The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-21 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEARING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool.
sack at Five o'Clock.

CORN-LAWS.

The EARL of STRADBROKE presented a petition
from certain lindowners in the county of Suffolk, against
any alteration in the corn-laws.
Lord REDESDALE presented 'a petition from Mor-

peth, and some other plaCes in the county of Northum
berland, with a similar prayer.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL.

Lord KENYON presented a petition from a cer-
tain corporate body in Shropshire, which was
threatened with the loss of certain privileges which
it had enjoyed from the time of Queen Elizabeth,
by the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, praying to be heard
by Counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House against
that Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that he should
at a future time move that the petitioners be heard by

Counsel against the Bill.
REDUCTION OF THE THREE-AND-A-HALF

PER CENTS.

Lord CAMPBELL considered it his duty to call their
Lordships' attention to what he considered an unjusti-
fiable delay in giving the Royal assent to a Bill which
had passed their Lordships' House and the other House
of Parliament. On Tuesday their Lordships had read
the Bill for the reduction of the Three. and-a-Half per
Cents., a third time. The amount of the stock to be
reduced was 250,000,0001., and by that. Bill certain terms
were offered to the stockholders, and a right
was reserved to them •to express their dis-
sent, and to be paid off at par. By a clause
in that Bill the dissentients wets required to express
their dissent on or before the 23d of this month.

He had expected that the Royal Assent would
have been given to, that Bill on Wednesday, which
would have given Thursday, Friday, and Satur-
day to the dissentients to express their dissent ;
but there had been no commission on Wednesday—there
had been no commission to-day. The Bill could not
possibly become law be four &crock to=morrow,
which would only give a few hours to the 100,000 stock-
holders, many of whom resided a great distance off, to
express their dissent. The terms the Government offered
were liberal, and possibly there might be no dissentients,
but it might become a .precedent for a future Minister
who might wish to reduce the Nationul Debt, and who
might offer terms which the stockholders might not be
disposed to accept to force them into acquiescence. It
might also expose us tomisrepresentation among foreign
nations. We had always prided ourselves in preserving
our faith with the national creditor, and if we wisned
to maintain that character, a proper opportunity ought
toI, be afforded to dissentients to express their dissent.
This had happened very unfortunately and very unne-
cessarily. There might have been a Commission yester-
dap, or to-day. He wished for an explanation of the
delay, as it rendered the powers of dissent quite futile.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had in-
tended to have a Commision yesterday, but he received
an intimation from the other House that it would be
more convenient to have the Commission to-morrow.
There had already been given three notices of dissent,
and he did not think there would be any more. Al-
though in point of law there could be no dissent until
after the Bill had received the Royal assent, yet practi-
cally the dissent in these cases had been given, and on
all other occasions had been given before the Bill be-
came law.

Lord MONTEAGLE said that this was a subject of
great importance, and he was glad that his Noble
and Learned Friend had called the attention of the
House to it. He did not think that on this occasion
the delay would produce any practical inconvenience,
and he was surprised that there had been even one dis-
sentient, as the measure was so advantageous. He
hoped, however, that care would be taken to
given longer time, and to act more regularly in future
dear s with the National Debt.

Lealing•
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Lord NORMANBY had a petition to present for a
lady named Wookidge, complaining of neglect of duty
on-the part of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ire-
land. The petition stated, that in 1819 Thomas Wool-
ridge died, leaving the rent of houses in Har-
court-street, Dublin, for the relief of the poor
in that city. In' two years afterwards a Chan-
cery suit was instituted by the relatives of the
deceased against the Board of Bequests. In 1828 there
was a final decree, but sitice that period the Board had
taken no steps to apply the funds according to the
will of the testator ' • and in 1840 the Master reported
that only I,oooi bad been paid into Court for
the use of the charity, although the rents re-
ceived amounted to • 24,0001.-23,000/, having
been squandered. In the case which he (Lord
Normanby) brought under their Lordship's attention on
a former occasion, when the Board of Guardians refused
to allow a bequest to be applied to the education
of children under the care of a rector of the Es-
tablished Church, the sum in dispute was only 7L 10s.,
but here, where the bequest was 1,0001. a year, to be de-
voted to the relief of the poor, they entirely neglected
their duty.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Let me have a copy
of the petition.
Lord NORMANBY then presented a petition from
the next of kin of two orphan children—one from Dur-
ham and one from Rochester—complaining that the
children had been enlisted without their consent, and
that one of the boys was under fourteen years of age.
The same Noble Lord also presented a petition from the
Mayor and Corporation of Waterford, praying that the
corporations of Ireland may have the same rights as
those in England ; and also a petition from St. John's.
Newfoundland, signed chiefly by Irishmen, praying for
a redress of the grievances of Ireland.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice, that
to-morrow week he should present a petition from Ire-
land, on the state of that country, and upon that occa-
sion he should draw the attention of their Lordships to
the state of the sister island.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that,
upon the same; occasion, he should call the attention of
the House to the instructions given to the officers of the
Crown, relative to the composition of juries ; and he
should move that their Lordships be summoned for that
day.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE wished to know if the Noble
Lord's notice had reference to the composition of the
jury on a late occasion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said his object was
a geheral one, and was intended to apply to the instruc-
tions given now and to be given to' the officers of the
Crown in the composition of jury lists.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several returns re-
specting quarantine regulations.
The Bishop of BANGOR presented a petition against
the union of the Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had to call the
attention of their Lordships to the provisions of the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the second reading of which
was fixed for that evening. This was a question which had
at several times been submitted to their Lordships' con-
sideration. There was, little novelty in the Bill, and
therefore, he should occupy but little of their time in
explaining its scope and object, It was, however, de-
sirable, that he should principally call their Lordships'
attention; to the history of the proceeding. It would be in
their recollection that in the year 1830 a Commission was

