The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-11 00:00:00

intended ; but it was also to be shown that Minis-
ters did not mean to sanction any measure of -Parlia-
mentary reform so long as they continued in office,
and, also, that they would favour the agricultural in-
terest by transferring to rural electors the franchises
of which borough electors had been mos t pro-
perly deprived. Whether there was any real desire
of carrying the proposition, or whether it was merely
desired to exhibit a demonstration of their visit's and
feelings on the above points, is not very clear. It is
certain that the project was not received with any'
great enthusiasm by the Ministerial prrty—that
many were absent whose support might reasonably
have been anticipated on a question of greater interest
to the agriculturists. The West Riding and
South Lancashire were too closely connected with
manufacturing operations to render any addition to
their political influence very grateful to the advocates
of a bread-tax.

The chief objections to the Ministerial Bill
were-Ist, that it was ill-timed, that it should be
adjourned until the feeling of the country had
been ascertained, and it should be known whether
Ministers could contrive to retain their positions even
by sufferance ; and, 2dly, because it could only be
regarded as ignoring other powerful claims with-
out due investigation. Many persons felt that
before any constituencies, however numerous
and influential, should be subdivided, the
privilege of sending Members to Parliament should
be bestowed on important districts now wholly un-
represented or merged in rural constituencies.
Others recognised the powerful claims of the new
universities, English, Irish, and Scotch; while an-
other section believed the inns of court to have even
a stronger case than any other learned body whatso-
ever. These conflicting demands could not be pro-
perly determined in the short space that still remains
for legislation. An adjudication in favour of the
counties selected by the CHANCELLOR of the Excus-
QUER would be fatal to the hopes of all the other parties.
The friends of large unrepresented towns, of the new
universities, of the inns of court, would therefore
most strenuously oppose it, while even the Pro-
tectionists, could not receive with great cordiality a
measure which would insure free-trade repre-
sentatives for two of the most important counties,
viz., the south division of the West Riding, and
the eastern or Salford division of South
Lancashire, although they might gain friends of
their own for the remaining districts.
The result, then, was the decisive defeat of last
night—a defeat which may remove the film
from the Ministerial sight, and show them that
the majorities which they have hitherto obtained on
other matters were not owing to any change of feel-
ing on the part of the popular representatives. Their
exultation may, in some degree, be damped by this
unpleasing conviction; they will see the ne-
cessity of setting their houses in order, and no
longer endeavouring to procrastinate the im-
pending dissolution. They have, in some degree,
damaged themselves by the proposition of last night,
let them endeavour to neutralise the mischief by fairly
and bona €de responding to the wishes of the people,
and expediting the period when the existing
armistice may terminate, and vigorous and
energetic action be substituted for the convenient
but not very honourable state of inertion which, to a
certain extent, is now compulsory on men of all shades
end varieties of political feeling.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
:Sittings in Error from the Common Pleag, before Mr.
Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Justice WIORTMAN, Mr. Jus-
tice COLERIDGE, Mr. Justice ERLE, Mr. Baron PLATT,
and Mr. Justice Cnommozs.)

ROBINSON AND OTHERS V. THE MARQUIS OF BRISTOL

Mr. Baron ALDERSON delivered judgment in this case,
which had reference to the right of presentation to a
living in the Church. The Court considered that by the
union of the two churches no change was made in the
advowson, and that the owners of the former advowsons
had the right of presentation in turns to the now one.
They thought the plaintiff had proved the issue on
which the question turned, and that the Court of Corn-
mon Pleas were wrong in deciding that they had not
done so. The judgment of that Court would therefore
be reversed.—Judgment reversed accordingly.

SHERIFFS' COURT -(THIS DAY

(Before B. GURNEY, Esq.)

THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.-BENNETT V. ROTHSCHILD.

In this case the plaintiff, who had several other cases
in the hat, appeared to prove the delivery of the goods
to the respective defendants, but on the oath being ten-
dered to him, he declined taking it on the ground that
he was a Dissenter.

HIS HONOUR asked what rcasons the plaintiff could
urge for his refusal?—Plaintiff said he believed that it
was the law, that persons who cocacientiously refused
to take an oath might be allowed to make a chclaration.
His HONOUR said he was not aware of any Act of
Parliament which exempted any other than Quakers,
MoravianP, and Separatists from taking the oath.
The plaintiff said that ho was a Dissenter, and if
his declaration could not b 3 taken he would not take
an oath.