The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

year's dividend, and their railway would be conducted
by a discontented and defective body of officials.
Mr. WITHERS, another member of the consulting com-
mittee, said all the force which was brought to bear
upon Mr. Saunders to induce him to reduce his salary
was nothing more than this. It was urged upon him
that, as the head of the executive, a voluntary reduction
on his part would have a good moral effect upon the
lower branches of the executive.—(Hear.) The scale
of remuneration now proposed by the committee was
agreed upon in consultation with a deputation sent from
the executive itself, and he called upon the meeting to
adopt it without further delay.—(Hear, hear.)
After some further discussion the amendment was put
to the vote and declared to be carried.
A poll was demanded, and fixed for a future day.
Thanks were then voted to the Chairman, and the
meeting broke up after a most protracted sitting.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS

BILL.

A public meeting, convened by the Anti-State Church
Association, was held yesterday at the London Tavern;
C. Gilpin, Esq., in the chair. The object of the meeting '
was to take into consideration that part of the Metro-
politan Interments Bill which will have the effect of
securing a perpetual sinecure to the clergy in compensa-
tion for the loss of fees, which a discontinuance of in-
terments in existing burial-grounds will entail upon them.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, wished
it to be understood that the object for which
the meeting was called was not to uphold the
great abuses which existed in the present practice
of burying the dead among the living ; the pro-
moters of this meeting had as much desire to re-
medy these matters as the promoters of the Bill could
have. What they sought to oppose was the extortion of
those who sought:to create a,permanent sinecure in the
Church, and who opposed themselves in this manner
to the, progress of the really valuable portion of the
Bill.
Mr. N. GRIFFIN moved the first resolution :
" That this meeting, while it recognises the necessity
of discontinuing the practice of interment in populous
localities, demands that any legislative measure having
in view that object, shall be framed on sound and equitable
principles.
"That without pronouncing an opinion on the ge-
neral provisions of the Metropolitan Interments Bill
now before Parliament, this meeting regards those por-
tions of it which are of an ecclesiastical character with
strong feelings of dissatisfaction.
" That, in particular, it objects to those clauses by
which it is enacted that the incumbents of parishes in
which burial grounds may be closed by the operation of
the Bill, and whose present duties in connexion
with interments will be discharged by a body of salaried
chaplains, shall receive, both they and their successors, a
perpetual annuity as a compensation for the loss of fees
for services which they will no longer be required to
perform."
"That whatever view may be taken of the claim of
the present incumbents to suo h compensation, this
meeting denies the justice of taxing the community by
making a similar provision for their successors, and
enters its firm protest against the creation of additional
sinecures in an already burdensome ecclesiastical esta-
blishment."

It was a painful thing for him to reflect that this mea-
sure had proceeded so far as it had done in a British
Parliament. He did no deny that legislation was neces-
sary in this matter, but it ought to be simply on the
principle that the public health should not suffer by the
carelessness of private individuals. To that extent only
ought legislation to proceed. But the present measure
went much further than this; but the meeting
would find in the 29th clause the particular reason why
the Anti-State Church Association had interfered, and
why the meeting had been held, It was the clause
which provided compensation for incumbents, &c., and
he begged it to be understood it was not simple and
equitable compensation that they objected to—they would
have been quite ready to agree to that; but not satisfied
with compensation to the present incumbent, it went on
to lay the foundation of a perpetual sinecure to the suc-
cessors of the present incumbents, and that
too to be paid in a most unconstitutional
manner. As far as he was concerned, he should
advise an opposition to the entire Bill, though
he agreed in the principle of it; but it had so mueh of
wrong and injustice tacked on to it that those who
had mixed up right and wrong in such a manner
must take the blame, if the good which was in
the Bill were to be rejected. He objected to
the principles and manner of taxation which
wa3 contained in the Bill. He did not think, when he
looked at the growing spirit in the country, that it
would be possible for the Board of Health to levy such
a tax as was proposed.
The Rev. T. H. HINTON seconded the resolution.
Mr. P. H. HOLLAND rose to more an amendment to
the motion, which he thought would be calculated to
carry out the views of the mover of the resolution,
without bringing them into a collision with the sup-
porters of the Bill. He was a member of the Sanitary
Reform Association, and had a great desire to see the Bill
pass as soon as possible. He believed the compensation
clauses were an impediment to the Bill, and he wished to
see them modified. Ile did not, however, think that
the occasion of an Interment Bill was a time to
make an inroad on the Church; and he was more dis-
posed to content himself with guarding against any future
encroachments on the part of the Church. He should, there-
fore propose, in place of the last clause of the resolu-
tion, to insert a clause which would agree to the grin-
, ciple of compensation to those who might be injuriously
affected by the Bill, and that the amount should be
settled by arbitration.
Mr. EDWARDS seconded the resolution.

1 Mr. PARIS, who announced himself as the agent for
the London Association for the Abolition of Burials,
which created some merriment in the meeting, depre-
cated any opposition to the Bill oa the ground of compen-
sation, as it would have the effect of retarding the passing
of a good measure. The Hon. Gentleman was pro-
ceeding with his speech, but was greeted with so much
uproar and derision that his speech became inaudible.
The resolution was supported by Mr. ROGERS, and
also by

Mr. S. CRAWFORD, 311. P., who expressed his pleasure,
as an old supporter of civil and religious liberty, at join-
ing the Anti-State Church Association in opposing
this flagrant violation of both. He himself was a mem-
ber of the Established Church, but ho had ever de-
clared himself against its connexion with the State, which
ho thought had inflicted a mortal injury upon it. It was,
then, from a feeling of regard to the Church that he
should oppose these clauses, both in his place in Parlia-
ment and everywhere else that he was able.
Mr. E. IthALL and others having addressed the meet-
ing, the proceedings terminated.

