The Sun. — London, England, 1840-03-21 00:00:00

EVEN ENO EDITION. COURT CIRCULAIt. The Earl of Albemarle and Viscount Melbourne had audiences yesterdy of the Queen. The Royal Dinner Party at the Palace yesterday in- Jluded the Earl of Ilchester, Viscount Melbourne, Lord ohn Russell, Lord Leveson, Lord Robert Grosvenor, the Right Hon. George Stevens Byeg, and Col. Cowper. The Band of the Ist Life Guards was in attendance at the Palace during the evening. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by Colonel Wylde and Mr. Francis Seymour, visited the British le stitution in Pall-mall yesterday afternoon. His Royal Highness also visited the Princess Augusta at Clarence House, Si. James's. The Hon. Wail Anson and the Hon. Miss Paget have succeeded the Hon. Miss Murray and the Hon. Miss Lister as the Maids of Honour in Waiting on her Majesty. Her Majesty the Queen Dowager, attended by the Hon. Miss Mitchell and several gentlemen of her suite, rode out on horseback in the Parks yesterday. The Princess Augusta and the Duke of Cambridge visited her Majesty yesterday at Marlborough House. The Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge visited the British Museum yesterday. His Royal Highness Prince Albert did Mr. Haytor the honour to sit yesterday for the Picture of the Royal Nuptials. His Royal Highness Prince Albert honoured Mr. E. H. Bally, R. A., on Tuesday, with a sitting for his Bust and the Nuptial Medal at Buckingham Palace. A Deputation from the Bank of British North America, consisting of Sir Robert Campbell, Bart , Mr. Henry Barnmall, Mr. James John Commiw, Mr. James Dowie, Mr. Oliver Ferrer, and Mr. G. De Bosco Attwood, Se cretlrY, had an interview with Lord John Russell at the Colonial Office yesterday. The Education Committee of her Majesty's Most Hon ourable Privy Council had a meetine- yesterday afternoon at the Council Office. The Lord President, Viscount nuncannon, Lord Monteagle, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and Sir George Grey were present. Lord Sandon and Mr. Mark Phillips had an interview with Mr. Laboucliere at the Board of Trade yesterday. Mr. Leathom, Chairman, Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Evans, and 'Mr. ['nit, a Deputation in support of the Liverpool Dock and Warehouse Bill, had an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday at the Colonial Office. Mr. Campbell ( o f I s lay) had an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday. Sir Hesketh Fleetwood and Mr. G. Nightingale, Mr. Mark Phillips, and Mr. Grey, the Earl of Burlington, Mr. Hutchins, M. P. Mr. Lefevrc, and Mr. Wilbraham , had interview'a yesterday with the Marquis of Normanby at the Home Office. I'ASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. ARRIVALS. Lord Viscount Gort, at Mivart's Hotel, Clifford and C ork -streets, from Dublin ; Admiral Sir Edward Owen, at ditto, from Bagshot ; the Earl of Hardwieke, the Earl and Countess of Beauchamp, the Marquis of Solis 'll°ll'. the Earl and Countess of Bradford, Viscount and viscountess Sydney, Earl Ferrets, Viscount and Vis countess Beresford, the Earl of Mountcashel, the Earl a. - .d ;Countess of Tyrconnell, at Thomas's Hotel ; Lady Queens berry, at ditto ' • Colonel Comyns, at ditto ; Lord Torring ton. Count d e Leon, from Birmingham ; the Hon. Charles Ponsonby, Mr. and Mrs. Planta, Lady Sondes and family; Lord Fingall, at Crawley's Hotel ; Sir Walter and the H ". Lady Stirling, the Marquis of Queensberry, the Duchess of Marlborough, Lord Cardigan, Lord Tuna- More, Major-General Reeves, Lieut.-General Manby, Lieut.-General Ure, Hon. Sir Charles Colville, Lord Seagrave, and Lieut.-General Bradshaw. DEPARTURES. Lord Godolphin, for Gogmagog near Cambridge ; Sir William Chatterton, for the County Cork ; the Hon. Mr. a nd Mrs. John Ashley, on a tour; the Rev. Dr. Tatham, Vi ce -Chancellor of Cambridge, from the Burlington 11° t° 1 ; Mr. and Lady Anne Mackenzie. for Italy ; Lord Aberdeen, for Stanmore ; Mr. and Mrs. Hedworth Lamb tone for Putney ; Colonel Conolly, M. P., for Donegal ; . 4 . C. Compton, Esq., M.P., for Hants ; the Misses Fel tovies, for Dublin Castle ; Lord Arundel, for Wardour Ca stle ; Lord Buckinghamshire, for Hampden House ; t_h eHo , n.& r lrs. Parker, and the Rev. Mr. and Lady Mary Arnold for Leamington Spa; the Hon. Stafford and Mrs. Jerningham, for Brighton; the Earl and Countess of i_tesslyn, for Melt on M ow b ra y ; t h e H on . L a dy Hope, for §ussex ; Mr. and Miss Grove, from Nerot's Hotel, Clif ford and Cork streets, for Shenstone Park ; Messrs. E. and R. Grove, from ditto, for ditto. MARRIAG E IN H IGH LIFE.—On Wednesday last, at St. Ann's Church (Dublin), Charles Le Poer Trench, 44 1, secend son of the Hon. and Rev. the late Archdeacon of gh, the nephew to the late Earl of Clancarty, was united to his cousin, Miss Fanny Trench, fourth daughter of the late Lord Archbishop of Tuam. SERIOUS ILLNESS OF LORD LYNDHURST.— It is with extreme regret we hear of the alarming indisposition of Lord Lyndhurst. His Lordship was taken unwell on Tees day, and kept getting worse until Thursday night, when fears were entertained that the Noble and Learned Lord would not s urvive the night through, but at two yesterday morning the di sease took a favourable turn, and his Lordship has since been getting better. It is an inflammation of the chest from which ,Iris_ Lordship i s suffering. At a late hour last evening the Noble Lord w -- ~.5 ronounced considerably better by his medical at recovery. . 1 tenua nta, who hold out hopes of a speedy The second ancient concert, under the direction of the Archbishop of York, is fixed for Wednesday next. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, it is expected, will honour the con cert 'Pith their presence. The new comic ballet, La Tarentule, by M. Co raili, which was performed with so much success this season at the.Academie Royal de Musique at Paris, will be produced this evening at her Majesty's Theatre. --Miss E. Tree has, with a liberality which reflects on her the highest praise, given to each of the Theatrical Funds a donation of 20/.; an example, which will, no doubt, be foL lowcd.by all those whose means enable them to contribute to ; ward.the support of their poorer brethren. , WOODSTOCK ELECTION.—This election took 'place en Friday, when Mr. Thesiger was returned without 1 ; opposition. P O RTSMOUTH.—Orders have arrived to put in commission the brig Victor, 16, and the appointment is given to Commander William Dawson, promoted from the Royal George yacht. —Brighton Gazette. Her Majesty ' s ship Con w ay proceeds in the cowrie of a few days to the Burmese and Tenasserim coast. Ca/cutta Englishman, Sept. 18. FASHIONABLE PARTIES.—The Marchioness atLansdowne had a soiree on Thursday evening, at Lansdowne Rouse, when the Duke and Duchess of Somerset, Marquis of Normanby, Marquis of Ailesbury, his Exce llenc y Baron Brunow, his Excellency Baron Bulow, his Excellency Baron Oersdorff, Viscountess Palmerston, Lady Fanny Cowper, Earl and Countess of Minto, Ladies Elliott, Lord Morpeth, Lord Leveson, Lady Anna Maria Dunkin, his Excellency Count Pollen, Lord Seymour, Earl and Countess of Rosebery, Ladies Primrose, &c.—The Earl and Countess of Bandon received a select party to dinner, on Thursday evening, in Connaught -ace--Lord and Lady Maryborough had a dinner party on a nursday, in Saville-row. ~,, Duke Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg arrived in m iremburg - on the 11th instant, en his way to Vienna. His suite stated that his Highness mould return in a fortnight to B russels ' to be present at the marriage of the Princess Victoria With the Duke de Nemours. His Royal Highness Prince George of Cam bridge returns to Cambridge House, to-morrow, from Brighton. Her Majesty the Queen Dowager's annual belie !action of 1201. to the charitable institutions of Brighton, was forwarded by the Honourable William Ashley, on Tuesday last. His Royal Hig hness the Duke of Cambridge yesterday v i s i te d Mr. Brett's gallery, in Hanover-square, to I Zew the celebrated Caesars of Titian, and other rare works of the Venetian school, which will shortly be exhibited to the Mlie- His Royal Highness expressed the great pleasure he 4 ' 4 experienced in examining the collection. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to corn• wand that the East Berks Agricultural Association shall be styled th e R oya l E ast B er k s Agr i cultura l Assoc i at i on, of wh i c h Lle.r . Maje s ty h as consente d to b ecome t h e P atroness. P r i nce 'ert has likewise consented to becom e one of th e P a t rons o f the Association. - The Lord Primate of I re l an d h as con t r ib u t e d 501. John M'Clintock, Esq., 501., the lion. and Rev. Edward Tay lor Int, Lady Bellingham Si., towards erecting a church for the P rotestant population at Drumcar, county Louth. - Lord Leigh (of Stoneleigh) has consented to accept the office of President of the Triennial Musical Festival, which is to be held at Birmingham, on the 22d of Sept. and the three following days. The new French Ambassador, M. Guizot, will give hiifirit grand dinner to Viscount Palmerston and the fo reign corps diplomatique, this evening, at Nlanchester House. ' The Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons has issued cards for a grand dinner on Saturday, the 4th of next month. A splendid new theatre was opened at Glasgow ,on Monday last. The former theatre was burnt to the ground ( about three years ago. The United Service is the richest club in Lon don, so rich that we hear the members seriously contemplate a new club-house. The new building erected for the Reform Club is likely to be open to the members in the autumn. —Post. MEETING AT DERBY.—itEPEAL OF THE Coux-LAws.