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

BISIIOP OF. EXETER'S HOUSE.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL said, it appearing by the
second report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, p. 11,
that on the sth day of August, 1843, and the 26th day
of May, 1846, sums amounting to 3,0001. were paid " for
altering and improving house at Exeter," ha begged to
ask Lord John Russell whether any further sum has
been advanced for a similar purpose; if so, the date
when advanced, and the amount, and by
what authority such sums were advanced; whether any
account has been rendered to the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners of the meninr in which those sums have been
expended, and, it so, the date of such account, and when
it was rendered.

ci n
oLtuhnoerc
gallery,
,Jd Oa tHedN was
nRa
sAUuSungSduEe
srLts,
tL, who was
0108d45t,
to say,
asnadymtahal
am inaudible
yt, almost
by orders dae rssu ofm
amounting to 500/., and not 3,0001., had been advanced
for that purpose. That sum was advanced out of a sum
of money, the dividends of which the Bishoplof Exeter
was entitled to draw.
INCOMES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS AND
BISHOPS.
Sir B. HALL asked Lord John Russell, whether,
when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners last revised the
incomes of the Archbishops and Bishops, they received
from them a detailed account of their incomes from lands,
fines, rents, and all other sources, for the purpose of show-
ing the gross income, and whether, in orderlto show the
net income, the Archbishops and Bishops gave in under
different heads the several items of expenditure; and, if
not, upon what data the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
fixed the sums that should be paid into the Episcopal
Fund from the richer Sees, and the sums that should
be paid from that fund to the poorer Sees; and whether
the Commissioners will make a return of the data upon
which such revision was founded. Whether the ,Eccle-
siastical Commissioners had, or have since, received full
and particular accounts of the property belonging to the
several sees, the mode in which such property is leased,
the date of the several leases, the fines and rents re-
ceived by the Arehbishop or Bishop, and the names of
the parties to whom leases have been granted. 3. As it
appears by the return of incomes made in 1845, that
the net income of the Bishop of London was re•
duced from 14,510/. 9s. 4d. in 1847, to ,12,4811. 81.
in 1843, notwithstanding
.the Paddington estate was
built upon during that interval, and the Bishop of Exe-
ter's net income tell from 2,136/. Os. 9d in 1837, to 3411.
10s. sd, in 1843, to ask whether any reasons were given
for such diminutions, and if so, to what causes they are
attributable ? When the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
purpose making any report of their proceedings, no re-
port having been made for three years?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say the returns
on this subject were made by the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners septennially, and that the period for making the
next return, would be in 1851, when the information de-
sired the Hon. Member would probably be furnished.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD asked Lord John
Russell on 'what day after the recess it was intended to
propose the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant
(Ireland) Bill. '
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the matter was in the
hands of his Hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland. lie
(Lord John Russell) could not fix the day for the second
reading of the Bill.
BUOYS IN THE SOUTH CHANNEL.
Mr. HUME asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
loss
ando removed
to i n
great 1846, on d
whether any measures had been adopted to meet the
wishes of !the inhabitants of Southport (as laid before
this House in petition) respebting replacing of the buoys
thein the
removalSout hoCf Channel,
hasl, e
whichid wereto erloe em
incon-
venience to the commerce of that port and channel?
Sir F. BARING said the matter was one in which the
Admiralty could not directly interfere.
ABOLITION OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY

, a O.F IRELAND. -7.
. The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN presented a neti,
Lion signed by 10,000 of the inhabitants of Dublin
against the removal_ of the Court of the Lord-Lieutenant
froth DUblin.
Mr. H. GRA.TTAN. presented a petition of a similar
nature 'frem different places in Ireland.
Lord J. RUSStLI., then rosei• and said he was abott
to move for leave to bring in a Bill . to provide for the
abolition of the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and
for the appointment of a FtowuorthpoSinetcsreotafrmy
josfreSptraetege.n.:_o.
.hebr wishedingin gthtioss.ucblearjectabewsfoyre the House he was not unmind-
ful of the great importance of it; and, in the first place,
tion which had been- iiiduslriously spread abroad. The
one was, that it was, the intention of the Government to
remove the Conks of Lair' from Dublin along with the
Court of the Lord Lieutenant. Now he could assure
the House tha there was not the slightest
intention of any step of the sort contemplated.
The other was that this was an entirely new ides, and
of recent origin. The pretient Government had
had 'the measure in contemplation for some time
and •when -Lord - Clarendon went to Ireland as
Lord . Lieutenant; he went with a full under-
standing that that office would be totally abolished,' and
that whether, the abolition shotild take place in a 'few
months or at a longer time Woulddenenl entirelthe
ycould
on
the position of Ireland and the circumstances of the.
Government.
The general
dgoeunberof,l principles
it was much bettei, as
the countries were -united, that their, governeDients
should be united. and that those who - -had the charge
of the, lash's: Of. the country, should be .able] to
meet together and consult, about the measures
to be. adopted.. This would 'se much strengthen
by she opinion of one of the greatest men that :this
country • could boast of,. whq had taken s
great share in • 'the-itnioni ho

