The Press.
London, England, 1853-08-20 00:00:00

T•HE PRESS.

Bill went through a immittee in the Lords. The Charitable
Trusts Bill passed the Commons.
ft. The Landlord and Tenant ( Ireland) Bill rend a
second time in the Lords, with the understanding that it
is not to proceed further in the present session. The
Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill passed. In the Cumulous
the Transportation Bill went through committee, and sere•
rid bills were read a third time and passed.
10. The Smoke Nuisance Bill, the Betting-houses Bill,
and others, passed the Commute.
11. Parliament went to the naval review at Spithead,
and, in consequence, the Speaker did not take the chair
till the unwonted hour of eleven at night. The Friendly
Societies Bill, the Metropolitan Sewers Act Continuance
Bill, and others, were read a third time and passed.
12. In the Lords an important, interesting, and pro-
filleted discussion took place upon the affairs of Russia
and Turkey. In the Commons the Law of Evidence
Amendment Bill, and the Transportation Bill, were read a
third time and passed.
13 (Saturday ). The Consolidated Fund Appropriation
Bill, the Militia Pay Bill, and the hand-tax Redemption
lfill. paMell the Commons.
15. The Pilotage Bill, and the Universities (Scotland)
Bill, went through committee ; and several hills passed the
Lords. The Maltese Criminal Code wits under diecussion
in the Commons.

16. The Univemitiss (Scotland) Bill passed the Lords.
In the Comments an animated debate upon Russia and
Turkey, the principal speakers being Lord J. Russell, Mr.
Layard, Sir .1. Pakingum, Mr. Cobden, and Lon!
Palmerston.

IN. The Lord Chancellor laid upon the table the Report
upon the l'onsolidation of the Statutes. Several bills mad
a thi►d time and passed.
20 (this day ). Parliament pmmbn►ed by comtuissio/t.

THE HON. MR. ANI) MRS. NORTO.►N.
Tnr. Hon. Mr. Norton was sued in the Westminster
County Court for the amount of 491. tis., being ba-
lance of a bill due to Messrs. Thrupp, the coach-
builders of Oxford-street, on account of the Hon.
Mrs. Norton. The case excited great interest.
Defendant pleaded non-liability, because he had been
for many years separated from his wife under a legal
settlement. Mrs. Norton, who gave evi&en ce at
much length, declared that the allowance seen red to
her by her husband had never been fully p aid, or
this debt would not have remained unFiettled.
Various family quarrels, accusations, and at range
ments were somewhat freely expatiated upon in the
course of the trial, and the sources of income both to
Mr. and Mrs. Norton revealed in remorseltiss
:

Mrs. Norton stated that she had been subpoenaed to
produce the accounts of the plaintilfa for work anti labour
supplied to her from the year 164:3 to the month of March,
18:141. The work consisted of repairs to my eauriwge. I
paid Mr. Thnipp by instalments until Mr. Norton if topped
my allowance. We are not residing together, wad have
lived apart fir some years, by my wish and choler, because
I consider that I have sustained an injury that 'go woman
ought to submit to. I believe Mr. Norton's income to be
about 3,0001. a year, viz., front his uutgistmcy, his patri-
monial profits in Scotland, his chambers ir, the Temple,
and other sources, altogether amounting to 3,000/. per
annum. I was parted from him in the prat. MO, and the
following year he offered 600/. a year trail we could ar-
range our matters, but made me a coinpr theory allowance of
4001. per annum. He stipulated that J should give up my
children, and I said that I would rr,thex starve than lose
them. awl I did starve for a time . From the month of
March, 18:18, he made me an allowv.nce, and he advertised
me in the public papers respectitc the compulsory allow-
ance. lie paid me WM. a year v ntil ISIS. In reference
to this there was an agreement drawn up : he and my
brother-in-law, the Hun. E. Pliepps, witnessed it. In the
year ISM my mother died, my I she left me some money;
but then' are still 6+471. 10r, due to my creditors, and I
have returned from Italy tl. have it paid; and if the de-
fendant had paid me the treoney he promised by the agree-
ment I should have r.ettkit with the plaintiffs, but I under-
stood Mr. Norton's plea tt e be, that, as this paper was made
between hint and 'his will., it cannot be binding on hhn ;
bat if I bad tire money every one of my creditors would
have what is dire to them .
Cross-ezaneened by Mr. Needham: Nave you received
your income front Mr. Norton regularly up to a period
beyond that of the last Kew. March, 18:10?
the Hem. Mrs. Norio n : He owes me 6871.
Mr. Nteelliam : Hare you not received your allowance
under the agreement?
The Hon. Mrs. Nor on : 1 received my allowance up to
March, 185.2.