—On Monday last, at twelve o'clock, a meeting was held at the Town Hatl, in this borough, convened by the Mayor, in pursuance of a requisition presented to his Worship numerously and respectably signed. fhe Hall was filled with the working classes, and the space within the bar was princi pally occupied by the manufacturers of the town. A petition for the repeal was unanimously agreed to. —Derby and Ches. terfield Reporter. • On Friday an inquest was held •at Stratford, on the body of Wm. Edwards, a journeyman carpenter, who hung himself at the foot of his bedstead with a cord. Deceased, was e ngaged to be married, but being prevented by illness from getting work and buying furniture, it is supposed produced a d espondency which led him to commit the fatal act. Verdict— Insanity. 'RURAL POLICE.—The introduction of this force into the hamlet of Oldland has called forth an unanimous expression of disapprobation from the inhabitants of that place, !.ad apetition has been prepared, to be presented at the Quar ter Sessions, for the removal of what they consider a heavy and 10 gether unneces sar y b ur d en , especially as a vast majority of them are very poor, and in the absence of all Chartist meetings cffi."4er public di s t ur b ances . The inhabitants of lianham are " speed repeal f this obnoxious burden."—Bath Chronicle. y ° • T he number of s i gna t ures appended to the pe tition . against the Clyde Navigation Bill amounted, on Saturday night, to upwards of 13,000. FEL •, e FELONY ,--A dashingly dressed woman, at the against Petty Sessions, preferred a charge of felony 6 . '' :t a young gentleman who had visited her for some time, who,7l'4 Tl:tech as she said, had taken from her last December a a ddressed to B a e n n d ch so p m re e su o m th e e d r t t i r l i a n t ke sh ts e , whieh she could not get back. was single, f rom certain s tomhaerrribetyi t , h . e ot y n o a u n nggentlem an ; but the applicant said . her ra n h t i ifsobra the being 1 the Magistrates granted a , A , y o ung gentleman.inappre h ension o On Wedn esday Assembly el li c o n o l m n : ' • t , a i public meeti ng was held at the at the White H art Inn, , Et otking, for the purpose of hearing a lecture on the Corn . S. Corbould, Esq., took the ',..„ 1 " 4 , by Mr. Sidney Smith. S ~n tir, and the room was crowded in every part. CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS. The Rev. H. M'Neile delivered his fifth lecture on this subjEct yesterday, at the Hanover-square Rooms. His Royal Highness the Doke of Cambridge was pre sent, with many Conservative Members of both Houses. The Rev. Lecturer said the population of the country had vastly outgrown the provision made for its spiritual instruction. Dissenters ascribed the ex istence of the Church as the cause of the evil, and an hindrance to good. But if the Voluntary Principle— so loftily vaunted—was the powerful and effective thing It was represented to be by its advocates, could it be so easily checked, as to be damped and deadened by the mere existence of an Establishment ?—was it so mono polizing, that it would not do any good, because it could not have the self-complacent delight of doing all the good ? Many ascribed the reluctance of the Legislature to increase the resources of the Church, as the cause of the lamentable deficiency in spiritual instruction through the country. But this, though a part of the proximate cause, was not the real origin of the evil— which, in fact, resulted from a want of confidence in Revdation.--(Cheers.) Hence a notion spread, that it was unjust to tax all for diffusing a faith of which all did not approve. But, on such a principle, no great public measure or project could be carried out—for to what such measure lihd there not been dissentients ?—and it was only the firm conviction of right—which in this case was clearly to be derived from the Bible—that would ever influence men to overrule such dissentients, and attain a great public good. It was easy to take refuge in the apathy of infidel indifference—under the mask of tenderness of conscience—but the real reason was an aversion or in difference to religion ; and the effect of such a policy could not but be deeply disastrous to the country.— (Cheers.) The Church asked for the diffusion of a creed, known to be purely scriptural, and the effects of which, when practised,hadever been salutary. The Dissen ters, on the other hand, wished for an unincumbered voluntaryism. I trust fervently—said the Reverend Gentleman, emphatically—that the Legislature will boldly and decisively adopt one or other (f these two measztres.—( Loud cheers.) If the Dissenters be right, why delay the noble work of allowing religion free scope ? If the Church is right, why delay the required extension of her instrumentality ? (Cheers.) The question is rapidly narrowing to this—" Are we to have a National Church any longer Y . '—( Loud cheering.) Let it be remembered that with the utH motive of that question, the measure of Church Extension was iden tified.—(Cheers.) It was in vain to say that the Church would be maintained, and yet not extended.— (Hear, hear.) Lord John Russell had distinctly de dared that a National Church was only to be vindicated on the grounds of its benefits being common to all ; and to refuse to extend its benefits, then, to all, was to abandon its principle altogether.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord had emphatically announced that he could never assent to the Voluntary Principle—(Cheers)— and that though in lighter arts it might be said— " The dr.ma'e laws the drama's patrons give, And those who live to please, must please to live :" He hoped it would never be said— " The pulpit's laws the pulpit's patrons give, And those who live to preach, must preach to live." —(Cheers.) It was to be hoped, then, that in con sistency the Noble Lord would support Sir R. Inglis's motion.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) The Reverend Gentleman went on to urge, that the only proper mode of Church Extension would be by subdivision of pa rishes—and to compensate the consequent violation of existing incumbents' rights, he recommended, as also in cases where the income was too small for subdivision, public grants. To effect this he knew money would be wanted, and he proposed it should be raised by the restoration of the appropriated and unappropriated Church property—( Hear, hear, bear)—by the voluntary taxation of all the benefices above 3001. a-year—(Cheers)—by the contributions of that public liberality which, by such good examples of the Bishop, the Peers, and the rich Clergy, could not but be stimulated—(Cheers)—and by grants from the na tional treasury, which, after all this had been done, would never be refused.—(Cheers.) The Rev. Gentleman strongly reprobated the District Church system as in effective and unjust. He finished with an eloquent appeal for the spread of Protestantism in Ireland. SKETCHES OF OUR CONTROVERSIALISTS. No. ll.—Ma. BURNET. [CONTINUED.] The concentrated energies of a mind like Mr. Bur net's would find fit exercise in a field so extensive and so arduous as the Church and State controversy. In deed, for controversy the very frame of his mental con stitution is adapted. For a controversialist, not only are required great powers of mind, but a perfect mastery over those powers ; not only a vigorous independency of thought, but a judgment acute to guide, and calm to influence ; not only a decision of mind to take boldly its side, but a complete subjugation of every faculty, the obedience of every feeling, to the guidance and govern ance of the trill ; and especially an elevation above the disturbing influence of ordinarily exciting impulses. We think it was Coleridge who, with his charac teristic philosophy, observed on the eminent intellectual superiority of a man who had once firmly, fixedly, adopted a great principle, made it the polar star, the compass, of his mind ; the very aim and goal of his mental exer tions. Such a man, if possessing strength of mind enough always to hold by his principles, will have all that 'vantage ground which ever is the accompaniment of a straightforward, decided, consistent advocacy. Now, with Mr Burnet this is eminently the case. Hav ing adopted the Voluntary Principle, he not merely—as common minds do—" supports it," "believes it," is " at tached to it," but inseparably Identifies himself with it—incorporates it with his very nature. It is the key to his whole cast and tone of thought. It is the master element of his constitution. In minds of his decisive, determined character, truth is despotic— unbending. The advocating a principle believed to be truth, he considers to be an imperative duty —and when, as in this case, the controversy is connected with reli gion he holds it a crime to admit of compromise or in terruption. His it the manliness which, when he has espoused a principle he believes grounded on truth, will never be deterred from frankly avowing it,and, what ever be the consequences, of courageously pushing it to the extremest verge of its operation. Now it is evident that this is a style of mind most ad mirably calculated to inspire with firm energy and decision of purpose, the adherents of a new and ' not yet prevalent principle, and it has all the im posing influence of a consistent, conscientious reliance upon believed truth. It is indeed better fitted to con firm and knit up the doubtful, the wavering, or the neutral—than to win over or convince the opposed and the hostile. These naturally object to and revolt from the principle. And Mr. Burnet is much abler in en forcing—in carrying out a ptiaciplc, than in establishing or vindicating it. From the nature of this controversy such must necessarily be here the case. On the one side a broad unyielding principle is opposed by innume rable arguments founded on expediency, reason, experi ence,habit, associations ; and the supporter of the principle has only to follow it out—to push it forward—and when thrown back upon the antecedents—the