The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-25 00:00:00

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. J.LOCKE took the oaths and his seat, on his re-elec
tion for Southwark.
NONCONFORMISTS' BURIAL BILL.
Lord HENLEY supported the bill, and said that all the
Dissenters asked by the bill was admission to the parish
churchyard, where they might perform decent rites, and it
must be remembered that the time for the performance of
such rites avas appointed by the vicar of the parish. He
considered the object of the Dissenters in reference to this
subject was most desirable, and tended to bring the Non-
conformists into closer union with the Church of England.
Ho thought that, instead of taunts, they should act
with conciliation towards their Dissenting brethren, and as
a step in that direction they should pass this bill. He had
one objection to this bill at first, namely, that it afforded
facilities for the interment of Roman Catholics in the
Church of England churchyards, which he considered ob-
jectionable from the attachment of that sect to ceremonies.
However, on reflection, he thought that Roman Catholics
would not avail themselves of those facilities in conse-
quence of the peculiar sentiments relative to the consecra-
tion of their graves.
Mr. HUBBARI) contended that the Protestants in this
country formed a large majority over the Nonconformist
body. In support of that assertion he referred to statistics
collected :within a certain area, from which it appeared
that the marriages performed in the Church of England
churches were 128,012 in one year, while the number of
marriages solemnised before the registrar (which, no doubt,
included several members of the Church of England) was
only 28,00); there were I,B'i-0,000 male and female children
in schools, and only 362,000 Dissenters of all denomina-
tions; and of the inmates of the workhouses within the
area, 60,000 males and females were members of the
Church of England, and only 12,000 Dissenters. He con-
tended that there was no precedent for the bill, and remarked
that the bill introduced with reference to Ireland was per-
missive, and not like the present measure compulsory. He
considered the bill as an attempt to sap and undermine the
Church Establishment, and therefore felt bound to give it
his most strenuous opposition.
Sir G. C. LEWIS was of opinion that the numbers
quoted by the hon. member who last addressed the house
had nothing to do with this subject. He denied also that
there was no precedent for this bill, as Lord Plunkett's act
with 'regard to Ireland was similar in spirit, though differ-
ing in detail from the present measure. The grounds on
which a clergyman might refuse burial were only three—
namely, when the deceased was excommunicated, had died
by his own hands, or had been unbaptized. With
regard to Dissenters the majority had no ground to com-
plain with refereneo to the question of baptism, for they
adopted some mode of ly.ptism which was equally valid so
far as related to burial h the parish church, as if it had
been performed by a minister of the Church of England,
and indeed even lay baptism was recognised. The bill, in
his opinion, was too sweeping in its provisions, because it
proposed to enact that the friends of the deceased might
appoint any person to officiate as minister at the burial of
his relative or friend. In his opinion the grievances com-
plained of were limited, and the remedy proposed was too
extensive. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL opposed the bill on the same grounds
which had been urged by other speakers.
Mr. BRIGHT said that notwithstanding the hobgoblin
arguments used by the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) as to the
danger that was threatened to the Church of England by
Nonconformists, he believed the overthrow of the Church
could not be effected by that body, but if it took place at all
it would be by the zeal within its own limits, or the dif-
ference 'between her members, of which they were all
aware. The right hon. baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) for
whose speech they had to thank him, though the sup-
porters of the bill had no reason to thank him for his vote
—(laughter)—had scarcely stated the extent of the
grievance of which the Dissenters were subjected to
by the present state of the law. There were
no less than 3,000 congregations of Baptists in England and
Wales, which showed to what a considerable extent that
grievance existed. He proposed that the bill should be
assimilated to the Test Bill, so as to prevent the possibility
of the evils resulting from the measure which its opponents
had predicted. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill, which ho did note
consider applicable to the grievance complained of. H
contended that if the bill were passed it would legalise
ethe
Roman Catholic funeral processions, and the
y crossesoulhand
the spectacle in the parish churchyarlss of
the effect of widening the breach between
th
Churchman
rwchomu land haveand
genuflexions. Instead of narrowing,
Dissenter.
M r BUXTONetboth
e
saiddes,listenedh. to theargu-
ment in favour of
on
and thatbe
of, which this choonsihdaedredt
large pradtical grievance to complain. the bill strongly preponderated. The Dissenters had a
mea-
sure merely, proposed to redress, and
.whtch would place the
Church of England in a higher position.
Mr. WALPOLE denounced the bill as a bill to remedy
a minimum of grievance by a maximum of inconvenience.
At the present time the grievance complained of was
daily diminishing., because they were establishing ceme-
teries all over the kingdom, a portion of unconsecrated
ground in such being reserved for the use of Dissenters.
Mr. BAINES suggested that the present bill shouldibe
withdrawn by his hon. friend who introduced it, as it was
certainly open to objections. He advised the hon. baronet
(Sir M. Peto) to take counsel with gentlemen in office, and
particularly members of the Church of England, and to
consider the provisiens of the Irish bill. He might then
introduce a measure which would be free from the objec-
tions to this bill, and which would have a fair chance of
receiving the sanction of the house.
Sir M. PETO said that if the hon. baronet (Sir W.
Heathcote) would withdraw the amendment, he would
, withdraw his bill, in order to enable him or the Govern.
I mind Vv lain is “ pill NM OMININIGQ with 00 ITifIN

