The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-31 00:00:00

POST- OFFICE NO7 ICE.

The following list shows the days on which the
British and Unicvd Stares' Tait Packets (so iar as the
information can be given) are appointed to be dispatched
from this country to North America, during the months
of April, May, and June of this year:—
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, April 5, for
Boston—night mail. April 4.
United States packet, from Liverpool, Wednesday,
April 9. for New York—night mail, April 8.
British packets, from Liverpool, Saturday, April 12,
for New York, and Saturday, April 19, for Boston—
night mails, April 11 and 18.
United States packets, from Southampton,Wednesday,
April 23, for New York—night mail, April 22.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, April 26,
for New York—night mail, April 25.
United States packet, from Liverpool, Wednesday,
April 30, for Now York—night mail, April 29.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, May 3, for
Boston—night mail, May 2.
United,oStates packet, from Southampton, Wednesday.
May 7, for. New York—night mail, May 6.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday. May 10,
for New York—night mail, May 9.
United States packet, from Liverpool, Wednesday,
May 14, for New York—night mail, May 13.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, May 17, for
Boston7-night mail, May 16.
United States packet, from Southampton, Wednesday,
May 21, for New York—night mail, May 20.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, May 24,
for New York—night mail, May 23.
United States packet, from Liverpool, Wednesday,
May 28, for New York—night mail, May 27.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, May 31, for
Boston—night mail, May 30.
United States, from Southampton, Wednesday, June
4, for New York—night mail, June 3.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, June 7, for
New York, and Saturday, Jane 14, for Boston—night
mail, June 6 and 13.
United States packet, from Southampton, Wednesday,
June 18, for New York—night mail, June 17.
British packet, from Liverpool, Saturday, June 21, for
New York, and Saturday, Juno 28, for Boston—night
mail, June 20 and 27.
Ail letters addressed to the United States, and not
directed to be otherwise sent, will be transmitted by the
first packet, whether British or United States, which is
dispatched after they are posted; but letters specially
directed "by British packet," "by , United States
packet," or by any particular vessel named, will be for-
warded in accordance with the desire thus expressed by
the writers.

The British mail packets on the New York line will
proceed direct from Liverpool to New York and from
New York to Liverpool, without calling at Halifax.
Letters and newspapers, however, for Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, may still be for-
warded in closed mails by these packets, if specially ad-
dressed " via New York," or " via the United States;''
but letters and newspapers not so addressed will be sent
in theiregular mails to Halifax by the packets proceeding
from Liverpool via Halifax to Boston.
The United States' mail packets, as well as the Bri-
tish packets, will convey closed mails for Canada, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, and
letters and newspapers will be forwarded in such closed
mails, if specially addressed " via New York," or " via
the United States." Letters for Canada, however, must,
In addition, bear the words " by United States' packet."
The postage upon letters and newspapers is precisely
the same, whether they are conveyed by British or
United States' packets.
Letters, &c., for Bermuda and Newfoundland will be
forwarded enly by the packets proceeding to Boston;
the mails for Bermuda will be dispatched from Halifax
immediately after the arrival of the packet at that port,
and those for Newfoundland will be dispatched on the ar-
rival at of the homeward packet from Boston.
Postmasters will bear in mind that all letters to be
transmit*ei by rackets which start from Southampton
must be forwarded to London, and not to Liverpool.

„
HOUSE OF LI-111138.-(THIS DAY.)