proofs of his principle—he has nothing but a Scriptural investigation of authorities, to himself conclusive—but even if not par ried or explained away, rarely tell on the partisans of an old-established institution. When Mr. Burnet is most successful in attack it is in tracing the violations or contradictions of, and the departures from, some great leading principles—in ap plying them as the tests, and in drawing out striking, and not unfrequently very amusing comparisons— availing himself of those broad, common-sense analo gies, for which an ancient, complicated, and in many points, easily assailable, institution must necessarily af ford a wide field. Thus the idea presented in his Hert ford Lecture,* that Moses, when hounding a Tabernacle, " did not levy a Church-rate—did not make collectors of the elders, but on the voluntary principle, advertised a collection," was well calculated to make an impression on a popular assembly, conveyed a plausible argument, and by the droll association of ideas between the Le vites and Rate-levyers, created immense merriment. This leads us to remark on a distinguishing charac teristie of Mr. Burnet, and that is, the natural un• affected good humour which he always displays, and which run through all his speeches. With out agreeing in all that Lord Shaftesbury says on the high advantage of good humour in religious or controversial matters, it is, we think, unques tionable that nothing so enhances the ability and skill of a controversialist as the constancy of his good humour. People instinctively are prejudiced in favour of a cause whose advocates can aford to be pleasant, and even witty. There is a vein of amusing itony— often not unmingied with a sarcasm as goodnatured as it is keen—which never fails to divert his audience ; and he has a happy talent in detecting those points in the cause he is attacking which present aught that is capable of ridicule or humour. Some metaphysicians have laid it down that men of accurate judgment are' never witty. Whether this holds good in all cases we will not discuss, but this is certain, that Mr. Burnet is witty. And it does indeed somewhat strike us that his judgment is rather acute than accurate—more calm than profound —more vigorous than comprchensive. He seldom pursues long any close trains of reasoning in the sense of an inductive, connected, process of demonstration. He usually dwells on the bold edorcement or lively il illustration of his principle. And thus, when rising as he occasionally does, to bursts of eloquence, it lies generally in some striking figure, broadly and strongly drawn, not, perhaps, with perfect accuracy of analogy, but with an impressive boldness of idea, lofty gran deur of delivery, which tells powerfully on a popular audience. It tends not a little to show the b zukfubless and sim plicity of character, which is always the accompani ment of real geeatLess, that he is another added to the man y prcofs, that reflective solidity of mind is quit e compatible with an easy flow of native humour — nay) positive playfulnes rif disposition. And this gives Mr. Burnet, in no slight degree, that power of ready w i t which he displays upon a platform—it is not set, Of which we gave a summary on Thursday, ME SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1840. public wit —it is the natural ebullition of that same naive, unaffected wittiness which he exhibits in private company, which, not less than the extent of 1 his mental resources, make him the charm of every social circle ; and it is interesting to observe the very man who before listening thousands will grapple with ecclesiastical controversialists, entering with sponta neous sincerity of mirth into any pasting topic of amuse ment. He is a man to whom the fine lines of Cowper might not unaptly be applied— " Grave without dulness, learned without pride ; Exact, yet not precise; tho' meek, keen.ey ed ; 'Who, when occasion justified its use, Had wit as bright as ready to produce." Yet it is no less an evidence of his truthfulness of ' nature that the character he displays in conversation does not a little correspond with the character exhibited in public controversy—that he is, if not " precise," at all events sufficiently " exact," in the maintenance of his smallest opinion —that there is a slight tendency—often the alloy of minds strongly constituted—to a species of dogmatism—a tendency to elevate every matter of opi nion into an unbending yvinciple (a distinction frequentl) overlooked, but very important), and a consequent dis position to permit no variation from it—as fixed and un compromising truth. [THE NEXT WILL BE 1111. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SlR—The importance .of the question which is now agitating the public mind in Scotland, under the designation of the "NON-INTRUSION OF MI NISTERS " cannot be overrated. There are few persons in England who under stand the matter ; and there are many, however desirous they may be to comprehend it, who have not the opportunity of access to those authorities which alone can place it fully before the public mind. " The right of the people to choose their own religious instructors,"—and " the independence of the Church of Scotland " (thereby signifying not the people, but the Ministers and Elders) are so ad captandum in their sound, as to lead many, without examination, to support those propositions. The Church of Scotlan . d . is an Act o 1 Podia ment Church, democratic throughout her Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General As sembly. The voice of the people •at large, in the erection of any of these Ecclesiastical Courts, or in the appointment of the Ministers forming them, has been hitherto as nothing, and for one most obvious reason—that the people who hear the Ministers of the Church of Scotland in their seve ral parish churches, do not, as hearers, contribute, either in the form of church-rate or pew-rents to the support of those Ministers ; the funds for their support being by Acts of Parliament de rived from the land ; and when any augmentation of the Minister's stipend may by him be required, other Acts of Parliament regulate the mode by which it shall be obtained, without any recourse to his congregation. Neither do the funds for build ing and repairing those Churches arise from the contributions of the hearers, but are also provided by Act of Parliament from the land. It is this two-fold character of the Church of Scotland, as a Church claiming to be founded upon the divine authwity of God's word, and deriving all her income from the authority of human Legis lation, which perplexes the question : but it enables either of these authorities to be appealed to as it may suit the interest or wishes of the parties. But is the object of the " Non-Intrusionists" to support the universal suffrage system in the eleo tion of parish Ministers ? or is it an agitation pro moted for the sole purpose of giving greater power and clerical domination to the Ministers of that Church ? It is a very dangerous state of things in any society when a minority i enabled to rule, and par ticularly has the truth of this been evinced by marked pages in the history of the Scottish Church. By a long-standing law of, the Church of Scotland, dating from 1697, and well known to Scotch lawyers both civil avid ecclesiastical, under the name of " the Barrier Act," it is provided that no new proposition shall become a law of the Church until it has received the sanction of A MAJORITY OF THE PRESBYTERIES—(observe this particu larly)—not a majority of the General Assembly, composed of the representatives of all the Presby teries, but a majority of the whole Presbyteries, or a clear majority of the whole of the ministers. There have been two great departures from this funda►nental principle of the Barrier Act ; viz., by the General Assemblies of 1732 .r. , d 1834, and each has been productive of most fatal results. The first of these was the cause of the Secession Church ; and the latter promulgated the celebrated Veto Act; but which has not been entered among the standing laws of the Church of Scotland, al though six different General Assemblies have elapsed since its first proposition. The majority of the Presbyteries of the Church of Scotland has not up to this time sanctioned the Veto principle : but by making it an " Interim Act," and sending it forth each year in the form of an overture to the Presbs teries, the minority of the ministers do over rule the majority .of the Presbyteries, and each suc ceeding year, as the majority of the Presbyteries do not sanction the Veto, the same trick is played by the party in the Assembly. The object of the General Assembly, in 1732, in violatino . the Barrier Act of 1697, by passing a law without the previous sanction of the majority of the Presbyteries, was "to crush the doctrines then so keenly agitated, relating to the Divine right qfthe people at large in the election of minist ers."