The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-06 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1840.

28th inst., was a day on which the House was not likely to
Kitt hild ihereff ahe would d 'ruesdlv,thP `6tb
Trrill7, CO'
The 'Marquis of SALIIATRY wished to know
whether the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne) had any obj'c-
tion to refer the Tithe Commutation Bill to a Select Corn-
mittce up stairs?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no objection to
do so.

legiJative sanction for the Vcto or some other equivalent
"0 pl'eceeditigs 11.4 d si;wc taken place, which
Consequ,..- In 01.0 district, rcrilote
from his (Lord Aberdeen's) residence, but more immedi-
ately connected with the possessions of his Noble Friend
on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond), dissent was
pronounced against a gentleman who was presented to a
parish, and the Presbytery was prohibited by the Commis-
sion of the tkssembly from receiving that gentleman for

- -
The Bill was then ordered to be referred to a Select
Committee up stairs, and the Committee, on the motion
of the Marquis of Lansdowne, was appointed.
LORD SEATON.
On the motion oe Viscount DUNCANNON, Lord
Seaton's Annuity Bill went through a Committee, and
was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next.
NON.INTRUSION (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of ABERDEEN rose to call the attention of
the House to the question of Non-Intrusion in the Scottish
Church. The Noble Earl said, in doing so he should apologise
to their Lordships while attempting to bring in a Bill on
a subject of so much importance. He could assure the
Pouse that his doing so did not arise from any
newly-acquired confidence on his part, or from any
notion of his not standing in need of their Lordships'
indulgence, but from a conviction that this subject now in-
dispensably demanded the interference of the Legislature,
and also from circumstances connected with the subject
which in some degree compelled him personally
to follow the course which he was now about
to adopt. After all that had taken place—after the decla-
rations made by the Noble Viscount at the head of her
Majesty's Government, at the end of last Session of
Parliament, and again at the opening of the
present Session, and at repeated intervals since,
it was undoubtedly his belief and persuasion that
her Majesty's Government would have found it incum-
bent on them to have attempted to apply a remedy
to those evils of which they fully admitted the existence
and the magnitude. Noble Lords, however, had thought
it consistent with their duty to abstain from any proceeding,
and they were certainly the best judges of the course they
should follow. At the same time, he would say that in a
case which involved the peace and tranquillity of an im-
portant portion of the country, in a case in which the au-
thority of the law was at stake, and in which was placed in
jeopardy the welfare, or perhaps the existence of the most
important interests and institutions of the country—in such
a case he did think it might have been expected that the
executive government would have found it proper and neces-
sary to undertake to afford a remedy for acknowledged evils.
The Noble Lords knew well he never looked at this as a

the purpose of ordination. The Commission was any num-
ber of the body which chose to meet together during the
adjournment after the usual sitting. This Commission
prohibited the Presbytery from taking this gentleman for
trial; but the Presbytery having been aware of the judg-
ment of this House, and consequently of the law of the
land, were placed in this difficulty—that they were pre-
vented bv their Ecclesiastical superiors from obeying the
law ; and, on the other hand, they would be liable to au
action for damages if they did not act in conformity with
the judgment of the House. Accordingly, they respect-
fully declined to comply with the Commission, and took
the gentleman into trial. The Commission, upon this,
suspended the seven ministers who were the majority
of that Presbytery. The latter appealed to the Court
of Session for protection. The Court of Session issued
an interdict prohibiting any person from publishing the
suspension of the ministers in the respective parishes,
and another interdict prohibiting any per2on from being
appointed to, or officiating in, the churches or parishes of
those ministers. Both those interdicts were violated.
Placards were distributed throughout the parishes, pub-
lishing the suspension of the ministers, and describing them
as incapable of discharging the ecclesiastical duties, or
baptising, or performing marriages. Not only on Sundays,
bat every day during the week, those parishes were vi-
sited by other ministers, who performed the duties of the
suspended clergymen. The feelings of the people were
enlisted on either side—their passions were excited, and
the greatest agitation and alarm prevailed. Those seven
ministers were highly respectable men, but the religious
ceremonies were performed in their parishes by others,
who employed themselves in persuading the congrega-
tions that the Gospel had not been preached to them be-
fore as it ought to have been ; and thus, although forci-
ble possession had not been taken of the churches, the
clergymen were suspended in their office, and were low-
ered in the estimation of their parishioners. Tne execu-
tion of the law in respect to those interdicts would have
led to violence, perhaps to bloodshed. That was surely
not a state of things which ought to be allowed to con-
tinue. But it was only the state of seven pa-
rishes at present, and it would extend indefinitely

matter of party; they knew that any measure they pro-
posed, had it possessed the least possibility of carrying
into effect the object desired, would have met with
his cr.rdial snpport. He knew not if he taxed
the candour of his Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne)
when he expressed the hope that, under similar circum-
stances, the measure he was about to propose might be

if matters were left to remain as they were.
When the Noble Viscount opposite (Lord Melbourne) said
that neither party would concede, and that it was better to
leave them to themselves, surely he must have forgotten
that this was a case in which the law was to be supported.
The law had no passion—no prejudice.—( Hear, hear.) It
was the right of the subject to demand redress, and the

met with a like reception. At the same time he was not
insensible of the inconvenience, and even danger, of at-

Judges were bound to administer it without delay. The
Courts had no option—they did not make the law, neither

tempting to legislate on a subject of this nature. He
knew many difficult and delicate questions might
be raised, which had been better left at rest, and which,
although unforeseen at the time, might possibly lead to
consequences of the utmost importance. He felt that his
own position in dealing, with this question was sufficiently
irksome, for notwithstanding the vital importance

did their Lordships. Their: Lordships had only interpreted
the law, and found that the Court of Session had done
rightly. That was the state of things at present. The
law could not be enforced, and nothing could regulate the
matter but the interference of Parliament —( Hear, hear.)
The Noble Viscount had talked of conceding. What could
'.he Court. of Session concede ? What could the House of

of this subject—notwithstanding the manner in
which it had agitated and continued to agitate
a great portion of the country, notwithstanding the man
her in which it affected the feelings, passions, and preju-
dices of thousands, he despaired almost of bringing the
conviction of this truth hone to their Lordships' breasts.
When he remembered the nature of the subject he was
about to submit to their Lordships, that it was the cause
of the Presbytery, and the stability and welfare of Presby-
terian Church government that he was anxious to uphold
and confirm, although he could not expect feelings of hos-
tility in the House, still it was impossible to look for any
warm sympathy or cordial support and concurrence from a
large portion of their Lordships. Nevertheless he thought
it right to declare at once that he approached this subject
with feelings of the most profound veneration for the na-
tional Church as established by law in Scotland.—( Hear,
hear.) He adopted the emphatic language of a Commit-
tee of the House of Commons, who, in a report they pre-.
sented not many years sgo,declared their conviction thatthere
never was an institution which, at so little cost, had accom-

