The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-04 00:00:00

ROUSE or LORDS.-(1111S DAY),
Their Lordships sat this morning to hear appeals,
The Peers present were the Lord enameller, Earl St.
Germans, and Lord Faversham.

DUKE OF ATHOLL V. TORRIE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the judgment of their
Lordships in this appeal, confirming the judgment of the
Court below dismissing the appeal with costs. This case
has reference to the right of way through Glen Tilt,
of which the public have heard so much, but the only
point: established by.;this judgment is to affirm a right
of action in the respondents against the Duke of Athol),
to establish their right of way through Glen Tilt.

EXCHEQUEIt.—(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CHIEF BARON intimated that to-morrow
morning the Court would give judgment in some cases
which had stood over for consideration.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
T after hearing some motions of course, ad-
o eleven o'clock, having only sat twenty
j
minutes.
Yesterday
their Lordihips also rose at an
o urni The
d C
hoeuf ot r
early hour, and from the same cause, viz., lick of
business.

_____.,......
SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Speordqry POTTER.)
KNIGHT AND ANOTH The plaintiffs are stereotypEß v. VIZETELLY.e
founders,
is a printer, in Crown-court, Fleet-stye
and defendant
E The
was brought to recover a small amount
on a biil ofaction ex-
change for goods sold and :delivered. The delivery of
the goods w:,9 not disputed, but a question was raised as
to whether the action ought to have bean brought in the
superior court, inasmuch as the goods ware ordered in
the city of London, and delivered within the Cits,
and so the debt might have been recovered in the
Small Debts Court.
bilTl,hae Planditiuwtiff's
as naotttershboeywnsatidhattEttibtatthweyaswaecnctepetnedtbine.
London.
thsueffioelji:llc!iotei
justifyTbe LaeavrebredaicSt
o. tests,
ieither party
merely applied to the question
EtCoOrNtDhAe RY
plaintiff,sairl bveri
as
sas
Learnedoforriothoeneploafintthiefffor the
jcouudigd,va,ptige'htaomtbheerce.ourt aborced,
A verdict was then enter
amount claimed.

BURFORD'S PANORAMA ROYAL, LEICESTI2:2-:!:QUARE.
of Wellington, accompanied by the
honoured. Burford's Panoramas
Mr.
veil with his prcs ,
zharg and IN me c.ice on. Wednesday
of
Sal
We are happy to fay that his Grace looked extremely
last.
appreciated the excellence of the paintings,
11 nd highly
• , himself visited the city of Salzburg, his Grace
—His
r c h i 0 n Gracees sot the en,lic)). t:
whilst, ail vir
much interested in the various beautiful objects with
was
which the v
and which appeared quite familiar
to his Grace.
iew abounds,

Monsieur Emile Prudent, the great pianist had the
distinguished honour and gratification of performing before
her o!.1 lu,sday evening, hod at t
the concert being requested to repeat his favourite piece, " Le 'j
Revel des Nes."

Sir H, WILLOUGHBY wished to know what the
probable expense of completing the new Houses would
be, and whether any further steps wore to be taken for
improving the ventilation of the House?
Mr. HAMILTON, in the absence of the Noble Lord
the First CoMmissioner of Works, was not prepared to
answer either question.
The report was brought up and agreed to.
Oa the inotion that the Speaker do leave the Chair
for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ANSTEY moved for copies of all correspondence
end papers on the subjcet of Colonel Outram's removal
from the office of Resident at the Court of the Guicowar,
or on the sutject of the alleged corruption of officers of
the Bombay Government with bribes from Baroda.
The SPEAKER said as the motion was unopposed it
must be moved as au opposed return later in the day.
The motion vies accordingly withdrawn, and the
House went into Committee.
On the motion that 17,911/ be voted for defraying the
expenses of Schools of Practical Art,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he highly approved of the
vote, and it was agreed to.
On the question that 2,0061. be voted for the Profes-
sors of Oxford and Camtridge,
Mr. ANS fEY opposed the motion because the two
Universities were nf a semarian character, and ought
not to be supported by the State. He was anxious fir
the tiro.o when religious discussion would not be tole-
rated in the House of Commons, and on that account he
was equally opposA to the Maynooth grant as he was
to the one under consideration.
Mr. WILLIA NIS said there had been reports of the
duties performed by these professors, an,d he was sorry
to find that not more than two or three pupils attended-
their lectures. Ho was also oppoSed to the vote. The
Universities were rich enough without coming to Par-
liament for votes of public money.
Sr R. H. INGLIS supported the vote, and reminded
the HOLli:(.1 that the grant was originally made by the
Crown out of its civil list, and it would be a breach of
faith to withdraw it now, more especially as the Crown
received ES consideration for the grow.
After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY,
Mr. CARTER said the universities had refused to
give any scmaitit of the large funds at their disposal,
and they had therefore no right to this grant. There
:vas a distincdon to be drawn between this grant and
that voted for the London University, because the London
University was anythingarian, while the two Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge were sectarian.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the vote ..,
..„ 78
ligahnit it _

Mejoeity
.70
The vote was then agreed to,
the University of London,
as was also 3,9671. for
Oa the vote of 7,050/. for the Universities of Scotland,
Mr. ANSTEY objected to the vote on the ground
that two-thirds of the people of Scotland, the greater
portion of whom belonged to the Free Church, were
prohibited entering these coliegee, which were falsely
called national educatiouel establishments. He moved
that the veto be expunged, and said he should take the
sense of the House upon it.
Mr. HAMILTON thought it would not be con-
sistent with justice to interfere with a vote of this nature.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS considered that the universities.
of Scotland stood in exactly the same position as the
University of London. They had been productive of
vast benefit to Scotland as well as to the United King-
dam, but he objected to the item in the vote for the pre-
feeeere of divinity.
Mr. A. HAS LIE also objected to the same item.
Mr. COWAN said a stroeg case had been made out
for the fxerciee of more libornlity and justice to the
universitiee in iho northern ports of the kingdom.
Lord DUNCAN observer), in reply to the aceesation,
thet the Uteiversides of Oxford and Cambridge were
sectarian Le character, that he had himself seen a Dis-
senter attending lectures at the latter institution.
Mr. ANS lEY intimated be would withdraw his
amendment, and propese• that the vote be reduced by
6551., the sum awarded to professors of divinity.
Str G. CLERK defended the vote. He thought, if
an exception wus to be made in favour of any class of
professors, it should be with regard to those who were
immediately connected with eccksiastical studies, be-
cauce a large amount of ecclesiastical property was
handed over to the country by the Scotch universities
on the condition that these votes were to be granted
annually—(gear,) These universities had no money of
their own, and it would be a gross breach of
faith to withdraw the support which they had hitherto
received from Parliament.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON should vote in favour of
the amendment.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the reduction •.• ••• • • 16
Against it 86
Majority ... —7O
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 3,0001 for the salaries of theological
professors at the Belfast College,
Sr. ANSTEY said he had the same objection to this
grant, for he was opposed to endowing divinity in any
form out of the public money. He was determined to
take the sense of the Committee, whatever might be the
explanation of the Government. He moved that the
vote be reduced by the sum of 2,3001.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the reduction ... 13
Against it ... 90
Majority •,. —77
The vote was agreed to, as well as one of 21,360
for the buildings connected with the British Museum
rLEFT SITTING.]