# Have the Church Courts of Scotland in any period of its history ever agitated this question BUT WITH A VIEW TO INCREASE CLERICAL POWER . Since the Reformation, patronage has invariably been a component part of the system, for the very obvious reason that the people do not pay the mi nisters, or the expenses attendant on public worship. The same authority which I have just quoted states 1- that " PATRONAGE was certainly in use down to the latest period before the Restoration, of which there is any record of the proceedings of the General Assembly. In the unprinted Acts of the Assembly of 1645 there is a proposal for ap plying to Parliament to allow PRESBYTERIES to plant the churches " which a-e cf the patronage of forfeited and excommunicated persons." Sir Henry Moncrieff goes on to show that " there was an instruction in 1617 given by the Assembly to every Presbytery to make a report to the Assembly of what kicks are under patrons, what kirks have no patrons, and who are the several pa 'trons." Sir Henry - Moncrieff adds the following remarkable words, and which are deserving par ticular attention in this controvert'. " These Acts demonstrate that patronage was, to a certain extent, still in use even in that period of the Church which has commonly been supposed most adverse to it. BUT THEY SHOw AT THE SAME TIME THE SOLICITUDE OF THE CLERGY TO GET INTO THEIR OWN HANDS THE COM MAND OF AS MANY PATRONAGES AS POS " SIBLE. So important a declaration of one of the most distinguished ministers of the Scotch Church will not be lost upon an intelligent people like our Northern fellow subjects, and they must likewise not forget that the Reform . Act made all the Clergy of Scotland voters for Members of Parliament. The taste of political power which this may have given them as freemen may not have added to their value as humble preachers of the Gospel. I have to apologise for having mitten so long a letter. If you deem it Worthy of insertion in your columns I may probably trouble you again on this important subject. Your readers perhaps are not aware that the broad and distinguishing feature between the Church of Scotland and the Secession Church is not in doctrine or discipline, for in both they are identical, the latter asserting that she rests upon the Word of God alone as her foundation, and de rives her support, both for her ministers and the building and maintaining the Secession Chapels, from the voluntary principle. OMEGA. * The Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff, Bart. Life of Dr. Erskine, page 443. -I- Page 430, ibid. FROM A C O RRESPONDENT.—FIRE PREVEN TIVE COMPANY.-This Company has been induced by the great increase of fires in the metropolis to renew their laudable experiments at their premises in Blackfriars, to show how easily houses and all other buildings may be made fire-proof by the application of a coating of their patent cement to the ceilings and partitions. An experiment took place last week at the request and in the presence of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Smith, Mr. Puddick, and others, when two models of a ceiling or partition were ex hibited—one prepared in the usual way, with lath, li me , and plaster, the other with the Company's composition. The two models were then subjected to the ordeal of tire, and while the former was very soon entirely destroyed, the latter stood the test, and when it was submitted to the gentlemen assembled, was found to be uninjured. It would appear that no alteration in the mode of building is required when it is deemed desirable to render premises fire.proe fby this valuable composition, SECOND EDITION• THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.) BBITISII FUNDS. Bank Storl: 3 per Cent. Bed — Ditto Bonds 3 per Cent C.t.,,, • 90.'4 Ditto Old Annuities — :34 per Cent. Zfici New :B.', per Ce-t l/$ l, Fx. Bills, 1,000/ "d l7 pm New 5 per Cci ' , Ditto 51W 17 pm Long Annuities to expir e ', Ditto Small l7 pm Jan. 186 , l B Oct. 1859 — 'ark Stock for On 7 g 11, India Stock (or Acct 248 Jar, 15,69 I , oltEiG N FUNDS - A ustr:an, 5 rer cent ill ll'ortuguese Bonds, sper cent. Balgian, 5 per cent ! Ditto, New Ditto Buenos Ayr, s, 6 per cent — flussiari Bonds, 5 per cent....11‘2!,' Chilian, 6 per cent 401 . ,.; Ditto, Metallic — Colonibian, 6 cc cent Spani,h, 5 per cent qs.% Ditto, 1524 l)itto, Deferred Danish, 3 per cc• , t :French, 5 per cent. 1121, 73.:. Grcell Bonds, IS'25, 5 per ct. I E xc h ane —f. —c Mexican, 5 per cent. 'French, :3 per cent Ditto, ti p, cc nt., 363;,......... _ Dutcli:2 l , , , percent. , I , Peruvian ,18•25,6 per cent..... -- lPitt°, 5 per cent • 101;x, . . St-I.I.ItES. Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Great 11',Nstern Railway Ditto 'yew Shares SI London and Bright on R ail , - y 24!ii London and El:lei:wail Raill,ay London and Birmingham Ilaihray Ditto New Shares .... vi North Midland Railway 17!4 Ditto New Shares HATTON-GARDEN.-(THIS DAY.) THE MURDER AT ISLINGTON. The examination of Richard Gould, alias Arthur Nichelsmi, John Jarvis, and Mary Ann Jarvis, his wife, charged with the wilful murder of John Templeton, at his house, Pocock's-fields, Islington, on the night of Monday last, was this day resumed before Mr. Combo, the Police Magistrate, in the private room, up stairs. Several county Magistrates were present during the ex amination. John CollonP, Mary Thornton, and Elizabeth Thorn ton, describ e d the situation of the house of the deceased, the state in which it was found on the discovery of the murder, and the position of the body of the deceased on the discovery being made. - Francis Cipriani was at work in the garden of the deceased on the Monday before the murder. Saw Mrs. Jarvis come to deceased's door and knock. Deceased opened the door, and conversed with Mrs. Jarvis. Did not hear what was the subject or conversation ; this was about five or six o'clock in the evening. Is sure it was Mrs. Jarvis, and knows deceased was at home at the time. Henry NlTright---Is potboy at the Duchess of Kent public-house, and knows the prisoner Gould ; saw him on Friday week last, when the prisoner told him he was out of work, and that he had no money. Had understood from Mr. Allen, with whom the prisoner had lodged, that he had been absent from home for a week, and had been carrying on a rum game with Mrs. Jarvis. The prisoner had told the witness that he knew an old gentleman who bad bid 2.51. for a cottage, and who bad more money, as he had shown a 501.-note to a woman that he knew. Prisoner said it would be like a gift to him, for he knew where to lay his hand on it. He said the old man was not far from :There he was living. He understood the prisoner meant to rob him. Prisoner had never talked of rob bery to witness bef-re that time. John Richard Jobson lives in Dorset-street, Spital fields. Yesterday week found the prisoner Could in the passage of his house asking for a person named Jam; who has been acquainted with him several years. Asked him what he wanted him for, and he said he wanted a screw. Witness understood by that term a pick-lock key. Jem is a labouring man. Does not know that he is any trade. Witness asked what he wanted a screw for so particularly ; and he said he wanted to serve out an old gentleman who lived alone in a cottage. Witness said he had better not do anything of the kind, as he might get transported. He said he might as well be transported, for that if be was taken for desertion he would be sure to be transported. Witness knew he was deserter ; witness recommended him to go to a public house and wait ; he said be could not, for he had got no money. He said he should with to see Jem, because he had left a donkey there sometime before, which he thought might be handy—witness then parted from him. Witness read an account of the murder in the paper on Wednesday, and thought it his duty to give information of what had occurred at the Police station, on Thursday evening, near Spitalfields Church, understanding Gould's name to be Arthur Nicholson. Thinks he is a deserter from the I Ith Light Dragoons. He said he was going to serve the old gentleman out next day, Saturday evening. Never saw Mrs. Jervis before in his life. This being the whole of the evidence brought forward to-day, the prisoners were remanded for re-examination on Tuesday next, when some most important evidence as regards the whole of the prisoners, is expected to be brought forward. Scotia praying for a grant in aid of education in that colony. Mr. A CLAND presented several petitions from So mersctsh re, praying that no money might be granted for the enccuragernent of any system, of education not founded I upon the principles of the Established Church. Mr. BAINES presented a petition deprecating any war with China, and praying that the Chinese might be allowed to legislate fir themselves without any interference from us. Mr. G. CRAIG presented several petitions against the intrusion of Ministers on parishes in Scotland. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. HOUSTON, from Johnston in Renfrevvshire ; Mr. R. STUART, and Mr. E. TrseeNT, from several places in the county of Antrim. Mr. EDWARD ELLIS pressnted several petitions, praying for an alteration in the law of patronage, from the Town Council of St. Andrew's, and ocher places in Scotland. Mr. MAXWELL presented five petitions, praying for the withholding of public money from Maynootli Collette. Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition from Neteihk, in the county of Sussex, praying for the abolition of Church-rates, and the release of John Thorogoad. Mr. A. WHITE presented a petition, signed by 270 persons, praying for the abolition of the Corn-laws. Mr. CROMPTON presented a petition from a parish in the county of Southampton, praying for Church Ex tension. Mr. HO LFORD presented a petition from Worcester shire praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. • Mr. CHUTE presented three similar petitions from the county of Norfolk. Mr. ANSON presented several similar petitions from the Staffordshire Potteries and other places. On the motion of Mr. WODE HOUSE, the British Iron Company's Bill was read a second time. Mr. LABOUCHERE said there were several oh jectionable clauses in the Bill, to which he should here after call attention, and unless they were modified, he should feel it his duty to oppose the further progress of the Bill. Mr DARBY presented several petitions from East Grimstead, Mat field, Brighton, and other places in; the County of Sussex, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. WALLACE presented two petitions from places in the county of Ayr, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from some place in Scotland, in favour of an extension of the Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented ten petitions from various places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. The petitioners stated that during the lest two years the woik ing classes had been undergoing great suffering, in conse quence of the high price of provisions, and that the de mand for labour had lessened as provisions had increased in price. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the borough of Finsbury, praying for a free pardon for Frost, Williams, and Jones. Mr. GREG presented a petition, very numerously signet., from some parish in Lancashire, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. HAWES presented mi petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Huntingdonshire, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Sir B. HALL presented a petition, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from some person, praying for a repeal of the Bakers' Act. Mr. HE ATHCOT E presented a petition from Tiver ton, praying for the abolition of the Corn-laws. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBUL L presented a petition from some place in the county of Kent, stating that the number of Poor Law Commissioners was too large, and praying that they might be reduced. • Mr. HUME presented a petition from Bromley, in the county of Middlesex. The petitioners stated that a meet ing was held in that parish on the 7th of February last, for the purpose of considering the propriety of imposing a Church-rate; that meeting was adjourned for six months, notwithstanding which, the clergyman and overseers had called another meeting for the same purpose, which was to have met yesterday. That these proceedings were exciting peat ill-will in the parish, and that the rate was required for paying organist's salary and a variety of other items, which the petitioners considered illegal, and they prayed the House to alter the law on this subject. This petition was signed by twenty six of tho leading men in the place. Also three petitions from various places in Scotland, praying for an extension of the Suffrage. Also petitions from Aberdeen, Manchester, Great Torrington, in Devon, Oakhampton, Blackford, and other places, for a repeal cf the Corn laws. Mr. FENTON presented a petition from Rochdale, signed by 2,500 persons, and three other places, to the same effect. On the motion of Colonel ANSON, the Report of the Committee on the Birmingham and Wyrley Canal Bill was further considered. Mr. W. AT r WOOD presented two petitions against the Birmingham and Wyrley Canal Bill. Mr. BROCK LEHURST presented a petition from the Independent Methodists of Macclesfield, for the abo lition of Church-rates and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a petition from Belfast, in favour of non-intrusion in Scotland ; a peti tion from Salop, in favour of Church extension ; and three petitions from Windsor, Sydenham, and another parish in Nova Scotia, against the Clergy Reserves Bill. Mr. PAKINGTON presented a petition front the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Droitwitch, against the Birmingham Canal Bill. BEER BILL. Mr. PAKINGTON postponed the order of the day for the second reading of the Beer Bill, which stood for Wednesday next, to the following day, on account of the Irish Registration Bill, introduced by Lord Stanley, standing for a second reading on Wednesday. Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he would take en early opportunity of moving for copies of the correspond ence which had taken place with regard to the emigration of Hill Coolies. LUDLOW ELECTION PETITION. Mr. ORD brought up a Report from the General Committee on election petitions, stating (as we under stood) that with regard to the Ludlow election; Mr. Coppock had presented a protest against the proceedings of the Committee, on the ground of doubts being entertained by high legal authorities as to the regularity of those proceedings. It was doubtful, in consequence, whether indictments could be sustained against any witnesses who might give false testimony on the subject. Mr. AGLIONBY begged to call the attention of the House to the subject, and hoped that as he for one bad entertained serious doubts as to the regularity of the pro ceedings, the House would well consider how they went on with a Committee the proceedings of which might here after be vitiated by the antecedent irregularity. Sir R. INGLIS thought the Committee ought not to have received such a protest, as it referred to the "opi nions of high legal authorities in that House," which was quite irregular. Mr. ORD observed that the Report of the Commit the referred to those opinions. The petition was then laid upon the table. PRIVILEGE. Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Printed Papers Bill, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from John Joseph Stockdale, praying for the discharge of Howard and Pearce; and that he himself might ho heard at the bar against the third reading of the Bill. On the motion of the lion. Member the petition was read at the table by the clerk, which reading was as usual utterly inaudible. Lord JOHN RUSSELL tnought the petition wee really intended as an insult to tile House, and he, there fore, begged to suggest to the Hon. Member, that it would be better to withdraw it. Mr. DUNCONIBE really did not know what posasage in the petition the Noble Lord considered an insult to the House. He wished the Noble Lord would mention what passage in the petition he considered to be an insult. Ile had read the petition, as he considered himself in a certain degree responsible for the language of the petitions he presented being respectful, and he must say he thought there was nothing improper in the petition. There were a few quotations from Scripture in it, but the Noble Lord could not object to them. He ( Mr. D.) had so far considered the petition a proper one, that he had intended to move the prayer of it should be granted, and that Stock dale should be heard at the bar of the House, pre vious to the third reading of the Bill, which, as regarded him, was a 13111 of Pains and Penalties; and it was always usual, in a case of that sort, the the individual intended to be affected should be heard against it. He thought that Stockdale had certainly some claim on the House, because from the day he had been committed into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms he bad never been asked if he bad anything to say in extenu ation or explanation of his conduct, which the other pri soners had been. He should be sorry to convey anything disrespectful to the House. Until he knew what the objec tionable passage was, he could not, injustice to Mr. Stock dale, withdraw the petition. The SPEAKER was about to put the question that the petition do lie on the table, when Lord HO WICK rose and said, that if the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury pressed the petition, he should feel it to be his duty to move that it be rejected. Mr. HUME thought the House ought to know what the objectionable parts were.—( Hcar, hear.) The clerk had certainly read the petition, but he believed the House had not heard one word of it. —( Laughter.) Some means must be adopted by which the petitions might be heard; and he thought that, in fairness to this case, they ought to know what the p assages were w hi c h t h e Noble Lord ob jected to. Mr. L A BOUCHE RE observed that the petition was read in such a tone of voice, that if the House had been silent every word might have been heard.—( Hear.) If it was not heard, the fault was with the House, and not with the clerk. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said the petition was read very distinctly, but the House not being aware that an ob jection would he taken on account of the language of it, had not paid particular attention while it was read. He had caught the substance of it, but had not caught the particular words. for Finsbury had stated he had read the petition, that Captain BOLDER() thought that as the Hon. Member hat he did not think there was anything disrespectful n etit , ion. House ought to rely upon his word and receive could onlyp The Clerk again read the petition, but we hor justified falsehood—thathe .a never suppressed truth n of the House had been col lect the substanceof it. The petitioner stated that he had been informed an order or resolution calling took made, whereby those part in any legal proceedings professional instituted by the petitiener, bar of the House were to The il l e ia u b se le a breach of its privileges. and punished for could they appreciate the i d n t t h o h n i s e tte nor Heavrard had undertaken the reluctance with which Mr. upon him by the petitioner, upon whom ale , e duty imposed fall the groundless displeasure of the flout The ought to_ • •on to characterize the attempt to vindicate pentium - went . • • of the House as a gross attempt to destroy the privilege. the Trial by Jury. Lord RUSSELL said this person had been com mitted J. d by the House for contempt and a breach of its mittepri vileges ; and he again approached it, and under the guise of a petition, declared at great length that his detention was illegal- - that the displeasure of the House was groundless, and in many more words complained that the t T nder She. nboet who in SPIRIT of the PUBLIC' JOURNALS. (FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY, (From the Globe.) To blame the Government for every thing which it does, and for every thing which it does not do—without at the same time ever committing themselves to any de finite declaration of what it ought or ought not to have done, is the arduous task of our Tory Contemporaries. Such is the necessary consequence of advocating the inte rests of the most purposeless and dishonest Opposition that ever attempted to embarrass the Government of this collo . - try. On general questions, where great principles arc in volved, and tha