The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-29 00:00:00

40
Majority
—4l
IRISH TITHE BILL.
Cn the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the Lords' amendments to the Irish Tithe
13ill were ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday
next.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Mr. V. SMITH moved the Order of the Day for the
further consideration of the report on the Charitable Trusts

Colonel SIBTHORP would move that the report be
taken into further consideration that day threw maths.
The House divided—
For the original motion ... Bl
For the amendment 36
Majority 45
On the return of strangers to the gallery,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was proposing a new
clause, to be added to the Bill. The clause was not heard
in the gallery.
Mr. CHARLTON wished to know what the effect of
t his Bill, as now proposed to be amendel, would be in
eases in which, after-provision having been made for the
original bequest, there still remained a considerable sur-
plus ? He knew a place in which this would be the case.
He wished to know whether the trustees would be at liberty
to apply the surplus to town purposes ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Bill made no
change in the existing law as to the application of such trust j
funds.

Mr. CHARLTON was proceeding to make some ob-
servations on the Bill, when he was interrupted by cries of
" Order," and " Spoke, spoke." He contended that he
made no speech. He merely asked a question, and, as a
(CMember of that House, he claimed a right to be heard.—
ries of " Order," and " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member had made a
speech, and, in strict order, had no right to be heard again.
--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHARLTON only asked a question, which he in-
tended to have followed 'up with, some observations.—
(Lud cries of Order, order," and " Chair.") The Hon.
Member persisted in maintaining his right to be heard,
when an Hon. Member, as we understood, cried out, " it is
disgraceful."
The House was now in a state of much confusion.
Mr. CHARLTON—If the Hon. Member for Chester
interrupts me by such cries, by saying I have done anything
disgraceful in maintaining my right, I will make him re-
member it.—(Cries of " Order," and great confusion.)
An HON. MEMBER denied that the words imputed to
the Member for Chester were uttered by him.
Mr. CHARLTON—If the Member for Chester has
not used the words I beg his pardon for any offensive ex-
pression I may have used towards him, and I readily re-
tract it —( Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER—If the lion. Member made use of
language inconsistent with order he had no doubt that he
Would readily and willingly retract it.
Mr. CHARLTON—I have done so in the most hand-
is some and ready way ; but, if I have a right to be heard, it
not one, or ten, or twenty of the Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site that shall put me down.—(Cries of " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said that, in strict right, the Hon.
Member, having made a speech, had no right to be heard a
second time.
Mr. CHARLTON proceeded. There was a property
to the amount of between 1001. and 2001. left in the time
of Edward VI., for the maintenance of a school and the
payment of a stipend to a clergyman in the town he had the
honour of representing. That property had since increased
in value to the amount of 1,4001. or 1,5004 The school
increased, the minister received his stipend, but there was
still a surplus of 700/. Now this surplus, from the want of
sufficient clearness in the language of the charter, was de-
voted by the Corporation to town improvements. The mo-
ment, however, it was understood that the charter did not
admit of such application of the surplus, it ceased to be so
applied. Now, he wished to know how this surplus of
700/. was to be applied under the present Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Hon. Mem-
ber was most perspicuous in his statement of the case.—
(A laugh.) If it should appear from the charter that any
,Bur Plus arising was to be applied to the increase of alms-
-"(4lses,, the enlargement of the school, or to the stipend of
t,fte clergyman, it would be so applied ; and if the Corpora-
tTn had right, under the charter, to dispose of the sur-
tiPius for no
town purposes, this Bill would not confer such a
ght on them- In these respects it made no change in the

1,114'.. YOUNG said the answer of the Attorney-Gene-
-111,n1ht be perspicuous, but it was not satisfactory.
to hao,rd,ROWICK said the Hon. Member did not appear
ev,ked attentively into the Bill.
Lord DUNG read the Bill with the greatest attention.
a 4, .10VVICK said, the Hon. Member might have
re the attentively ; but he did not appear to have
the amended clauses.
Air' YOUNG confessed he had not.
IsThe clause was agreed to.
*.41.• T. GLADSTONE then moved the insertion of a
"so to the effect that where there may have been special
bequests to the uses of the Established Church such pro-
perty shall not be at the disposal of trustees not of the
stablished Church.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
'Be clause. It sought to cast a reproach on the body of Cor-
Porators on the score of a difference of religious faith, con-
ttrary to those principles of toleration which were the
~und ation of our religious system. He did not see why
thee
new Corporations should be more mistrusted than
old.