appointed to take into their consideration the constitution
of the Ecclesiastical Courts' and the administration of
justice by those tribunals. It made its Report in the
following year. The commission he should state con-
tained among its members several of the most revered
prelates, many eminent persons, and certain of the heads
of the law, equity, and ecclesiastical tribunals of the
conntry. They considered the subject very fully, and made
a report, but nothing was immediately done. In 1833 a
Committee of the House of Commons was appointed for
the purpose of again investigating the subject, and to
this Committee the report of the Commission was re-
ferred. That Committee carefully considered the sub-
ject, and having examined the late Lord Tenterden, the
present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and
other eminent characters, presented a report agree-
ing in substance with that publizhed by the Commission.
Upon these proceedings a Bill was founded, and was
brought into their Lordships' House by his Noble and
Learned Friend who then sat upon the Woolsack
(Lord Brougham). He did not know precisely
from what cause, but that Bill proceeded only to
a certain stage, and was not prosecuted further.
In 1835, after his Noble and Learned Friend
had left office, the same Bill, or the same Bill with
some alterations and modifications, was presented by
another Noble Friend to that House. Nothing took
place upon that 11Bill, and he apprehended for
this reason that almost contemporaneous with it,
Sir Frederick Pollock, who was then Attorney-General,
obtained leave to bring in a similar Bill in the House of
Commons. Almost immediately afterwards he resigned
office, and then his Noble and Learned Friend who was
sitting at the table (Lord Campbell) introduced a mea-
sure corresponding with those that had been introduced
by his predecessors. That measure had been brought
in by his. predeeessor in the month of June. It was
founded not entirely upon the Report of the Commis-
sinners, but that of a Committee of the House of Com-
mons, and although that Bill was introdaced in June,
1835, and the Parliament sat till August, no
further proceedings took place upon it. What was the
reason of that he could not explain. In the following
year, his Noble Friend who preceeded him in the
office of Lord Chancellor introduced a similar
Bill. That Bill was read a first and second

time, was referred to a Committee, and a report was
made upon it ; but owing to some cause the Bill pro-
ceeded no further and the measure was abandoned, he
presumed, in consequence, of some difficulties his Noble
and Learned Friend had anticipated in another place
Thus the matter rested, and his Noble and Learned
Friend, up to 1840, never resumed that measure. Hav-
ing made these statements, he came now to the last at-
tempt made in the way of legislation on this snbject, he
meant the proceedings in the House ofeommons last year,
when a Bill, similar to the others that had been intro-
duced, was brought in by a Member of the Govern-
ment. The second reading of that Bill was carried, but
it was considered impossible to carry it on in its
then shape. Alterations were made in it—it was referred
pro forma to a Committee, but the session had then
arrived at that period when it was considered
impossible to carry it through, and the measure was not
further proceeded with. Under these circumstances,
he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it important
to introduce the measure this session in its modified
shape. He was anxious to go as far as he could
.upon the present occasion to reform the Ecclesiastical
' Courts, by carrying into effect the Report of the
Commissioners. The great object of the Bill was
to consolidate the Arches' and the Prerogative Courts.
Those courts were presided over by the same judge, they
were attended by the same bar, they were held
in the same ball, and they were, for all practical
purposes, one and the same court. Could it there-
fore be doubted that the consolidation of those

