The Sun. — London, England, 1847-04-14 00:00:00

rbirb Übitton r- -- = SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock, IMPERIA L PARLIAMENT (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COALVIONS. CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Sir R. H. INGLIS (in continuation from our After noon Edition) said—He might quote instances of inter ference on the part of Roman Catholics with the civil Government of this and other countries; but it was sufficient for him to state that the Pope, who had dis missed one hundred bishops from their sees, who were faithful to their v ows an d to t h e c h urc h, declared t ha t the Church of Rome, in his person, bad a right to ex communicate Prin ces an d t o i n t er f e re as he d id r with ably set then ruler of F rance . Th ese things w forth in a book l a t e ly p u bli s h e d by Dr. Words worth worth which was well wo r thy t h e atten ti o n of every one interested in this discussion. He was so much attached to the Bible— not the improved editions —(g ear, hear) —as to con scientiously consider that public form of Protestantism as.the strong bulwark of the gloryproofpoEsnegdlacnodui—d England.—(Hear, not a b l e hear.) Such a measure as that passed into a law consistently with the existence of the Church of England, which was not secure so long as the Church of Rome c o ntinued. lie implored the Noble Lord a t the head of th e Government not to forget the dying words of his immortal ancesto r , which, coming from such a man, deserved to be consi dered'pr.ophetac,—" not to assist the progress of Pop er y." The res istance of Popery was one of the greatest o bj ec t f, his life; and he called upon the Noble Lord to act in the spirit o' his illustrious ancestor, and to resist any further measures which had for their objects the degradation of the Church of England, the humilia tion of Protestantism, and the final ascendancy of the Roman Catholic religion.—(Hear.) Entertaining these views, he felt he should but ill discharge his duty if he did not move, as an amendment, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill this day six months. Mr. LAW seconded the motion. • The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that the Church of Rome had been accused of persecution •, he was not prepared to deny that persecution had been many times exercised by members of that church— in fact he admitted that the Church of Rome had persecuted, but those acts were to be estimated by the spirit of the times in which they occurred ; and he might point to the Old Testament as furnishing some authority for persecution. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that he alluded to the wars waged by the Israelites against those nations who held possession of the pro mised land. Previous to the 16th century the whole of Western Europe was of one faith—heresies had arisen from the commencement of the Church of Christ, but at that period the whole relations of society were overset by the Reformation, and a number of heresies sprung up. And here he would observe that there was a great difference between a heretic and a member of a heresy. A heretic was one who once belonged to the faith of Christ, and who seceded ; but a member of a heresy was looked upon with a much more lenient eye by the Church ; he was consi dered by no means guilty in the same degree. He wished to argue the futility of throwing any restrictions in the way of a sincere believer by other than legitimate means. His floneurahle Friend had said that the Church of Rene was antagonistic to Protestantism.—(Hear, hear.) So it was, and so it ever would be, until Protestantism was extinct.—(lroni cal cheers.) The struggle would continue, and would last, and other churches would arise long after the Church of England had passed away and was forgotten. Mr. PLUMP f RE said that the Noble Lord had stated very plainly that the contest was going on of Popery against Protestantism, and that it would and should go on until the latter Church had become extinguished ; he stated such to be his intention, and such to be that of his Churce. Now he (Mr. Plumptre) ob jected to the present Bill, because he believed it had for its object the same intention. Ile thanked the Neble Lord for speaking so plainly; it was what they lamented, that they did not know where to find their enemies, for they assumed the attitude of war exactly at the moment that they felt their own power, or as it suited their convenience. He told them that the pur pese of his Church was to continue and maintain the struggle until Protestantism was for ever extinguished. Ile would tell him that the Protestants of this country were prepared to meet those words with others of a directly opposite character.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that nothing could be more painful to him than to say anything which might wound the feelings of any Member ; but they must not refrain from speaking the truth from any such fear, and it became them not to remain silent when they heard the declaration which had been just uttered.—(Hear.) He could not agree with the Noble Lord, that Protes tantism would become extinct, or that the Church of Rome would triumph over it. He felt so far from that, that Protestantism was founded on a rock; but he regretted that the present Bill would revive the struggle, as it would no d ou bt t en d t o promote the inte rests of the Church of Rome. He would .oppose the Bill, and every other measure of the same character, which went to destroy or endanger the Protestant truth or the Protestant Church. If he spoke warmly on the question, he at least epoko honestly, and while he differed with Honourable Members on the matter, he did so with the kindest feelings. It was not on personal grounds that he opposed the measure, but because he considered it based on a bad principle. Lord H. VANE said the II )n. Member who had last addressed the House seemed to have wandered widely from the subject. If any one were to read the Bill, with the amendments now proposed by the lion. Member for Kinsale, he could not see how it was possib:o to take such a course in the debate. He considered the Hon. Member who had just sat down had misrepresented, or at least misunderstood, the observations which had fallen from the Noble Lord (Arundel), though he (Lord 11. Vane) must at the same time observe that the sentiments which that Noble Lord had uttered were not his. He did not think that the Church of Rome would succeed over the Protestant Church, and that they both would become one. This, he was persuaded, was also the opinion of the great body of the people of this country. Still, he thought the Honourable Member (Mr. Plumptre) had misunderstood the argument employed by his Noble Friend. The Hon. Member had alleged that the Noble Lord supported persecution because he hal referred to certain passages in the Old Testament, and applied to a different order of things, which justified it ; and that therefore the Roman Catholic Church was justified in doing the same thing. Now, he (Lord H. Vane) c. , n-idered this not to be the opinion of the Noble Lord, but that he meant to say, thst in bygone days persecution g enerally prevailed and pervaded the c on d uct of all r eligious sects and opinions. Toleration, in fact, had not been understood or practised till within the last century and a hale. But his Noble Friend adjured persecution now, and only expected that by the prevalence of opinion his Church would become triumphant. He (Lord 11. Vane), however, was of a totally different opinion. The Bill, said the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), would change the whole character of the population. He objected to it because it would unprotestantise the country. In support of that opinion, he had given no reasons, had advanced no arguments, but he con sidered it would do so. The Hun. Member had also re ferred to the danger of permitting the Jesuits to come into the country, calling the attention of the House to the Proceedings of that body abroad during the last fifty years. He deduces from that g reat danger to the Protestant faith. Now he (Lord H. Vane) would observe, that at present Jesuits did come into the country, though the Catholic Emancipation Act expressly forbad them. Practically the law was of no effect, the spirit of the age was against penal enactments, on account of religious be lief. The Bill as amended, by its provisions for the registration of all those belonging to monastic orders, would be quite sufficient for all useful purposes. If they were to go on the policy recommended by the Hon. Member, they ought to rescind and repeal all the laws to advance religious liberty passed in the last 30 years. He (Lord H. Vane) could not see what object was gained by having laws on the statute book which could not be enforced, and which still contained a stigma on a particular religious faith. But the Hon. Member had objected to the repeal of the 30th Charles 11. on the gnound that it would affect the Bill of Rights. If that really were so, nothing could be more easy than to introduce a clause into the present Bill, declaring that the Bill of Rights should not be affected by it. This would obviate at once the difficulty. He had been induced to rise and take part in the debate because of the unfortunate turn which it had assumed. That House was a place, least of all Places, for theological discussions, and they should avoid all such allusions in their discussions. The whole—the they real —question had t o consider was the removal oThf Bill had been civil ties which the Bill proposed. Hon. Members, ana modified to meet the views of several Baronet the Member 4 ...2 l lsecially of the Right Hon. to confess, th at •Leanworth. He was quite free cessions, thro ug h the Publi c exhibition of pro ing town especially, ?marts of a mantsfactur :a stumbling-block, and th a t"" t e l T_Peraons prove therefore, avhich authorised these processionset:.'"l.Bu v th :i e fftr ge t u f e r ea orn l pe.rts of England were tent w eb the different character of the Bill itself. Believin g :isce sincerely rejoiced to hear a declaration tetha*ut the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and rej Ho u. Member had so decidedly expressed his o he was w th aa at this subject. But, as his Honourable Friend hat t hat sen*Rd to remove this objection, he could not at a ll see that any danger whatever could arise to the Protes. tan tism of this country from the passing of the Bill. The object of the Bill, as it appeared to him, was simply to obtain an equality of private position for the professors of the two religions, and by the expunging of the objec tionable clauses, the only danger that could have been apprehended had been averted. Mr. SPOONER rose to say only a few, a very few words, with a view to set the Hon. Member for Ken dal right, as to what had fallen &ern the Noble Lord .opposite (the Earl of Arund e l an d S urrey). At the com mencement of his observations that Noble Lord had -expressly stated that lie deprecated persecution in any . s h a pe, and had, in the course of the earlier portion of his remarks, expressly stated that ,ter. his opinion, nothing wha tever could ju s tify • persecution. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the c on a c s l s u a t g i ion n s i o h f his the speech,ld res h t a a d . Noble Lord, to wards the -,acid that there were certain p ; ment w hi c h give reason to suppose that under peculiar circumstances it would be countenanced by the Al- Lanighty.—(Cries of .‘ N o, n 0., ,) The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to Ghil: ea the Ron. Member. He had never attempted in any way to justify persecution, or to say that under any circumstances it was to be resorted to. What he had endeavoured to represent when alluding to the passages of the Old Testament was, that the contest which had been going on, and which must continue to go on be tween the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches, was one entirely of a theological character, and was not in any way to be forwarded by persecution. Mr. SPOONER was quite satisfied that the Noble Lord had not expressed exactly what he meant to say, and that his meaning would not bear the interpretation put upon it by his Hon. Friend. But the Noble Lord had referred to the Old Testament, and had alluded to certain passages which ho considered to be in sup port of his argument.—(Hear, hear.) But it should be recollected that, in the earlier days of th e Jewish Commonwealth, that people were devoted to a peculiar office. Their commission was to extermi nate idolatry, and he thought that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had hardly stated this case with sufficient force. Far be it from him to underrate the social excellence of the professors of the Roman Catholic religion ; far be it from him to understate their charity, or their often-exhibited benevolence. He believed that in these respects they were outdone by nobody of Christians, I but just as the Jews had their commission to extirpate idolatry. Mr. B. ESCOTT—No, no. Nothing of the kind. Mr. SPOONER—The Hon. Member for Winchester might have his opinion, but he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that he might be permitted to express his also, and although what he might say might have a tendency to offend many present, although it was uttered without the slightest desire to give offence to any ono ; yet though it might offend, still he should never be deterred from saying what he felt it to be his duty in that place from any consideration whatever. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had given the character to this de bate, and he had rightly said that the tendency of this Bill was to put down the Protestant faith in England. If they passed this Bill they had no other alternative— they must repeal the Act of Charles, and destroy the Bill of Rights. He had nut the slightest desire to pre vent any people from enjoying an equality of religious freedom, but he did object to that part of the Bill which legalised the sale of bulls in this country. It would, according to his notions, not be of the slightest advantage in giving any religious facility to the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, but it would be bringing in another and a new power to over awe the consciences and depress the powers of many individuals, and would in many instances compel them to avow and act on principles in religious matters which they in their inner heart denied. It would be sanction ing a custom and a principle which the House of Commons had no right whatever to sanction, and would in truth be rendering that lawful which was in itself treasonable and seditious. This Bill did not confine the authority for introducing bulls—that simply referred to spiritual jurisdiction, and was thus opening a way for all sorts of immoral and unscriptural proceedings. A few days ago a young gentleman, the son of a friend of his, had been induced to leave the Pro testant Church, and give in his adhesion to the Church of Rome, and shortly afterwards his father found a book entitled, " Consolation and Encouragement for Souls." It was translated from St. Alphonsius, and contained a passage to the effect that as soon as ever any man had given up the control of his mind and heart to his spi ritual director he was no longer responsible for his con duct to his Maker. He would ask whether this was not at once loosing all the bonds cf society, whether it was not setting at liberty every means for imposing upon the hearts and consciences of a people, whether it WAS not giving a range to all the chicane of priestcraft, and allowing opportunity for evils of a most mischievous character ? Was it not monstrous that there should be such a declaration of all loss of responsibility such as this ? With such a latitude there was a free commission to a young man any day to commit murder or treason, for by this assertion the Bible was nothing, law was nothing, morality was nothing, nor was there any rule whatever to bind the spirit, the principles, or the conscience of a ny man who had once given himself up to the direction of his priest. His conscience would not be his own, and there would be neither responsibility for the present or fear for the future—not an aid to assist in the pathway through life, but throughout the whole of his course he would be tied hand and foot by the dic tates of the priest, and would in every way be divested of all species of responsibility. There was also another view to which the Noble Lord had alluded, namely, that the discussion between the two Churches was only a theological one ; but could such a state of things as a system of free inquiry on the subjects exist where all free inquiry was reprobated, and everything left entirely in the hands of the priests ? Such were some of his reasons for opposing the motion for the llouse going into Committee on the Bill. He would conclude by saying that his firm opinion was that this Bill was looked upon with intense anxiety by the Roman Catholics, who hailed everything that removed the obstacles to the con - summation of that result which they had so much at heart. He believed that the House had gone too far already by the Act of 1829—(" Hear, hear; ' from Colonel Sibthorp.) He had a vivid recollection of some of the arguments used upon that occasion, both by Mr. Canning and other supporters of the measure, and was particularly struck by that which had been used on the subject of the exclusive nature of the oath required to be taken by Members of the Legislature. Ho believed that Mr. Canning was, however, too sanguine in believing that the oath, as then amended, would be as efficient in controlling the interference of the Catholic Members with the temporalities: of the Church as it had been before effectual in keeping them out of the House. The Hon. Member concluded by calling upon the House to support the Protestantism of the country, and refuse to go into Committee on the Bill. Mr. SHEIL said that the Hon. Member for Birming ham had stated that he was acquainted with several Catholic gentlemen for whom he entertained a high character, but he thought that if he were to communi cate his opinions to any one of those respectable gentle • men he would be assured by them that neither by force nor by fraud was it to be attempted to destroy the Pro testant religion.—(Hear.) lie could not help thinking that his lion. Friend had dealt somewhat disingenuously with his Noble Friend, for, notwithstanding the distinct explanation of his Noble Friend of the statements im puted to him by his neighbour of Kent, notwithstanding his Noble Friend got up and said that he was in favour of unrestricted freedom of conscience, the Honourable Member who had just sat down had endeavoured to fasten upon him charges which his Noble Friend had moat distinctly denied. He (Mr. Sheil) was convinced that there was not a single Roman Catholic in that House who would not disclaim the doctrines imputed to him by the Hon. Member for Birmingham. No such thew, or any other of the learned or virtuous men who were members of these societies ?—(Hear, hear.) No, they would not.—(Hear, hear.) Why, then, should this intolerance show its teeth when the teeth were too loose to bite?