purposes of the party may be served by sounding declamation, not always couched in either the best English, or the language current among well-bred men, this task is not indeed very difficult, and may be discharged, to the filling up of many a column day after day, with no particular fault except that of unmean i ng monotony. But wly.n we come to practical questions — to matters in which something must be done—we see in all its sterility the system of thos e who have no ob ject except that of thwarting and discrediting their pc- Jitical opponents. (From the Courier.) In the debate on the clause proposed to be inserted in the Printed Papers Bill, by Sir R. H. Inglis, the Attorney-General observed, that be " hoped the :stamped newspapers would continue to re-publish .the reports of the House of Commons ; they were lighly be: eqoial ; but he • opposed the clause intended Ito protect them in this beneficial service, because " it would be prejudicial, if not fatal, to the Bill, as it would mot have a chance of passing through the other House." We cannot, for a moment, entertain a belief that the Lords, the uniform dispensers of public justice, and the great protectors of popular rights, would reject the Bill on account of a elau:;e, of which the principle is, that if it be right to protect one party in the performance of a service supposed to be beneficial to the public, others engaged in the very service, with a thousand times more facilities for extending its benefite, should be exposed to prosecution. (From the Standard.) The Duke of Sussex and the other gentlemen who attended at the Freemasons' Tavern on Thursday, to protect the interests of Satan, and to enlarge the bor ders of his kingdom (for this, as we shall show before we have done, was really their occupation), occupy no very enviable place. There was, indeed, a display of weakness and folly made by the speakers, happily cor responding to the wickedness of their purpose—for it was scarcely the less wicked that the work of the enemy of mankind was done rather for the sake of factious or sectari❑n interests than for his owm sake. It was until lately—and it may be there is still— a charge made by our enemies, that we ultra Tories are behind the intelligence of the age. What must we think of the precedency of intelligence in the poor pitiable Duke of Sussex, who talked of moving churches from place to place, like booths transferred from fair to fair; and, with grotesque gesticulation, determined the roundest part of his person to be the seat of his religion ! CHARLESTON.—We have received Charleston Papers to the date of Feb. 14. The bloodhounds which, in the pursuit of their unholy purpose to drive the stricken Indians from the homes of their fathers, the Americans, availing themselves of " all the means which Ged and nature have put in their power," have employed, t o hunt down their oppressed neighbours, have been brought into active training. It may be remembered that the fact of the transhipment of these unnatural e m i ssar i es, which was in the first instance indignantly denied, h as b een subsequently confirmed by the reluctant and official admission of Congress itFelf. And now we a re exultin g l y told by the pat tern Republic of modern days , th at after the bounds had been subjected to a series of experim ents, "they” can rapidly, and with certainty, follow a trail 24 h ours old. Standard. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARen 20. - - The SrEtKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. On the motion of Mr. ELLIOT the Roxburgh and Selkirk Roads Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. On the motion of M r. G. CRAIG the Cramond-bridge Bill was rc:;cl a third time and passed. On the motion of S ir J. Y. BULLER, Hausburgh's Naturalization and Promoli's Naturalization Bills were se verally read a third time and passed. Captain DUNCOMBE presented a petition from East Retford in favour of the Corn laws. Lord KELBURNE presented petitions from several parishes in the county of Ayr zgainst the intrusion of Mi nisters. Mr. MAUN S ELL presented a petition from the Poor. law Guardians of a Union in the County of Northampton in favour of the Poor-law Bill. CORN-LAWS. Mr. E. BUL LE R lresen ted a petition sign e d b y 4,300 persons engaged in one manufacturing and exporting of china, praying for the total and immediate repeal of th e Corn-laws. Also from Newcastle and several oth er pl aces to the same effect. Sir J: Y. BULLER presented petitions from several places in Devonshire, in favour of the present system of Corn-laws. _ Mr. DUG'DALE presented a similar petition from a Board of Guardians in the county of Warwick. Also one against any furthcrgrant to the Collge ?f Maynooth. Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from Nova LVENING EDITION. i riff, who had presented a petiti on i n re g u l ar and decorous terms, declaring that he would comply with the . orders of the House, had been guilty of what he seemed to consider a serious crime. The whole tenor*of the petition was a sort of defiance of the House, and could not be considered as a petition. •He should therefore oppose its reception. Sir R. INGLIS said the only objection of the Noble . Lord was, that the petition contained certain por- I tions of Scripture, which might or might not apply to the House—(Hear, hear, and ironical ebeers)— and which the Gentlemen opposite seemed to consider ap plicable to themselves.—( Cheers and laughter.) The petitioner virtually stated that he had been unjustly con fined—an expression as mild as could be expected from a person incarcerated in Newgate. The Sheriff, if anybody, was—appeared at least to be—directly referred to in the inuendoes, he being accused of having acted unconstitution ally by the petitioner. If the House recollected what peti tions they had formerly received,:they would see that it could not tend to conciliate the great body of their fellow subjects if the motion should he rejected, and still more if the peti tion should be refused altogether. The House might make some allowance for the angry feelings of a man who considered himself unjustly imprisoned. He (Sir R. Inglis) would not injure his case by referring to character. —(Hear, hear.) With character he had nothing . to do.— ( Hear, h ear .) H e b e li eve d t h at a person - had been imprisoned unjustly for having endeavoured, in due course of law, to recover compensation for injury —pronounced to be an injury by the highest civil and cri minal tribunal in the country, and in a judgment invoked by that House itself. And he only asked for a" hearing at their bar. Surely there were statements in the petition which deserved attention; for instance, that Mr. Howard had at first refused to act as the petitioner's attorney, and had only yielded when reminded of his compulsory duty so to do; but that of course now he could not be expected to go on with the action. Would the Muse not only refuse the prayer of the petition, but would it cvt u a refuse to allow that petition to lie on . the table? He (Sir R. INGLIS) trusted that the Noble Lord would not con tinue his opposition, but if he did, he (Sir R. Inglis) would certainly divide with the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Lord HOWICK thought that no man could doubt the petition was an insult to the House, and that unless it abandoned the practice it had hitherto follnwed on similar occasions, it would say that the petition was one which it could not receive. He would therefore move, as an amendment to the motion, that the petition do lie on the table—that it be rejected. Sir G. STRICKL Np could not feel in the.present instance that the House would be doing justice to the party if it rejected the petition. No person could do-At that the first part of the petition was properly worded, and it was equally dear that'the prayer was in accordance with the rules of the House, and the only ground on which it could be looked upon as disrespectful was, that Mr. Stockdale had had the bad taste to interlard it with quotations from Scripture. He thought that the Hausa ought to look with indulgence upon a person situated as Mr. Stockdale was at present. Mr. HUME had supported the Noble Lord throughout the struggle for their privileges ; but as the Noble Lord had brcught in a Bill which declared that the whole of their proceedings were illegal—(No, no)—the Noble Lord by his Bill, at all events, declared that they required a new taw to uphold their privileges—that was declaring that they had hitherto acted without any law.—( Laughter. ) He could not therefore object to any words in a petition from one of the parties confined, which declared that con finement to be illegal, it having already been so declared by the House. If the Noble Lord abandoned his prin ciples, he (Mr. H.) was determined to stick by his ; he would therefore vote for the reception of the petition. Mr. GREENE objected to the reception of the peti tion, on the ground that a most improper use had been made of passages from the Scriptures. They were used most irreverently, and on that ground alone he thought the petition ought to be rejected Sir E. SUGDEN wished that the Noble Lord had not placed the House in such a difficulty by calling the at tention of the House so prominently to the wording of the petition. Considering that Mr. Stockdale had been acting according to the law as laid down by the Courts of Law, some allowance ought to be made for the feelings which must actuate him under his detention. By the Bill before the House they were going to put an end to the actions brought by Stockdale, and surely under such circumstances the man might ask to be heard at the bar against the Bill. lie begged that he should not bo supposed to defend the tone and language of the petition, which be disapproved of altogether—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—but considering the state of the Bill— ( Hear, hear)--he had (as we understood the Hon. and Learned Gentleman) suggested that a petition should be presented, but certainly not in any such terms as that presented by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. Mr. JAMES did not understand howany one could pre tend to doubt that it was the deliberate intention, of Stock-- dale to insult the House. The petition ought to be re jected. Mr. DUNCOMBE, who spoke amidst cries of " Di vide, divide," said that he was willing to withdraw the petition, in order that it should be amended, if the Noble Lord '( Lord J. Russell) would consent to postpone the Bill, to give him an opportunity of presenting a less ob jectionable petition. Sir R. PEEL was always reluctant to reject a petition, but when, as in this case, there was a deliberate intention to insult the authority addressed by the petitioner, it was the duty of that authority—not for its own sake, but for the sake of the right of petition—to reject the offensive address. The question was, whether the petition con tained a deliberate insult. He thought it did.