Mr. 'Needham : Waa your separation from your husband
a voluntary one ?
The Hon. Mrs. Ng, rton : Mr. Norton seat my little
children away, to whit h I very much objected, and I re-
ceived nothing in the hape of an allowance for two years,
and when I parted froze i my husband I had no income.
Mr. Needham : Was not the allowance paid into your
banker's, first after t he rate of 2001. a year, and subse-
quently VOL ?
The Hon. Mrs. Nort on : No; I have not got my Walker's
pass-book with me. 1 • lower had a book at all until It+4B,
because I never had si aficient mtmey to make it worth my
while to keep au acco, nit there. Yesterday I sent a list of
what moneys I had a 4, my banker's.
Mr. Needham Dig you refuse to take the nioney after
it was paid into Mesa es. Hansom's, the hackers?
The Hon. Mrs. Nu rton : 1 refused to do anything whilst
my children were tali en from me.
Mr. Needham: 1 . believe you had 13,000/. left you by
your mother?

' SATURDAY,

The Hon. Mrs. Norton : I have the interest of the money
paid to me through my brother.
Mr. Needham : Have you also VI. 10s. paid to you by
way of pension?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : My father held an appointment
at the cape of Good Hope. He died there, and 1 have the
pensi• m in consequence.
Needham : What, is your lite►ary income ? Is it
501 W. p ear?y
TI• ie !Tom Mrs. Norton : You may take it for what you
like ; and the only remaining source of income is the
assistance fron► my friends and family—any sum that they
chino 3e to allow
M. Needham : Madam, we have already gut an income
of 1,:1(1(11. a year; do you mean to tell the learned judge
that
.you have no other sources of income ?
The Hon•. Mrs. Norton : 1 mean to tell the learned
judge the to tth.
Mr. Needh am : Is one of those friends from whom you
derive an all uwance Lord Bova!, the late Lord Mel-
bourne? .

The Hon. Mrs. Norton ; That is one of the sources.
(Tb.e witness mere became much excited, and, rising from
her seat, said :) Ido not receive an income ; for his pro-
perty was atrial y entailed. He lett Ins solemn declaration,
arc a dying 1211112, and gave his word of honour, that Mr.
Norton's accusation against me, when I was a young
thing at home, alis a false one.
Mr. Needham : I ask you whether it was not upon the
express assertion , at the time that agreement was signed,
that you received nothing from Lord Melbourne, that Mr.
Norton was to make you the allowance?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton: I did receive nothing from Lord
Melbourne.
Mr. Needham: Ind you say that you neither did then,
nor could ?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : I did not, thr I never expected
to receive any hints.
Mr. Needham : you mean to say that on your oath ?
The Hun. Mrs. Norton (with great emphasis): I say it
upon my oath—man—what ?
Mr. Needham: Madam, that may be very tragical; but
it is not very polite.
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : lam sorry not to be polite. I
am in a very tragioal state.
Mr. Needham : From what time—up to what time—
have you received MU a year?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton: You have my voucher-book at
home. _

Mr. Needham : Who paid it ?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : Lady Palmerston ; I don't
know how it is paid.
Mr. Needhain: When did you receive the last?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : It was in June or July. Lady
Palmerston gave me something this year. Nobody is
bound to give me anything.
Mr. Needham: Have you received 600/. a year up to
July in the present year?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : I have not had 0011/. a year.
i. don't know how much my income falls short of that;
but I have not received that.
Mr. Needham : In January, 1852, did you have
29.11.55. on the account of Lord Melbourne placed to your
sect bunt ?
Tbe Hon. Mrs. Norton : I dare say I did. You have
the look.
Mr. Needham : Now, in July of the same year, per Lord
Melbourne, the sum of 2911. Did you have that?
The Hon. Mrs. Norton : Yes. But Lord Melbourne is
dead. No one is bound to give me one farthing. We are
disenssii tg simply whether my creditors are or are not to
be paid.
After a vast many questions bearing upon the domestic
relationship of the plaintiff and defendant, and some other
witnesses having been examined,
The Ju4e said that at the opening stage the case was
ex parte, and decreed for a nonsuit, upon which
Mr. Nortoit pressed for a hearing, in explanation of the
allegations made against him by his wife.
The learned Judge remarked that, as the whole case was
quite ex parte, the public could only attach such weight as
was due to any time under such circumstances.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE.
Tuesday, August 16.

- -
BANKRUPTCY ANNI'LLED—SAMUEL CLARKE, Exeter and
Torquay. Devonshire, hardwareman.
BANKRUPTS—JOHN COLI.ETT JACRAION and ADOLPHI•s
FRUSTA!. HARRISON. URIOIt-court, City, merchants--FREDERICK
WM. STRICKLAND, Kensiiiirton-crescent, Kensington, and Sy-
mond's-inn, Chancery-lane, wine merchant—Wm. SMITH, High-
street, Shadwell, licensed BARTON, Rosemary
Branch Taveni, Islington, licensed victualler—RonEnT LEA,
Grantham, Lincolnshire. draper —JOHN WILLIAMS, Lower
Wookey Mills, near Wells, Somemetshire, paper maker—Toms
consist', Tiverton, Devonshire, gmeer—Wm. Lkycocs, Brad-
ford, Yorkshire, innkeeper--Jons TATE, Darlington, Durham,
iron merchant.
SCOT(' II S EQU EST ILATION—WILIAA m -HENRY, Dundee,
boot maker.