Lends concede ? What could their Lordships do bu either
legalize the veto, cr provide some suitable remedy ? He
did not know that it was worth while to occupy the attention
01 the House with the subject of the veto after so much had
been said upon it already, but he found about a fortnight
ago that the Committee appointed by the General Assem-
bly to confer with her Majesty's Government had thought
proper to publish to the world the plans which they sug-
gested. The Government, he thought, did very wisely in
refusing to comply with the request of those gentlemen to
legalize the veto. The pamphlet contained the Veto Act,
and the modification which the Committee proposed, and
to which they meant to adhere. He (Lord Aberdeen) would
never agree to legalize the veto, and the Government did
very right in ref using to do so. The veto was not proposed
on the principle of election ; on the contrary, the persons
by whom it was proposed stated that their object was to
prevent the necessity of popular election. Now although
he did not mean to support popular election, yet be ad-
mitted that it had its advantages, and if he were compelled
o,choose, he would not hesitate to nave it in preference to

plished so much good as the established Church of Scotland.
That was a Church composed exclusively of active
labourers in the vineyard of the Lord. It was a Church
in which pluralities and non-residence were unknown. It was
a Church in which such of their Lordships as had ❑ot the
means of personally and locally knowing the blessed
effects of its ministrations, were little competent
to form an opinion of the manner in which
it ought to be regarded and revered. It was true— most
unfortunately true—that of late indications of in-
tolerance and fanaticism, had shoo n themselves.
He remembered the old saying, that " New Pres-
bytery was but Old Priest writ large ;'' but he
would only say that such portions of all insti-
tutions as were the work of human hands were
liable to decay.—(Hear.) They might have expected
that among those who had suffered so long and so
severely from the scourge of persecution anything
like the feeling of intolerance would hays been unknown ;
but it was a peculiarity of the human mind, that men,
even men who had suffered those very evils themselves,
were little reluctant to inflict them on others.
However, it was a subject of congratulation that there now
could be no renewal of the dark scenes of former times.
There was no doubt but that the members of the Church
of Scotland would continue to be animated with zeal in

the veto. What the Committee proposed was, in fact,
capricious dissent—vithout reason—or perhaps for unwor-
thy reasons—perhaps for unscriptural reasons—but which
must prevail over the deliberate judgment of the Church
itself—to prevent the ordination of any man whom those
persons might choose to proscribe.—( Hear.) To legalise
the veto would be to strike a blow at the independence of
the Church and its existence as an establishment. It would
be inconsistent with the jurisdiction which ought here—
in every Cnurch—to constitute a third power, which
should say what persons should or should not receive
ordination.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) Suppose any lay
tyrant had proposed that any such third authority
should exist, what notion could there be of the indepen-
dence of that Church ? It was important to consider,
that when they asked for the legalization of the veto, they
used no qualifications ; and that if the right were restricted,
its principle was altogether altered, for that claimed the
iLsolute right of rejection, If those gentlemen asserted
that this was a divine right, he could not understand how
they reconciled it to their consciences to take their scats
in the General Assembly under the statute law of the
land, which was inconsistent with that divine tight. Now
the present plan of those gentlemen to modify the law of
veto (which, though inoperative, was still the law of the
Church), by the introduction of this provision, was that no

the cause of their great Master. Or that he entertained no
doubt; but that they would see any of those disfigurations of
doubt; but that they would not see any of those dlsfigurationsof
feelings towards the Church of Scotland he must add, that
he did so with feelings of sincere love and respect
to the great mass of the people of that country.
He remembered many years ago in that House the
late Lord Liverpool using an expression, which
al:hough somewhat Utopian, was nevertheless very
significant. He declared his conviction that Scot-
land was the best conditioned country on the face of the
earth. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) was afraid that since
that time they had not done much to improve or
. .

person should be qualified to disapprove, who did not de-
clare that he was not actuated by factious motives, but by
a conscientious regard for his own spiritual welfare, and
for that of the congregation. He thought that declara-
tion was exceedingly objectionable, and would be an in-
sufficient protection.—( Hear.) When people were'excited
they were naturally led on without being themselves aware
of their own feelings, and might safely declare that
they were not actuated by factious motives.—(Hear.)
It was objectionable also es a sort of snare to the con-
se'.ences of persons making the declaration, and as open-
ing the door to a species of perjury._ ( Hear, hear.)
The plan contained also this modification—" Provided

maintain their claim to that distieetion. Still
there was an intelligence and moral worth among
the people of that country, which entitled them to
their Lordships' regard and attention. Their Lordships
boasted, and, perhaps, properly, of having diminished the
military force in Ireland, and they adduced that as a proof
of the tranquillity and good order that prevailed there, and
they counted their reduction by regiments and by thou-
sands of men. He would take leave, however, to remind
them that they had confided the peace and tranquillity of
Scotland for many years, and in the worst of times, to a
very few hundred men, and they had done so with success.
--(Hear, hear.) That spoke volumes for the love of
or ler and good feeling of the people of Scotland. It also
:peke volumes for the efficiency of that moral and religious
education they received. If there was anything on earth
to which the people of Scotland were attached with the
purest devotion, it was to their National Church, and with
good reason. The reformation in Scotland was mainly
accomplished by the people. Their Church was empha-
tically the Church of the people. Little assisted by the
great and powerful, after a long struggle and great &di
culties they succeeded in establishing that Church. Un-
like the Church of that country, which, after its first fiery
struggle, met with little difficulties in after times, the
Church of Scotland was, from the period of its first exist-
ence, for centuries, exposed to repeated difficulties and
persecutions, and, in fact, it never enjoyed the coun-
tenance or support of the great and powerful.
From the Revolution to 1690 it was a perpetual struggle
with the people, who were not supported by the Govern-
ment, to establish a National Church. It was mature],
therefore, that they should, considering how dearly they
had purchased that Establishment—it was natural that
they should cling to it with feelings of affection and venc-