—( Hear. ) The petitioner stated that he submitted an extract from a volume published by himin 1834, which set forth that the law-of England never-authorized or contemplated revenge, and that when they were brought into operation for such a purpose, they evinced weakness, or some baser motive. When ho saw that passage, he could not far a moment . - - hesitate to say that the moire of the petitioner must have been 'to offer an insult to the House. He thought the introduction of quotations from Scripture was a bad prac tice, and that in the present case they were intended as an insult. Whatever estimation he might hold the right of petitioning in, yet he thought petitioners were bound to use terms of courtesy and respect. In the present case, the petitioner did not come forward at the earlier stages of the Bill, but reserves himself to the last day, and till almost the last moment of the last day. Now, a large majority of the House had determined that they were in possession of those privileges, and one of the Under-Sheriffs having shown a disposition to defer to that authority, those who differed from a majority claimed credit for the Under. Sheriff for having manifested a desire to comply with the wishes of that House. Now in the present petition there was a charge against that public officer of a desire to sell the adminis tration of justice.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He did think that there were sufficient grounds for deciding to reject the petition. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, and the numbers were-- Ayes 25 Noes cause this Bill conceded to either House of Parliament the power of pub:shing anything they might think' proper, regardless of the law, and be thought be had a r;ght to ask, if they gave their own printers this protection from the consequences of what they might publish by order of the House, that the same proteotion should be ex tended to those who in the exercise of their calling, reprinted that which the House had directed its printers to publish. The Hon. Baronet said he could not imagine what objection would be made to the clause. He would remind the House that last year an action had been brought against the Times, for reprinting a report pub lished by the House, reflecting on a Mr. Polack.— ( Sir R. Peel here leant across, and whispered something to . j the Hon. Bart.) He did not believe that in that case the Edi tor had published any comments. Of this, however, he was quite sure, that in the King v. Wright no comments had been published.—(" Hear, hear," from the Attorney- General.) On what ground unless indeed of jealousy of their copyright--could the House abject to giving.other printers the protection which they claimed for their -own— a protection only in reprinting what their printer had pub lished—for the House could make what regulations they pleaked against any comments? The Hein. Baronet con cluded by moving for leave to brim? up the clause: The ATTORNE V-G ENERAI rejoiced to find that the Hon. Baroaet had so completely changed his senti ments, that he now vvished to make the publication of the proceedings of the House more extensive.—( Hear, hear.) He (the Attorney-General) hoped that all stamped news papers would republish their Report. It would be highly beneficial that they should do so, and he hoped that that republication would not be confined merely to the stamped press, but that in various other shapes (he of course did not refer to the upstart - tried or illegal press) their reports would be given terabe public. He felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause which the Hon. Baronet had moved for leave to bring up. The Bill would have no chance of passing into a law, if such a clause were introduced. He begged to remind the Hon. Baronet that they were not then reviewing the law of libel, but he hoped the time would soon come when that law would be reviewed, and discussed, and altered—( Heat )—when truth should not be deemed to be a libel, and wh n it would be a sugeient defence to any proceedings, to say . that the allegations contained in the libel were true.--(Hear, hear.) In the present case they were providing a particular remedy for a particular grievance, and the observations of - the Hon. Baronet did not apply. In the case a Polack v. Lawson, •, the actim teas not tor publishing reports, but for pub liahing extracts and comments'upon thein. 7 4 Hear, hear.' But he believed that when this Bill passed into a law, no newspaper would be • placed under any apprehension of proceedings, either civil or criminal, for republishing the, reports of the proceedings of either Reuse of Parliament. Ho thought it much better that the Bill should be con fined to its criginal object, and that they should not ex tend the remedy beyond this grievance.—( Hear, bear.) Sir E. SU . SaDEN said the clause th a t be h a d intro duced, but subsequently withdrew, was calculated not only to meet the mischief which the clause of the Hon. Baro net was pointed et, but would hare protected the persona to whom their printer might make sub-sales, and also those publishers who might republish iheir reports in the shape of books. It very seldom answered the purpose of the press to copy the whole of their reports. The objoct was ro give faithful extracts, or a condensed review, or such passages as were deserving of public attention; and he thought that all such things should be protected. He lad withdrawn his clause because he felt that the machin cry of the Bill would not work out that object, and for that reason he would advise hia Hon. Friend not to press his clause. He was in favour of the principle, but he thought it ought to be carried out in a different way, and if a sepa rate Bill were brought in for that purpose, he should vote for it. lie knew that newspapers would not incur much risk by making bona fide extracts from their reports, and be believed that bona fide extracts would be found tdbe already warranted by the rules of law. He thought it would be an inconvenience to introduce that particular clause into the Bill, and be therefore hoped his Hob. Friend would withdraw it, because it would give him (Sir E. Sugden) occasion to vote against it, which he would feet bound to do if pressed to a division. After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, the clause was negatived without a division. Sir E. SUGDEN then moved the omission of the se cond clause of the Act. pursuant to the motion he had given. The matter hr.d been so fully discussed on a former evening that he felt it was unnecessary tor him to detain the House with any observations in support of the motion. The SPEAKER suggested that the object of the Right Han. Gentleman would be better answered by moving the omission of that part of the preamble which related to the 2d Clause. Sir E. SUGDEN acquiesced. The question having teen put, Lssrd J. RUSSELL said that, as the Hon. Gentleman had truly observed, the subject having been so fully discussed on a former occasion, he thought it unnecessary to make any observation in support of the motion, and for that reason it was altogether unnecessary for him (Lord John Russell) to make any statement in opposition to it,— ( Hear, hear.) He had stated the other night the grounds on which he thought it reasonable the clause should be allowed to stand part of the Bill. It did not refer to the general question, but to the numerous actions brought in the course of the present Session; and it did appear to him that when they were legislating upon the subject, it would be as well to put an end to all the quettions that had arisen upon it. Lord HO WICK objected to the clause in its present shape, because Le thought it ought to go much fur. thee, and if they were to protect their servants, in enforcing their authority, the clause ought not merely to extend to the actions which had been brought by Stock. dale. or Pearse, or Howard, but to any future actions which they might bring for what they deemed to be a tres pass. Unless, therefore, the clause was altered, he should vote in favour of the motion of the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it would be much better that the clause should stand part of the Bill. It would put an end to all disputes and controversies that had taken place down to the very day the Bill received the Royal assent. Sir. DA RBY said the clause did not provide for any action that might be brought after the passing of the Bill. If they went to stop those actions in general, they ought to introduce a clause of the same nature as the first clause, and put an end to them altogether. Let them not take a middle course, and stop existing actions, without venturing to stop actions that might be brought after the Bill bad re ceived the Royal