—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that a number of petitions had been presented against the Bill. He did not believe that there was any feeling of hostility entertained towards it by the people of England. He should like to know the number of the peti tions, and the signatures. The Honourable Member for Knaresborough presented one, to which only six names were attached. He did not think the people of England entertained the belief that their security was endangered by the removal of those penal laws, or that the satety of the Protestant Church was to be provided for by Catholic degradation. There was one omission in the Bill which he regretted. He thought a clause should have been introduced enabling a Roman Catholic to be eligible to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ire land. There had been four Roman Catholic Attor ney-Generals since the Emancipation Bill. Sir M. O'Loughlin, Wolfe, Ball, and Pigott, and he considered it too bad that such men were not eligible to the office of the Chancellorship. A Roman Catholic might be a judge ; and when such responsibility was entrusted to him, he saw no reason why he should be disqualified for the situation of Chancellor. He hoped the House would no longer countenance these dis abilities, but would show to the world that the days of pains and penalties for religious opinions were gone for ever. Mr. FINCH thought it was quite becoming in the last speaker, wbo was a Roman Catholic, to speak as he had done, and also the Noble Lord (Arundel and Surrey), but still he did not consider that either of them had ad duced any adequate reason why the Bill should be passed. He doubted miich whether the Government could extend with safety any further concessions to the Roman Ca tholic Church. In his opinion, that religion was opposed to the revealed religion, and was besides intolerent. We knew well that the omish Church was strongly op posed to religious liberty, and was abhorrent to the moral and legal laws on which the security of this country was based. He should therefore oppose the Bill, and supporkthe motion of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the real question be fore the House was, whether certain pains and penalties on the statute-book , but which all admitted could not be enforced--(Hear, hear)—should or should not be re pealed, as enactments without value. Those who opposed the Bill contended that the best way to promote the prosperity of the Church of England was the retention of obnoxious penalties with regard to those ho followed another form of the same Christianity. But, when it was admitted on all hands that they never could be enforced, he was quite at a loss to know why they should not be at once abrogated. In the whole course of the discussions on the Bill, he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that the safety of the Church of England would be endangered by the remission of those obnoxious penalties. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, directed their attention to what was going on in France, but particularly in Switzerland, owing to the violent conduct of the Jesuits. But when he quoted Switzerland, to show what the toleration of the Jesuits had done there, he made a most unhappy allusion. What was the condition of the Jesuits in Switzerland? In some cantons the Jesuits were tolerated and fostered, while neighbouring contons, opposed to the Jesuits, endea voured by force to put them down ; and when attacked they naturally resented such aggressions upon their liberty ; and then the Right Hon. Baronet came for ward and said, " See what the violence of the Jesuits has brought about in Switzerland." He said, there fore, that he could not have made a more unhappy allusion ; in his opinion a more un happy allusion was never brought forward in that House on that occasion. He also said that the legis lators of France had been compelled to put a stop to the violence and inroads of the Jesuits, which was far more straightforward and Christianlike than the theoretical plan which had been adopted in this country. Then the Right Hon. Baronet appealed to the Protestant Dissenters to join him in opposing the Bill; but the Protestant Dis senters must have short memories, indeed, if they forgot that the Right Hon. Baronet had, during his long and consistent career, opposed them as strongly as he now opposed the concessions now asked for on behalf of the Roman Catholics. The gravamen of the matter was simply this—that the one Church opposed the other on certain points. The Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whose absence they must all regret, stated that he had felt it necessary in 1829 to vindicate the established doctrines ; but he (Lord John Manners) was at a loss, after the lapse of twenty years, to point out one single instance in which those so-called safeguards had been trespassed upon. But if they were safeguards to the Throne and to the Church, he wished to know why they had not in any instance been put in force.—(Hear, hear.) They could not be put in force; and if they were to call upon the advisers of her Majesty to put these laws into force, they would refuse to do so. ; He, therefore, was at a loss to know how they could be called safeguards. If their abrogation were really dangerous to the State and to the Church, he must say that it was not becoming in them to take their stand on those pettifogging penalties which they might suffer, and which no one thought to put in force.—(Hear, hear.) Those who opposed the Bill were actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could not sympathise. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged the officers of the Crown to say that the Bill of Rights could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles IL were repealed. It was not for him to offer legal opinions, but he considered that the Right Hon. Baronet was totally mistaken in his view of the law. He had heard the ; Hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham observe that he did not believe that the contest would be successful, and that the Protestant Church would remain unvanquished. If that was then the case, why did he refuse to do away with these petty laws, which had been declared inoperative? If the Honourable Member believed in the eternal truth of the principles which he professed he ought to throw from him these miserable crotchets, which were useless. Sir Christopher Wordsworth, de scribing the Christian Brothers, observes, that not one of the pupils educated by them took a part in the late revolution in the French capital. This was a fact worthy of observation. The people had been induced to petition against this Bill, having been told that it contained clauses which enabl r e'd them to take the stale and title of the Protestant bishops ; they were misled, and every means had been used to excite them. He, however, had great confidence that when the Bill came to be properly understood the people of England would be of opinion with him, that the Church was more secure in the purpose was entertained by them as they were charged affections of her own people, in the increasing zeal and with. His Honourable Friend was so much ex- sanctity of her ministers, in the power which she cited by his argument as to call all his possesses in the purity of her doctrine, in the Roman Catholic fellow-subjects " idolaters." He integrity of the lives of her ministers and professors, (Mr. Sheil) could assure the Hon. Member that he and they will not believe that the constitution of the had too much Christian philosophy to allow himself in country is in jeopardy by the extension of the principles the slightest degree to be influenced by idolaters.— of toleration.—(Cheers.) (Hear, hear.) But really, after all, the real question for Mr. NEWDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just the House to decide was whether they would go into sat down had told them that they had not pur- Committee on this Bill—a Bill which has already sued a consistent course in their opposition to the passed the second reading. There was ono present measure. There was one consistent per portion of the Bill to which he attached son at the least, and that was the Member considerable value, he referred to that portion of it with for the University of Oxford. He had told them that reference to the religious orders of the Catholic Church. they had excited deep feelings on the part of the As the law now stood, no Jesuit or any member of Catholics ; but he would ask, who had awakened other religious orders, could come into this country with- them ? who but the promoters of this Bill, out being subject to transportation. Any native of Ire- who were not content to allow these dead letters land who should enter into any religious order was liable to remain upon the statute-book?—(Hear, hear.) It was to banishment in the first instance, and transportation because he was in favour of religious toleration that after; and any person who initiated any individual into a he refused his assent to the present Bill—it was because religious order was liable to the same punishment. Now, the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant, and he thought that it must strike the common sense and because she claimed unto herself to be superior in all the common justice of that House that these laws were, things, in matters of discipline as well as doctrine.— if not potent in their application, at least essen- (Hear.) The Noble Member for Arundel spoke in heat, tially inefficacious. But these laws were also bat he spoke out nobly—he was not ashamed to say wholly inoperative; they were utterly inefficaci- that he sought for the supremacy of his Church, ous for the purposes contemplated by those who and that he was a subject of the Pope. introduced those laws, and he would show the House I - fe asked the House to consider well the authority of the that these laws were also totally inoperative. He Pope, which the Bill proposed to admit, and see whe thought it quite sufficient for his argument to open a ther they could reconcile its admission with the alle book which he held in his hand, entitled " The Irish giance which they owed to the Queen of these realms. Catholic Directory." The book to which he would refer He believed that they could not. The decrees and contained the entire statistics of the Catholic Church, and councils of the Roman Catholic Cnurch gave the it specified all the archbishops, the bishops, the arch- Pope temporal and spiritual dominion over all the deacons, the deacons, and all the parish priests kingdoms of the world—over all people, princes, and po in connexion with that Church, and concluded tentates. How then could they reconcile powers of such by the following heading—" Society of Jesus." Then a character with the prerogatives of the British Crown ? followed the name of the Rev. Richard St. Ledger, He was not to be told that on the ground of religious Clongowes College, Clare. The Hon. and Learned tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra- Member also read a list of other names in connexion ordinary powers as these. He was as much a friend of with the religious order of the Jesuits and went on to to l era ti on as any Member in that Ho use , b ut did say that such a statement was in his opinion amply he admit the powers of the Pope as recognised sufficient to convince the House