The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-01 00:00:00

MARRIAGES IN IRELAND.

Mr. VANCE, in the absence of Sir H. Cairns, gave
notice that on that da,y fortnight he would move for a select
committee to inquire into the marriage law in Ireland.

CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS BILL.
Mr. COLLIER said that as there was a similar bill to
the present before the house he would consent to the
postponement of this bill for a fortnight.
The second reading was accordingly postponed.
RECOVERY OF DEBTS BILL.

On the motion for going into comrnitteee on this bill,

Mr. WMAHON moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time this day six months. He contended
that the measure was quite unnecessary, and no case what-
ever had been made out for its introduction, It'Fwas not
to the house merely by the three gentlemen whose names
were on the back of it. There was no particular hardship
inflicted on the creditor in the recovery of debts under the
existing state of the law. It could not be said that
the bill was required on the ground of delay in law, or the
absence of facilities in the favour of the creditor. He con-
tended, also, that this bill would inflict great hardships on
the debtor, who, if he omitted to swear before the hearing
of the case that he had a good defence, he would be deprived
of the power of defending the suit. Such legislation was
exceptional and objectionable.
Mr. 'Mellor, Mr. Montague, and Mr. Henley, opposed the
bill.

Mr. HADFIELD supported the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the bill, and said so extensive
a change was proposed that the measure ought to be intro-
duood by some party in authority.
The house then divided on the motion for going into com-
mittee, when there appeared—
For the motion ' 23
Against
Majority against , . —9B
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICES AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,

Mr. WALPOLE moved that it be referred to a select
committee.

The motion, after a short discussion, was agreed to.
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.

Mr. LOCK E KING moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to enable clergymen to conduct
religious ceremonies in other places than their own parish
churches. The law at present forbade any such parsons
officiating, and many of the members of the house must
recollect the state of excitement that was occasioned a short
time ago by a clergyman of a parish in the Strand, who
refused to give his sanction to certain eminent divines of
the Church of England performing divine worship in
Exeter-hall. The bill sought to go back to the practices
which prevailed at the Reformation, and which he believed
prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church at the present
period. It was often complained that they had no sufficient
expression of opinion from the Government on these
Wednesday questions; but in this case there would
be no such objection, because the bill was drawn
up in accordance with the expressed opinions of the
right hon. gentleman who presided at the Home-office. He
therefore anticipated the support of the Government, as he
believed the measure was a thoroughly Church of England
one. He concluded by moving the second reading of the
bill.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT had great objection to the bill, so
much so that he should move that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. He could not but regret that
the present formed another of those now very frequent
occurrences of the Wednesdays being entirely consumed
by religious discussions. He looked upon this bill as one
to give mote power to the archbishop and bishop, who, by
its provision, might grant a licence to any clergy-
man of the Established Church to perform Divine
service in any parish whatsoever without the
consent of the incumbent. The giving such a power was
most objectionable, as it would lead to heartburnings and
other bad feelings where there was not the slightest occa-
sion. He did not think that it was desirable or proper that
a bishop should have the power of planting in any particu-
lar parish a rival or competitor to the resident incumbent.
Sunday after Sunday, if this bill was passed, would witness
scenes that would be productive of the greatest evil. There
would be High Church and Low Church in active opposi-
on in the same parish, and perhaps within a very short
aistanar of one another. If they took the trouble to look at
the old chronicles about the period of 1230 the hon. mem-
bers would there find what were the effect of contests
between what at • that time was called the "regulars and
the seculars." He did not mean to say that those disturb-
ances would again revive to the same extent if this bill
passed, but disturbances on the same principle might natu-
rally be expected. The bill was a very meagre and unsa-
tisfactory one, and he hoped the house would not agree to
suddenly alter a law which had existed for the last 300 or
400 years.

Sir G. C. LE \VIS said he.should give his vote for the
second reading of the bill, provided the provisions of it
were more clearly defined. He did not think the results
expected by the hon. gentleman who had opposed
the measure would arise if the bill were agreed to ;
but before he could give his unqualified consent to the
bill, there were certain amendments which must be made,
because it interfered unnecessarily with the rights of the
bishop. By the bill be saw it was proposed not to inter-
fere with the rights of the parochial clergy, because, as he
understood, it was not sought to put another officiating
clergyman into the church of any particular parish or other
consecrated building. The bill did not provide for any en-
dowment, and the licence to officiate did not confer the
power of peaforming the ceremony of marriage or of admi-
nistering the sacrament. He did not believe the strife and
rivalry that had been spoken of would arise, neitherdid he see
any cause of danger to the Church from this bill. If the bill
r 9491404 cmaittee, and the hop, geatlaaaa 1114 liad