always and be it enacted, that it shall be competent to and
incumbent upon the patron and heads of families who say
that such dissent proceeds from factious motives, and not
from conscientious regard for the spiritual welfare of the
dissentients and the congregation, and that they shall
be required to prove the Caine to the satisfaction of the
Presbytery." How difficult would it be to prove that
motives were factious and malicious—( Hear, hear)—and
in wha state would the parish be when it was necessary
to resort to such a course of proof against the majority
of the parishioners. Nothing could lead to so much
bitterness, and herst-burnings, and endless mischief.
The alteration was rather for the worse, and Government
could not see anything in it to remove the objection to the
present veto. With respect to the non-intrusion of
ministers, he must say Ciat this was a very wide term,
and had given rise to opposite and erroneous ideas. Ile,
for one was opposed to the intrusion of any minister
against the will of the congregation.—( Hear, hear.)
But he interpreted the words in a different way from some
other persons, and he must observe, that among the multi-
tude of petitions which he had presented on the subject,
very few had prayed for the veto co ?zombie, but only for
non-intrusion, leaving it to Parliament to consider in what
way it was to interfere. He (Lord Aberdeen) understood
the principle, as it was laid down by Melville, by Calvin,
and by Ben, who certainly did not mean by it the ca-
pricious will of the congregation without any reason.—
( Hear, hear.) The interpretation which he put upon the
term, was that which was adopted in the best
days of the Church by Knox and by Melville,
and was laid down specifically in the book of " Discipline."
The next authority was that on which the advocates of the
veto relied, viz., the 2d book of Discipline, framed in
1578, in which it was stated that no person be entered in

ration. There was one other class of persons connected any office of the Church contrary to the will of the congrc-
with this subject of whom he felt bound to say a few gation, or without the voice of the eldership, meaning
words—he alluded to the body of patrons of Scotland. the presbytery. By one of the recent Acts of the States
He was not disposed to deny that for the latter of Scotland, of 1649, which abolishes patronage, it was ad-
portion of the last century the right of patrons might milted that the Assembly had th powerto deal with
the
perhaps have been more strictly asserted, and the just subject as they thought fit. The Assembly accordingly
claims of the people might have been more ncgl:csed than prepared a directory for the purpose,in which
there via
the
support consistent with the welfare of the Church and the this regulation—that if it appeared major
ed the part oftla s.
support of its religion. There could be no doubt that congregation dissented from the person agreed upon by
during that period some diminution of the zeal and activity the Sessions, in that case the matter should be brought
of religious sentiments in the country prevailed, as was the into the Presbytery, who should judge of the same; and if
case in this country ; but fortunately in both countries they did find their dissent to be grounded on causeless ob-
there had been a revival of that zeal.—( Hoar, bear.) jections, they ware to proceed to appoint the presentee ; '
This, however, he would say, that for the last therefore they had, by their own act, precluded the notion
thirty years he did not believe it possible to conceive of anything like an absolute veto. There had been different
any description of patronage which could have been more opinions expressed as to the interpretation of that part of the
pure, more perfectly disinterested, or more entirely de- directory, but it appeared to him so clear that he could
voted to increase the welfare of the Church, and promote hardly conceive how such differences should have arisen,
Coe religion, than had Leen the disposal of it by the pa- and that induced him to read the statement and opinion of
trons of Scotland; and further, he would say that in the the late Sir Henry Moncrieff, who was thoroughly con..
intercourse he had with some of the patrons of livings 10-: versant with the laws of the Church of Scotland, and de-
that country err the subject of the present state of the votedly attached to its interests. Ho states that "by the
Church of Seo :land, and the measure he was about to pro- directory of 1649, for the election of ministers, if a ma_
pose, he had in variably- met, without a single exception, a jority of the cengregation dissented,, they were to give
strong desire to exercise no patronage otherwise than was their reasons, of which the I resb yt..,ry were to judge. If
for the welfare of the Church itself. Having made these the Presbytery should find their disser founded on cause-
statements, it was time that he should state to their Lord- less prejudices, they were notwithstan 17,g to proceed to the
ships what the cosadition tof the Church in that country settlement of a minister." He was on y stating cases en
was, which made him say that Legislative interference was which it was supposed some foundation existed for the law
indisp pp
ensable, and which justifiel trim in aearing before that had been passed. The last was the statute of King
their Lordships in thaw present instance. He would not William of 1690, when patronage was again abolished, and
detail at length the proceedings whiali had led to the pre- the Act for settling ministers provided " the heritory
sent state of things, but this he might mention, that a few and elders arc to name and propote the person to the
y ears aijo there was, and indeed always had been, more whole congregation to be approved or disapproved by
or less a' degree of hostility in the country to Pa- them, and if they disapprove, that the disapprovants
tranage at .all, and an attempt was made in the year give in their reasons to the effect th at the affair may
1834 to put ,an end to it. In that year an Act was passed be cognosced upon by the President of the Boundaries,
by the Generad Assembly which was commonly called at whose judgment the calling of the minister was to be
the Veto Act;; that Act provided that ill any presentation decided." There was no doubt, therefore, that the veto
to a benefice if a majority of the lauds of families in corn- which had been recently enacted must be considered as an
munion with the Church, expressed a dissent to the no- absolute innovation. His great objection to it was
mination of an individual, the Presbytery should be pro- that by it the Church abandoned its chief right and duty,
hibitcd from imlucting hint into holy orders. There could Tire first thing the Assembly claimed front the State before
be no doubt th at the General Assembly in passing that any Act recognising the PresbYterian Church of Scotland
law, thought the v were not going beyond the bounds of was passed, was the right of collation. In 1565 they claimed
their own powersthe
, but it had been solemnly decided that nrht of collation exclusiv-IY to the Church. Iu
Scotch lang.nage and law the meaning of the term collation
they had. At all ,events, the Act was proposed by a mom.
her who was not more•tinguisbed for his love of the was very different from that which was familiarly attached
religion of his fathe-s than icr his legal competence, and to it in this country. The term collation in Scotland
there could be no doubt ,embly thought when they the As. comprised the whole act of objection on the part of the
were passing the Act, that they a 'ere doing what they had people. The trial and examination, the ordination and the
a power to de. Shortly aftc: th Is, the Assembly pro- induction to the benefice, were all comprised in the term
hibittal a Presbytery front ordaining a gentleman to whom collation. The Church having received from the State
there was dissent, on the part of the pa,
withont the right of collation of ministers, he contended that by
reason assigned. The gentleman appealed Ito the Court of enacting this law they had abandoned their rights, and their
Session, which ronounced that the Veto
vas a violation duty, in so far as they had given up that which the law
of the law of the land. The Assembly p \
app 'elcd to this conferred upon them when the Church was established
House, which decided that the judgment of ti
'e Court of and recognised. The statutes by which the right of colla-
Session was right, The judgment of this He 11:e was lion had been recognised and conferred on the Church
communicated to the General Assembly. If that ' .body were various. To reject a worthy person without any
had taken means to rescind the Act of Veto which “" cause whatever assigned, and from causes unknown, was al-
pronounced tube a violation of the statute, end had deck. `e-11 most as great a breach of duty on the part of the Church
their intention to effect the object of preventing the intrusic It as to ordain an improper person, for it was as little consist-
of. ministers into parishes against the will of the congrega- tent with the interests of
.religion and the welfare of the
Lion by some other means, they would have been 'in less Church to exclude deserving persons in an arbitrary and
difficulty than they were at present. However, they re- ir 'evil' able manner as it was to ordain improper persons.
1 3
tained tine law on their journals, but suspended its op, ra- , ha), been said the veto was only to be considered as
tion fur one year, and appointed a Committee to cony t the O.& to judge of the qualification of prcsen-
nicate with her Majety's Government, in order to obta in a tccs.
.That was so sophistical an argument that