rstSir:lt. INGLIS said that the proposal to alter did nogfi come from his side of the House. All that they
Wished was, as this Bill proposed to make a decided al-
teration in the system, to secure the distribution of charita-
ble
funds,, according to the wishes of the testators.
'r. A. TREVOR was sure that every Member of the
Established Church must be obliged to his Hon . Friend
for brioging forward this clause.
thMr. V. SMITH objected to the clause proposed by
aee Ron. Member for Leicester. The more specific the
quest the less danger would exist to the Church. It was
mistake to suppose that this Bill would take such trusts
out of the juris.dietion of the Courts of Equity.
Mr. HALFORD said that if there was one principle
More than another by which they should abide,it was that of
ke •
?ping trusts to the specific objects for which they were
nr'gi,nally intended. He, therefore, hoed the House
Would agree to these clauses. p
4. Mr. POTTER said lie could not allow the observe-
Ll°us of the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leicester,
to
Pass unnoticed. The on. Ga said he
would object to trust to theH Socinian tender mehrcid es of the
inial,'" of Leicester, and not allow him to have any share
th_tfie management of the Charity he had brought under
notice of the House. The Hon. Member must be
aware that the term Socinian was used as one of reproach to
e Unitarians. lie (Mr. Potter) belonged to iat sect,
and this
fle s was not the first time its members hadth been re-
,ec eted Upon and reviled in that House—lie had on former
iarsjeus, as lie would on this, protest against such conduct.
laatHear.) Few religious societies were so much misrepre-
,i!ed, and if this were the proper place for discussion,
;tiewas ready to defend their principles, and to prove that
religious opinions of the Unitarians were founded in
the and in accordance with Scripture.
Ile had long had
24 lie pleasure of knowing the present Mayor of Leicester,
n
e man, whether in his public or private capacity, was
u°re respected in that town. He had the strictest reliance
!ru4 his integrity, and felt convinced that if any charitable
sts
came micier his management, he would execute them
to accordance with the will of donor, and as faithfully as
the most zealous Churchman. The Bon. Gentleman the
ember for Northampton, had so completely answered the
arguments of trouble the the Hon. Member, that he would not further
House.
13 After some further observations from Mr. Hardy, Dr.
liv9wringy Mr. Baines, Mr. Handley, Mr. Goulburn, and
. P. Gladstone,
The House divided, when the numbers were
For the clause
35 Against it
, . 82
Majority ' 47
b7Mr. SOLICITOR-GENER AL, in the absence of
* T. D'Evneourt, moved that the school of Louth be
"At within the provision of the Bill.
Li Colonel SIBTHO RP opposed the motion, on the ground
'flat the charter of the school was antecedent to the creation
of the corporation.
Mr, GOULBURN followed in the same strain.
Lord J. RUSSELL supported the clause.
_. After a long and inaudible conversation, the House di-
For the c1au5e................ ... 65
Against it .......... 7 .........
33
Majority ......
, Another division tl.en took place, that the Report be
oro
ught Up that day six months, when there appeared—
AFor the motion
gainst it ......
Maj,,rity
air. TR . .
0 n another amendment 0:1 the Aird clause,
messes, EVOR proposed that, foil4.wYing the word bur-
The House sjmuld be the words " and fr `men
e."
Nes ................... ... ................... : ..... 2,
i.. 1
....................... , ...... J.)
Alajority against the amendment „, —34
coiwakftteinar some further conversation the Bill was read a se-

G eece, to insist on taking 6ifferent course. He would, ALEHOUSES AND VICTUALLING HOUSES
Lord PALMERSTON against the ant ndmenf. BILL.
replied. The Rerort on this Bill was bt up.
After a few words from Mr. G. PRICE, the Gallery On the quesfon that it be read a second time,
Was cleared for a division, when the numbers were— Colonel SIBTHORP moved
that the House do now
kFor the resolution
a.mt it ......