TAYLEITICS bivoß,E.
The second reading of this %ll was appointed for to.
hLord Chancellor,
' and day. The Peers present
Lord Brougham, Lords Stran„ford
Mr. TALBOT appeared at the bar,od Lanesb3rough.
offer evidence in
l
support of the second reading. 0, Petitioner for the
Bill was Mr. William Holbrook TaYlen,.!ormerly one
of the partners in a principal Erin o'"gierPol. In
1835 ho married Miss Heathcote, of Stoke otatlordshire.
The pair lived in harmony and happiness until 1842,
when they became acquainted with Lord Arthur
Lennox, with whom it was alleged the adultery had
13, !en committed. The intimacy, it was alleged, had
been kept up at intervals until 1849, and it was sup-
posed that improper familiarities had passed between
them on different occasions, though no proof could
.be brought forward until the end of 1849, when, he
should be able to show that Mrs. Tayleur had passed
the night with Lord Arthur Lennox at her own lodg-
lo„ when her husband was absent.
'Mr. W. Cleveland proved the serving of the bill on
Mrs. Tayleur.
Mr. T. G. Wood Proved the marriage, which took
place in 1835.
Captain Phibbs, brother-in-law of the petitioner,
spoke to the affection formerly existing between the
petitioner and his wife. Ile was the most affectionate
husband he had ever seen.
Mrs. liart,who had had charge of Mrs. Tayleur during

a long illness, as nurse, deposed that late in the month of
November, 1849, while advancing to a state of conva-
lescence she and Mrs. Tayleur drove out in a cab, and
called at the United Service Club, and witness, by Mrs.
Tayleur's directions, inquired for Lord Arthur Lennox.
That gentleman came, got into the cab, and stayed there
for some time. On arriving at home Mrs. Tayleur told
witness that Lord Arthur was coming to stay there all
night, and directed her (witness) to open the door for him.
Mr. Tayleur was in the country, and witness refused to
do so; but when night came Lord Arthur came to the
house, and on making a signal outside, was admitted by
the housemaid. Lord Arthur then went straight into
Mrs. Tayleur's bed-room, and as witness had occasion to
go into the bed-room several times to give Mrs.
Tayleur her medicine, she saw that Lord Arthur
Lennox was in bed with Mrs. Tayleur. He
remained there until morning, and let himself out
by a private door. The same was repeated on the next
night, and on each occasion she saw Lord Arthur in bed
with Mrs. Tayleur.
Anne Ashe, who was in the employ of Mrs. Tayleur,
as housemaid, at the period of the occurrence, corrobo-
rated the statement of the former witness. She admitted
Lord Arthur Lennox into the house; he went into
Mrs. Tayleur's bed-room, where he remained all
night. Next morning she informal the butler Smith of
what had occurred.

John Smith, butler to Mr. Tayleur, deposed that on
receiving information from the last witness of what had
occurred he immediately wrote to his master to apprise
him of what had taken place.
Evidence was put in to prove that an action bad been
brought against Lord Arthur Lennox, and a verdict for
5001. damages obtained.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR the Bill was
read a second time.

ELECTION COMMIT TEES.
(THIS DAY.)

ST. ALBAN'S.

The Committee sat to-day at three o'clock, but in con-
sequence of certain witnesses not being present, it ad-
journed over until Thursday.

AYLESBURY.

The Committee proceeded with the inquiries in this
petition this morning at eleven o'clock.
Mr. RODWELL, on behalf of the petitioners, proceeded
with the evidence in the cases of bribery.
Several innkeepers of the town were called, by whose
evidence the Learned Counsel endeavoured to establish
the fact that the sitting Member had kept open house for
his voters, and had borne the whole expenses.
Air. Sergeant 11111GLAKE objected that the Learned
Counsel was proceeding with cases of treating and not
of bribery, and therefore it was necessary that he should
establish the agency.
Mr. RODWELL replied that he should prove that by
giving carte blanche to the innkeepers the sitting Mem-
ber had bribed the innkeepers.
The COMMITTEE thought that in that case the line
pursued by the Learned Counsel was perfectly correct.
The inquiry then proceeded, but when the Committee
roso nothing which bore the appearance of esta-
blishing anything beyond a case of treating had been
established.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented petitions from Lime-
rick, and one from Cork, against the abolition of the
Lord-Lieutenancy.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL presented several:pe-
titions from places in Ireland against Papal aggression.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
from places in Scotland with a similar prayer.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a great num-
ber of petitions with a similar prayer.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition from
Cheshunt praying for the enfranchisement of copyholds.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE
OF LORDS—CHANCERY REFORM.

