. He consid ere d suc h a mode of pr eeeel highly objectionable. • ba d Mr. EWART said the introduction of such a Bill o f been recommended by a Parliamentary Committeeee, last year, and he thought the Hoe. Member indis cr c , in opposing a measure which would ben , flt his lea tuents; but perhaps the Hon. Member did not con „eve the people of Reading a reading people• — (e'''' e ste and cries of " Oh, oh.") If it would meet the c° thence of the House, he would postpone the further cu sideration of the clause. Sir G. PECHELL said that many places other i li b t s e r : corporate towns would desire to benefi:, by the tees' es • and he did not see why its provisions should not be tended to such towns as Brighton.—(Hear ) Sir G. GREY suggested the withdrawel of the e rne e l3cl i ment which had been proposed on a previous ste,_g l it the Bill, and its committal pro firma, in order tn' might be reprinted and more fully considered. l ed Atter a short conversation the suggestion was 'le to, ate; the Bill was ordered to be reeommitted. MARRIAGES BILL —A MOURNED DEB A Petitions in favour of this Bill were present ed by Bouverie, from Du n f erm li ne; by Mr. Wortley, frotei:od lions places in En g l an d, an d f rom L i nlithgow, M l ' Glasgow (the latter with nearly 6,000 signature'). j, Petitions against the Bill were presented by M i r e a nd B. Hope, from Sir J. H ersc h e l ; by Sir a Ing" i ees, Mr R. Palmer; and M r . F. M au l e , from Denter—d 6 e- Bute—(Cheers from the opponents of the Bill) --en 0 1,0 v ral other places. The Right lion. Gentlen 2oo 6,6 9e presented a petition from Edi n b urg h signed 19 Y, b t ee sorrowsladies—Ceer)—who stated that they viewed t eit feigned and alarm the progress of the Bille f e s. they believe it will tend to interrupt every feeling e el i t tural affection and all those feelings which ro w v , between sisters-in-law and sisters' husbands, and e s ° n e ,iss ing the House not to pass a Bill so distressingly 0 ", to every pure mind in the kingdom.—(Hear, heari r for On the qestion that the Speaker leave the ebe the purpose of going int ) Committee, t tbs' Mr. DIVETT rose to move, ae an amenclinen.'ntee the House resolve into C omm i ttee t hi s d a y six n i eiiet He considered the Bill a scan d a l ous an d t enors se . and if any one thing bad astonished him more 'ba n it other, in the course of his Parliamentary experience' was the fact that a man of such ability and lee rn e lv 'lbs the Hon. Member for B u t e should h ave undertsee-oey introduction of such a Bill.— Cheers. Ile wen ' oi illl nished to find that any p e titi ons i n f avour o f the P l ' been sent from Scotland, b ecause h e b e li eve d the fe . c es of the people of that country to be almost un e e ni este against it. He believed that th e people of Ireland se also adverse to the Bill, and th at it wa s equalli c r lest tionable to the women of England. lie rePe' l ne so): he considered it to be an imm ora l Bill ; he wn — sitil nothing of it in a religious p o i nt o f v i ew , but a' ea v es question he believed th a t a more m i sc hi e vous Pet' had had never been brought und e r the consideration °' liument.—(Cheers.) Gr ief Mr. A. J. B. HOPE seconded the amendment. of " Divide.") The House then divided, when there appeare d-- For going into Committ ee 42 Against 4 0 Majority yr, The House then resolved itself into Commit tee ' BERNAL in the chair. Clause 1 was ared to. n o' On clause 2, providing that marriages hereto hibited are not to be voidable, but are to be deeme d e marriags except under circumstances, tb . Sir F. THESIGER said they had now arrive d 5 ,1 to stage of the Bill at which all discussion with reg re e r et sill its principles ought to be suspended, and when its " er to only ought to be considered. He wished it, howe / '„:1 0 be understood, that in now confining his objectieeri.gbl certain portions of the clauses, he did not waive ° e lect' to object to the principle at some future stag e ' . he unquestionably intended to do.—(Hear, bear.)e t he object now was to strike out a particular Part of the clause, and the que s tio n f or t h e cons id era tion eeis Committee was this—whether the proposed la i ' l le se to have a retrospective o p era ti on — w h et ber all c oos riages contracted with a d ecease d w if e ' s sister , 1835 should be rendered v a lid, i n express an d dirtniee la'ion of a known law—(Hear, hear.) And • a ble Members who thought a change of the law desn ds t o might,consistently, vote fo r th e om i ss i on o f the vv,. °l ,tbe which he objected—(Hear.) It was admitted en! t he retro-fictive laws were in g enera l a v i o l a tion c i . o glf principles of legislation ; th at th ey oug h t to be sPe r ",o resorted to, and ought not to be adopted exeeP t pere matter almost of moral necessity—(Hear, hear.) the was no instance of the Legislature interfering I° 'estf; protection of persons who had wilfully violated th e r eel more especially when imp or t ant r i g h ts o f o ther P e e for would be affected by such legislati on . The eue sn° o o o ", cons deration was whether th e p ar ti es w ho he'"etee' tracted marriages with their deceased wises ° d oe since 1835, had done so through ignorance •r ble, test tence, or had wilfully and delib erate l y v i olate d what 4 b e knew to be the law. On referring' to the rer'reet found in the App en di x , N o . 