was so imbued pith this sentiment that he
could scarcely bear the temporary institution
f the Privy Council in that country. The
Noble Lord then proceeded to read an extract
from a letter of Lord Somers in the Hardwicke Papers,
There were reasons at the time of the union with Ire-
land for maintaining an Administration in this part of
the United Kingdom, for the country was then
at war. Still at this time the subject of
the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenant was considered by
the Crown, and although it was not thought advisable to
adopt that step then it was nevertheless the opinion
of the advisers of the Crown, that at some future period
the office ought to be abolished. The question fur the
House now to consider was, whether or no the
proper period had yet arrived.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard, then, to the Executive administration of Ireland,
few would dispute with him that it was of the utmost
importance that the great officers of State in Ireland
should always be in a position to have oral communica-
tion with the Supreme Government itself. The
officers connected with the Colonial Administration
enjoyed that advantage, but in reference to
Ireland, every important step or measure tha t
was taken with regard to Ireland, had
to be negcciated in the Government through the
medium of written communications.—(Hear, hear.)
The House must see the importance of having
the chief minister for Ireland constantly in
the Cabinet, so great indeed had that want
been felt that the Legislature had been forced
to place a Secretary fur Ireland in the
Cabinet, and it too often happened that in discussing
Irish questions there, the Secretary rather followed
the bent of his own views than supported
those of his chief the Lord-Lieutenant.—(Hear, hear.)
What an immense advantage to the Execu-
tive Administration of Ireland it would
be then if the chief himself who was familiar with the
measures necessary for Ireland were unable to occupy
that place in his own person.—(Hear.)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

COURSE OF EXCHA
Amsteraftm ......•••• 12 2}4
Ditto, three months.. 12 4
Rotterdam .......... 12 4 }i
Antwerp . • ............ 25 95
Brussels • • .... 25 95
Rainburgh .... • .11.8 . 13 13
Altona .......... • • ....
earls, 3 days'sight .. • • 25 75
Ditto, 3 months .... 25 90
Marseilles ...... • • .. • • 25 95
Bourdeaux ......... •
frankfort on Mains.... 122
Berlin. • .. • • .. . • • • • • ••
Vienna, effec. d 0...... 12 25
Trieste, ditto.... • • .... 12 25
Peteroburgh, Sil. Rble.. 37%
Madrid • • .. • • ........ 49%
Cadiz •• • • • • •• • • •• •• 49.3 i
Barcelona • • •• •. ••
SeTlll4.. • • •• •• •• •• •• ••

NGE.--(TIIIS DAY.)
Gibraltar• • .• •• •• •• •• ••
Leghorn ........ • • .. 30 016
Genoa ••• • • . ••••• • • • • 26 30
Milan ................
Venice .. • • • • ....
Naples 40%
ralermo, peroz 121;4
Messina ....... ....... 121 N
Lisbon.... • • .......... 53%
Oporto • • • • • • • • • 63%
Rio Janeiro • . .. • •
Buenos Ayres ........
New York,6odays'sight
Philadelphia .. . • ....

TRIM or It'LLION, PEI CC
Foreign Geld in bars.. Z 3 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0
New Dollars ••.. • • 0 4 10%
Silver la bars 0 4 11%

SOUTHAMPTON, FRIDAY MORNING.--The United
States mail steamer Hermann, Captain Crabtree, arrived
here this morning from Bremen en route to New York, for
which place she is to sail on Monday next. She brings no
news. The steamer Atalanta arrived this morning with a
cargo of French merchandise for transhipment by the Her-
mann. The cotton sales at the Havre market were yester-
day extremely dull, amounting to 224 bales, but without any
variation in prices from last quotations.