two courts would be beneficial to the V public.?
As separate Courts they had two sets of ministerial offi-
cers, and by the proposed measure one of those sets
would be dispensed with, which would be a great
relief to the public. He proposed to do the "same
thing with regard to the Courts of the Arch-
deacon of York. He next came to consider
the Diocesan Courts. In any Dioceseth, was a Court
in Probate of Wills could be granted, and which possess
contentious jurisdiction—all ecclesiastical matters.
Those Courts were coevel with the Constitution. The
Ecclesiastical Commissioners had recommended
the abolition of those Courts. It was said
It • was said that they imperfectly performed the
duties that devolved on them, and that they were pre-
sided over by incompetent persons. He, however, pro-
posed to continue those Courts. He saw no reason for
abolishing these ancient Courts on account of the
existence of abuses which could be remedied; and by the
Bill he proposed to provide that these Courts should be
by advocates, or by persons who had been used to the
practice of other courts of justice; and having
thus remedied the abuses complained of, he
could not consent to abolish these ancient local courts.
presided over by competent and efficient persons, either
He now came to a
.class of Courts of another &scrip-

tion—he meant the Courts of Peculiars. There were
three or four hundred of these Courts scattered about
the country, some of them possessing such li-
mited jurisdiction, that it was impossible to secure the
services of an efficient Judge, or of efficient Ministerial
officers. He proposed to abolish them altogether. In
many instances they possessed the power of granting
brobates, and owing to the ignorance of those who pre-
sided over them, injustice to an incalculable extent
might be done. He therefore proposed to abolish them:
The system would then present this appearance. In
ever diocese there would be a tribunal for the granting
of probates,' and possessing contentious jurisdiction,
and in York and in Canterbury there would be ap-
pellate tribunals ; and if these courts were pre-
sided over by able judges, be could not see
how any superior system could be established.
lie knew that in what lie was proposing he was acting
adversely to the opinions of the Commissioners, and to
the authority of the Committee of the House of Com•
mons, and therefore he spoke with hesitation ; but it
was his opinion that even if it were in their power to
abolish the diocesan courts, it would not. be_expedient
to do so. He knew that some Noble Friends of his
would support him in the view which he took of this
subject. He knew that his Noble and Learned Friend
at the table was one, and knew no man who was more con-
stant, firm, and unwearied than that Noble and Learned
Lord, in an opinion which he had deliberately
expressed. When Sir F. Pollock, in the' House of
Commons brought .in a Bill to abolish Eccle-
siastical Courts, he was opposed by his Noble
and Learned Friend with great elequence and
learning. His Noble and Learned Friend said that
centralisation might be carried too far—that those courts
were of great advantage to persons in the provinces,
and that it would be most unwise and inconvenient to
bring them to London. He reported that he knew the
decision of his Noble and Learned Friend, and that he
should have his support. He could refer to another
authority, that of the late Lord Stowell, than
whom there could be no greater authority.
on Ecclesiastical Law. He (the Lord Chancellor) was
in the House of Commons when that great lawyer
brought in a Bill for the reform of those Courts
on the same principles on which the Bill was
founded, that is to abolish those 'peculiar Courts,
and to maintain the Diocesan Courts. 'There
was something whimsical in the conduct of those who
called for the abolition of ecclesiastical courts, and at the
same time cried for local courts to bring justice home to
every man's door. Here were local Courts established,
and he thought that instead of trying new systems which
generally disappointed the expectations of their authors,
they should endeavour to apply remedies to the sys-
tems which existed, which could be done with
less expense, less trouble, and less risk of fail-
ure. As to the jurisdiction of those Courts, he had
already. stated that it was not open to his own mind to
determine which was the best system, but he was satis-
fied that the one recommended in the Bill was the only
practical one, and they ought not like froward children
to reject the offered boon, because they could not
get all that they desired. The Bill proposed to
place the donative livings, over which at present the
Bishop had no jurisdiction, under the same ecclesiastical
authority as the preventive. The ecclesiastical courts
had now some jurisdiction in respect to tithes.
This, at the recommendation of the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners, it was intended to take
from them, which was of the less importance, as the
Tithe Commutation duties had greatly diminished their
business in regard to tithes.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

