The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-21 00:00:00

ME SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1840.

public wit —it is the natural ebullition of that
same naive, unaffected wittiness which he exhibits in
private company, which, not less than the extent of 1
his mental resources, make him the charm of every
social circle ; and it is interesting to observe the very
man who before listening thousands will grapple with
ecclesiastical controversialists, entering with sponta-
neous sincerity of mirth into any pasting topic of amuse-
ment. He is a man to whom the fine lines of Cowper
might not unaptly be applied—
" Grave without dulness, learned without pride ;
Exact, yet not precise; tho' meek, keen.ey ed ;
'Who, when occasion justified its use,
Had wit as bright as ready to produce."
Yet it is no less an evidence of his truthfulness of '
nature that the character he displays in conversation
does not a little correspond with the character exhibited
in public controversy—that he is, if not " precise," at all
events sufficiently " exact," in the maintenance of his
smallest opinion—that there is a slight tendency—often
the alloy of minds strongly constituted—to a species of
dogmatism—a tendency to elevate every matter of opi-
nion into an unbending yvinciple (a distinction frequentl)
overlooked, but very important), and a consequent dis-
position to permit no variation from it—as fixed and un-
compromising truth.
[THE NEXT WILL BE 1111.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR—The importance
.of the question which is
now agitating the public mind in Scotland, under
the designation of the "NON-INTRUSION OF MI-
NISTERS " cannot be overrated.
There are few persons in England who under-
stand the matter ; and there are many, however
desirous they may be to comprehend it, who have not
the opportunity of access to those authorities which
alone can place it fully before the public mind.
" The right of the people to choose their own
religious instructors,"—and " the independence of
the Church of Scotland " (thereby signifying not
the people, but the Ministers and Elders) are
so ad captandum in their sound, as to lead many,
without examination, to support those propositions.

The Church of Scotlan.d. is an Act o 1 Podia-
ment Church, democratic throughout her Kirk
Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General As-
sembly. The voice of the people •at large,
in the erection of any of these Ecclesiastical Courts,
or in the appointment of the Ministers forming
them, has been hitherto as nothing, and for one
most obvious reason—that the people who hear the
Ministers of the Church of Scotland in their seve-
ral parish churches, do not, as hearers, contribute,
either in the form of church-rate or pew-rents
to the support of those Ministers ; the funds
for their support being by Acts of Parliament de-
rived from the land ; and when any augmentation of
the Minister's stipend may by him be required,
other Acts of Parliament regulate the mode by
which it shall be obtained, without any recourse to
his congregation. Neither do the funds for build-
ing and repairing those Churches arise from the
contributions of the hearers, but are also provided by
Act of Parliament from the land.
It is this two-fold character of the Church of
Scotland, as a Church claiming to be founded upon
the divine authwity of God's word, and deriving
all her income from the authority of human Legis-
lation, which perplexes the question : but it enables
either of these authorities to be appealed to as it
may suit the interest or wishes of the parties.
But is the object of the " Non-Intrusionists" to
support the universal suffrage system in the eleo-
tion of parish Ministers ? or is it an agitation pro-
moted for the sole purpose of giving greater power
and clerical domination to the Ministers of that
Church ?

It is a very dangerous state of things in any
society when a minority i enabled to rule, and par-
ticularly has the truth of this been evinced by
marked pages in the history of the Scottish Church.
By a long-standing law of, the Church of Scotland,
dating from 1697, and well known to Scotch
lawyers both civil avid ecclesiastical, under the name
of " the Barrier Act," it is provided that no new
proposition shall become a law of the Church
until it has received the sanction of A MAJORITY
OF THE PRESBYTERIES—(observe this particu-
larly)—not a majority of the General Assembly,
composed of the representatives of all the Presby-
teries, but a majority of the whole Presbyteries, or
a clear majority of the whole of the ministers.

There have been two great departures from this
funda►nental principle of the Barrier Act ; viz., by
the General Assemblies of 1732 .r.,d 1834, and
each has been productive of most fatal results.

The first of these was the cause of the Secession
Church ; and the latter promulgated the celebrated
Veto Act; but which has not been entered among
the standing laws of the Church of Scotland, al-
though six different General Assemblies have
elapsed since its first proposition. The majority
of the Presbyteries of the Church of Scotland has
not up to this time sanctioned the Veto principle :
but by making it an " Interim Act," and sending
it forth each year in the form of an overture to the
Presbs teries, the minority of the ministers do over-
rule the majority .of the Presbyteries, and each suc-
ceeding year, as the majority of the Presbyteries do
not sanction the Veto, the same trick is played by
the party in the Assembly.
The object of the General Assembly, in 1732, in
violatino. the Barrier Act of 1697, by passing a
law without the previous sanction of the majority
of the Presbyteries, was "to crush the doctrines
then so keenly agitated, relating to the Divine right
qfthe people at large in the election of minist ers."#
Have the Church Courts of Scotland in any
period of its history ever agitated this question BUT
WITH A VIEW TO INCREASE CLERICAL POWER .

