The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

EXECUTION AT DURHAM. —Jacob Frederick
Ehlert, convicted of the murder of Captain Berkholt, was
executed at Durham on Friday morning. Great interest
was especially felt to ascertain the state of mind which
the wretched prisoner had evinced since his condemnation.
In the first place, he has made no further admission of his
guilt, and has steadily, uni'orroly, and solemnly declared
that he did not strike the blows which caused the death of
the unfortunate Captain Berkholt. He says that the boy
Mueller struck the fatal blows. Every part of his previous
statement remains uncontradicted by anything he has done
and said since his condemnation, and his spiritual guides
are partly inclined to believe that in this particular he has
spoken the truth. His conduct has been peculiarly dis-
tinguished by great propriety, and a thorough sense of the
awful situation in which he was placed, and the untimely
fate which so speedily awaited him. The pericd for the
execution was fixed for eight o'clock. A few minutes be-
fore this time the executioner made his appearance in the
Grand Jury room, from the windows of which the pri-
soner had to walk to the fatal drop. The executioner, we
learnt, was from Glasgow. As soon as the clock struck
eight the solemn death-knell was heard from the chapel-bell,
and in a minute or two the solemn procession was seen
winding its way from the cell up the staircase. The
procession entered the grand jury room headed by the
Venerable Chaplain, behind whom the prisoner walked
with a firm step to the window facing the scaffold, sup-
porting himself on the arm of the Rev. Mr. Salvin on
one side, and on the other that of a young man who
had been appointed to attend him in his cell. His ap.
pearance was wonderfully calm, and free from the least
fear. He took a glance at the suspended cord, and
gently shook his head, but not a nerve appeared to move
or a tear to wet his eye. The last offices were few,
short, and sad. The executioner advanced and pinioned
his arms, a cap was drawn over his face, and by the
executioner and one of the officers he was led on to the
platform ; the rope was quickly adjusted round his neck,
and in a moment after the drop fell. He struggled for
about seven minutes. As soon as life was extinct the
dense crowd began to disperse. The body remained sus-
pended for one hour, and was then taken down and
i conveyed into the prison, in the precincts of which it
was silently buried in the course of the evening.
THE BLOOMSBURY CA SE.—T his interesting
env, which has excited so much interest in the sporting
world, is hurl for Thursday next, before a special jury.
\ The leading counsel will be Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr.
Alexander, and Mr. Cresweli,—Lieerpool Chronicle.

~-•:d: .

110 USE OF LORDS.—Aua. 19.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool
sack at Five o'Clock.
ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
The Bishop of LONDON moved that an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Ma-
jesty would be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be
made with reference to two statements in the Report of
the Poor Law Commissioners as to the disease and des-
titution that prevailed among the labouring classes in
certain districts of the Metropolis : how far the same
prevailed in other populous parts of England and Wales,
and what measures would be necessary for the removal
Y
of those evils.
The address was agreed to.
Earl STAN HOPE presented a petition from a gen-
tleman of the name of 11Iaberly in the County of Cam-
bridge, praying that half the Poor-law Guardians
might be ordered to be elected by the labouring
classes. Also, a petition from the same gentleman,
praying that the number of the Members of the House
of Commons might be increased by one-fourth, and that
that additional fourth might be elected by the labour-
ing classes. The Noble Earl likewise presented a petition
against the climbing-boy system by chimney-sweepers.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti-
tion, signed by (as we understood) about 10,000 of the
inhabitants of Manchester, against the Manchester Pe-
lice Bill, now on their Lordships' table. The petitioners
stated that the town of Manchester was already in, pos-
session of a police force, with means amply adequate to
preserve the peace there ; that the expense of that force
was defrayed out of rates levied for the purpose upon
the inhabitants ; and that if the contemplated measure
were to be passed, those rates would have to be
considerably augmented. Under such circumstances
the petitioners entreated their Lordships not to pass
the Bill ; at all events, to allow them to be heard by
their counsel, agents, and witnesses, against its passing.
As the Bill would probably come under discussion in
the course of this evening the Noble Duke preferred
to delay any observations he had to make on this peti-
tion till that discussion came on.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
inhabitants and rate-payers of Bolton to a similar effect,
in reference to the Bolton Police Bill. The
Noble and Learned Lord thought that when the
merits of this Bill came to be discussed the objec-
tion would apply still more strongly to it than it
would to the Manchester Bill.
Lord BROUG HAM presented a petition from the
market gardeners and salesmen of Covent-garden Market
complaining of the circuitous approaches to that market,
and in favour of the Metropolitan Improvement Bill.
AUCHTERARDER CASE.