•
" 4 ! And, like Marceau, his fate was lanmmeeennkteeopd,et,rahninid
wheisptm;-
-110110Ufga by friends And foes, because, like him,
eThis B°7le!Qtr''llletia Chita
of M.
.11.1inister of France. No
• 0 to Court prefer-
athileonafor
iserns;w
fotorthitoB
ne He preferred the hostility of a cor-
rupt fortune. ieMndei.itiitn,Tgilfitille:reescN'ould exchange his principles for power and
doubTt The
eo
wthheitelnaetstseroit he path was _
nfaavllatiorc.casTioililse
to maintain the freedom of the Press against its most im-
rntoipbtleasnpdirittyr,avintiiiiic,avlbiGebovbeensitmoeoicitt
placable enemy, who will never forgive the service which
that great engine of opinion did him, in raising him to
throne,areflects imperishable honour upon the memory
, whose genius and intelligence that Press
was raised in the estimation of the intellectual world.
,f the
tllan
Opposed as we are to the political opinions which M.
Carrel advocated, we but perform a mournful duty in
repaying a portion of the debt of gratitude which the
free Press of every country owes to the exertions of its
fearless and incorruptible champion, Who can won-
der that the leaders of opposite parties followed, with
unaffected sorrow the bier of such a man, and that
Chateaubriand and Beranger mingled their tears upon
his urn ! But we cannot glance at the last sad cere-
monial without experiencing another regret than what
departedaris
upon
actuarrercir
was a
vseayeltolsiactriVern:
Republican upon the Roman model We must qualify
e s frolini
tsueee.i seeing
Wheng‘z
that praise by observing that piety was a distinguishing
characteristic of the Roman patriot. The forum of
public debate, and even the field of martial glory, were
less sacred in his eyes than the temples of the gods.
In error he worshipped ; but he worshipped with sin-
cerity. The light which unassisted nature gave him
he followed, for want of a better ; and an humble de-
pendence upon, and a profound veneration for, an
overruling Providence, was inseparably associated
with the valour and the energies which gave Rome
the dominion of the world. But, modern France !
what shall we say of it, when we find that, to be
thought enlightened, it is necessary to cast off all re-
gard for religion ; and, to be supposed free, one must
become emancipated from the influence of Christianity.
We would fain believe that what the injudicious friends
of M. Carrel called his " dying injunction," was but
the expression of that delirium which clouded his in-
tellect for some time before it had fled for ever. We
would fain believe and hope that the words " no priest
—no Church," were the emanation of that disorder
of the mind, whose bewildered fancies he himself, in a
lucid moment, spoke of as the cegri somnia. A tri-
umph over Christianity would be a lamentable triumph
for " young France." To dispose of the remains of
man, as of those of the " beast that perisheth," will not
raise -either the intellectual or moral character of a
civilised country. Nor will life have more enjoyment,
because religion is forbidden to suspend the lamp of
immortality amid the gloom of the grave !—.ll/Ornang
Herald.
It be seen by our Pailiamcntary report, that the
Irish Church Bill as amended in Committee, was read
a third time and passed in the House of Lords last
night, without debating or dividing. Little, if any
thing, it must be confessed, remained to be said on the
ib,
subject ; and we are not at all surprised that the Minis-
terial party should have carefully awarded an exposi-
tion of the weakness of their whole number, by a divi-
sion on a stage of the measure at which they must
have availed themselves of the votes of their absent
supporters, as well as of those generally present—the
rani nantes. It remains now to be seen what course
the House of Commons will pursue with regard to the
measure. In the mean time, we congratulate all real
friends of the country and of the Constitution on the
triumphant return of a Conservative for Newcastle. We
announced this gratifying circumstance in part of our
impression yesterday ; and in repeating it today we
are enabled to present our readers with the excellent
speech delivered by Mr. Hodgson, the successful can-
didate, on his nomination. It is a clear, comprehen-
sive, and candid representation of the actual state of
political parties, and of the nature of the principal
questions on which they are at this moment divided.
The reception this address met with from the consti-
tuency of Newcastle would of itself afford a striking
proof that the degraded condition of the Government
is at length accurately understood, and that the dis-
graceful courses which have reduced the "pure old
Whigs" to the necessity of fawning upon a revolu-
tionary and anti-national faction are properly appre-
ciated by the people. But the result of the elec-
tion, and the specific grounds upon which the two
candidates rested their claims to support, remove all
possibility of cavil on the subject, and must, we think,
convince even Lord Melbourne that he was labouring
under a delusion when he flatteied himself, so lately
as Monday last, that the country will support him
and ..his colleagues in the spoliation of the Irish
Church. The Whi:g•-Radicals and the Radicals proper
of Newcastle coalesced for the purpose of supporting a
Captain Blackett, on the condition that the Captain
would pledge himself to vote for the Ministerial scheme
for spoliating the Irish Church. The Captain being,
like ,Mr. Gisborne's friend in the other Beggars'
Opera, " a bold man," took the pledge. On the
other hand, the Conservatives invited Mr. Hodgson
to oppose the Captain, calling upon Mr. Hodgson to
pledge himself to resist that Hoekley-in-the-Hole
scheme which the Captain was enlisted to support.
Mr. Hodgson readily gave the pledge, and, withonly
one clear day's canvass, entered upon the race against
the Captain, though the latter had the advantage of a
very long start. Thus, then, the' constituency of
Newcastle were divided—like an assembly that aliall
be nameless—into anti-Papists and antiaProtestants ;
the watchwords of the respective parties hieing , more-
over, the same—namely cc appropriation," and " 710-
appropriation," The anti-Papists—the no-9propria-
tionists, beat their antagonists, th© anti-Protestant
appropriators, by a majority of 48, the numbers being
1,576 to 1,528 Now, was this a fair test of public
opinion on this subject, or was it not ? If not, we
should be glad to hear why not ; and if it was, what
can be more plain than that if certain members of the
assembly to which we have alluded persist in the votes
they have recently given, they will assuredly be re.
lieved from the functions at present imposed upon them
as soon as the constituent body shall 1.4 e affbrded the
opportunity of disburdening them thereof. There are
other points connected with this election, which the
:Misters and their supporters would do well to
reflect upon. Mr. Hodgson, at his nomination, de-
clared—before a single vote was recorded in his fa-
vour—that, had he been in the House of CommoeL,
he would have voted for the extinction of 02,, Irish
Corporations, and not for the Minist'Lr.ial Municipal
Bill. "lam of opinion," said Mr. Hodgson, " that
the state of Ireland is not Nil-alit' to the state of Eng-
land, and that, consequently, a measure similar to those
puked for England and Scotland would not work with
safety or efficiency in Ireland," Tl
sense i
us was speaking
out with equal frankness
amid good ,sense n condemna-
tion of the other t greaboon"for Ireland, which the
Ministers pretend to persuade themselves the English
people are prepared to seal with their approbation.
And yet Mr. Hodgson
was returned by the consti-
tuency'of Newcastle, among whom, at the last elec-
tion, he could obtain only 807 votes, while, on the
present occasion, he polled, 1,576 plumpers, in oppo-
sition to a Government candidate, backed by the sup-
port of the Radicals ; and hi spit© of the preaching of
the Big Beggarman, who, when upon his Ministerial
mission of mischief
last year, was feasted at Newcastle,
and, teproaehing the people of that town with having returned Sir M. W. Ridley, urged them to get rid of
hitn, and send another Member like Mr. Ord ! Times.