Since the Reformation, patronage has invariably
been a component part of the system, for the very
obvious reason that the people do not pay the mi-
nisters, or the expenses attendant on public worship.
The same authority which I have just quoted
states 1- that " PATRONAGE was certainly in use
down to the latest period before the Restoration,
of which there is any record of the proceedings of
the General Assembly. In the unprinted Acts of
the Assembly of 1645 there is a proposal for ap-
plying to Parliament to allow PRESBYTERIES to
plant the churches " which a-e cf the patronage
of forfeited and excommunicated persons."
Sir Henry Moncrieff goes on to show that
" there was an instruction in 1617 given by the
Assembly to every Presbytery to make a report to
the Assembly of what kicks are under patrons, what
kirks have no patrons, and who are the several pa-
'trons." Sir Henry -Moncrieff adds the following
remarkable words, and which are deserving par-
ticular attention in this controvert'. " These Acts
demonstrate that patronage was, to a certain
extent, still in use even in that period of the
Church which has commonly been supposed
most adverse to it. BUT THEY SHOw AT THE
SAME TIME THE SOLICITUDE OF THE CLERGY
TO GET INTO THEIR OWN HANDS THE COM-
MAND OF AS MANY PATRONAGES AS POS-
"
SIBLE.

So important a declaration of one of the most
distinguished ministers of the Scotch Church will
not be lost upon an intelligent people like our
Northern fellow subjects, and they must likewise
not forget that the Reform. Act made all the Clergy
of Scotland voters for Members of Parliament.
The taste of political power which this may have
given them as freemen may not have added to
their value as humble preachers of the Gospel.

I have to apologise for having mitten so long a
letter. If you deem it Worthy of insertion in your
columns I may probably trouble you again on this
important subject.
Your readers perhaps are not aware that the
broad and distinguishing feature between the
Church of Scotland and the Secession Church is
not in doctrine or discipline, for in both they are
identical, the latter asserting that she rests upon
the Word of God alone as her foundation, and de-
rives her support, both for her ministers and the
building and maintaining the Secession Chapels,
from the voluntary principle.

OMEGA.
* The Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff, Bart. Life of Dr.
Erskine, page 443.
-I- Page 430, ibid.

FROM A CORRESPONDENT.—FIRE PREVEN-
TIVE COMPANY.-This Company has been induced by the
great increase of fires in the metropolis to renew their
laudable experiments at their premises in Blackfriars, to
show how easily houses and all other buildings may be made
fire-proof by the application of a coating of their patent
cement to the ceilings and partitions. An experiment
took place last week at the request and in the presence of
Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Smith, Mr. Puddick, and
others, when two models of a ceiling or partition were ex-
hibited—one prepared in the usual way, with lath, lime,
and plaster, the other with the Company's composition.
The two models were then subjected to the ordeal of tire,
and while the former was very soon entirely destroyed, the
latter stood the test, and when it was submitted to the
gentlemen assembled, was found to be uninjured. It
would appear that no alteration in the mode of building is
required when it is deemed desirable to render premises
fire.proe fby this valuable composition,

SECOND EDITION•

THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.)

BBITISII FUNDS.
Bank Storl:
3 per Cent. Bed — Ditto Bonds
3 per Cent C.t.,,,• 90.'4 Ditto Old Annuities —
:34 per Cent. Zfici
New :B.', per Ce-t l/$l, Fx. Bills, 1,000/ "d l7 pm
New 5 per Cci ' , Ditto 51W 17 pm
Long Annuities to expire ', Ditto Small l7 pm
Jan. 186,l
B
Oct. 1859 — 'ark Stock for On 7
g 11,
India Stock (or Acct 248
Jar, 15,69