assent. Mr. GORING thought the Bill would be altogether a nullity, for sooner or later the House must appoint a Com.. mittee to supervise all that was ordered to be printed ; it would then be a nonentity. He was opposed to it alto gether, but particularly to the clause in question. How• ever, he cared little for it, as he was convinced that the Bill could never pass in another House. Sir R. PEEL said the speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ought to have been made when the general question of the Pr ivileges of the House were under discussion ; the Bill bad been read a third time, and the Majority The petition was therefore rejected. second clause. His opinion was that the privileges of the PRINTED PAPERS BILL. House remained intact—the Bill would only prove a nets Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of legislative security, which could bo much more easily got the Printed Papers Bill, when at than by using their own power. No doubt their privi- Sir ROBERT HARRY INGLIS proposed to insert leges were great, and the powers of the House extensive, the following - clause:a-. And be it further enacted, that it but the Bill provided a simple and more effectual remedy shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, who than putting those powers in operation. If the officer of hereafter shall be a defendant or defendants in any civil or the House used unnecessary violence, or committed untie criminal proceeding, commenced or prosecuted for the cessary wrong in executing the warrant of the Speaker, publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceed- of course the party sustaining that wrong had a right to ings, in any newspaper published according to the direc- reparation ; whether in a Court of Law or otherwise, it lion of an Act passed in the seventh year of the reign of was not necessary then to determine. Although he was his late Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter 76, afraid that they would weaken their privileges by passing intituled, An Act to reduce the duties on newspapers, the clause, still, upon the recommendation of the Learned and to amend the laws relating to the duties on news- Attorney-General, be was disposed to vote for it, although papers and advertisements, to apply as aforesaid for a cer- with considerable doubt. tificate, stating that the report, paper, votes, er proceedings, Sir R. ING LIS strongly objected to the clause, because forming the ground of such civil or criminal proceeding, any warrant issued by any Court, however legally issued, was published by order or under the authority of the House might be abused in its execution, for which there ought to of Lords, or of the House of Commons (as the case may be and was redress to be obtained in a Court of Law. be), and which certificate is hereby authorized to be The question was not as to tlie legality of the warrant of granted upon such application, and, having obtained the the Speaker, but whether there was undue violence used same, to' apply to any Judge of her Majestv's Superior in its execution. He would vote with his Right Honour- Courts of Common Law at chambers or elsewhere, upon able and Learned Friend. an affidavit verifying such certificate; and further do- Mr. T. HOBHOUSE was altogether oppposeed to the posing, that such publicatiou in such newspaper was a true Bill. He thought it was a deviation from sound sense and transcript or copy of such report, paper, votes, or pro- principle, but still be was anxious to make it as reasonable ceedings, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for as possible, and he would, therefore, help es much as was such Judge, upon due summons and notice, to stay such in his power to reject the clause in question. civil or criminal proceeding upon such terms as to such Strangers were then ordcrcd to withdraw. Judge shall seem fit.'" The Hon. Member said the Bill was The House divided, when the numbers were— proposed to be read a third time on these grounds : —that it For the chose llO was essential to the due discharge of their legislative funct ions Against it that publicity should be given to their proceedings. How, Majority he would ask, could they consistently refuse that protec- On the question that the Bill do pass, tion which they gave to their own publishers to those Mr. HUME said that he must enter his protest against parties who might print the evidence taken before the the whole proceedings. House? Their object could not be a dread of monopoly, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN would not oppose the or a jealousy of the publicity w hich might be given to passing of the Bill, trusting that the Noble Lord would their proceedings by the Times and Morning Post. He consider how their publications might be so controlled as did not believe, cn the other hand, that they were actuated to prevent the publication of libels u p on individuals. • by the more worthy motive of making thos e publishers The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, with every responsible for what they might print at their own risk. positron to control their publications, they would not cramp If they granted protection to Messrs. Hansard,. how or in any way curtail their right of publishing what they could they refuse i t to t h ose w h o carr i e d out the views of thought proper. He did not believe that any material la the House by giving their proceedings. an by sira owncir- jury had hitherto been done to private character. culation ten times greater than that The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the objections be n g ed ice d l id trot complain originally entertained to the measure continued as strong ai Peliishers? The parties who peri:w House of the present law, but they asked the . not to put ever. ehich would inevitabl y be the • them in a worse position, Mr WARBURTON would not be a party to any com case if the present Bill were passed; . if it passed, th ey promise of their right of publication. would be exposed to the whole vengeance of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested a change injured parties, because they would net be enabled to have in the title of the Bill, in order "to give protection to vengeance upon the printers and publishers of the House. persons employed in the execution of certain warrants He Confined his motion to giving protection to those psi.- granted by the Speaker of the House of Commons during ties who rigidly obeyed the late law respecting newspapers the present Session." —he wanted the protection of the law only for 'those per- The Bill was then passed. sons who obeyed the law, and under the law alluded to In answer to a question from an Hon. Member on the paid a large tax to the revenue of the country. If any 0 position side of the House, newspaper violated the law by non-payment of the Stam p Me MORE °TERRA LL stated that it was in con. duty, such paper would not be included in the protection he temptation ecli to increase the means of communication with afforded by the clause which he proposed to brin . !Mediterranean by-means of Government steamers. trusted it would not be raised as an objection to the clause ROYALthe MILITARY ACADEMY AT WOOL that it would be imposing an act of too lj great condescension WICII. on the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker of the House of Captain BOLDER° then rose to call the attention of Commons to call upon them to issue their certificate u on the House to the state of 'disci p line of the Royal Military the prayer of p ar ti es claiming the protection of the claupse, Academy at Woo lwich. It had been stated, in a hi ghly because the wh o l e g i st of the clause was to rotect artier respecta ble j ournal devoted to the naval and military see .' . v:ho had be en gu il ty of no possible demerit except of P having %tee, that the Government was making that establishment done that, with out t h e auth or ity of the House specifically subservie n t to electioneerin g p ur p oses ; bat the.object.he requirin g t h em to d o so, which some one else had done by had in view was to call the attention of the House to the the authority of the House ; and he considered they were i state of discipline of that academy. It appeared, that entitled to the protection they sought, because they fulfilled I during the last nine or tea months, it had been found the declared i ntent i ons o f th e House by giving increased I requisite to remove sixteen or seventeen cadets, although, publicity to their publications. He could see many red- lin his experience, it would have required as many years to sons a ga i nst th e 11111, but few or none against this clau se, have removed that number. Ile therefore felt anxious to if the Bill should pass. lie was willing to admit that ascertain why it had been, thought necessary to discharge the promoters of the 'Bill had made great concessions l so many li, so short a period. He was aware that some —they had conceded in fact, although not specifically the f had beeneemo ve d f or idl eness an d want o f a bili t y, b u t the whole point a t issue, as their object was to obtain that by larger portion had been removed by the decision of a corn. an Act of the Legi s lature which they bad all along mittce for some breach of military discipline. There contended, the House was competent to obtain by its were various shades of punishments, and removal was own privileges, but which they admitted, by bringing for- one of those resorted to w hile the ,boys were ward .this Bill, their privileges were not competent to idle or a little vicious, but expulsion was attended with effect. But Hon. Members who acted with him, and yet man y disastrous consequences, because the result 'weathnt supported the Bill, bad also made great concessions, ht. they wore debarred from entering the Bost India-Cala , Ifs Sr` , . I. ess, niie ;rig lug peg