LAW NOTICES.

CAUSE LISTS FOR TRINITY TERM, 18i0.
SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER IN TRINITY TERN, 1850.
Hien COURT OF CHANCERY.-(Before the Lord
Chancellor.)-Appeal modons and appeals, May 22, 30,
June 6, 12; (petition day) petitions, May 23; appeals,
May 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, June 1,3, 4,5, 8, 10, 11; (peti-
tion day), unopposed petitions and appeals, May 30,
June 7. N.B. The days his Lordship hears appeals in
the House of Lords excepted. (Before the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England.)-Motions, May 22, 30, June 6, 12;
petition day, May 23; short causes, pleas, demurrers,
exceptions, causes, and further directions, May 24;
pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further direc-
tions, May 25, 27, 28, 29, Jane 1,3, 4,5, 8, 10, 11;
(petition day), petitions (unopposed first), short causes,
and causes: May 31, and June 7. (Before Vice-Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce.)-Motions, May 22, 30, June 6,
12; pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further di-
rections, May 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, June 3,4, 7, 10, 11;
short causes, petitions, and causes, May 25; bankrupt
petitions, &c., May 29, June 5; short causes, petitions,
&c., June 1, 8. (Before Vice-Chancellor Wigram.)-
Motions and causes, May 22; pleas, demurrers, causes,
exceptions, and further directions, May 23, 24, 27, 28,
29, 31, June 3,4, 5,7, 10, 11; short causes, petitions
(unopposed first), and causes, May 25, June 1,8; mo-
tions, pleas, demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further
directions, May 30, June 6, 12.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-New Trials remaining
undetermined at the end of Easter Term, 1850 : Doe
dem. Warren and another v Brydges-The Queen •
Smith and others-Job v Hudson-Brown and another
v Coleridge-Drew and another v same-Mayne v same
-The Queen v Betts-Edwards • Knowles, part heard
-Morton • Tibbett-Humphries v Brogden-Living-
stone and another • Whiting-Doe dem. Davenish v
Moffatt-Leary v Patrick and another-Hurst v Hurst
-Gates • Gosden-Dimes v Petley-Philpotts and
others v Evers and others-Banks v Baldwin-Doe dem.
Sayers • Hutton-Griffiths v Marey- Williams and
others v James-Page v More-Johnson v Clark-
Goodman v Pocock-Chard v Fox-Duke of Brunswick
• Harmer-Moorwood and another v Steer-The Queen
7 Walker-The Queen v Cutts-Farnham v Thorne-
Malpas v Clements-Mann and others v Houble and
Walker-Jones • Alexander-Job
v Knowles - Crowther and Harland v Biuks others
v
The Queen v • others v Job-Hooper
the inhabitants of Lordsmere-Doe
dew. Witty and
Mallalieu • Rod Carr-Singleton v Bree-
oe dem. France v Andrews-
and another-Agss'tl);:
Hams v Lord Beresfordv
and another-Nield v Ratcliffe
tpear-Baker • Rush-Wil-
Hollis-Hounsfield • curteercross vßussell-Delfosse v
Whalley Doe dem. Constable and
another v Stevenson Curtis-Doe
and others :YRT. Bramwell-Bartlett v
-Doe dem. Biddulph and Otheichards-Same v Same
Mellnxish v Collier-Smith • ArreitilivbaHole and others -
Williams v Morgan-Hales v Firmild and another-
another v Grey and others-Blaucad-
Trail° and
Lloyd • Howard-Walton v Gavin-GalvanisedßileyCompany v Osier-Barker v Goddard-Campbell
Iron
Hewlett-Miller v Alexander-Hay Aylir pbell
cultural Cattle Insurance Company v Fiao•eraidgVuri-
v Challis and another-Woudhead and others v -et
Berry-
Taylor v . Hawkins-Governor and Company of the
Copper Miners of England v Fox and others-Griffiths
v Hicks-Austen and another v Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire Had way Company-Husband and ano-
therichard v M
v Cattlin-Pr Mullins and another-Nodin
v Johnson and another-Doe dem. Compton and wife v
Hannah Carpenter-
Same v 11'illiam Carpenter-Same
v Isaac Carpenter- W
akefield v Dixon-Rogers and
Staffordshire
another v Drivcr-Armtlstead v North
Doe dem. Armitstead v same-
Baron v Bricknell-The Queen v Inhabitants of Tur-
weaton-Stainea and wife v Eastern Union and Hadleigh
Junction Railway Company-Doe •
dem Hastings v Wet-
soe-Peardon v Underhill-Mayor of Rochester v Lee-
Roberts v Hunt-Couchman v Ward-Bottomley v Smith
Thompson v Nye-Elliott v Clayton-Godfrey v Lewel-
lin and another-Bishop v Cook and others-Fielder v
Fielding-Strong • Gadsden-Davies v Williams-Gil-
bertson • Joseph. Special Cases and Demurrers stand-
ing for the Judgment of the Court:-Adams v Andrews
-Cook v Field-Knight and others v Faith and another
-Toiler v Attwood-Morris v Walker-Chabot v Lord
Morpeth and others, For Argument:--West Cornwall