---••
Friday, Augwd 19.
BANKRUPTS—WILLIAN HENRY DEE, Cambridge, _ i,lumber
—Ronturr Dams, StuTey, builder—Jamas POLLII7, Manches-
ter. picker JOHN ROBEIRTRHAW. Church, Lancashire, iron-
foundet—Joutt linannuity, 31useley-road, Worcestershire, dealer
in copper ores WILLIS:II I 1 ARO ROVE, Birtuingluum, brass-
totuider.

LANCASTER AND CARLT:iLE RAILWAY...-A subscriber,
signing himself "A Copserrative," points out an
error in an article in our last impression entitled
"The Railroad Bungle." It was there stated that
the premium on Lancaster and Carlisle 501. Shares
(paid up) was 451., and the premium per cent. '45.
The premium should have been stated at 541., and
the premium per cent. at 10S. The latest price is
104 to 100 on the 50/. share.

AUGUST 20, 1853.

Ilitraturt.

Conversions and Persecutions ; a Charge, in 1N53.
by Richard Whately. P.D., Archbishop of

Dublin.
Address on Recent Changes in the System qf Irish
National Education. By Richard Whately.
P.D., Archbishop of Dublin.
London : John W. Parker and Son.

No candid person can deny, whatever may be
the critical estimate formed on his peculiar
school of theology, that the Archbishop of Dub-
lin is an ornament to the Church of England and
Ireland. Not concurring with him in sonic
of the views that he has propounded during
his prolonged literary career, we can still
cordially admire the transparent clearness and
nervous simplicity of his style ; and, even
where we dissent from his teaching, we can
appreciate the candour of his nature and the
purity of his exalted purposes. He has been
foremost in the polemical battles of the last
twenty years ; and many tut antagonist has
retired before him, worsted in the encounter.
But it would be impossible to name any
eminent controversialist so entirely free from
the odium theologicum proverbial in ecclesiastic
strife. He has been criticised with severity
as too cold and austerely logical in his religion.
Never seeking for claptrap applause, he does
not patch his unadorned style with the lour-
puretpanni ofmerebieious Obscurantism. In all
that comes front his erudite and energetic
pen we discern the serenity of a mind which,
amid the noisy contentions of an age of orga-
nised clamour, muses serenely in the groves of
the academy, and, recurring to its early habits of
severely scientific thinking, never decides
before it can demonstrate, and never accuses
except when it can certainly convict.

With such a character, so nue amongst
theologians, the Archbishop of Dublin was
eminently suited to give powerfid aid in the
establishment of the Irish National System of
Education. He brought to its support the
dignity of his station and the strength of his
well-won fame. There were vast difficulties in
the introduction of the system whose existence
is now in peril, but which up to the present
time has flourished, even beyond the expecta-
tions of its original founder, the Earl of Derby.
When such a man, therefore, as the Archbishop
of Dublin retires from a system with which
his reputation has been honourably identified,
we must turn with anxiety to learn from him-
self the causes of his withdrawal. Let us,
with the materials here before us, clearly
ascertain them.

At the head of this article our readers will
perceive that we have given precedence to the
masterly tract on " Conversions and Persecu-
tions." We have done so as recording its
priority of publication ; but, in point of im-
portance, as bearing on the present crisis in
the " National Board" system, the second
tract—the " Address to the Clergy of the
Diocese of Dublin"—is more important ; and,
as far as our space will permit, we will let the
Archbishop of Dublin explain to our readers
the causes of his resignation.
But, in the very first place, it will he neces-
sary for them to mark the fact that his Grace
has not in anywise altered his opinion on the
merits of the National Board system as
founded by Lord Derby. It is important to
have the archbishop's emphatic words on this
point :
-

It is nut unlikely that 1 shall be represented by some
persons u 1 each of the two most opposite parties as having
changed my mind respecting the system of the national
schools,—as no longer approving it, and as having there-
upon abandoned it. This is nut only untrue, but is the very
reverse of the truth. I nut only approve the system as
decidedly as ever, and am as ready as ever to carry it on,
lint it is precisely lowans*, 1 will *,roe be a party to its sub-
version that 1 have ceased to be a commissioner. but
there is nothing so notoriously false or absurd that may
not gain credence, it' maintained, .1 I common, by persons
the most adverse to each other.

The italics in the foregoing ext met are not our
own ; and, observing that "the system" is
thus approved by the archbishop, our next
step is to inquire what offensive and aggressive
tanovations have been made to compel the
archbishop—in his own words (p. 1$)—" as a
Wall of honour," to withdraw. The causa teter•