brought it forward would then introduce the safeguards he
thought ncoessor:-, viz , for r-mdering the consent of the
bishop necessary previous to the officiating clergyman
entering on his new duties, and also clauses to remove all
doubt about the bi,Lops' jurisdiction, he should vote for the
second reading. •
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the bill, which he thought
most mischievous, and one which would act in a way very
detrimental to the rights of many of the clergymen
of the Church of England. He was not surprised that the
hon. gentleman who had just sat down had expressed his
intention of voting for the second reading of the bill, pro
vided the rights of bishops were not interfered with. It
appeared to him that the hon. gentleman did not at all care
about the rights of the incumbents, as they were unimpor-
tant people, but bishops were not so. They had seats
in the other house, and were not the sort of persons to be
treated with slight. They were persons who now exercised
great power, so it was necessary their rights should be pre-
served. It was said the bill did not interfere with the
rights of the incumbent, but he was of opinion that it
would work most dangerously, and ultimately lead to a
total breaking up of the parochial system.
Mr. BASS said he should support the bill, because he
thought it would give great relief where there was no church
either high or low, or where the parish church was situated
at so great a distance as to preclude all possibility of many
of the residents from attending divine worship at all. Ile
thought it a measure that would tend to the elevation of ,
the Church of England, and certainly not one to inflict any
injury on the establishment. They did not wish to intro-
duce any Nonconformist preacher into the parish of a
clergyman of the Church of England. Nothing of the sort
was, he thought, [intended. All that was sought was to
enlarge the sphere of preaching the gospel.
Mr. SPOONER should vote for the second reading of
the bill, in order t'iat certain amendments might be made
to them in committee.

Mr. G. HARDY said the hon. member for Derby (Mr.
Bass) was mistaken when he said, he could not, without
going a considerable distance attend divine service at all,
and therefore he should vote for the bill. Why, the hon.
gentleman, in accordance with the act called Lord Shaftes-
bury's act, could if he felt so disposed have any
place in his own house, his drawing-room, if he choose,
licensed for the purpose of divine worship, provided it was in
consonance with the principles of the Church of England.
He objected to the title, as it gave greater power to the
archbishop than to the other bishops ; and he also objected
to the principle of giving licenses to go and preach in the
various parishes in the dioceses within their provinces.
He looked upon the bill as one that threatened to upset the
discipline of the Church of England for the mere sake of
fancy. He had a very strong feeling with respect to the
conduct of both clergymen in the late unfortunate and un-
seemly riots that prevailed for so long a period in the
parish of St. George's-in-the-East, and if the present bill
was sanctioned that unfortunate state of things would be-
come common in parishes which were now united and happy.
The principal object of the bill was to flatter those who
were more fond of preaching than in performing their paro •
chial duties—of giving power without discipline, and if the
measure passed the house would have to cary legislation
much further. It would greatly injure the parochial sys-
tem that had conferred so much benefit, and degrade the
members of the Church of England by treating them as a
•
mere sect.

Mr. BUXTON denied that the object of the bill was to
lower and degrade the Cl ureh of England.
Mr. NE WDEGATE objected to the bill, as it was calcu-
lated to give force and substance to the excess on both sides
of the Church. Those who were verging towards Rome
would have their leanings confirmed, while there would be
a fostering and an increase of the Calvanistic ten-
dencies of some of the members of the Church
of England. The principle of the bill was pre-
cisely that which had done more than anything else
to promote the growth of impurity in the Church of Rome.
As a Protestant and a member of the Church of England
he protested against the invasion that was now proposed, or
to be made on the rights and privileges of the Protestant
church. Ho thought the bill was fraught with the most
dangerous principles, and he should accordingly vote
against it. (Cries of " divide, divide.")
Mr. AYRTON said that the object of the bill, of which
he was the author, was simply to emancipate the laity of
this country from the irresponsible despotism of some 14,000
of the parochial clergymen, who were now at liberty to do
as they pleased, who would not be controlled, and
who could, upon their own private judgment, do
things which seriously affected the interests of the
church of each parish. He altogether denied that the in-
tention of the bill was was to upset or break up the paro-
chial system. The bill did not allow in the slightest way
interference with that system ; but Parliament having
agreed that the present form of prayer was a
good form, the bill only gave a permission
to read those prayers and to deliver a sermon
under certain regulations, and nothing more. It was owing
to the laity being most grossly neglected .by the parochial
clergy that such a bill as the present had been rendered
necessary.

Sir NV. HEATHCOTE considered the bill would create
nothing but rivalry where it does not now exist. He should
vote for the rejection of it.