THE LATE FATAL DUEL IN THE
UNITED STATES.
The following are a few particulars, taken from the
New York papers just received, of the late fatal duel at
Washington. This duel has, it is said, made as much
noise, and excited as much interest, on that side the
Atlantic as the Fawcett and Munro affair did here:—
In regard to the origin of the duel, it is believed that
on Thursday moining last, Feb. 15 (not on Thursday
night), Mr. Cochran said, in the presence of two or three
of Mr. May's friends, that he believed Mr, May a coward.
This expression of Cochran was immediately reported to
Mr, May, at whose request two or three of his friends
immediately waited upon Mr. Cochran, at his room, to
demand of him a retractation of the words, and an apo-
logy. Mr. Cochran declined, saying that he would con-
sult his friends, which he did. This was about noon of
Thursday.
By the advice of his friends Mr. Cochran decided to
make no apology, but, on the contrary, excepted an in-,
vitation to meet Mr. May and his friends at 8 o'clock the
next morning (Friday) at Mr. Nelson's tavern, about a
mile or a mile-and-a-half the other side of the chain
bridge, in Fairfax county, Virginia.
Mr. Cochran and his friends left the city of Washing-
ton about half-past 5 o'clock on Friday morning, in a
coach with four white horses. They arrived upon the
ground at Nelson's Tavern about half an hour before the
other panty. As soon as Mr. May and his friends ar-
rived—as they did in a single coach, Dr. Miller attend-
ing on horseback=he sent a challenge in the usual style
to Mr. Cochran, which was accepted.
Mr. Pooler acted as Mr. May's second, and Mr. Ash
as Mr. Cochran's second. Mr. Cochran was also
attended by his surgeon. Articles-were drawn up and
signed by the seconds, designating the weapons, which
were to be rifles, and the distance fifty paces. The
mode of proceeding to be with the breach of the
rifle to the shoulder—the muzzle down—and to be
raised at the word. The words, " Are you ready, gen-
tlemen ?" were then to be asked. Each were to reply
" ready," and at the word " fire !" the muzzles of the
rifles were to be raised. They were then to fire between
the words " one," " two," three," " stop"—neither before
" one," nor after "stop."
The seconds arrived about nine o'clock upon the field.
when the efforts to effect a reconciliation were renewed,
but without effect.
The distance was then measured off. All the parties
were perfectly cool and composed. Both the principals
were members of the Temperance Society ; Cochran
was urged, however, to take. a glass;Of liquor, but

refused. Both were perfectly composed, each t!1
petting to wound his man and escape himself .unhurt,
and each hoped to draw the other's fire—that is, by
firing at the word " one," to anticipate the other s
fire. Mr. Cochran, as was his custom, continued to
sing little snatches of songs. Each took his place ;
Ash gave the word, it being his privilege as the'second
of the challenged party. Mr. Cochran threw off his hat.
Both replied, "ready," in a fine clear voice. At
the wor one," both fired ; Mr Cochran a
second after Mr. May. Mr. May remained
unhurt. Mr. Cochran stood a moment—his rifle
dropped from his hands, and he fell heavily, and slowly
back, partly on his left side, the right leg being
thrown over the left. Mr. Cochran's surgeon was first •
on the spot. Blood was seen flowing from his forehead,
and, upon pushing up the hair with the fingers, a wound
was discovered through which a portion of the brain
protruded about the size of two fingers. He a
peared, and was at first believed, to be dead. Scarcely
any pulsation or breathing was perceptible. Mr.
May still continued in his place. for some time, but ,
subsequently went to the place where his second had
stood. Almost immedialy after, Mr. Cochran's surgeon
came to the spot. Dr. Miller ran to his assistance, and
concurred in the opinion that Mr. Cochran must die in
a few minutes. He called to Mr. May to take his
horse and make his escape. Mr. May did so. His
seconds came up to Mr. Cochran, and tinding that he
was dying, ran to their carriage, which was a quarter of
a mile off, and returned to the city with Dr. Miller.
Mr. Cochran was then left dying upon the field, with no
persons in attendance upon him but his surgeon and
second, who was deeply affected by the fall of his friend.
The driver of the coach and four white horses,
frightened at the fall of Mr. Cochran, had suddenly
driven off to the distance of, half a mile, but was
brought back, and in the course of half an hour blankets
were procured, and Cochran was removed to his coach.
In taking him to Nelson's tavern, Cochran vomited
several times, and revived a little, his pulse becoming
more perceptible. He was perfectly senseless—bled
profusely, drenching the seats of the coach with his

blood. Efforts were'made upon the ground, before Dr.
Miller left, to replace the protruding brain. The hair
was shaved off in the vicinity of the wound, but it
was found impossible to restore the brain, and it was
removed, and a bandage applied. At Mr. Nelson's,
everything possible was dune for Mr. Cochran.
Doctors Hohnead, Elliott, and Hall, of Washington,
and Richie, of Georgetown, were immediately in attend-
ance. • The shots were exchanged about a quarter past
nine o'clock on Friday, the 16th instant. From that
time till half-past four o'clock on the following Sunday.
morning he remained perfectly insensible, and at that
hour died. The injury to the bones of the head was of
a peculiar end striking character, and it seems remark-
able that he should have lived so long as he did. The
direction taken by the ball proves that he was taking
aim when he received the wound.

The corpse was removed to the city on the 18th, and
was buried the next morning.
___ . .

It is said that Mr. May returned hastily to the city,
took the horse of his brother, Dr. Frederick May,
and fled from Washington. The seconds, on both
sides also fled, and none of them have been since
beard of publicly. There has been great' excite-
ment, originating from the youth of the parties
engaged in the duel, and a supposition that it
might have been prevented, and ought to have been pre-
vented. There arg those who unhesitatingly say the civil
authorities ought to have been called upon to arrest the
parties, and thus prevented the deed.