Lord LYNDHURST rose to direct the attention of
their Lordships to the Bill for the reform of the Court
of Chancery, which had been introduced into the other
House, and to the Bill respecting the appellate jurisdic-
tion, which was about to be introduced into this House,
and those subjects were so intim? tely connected that it
would be impossible to discuss the measures separately.
His Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack was
affected by both Bills, and therefore they must be dis-
cussed as one measure. If one Bill should be lost, and the
other carried, it would involve matters in the most inex-
tricable confusion. He asked why the whole measure
was not introduced into their Lordships' House?—(Hear,
hear.) He believed there had never been an instance
in which Bills relating to the Court of Chancery had
not been introduced into their Lordships' House,
and why, he asked, had that precedent been
departed from in the present instance? There' was not
an assembly better calculated in the world to introduce
and to perfect a measure of this nature than that he had
now the honour of addressing. How was it composed?
There was his Noble and Learned Friend on the woolsack,
a most accomplished lawyer, there were two Members who
had held the office of Lord Chancellor, there was a
Noble and Learned Lord who had recently retired from
the Rolls, and who had for years exercised the office of
Master of the Rolls with great credit to himself; they
had hie Nolde 1111 Learned Friend who had lecentl)
been raised to their Lordships' House; there
was the Lord Chief Justice of England, and there was
his Noble and Learned Friend, who bad long been one
of the Masters in Chancery, and who had subsequently
been an officer of their Lordships' House. There wee
his Noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, who had
paid great attention to the subject, and several other
Noble Lords, who were well acquainted with the
position of the House and of the courts. Why
then had this Bill not been preecnted to this
House? It had been promised last session, it had been
mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and it was
not introduced until just before Easter. Had it been
originated in this House, it would have been carried, ma-
tured, perfected, and sent down to the other House before
this period. He, therefore, asked why this unprece-
dented course had been adopted? The only reason he
could imagine was, that the Government would not put
into the hands of the Noble Lord on the wool-
sack so utterly worthless a measure. Its ten-
dency could not but be to increase the num-
ber of appeals to this House. If this new tribunal
should reverse the decrees of the great lawyers who
presided in the courts below, suitors would not acqui-
esce, but would appeal to their Lordships. He had
hoard that there was an intention to infringe upon their
Lordships' privileges, by taking away in certain
cases the right of appeal to their Lordships.
He could not believe that such intention existed, He
was anxious for some explanation on this subject. He
had been told that the reason why the Bill originated
in the House of Commons was because it was intended
to transfer the Church patronage of his Noble and
Learned Friend to the First Lord of the Treasury, al-
ready sufficiently burdened with patronage. Of course
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government could
not have asked his Noble and Learned Friend to com-
mit such a suicidal act. Never were more fallacious
reasons offered for such a measure than those
offered fur this change. One reason was, that
the patronage had been used by the holders of
the Great Seal for party purposes. He denied that it
had ever been so used. He could say that he had
never, in his distribution of Church patronage, been
actuated by any such motives. (Hear, hear.)
His first important piece of patronage he had given
to the late Rev. Sidney Smith, from whom he differed
in politics. But was it less likely to be distributed
without reference to party by the First Lord of the
Treasury than by the holder of the Great Seal?—
(Hear, hear.) There was another reason assigned.
His Noble and Learned Friend ca the woolsack was
oppressed by the weight of his duties, and it was
necessary to relieve him, but the distribution of this
patronage was but a feather in the scale of the burden
weighing on the Lord Chancellor. This was the lightest
burden with which the Lord Chancellor was oppressed.
Anther reason given was that the Loi d Chancellor was
apt to be influenced by the recommendation of livings,
but the First Lord of the Treasury might be influenced
by a clerk in his office. The alteration had been re-
commended by a Committee of the House of Commons
—that is to say, by a Committee appointed by the First
Lord of the Treasury, and composed of his partisans ;
and that Committee, without hearing the Chancellor
decides that it is advisable to transfer this patronage
from the Lord Chancellor to the First Lord of the
Treasury. It was said that the Great Seal had
been held by ecclesiastics when this patronage
was originally attached to it ; but the Great
Seal had been held uninterruptedly by laymen for the
last 200 years. Would such an attempt have been
made when the Great Seal was held by
Lord Thurlow, or Lord Eldon, or his Noble
and Learned Friend near him (Brougham)?
and he felt convinced that his Noble and Learned Friend
on the woolsack would not submit to such a degrada-
tion, but transmit the patronage of his office unimpaired
to his successor. He wished to know why the usual
practice of introducing Bills relating to the Court of
Chancery into the House had been departed from in
these cases.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought his Noble and
Learned Friend must have forgotten all the rules of their
Lordships' House. Ho had been discussing two things
called Bills, neither of which bad been introduced into
either House of Parliament. The Bill of which :his
Noble and Learned Friend had spoken had
not yet been introduced into the other House of Parlia-
ment. Various draughts had been prepared, and he
supposed his Noble and Learned Friend must have got
hold of ono of those draughts, and have been alluding
to clauses which never were likely to be brought
before Parliament.—(Hear.) He could assure his
Noble and Learned Friend that there was no intention
whatever to interfere with their Lordships' appellate
jurisdiction. His attention had been attracted to the
Chance,rt;:•
cobutit and it had rested with him solely to move for a
Several Bills for the reform of the Court of
hadt been introduced into their Lordship'
House
mons. I.,ivtesh.ety had never reached the House of Com-
steis tishing, therefore, that the opinion of
should be asked upon a measure which
the other llou'
had already been
discussed in the House of Lords?
It
was a most inconsistent
on
imaginary course to enter into a dis-
cussionulnt clauses of an imaginary
and Learnoend
Bill. Hofample his Noble led
monstrous an irrer,ularit
by the ex-
en
The to
commit so
butsisfactory to Pulia' ,
subject of Chancery reform was one of
y. .
ne extreme diffi-
he had never suc-
culty. His Noble and Learned mend had proposed !
measure subject,
cseeevdereadl faneparsouproesunodnintghattl