LIVERPOOL, MAY 16.—Wind N.W. Sld. Gilbert,
Sun Francisco; Avon, Iquique; Hortense, St. Domingo;
Gulnire, Chirleston ;: Eliza Morrison, Staten Island;
Jersey, Halifax ; Champion, Antigua ; Freeman, Ja-
maica; Messenger, New York; Grange, Montreal.
SHIELDS, MAY 15.—The Ormond, arrived here last
night dismasted, and with other damage, had been in
tow of the Black Eagle steamer, for a day and a half,
but in consequence of bad weather was cast off, off
Pentland Firth.
lin.vmounr, MAY 15.—Wind N.E.—Sld. Emily, Ade-
laide, South Australia, and Port Philip.

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 valuahle 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 tramed 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 fur 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 sue h compensation, this
meeting denies the justice of taxing the community toy
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 much 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 object©d to
the principles and manner of taxation which
was 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 rote to move 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. He 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 prin-
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.
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 ou 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, M.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 he had ever de-
clared himself against its connexion with the State, which
he 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. MULL and others having addressed the meet-
ing, the proceedings terminated.

LAW OTICES.
CAUSE LISTS FOR TRINITY TERM, isio.

SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER IN TRINITY TERM, 1850.

Hlall COURT OP CHANCERY.-(Before the Lord
Chancellor.)-Appeal motions and appeals, May 22, 30,
June 6, 12; (petition day) petitions, May 23; appeals,
May 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, June I, 3,4, 5,8, 10, 11; (peti-
tion day). unopposed petitions and appeals, May 30,
Juno 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, June 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, Jane 5; short causes, petitions,
&c., June 1,8: (Before Vice-Chancellor -Wigrani.)-
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 firs!), and causes, May 25, June I, 8; mo-
tion., pleas. demurrers, exceptious, 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 v
Smith and others—Job v Hudson—Brown and another
v Coleridge—Drew and another v same—Mayne v same
—The Queen v Betts—Edwards v Knowles, part heard
—Morton v Tibbett—Humphries v Brogden—Living-
stone and another v Whiting—Doe dem. Davenish •
Moffatt—Leary v Patrick and another—Hurst v Hurst
—Gates v Gosden—Dimes v Petley—Philpotts and
others v Evers and others—Banks v Baldwin—Doe dem.
Sayers v Hutton—Griffiths v Marey—Williams and
thers r James—Page v More—Johnson v Clark—
Goodman r Pocock— Chard v Fox—Duke of Brunswick
T Hamm r—Moorwood and another v Steer—The Queen
✓ Walker—The Queen v Cutts—Farnham v Thorne—
Malpas v Clements—Manu and others v Rouble and
Walker—Jones v Alexander—J, b v Job—Hooper
✓ Knowles Crowther and others v Ferrer
The Queen v the inhabitants of Lordsmerc—Doe
dem. Witty and others v Carr—Singleton v Brae—
Harland v Binks—Doe dem. France v Andrewe—
Mallalieu • Hodgson and another—Nield v Ratcliffe
and another—Austin v Spear—Batter v Rutsh—Wil-
Hams v Lord Beresford—Beercrose v Ruesell—Delfosse v
Hollis—Hounsfield v Curtis—Doe dem. Constable and
another v Stevenson—Whalley T Bramwell—Bartlett v
Bullen—Tyacho and others v Richards—Same • Same
—Doe dem. Biddulph and others v Hole and others—
Mellmish v Collier—Smith v Archibald and another—
Williams v Morgan—Hales I' Firminger—Traile and
another v Grey and others—Blanchard v Ripley—
Lloyd v Howard—Walton v Gavin—Galvanised Iron
Company v Osier—Barker v Goddard—Campbell v
Hewlett—Miller v Alexander—Hay • Ayling —Agri-
cultural Cattle Insurance Company v Fizgerald—Mullet
✓ Challis and another—Woodhead and others v Berry—
Taylor • Hawkins—Governor and Company of the
Copper Miners of England v Fox and others—Griffiths
✓ Hicks—Austen and another • Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire Railway Company—Husband and ano-