I, oltEiG N FUNDS -
A ustr:an, 5 rer cent ill ll'ortuguese Bonds, sper cent.
Balgian, 5 per cent ! Ditto, New Ditto
Buenos Ayr, s, 6 per cent — flussiari Bonds, 5 per cent....11‘2!,'
Chilian, 6 per cent 401.,.; Ditto, Metallic —
Colonibian, 6 cc cent Spani,h, 5 per cent qs.%
Ditto, 1524 l)itto, Deferred
Danish, 3 per cc•,t :French, 5 per cent. 1121, 73.:.
Grcell Bonds, IS'25, 5 per ct. I Exchane —f. —c
Mexican, 5 per cent. 'French, :3 per cent
Ditto, ti p, cc nt., 363;,......... _ Dutcli:2l,,, percent. ,I,
Peruvian ,18•25,6 per cent..... -- lPitt°, 5 per cent • 101;x,

. .
St-I.I.ItES.
Birmingham and Gloucester Railway
Great 11',Nstern Railway
Ditto 'yew Shares SI
London and Brighton Rail, -y 24!ii
London and El:lei:wail Raill,ay
London and Birmingham Ilaihray
Ditto New Shares
.... vi North Midland Railway
17!4
Ditto New Shares

HATTON-GARDEN.-(THIS DAY.)

THE MURDER AT ISLINGTON.
The examination of Richard Gould, alias Arthur
Nichelsmi, John Jarvis, and Mary Ann Jarvis, his wife,
charged with the wilful murder of John Templeton, at
his house, Pocock's-fields, Islington, on the night of
Monday last, was this day resumed before Mr. Combo,
the Police Magistrate, in the private room, up stairs.
Several county Magistrates were present during the ex-
amination.

John CollonP, Mary Thornton, and Elizabeth Thorn-
ton, described the situation of the house of the deceased,
the state in which it was found on the discovery of the
murder, and the position of the body of the deceased on
the discovery being made. -
Francis Cipriani was at work in the garden of the
deceased on the Monday before the murder. Saw Mrs.
Jarvis come to deceased's door and knock. Deceased
opened the door, and conversed with Mrs. Jarvis. Did
not hear what was the subject or conversation ; this was
about five or six o'clock in the evening. Is sure it was
Mrs. Jarvis, and knows deceased was at home at the
time.

Henry NlTright---Is potboy at the Duchess of Kent
public-house, and knows the prisoner Gould ; saw him
on Friday week last, when the prisoner told him he
was out of work, and that he had no money. Had
understood from Mr. Allen, with whom the prisoner had
lodged, that he had been absent from home for
a week, and had been carrying on a rum game with
Mrs. Jarvis. The prisoner had told the witness
that he knew an old gentleman who bad bid 2.51. for a
cottage, and who bad more money, as he had shown a
501.-note to a woman that he knew. Prisoner said it
would be like a gift to him, for he knew where to lay
his hand on it. He said the old man was not far from
:There he was living. He understood the prisoner
meant to rob him. Prisoner had never talked of rob-
bery to witness bef-re that time.

John Richard Jobson lives in Dorset-street, Spital-
fields. Yesterday week found the prisoner Could in
the passage of his house asking for a person named
Jam; who has been acquainted with him several years.
Asked him what he wanted him for, and he said he
wanted a screw. Witness understood by that term a
pick-lock key. Jem is a labouring man. Does not know
that he is any trade. Witness asked what he wanted
a screw for so particularly ; and he said he wanted to
serve out an old gentleman who lived alone in a cottage.
Witness said he had better not do anything of the kind,
as he might get transported. He said he might as well
be transported, for that if be was taken for desertion he
would be sure to be transported. Witness knew he was
deserter ; witness recommended him to go to a public-
house and wait ; he said be could not, for he had got
no money. He said he should with to see Jem, because
he had left a donkey there sometime before, which he
thought might be handy—witness then parted from
him. Witness read an account of the murder in the
paper on Wednesday, and thought it his duty to give
information of what had occurred at the Police-
station, on Thursday evening, near Spitalfields Church,
understanding Gould's name to be Arthur Nicholson.
Thinks he is a deserter from the I Ith Light Dragoons.
He said he was going to serve the old gentleman out
next day, Saturday evening. Never saw Mrs. Jervis
before in his life.

This being the whole of the evidence brought forward
to-day, the prisoners were remanded for re-examination
on Tuesday next, when some most important evidence
as regards the whole of the prisoners, is expected to be
brought forward.