JOURiNz-

PRERO

IllOt) •

GATIVE COURT.

TORRE AND OTHERS v. CASTLE AND OTHERS.
The deceased in this case is the late Earl of Scarborough.
who died on the 24th of February, 1835, in consequence
of a fall from his horse. The circumstances of the case
have been before the public' on more than one occasion.
Sir H. JENNER gave judgment. family and testamentary Having detailed the
as history of the deceased, t h e Leane
Judge said that this ce almost solely depended upon 'thed character to be attributed to the paper propounded. If it
were to ho considered as a mere initiatory paper it would
require the strongest and most stringent evidence to sup-
port it. But he was inclined to look upon this as an in-
strument of a more finished character; the deceased had
himself at its conclusion described it as more than a mere
initiatory document. He had described it--..‘ This is my
last will and testament," and signed it " This
How could the Court. reject that description of the paper is
How could it be called upon to pronounce that as mere
heads of instructions which was called by the testator his
will ? The Court had no hesitation in deelarino. its con
viction that the deceased intended the paper, to have effect
after his death, provided no snob formal paper should be
executed, and that being its opiniP'd it must pronouneo 11,-:
the validity of th© will, and
fill" v,ali" te the vi'l.). of the deceased. He sl7,ould also
decree probate of it as h fur.
•-ifrOet Lie cost:s of
all

