The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

JUNE.

Ascot (4) . .................. 7 i Macclesfield (2) 22
Hampton (2) .............. 15 1 Stockbridge (1) 23
Beverley, Hull, &c. (2)...15 Harrogate (2) 2$
Tenbury (1) ...............16 Knighton
24
Robert-Town (3) .........16 Winchester (1)
rribert on ............ 21 Newcastle (3) 24
Bibury (1) (2) •.
... .... 22 Ludlow (2) 28
La
30
.........

THE ATTEMPT AT MURDER NEAR COWLET-DRIDGE.---
The unfortunate Jew pedlar, who was so cruelly treated
near Cowley-bridge, is gradually recovering, under the
care of the surgeons of the Devon and Exeter Hospital.
His recollection, however, as to recent events is not yet
sufficiently improved to enable him to give any account
of the circumstances under which he was found. Three
parties have given different statements to the police, and
each is positive as to his own correctness, so that until
the man himself sufficiently recovers to give his own
testimony of the affair, the police are unable to take any
further steps.—Exeter Gazette.
A petition has been transmitted from the principal
inhabitants of Bombay to the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce, for presentation to the House of Commons,
against the inefficient manner in which the postal
service to that presidency is conducted by the Indian
navy.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH stated, in reply to Mr. W.
WlLLiams, that no plan or estimate of the cost of the
improvements had been laid before the house.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought that before the house
agreed to the second reading, the plan and estimate
should be in the possession of the house. The improve-
ments, the expenses of which were to come out of the
public revenue, were nothing more than a clearing of the
ground around Buckingham Palace. 100,0001. had al-
ready been expended on the works, and now sixty
more houses, to most of which shops were at-
tached, were still required. He should move that
-no fUrthaz procoutElzgli bo talc°. .13 LI., bill until the esti-
mate of the expense was laid before the house.
Sir W. MOLESWOR,TH explained that the object
of the bill was to make great improvements in Pimlico,
and that the expense was not, as the hon. gentleman
supposed, to be defrayed by the public, but out of the
land revenues of the Crown. The plan and estimate of
the proposed alterations would be laid before the com-
mittee, to whom the bill was to be referred.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said as the bill was to be sent to
a select committee, he would not press his amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was
read a second time.
BURY ST. EDMUNDS ELECTION.
Mr. WALPOLE attended at the bar and report-
ed that the committee on this petition had deter-
mined that James Henry Porteous Oakes, Esq., was
duly elected a member to serve in Parliament for the
borough of Bury St. Edmunds, at the last election.

PETITIONS.
Mr. WILCOX presented a petition from Southamp-
ton, in favour of the total closing of all public-houses
on Sunday.

Sir G.' STRICKLAND presented a petition from
Preston, to the same effect.

Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from a Benefit
Society, against the Registration of Assurances Bill.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from Hawich,
against the S otch University Tests.
Mr. ATHERTON presented a petition in favour of
the Registration of Assurances Bill.
Mr. ROLT presented a petition from a place in Kent,
praying for the equalisation of local rates.
Mr. K. SEYMER presented a petition against the
opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays.
Mr. KERSHAW presented petitions from Cheshire
and Yorkshire against the Government Education Bill.
Mr. MONCRIEFF presented petitions from the
Chamber of Commerce at Leith, in favour of the Bank-
ruptcy Bill, and against the amalgamation of the Scotch
and English Gazettes.

Mr. RADFIELD presented a petition from gentlemen
representing a number of building societies, against the
Registration of Assurances Bill.

Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from working
men at Manchester, in favour of the Combination of
Workmen's Bill.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition from the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland at Edinburgh, in
favour of the bill for recovering personal liberty in cer-
tain cases, and praying that it be extended to Scotland ;
also a petition from Mr. Peter Scott Fraser, bookseller
in Edinburgh, and agent in Scotland, for 20 years past,
to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland
for the sale of their school-books, complaining that
the new arrangements for the sale of these books are op-
posed to the interests and convenience of the public and
the bookselling trade, and most unjust to the petitioner
and to the other agents of the commissioners.
Mr. COBBETT presented a petition from medical
men at Oldham, praying for medical reform.
SLIGO ELECTION.

Mr. DIVETT brought up the report of this com-
mittee, already published in The Sun, unseating Mr.
Charles Towneley for Sligo. The last resolution of
the oommittee—that the influence exercised by the
Roman Catholic priests was inconsistent with their
duties as ministers of religion, and destructive of the
freedom of electors in the choice of members of Parlia-
ment—was received with general cheering in the house.

SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS.
In reply to Mr. HumE,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that the claims of the
Scotch schoolmasters to increased pay were now under
the consideration of the Government.
TURKEY AND RUSSIA.

Mr. LAYARD gave notice that on the 10th instant
he should call the attention of the house to the menacing
attitude which Russia had assumed towards Turkey.
MILITARY REWARDS.
Mr. RICH wished to ask the Secretary at War if he
contemplated extending to the army such beneficial pro-
visions for the encouragement of enlistment, and for the
formation of an efficient reserve, by a system of rewards,
and by a rising scale of pensions after ten years' good
service, as have by a recent order in Council been con-
ferred on the navy.
Mr. S. HERBERT said, at the present moment,
there was no cause for offering additional inducements
for enlistment into the army, while, with regard to the
establishment of a reserved force, it would not be expe-
dient to take such a step at present.
MILITIA COMMISSIONS.
Col. LINDSAY wished to ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department a question relative to the
abolition of the fees charged upon militia commissions.
He wished to know whether it was intended to abolish
these fees altogether, or to modify them if they were
continued ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he had recommended a
moderate scale of fees to the lord-lieutenants of counties.
In the case of commissions upon the rank of captain,
the fee would be 11. Is., and above that 2/. 2s.
Col. LINDSAY said, in Middlesex and Essex the fees
were considerably beyond that scale.
Lord PALMERSTON had no hesitation in stating
that those fees were grossly exorbitant, and if he were thee
lord-lieutenant of the county, he would not permit
them to be taken. (A laugh.)
Mr. T. M. GIBSON wished to ask the noble lord
another question on the subject of the militia. He had
been informed that it had become the practice in some

(counties to appoint clergymen to the office of Deputy-
Lieutenant, and he should be glad to know if, on public
occasions, such rev. gentlemen would be required to ?
appear in military uniform or in clerical costume .
(Cheers and laughter.)
Lord PALMERSTON bad heard of the Church mili-
tant, but he heard of no such case as that referred to by
the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
THE DISPUTE IN THE CABINET.
Mr. MOORE, seeing the noble lord the member for
the city of London in his place, wished to ask
him a question, of which, for want of time, he had
been unable to give the noble lord notice. The
question he wished to put had reference to a corres-
pondence which had appeared in some of the morning
papers of to-day. It would be remembered that, on the
31st of last month, the noble lord made a speech in the
house which excited some surprise at the time, and
which appeared to have excited some surprise in the
minds of some members in the cabinet. A correspon-
dence had taken place on the subject between Mr.
Monsell and Lord Aberdeen, but there was an import-
ant discrepancy in one of the letters published by the
Times and that printed by the Morning Chronicle. In
the former it was stated that the views of the noble lord on
the subject referred to were " not shared in by any of
his (Lord Aberdeen's) colleagues," but in the latter the
words were, " was not shared by many of my col-
leagues." Now he wished to ask the noble lord which
was the correct copy of of Lord Aberdeen's letter, that
which appeared in the Times, or that which was
given by the Horning Chronicle? and if it was
not the whole but only a majority of the Cabinet who
did dot share in the noble lord's views, would the noble
lord be good enough to state who the members of the
Government were that differed with him ? (Oh, oh, and
laughter.) He wished also to ask the noble lord whether

it was to be understood that only the votes giVen by the
noble lord had the sanction of the other members
of the Government, but that the views stated by him
might be repudiated by the whole in a majority of the
Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said, sir, with respect to the first
question which the honourable member has asked me,
I have to state that I have been informed by my
noble friend Lord Aberdeen that there an important
misprint in the letter which is given in the Times. The
misprint consists in stating that the views referred to
were not shared by any, whereas it should have
been that the views were not shared by many of
my noble friend's colleagues. (Hear, hear.) The
letter, therefore, given in the Morning Chronicle, is the
correct one. (Hear.) So much for the first question
which the hon. gentleman has asked me ; while, with
regard to the second namely, as to who are the
members of the Government who do not share my
opinion, I beg to state that I am wholly unable
to answer the honourable gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
I will only say further, in answer to the last question of
the hon. gentleman, that Lord Melbourne always used
to say that it was quite sufficient that the members of a
Government should agree to the course to be pursued,
without its being at all necessary that they should agree
to all the reasons assigned by each for the course to
be taken. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)