Lord BROUG HAM wished to ask his Noble Friend
a question to which he supposed only one answer could
be given. It was, however, relating to a subject of con-
siderable importance. It would be in the recollection
of their Lordships that a case had been recently before
them ; in which a question had arisen with regard to the
Church of Scotland, namely, whether when a lay patron
presented to a living, the people of the parish had a
right of veto to the presentation. The Court of
Session had decided that the people had no such right
and the case had come on before their Lo.dships as an
appeal from that decision. His Noble and Learned
Friend on the Woolsack and himself, without any con-
sultation together, in fact, without any communication
whatever between them, had come to a decision affirm-
ing the decision of the Court below, that the Patron
possessed the sole right of presentation, and that the
Presbytery was bound to admit the person so presented
to his trials, and that the people had no right to have a
negative on such presentation. In fact he had never seen
a clearer case ; the case seemed to be all one way, and
they had affirmed the decision of the Court of Session,
that the person presented should be admitted to his trials.
Since that a meeting of the,Gencral Assembly had been
held, the Lord Commissioner was present nn behalf of
the Crown, but it should be recollected that the Crown
was not considered as bead of the Church of Scotland
—the Lord High Commissioner was merely present,
but had no authority whatever ; he was merely informed
that the Assembly had adjourned in order that he might
know when to meet them again. At this Assembly a
resolution had passed, which, although in terms it pro-
fessed to obey the resolutions of the House, really placed
obstructions in the way of its authority. He wished to
call the attention of his Noble Friend to this fact—that
an intimation had been conveyed to the Assembly that the
Lord Advocate would introduce a measure into Parlia-
ment which would have the effect of settling the question,
and into which measure a clause would be introduced
giving to the people the power of exercising this claim ;
and that, in the meantime the Crown patronage should
not be exercised without consulting the people. It seemed
that with this intimation the Assembly was satisfied.
The Assembly had ordered the letter of the Lord
Commissioner to be recorded on their minutes, and had
determined to refuse Mr. Young admission to his church.
He wished to ask his Noble Friend whether it was true
that these representations had been made to the As-
sembly.
Lord MELBOURNE said as to what had
passed between the Government and the As-
sembly, there was not any intention to cast an impu-
tation, or the decision of the Court of Session, affirmed
as it had been by that House, to be the law, and
therefore entitled to respect and obedience.—(Hear,
hear.) All that had been done was to direct the Lord
Advocate to confer with the Procurator General of the
Church, to see whether the matter could not
be settled, not with the intention of framing
a Bill immediately, but of admitting that the
subject ought to be soon and carefully considered.
As to the Crown patronage everything that was stated
was that it would be administered, as it had hitherto
been, in conformity with the provisions of the Veto
Act" of 1834.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said nothing could be
worse than the way in which the Crown patronage
was administered in Scotland. The people being :1-
lowed to choose, there was a kind of " preaching match"
between rival parons, who were judged of according
to the sermons which they preached on probation:—
(lean) And in one case it was found that a preacher
who had been elected, had delivered the sermon
for which he was chosen from one which had been
preached by an eminent clergyman of the metropolis.—
(A laugh.)
Lord BROUGHAM said it was satisfactory to hear
from his Noble Friend that there had been great mis-
apprehension on the part of the Lord Commissioner.
If the Government had intimated any discontent with
the decision of that House, it would have been most
unhappy for the peace of the Church which solely de-
pended on strict obedience to the law.
POOR-LAW CONTINUANCE BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON this Bill
was read a third timeand passed, a provision baying been
introduced on the suggestion of Lord Lyndhurst, making
Assistant Commissioners removable by competent au-
thority, as by an omission in the Bill, they would other-
wise have been irremovable.
POOR-RATES COLLECTION BILL.
Lord DUNCANNON moved the third reading of
this Bill.
Lord LYNDHURST thought it unfair that the
Churchwardens should be responsible for the neglect
of Collectors whom they did not appoint.—(Hear.)
He hoped the Bill would be postponed till to-morrow.
Lord DUNCANNON believed the Noble and
Learned wanted to put in some words.
ord LYNDHURST wanted to leave the law as it
was. (Laughter.) Why should such material altera-
tions in the law be m effected the close of the S
Heession, as
were sought to be by . (Lord
Lyndhurst) knew very well the secret history of the
O replied that, although it
Bill, by whom it was suggested, and by whom supported.
It was meant to apply to the case of Lambeth alone,
e some alteration in the law to
and had been agreed to oiNnthaeta;ts.
misrepresentation, and a
gross
to
nrmtdehicseer
specspaaursreeyNs eo
cntf
ot
Lambeth,
tamNi omanNbketb, yet there were other cases, o
the Bill was intended to apply to—such as Poole and
Kensington ; and unless Would Bill, or a Bill similar
to it were passed, there be no possibility of keep-
ing the poor during the ensuing year. But if the Noble
yhoeu please. I want the
postponed till to-morrow.
L
ER POLICE BILL.
andßl
otiri
di Learnedt
oL_
my oNr Lordrpos
vi
second clause omitted from the Bill, which makes an
•
alteration in the existing law.
wisheds r _
f,
The Bi\iillAwNasc tHheEnsT
Lord DUNCANNON then moved the second read-
ing of the Manchester Police Bill, and stated that in
some respects the case of Manchester was the same as
that of Birmingham, namely, a charter had been granted
to the Corporation, the validity of that charter was
questioned, and until the question was tried npon the
validity of the charter, the Corporation had no power