18, one of those Pe-00' wrote :—" I knew, of course, that I was runninS e e l 9 ; trary t Act of Parliament." In Appendix, e ,;'s another stated :—"I did not imagine that Pe i t "! Parliament could annul or create a real obliean e n- ,.ree (Hear.) The Hon. Member for Manchester o e n " but an Act of Parliament, though it might not s loes might certainly create a moral obligation, if not oPP t he to the Divine law. There was no instance in Wil lell e ete' Legislature had passed a retr os p ec ti ve A ct in elf re'' stances like those of the present case. He migh t '',lll o ferred to the Act of 1835, but he did not think th s j ee itl Act bad the bearing for which s ome H on . Ge n e t ,eile supposed. Up to 1835 marria ges w i t hi n the pro 0 9 degrees, though they might b e annu ll e d by suit i ji - ee' b ! ecclesiastical courts, yet if not annulled before tb e l d of one of the parties, the e cc l es i ast i ca l cour ts coU' r th e afterwards interfere to invalidate th em a nd rad e 0 0 0 children illegitimate. In such a case the close law courts, for the sake of th e i nnoce nt 01 , is' would have prohibited the ecc l es i ast i ca l coile t 'leta terlering. It was supposed that marriages ye t the prohibited degrees of c onsangu i n i ty were vel4oiti, that marriages within the prohibited degrees °l r cs' e were only voidable. That, however, was not t' ° t oer' Before the Act of 1835 e ith er o f t h e part i e s 0 o t her' hibited marriage might, during the life of t ne l ee apply to the ecclesiastic a l courts to annu l t he 1 1 1 c o o or any third party might do so. An individaa, st eto brought the state of the law before the Legis' which took the only course which was open t° ite e sti s; An Box. MEMBER moved that the House be c t but more than 40 Members being present, ar e Sir F. THESIGER proceeded to state the I : 33 . t r i c sb - d the Act of 1835. He observed that it was a I' o3 ' 43 ' o le ' I I fact that Scotland was excepted from that Ast , ' ll ss of Scotland considering all such marriages 01 , 1 , 0 tt l i i void. That there might he no plea of ignnocr the Legislature declared, in positive terms, that e future marriages within the prohibited " e lf! SO" whether of affinity or consanguinity, should be °n e ws' void to all intents and purposes. No one, th e l l k i e r6 could plead ignorance of the state of the law. l or e theless there were parties who since 1835 had eene o t b'' , such marriages, and it was for th ose parties le e t oe Hon. and Learned Friend proposed t o i n t e rfere h 7 test , trospective law for the purpose of rendering thesedoed riages valid, and for investing them with all th e al and rights that belonged to legitimate marriage s ', n fert what grounds were the House ca ll e d on to in' e s e en'i His lion. and Learned Friend the Member fdl . Dd ampton had appealed to the Hous e on the gr i e : te cl e' compassion for the children; but if th e y legtot such a principle in the present case, might th e l e e s eq called on to ext en d i t t o ot h er cases ? The n t ipd I' illegitimate child ren i n th e country greatly exe ee •;li ef' I number born of these pr o hibi te d marr i ages , but 111 (or tti r , and Learned Friend would not, surely, legislate h edo' parents out of compassion for those illegitimate c ., 1 1 o b gi His wish was to exclude from the Bill those t ; ie 0 0 ; wilfully violated the law. He knew the •'''''' ) e - tit e `, Learned Member for Bute was actuated ber ested motive in bringing forward this tote le' and he appealed to him whether it would e be ( that parties who had violated the law shoteeebele' in the position in which they wo u ld h ave been it ',reef had been different and these marriages lawfule e NO / e parties had not contracted marriages having t,,"; mar ll ti mate rights of ma t riage. Th e i r un i ons w ere °'. jeig , fi tricious—not of a matri mon i a l c h aracter , and h le eel ea Hon. Friend propos e d, w i t h ou t an y religion r es to wipe out the stain of 15 year', an d put t lie te° ;A on the same footing as if th e y h a d b ee n law fu 'Jed vied. His Hon. and L earne d F r i en d had aPP e bibi°le the number of persons interested i n these P r i e w, marriages. lie believed if the cases had beel l eie e vie ;0 House of Commons would never have been trou u e , t 0 is the question at all—(Hear)—b u t was it consis te old,' any just principleof legislation that the laws s he y ate d l ; s altered because a number of persons had v iola •_ 0 0 e . Many parties who at present p os sessed 1'47 t h a t have those right; defeated if past met-doges c scription were rendered valid. Th e measure seeietiel, stood would therefore be a flagrant and direct ' , J ay tba: of the rights of property. He w ou ld venture 10 de o f pr o no precedent could be found f or such a tnn f i t it'l l , ceeding; and under those circumstances he e . ee t duty to move the omission of the words renderwe e t t Os a operation of the Bill retrospective. t t b ' Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said he was awar e g oes was a question on which gentlemen on het" very deeply; but as there were arrayed on divio e h g ; which he advocated some of the most eminence it) t he and some of the wisest and the most pious t ittg lit ' 0 ; Legislature and throughout the country, h e , t : r dly Hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) had ci ost r, within the bounds of prudence when he had ue _,..