ther v Cattlin—Prichard v Mullins and another—Nodin
v Johnson and another—Doe dem. Compton and wife v
Hannah Carpenter—Same v ‘Villiaaa Carpenter—Same
✓ Isaac Carpenter—Wakefield v Dixon—Rogers and
another v Driver—Armitstead • North Staffordshire
Railway Company—Doe dem. Armitstead v same—
Baron v Bricknell—The Queen v Inhabitants of Tur-
weston—Staines and wife v Eastern Union and Hadleigh
Junction Railway Company—Doe dem. Hastings v Wet-
son—Peardon v Underhill—Mayor of Rochester v Lee—
Roberts v Hunt—Couchinan v Ward—Bottomley v Smith
Thompson v Nye—Elliott v Clayton—Godfrey v Lewel-
lin and another—Bishop v Cook and others—Fielder T
Fielding—Strong Y Gadsdena--Davies v Williams—Gil-
bertson v Joseph. Special Cases and Demurrers stand-
ing for the Judgment of the Court:—Adams 1' Andrews
—Cook v Field—Knight and others v Faith and another
—Toiler v Attwood—Morris • Walker—Chabot T Lord
Morpeth and others. For Argument:—West Cornwall
Railway Company v Mowatt—Sanderson v Dobson and
others—Keyse v Powell—Rose v Dry and another—
Parkes v Smith—Davies ♦ Cary—Railaton v York, New-
castle, and Berwick Railway Company—Wagstaff v
Booth—Berry ♦ Huxtable and another—Gallard • Gil-
christ—Scattergood v Sylvester—Reynell and another v
Lane—Daniel v Morton—Walsh and another v Treva-
nion and others—Bainbridge v Wade—Pim v Wilson—
Doe dem. Blagrave v Stephens—the North American
Colonial Association of Ireland—Hayward v Albony—
Day • Smith—Walker v Clements—Thompson and
another v Whatley—Jackson and others v Charing-cross
Bridge Company—Langbouree and another • Chadwick
—Doe Evers and wife v Challis—Marsden v
Rochdale Canal Company V' Walmesley—Walton v Holt
—Evans v George—Mudford v Lowe and others—Trot-
ter • York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company
—Crow v General Ship Loan and Insurance Company—
Laeming and another v Snaith—Worsley and another •
South- Devon Railway Company—West • Jackson and
another—Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin
Railway Company • Logan—Francis and another v
Bailey—Perkins v Tidd—Backhouse ♦ Coulthard—
Griffiths • Fenton—Gallini v the Earl of Courtoun
and others—Bank of Australasia v Nias—Tarloton v
Liddell and another—Bank of Australasia • Rowe En-
larged Rules (First day): Re the Westminster Improve-
ment Commission and the Churchwardens of St. Marga-
ret and St. John, Westminster—Caudwell v Mostyn and
othere—Clegg and others v Dearden—Re Wright and
another and the Cromford Canal Company—Richards
and others v Tinto—Cater and another _v Cbigwell--
Mackenzie v Sligo and Shannon Railway Company—
Doe dem. Davies v Davies—The Queen v James Rowlands
—The Queen v J. Egginton—The Queen • Thomas Fir-
bank and another—The Queen • Robert Tyrwhit.
(Second day): Re Ralph Lindsey and the Direct London
and Portsmouth Railway Company—Cooling • Great
Northern Railway Company—Due dem. Warren,
✓ Young and another—Re Sunderland Dock Com-
pany—Witmer v Lewis and another—Re John
Oldtield—Re John Lloyd—Re Charles Richard-
son—Ashley v Brown—The Queen v Recorder
of Liverpool—The Queen v Copper Miners' Company—
The Queen v the, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
Railway Company—The Queen v Norfolk Railway
Company. (Fourth day): Re H. W. Hall—Owen v
Owen—Daniels v Ellaby, stands for arrangement.
COURT Or COMMON PLEAS .—Remanet Paper: Water.
fall • Chappell—Moss and another • Smith and another
—The Queen v the Sheriff of Leicester in Arden • Bing-
ham—Hamilton v Cochran—Hudspeth v Yarnold—The
Electric Telegraph Company v Brett and another—
Chubb • Marshall—Canuan and another v Hartley—
Lavcock v Pickslay—Fothergill, jun. v Todd—Somer-
ville `I Hawkins—Jones and another v Broadhurst—
Newton v Chaplin—Mayor, &c., of London v Parkinson
and others—Hilcoat r Archbishops of Canterbury and
York—Callender • Howard—Wetherell v Julius and
others—On the behalf of the Lord Bishop of Exeter—
Mavity v Beveridge and another—Elves v Crofts—Same
v Same—Doe and Prior and others *V Ongley. Demurrer
Paper—Special Arguments for Wednesday, May 29:
Robinson v the Magistrates of Bristol and others—Kepp
and another r Wiggett and others—Bank of Austra-
lasia • Harding—Sharlaud • Leifchild—Doan, &c., of
Christ Church, Oxford v Hill—R. Sheen v Eastern
Union Railway Company—S. Shaen • Same—Temple v
Sleigh—Yates v Hill—Bulligieg v Booker and others—