it was scarcely worth alluding to; and when it
was said teat the Chereh irape.ac d quellitice
pree. e ees ecicicli might be said to interice-e
the tree right and exercise of patroeage, for instance, i.t•
they had done not very long ego, viz., requiring that pre-
sentees should be possessed of a certain, knowledge of
Hebrew, ho would beg to observe that that was a qUalitl
cation no doubt inherent in the individual himself, and it
was a qualification I\ hid: the Church reserved to itself the
power end means of judging of'. He thought her Ma-
jesty's Government had acted wisely in refusing to bring
forward a measure to legalise the Veto Act. Another
proposed Act, which he thought her Majesty's Ministers
had wisely rejected, was for giving efficiency to the call,
by which it was proposed that if a majority of the commu-
nicants did not agree in assigning the cause for the
presentment, it should become null and void, and
the Presbytery should, therefore, reject him.—( Hear,
hear.) Of the two proposals, he thought that was
the worst. It was certainly an absolute novelty. There
had been much discussion, respecting the sufficiency
I of the call. The call had been treated as an
absolute right on the part of the people which was to pre-
clude the Presbytery, and it was to be considered as an
absolute bar in limine to the whole proceeding. That
would be giving a joint nomination, and in some respects
would be snore objectionable than a veto, because it would
become a veto practically of a more odious description,
namely, a veto in a part, or in a very small number, of a
congregation. But it was more objectionable upon other
grounds, because where there were a large body of people
who came forward and said they disliked the individual ;
that they could never proper under him, and that they
were determined to resist him—that might be certainly
j objectionable ; but there was a presumption that there was
something objectionable in the individual when so many
joined in it. But in the case to which he referred, if the
majority did not come forward to sign the call, it was
inferred, without any grounds whatever being stated, that
the individual was disqualfied, therefore the indifference or
apathy of the majority was to be presumptive evidence that
the presentee was disqualified, although no human being
uttered a syllable against him. That appeared to him so
monstrous and arbitrary in its nature that nothing possibly
could be worse, and he therefore entirely agreed with her
Majesty's Government in having rejected that plan. tie
was sorry to fatigue their Lordships with these details,
but there was still another state of things to which he
would refer before he submitted his plan for their conside-
ration. It appeared that the Learned Lord Advocate had
had his attention called to the subject by her Majesty's
Government nearly a year ago, and no doubt he had given
the matter his best attention. He (the Earl of Aberdeen)
was anxious to inform himself of the result of his labours,
and a short time since he had seen in a provincial paper a
report of a speech upon the subject made by the Hon.
Member for the city of Aberdeen. That Gentleman had
thought proper to attend what was called a Non-intrusion
meeting at Aberdeen, and he there detailed the plan of the
Lord Advocate, :which had been communicated to him.
However he had ascertained last night that the Learned
Lord had advertised his plan in a Scotch newspaper, and
therefore the report of the Hon. Gent. was superseded by
the Learned Lcrd himself, as lie must be supposed to know
his own plan best. lie must say, with due respect to the
Learned Lord, that his plan was decidedly the worst of all.
—( A laugh.) The Learned Lord adopted the principle
of the veto, and required a majority to sign the call. He
proposed that where a presentee was regularly presented,
if the majority did not come forward to sign the call the
presentation should fail, and the patron should be allowed
three months to present another. If the same conse-
quences occurred on the second presentation, three months
more were to elapse, and the same rule was to apply to the
third; but if the majority did not come forward on the 4th
presentation, then he thought it best to have recourse to
sonic other provisions—the Presbytery were to be called
together, and they were then (after recognising the abso-
lute right of the people to object)—the Presbytery were
then to intrude. So that he came to intrusion, after all the
sacrifice so arbitrarily, unjustly, and absurdly of the rights
of three presentees (all of whom were unobjectionable for
for anything that had been stated) and they came forward
and interfered in the case of the fourth. One of the clauses
of the Bill provided that, after the stipend had been paid
for a year to the Widow's Fund, the residue should, after
paying an assistant, be applicable to pious uses. The
plan, in his opinion, had literally nothing to recommend
it. It did not recognise the right of the people, nor the
right of the Church, until three separate cases had been
disposed of. The Learned Lord seemed anxious to estab-
lish something like a popular principle, and although the
Church had limited the persons who were to have an
opinion to those who were the heads of families, the
Learned Lord proposed to extend it to all who were seat-
holders and members of the congregation. Now, be
thought the Learned Lord had in that instance over-shot
his mark, and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was much leis
taken if ha did not find that the introduction of such per-
arms would be repudiated in every part of the country.
He was surprised the Learned Lord had not proposed that
Bill in the House of Commons, although the Hen. Mem-
ber for Aberdeen had, in the course of his speech, inti-
mated that the plan had been dropped in consequence of a
notice which had been given by him (the Earl of Aberdeen).
The lion. Member must know that that was not the fact.
He had given no notice until it had been stated in both
Houses that the Government did not intend to bring any
plan before Parliament. He looked upon the Lord Advo-
cate as the servant of the Government, and their organ in
Scotch affairs. What he was to understand by the Learned
Lord, he really did not know ; perhaps it was intended to
cajole the Church by the semblance of a measure which he
did not intend to bring forward, and which had already
been rejected by her Majesty's Government. He was gra-