(fle e me the Bill as an immoral and a scandalous on e ' • her " nett bi hear.) Now, ho was anxious to state the , t o f. relationship, by connexion, or, friendship even, heti ho the slightest interest ei5503,0 he might almo _ question.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to O lio , el went which had just been proposed by his tha t til e , Learned Friend, he could not help thinking• ie e t to amendment, in point of fact, went to the pr . inelP l ee ten`e wis e to ,e , t he Bill. He did not, he should observe, any relief to the man who wilfully disobee_" bed_ law. But he believed that many persiogno'oooer! contracted those m arriages in complete these of the existing state of the law; and to he was ties, as well as to their innocent children, h e tb'enifoaoe; anxious to afford relief. He believed taken of a number of those marriages having & tt . without the censure of the circles in W e ll o i ns h ol 7 .. j - e moved proved that the law was not in . _ the state of public feeling upon the subject. Hl for t be ! Friend had asked him to point out a Pr he et course which he then proposed to take...le eee the lieved he could comply with that demand witboat-W CO° of Lord Hardwick° no minor could marry SOUTHIVARK. Mary Brown, a good-looking young woman, was brought before Mr. A'Beckett, charged with robbing Mrs. Jane Roney, a widow, under circumstances evincing great ingratitude. The apprehension of the prisoner was effected on her way to church to be married. The complainant stated that about this time twelve months the prisoner, whom she had a slight know ledge of previously, called upon her in great distress, and supplicated a lodging until she was provided with a situation, which she asserted she expected shortly. Complainant assented to her request, and so me days afterwards the prisoner complained of se rious indisposition, and begged of her to procure her some medicine. Complainant believing her assertion correct, went out for that purpose, and on her return she found that the prisoner had absconded, after having broken open her boxes and stripped them of the clothing they contained belonging to her and her chil dren, consisting of gowns, petticoats, shawls, stockings, &c., leaving them without a single garment except those which they /hen wore, Complainant made every inquiry after the woman from whom she had expe rienced such ingratitude, but heard nothing of her until the preceding day, when in walking along Union-street she happened to meet her in company with others, proceeding towards the borough. The prisoner endeavoured to conceal her face, by holding down her head, but the complainact went up to her, accused h e r of robbing her, and said that she should give her into custody. The nature of the ac cusation, which was overheard by the prisoner's to be friends, excited their astonishment, particularly make e st y o o r u e that of a man with whom she was walking. Th e of voice . sa id, 4b, prisoner, who exhibited much alarm, addressing the complainant in a low tone know that I robbed yo o li f ; an l w d ill sha m ll money,but s a h m a p u le s :o o : compensation. Ism plenty am now on the way married, at St. George's Church. Don't spoil it. I waiting for us." The prisoner was then hurrying off you everything; let us be off, the clergyman towards St. George's church, when the complainant, having no reliance on the word of a woman by whom she had been plundered, called a policeman, an d gave her into custody. The circumstance of an in tended matrimonial, ceremony being so suddenly and unexpeotedly interrupted, caused a crowd and some confusion in the street, in the midst of which the un fortunate bride was taken off to the station-house. The . prisoner, who stood weepm g . at the bar du r i ng the time the complainant was giving her evidence, when it was concluded was asked whether she had any question to put to her accuser. She replied in the negative. The MAGISTR ATE , in committing the prisoner for trial, said that the alleged robbery was committed under circumstances of very considerable aggravation. EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF TRANCE.-A corre spondent favours us with a few particulars relative to the sin gular case of trance, of which an account has recently ap peared' in our columns, and at the same time affords corrobo rative evidence of the authenticity of the fact, by forward ing a portion of a letter addressed by one of the relatives of the sufferer to a sister resident in London. The passage whic . c. refers to the case is this :--" I dare say you will be surpiised to hear that Ann Corner has spoken. Mother was with .her all Tuesday. She prayed for hours very loud and heartu, and she knew mother, and sent for her to ask her not to let any one have the hand of her (touch her) after she was (bead." The state into which she relapsed after this in terval of consciousness is described as presenting scarcely any theca Enible signs of life.