ment. In answer to his Noble and Learned Friend, ho
said that the matter having been repeatedly discussed in
their Lordships' House without any Bill having been
sent down to the House of Commons, his Noble Friend
at the head of the Government thought it expedient to
take the opinion of the House of Commons, and he
thought that the course adopted by his Noble and Learned
Friend, in asking a question to hang a speech upon it,
was not in order, and was not calculated to add to the
respect which the House of Commons would entertain for
their Lordships' House.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that how extraordi-
nary soever might have been the question of his
Noble and Learned Friend, the answer to it
was more extraordinary still, inasmuch as it
was no answer at all. His Noble and Learned
Friend asked the reason why this measure was intro-
duced into the House of Commons, and the answer was
that his Noble and Learned Friend had no
doubt there was a good reason, but he did
not know what it was. It was clear from what
had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend
the woolsack, that the Bill was no Bill of his. and that
he was not answerable for it; and, under these cir-
cumstances he thought it would be better to
abstain from discussing the measure, although
he would not abstain from entering his pro-
test against all attempts at stripping the great
seal of its ecclesiastical patronage. The holder of the
great seal had never used that patronage for party pur-
poses. The first piece of preferment which he
gave away was a prebendal stall, and that
he had given to the Bishop of Exeter, the
second was to a friend of Sir F. Pollock,
who was opposed to the Government of which he was a
member; and the third was to a gentleman named Cole-
ridge, who was also opposed to him, and he handed over
to the prelates the gift of all livings under 2001. a year;
and against that sacrifice he had received a strong re-
monstrance from several party men.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.