tified to find that the Government was determined to have
nothing to do with that plan. He would now state to
their Lordships what was the provisions of the plan which
lie proposed to submit to them. They were very few, and
short, and simple. It appeared that the Learned Lord
had submitted his plan to a meeting of those Members of
the House of Commons who generally support her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had not
submitted his Bill to any of the Members who oppose the
Government. lie had framed it with a sincere desire j
that it might ensure its object, and deserve the sup-
port both of those who supported and those
who opposed her Majesty's Government. He be-
lieved that it would be found consistent with the
genius and spirit of Presbyterian Church government.
lie believed that it would preserve the independence and
jurisdiction of the Church—that it would give due weight
to the just claims of the people, while it did not injuriously
intrude on the rights of patrons. The preamble recited
the rights and duties of collation, and the Bill provided
that when a presentee came to a Presbytery duly appointed
by the patron, that Presbytery should direct the pre-
sentee to preach in the church of the parish, according to
their instructions. After that the Presbytery should meet,
and due notice having been given, they should intimate
that if any one or more persons in communion with the
Church had any objections of any kind to the individual,
or had any reasons to state against his settlement in that
parish (because it was of great importance that the indi-
vidual should be duly qualified for the particular parish in
which he was to be located), or had any objections to urge
against his gifts and qualities for the cure of the said pa-
rish, the Presbytery would be ready to receive the same
ie writing at the next meeting ; which objections should
be afterwards re-considered and disposed of by
the Presbytery. If the Presbytery' were Of
opinion—regard being had to the whole concerns of the
parish—that in respect of any of the objections urged, the
individual should not be called in that parish ; the Presb)-
tery should specify the grounds on which they founded
their opinion in respect of which the presentee was not
qualified for that parish. It was further proved that it
should be in the power of the presentee, the patron, or
the Presbytery, to appeal to the superior Ecelesia eical
Court. On the other hand, if, after considering all the
objections, they were satisfied in the exercise of their
authority and duty, that no good objection existed, or that
the objections and reasons assigned were not truly
founded, the Presbytery should repel the same, and pro-
ceed to the further trial and examination of the presentee,
and if approved of, appoint him. On a subject like
the present, when so much excitement prevailed, it was
impossible to suppose that any plan would meet with
anything like general approbation ( Hear, hear)—
but he hoped for the present one to receive
the dispassionate consideration and support of moderate
men of all parties. __(Hear, hear.) The Noble Viscount
opposite laughed, and he was aware that the greatest stigma
which a Churchman could labour under in Scotland was
that of being a moderate; but in the English sense of the
' word, he hoped that men of all parties would consent to his
plan. It preserved the full jurisdiction of the Church,
while it enabled the people to state all the objections they
thought proper, which objections would be fully considered
by the Presbytery. It might be said by some that he had
sacrificed the independence of the Church, but he had al-
ready expressed his conviction that its rights were, in the
Bill before their Lordships, fully preserved, and they might
say that he had conceded too much to the Church, and many
of their Lordships might be of that opinion. His short
answer to that was, that he was quite persuaded there
was nothing in the Bill which the Church itself
could not by its own legitimate authority exercise and en-
force. lie was able to state, on the authority of those
who were most deeply conversant with the affairs of Scot-
land, that such was the case. In conclusion he would
earnestly recommend to the leaders of the Church of
Scotland seriously to consider the position in which they
were placed. Most willingly would he for one contribute
to close, it' possible, those rents by which the moral
strength of the Church was impaired, and lie called upon
their leaders most earnestly, respectfully, and afLctionately
to consider the perilous position in which they were placed.
It was impossible that the present state of things could
last. He would conclude by recommending this measure
to the attention of the Government and the people of
Scotland, and above all to those members of the Church,
and they were not a few, who loved peace, and sought it
with their whole hearts —( Cheers. )
The Duke of BUCCLEUCII would detain. their
sons for approving of the measure of the.,
Lordships only a few minutes while he cNsxop,orelcssielrlii.isTrehaa-t
the present state of the Church of Scotland was most la-
mentable and dangerous no one who had paid, any.atten-
Lion to the subject could attempt. to deny. From circum-
stances, he would not detain
.their Lordships by re-
stances, w
ainndthat Church where
pastors in many in-
stances in to the people, and the
formerlyl a t re-
lating,
unanimityiesrsee n
placeds ion
hn
prevailed,
rprepevoiagsi
opposition
dodn,
pastors. Ile was sorry also to say that in
of that country agitation had been made use
peopleinayithd titsoi
isorst disastrous results.. .The ultra Non. in-
otri•usionists had gone out of their own districts into others
tiertliCinet
party feuding had nothino. to do
with which they had no connection, and by a sort of cru-
sade had excited the minds of
whichthe people, and created
etghreeest4feet, and which was likely to do great evil to
tanhietdhChurch. The measure which had been brought for-
ward by etc Noble Earl was. one which, while it gave full
independence to theChurchrn spiritual matters, would give
to the people that right which he :thought they ought to
have. He did not think the people were the best judges
of the qualification of a Minister, they might be
misled by improper motives, they might hate a predilec-
tion for some other person, or although they might have
no objection to the minister presented, they might be ac-
tuated by a strong feeling against the patron, the effect