that the law as by the Bill, he would be intolerant indeed. Though a it then stood had . been and was utterly ineffica- great number of petitions had not been presented, he ciousi; the laws were offensive, and answered , could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre the purposes of contumely, but none other. vailed throughout the country against the measure. Father Mathew was a regular, Dr. Doyle was a The people had not petitioned because of the regular —an Augustinian friar ; and if the one way in which their petitions had been treated might be called the Apostle of Temperance, th e on the Maynooth question, and they had little further other might—for the extraordinary exertions he m a d e confidence in approaching the House. But let them in support of the p oor o f Ireland, and to place pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear the poverty of that country on the same footing 1 of it again, when they presented themselves to the as the poverty of England — be ca lle d t h e Apostle of the I people for re-election. The Noble Lord the Member for Poor, as be was the first great champion the poor of Ire- Newark had come to the rescue, and had attacked the op land ever had. Now, by the law as it at present stood, position to theeJesuitsinFranceandSwitzerland , whichhe the former might be at the present moment propagating asserted had originated in democratic violence. Now the principles of temperance in Van Diemen's Land and with regard to this he would tell the Noble Lord that Australia, and such great and good men be subjected to the real cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the the most iniquitous oppression. The question then Jesuits arose from the fact of the latter seeking to take arose, was that law to stand ? and if so, for what pur- the whole education of certain countries into their pose ? He knew that, with regard to the Jesuits, a feel- hands. And in France they bad been declared illegal, mg of strong opposition had been excited, and that because of the intrigues for power in which they had tichearthgedou since what was called the Popish Plot they had been been continually engaged. The Hon. and Learned retarded with fear; but he thought those who entertained Member for the University of Oxford had asked the neh feelings ought to be afraid of their . own . fears. Attorney -General an important question, which ought and thee t h e be Ih b d•f if the measure was subversive e w lt i t ti t x l , eat whatever faults the Jesuits might to ave . een atiswere ,or be pointed the°uJeded ‘ their virtues greatly outweighed them, of the Bill of Rights, howcould the Members of the House m ons and n ruk of those charges were wholly calum- lof Commons support it ? If they agreed to such were the faults of Ganganelli at the Irish Jesuits were entirely gowes, several eh:eh!: their conduct in Ireland? To the theology of E3cuba might i ' a Bill, they must relieve the Sovereign from ter obliga ritres example of Xavier. But whatever i lion to uphold the Protestant faith, and fully and undis charitable nature. Were the vari° " T le l from blame. What was institutions of a i who ey s l vere suppressed by ' guisedly admit the temporal and spiritual authority of I r a French philosophy, the the Pope of Rome. years, daring a college at CI • ' r discussion this, and if he had enter on •1 ct ssity for ‘uch a as Si J. EASTHOPE regretted that there was any ne. committed? For the last Be ttA he rt crimes they h ad hear the evidence the different agitations and -Y • • inutility of it from the speech of the Hon. Member tainecl that opinion before be was doubly satisfied of the in Ireland, he defied them who had just sat down. One advantage might, indeed, parison of the PothotleiLlinmovements result from h . people of England would single speech, tract, or pamphlet, ever cnit -e a members of the of or published by a Jesuit. He bad urch. these laws were operative seen a Jesuit at any of the meetings of the never was I W " DO Pl la i f this benefit he believed that this :rele \ notwithstanding on both sidesstill the question.. Yet, Association ; and he did not believe that any m em b er i respectivertheological controversy, or fora cotnsho of that society was or ever had been a member of the 1 _ advantages enjoyed by __ _ Roman Catholic or of the English Repeal Association. These were facts, and they surely I whether The real question in his • • inion was as to ought to outweigh the unsupported assertions of the Hon. ' op t. For his own Member for Birmingham. Why then, he would ask, part l, he believed them to be totally °r u n s el e s, and only a should these men be persecuted, against whom there •. grace to the st atute-book , and he firmlybelieved that was no just cause of blame? Would Mr. Spooner, Mr. . iinstrumental in the support of reli- Plumptre, or Sir R. Inglis persecute Father Mat- ; g ous persecution, the Hon. Gentleman himselfshould be . among the very first to put them down ; and if they s, were not so instrumental, what security was there in their retention ? No man wished more than he did heartily for the welfare of the religion of the country. The Noble Lord the Member for Arundel bad stated his firm conviction that the result of these disputes would be to annihilate Protestantism. He respeeted the Noble Lord for the strength of his convictions, but he him self believed that the result would be totally different, and that if they were to be conducted without any of these persecuting agencies, that the consequence would be the extinction of Roman Catholicism. That these laws were useless was evident, for even the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had allowed that they had been in abeyance; and what was the utility, then, of at all retaining what ho must term such paltry defences to the religion of the country ? He had himself been educated in the faith of the Established Church of these realms, and no one sub scribed more cordially to her creed and her articles. and if the cons quence of this Bill was to weaken her position, or to destroy her influence, he would be one of the last individuals in the world to be a party to it. But, believing as he conscientiously did, that a very different effect would ensue, he should give most cordially his vote to his Hon. and Learned Friend. Mr. GOULBURN had on a former occasion stated his opinion on the merits of this Bill, but yet felt im pelled to say a few words to express his reasons for voting, as he should do, against it. On that occa sion then he was one of a very large majority who caused the rejection of the Bill, he "had stated that he felt bonnd by the terms of the compact into which he had entered in 1829; and he saw no new reasons now for changing his opinion. All who heard him would recollect when the Roman Catho lic Relief Bill of 1829 was introduced by the Govern ment, the difficulties they had to encounter on ac count of the liberality of its provisions, and what ear nest efforts they had to make to reconcile the House to its passing. Of all the Bills that had ever been intro duced to the House for the relief of Roman Catholic disabilities, that was the most extensive, and far sur passed the expectations of Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunkett, and others, who had endeavoured to limit the re strictions under which the members of that faith la boured. But in bringing in that Bill the Govern ment had expressly stated they were only justified in its introduction by the fact that they were laying the foundation for the basis on which the Roman Catholic religion should stand in this country. It was on the faith of that representation that the Bill had been allowed to pass, and he should therefore be quite un warranted in breaking the contract into which he had then entered, and this - he would do if he were to con sent to the passing of this Bill. He was the less in clined to do so, because there was no reason assigned that to him carried the slightest weight. There were no lamentable grievances to complain of, no pains and penalties which bore with remarkable hardship, no re strictions which pressed with peculiar severity, and even the laws which it was sought by this Bill to repeal were acknowledged to be totally imperative. By the Act of 1829 the power of prosecuting for those penalties had been placed in the hands of the Attorney- General, by whose discretion alone any suit could be carried on or any penalty could be enforced. He thought that Catholic processions should not be per mitted ; and he believed the restriction of the law of 1829, as far as those processions were concerned, was dictated by a sound policy. For he would ask what would be the case if a procession of banners, crucifixes, and crosses were permitted in any of the towns of this country ? He believed the result would prove the injudiciousness of such an indulgence. With regard to the prohibitions on the members of the religious orders, he heard nothing from the advocates of this Bill to justify the removal of the restrictions of 1829. He deprecated, therefore, these discussions, which had the effect of exciting feelings which had better be allowed to lie dormant. The late Government took the course which he thought should have been taken on the subject of these penalties, not only as regards Roman Catholics, but other Dissenters, and Bills were brought in and passed the Legislature for the removal of those unenforced disabilities. He thought, therefore any further legislation on the subject should be avoided, and he considered it extremely in judicious to bring such questions before the House every succeeding session of Parliament. Those were his reasons, therefore, for opposing the further prog ress o f the Bill. He would not, at that late hour of the day, go through the remaining clauses of the Bill. He was prepared to say that the ob jects sought to be attainedi by the present measure were obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe nalty contained in any of the former Acts could, by any possibility, attach to any person at the present time. The present measure also sought, by one clause, to put an end to questions of law , which required, to say th e l eas t o f th em , a most careful con sideration. If he was at any former period opposed to this measure, he was more particularly so efter what had fallen from the only member of the Government who had spoken upon the subject, to the effect that still greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessary. He would ask that Right Honourable Member if he would secure him against any attempt to infringe upon the liberties already held by the Protestants when all these concessions had been made by the House ? Ile should most certainly support the amendment and vote against the further progress of the measure. Mr. COLLETT would support the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale. for going into Committee on this Bill, on the grounds of non-inter ference, and non-toleration. It was his opinion that he who acted properly and uprightly was in the right road to heaven, whether he was Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter, Jew, or Mahomedan.