Scotia praying for a grant in aid of education in that colony.
Mr. ACLAND presented several petitions from So-
mersctsh re, praying that no money might be granted for
the enccuragernent of any system, of education not founded
I upon the principles of the Established Church.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition deprecating any war
with China, and praying that the Chinese might be allowed
to legislate fir themselves without any interference from us.
Mr. G. CRAIG presented several petitions against the
intrusion of Ministers on parishes in Scotland.
Similar petitions were presented by Mr. HOUSTON, from
Johnston in Renfrevvshire ; Mr. R. STUART, and Mr. E.
TrseeNT, from several places in the county of Antrim.
Mr. EDWARD ELLIS pressnted several petitions,
praying for an alteration in the law of patronage, from
the Town Council of St. Andrew's, and ocher places in
Scotland.
Mr. MAXWELL presented five petitions, praying for
the withholding of public money from Maynootli Collette.
Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition from Neteihk,
in the county of Sussex, praying for the abolition of
Church-rates, and the release of John Thorogoad.
Mr. A. WHITE presented a petition, signed by 270
persons, praying for the abolition of the Corn-laws.
Mr. CROMPTON presented a petition from a parish
in the county of Southampton, praying for Church Ex-
tension.
Mr. HO LFORD presented a petition from Worcester-
shire praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. •
Mr. CHUTE presented three similar petitions from the
county of Norfolk.
Mr. ANSON presented several similar petitions from
the Staffordshire Potteries and other places.
On the motion of Mr. WODE HOUSE, the British
Iron Company's Bill was read a second time.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said there were several oh-
jectionable clauses in the Bill, to which he should here-
after call attention, and unless they were modified, he
should feel it his duty to oppose the further progress of
the Bill.
Mr DARBY presented several petitions from East
Grimstead, Mat field, Brighton, and other places in; the
County of Sussex, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. WALLACE presented two petitions from places
in the county of Ayr, praying for a total and immediate
repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from some place
in Scotland, in favour of an extension of the Suffrage and
Vote by Ballot.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented ten petitions from
various places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying
for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. The
petitioners stated that during the lest two years the woik-
ing classes had been undergoing great suffering, in conse-
quence of the high price of provisions, and that the de-
mand for labour had lessened as provisions had increased
in price.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
borough of Finsbury, praying for a free pardon for Frost,
Williams, and Jones.
Mr. GREG presented a petition, very numerously
signet., from some parish in Lancashire, praying for a
total repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. HAWES presented mi petition from the Protestant
Dissenters of Huntingdonshire, praying for the abolition of
Church-rates.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition, praying for a
repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from some person,
praying for a repeal of the Bakers' Act.
Mr. HE ATHCOT E presented a petition from Tiver-
ton, praying for the abolition of the Corn-laws.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBUL L presented a petition
from some place in the county of Kent, stating that the
number of Poor Law Commissioners was too large, and
praying that they might be reduced.
• Mr. HUME presented a petition from Bromley, in the
county of Middlesex. The petitioners stated that a meet-
ing was held in that parish on the 7th of February last,
for the purpose of considering the propriety of imposing a
Church-rate; that meeting was adjourned for six months,
notwithstanding which, the clergyman and overseers had
called another meeting for the same purpose, which was
to have met yesterday. That these proceedings were
exciting peat ill-will in the parish, and that the rate was
required for paying organist's salary and a variety of other
items, which the petitioners considered illegal, and
they prayed the House to alter the law on
this subject. This petition was signed by twenty-
six of tho leading men in the place. Also three
petitions from various places in Scotland, praying for an
extension of the Suffrage. Also petitions from Aberdeen,
Manchester, Great Torrington, in Devon, Oakhampton,
Blackford, and other places, for a repeal cf the Corn laws.
Mr. FENTON presented a petition from Rochdale,
signed by 2,500 persons, and three other places, to the same
effect.
On the motion of Colonel ANSON, the Report of the
Committee on the Birmingham and Wyrley Canal Bill
was further considered.
Mr. W. AT r WOOD presented two petitions against
the Birmingham and Wyrley Canal Bill.
Mr. BROCK LEHURST presented a petition from
the Independent Methodists of Macclesfield, for the abo-
lition of Church-rates and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a petition from
Belfast, in favour of non-intrusion in Scotland ; a peti-
tion from Salop, in favour of Church extension ; and
three petitions from Windsor, Sydenham, and another
parish in Nova Scotia, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON presented a petition front the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Droitwitch,
against the Birmingham Canal Bill.
BEER BILL.
Mr. PAKINGTON postponed the order of the day
for the second reading of the Beer Bill, which stood for
Wednesday next, to the following day, on account of the
Irish Registration Bill, introduced by Lord Stanley,
standing for a second reading on Wednesday.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he would take en