of which wonid be to make the person presented by tint
I;at.,:;t rases, 111 the present Met-
s(r:•, es :,eti 171 left as is ought t be, ie the:hands
et lIIC clay,, Du were to judge of tie vaitdity or the
objections stated by the congregation. He was not a
member of the Church of Scotland himself, yet no one
could be more anxious than he was to see that Church
established with firmness, :hat nothing should interfere to
impair its efficiency, its independence, or its integrity.—
( Hear, hear.) lie thought that the decision ought not to
be left in the hands of an irresponsible body. A body of
that nature might be excited by their passions, and might
act in such a manner as eventually to force a patron to
make an appointment, although he might not think the
person so appointed a proper one. In a moment of pas-
sion a parish might force a person upon themselves, and
some future day repent of their precipitancy, when they had
no means left to remedy the evil. He could not
but express his extreme satisfaction that the Noble Lord
had taken up this subject. He had stated clearly the pre-
sent state of the Church of Scotland, the difficulties and
dangers in which it waiplaced, andlthe cause of those diffi-
culties and daggers, and the means by which they might
be remedied; but he could not at the same time avoid ex-
pressing his extreme surprise and regret that a measure of
such great importance, and involving such immense respon-
sibbity should not have been undertaken by her Majesty's
Government. It was the duty of the Government to have
brought forward this subject, and not toihave left it to an in-
dividual who, from local feeling, bad taken the responsibility
on himself. Whatever might be the fate of the present
Bill, it was one which would always reflect the highest
credit, and honour on the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of ARGYLE thought the proposed measure
very well adapted to remedy the evils from the effects of
which the Church of Scotland was at present suffering.
The Earl of GALLOWAY having thought it his 'duty
on various occasions during the Session, to call upon her
Majesty's Government to endeavour to effect the settlement
of the present question, was of opinion, that if, on the
present occasion, when a measure for its settlement was
brought forward by a Noble Lord on his side the House,
his motives for urging the subject heretofore on the attention
of the Government might be liable to misinterpretation,
if not here, at least among his fellow-countrymen in Scot-
land, if he abstained from expressing that the Government
had virtually acknowledged their incompetency to deal
with the question, by shrinking from the responsibility of
bringing any measure forward. He begged to express his
entire concurrence in the measure proposed by the Noble
Earl. It appeared to him likely to he satisfactory to those
who still opposed the Veto Law of the General Assembly,
which their Lordships had declared to be illegal, and those
who still maintained that the election of the Minister
should be in the people alone. These latter persons
founded their arguments on the assumption that such was
the law of the Word of God, and such was the ancient
usages of the Church. If he could persuade himself that
patronage, meaning thereby the presentation of a qualified
person to a benefice, was contrary to the Word of God, he,
tor one, would not wish to see it continued. But he be-
lieved there was no precise rule laid down in Scripture on
this subject; but that it was left entirely to the discretion
of the Church. Now, whatever might have been the
practice of the infant Church, he thought it possible that
the regulations which were very well adapted to that state
might be totally inapplicable to it during the period of its
future growth. Whatever might have been the practice
of the primitive Church, when it depended upon voluntary
contributions of its members for the support of its minis-
ters, he did not think that it could be held binding upon
them under the present circumstances of the connection
between Church and State. He was prepared to con-
tend that the Statute of 1567 afforded no foundation
whatever for the Veto Act of the General Assembly of
1834. In troublous times in 1649, he knew that .patronage
had been destroyed, and the regular sanction of Parlia-
ment had been given to its abolition by the Act of 1690:
but these acts had not interfered with the spiritual juris-
diction of the Church. He would never consent to any
measure for legalizing the Veto Act, embracing as it did
the abolition of patronage ; as he believed that such
abolition would nut conduce to the happiness or well-being
of either the Church or the people. He hoped their Lord-
ships would never give their consent to any measure
by which the Church should be divested of its spiritual
jurisdiction, and the arbitrary right conferred on the
people of rejecting presentees. He thought if the heads
of the Church bad heretofore exercised their jurisdiction
as faithfully as they ought to have done heretofore, these
troubles would not have arisen. He would suppose a
case. The minister of a parish might be an excellent
man, a favourite with the pastor and the parish—he
might have a son who bad been a wild young man, but
who had returned from his college a reformed character.
The patron, and the majority of the parishioners, to
please their old minister, might consent to the appoint-
ment of this young man as his father's assistant and suc-
cessor, but a minority of the right thinking pa-
rishioners might think his former life an objection to
him, and as likely to impair his usefulness. Formerly such a
young man would have been appointed notwith-
standing this opposition, but he thought if the
Church had exercised its jurisdiction properly, such
appointments would not have taken place. He believed
the present measure was according to the spirit of the
ancient Church of Scotland, that it was founded in reason,
and a spirit of piety and peace, and that if those persons
who were at present employed in Scotland, some in
agitating and some in enlightening the public mind on
this subject, would unite in recording it, they would be
conferring a great public benefit.
Viscount ME L BOURN E had listened with the greatest
attention to the statements of the Noble Earl. Of course
it was not his intention on the present occasion to pretend
to go into any observations on the greater part of his re-
marks, as it would be necessary that on some future occa-
sion he should fully discuss the question—indeed he should
not have thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships if
it had not been that his Noble Friend, in bringing forward
the motion, and also the Noble Duke and the Noble Earl
had expressed their disapprobation of the conduct cf the
Government in not ?laving themselves originated some
measure on this subject which had agitated the cnt're of
Scotland, and had produced in that country an utter disre-
gard to the authority of the law. It was not his intention
on the present occasion to enter into any defence of the
conduct of the Government, and he put this off with the
greater satisfaction because, after the lapse of a very
short time, he should not be surprised as, they
advanced a little further in this discussion.
if the expediency of the conduct of Government in declin-
ing to interfere with the question at all should not be made
abundantly clear, manifest, and undeniable ; besides be
could not attempt that defence without stating some of his
objections to the measure of his Noble Friend, into the (14-
cussion of which he did not wish to enter at present. He
would only say that the occasion was not so grave as it had
been represented to be, and that there was not that exi-
gency for legislative interference which had been supposed
to exist. He would on another occasion enter into a dis-
cussion of the merits of this measure. He was most
anxious fur a settlement of this question, and most anxious
that the measure of his Noble Friend should have a full,
fair, and complete consideration. He should not regret
having given up that task to his Noble Friend, notwith-
standing any proof it might be of incompetency on his
(Viscount Melbourne's) part, if it should have the effect of
conducing to the effectual settlement of this question.
The Earl of H ADDINGTON said that he concurred
in almost every word that had fallen from his Noble Friend
in introducing his measure. After the tone in which the
matter had been discussed, he would not say one word on
the conduct pursued by her Majesty's Government, with
regard to their not having brought in a measure on the
subject on their own responsibility. Neither had he the
least desire of entering into a history of bygone factions in
the Church of Scotland respecting the question under their
Lordships' consideration, because it was his wish to avoid
using a single word which could create the smallest irri-
tation, or prevent the favourable reception of the Bill of
his Noble Friend. He would merely express his opinion
of the Veto Act by saying, that inasmuch as the clergy of
the Church of Scotland had by that Act invested the
people with a right of objecting to a presentee, they pro
lento abdicated their own functions. The people were,
in point of fact, called on by the Act to judge of the qua-
lifications of their clergy, and that was perhaps the most
serious and formidable objection to the veto. It was not,
however, the only one. Its harshness to the presentee
was palpable, and he was astonished how any one could
have acquiesced in a measure so dangerous and un-
reasonable. It placed the clergy and the people in a false
position by investing the latter with an unjust and arbitrary
power. With regard to the measure of his Noble Friend
he drought it a wise arid salutary one, and as such he joined
with his Noble Friend in recommending it to the clergy of
the Church of Scotland. The Bill of his Noble Friend
would place all parties in their proper places, and the prin-
ciple on which it proceeded was no other than that which
had been laid down by a Baronet of great wisdom, worth,
and moderation—he meant Sir Harry Moncrieff, who said it
was the duty of the people to object to ministers, and it was
the duty of the Church to adjudicate. He would con-
clude by expressing his conviction that if his Noble Friend
succeeded in his measure he would have acquired an envi-
able situation, and even though he should fail in his endea-
vour be would deserve the highest praise for having come
forward in so courageous and patriotic a manner to settle
the differences by which his native country was distracted.
The Marquis of BUTE cordially supported the measure
introduced by his Noble Friend, and hoped it would be re-
ceived by the Church of Scotland in the affectionate man-
ner which it deserved.