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.. ---C4MBRIDGE, JULY 26.
WAGSTAFF V. BRUERE AND OTHERS.
This was the first of two actions brought by the present
plaintiffs, Mary Ann Wagstaff and her sister, Elizabeth
Godfrey Wagstaff, against Mr. Bruere Leadbitter, the
London officer, and Fairs, one of the police of this borough,
to recover damages for certain trespasses and assaults ; but
in fact the question raised between the parties was whether
a certain female child was the offspring of a marriage be-
tween the principal defendant and Harriet, the sister of the
plaintiffs, or the illegitimate child of the said Elizabeth
Godfrey Wagstaff.
Mr. KxLLY stated the case.
Elizabeth Godfrey Wagstaff--I live at Chesterton, near
Cambridge. My father has been dead some years. e
was an upholsterer in Cambridge, and my brother CharlHes
carried on his business after his death. I have two bro-
thers and four sisters, of which latter I am the eldest. The
defendant Bruere, who was at Jesus College, married my sis-
ter on the 6th of May, 1826. I went to town with her, and
they ran away from town to Gretna Green shortly after. In
October Mr. and Mrs. Bruere came to Cambridge, and their
first child was born on the 30th of May, 1827. That was a
girl ; since then they have had a boy and another girl, Before
their first child was born, I had become acquainted with
a gentleman named Smith, of Trinity College, :lad the re-
sult of my acquaintance with him was a female child, born
January 6, 1827. I told my sister Mary Anne (the pre-
sent plaintiff), Mrs. Bruere, and Mrs. Smith. My brothers
treated me very ill in consequence of my pregnancy, with
which they were well acquainted, and at their request Mr.
Farish, a surgeon, examined me. At that time I had an
aunt, Mrs. Wagstaff, living in Sidney-street, and when the
child was about to be born I went with Mary A her
house to be delivered, and Mr. Farish attended menn.e to
I left
Mr. Bruere's house, where I was living at the time, about
one or two o'clock in the day. The child was born about
five, and I returned in the evening in a coach with Mary
Anne and Mr. Farish, I was then put to bed, and re-
mained there about a week. I left my child under the
care of my aunt, and did not see it for nearly two months,
when I saw it at my aunt's, where it was brought for me
saw a
to see by one Mrs. Morley. I it fter that from time
to time, and though it was not in my aunt's house. I consi-
dered it was under her care. I was in Cann},dridge when
my sister's child was born in May. in. October Bruere
came to Cambridge, and was not on
•,..iendly terms with his
wife. He was then living in CoP,ege. Mrs. Bruere lived
with her brothers and two Ynnger sisters. Bruere did not
come to see his wife diree`:ly after his return. I remember his
coming one evenieg jn Feb.,1828, in disguise. He asked to see
me, and Was shown into the drawing-room, where I saw
him W hmy sister Mary Anne. He asked whether I bad
not a child, and what its sex was ? I told him, " Yes," in
confidence. He said, " I could make him happy VI would
acquiesce in what he 'Wished." I asked him " What he
meant ?" He said, " His child, Harriet, was provided for
by a certain great man, and, in consequence, she required a
superior education, which my sister could not give her, and
he hoped I would agree to an exchange of children." I
said I would comply with his request if lie would consent to
be friendly with my sister again, and it would tend to his
happiness. He then went up stairs to my sister's bed-
room, and .returned to the drawing-room. He said the
child caused great unhappiness between them, and his fa-
mily wished to bring it up according to its expectations, and
that he had wished her to wean the child, during which time
the exchange would be better effected. The next day my
sister's child was consigned to my care for that purpose,
and in the course of a few evenings my child was brought,
by my aunt, as appointed by my brother-in-law. Mr.
Bruere came at the same time, and a Mr. Curtis.
My aunt, Mary Ann, and myself were also there, and
when Mr. Bruere went he took his own child away in
his arms. I have never seen it since. My child