early opportunity of moving for copies of the correspond-
ence which had taken place with regard to the emigration
of Hill Coolies.
LUDLOW ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. ORD brought up a Report from the General
Committee on election petitions, stating (as we under-
stood) that with regard to the Ludlow election; Mr.
Coppock had presented a protest against the proceedings of
the Committee, on the ground of doubts being entertained
by high legal authorities as to the regularity of those
proceedings. It was doubtful, in consequence, whether
indictments could be sustained against any witnesses who
might give false testimony on the subject.
Mr. AGLIONBY begged to call the attention of the
House to the subject, and hoped that as he for one bad
entertained serious doubts as to the regularity of the pro-
ceedings, the House would well consider how they went on
with a Committee the proceedings of which might here-
after be vitiated by the antecedent irregularity.
Sir R. INGLIS thought the Committee ought not to
have received such a protest, as it referred to the "opi-
nions of high legal authorities in that House," which was
quite irregular.
Mr. ORD observed that the Report of the Commit-
the referred to those opinions.
The petition was then laid upon the table.
PRIVILEGE.
Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the Order of the
Day for the third reading of the Printed Papers Bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from John
Joseph Stockdale, praying for the discharge of Howard
and Pearce; and that he himself might ho heard at the
bar against the third reading of the Bill. On the motion
of the lion. Member the petition was read at the table by
the clerk, which reading was as usual utterly inaudible.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL tnought the petition wee
really intended as an insult to tile House, and he, there-
fore, begged to suggest to the Hon. Member, that it would
be better to withdraw it.
Mr. DUNCONIBE really did not know what posasage
in the petition the Noble Lord considered an insult to the
House. He wished the Noble Lord would mention what
passage in the petition he considered to be an insult. Ile
had read the petition, as he considered himself in a certain
degree responsible for the language of the petitions he
presented being respectful, and he must say he thought
there was nothing improper in the petition. There were a
few quotations from Scripture in it, but the Noble Lord could
not object to them. He ( Mr. D.) had so far considered
the petition a proper one, that he had intended to move
the prayer of it should be granted, and that Stock-
dale should be heard at the bar of the House, pre-
vious to the third reading of the Bill, which, as
regarded him, was a 13111 of Pains and Penalties; and
it was always usual, in a case of that sort, the
the individual intended to be affected should be heard
against it. He thought that Stockdale had certainly some
claim on the House, because from the day he had been
committed into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms he
bad never been asked if he bad anything to say in extenu-
ation or explanation of his conduct, which the other pri-
soners had been. He should be sorry to convey anything
disrespectful to the House. Until he knew what the objec-
tionable passage was, he could not, injustice to Mr. Stock-
dale, withdraw the petition.
The SPEAKER was about to put the question that
the petition do lie on the table, when
Lord HO WICK rose and said, that if the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury pressed the petition, he should feel it to
be his duty to move that it be rejected.
Mr. HUME thought the House ought to know what
the objectionable parts were.—( Hcar, hear.) The clerk
had certainly read the petition, but he believed the House
had not heard one word of it. —( Laughter.) Some means
must be adopted by which the petitions might be heard;
and he thought that, in fairness to this case, they ought to
know what the passages were which the Noble Lord ob-
jected to.
Mr. L A BOUCHE RE observed that the petition was
read in such a tone of voice, that if the House had been
silent every word might have been heard.—( Hear.) If it
was not heard, the fault was with the House, and not with
the clerk.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said the petition was read
very distinctly, but the House not being aware that an ob-
jection would he taken on account of the language of it,
had not paid particular attention while it was read. He
had caught the substance of it, but had not caught the
particular words.
for Finsbury had stated he had read the petition, that
Captain BOLDER() thought that as the Hon. Memberhat
he did not think there was anything disrespectful netit,ion.
House ought to rely upon his word and receive
could onlyp The Clerk again read the petition, but we
hor justified falsehood—thathe .a
never suppressed truth
n of the House had been
col-
lect the substanceof it. The petitioner stated that he
had
been informed an order or resolution
calling took
made, whereby those
part in any legal proceedings
professionalinstituted by the petitiener,
bar of the House
were to
The
illeiaubsele
a breach of its privileges.
and punished for
could they appreciate the
idn tthohni
sette
nor
Heavrard had undertaken the
reluctance with which Mr.
upon him by the petitioner, upon whom ale, e
duty imposed
fall the groundless displeasure of the flout The
ought to_
• •on to characterize the attempt to vindicate
pentium- went .
• • of the House as a gross attempt to destroy
the privilege.
the Trial by Jury.
Lord RUSSELL said this person had been com-
mitted J.
d by the House for contempt and a breach of its mittepri-
vileges ; and he again approached it, and under the guise
of a petition, declared at great length that his detention was
illegal--that the displeasure of the House was groundless,
and in many more words complained that the tTnder She.
nboet who in