The Bill was then read a first time and their Lordships
adjourned.

PARLIEMENTAItY DI lISION.

(From the Poles and Proceedings of the House of Commona.)
MONDAY, MAY 4.
SUPPLY (In Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a sum, not
exceeding 67,0001., be granted to her Majesty, to defray the
charge of Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners for oar-
Tying into execution the Act for the Amendment of the Law
relating to the Poor in England and Wales, and the Act for
the relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland, to the 31st day of
March 1441;"—Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put,—
" That a sou, not exceeding 54,25b4 10s. be granted to her
Majesty, for the like purpose :"—The Committee divided :
MINORITY—AYES,
Hindley, C. Pa:m,..r, a
James, Sir Walter Pechell, Captain
Jones, John Sibthorp, Colonc
Kemble, Henry Sinclair, Sir G.
Williams, W.
Lefroy, Dr. T.
Lowther, Colonel TELLERS.
Mackenzie, Thomas
Hodges, r.
Morris, David Somerset, Lord. G.
.JORITY—NOES, 57.
Russell. Lord John
I.ll3l)ll°use'Sir J.C.
Robert Rutile:lyd. A.
Hol'ond,
Howard, P. 14. s‘iwcy, Colonel
Hume, Joscoh Smith, Vernon
HuStanley, E J.
Knight, irenry Gaily .Staastie
Dhi, W. R.
Stock, r.
cl, S.W.
Thornely, Thomas
r. 13
LLauabscghteor.ei; hl.Charles l'ancre
Martin, John Trowbridge, Sir T.
Manic,
Hon kcx \rigors, N A.
M d
elgun ,
Lord - Vivian, J. H.
Mnskctt, G. A Warburton. H.
Nichol!, J Ward, H. G.
°Torn, W. S. . Wool, Benjamin
Palmerston' Viscount Woudey, Lord
Pondarves, E. W. Yates, John A.
Philips, G. It.
TELLERS.
Ricktord, W. Parker, John
Round,, C. O. Tufnell, Henry

Blair, J.
Brothcrtou, J.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Burr, Higford
Dick, Quintin
Egerton, S,r P. G.
Ellis, John
Hector, C. J,

Acland, Sir Thomas
k dam, Admiral Sir C.
Aglionby, H; A.
Baring, P. 'l'.
Basset, John
Berkeley, C.
Bramston. T. W.
Briscoe, J.
Campbell, Sir John
Canning, Sir S.
Clay, W.
Darby, George
Dunce as Ddvid
Elliot, Hon J. E.
Ewart, W.
Ferguson, Sir Ronald
Gordon, IL
Greene, T. G.
Grey, Sir G.
Hawes, B.

s.

EVENING EDITION.

FI-10111 LAST NTT.GETri---7

~~

'.1.: '''
''
..(,' 'A__).*.
WHITE:HA:I. A pr.ii. 4, it '',44r.) ~I:.'/ .1 ~i
~.•`'
•"
Esq., )
I-ler Majesty has been pleased to appoint t.i.:olvk--t\iepittr
... ••
Esq., Advosiate, to be Sheriff Depute of the Sh:rer...N,,laiirf - •
dom of Peebles, in the room of John Wood, Esq., resigned.

CROWN OFFICE, MAT 4.
MEURER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT
PARLIAMENT.
COUNTY or FERMANAGH.—Sir Arthur I3rinsley Brcoke,
Bart., of Colebrook, in the said county of Fermanagh, in the
room of Viscount Cole, Clow Earl of Enniskillen.

OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, MAY 4.
Royal Regiment of Artillery—Brevet Lieut.-Colonel A.
Alablachlan, to be Lieut.-Colonel, vice Cubitt, deceased;
Second Capt. W. Furneaux, to be Contain, vice Maclachlan ;
First Lieut. J. Turner, to bq Second Captain, vice Furneaux
Second Lieut. 13. Bathurst, to be First Lieutenant, viols
Turner, April 11 ; First Lieut. A. A. Shuttleworth, to be
Second Captain, vice Cremer, retired on half-pay ; Second
Lieut. H. 13. 0. Savile, to be 'First Lieutenant, vice Shuttle-
worth, April 21.
MEmciaA.Nnvot.—The date of the commissions of the un-
dermentioned officers of the Royal Reginient of Artillery, has
been altered to the 16th March, 1840, viz. Lieut.-Colonel
Philip Warren Walker, Captain Robert Clarke, Second Captain
George Rogers, First Lieutenant Henry Lyuelock Gardiner.

Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire.
The Queen's Own Royal Regiment of Staffordshire Yeo-
manry Cavalry.—The Right.Honourable Granville George
Lord Leveson to bo Captain, vicO Mott, resigned, April 3.
Commissions by the Lord-Lientenant of Someßsetshire.
West Somerset Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry.—A. P.
Brown, Esq. to be Captain ; J. Randolph, Gent to 13e Lieu-
tenant; F. N. Bower, Gcut. to be Cornet, April Z).

An Account of the Average Aggregate Amouot of Notes in
Circulation in England and Walea, by Private Banks and by
Joint Stock Banks, distinguishing each, between the 28th
December 1839, and the 28th March 1840.—From Returns
directed by 3 and 4 .W. 4, c. 83.
Private Banks
Joint Stock Bank

.£6,893,012
3,940,232

£10,833,244
HENRY L. WICKHAM.
Stamps and Taxes, Mny 5, 1840.

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
JOSEPH BROOK, corn dealer, Victoria-road, Pimlico.

BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.

JOSEPH FRENCH, jun., ribbon-manufacturer, Cotentry.
JOHN HOWARD HETHERINGTON, brewer, White-
haven.

BANKRUPTS.

THOMAS MILLER, artists' coloarman, Long-acre, to
surrender May 12, at two, and June 16, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Cannan, Finsbury square, official isisigmee ;
Ford, Bloomsbury-square.
JOSEPH HOSKINS, chranometer-maker, Hercules-court,
Broad-street, City, May 14, at one, and June 16, at twelye,
the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official ass,goee ; Ashley,
Shoredi tch.

• SAMUEL PRATT, stone-mason, Nottingham, May IT,
and June 16, at twelve, at the George the Fourth Hotel, Not-
tingham. Brewster, Nottingham ; Taylor and Coilisson,
Bedford-row, London.

THOMAS TEMPLETON and ARCHIBALD TEM-
PLETON, silk-manufacturers, Congletcn, Cheshire, slay 21,
at twelve, and June 16, at two, at the Mazelestield Arms Ina,
Maecieifield. Kay, Barlow, and Aston, Manchester.
RICHARD PARKER, wharfinger, Anderton, Cheshire,
May 21, at twelve, and June 16, at eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Alsager, official as.ignee, Birehin-lane, COrn-
hill ; Stevens, Wilkinson, and Satchell, Queen-street, Cheap-
side, London.