cried so much Mrs. Bruere wished to see it the fol-
lowing day, and Mr. Bruere took it to her. It was at night
in her own bedroom. She said she would not believe it
was hers. Mr. Bruere asked, " Why not ?" and she said
it seemed to be larger than hers. He said, it was " the
crying and the weaning which had swollen its face," and
endeavoured to persuade her. At the time of the change
she was nursing her own child. In a few days they went
to town, taking the child with them which she had then,
taken to nurse. It was returned to me in three WC;;IZS,
during which time it had been nursed, and remained till
November, when it went into Northamptons4ire with
them, then to Boulogne, where I next saw it, anti. after-
wards to London and to Hampshire, where we all went.
We called the child Amy. In 1830, in N, Ma
Anne, Emma, Amy, and myself returned toe Cbam erbridge,ry
and Mr. and Mrs. Bruere joined u at Christmas, and re-
mained till June or July. Ir. July, 1832, I was dange-
rously ill, and sent for the child to see it, expecting I
was going to die. She remained till November, and then
went to *mut with Emilia, who bad brought her, and in
Nialvh, 1834, she was brought to me at Chesterton, and
lived with us till the time of the assault, when she was
taken away. I have always clothed her out of my own income,
which is 50/. I should not know Mrs. Bruere's child if I were
to see it now. Mr. Bruere has been in the Fleet for three
years up to January or February last. During 1835 he had a
quarrel with his wife, in consequence of his disclosing the
secret of the exchange to her. It was last October. I
learnt it from her treatment of me, when I went to see her
at the time of her illness. She said I had been a wretch
of a sister to her for exchanging her child, and she would
never see or speak to me again, and turned me out. Dur-
ing the time I lived with them, they used to quarrel very
often and vorywspverely.—[Here the witness went into a
detail of the breaking open of the house in which she tte.a
sister lived at Chesterton, by the defendants, with great
force and 1. iolence personally to herself and her seeing ; of
their going to the Hoop Inn, for the purpo, of seeing the
Mayor ; and of the manner in which the child was forced
from herself and her sister, by Mr. Bruere and the two
constables ; she (Amy) at tlle time was crying, and saying
to the witnT.ss4" Prays dear mamma, submit." Eventually
the child eras taken away, and she bad never since been
se.':in by her.]
After further evidence for the prosecution had been
heard, the ATTORNEY_GENERAL began his address to the
jury by putting it to them to say what motive his client.
eould possibly have for such conduct as detailed by Miss
Wagstaff, and the array of witnesses produced to support
her in her story, which he called on them to reject, its only
ground of belief being its utter impossibility. He then pro-
ceeded to criticise the evidence of Miss Wagstaff, and
pointed out its extraordinary inconsistencies, and the absur-
dity of endeavouring to persuade twelve gentlemen,
and
fathers perhaps, that a mother could have been so fooled as
to receive and take to her breast a child five months
older
than her own, instead of indignantly refusing to acknowledge
the spurious babe for one instant.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.
The cause excited the greatest interest, the Courts having
been crowded to suffocation.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—DuRium, JUL' 26.
THE KING ON THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE TOWNSHEND
FOX, V. JOHN HARDINGE VEITCH, FOR A
LIBEL.
The prosecutor is a Magistrate of the county of Durhm.
The defendant is proprietor of the
_Durham Chronicle, aa nd
the libel in question was published in that paper on the 7th
of November last,
Mr.
GRA/N oma Cu
forsswthe defenceELL appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
The Jury, after a consultation
nine o of ten hours, were, at
come to a verdict. 'clock in the evening, discharged, being unable to
Mr. Carr and Mr. .Kirkaldy
one of sending, and the otbrcr . yesterday,
convicted the
to-day sentenced to - carrying, a challenge, were
..ree months' imprisonment.