Mr. HOItSFALL said the bill, so far from overthrowing
the parochial system, was one calculated to improve it.
Luu.a.t. ALA ur Said he should have aroat Dloasura
in adopting the suggestion of the right hon. baronet the
Home Secretary. At the same time, he must say the arch-
bishops and bishops now had the power of recalling a license
they might have issued.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority -46
The bill was consequently lost. The announcement was
received with loud cheers by the Opposition.
PRESENTMENT SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BUTT moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. LONGFIELD moved the previous question. He
said there was no reason at all for legislation on the subject
at the present moment. He thought a well-considered
measure for the amendment of the grand jury system of
Ireland, brought under the influence of the Government,
was what was wanted. The present bill was one full of
unworkable enactments, and therefore totally useless.
The report of the Royal Commission, upon which the bill
was founded, had laid dormant for the last 20 years, and
that being the case there could be no harm in postponing
the consideration of the subject at the present time. The
petitions presented in favour of legislation on the subject had
been very small, so much so, that in the session 1859-60
only one petition signed by two persons had been laid on the
table of the house.

Mr. DAWSON seconded the motion for postponement.
lle said the subject was now in the hands of two hon.
members, but he thought the proper way to deal
with tho subject was to bring in a well-considered mea-
sure by the Government, rather than leave the question to
be dealt with by private members.

Mr. BUTT could not consent to withdraw the bill. He
contended there was great necessity for the passing of the
bill, and the evils he proposed to remove had too long
existed.

Col. DUNNE wished to know from the Secretary for
Ireland whether he was of opinion that the present bill
would cure the evil complained of. He was of
opinion that it could not have that effect, and that it was
quite unworkable.
After a few observations frana Mr. M'M AIION, who
supported the bill,
Mr. CARDWELL said the bill would require great alte-
ration in committee, but as he had advised his hon. friend
to bring forward the present bill, he should give his vote
for the second reading, reserving to himself the right to
make any alteration he felt disposed when the measure was
in committee.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it

Majority against the bill
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

MIS DAYS SHIPPLYG.

LONDON, May I.—Wind this day at noon, Westerly ;
light breeze, with fine weather, but rather cloudy.

DEAL, April 30.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Evangeline,
from the River, and sailed for Natal; Standard, from the
River, and sailed for Quebec.

CARDIFF, April 30.—Wind S.W.—Sailed—Sivalam,
for Lisbon; Chili, for Varpaiaiso ; William IV., for Gib-
raltar.

SWANSEA, April 29.—Wind S.E.—Sailed—Chieftain,
for St. Thomes.

PORTSMOUTH, April 30.—Wind S.W.—Salled—Falcon,
for the Cape of Good Hope.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
SOITRAMPTON, Wednesday Morning.
Arrived —Arago, steamer, from Havre; Bee, from Cowes;
Edward and Mary, from Jersey ; Ceylon, steamer, from
Alexandria, with £1,925 specie.
Sailed—George and Henry, for Littlehampton;
for Shields; Francis, for Portsmouth. Laura,

(EY SUBMARINE AND MAGNETIC TELEGEAPII.)
GRAVESEND, Wednesday Morning.
Arrived, May I—Sea Lion, from Moulmein ; Napoleon
from Fiume; Ranee and Waverley, from Whampoa ; Diii:
gence, from Calcutta.
IV ednes(l,afeyallalnocfliinLgady
Sailed, May I—Belgium, steamer, for Ostend ; Hanover
steamer, for Calais; Constance, steamer, for s, ..,
burg; Sylph, steamer, for Bordeaux. L. reters-
DEAL,
Passed—Norder, for Canterbury, Now 7 .
Lwonesclto.n ;
Hilda and Come' On, for Barbados—all
Watersprite, schooner, from the North, forrothme
Evangeline, 'Captain Cook, and
The Sir George Pollock,
Standard have sailed for their destinations.

The following are the 18 members present during
the count out of the Rouse of Commons, at 4 o'clock p.m.
on Tuesday, April 30th, 1861 :—W. E. Baxter, Thomas
Bazley, Stepen Cave, A. N. Dunlop, J. C. Ewart, Colonel
French, Samuel Gregson, S. Fulke Greville, J. Locke
King) Lord Hatharn, Wilfrid Lawson, A. E. Lockhart,
W. M'Cormick, O'Connor Don, Major Parker, Pollard-
Urquhart, anti Vincent Scully.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(7Us Day):