AUGUSTUS WESTLEY, publican, Friars-street, Doc-
tors'-commons, May 18, at one, and June 16, av eleven, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Basin;-
hall-street; Goddard, King-street, Cheapside.
JOHN CLARKE, green-grocer, Brook-street, Holborn,
May 12, at one, and June 16, at twelve, :It the Court of iLnk-.
ruptcy. Green, official assignee, Aluermanbury ; Kennett and
Gregcry, Chatham-place, Blacktriars.
CHARLES BRERETON, JOSEPH VERNON, and
DAVID PAUL, engine-manufacturers, Kingston-upon-Hull,
May 27, and June 16, at eleven, at the Goorge Inn, Kingston-
upon•Hull. Lightfoot and Earushaw, Hull; Walinsley,
Keightley, and Parkin, Chancery-lane, London.

The following places have been duly registered for solomniz-
ng marriages therein, pursuant to tho Act of the 6th and 7th
William IV., chap. 85 :
All Saints, Sedgley, Staffordshire.
Cheeseburne Grange Chapel, Chefceburne Grange, Nor.
thumberland.
Ebenezer Chapel, Kidderminster.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basingball- street.
S. Hind, grocer, Sekford-street, Clerkenwell, May 26, at
eleven--T. 111*Donnell, boot maker, Pall-mall, Illy '26, at
half-past one—T. Driver and J. Moore, shipowners, City of.
London, May 22, at one—A. Emerson, lead merchant, Law-
rence I'ountney-lane, City, May 2S, at half-past eleven—R.
Witherby, merchant, Nicholas-lane, City, Mal- 28, at two—lL
Scholefield, warehouseman, 'Watling-street, City, May 27, at
eleven—W. Harrison, printer, Portsmouth, May 26, at eleven
—W. Rose, hotel keeper, liatt's Hotel, Dover-street, Picca-
dilly, May 26, at twelve—J. C. Dawe, printseller, Regent-
street, Pall-mall, May 27, at twelve—J. Cooper, painter, Ha-
nover-street, Hanover-square, May 27. at one.
In the Country.
H. Aldrich, corn merchant, Ipswich. May 29, at one, at the
Crown and Anchor Tavern, Ipswich—W. Swain, builder, Lea.
miogton Priors, Warwickshire, May 28, at twelve, at the
Lansdowne Hotel, Leamington Priors—J. Courtney, druggist,
Brecon, May 28, at twelve, at the Castle Hotel, 'Brecon—J.
Loveridge, cabinet maker, Bridport, May 28, at one, at the
Bull Hotel, 13ridport—J. Whiteley, machine maker, Halifaz,
Yorkshire, May 28, at one, at the Shakespeare Tavern, Halifax
—J. Gamble and T. Kidd, wood sawyers, Sutton-in-Holder-
nest, Yorkshire, May 29, at one, at the George Inn. Kingston-
upon-Hull—J. Lawless, commission agent, Mancheeter, May
30, at twelve, at the Commissioners.'-rooms, 3Janchester—W.
Skinner, miller, Heatlifield, Susses, May 28, at one, at the
White Hart Inn, Lewes, Sussex--1. Harris, innkeeper, Rhyl,
Flintshire, May 26, at eleven, tht the White Horse Inn. Holy-
well, Flintshire—J. Jackson, drover, Westbury-upon-Severn,
Gloucestershire, June 1, at twelve, at the Bear Inn, Newnhant
—C. Honey, corn dealer, Littlemore, Oxfordshire, hay 29, at'
eleven, at Mr. T. Lucas's, Town-hall, Oxford—W. and
E. Wheeler, horse dealers, Oxford, July 10, at eleven, at Mr.
Lucas's, Town-hall, Oxford-_T. Fiageon, E. Getley, and H.
Lomas, merchants, Birmingham, Jiane 2, at one, at the New
Royal Hotel, Birmingham—T. Danibell, copper smelter, Trelis-
sick, Cornwall, Dec. 18, at twelve, at Pearce's Hotel, nzro,„
Cornwall—S. Smith, cotton spinner-, Stay-ley, Cheshire, May
28, at twelve, at Mr. J. Taylor's, Manchester—W. Hodgett.t.
bookseller, 13irmingliam, May 26, eleven, at the New Roy::
Hotel, Birmingham.
CERTIFICATES.—May 26.
W. J. Milne and R. Morri.mn, piano-forte manufacturer',
Percy-street, Rathbone-place--S. Fox, corn dealer, Man.:tiles-
ter—A. Krauss, manufacturer, Salford, Lancashire-4. Bon-
nor, money scrivener, Gleucr.ste:—H. Blackburn, grocer, Ha-
lifax, Yorkshire—T. B. Lawfo..d, wine merchant, Fenchurch-
street, City—J. Collins, buildr.r, Gillingham, Dorsetsbire.
PARTNERSII7:::'S DISSOLVED.

F. de Biller, J. F. A. de Bidder, and J. Spooner, George-
town, Demerara—J. Smith and E. L. Baldwin, brewers, Bath
—G. Richards and G. It. 2.lkington, toy manufacturers, Bart_
lett's-building, Holborn--I. Martindale and .1. Hutton, silk
mercers, Liverpotl—T. Sharpies and .1. Travis, woollen
printers, Waterfoot, Las cashire.—A. Colvin, W. Ainstie,
Cowie, D. Anislir., •Ind H. Cowie, merchants, Calcutta
(as far as regards A. Colvin)—G. and H. Oakley, car-
penters, Wandsworth-road—G. Christian and J. Howard, ma-
thematical instrument makers, Liverpool—J. and J. Travers.
wholesale grocers, London— W. S. Matthews and E. Bostnck,
shoe manufacturers, Stone, Staffordshire—C. Blomfield and G.
Grewcock, surgeons, Falkingham, Lincolnshire—W. Ridgway
and R. M. Robes', china manufacturers, Hanley. Staffordshire
—H. Scyde and E. Jones, milliners, Wolverhampton—J. and
R. Gray, organ builders, New-road, St. Pancras—G. Cutler
and G. Wadsworth, ironfounders, Bradford. Yorkshite—L.
Samuels and W. Thornton. lace makers, Ison-green, Notting-
ham—W. Dutton and H. E. B. Giles, attorneys.at-law, Han-
ley, Staffordshire—C. Dugdale and J. Blanchard, millers, Lit
verpool—J. and J. Stringer, skinners, Spout-green, Cheshire
—T. Matterson and W. Preston. jun., woollen drapers, South
Shields—J. Aspden, J. Ramsbottom, and J. Itamabottom,
cotton spinners, Minorca Mill, Spotland, Lancashire (as far as
regards J. Asplen)—F. Pritchard and T. S. Burman, sur-
geons, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire—H. Strut ton and
H. W. Hellyor, coal dealers, Railway-arches, Bermondsey-
street.