—(Divide, divide.) He was himself a humble member of the Protestant Church, but that church had introduced a number of new-fangled doctrines, and ho thought that it would be a much better employment of the time of the bishops to endeavour to obtain unity among their own members than to oppose the measure introduced by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kinsale.— (Cries of " Divide, divide.") He did not like to see the bishops act like the Bishop of Exeter, who had spoken against a ball at Exeter, the proceeds of which were to be devoted to the relief of the distressed Irish and Scotch, nor did he like to see the bishops in their robes in the House of Lords, while all the other Members of that House were obliged to go in plain clothes.—(The Hon. Member sat down amid great confusion, and cries for the division.) Sir G. GREY said that the question now was the same as that which had been discussed on a former occasion,_ when the House decided by a ma j or it y i n favour of the second reading of the measure. It was in accordance with the recommendations of the Criminal Law Commissioners that the present measure was brought forward by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale. He did not consider that by voting for going into Committee:on the Bill any Hon. Member would bind himself to the details of the measure, and if the question was at present raised on the third reading of the Bill, he should certainly not be prepared to give his assent to the measure in its present shape. He knew that it might be said by those persons who , held the same views upon the subject as the Hon. Mem ber for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner), that the present measure was one brought in for the purpose of subvert ing the Protestant constitution of this country. He for one, however, entirely: denied any such intention in the support which he was prepared to give to the measure. He was himself attached to the Protestant institutions of the country, and was nurtured in the bosom of the Estab lished Church, and attached as he was to its principles, and hoped shoulde ever remain so, he believed that the Protestant Reformation was a most in valuble blessing to the country, and he would regret if by any act of his he should in the least affect injuriously the interests of Protestantism. He considered that he should ill discharge his duty if he voted for the retention of those " pains and penalties, because he considered that their Roman Catholic fellow subject should be allowed, and they were entitled to teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When their illegality was admitted, he saw no reason why they should be retained, with respect to a portion of their fellow-subjects who conceived that they were simply discharging their duty in promulgating their doctrines. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford said this measure was: but one of a series of concessions of an inju rious nature which had been made to the Roman Catholics during the last 50 years, evidently admitting that if he had began to legislate 5o years ago, that he should have opposed all the; measures, of concession, and amendment which had been passed with respect to the Catholics during that period. The first part of the Bill stated that these " pains and penalties" had the effect of keeping down their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee, and to go through the clauses seriatim, with the report of the Commissioners in his hand, in order that he might have the assistance of the opinions of high authority. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of C am b ri d ge (M r . G ou lburn) materially objected to that portion of the Bill which related to pro cessions. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to incur the risk of supporting th at part of the Bill which would legalise public processions through the streets, but he believed that part of the Bill was not to be insisted upon; how ever, the proper time to consider these things was in Committee. He should, therefore, vote for the Bill going into Committee.—(Divide.) Mr. LAW regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had not alluded to the difference between the repealing the statute and the penalties attached to the crimes which it mentioned. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to an Act passed in the reign of Richard the Second, and the 16th, of George the Second, to show that the supremacy of the State and the Protestant religion would be endangered if the Bill were passed into a law. It was perfectly clear, by the provisions of the Bill, the declaration required to be taken by the Sovereign on accession to the throne is repealed, for it is part and parcel of the Act, which was considered to be the severest test which could be put that the Sovereign was of the communion; of the Established Church. There was nothing in the framing of the Bill which could invite them to go into Committee; it was most loosely worded, and involved great interests, for it touched upon the very conditions by which the Crown was held. He would record his vote in favour of his Right Hon. Friend's amendment. Lord SANDON said he had to express his most unfeigned regret thatithis question has beenVaised at all. It was admitted on all sides that no great practical evil was endured by the existence of these clauses, while great harm was done by the religious animosity which was excited in these discussions, Looking to his whole career in that House, he could not find any more con sistent course to pursue than to give his vote tor going into Committee. Mr. ESTCOLTRT said he was anxious to go into Committee upon the Bill. When in Committee be time enough to discuss the de tails of th i Bill. would Still • h he must observe, that ho was not satisfied e with the It amended clause of the lion. Mover of the Bill, intro- . duced by him to quiet the scruples of the opponents. Mr. WATSON replied. He said he trusted the House would bear with him if he refrained from answering the speeches of the Honourable Members who oppused it, because he confessed he had not heard a single valid reason against the Bi.l. He would briefly content himself with stating its principle, which was, that no person whatever should be responsible to pains and p n,l les on account of his religious belief. That was the real question they had before them, and the Bill was to effect a repeal of all statutes that operated inju riously in this manner. The measure was divided into two parts. The one part was to repeal old laws inflicting penalties on Roman Catholics, and was no thing more than giving full effect to the Act of Emancipation passed in 1829. Ile denied, therefore, that his bringing it forward was a violation of any compact entered into in 1829, as alleged by the Honourable Member for the University of Oxford. The Commissioners, w ho had made inquiry into the operation of these statutes, bud shown in their report the inutility of such penal statutes. It was to c irry out the recommenclaien of the Commis siuners that he had introduced this Bill. But the penalty being taken away the misdemeanour still re metined. In the Bill of Rights the Ist of William 111. expressly stated that the Sovereign, on coining to the throne should declare his adherence to the Protestant religion, and if they repealed the Act of Charles 11. they would in no way touch the Bill of Rights. The latter touched only the sovereign, while the former affected the subject. He had shown, on previous occasions, that the supremacy was a part of the common law of England, and the Act of the Ist of Elizabeth was not passed to declare that supremacy, but to provide for the punishment of individuals who in any way assisted in supporting the authority of the Pope in this country ; but the Act did not, for it could not create the supremacy of the Sovereign. That bad already been established. This was the first part of the Bill, and he regretted the necessity of going so fully into the matter at this period of the debate.— (Hear, hear.) Then he came to the loth Geo. IV, which had been called the safeguard of the country. Now, he did not propose to interfere with that Bill except in one respect. No person could have greater dislike to those public processions in the streets which were likely to affect the minds of weak per sons. He objected to all these processions, whether they were made by Protestants, Catholics, or Dissenters ; but he thought that there was no objection repeal that portion of the 10th George IV., which pre vented the Catholic priest from performing the rites of his Church in a private chamber at the burial of the dead, lie thought that the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had misstated the circum • stances, when he said that it was customary to elevate the host at the burial of the members of the Roman Ca tholic communion. Sir R. 11. INGLIS expressed his dissent. Mr. WATSON had credibly been informed that such an occurrence never took place, and at ary rate there was no power to enforce these laws. There were at present between five and six hundred parochial priests in Ireland, against whom the laws could not be enforced, and it was a maxim in criminal law that when a law was not in unison with the feelings tf the people, the better way was at once to abrogate it. The Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford had said, that this measure was both harmless :and dangerous. He could not conceive how this measure can be liable to both of these charges. The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that the Roman Catholics were anxious about the success of this measure—that was surely no matter of surprise to the [louse. The Hon. and Learned Member then went on to argue that the present measure was abso lutely necessary, and he asked the House in the name of elerything that was just and liberal, to allow the measure to go into Committee, when the House would have an opportunity of altering or modifying any of the clauses. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment l5B Against it - 119 Majority — 39 The 13111 is eons= quently lost. EXCHEQUER, BILLS. The report from the Committee on the Exchequer. bills (18,310,7000 Bill was brought up and received. The other orders of the day were then disposed of and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. RAILWAY COMMITTEES (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP No. 1. The Select Committee, appointed to consider the merits cf the Bills comprised in this group, re-a-sembled in Room 30, at the usual hour this morning. Lord Granville Somerset in the chair. THE SOITTE-EASTERN SCHEMES. Mr. GREGORY was heard on behalf of Lady Spencer, who complained that the Mid Kent line would seriously injure her property at Mereworth. In the cases of Mr. Cotton, Sir Percy Dyke, and Captain Ryder Burton, the company had made terms with the opposing parties. Mr. TALBOT called upon his friend who appeared for the South-Eastern Company to disclose the terms which bad been come to with Sir Percy Dyke. Mr. Autrrix had no difficulty whatever in acceding to the request, although to do so was irregular. The agreement was that they should not make the Parliamentary liue with out the consent of Sir Percy D . % ke ; but he must tell the Committee at the same time, that they would have power to make the deviated line laid down on their plans. He intended to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject, and when that time arrived he should be prepared to prove the assents of the landholders to the deviatedline. This closed the South-Eastern case. THE HRIGHTON SCHEMES. Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to open the case for the Brighton Company. He commenced his address by declaring, that if this contest were to be decided, not by the re sults to be drawn from the map, but upon the principle of " vested rights," it would be necessary for him to go largely into retrospective matters bearing upon the case. Now, in the very onset he must pronounce the views of his opponents with regard to their pre-occupancy of the district in question to be altogether fallacious, and when the proper time arrived he should be prepared with evidence to sub stantiate this statement. Having touched upon this pre liminary point, he would now ;go into the prima facia case of his clients. The Committee were aware that he had the honour to represent a company which consisted of two partners—first, the London and Brighton, and, secondly, the London and Croydon. Now the line of the latter company was laid out and constructed at an enormous expense, no less indeed than 100,0001. per mile, not so much with the view of accommodating London and Croydon traffic, but the preamble of the original Croydon Act would show that the Legislature intended that the line should be made the leading avenue of all railways coming from the Kentish districts to the metropolis. But it was urged by the Sout! -Eastern Company that the Croydon line stood in the position of an expensive toll-gate, through which they were compelled to pass. No doubt it was a toll-gate; but it was one over which they had the power of regulating the toll to be co th n e v c tcy ny th d e en pa n pas senger more ; so that in - paid, and if they carried a passenger from London to Dover at 3d. per mile, all they would have to pay to the Croydon, toll, would be 3d. per mile for each passenger , minus the ofsceonstger f w n o r ik id ing ten . amile, point of fact the South-Eastern had absolute control over the toll to be paid to the Croydon Comp any. Hsixe disposed of the allegation that the miles of the S ou th- E a stern line from Reigate to Croydon would be ren d ere d m t il l e ie s y ; or would i u f ltdhhe they have toos chose pay o useless by the passing of a Mid Kent line, by directing the attention of the Committee to the fact that those six miles might be made available for the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate line, and then proceeded to state that the South-Eastern had never come forward to supply the wants of the public till they were forced to do so by the Brighton Company. For instance, they did not propose a line for Hastings until the Brighton G,m pany had brought forward a coast line from Brighton through Lewes to Hastings. He then came to the consideration of the merits of the two schemes before the Committee. The Learned Gentleman having oc cupied a considerable time in discussing the merits of compe tition as applied to railways, and impressing upon the minds of the Committee the importance and magnitude of the ques tion they had to decide, which could not be viewed in the light of a local, but as an European question, and, according to same, as an Asiatic question ; for it was said by one of his Learned Friends, Mr. Hildyard, he believed, that these lines had "the metropolis at one end, and the world at the other"---went on to implore the Committee not to hand over the county of Kent to the tender mercies of one company, but to grant the Brighton lines, and infuse new blood into the district. He based his claim to make this demand upon the Committee on the ground that, in so far as the Brighton Mid Kent line, as between Maidstone and London, and London and Tunbridge, were somewhat shorter in distance than the ,com peting scheme of the South-Eastern Company, . it would better accommodate the populationof the districts through which it passed; indeed the Brighton Mid Kent line accommodated a considerably larger population than the South Eastern. It would pass through all the large towns on the route, while the South Eastern linealtogether avoided them, in the same way that their existing line did. It was true the works on the Brighton line wereheavy, but not so heavy as to be insurmountable, while the cost of the Brighton line from London to Tunbridge would fall far short of that of the South-Eastern, as between Lewisham and Oxford the ex cess of cost on the South-Eastern line, he represented, would be 130,0001. The earth works on the South-Eastern line would be 2,550,000 yards; on the Brighton it would be 1,500,000 yards. The tunnelling on the South-Eastern would be 963 yards; on the Brighton 2,600 yards. There would be many viaducts on the South-Eastern, but none on the Brighton line. The Comrcittoe at this point of the Learned Counsel's ad dress determined to adjourn till to• morrow. GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY OF BENGAL.—(THIS DAY). A special general meeting of the shareholders in this company was held at the London Tavern, Bishops gate-street, fcr the purpose of receiving the report, and confirming the arrangements made by the directors for an amalgamation with the East Indian Railway Company. General M'Leod occupied the chair. The, SECRETARY read the directors' report, which stated that the railway had been originally projected to connect Calcutta with the deep waters of the Ganges, at Rajmaltal, to be known as the Calcutta and Ganges Grand Junction Railway Company, a name that was changed for the present on the 23d April, 1845. It was arranged, through the late Dwarkanauth Tagore, that Carr Tagore and Co. should be agents for the company in India, with powers to allot 20,000 shares in Bengal, 10,000 in Bombay, and 10,000 in Madras. By ativices from India, it appeared that 10,222 shares in all had been allotted, and 4,708 paid upon. The railway was favourably noticed by the East Indian Company . 's Government in Bengal, in June, 1840, and early this year conditions were submitted by ►he East India Com pany, under which they would extend their support to Indian railways, a modification of which, however, had been sought by the directors. But, in the meantime, the directors succeeded in effecting an arrangement with the East Indian Railway for amalgamation with that com pany on the following terms, accepted on both sides:- Ist. The subscribed shares in the Great Western Ben- THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 14, 1847. gal Railway Company to be exchanged for an equal number of shares in the consolidated company. 2d. The relative expenses of the two companies to be equitably adjusted by mutual arrangements. 3d. Three of the directors of the Great Western Bengal Railway Company to join the consolidated company. 