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
:SELBY V. POMFRET.—APPEAL—JUDGMENT.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Wood, declaring that the mortgagee was entitled to recover
full payment of his mortgage debt out of the mortgage
premises, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the mortgagor.
The bankrupt's assignee claimed a reference.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the decree
appealed from was right and plight to be affirmed. His
lordship said that the Vice-Chancellor observed that the
assignee might have got the benefit of it if he had been more
alert, but whether he was active or passive the right of the
mortgagee could not be eluded. All the authorities and
decisions referred to supported this view of the case. The
Lord Chancellor affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

APPEAL-JUDGMENT-IN RE WARD GORDON V. DUFF.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls, declaring that, according to the true construction of
the will of the testatrix, the late Mrs. Lydia Ward, the
legacies of £2,000 Three per Cent Long Annuities, stand-
ing in her name, in the books of the Governor of
the Bank of England, bequeathed by her to each of the two
chtlight crs —Mary and Alexandrina—of the late -.Sir James
Gordon, were specific legacies.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the legacies in
question were specific legacies, and could not be converted
into pecuniary legacies on the evidence preduced. The
Lord Chancellor of the decision of the Master of the
Rolls, ata dismissed the appeal, with costs of all parties
out of the tittte.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

PUBLIC SALES AND THE VINE TRADE,-IMPORTANT CASE.

SOBLECIIERO V• NORRIS AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover some alleged overcharges,
plaintiff being a wine importer, and defendants wine brokers
and wine auctioneers.

Mr. Grey, for the plaintiff, stated that his client had had
consigned to him 12 butts of wine. He obtained upon them
from defendants a loan of £35, and subsequently they were
sold by the defendants at a public sale. Plaintiff complained
that he had been charged 12s. 6d. per butt, whereas the
customary charge was but ss. He also complained of extra
interest 7s. 6d., and sampling 12s. 6d.
Mr. Soblechero was called and deposed to the statements
made in the opening of the case. The customary charge
'was only ss. per butt. Defendants had charged 2s. 6d. per
butt when the loan was made, and 10s. per butt upon the
sale.
This being plaintiff's case,

Mr. Sorrell, of Mark-lane, for the defendants, said this
was a case affecting the interests of the wine trade to a
considerable extent. He would call one of the defendants,
who would most satisfactorily explain the facts.

Mr. Chaplin said he was one of the firm of Norris and
Chaplin (defendants). The custom upon advancing a sum
of money as a loan upon wine security was to charge ss.
per butt, but the present wines being of a low class witness
only charged 2s. 6d. That was the only profit made by
Rte broker upon the loan. That 2s. 6d. was separate and
distinct from any sale transaction, for the borrower might
upon payment of the money withdraw bis wine, and take
it to any other broker to sell. As to the 10s. per butt, that
arose in this way. If the wine were sold by private eon- ,
tract the brokers' charge would be ss. to the vendor, and ss.
t.) the purchaser, but at a public sale the purchaser paid
nothing, and the whole 10s. was charged to the vendor.
Mr. Smith (member of a very extensive wine firm) of
Great Tower-street, fully corroborated Mr. Chaplin, and
his lordship vas of opinion that defendants had answered
the case very fully.

Mr. Grey applied for an adjournment, but his lordship
said it was too late.

Mr. Sorrell applied for costs, which were granted.

CURIOUS ACTION UPON A CHEQUE—PLATT V. NICHOLLS.
This was an act ion upon a dishonoured cheque for £6155.,
signed by the defendant.
Mr. Masterman, for the plaintiff, called his client, who
proved receiving the cheque from defendant.
Mr. Sorrell (for defendant)—Now, when you received the
cheque did you not sign the piece of paper I produce ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
Mr. Sorrel—That is a receipt which states that you re-
ceived a cheque for Mr. Malam to be provided for by him.
How much did Malam owe you ?
Plaintiff-12 10s.

Mr. Sorrell—And why do you sue him for £6lss. ?
Plaintiff—By the advice of my attorney. Defendant
owes me nothing. The cheque was returned marked "No
effects."

Mr. Mastermem thought it necessary to apply for an ad-
journment, so that Mr. Malam might be called, and Mr.
Sorrell not objecting, the case stood adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(Thu Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A "PuorEssioNlL" CHARGED WITH PICKING POCKETS.
—Thomas Moody, a most impudent fellow, and who, from
his manner in the dock, appeared to be well acquainted
with the practices of ihr, police court, was charged with
attempting to pick the pocket of a young woman named
Maria Maynard, living at 31, South-street, Manchester-
square.

The prosecutrix—l was looking at a wedding prrty—a
large number of persons being present at the times—when I
felt the prisoner's hand in my pocket, and caught hold of
it. The prisoner, however, ran awly, but was caught by a
constable.