of the house. If that course were not acceded to he would
press the bill to a division. _

- Mr. DUNLOP, amid loud cries of Divide," offered
some observations in support of the bill.
Sir G. GREY appealed to the hon. baronet (Sir W.
Heathcote) to withdraw his amendment. He came to
the house prepared to veto against the bill, but if the
amendment were not withdrawn, he would not vote for or
against the bill.
_ _

-Mr. DISfiXELI considered the observation of thu
right hon. baronet (Sir G. troy) the most extraordinary he
had over heard.. The Government did not come for-
ward and offer to bring forward a bill which,
according to their belief; was in conformity with the wishes
of the house. (Hear, hear.) As they had not done so, ha
hoped that the amendment would not be withdrawn,
After a few words from Mr. BA ILLIE,
The house divided—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
The bill:was accordingly lost.
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT (18i4) EX-
• TENSION BILL.

Ott the motion of Mr. J. LOCKE the order for going into
committee on this bill was discharged, and the bill was
withdrawn.

MORTGAGE TRANSFER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Several bills were postponed.
The house then adjourned at 20 minutes past five o'clock.

LA TV INIELL.M,ENCE.-April 24.

EXCHEQUER COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
LAST V. DONVLING.

The further hearing of this cause was resumed this
morning. . _ _

The principal witness examined for the defence was
Mr. E. T. Smith, who was called and examined by Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine. He said—l am still lessee of Her Ma-
_

jesty's Theatre, and till very lately was lessee of the Al-
hambra Palace. I first became acquainted with the plain-
tiff while he was in the employ of Mr. Francis. I per-
chased the Sunday Times newspaper, and after that Mr.
Last used to come to me with the proofs of the playbills front
Mr. Francis for correction. On one occasion he asked whether
it would not be better for me to have a printing-office of my
own, and do my own printing. lie said it would save me a
good deal. I told him I would think about it ; but I after-
wards told him I was advised to have nothing at all to do
with it. Within the last 12 months ho told me something
about being uncomfortable in his employment. He said it
was a pity I had not a printing-office of my own, as I had
a good deal of printing, enough, indeed, to keep an office
going. He said Francis was in difficulty, and his (Last's)
situation very uncomfortable. I saw him several times
after that, as he brought the bills for revision daily. On
one occasion I asked him what his salary was, and he said
£3 a week. He had a son who was an apprentice, and he
earned about £l. He said with the quantity of printing I
had to do I should get mine done for nothing out of the
profits. I had then nothing to do with the Sunday Times.
I told him some time afterwards to look out for premises,
and I then heard, of the building in Savoy-street from Last.
I afterwards saw Mr. Lye with respect to renting
it. I told Last I had seen Mr. Lye, and then directed Last
to go and see what wanted doing. I told Last I did
not wish to make myself a trader, and as such liable to
the bankrupt law. It was a verbal communication. The
words of the receipt put into my hinds are in my hand.-
writing. I took it to show that I 'was the owner of the
property. The writing spoken to yesterday as being mine
is so. I perfectly recollect, the occasion of making the
deduction of the two pounds. When Last brought it to me
the office was not open, and as Last's salary with his son's
was £4 a week, I said, " Last, I must servo you as they
do at the theatre ; when that is open but half a week there
is but half a week's salary," and I made a deduction of the
£2, as appears on the paper. He afterwards brought me an.
agreement for the lease ofithe premises, and I sent some
of the theatrical carpenters down to make the alterations.
At the time Last brought the agreement, I told him he was
to be the sole manager of the printing-office. Last said
" How do you wish the business carried on—in your name,.
or that of another F' I told him I thought it would be
better to carry it on under the name that was already up,,
viz., " The Sawy Printing Company." He said, "Very
well ; but it would serve him materially if I allowed his
name to appear as manager." I said, " Very well, put
your name as John Last, manager." On the bill-heads
everything appears as "John Last, manager." I asked
what would be wanted. Last said he had some friends in.
the trade (travellers), who woulal supply him with what
goods he required, and he would make out a list of them.
I told him there were certain houses I had dealt with some
time that I could order on my own terms. I said the
Scotch houses would supply me willingly. Last
said he was under obligation to certain houses, and if
I would allow them to supply the type he would feel
obliged. Mr. Last afterwards came to me with a traveller
from Stevenson and Blake. He wanted me to be security
for Mr. Last. I told him I had just had to pay £2,000 for
ono person, and I would not again be security for any one.
The goods were ordered, and Mr. Gentle, the traveller,
wanted me to sign a memorandum. The goods were sent
and invoiced to myself. I told Gentle, in Last's presence,
that I would be security for no person. The agent front
Messrs. Stevenson came to me for goods supplied to James
Last. I erased the name of "Last," and substituted the
word " me," and signed it "B. T. Smith." I also sent
Messrs. Stevenson a letter telling them I would not be
security for any one, and gave them the directions to act
on that understanding in all future transactions. I showed
Last all the letters I sent to Messrs. Stevenson. I told.
Last I should put a clerk into the office whose duty
would be to receive moneys and orders and pay the same
into Messrs. Scale and Low's bank in Leicester-square.
Tho "Commercial" is my general bank, but I banked with
Messrs. Seale to a certain extent, because in my early career
they lent me £l,OOO.
Last recalled—l had no account of my own at Messrs.
Seale's.