4th. Claims of the officers who may be displaced by the amalgamation to be considered by the consolidated board. The balance-sheet produced showed receipts amount ing to 11,320/. ; disbursements 7,0441. ; leaving a balance of 4,2761., with no outlying debts—the expen diture being something under 3s. 2d. a share. The CHAIRMAN Said he had but little to say in re gard to their peculiar position, which he hoped they would sanction and confirm. It would be the more un necessary, as Sir George Larpent had the other day given so very able a report of the whole conditions and state of the amalgamation. He felt it necessary to state, however, that they were about to be rejected at the East Indian Company's Board, and they were about to call a meeting, in order to wind up, when a proposal was made for amalgamation with the East Indian Railway Company, which the directors considered to be of a nature not to be rejected or lost. They had tried to have a greater number of the directors in the consoli dated board, but that was not conceded, and they thought it best to accept the conditions which were offered. The Chairman concluded, by moving that the report be received, adopted, and printed. RICHARD HARTLEY KENNEDY, Esq., in seconding the motion, said the calculation of the expense on the pro. posed line of 900 miles had been made by the East Indian Railway Company at 17,0001. a mile. He was strongly of opinion that that sum was quite the outside calculation, for if a canal in the very same route was reckoned at 3,0001. per mile, he did think a railway might be made much cheaper than the rate that had bee!r taken in that calculation, say something like 10,0001. a mile ; for the labour in that country was very cheap, twenty cubic yards of earthwork being accomplished at 2s. In remarking on the traffic .returns put forth by the East Indian Railway Corn pally. which showed a dividend of 15i per cent. he expressed his opinion that that was very much be low what the traffic would actually be. He risked this opinion on the traffic that must be created in Indian cotton and corn—the latter, most excellent, being capable of being landed in England at 365. a quarter from Bengal. The motion was put and carried. Mr. WRIGHT proposed the confirmation of the amal gamation, ar.d the conditions of the same, with the East ILdian Railway Company, which passed unanimously. Mr. CARDEN proposed a vote of thanks to the direc tors, which was carried. The CHAIRMAN responded, and the meeting dispersed, REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS ' DURING THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 10. Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week. Males ... ... ... 527 Males ... ... ... 776 Females ... ... 524 Females ... ... 713 - - Total . . 1,051 Total ... 1,489 SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.) (Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.) BLACKBURN V. EDWARDS. This was an action to recover the sum of 31. 18s. The plaintiff is a laundress, and the defendant a cab proprie tor. Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted. Mr. Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Locke !or thv defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was that the work had been done, and the charges fair and reasonable. On the - rart of the def'endant it was shown that pre vious monetary transactors had taken place between the plaintiff and defendant, and that at one time the plaintiff held 2ot belonging to the defendant, but which ,he had said she had paid over to defendant's father, Llh is dead. To prove that the plaintiff had admitted that she held thy money for defendant, Mr. Ellis was called, but his evidence was not conclusive, as it left the case open to the impression that the money bad been paid to the lather, whose estate was insolvent, as an advance, by order of the son. Mr. MILLER remarked on the impropability of a person in such humble circumstances going to the expense of L:n action if the claim was not just. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE 01 COMMONS, April 13. SUPPLY. On the order of the day that the Report be received, Mr. lIUME wished to ask a question which he had omitted last night. It was, whether Burnet's patent solution for the pprotection of canvass and tim ber had been introduced into the service of the navy ? He had seen the most beneficial effects from it. Mr. WARD replied, that it had been largely intro duced into the service of the dockyards, and was fast increasing. Captain PECIIELL complained that what he bad stated last about the treatment of the officers connected with the Haslar Hospital bad not been answered. As a petition on the subject had been laid on the table, he trusted that before the report was agreed to an explana- Licit would be given. Mr. WARD said that the answer to the observations of his Honourable and Gallant Friend was, that all those abuses were of old date, but he might state that in respect to the first of the cases to which he had particularly referred there had been a regulation established by which one half of the half pay had been made over to the friends of the invalid. As respected the second of the cases, he regretted to say, that a gross abuse had existed, but the Government bad taken measures for its removal.—(" Hear, bear," from Captain Pechell.) By the advice of that excellent nobleman, Lord Ashley, every effort had been used to ameliorate the condition of the parties to whom his friend referred. _ . Sir G. GREY said that on the case being made known to them, the Board of Admiralty had sent down in structions to direct that every attention that could be shown should be paid to Lit utenant Cawse, and he be lieved that those instructions had been efficacious for the purpose. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. The whole the clauses were agreed to. PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL. The report on this Bill was brought up and received. FEVER (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for the third readiug of this Bill, Mr. FITZSTEPIIEN FRENCH said he had just returned from Ire4rd, and he could bear testimony to the exertioLa goveynment were making to mitigate the sufferings of the Irish people. He wished to call the attention of the House to the establishing some compe tent inspeetion over the existing and proposed fever hos pitals in Ireland. Committee after Committee had re commended the adoption of such a course as absolutely necessary for the benefit of that country; yet nothing of the kind had been hitherto effected. The rn.bility and gentry of the entire country were in favour of the mea sni•e. Mr. LABOUCIIERE was quite aware of the neces sity of some competent inspector, but the Bill before the House was only a temporary one, and he did not think it necessary to include in that measure any provisions adapted to a more permanent measure. He could assure the House that the best attention of the Government should be devoted to the subject. The lion. Member then proposed the addition of several clauses to the Bill, which were then read. Mr. F. FRENCH objected to the clauses introduced by the Noble Lord, as he thought it was a sly attempt to establish a medical board, which would be extremely unpopular. ihe clauses were agreed to, with a few verbal amend• merits. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. FOX MAULE gave notice that on the reading of the Army Service Bill, on Thursday, he should move that the limited service and the Chelsea pension clauses be divided into two Bills. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Seven o'clock. TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. DIVIDENDS DECLARED. H. W. Hobhouse J. Phillott, and C. Lowder, bankers, Bath—fourth div. of 4d. in the pound, to those creditors who,e names commence with A, B, or C, on Monday, the 19th inst.; D, E, F, G, on Tuesday, the 20th; H, I, J, K, L, on Wednesday, the 21st ; M, N, 0, P, Q, R, on 'I hursday, the 22d ; S. T. U, V, W, Z, on Friday, the 23d, at the office of Mr. Miller, Bristol. 11. Leonard, lamp dealer, Cheltenham—first div. of 2s. 11d. in the pound, on Wednesday, April 14, or any Wednesday after May 1, at the office of Mr. Miller, Bristol. T. Lowis, hosier, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—first div. of ls. in the pound, on any Saturday, at the office of Mr. Wakley, Newcastle upon-Tyne. J. D. Browning, upholsterer, Bristol—first div. of 3s. 6d. in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Hutton, Bristol. J. Adamson, grocer, Stockport—final div. of 3s. 3d. in the pound, on any Tuesday, at the office of Mr. Hobson, Manchester. A. C. Fowler, draper, Louth, Lincolnshire —second div. of 2s. 1 lid. in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Basinghall-street. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. J. Cooke, stone mason, Greenwich, May 4, at half-past twelve—W. Bus t, lodging-hous o keeper, Lisson-grove, New-road, Msy 4, at half- past eleven—J. C. Morris, cabinet maker, Curtain-road, Shoreditch, May 4, at twelve—G. Wood, musical instrument mak er , N ew Compton-street, Soho, May 5, at one—C. Andrew and Baile, iron warehousemen, Compton-street, Clerken well, May 5, at two—J. Q. Harris, hat manufacturer, May 5, at half- past eleven Winchester-place, Southwark, --G. E. White, tailor, Reading, M ay 6, at half-past twelve—b. and C. 11. Wood, carpenters, Willow-walk, Bermondsey, May 6, at twelve—l 3. Chandler, iron moagedos-Covent., at one—J, A. Stirton, grocer, garden, nr, Stanstreettn Ma May 6, at ono. Chn, ore, . In the Country. Bullen, brewer, Liverpool, May 7, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court --W. Halliwell, cotton manufacturer, Manchester, Alay 5, at eleven, at the M,s,chester District Court --A. Birchall, share broker, MaT.chester, April 16, at cloven at the Manchester Dis trict Court—A. Lees, cotton spinner, Manchester, May 7, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—C. Stephen son, worsted manufacturer, Colne, Lancashire, May 7, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—J. Aspinall, cotton manufacturer, Manchester, May 7, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court—F. Salt, farmer, Woot- Wavern, Warwickshire, May 6, at dent], at the Bir mingham District Court. CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shoal to the contrary, on the day herein nymtioned. E. Eades, auctioneer, Merton, Surrey, May 6 Bourquin, watch manufacturer, Nort'iampton-sq ua fo r re a l Clerkenwell, May 4—W. Toms, brewer, I.lunger Berkshire, May 6—R. Greig and W. Rawlings, titnbq merchants, Maiden-lane, King's-cross, May 5—A. Shir ton and J. Wise, clothiers, Painswick, Gloucestersh ir r May 6—C. J. Sever, baker, Leeds, May 6—M. Sloa ne ' horse dealer, Bath, May 6—J. Aspinall, cotton al'in lv facturer, Manchester, May 6—F. R. T. Crisp, prin ter, Wellington-street North, Strand, May 4—J, TitlT woollendraper, High-street, Southwark, May 4—W Vaughan, builder, Bristol, May 4—P. J. Luntley, drub gist, Bread-street-hill, City, May 4—T. Bailey, Prin t 'V Wolverhampton, May 4—C. Ashby, tailor, Bisbel il Stortford, Hertfordshire, May 4—C. W. Graham, ni chant, Coleman-street, City, May 4—R. Elliot, agricul tural instrument maker, Liverpool, May 4—J. W..r-d u,: " cloth merchant, Lawrence-lane, Cheapside, May 4. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. E. Harris and T. Banks, maltsters, WolverhamP t° ' B. Worthington and J. Birmingham, hotel keeperh Dover—J. T. Gibbs and W. T. Clark, tea urn manufec" turers, Great Sutton-street, Clerkenwell—J. A. 1 111 1 fent and G. F. Bragg, lithograpic pri n t ers , High o°. horn—W. and C. Russell, attorneys, Leamington Prieto, Warwickshire—J. Phillips and E. F. Slack, a ttorialih. Chippenham, Wiltshire—B. Crowther and W. HIT cloth dressers, Huddersfield—l. Birtwistle and E..kgfi worth, fulling millers, Bury, Lancashire—W. Lonnie I. Shimwell, worsted spinners, Salford—T. and J. 1 1 ,°. n k innkeepers, Banbury, Oxford s hir e —S. an d S. B. Cr wine merchants, Newington—J. Glover and W. Sh ard' heard, jun., dyers, Liverpool —T. Howell a n d J. Rich j . son, timber merchants, Hartlepool—G. Creed and 4 Milner, surgeons, Bury St. Edmunds—C. Maltby 611 A B. Catlow, painters, Bradford, York s hi re —C. Rooke 1 1 : 1 ' T. J. Mead. grocers, Canterbury—J. Ellen, J. Cooks on ' and T. Coulthard, chemical manufacturers, Helen Durham—T. Miles, E. Palmer, and E. Palmer, be manufacturers, Queen-street, Finsbury—K. M.Le..^.-1, I?" St arkie, and R . Jones, ship brokers, Liverpool—H. 1 3 ..,,L er. tumpfel and C. T. Clark, pewterers, Albany-street, ow gent's•park—T. Barsham and 11. R. Cooper, sure l ' Ixworth, Suffolk—J. Evans and W. Martin, prortsiOo merchants, Red Lion-place, West Smithfi e ld—NV. 11 ° it. ham and J. H. Cooke, grocers, Glo uces t er —R. Hall, ,r • Gorton, T. Lilley and T. Rothwell, cotton s pinner! Tottington-Lower-end, Lancashire (so far as repo' T. Lilley)—R. Hall, T. Gorton, and T. Lilley, deele ll in drugs, Tottington Lower-end, Lancashire (so far $ regards T. Lilley)—W. Pierce and H. W. Kolle, iron' mongers, Jermyn-street, St. J ames ' s —T. an d M. Of' cotton spinners, Staleybridge, Cheshire. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. a Moses Buchanan, miller, Glasgow, April 15 Sli d May 6, at twelve, at the chambers of Messrs. Scott sp Stevenson, Glasgow. Joseph Lilburn, wright, Glasgow, April 19 and May 10, at twelve, at the chambers of Mr. Gt min e l' CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.. SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS. Subjoined are the sentences, as finally amended andcoa . firmed, at the termination of the session, with other r' 3 : sults and adjudications. The following were ordered I' be transported beyond the seas:—for Life—Thomas Brooks, aged 21, for manslaughter. Fifteen years—William Ogle, 19; George Willi 32; J. Smith, 17; Philip Reeves, 27; and G. Smith,'' . Fourteen Years—George Yarnold, 40. Ten Years—Julia Higgins, 20, T. Fennell, Ok a ., Hurley, 19; Richard Williamson, 41 ; S. King; 7 1 4 Winn; P. Mara; J. Bird; W. Wynn, 19; Rich e ~9 ; Williams, 20; Alfred Triggs, 27; James Regan, : 0; Henry Higgins, 19; William eyens, alias Weans, James Williams, 18; and James Clifford, 21. re' Seven Years—William Brown, alias J on e s , 45; "; 1; ffi derick Williamson, 32; Jrederiek John ,Williams, " 0 , William Grin, 41; Robert 'Wilson, 15; John alias Jones, 40; Frederick Debben, 19; Georg Nl‘George, 19; Henry Smith, 17 ; S. Ki ng , 19 ; H. n e . 18; J. Harris, 21; G. 8an,19 ; J o h n C oo k, 18 ; J. l-141-. 20; Henry Jones, 20; Michael Myers, 19; Gels Davis, 19; J. Gardner, 22; Ernest Shultz, 19 ; Thoto o Lawrence, 18; J. Burnett, 20 ; 0. White, 19;,,J°4 Upton, 21; Mary Daley, 33 ; M ary S m i t h , 19; °Pig; Ellwood, 23; Mary Jones, 19; William F. Wynn, in James White, 24 ; Ch ar l es Whi te , 17 ; and BenJa - ' Skiggs, 30. IMPRISONMENT WITH HARD LABOUR. h od The under-named were order e d t o b e con fi ne d to . 0 labour in the House of Corr ec ti on f or th e resPe cti th e counties, wherein their offences were committed, for periods named, viz.:— Two Years—Wm, White, J. Smith, J. Thomas. Eighteen Months—F. Brown, J. Jones. Fifteen Months—Thomas Jones, Mary Green. One Year—Ann Smith, Ann Ilurles, Mary Goiv'' alias Manning, alias Cowling, Mary A n n Slaney, 0 1 ' both Kirkman, Rebecca Coates, N. W. Chitty, J. BolI n s: J. Cecil, J. Hall, R. Wilson, W. Key, W. Love, G. 'roclo J. Adams, J. W. Gillett, Humphrey, M. Jackson' J. Abethnal, alias Churchill, Christopher Gaytol l ' G. Lawrence, W. Marshall, W. H. Graham, W. Lanao ll, H. E. Day, E. Young, C. Harley, W. Clark. Nine Months—J. Jones, Adolphe, C. Brendt, Ameli' Edwards, Mary Shaynell, J. Montrean. Eight Months—Thomas Wills. Six Months—J. Clark, W. Sanders, W, c cu pland. J. Tyler, 11. Cornish, J. Walker, W. Pottle, W. John' son, J. Hall, J. Burton, R. Dawson, J. Rushton, J. pr e* M. Smith, C. Host, Mary Ann Jones, Mary A nn Green, Mary Beardmore, M ar y M on t gomer y, Sam; Curly, Elizabeth Griffiths, W. F. Southend, W.F. ville, J. Tomlinson, otherwise Churchill, C. mimes', J. Brumell, N. Coles, W. Smith, M. Lead, J. Ree v " E. Drury _ _ _ Five Slontlis—J. Whitwell. Four Months—Ann Strickson, E. A. Mountain, ir " Heron, G. Carter, Hatfield Atkin, T. Pyne, J. Par, Three Months—Amelia Buller, Mary Scollard, 1, °"" - r , Pearson, Johana Collopy, Jane Holman, S. J. Ski ir li l l e " J. Thompson, J. Burrows, J. Lyons, G. d, T. D. Spell, J. Doll, W. Smith, H. Jones ,DV W"`" r Kelly, R. N. N ea l e , J. D awson, P . Murray, J. SPOile-' W. Peachey, J. Machin, J. Turner, J. South, T. StslY ley, S. Braddock. Discharged by P roc l ama ti on . —M ary A nn Lloyd, Sill; san Branchard, J. Cochrane, J. Connolly, D. Cr °l3- D. Turn er , G. Collyer, J. Keating, Richard Hoop r' Edward Roffee, W. Hurst, J. Bellamy, T, m , Corinfi c T. Wilkins. Acquitted and Discharged.—The p e tit jury return of not guilty in f avo ur o f th e f o ll ow ing T r y soners:—J. Bartlett, J. Mills, T. Sp ee d , Ed wa rd P r e cio , ring, J. Haggett, J. J o h n s o n, J. W at t s , T. Ed 13. 13. J. Collins, S. Dicker, T. Smith, G. Goldfinch, Simpkins, Henry Holloway, G. Johnson, James Will son, James Jenkins, Edward D o yl e , 11. T . D'E°3,d,,e Isaac Halden, J. S. Skinner, A. J en ki ns, A. 110 09 1 Henry o,bornr, James Gill, W. 'Thomas, B. Frond , ; M Ter, Robert Box, H e nry I rons , Willi a m S 3l ; - ' Samuel Everitt, W. P. R ogers , D r . D en i s Cron in ' Eliz dieth Cori-neck, 130 w E-.t her Bag ge tt, C a th er ine 6 Mary Garrod, June Rebecca Smith, Fl} mirg, Margaret D e nni so n, Eli za b e th Smith' M.Lean. Minor Adjudicati o ns and R esu lt s .—l m p r isoned t six weeks, 2 ; one mon th, 5 ; 21 d ays , 2 ; f ro m tw o fourteen days, 10 ; p r iv a t e ly w h ip p e d , 2 ; reco gnizan ee i enlarge on, 2 ; jud gmen t respited, ; traversed to nel o , session, 3 ; rem a nd e d by th e court unt il next sess ion, 1 surrendered in c our t f or t r i a l , 6 ; called on rccegn izatice' 4 ; admitted t o b a il , 4 . Millece/ During the session 275 prisoners were disposed which were committed from the counties and cities naineu, viz.: —London, 55; Middlesex, 200 ; Surrey, 30; Kent , 10 ; Essex, B—total, 275. The session terminated much earlier in the week than at first was anticipated, in c onsequence of a great uunr her of prisoners pleading guilty, and several long trials for forgery, &c., being postponed. The court at its rising ajourned to Monday, the 10th of May next. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. - - PORT OF AKYAB, COAST OF ARRACAN.—The trade st the port of Akyab having rapidly increased, the att° ll .: tion of mariners is directed t o th e ex i s t ence o f the lig h t on Fageer's Point at its entrance, and to the sailing directions for entering the harbour by Captain PatCFSOla! o published in 1844, which can be perused at Lloyd's 11 application to Mr. Dobson, the secretary. TbiS ROCK OFF CAPE TINEZ, MEDITERRANEAN;- - - 0 , 00 pointed and isolated ruck is situated on the wes,ter extremity of Cape Tinez, a cabl e ' s l ength distant Li° fathoms). On the rock itself t h ere i s one fathom-an,, d/I ' - half of water, and e i g ht f at h oms outside, as we l l towards the isl an d. T h i s rock is not marked ,h in '— generality of charts. LIGHTHOUSE ON CASIPANILLA, NEAR THE ISLAND i; CAPRI.--A lightho use h as b een erected by the Nealr e p o tan Gove rnment, on the Point of Campanilla, point of the channel between the main land and CO': in lat. 40 deg. 34 min. 11 sec. N., and long. 11 de g 59 min. 17 sec. E. meridian of Paris, from which a lie,: brilliant, constant, and invariable, will be exhibited 0" the 15th of April. The height of the light from tba level of the sea will be 90 palms (about 77 feet)._,.... BIRTHS. On the Bth inst., at Lee, the wife of Trederiek St. Jc' h° ' Esq., of a daughter. T . „F On the 9th i nst. , i n Bl ooms b ury - square, the wife of IT' liam Kinsey, Esq., of a daughter, still-born. On the 10th inst., in Harewood-square, the wife of J. Holman, Esq., of a son. On the 10th inst., in Red Lion-street, Holborn, Mrs. Be g ' ville, of a daughter. On the 10th i n st., a t South-grove, Hampstead, the w ife Of Captain T. 11. Johnston, of a daughter. On the 11th inst., at Long Ditton, the lady of John Wl ke. man Long, Esq., of a daughter. On the 11th inst., at King William-street, Mrs. Thom as Dakin, of a daughter. On the llth inst., prematurely, Mrs. A. J. Bone, of a 3 ° 1 1: On the 12th inst., the lady o f S. Cl ar k e , E sq. , o f a daughter -- MARRIED. gr. On the 12th inst., at St. John's Church, Clapham-rise , William Briant, to Susannah, second daughter of the late Alford, Esq., of Merton Lodge, Surrey. DIED. On the 7th inst., at Edinb urg h, Ed war d G or d on Breme r ' Elq., Commander, R.N., aged 26. On the 7th inst., Mr. Robert Woodford, of Greenford-green' Middlesex, aged 43. On the 7th inst., at Jersey, Joshua Flesher Hanson, Escl' On the 9th in s t., at G rove - roa d , B r i xton, Ed war d, 016 6 e . cond son of Henry Prichard, Esq., aged 5 years. On the 9th inst., at Lawn-place, Shepherd's-bush, An ne ' the wife of Philip Watier, Esq. On the 9th inst., Charles Willis, only child of Mr. Charlet ! Hawkins, of Doctors'-commons. On the 10th inst., in Gibson-square, Islington, Elizabet h, relict of the l a t e J. Howard, Esq., aged 74. On the 11th inst., Frances, the wife of Samuel Lovat, E/c1" of Montagu -street, Portman-square. -, -- _ _____ --,=--=------ London: Printed and Published by MURDO • YOUNG. of No. 112 , Strand, Printer, at 771 e Bun Office, N 0.112, Strand, in the flee'll: of the Savoy, in tho County (I 1 Middlesex, Wednesday, APr il i 1847.