Prisoner—Now, look me in the face, young woman.
You are on your oath, and you are sworn to tell the truth.
(After a pause.) Did the man who had his hand in your
pocket take anything ?
Prosecutrix—No, you did not.
Prisoner—Wery well, young woman. That will do.
I've done with you.
M'Donnell, 62 C, said—The prisoner was given into my
custody in South-street for attempting to pick the young
woman's pocket.

Prisoner—Now, I beg your pardon, Mr. censtable, but
you are on your oath. Well, having given you that cau-
tion, I will ask, how was I standing when you came up ?
Constable—You were being held by some persons.
Mr. Tyrwhitt (to the prisoner)—You have been in many
courts, I have no doubt, from your style.
Prisoner—Vm a tailor by trade, your worship, but
latterly I've been a professional—that is to say, I've been
singing. I reside, sir—l beg your pardon—your worship,
at a common lodging-house in Westminster. I did not wish
to see the performance the young woman was looking at,
and was hastening away when the young woman surprised
me by saying I had robbed her. I feel anxious about the
matter, and I am unprotected and stand by myself.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—l shall send you for trial, but will remand
you for a few days to see if you are known.
Prisoner, in a very persuasive tone—l'd rather you would
not, really.
The prisoner was then rcuaandcd.

The commercial letters from New York describe
an unanimous feeling in the Northern States that the Fede-
ral authority must be supported with men and money. The
Congress of the Seceding Confederate States was expected
to declare war in the course of a week, and it was feared
that their first move might be to seize all American ships to
be found in their ports and waters. Hence shipowners
were telegraphing for their vessels to leave at once,
whether full or empty, Had these events occurred earlier
in the season for cotton, shipments, the profits for British
ships would have been very great. Such as were available
would still command high terms. The rate of exchange
had declined, some good bills having been sold at 107, but
the leading bankers were asking 107 f to 108, and the im-
pression was:that there would be no permanent:fall.' It was
assumed that when Congress shall meet at Washington, in
entre session on the 4th of July, one of its first steps will be
to alter the Morrill tariff.

The East Indian Railway Company„ yesterday
agreed to to empower their board to raise £.6,000,0°° by
th Book at e
bentures at 5 per cent., to bo convertible into
option of the holders. The expenditure of this amount,
undermen-
tionedwill be spread over a considerable PellodheH
e bar by the
toenr.y Pottinger,
CALLS TO THE BAR, Apriie,lEv3zo.7
Jas, Jeph-
gentlemen were this day called
lion. Society of the Inner Temp '
:ieptyrilo3f
the
ed
dNeVgirl
el William
mo f
__ sq. ; Philippe Gaston
uulesEßoyle, Esq. ;
Esq., 8.A.; John Hardy, i
Martin Moneamp, Esq. ; Ch.ar
son, Esq. ; William Potter, jr..,
aysqc.a,lßle.dAt.o;
.—The under-
mentionedLae ii on. SO
Lwinerceoltnhiss-idnn
Roupell, Esq./ M.P.
gantlemcn 1
°Lincoln's-inn,
viz.
:_william Windsor Parker, Esq., M.A , Oxford ;
%Villiam Fraser Rae, Esq.; William Henry Deverell, Esq.,
Barrister-at-Law by
8.A., Cambridge; Walter John Bacon, E B A Ox-
ford; William Henry B •Ir Sq.'
. .!
ai le Esq., 8.A., Cambridge;
George Rogers Ha d" ' '
r ing, jun., Esq.; and Henry Diedrich
Jencker, Esq.
TIIE
HAVELOCK STATUE IN TRAFALGAR-SQUARE.
—Yesterday the pedestal on which stands the statue lately
erected to the memory of General Sir Henry Havelock,
which has been for some days past covered for the purpose
of receiving the inscription, was partially uncovered. The
inscription, which is done in a bold black letter, and
without any ornamentation, runs as follows :—" To Major-
General Havelock, K.C.8., and his brave companions in
arms during the campaign in India, 1857. ' Soldiers, your
labours, your privations, your sufferings, and your
valour will not be forgotten by a grateful country.'—
H. Havelock. Erected by public subscription, 1861."
At I resent there is nothing inscribed on the back of the
' pedestal.

An agreement for an amalgamation between the
the Groat Western and the West Midland Railways is
stated to have been effected on a basis similar to that which
guided the amalgamation some years ago of the North-
Eastern lines, and which has yielded very satiseactory re-
sults. In consequence of this the price of Great Western
shares went to-day from 711 to 73, and of West Mimed
from 47 to 61. Purchases of the latter stock have beell
made for several days past, on account, it is pre40094 "
persons informed of the mangos is proses&