Examination continued—Each Saturday Last brought
me a bill of what I had to pay for wages. He never made
any other claim on me. Once he made a communisation
about his position. He said, " I want to endeavour to better
my position." I told him he had the same salary with me
as he had with Francis. Last said, as he (Francis) had
committed suicide ho thought he should get a better salary
if he went back, or got somebody to purchase the business
for him. I told him ho was quite welcome to go if he
chose. lie afterwards asked me to admit him as a
partner. 1 told him I never would do so,
as I could any day get a manager for £3 a
week, but if ho continued as manager at the salary he
was receiving, probably when all liabilities for the printing
office were paid, I would see what could be done for him.
I finally had a quarrel with Last, and when I went to secure

the books of the printing office Last told me I had no right
in the place, as it was his house. Mrs. Dowling is an old
friend of mine. I have known her for upwards of 30 years.
Some time ago I made an assignment of the Sunday Times
to her. She put the judgment she possessed against me in
execution by my direction to try this question.
Cross-examined by Mr. M. Chambers—There was some
years ago a scandal about about me and Mrs. Dowling. I
was charged with seducing her. I was only charged—that
'is a very different thing from doing so. Mr. Dowling was
a superintendent of the L division of police. I was inspec-
tor and afterwards superintendent of the same division. I.
did not go off with Mrs. Dowling. I used to visi
the Dowlings. Mr. Dowling went away from his wife, and
I remained. (Laughter.) Mrs. Dowling afterwards passed
as Mrs. Smith. I received money from her to pay the rent
of Barnes cottage. I owed her in all about £2,000. She
did not lend me the money all in a lump. It is now about
seven years ago. It was lent to me to speculate with. I
did not see Dowling about it. The last settlement I had
with Mrs. Dowling was about two years ago. She passed
as Mrs. Smith just as I have heard ladies pass as "Mrs.
Chambers."
Mr. Chambers--I most distinctly deny that statement.
I hope you will merely answer the questions that are put to
you.

Cross=examination continued—l am lessee of Her Ma—
jesty's Theatre, Drury-lane, and proprietor of the Radnor
Tavern. I lent Baron Nicholson money to go into the
" Coal Hole."—(laughter)--which I lost. I also lent him
another sum of money to avoid his goods being sold. I
sold the Sunday Times at a profit. I have
been complimented on my extraordinary memory.
I have a ready pen to draw up an agreement.
lam always ready to do so. Great many persons, I am
happy to say, take my barn word. I take theirs. There's
a man in Court there—Tom Matthews, the clown—he's
taken my bare word for an engagement for five years.
I have made thousands of agreements. Last was my ser..
vent, and nothing more.
Re-oxamined by Sergeant Ballantine—l shall be 50 next
birthday. I was about 20 years old when the affair of
I
Mrs. Dowling-took place. I remained in the police seven
months after that affair. I was promoted to superintendent.
The Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel put their names
down for me. My father was an admiral in the navy.
Mr. Lewis, Mr. Smith's treasurer, said he was well
acquainted with the whole of the circumstances connected
with the printing office from first to last. It was only
within a very short time that he had heard anything about
Last claiming any property in the office.
After some further evidence, the case was adjourned
until to-morrow.