Ackroyd • Smith and another—Watson and another v
Eastern Counties Railway Company—Phelps ♦ Pro-
thero—Kingsford v Dutton—Serrell • Derbyshire and
Staffordshire Railway Company—Lord Portman T Flood
—Williams and another v Gray and another. Friday,
May 31—Special Argument: Williams and another •
Nonnansell and another. Wednesday, June s—Special
Arguments. Friday, June 7—Special Arguments.
Crown Paper: Regina v Caledonian Railway Company
—Regina • Midland Railway Company—Regina • Ed-
mund Godfrey and others—Regina • Same—Regina v
Inhabitants of St. Marylebone—Regina v Clerk of the
Peace for West Riding—Regina v Tithe Commissioners
for England and Wales—Regina • William Owen—Re-
gina v Dean and Chapter of Chester—Regina v Com-
missioners for Improving High and Low Harrogate—
Regina v Birmingham etc., Junction Railway Company
—Regina v Guardians of Teesdale Union, &c.—Regina
v Betts and another—Regina v Commissioners of Sewers
—Regina v John Williams and another—Regina v Inha-
bitants of County of Brecon.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFF'S COURT, May 16.
CRIM. CON.—COLES V. MARSHALL.
This was an action for criminal conversation. Its
this case judgment went by default, and the question
was the damages to be awarded.
Mr. Parry was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Allen for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, a ♦ery young man,
was married to his wife, who was about 20 years old,
in 1848. Ile was a carter in the employ of Mr.
Lanham, a wholesale provision-merchant in the
Borough, to whom the defendant, who was more
than 40 years old, was foreman, at 51. a week. The
plaintiff's wife, who was the daughter of a laun-
dress, kept a cigar-shop, and was visited by the
defendant. The plaintiff had his suspicions excited,
and refused to live with his wife, on which she ap-
plied to a magistrate, and he denied his liability to
support her on the ground of adultery. The evidence
to affect the defendant was not considered conclusive,
and the result was that the plaintiff was discharged
from his situation at Mr. Lanham's. Subsequently
to the hearing before the magistrate, the plaintiff's
wife and the defendant were traced to a coffee-shop in
Newington-causeway, where a bed had been taken for
the night, and there the officer who had watched them
found then* in bed.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN made an energetic speech for
the defendant. He endeavoured to show that the
plaintiff had exposed his wife, and that a plan had
been laid to entrap the defendant.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said the jury would
consider whether the evidence warranted the course
pursued by the Learned Counsel in his
,eloquent
speech, because if it did not they would consider
whether the injury already inflicted on the plaintiff,
a young man, by a person twice as old as himself,
had not been aggravated—whether it was not a reason
to increase rather than to diminish the damages to be
awarded.
The jury, after a short consultation, assessed the
damages at 2001.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

MOUSE OF COMMONS, May 16

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
The Rouse then went into Committee on this Bill on
the motion of Mr. EWART.
Mr. EWART, on the first clause being proposed.
moved the addition of certain words making it !sinful
to adopt the Act in any municipal borough.
Colonel SIBTHORP considered there were already
taxes enough, and a Bill of this sort was the last sort
of Bill he should be inclined to sanction. Any law that
would increase expenses indefinitely he considered to
be bad in itself, and he was quite sure that a large por-
tion of those persons for whose benefit the Act was
professedly passed would be quite unable to avail them
selves of any advantages which other classes might de-
rive from it. The Bill was partial in its operations,
and therefore he thought it proper thus early to say he
would give the Bill his opposition. though, at the same
time, he was always ready to promote and increase the
means of amusement and information of the inhabitants
of the borough he represented ; but then he should give
the requisite funds out of his own pocket, and ..not let
them come on the public purse.
Mr. STANFORD said it had been understood that a
clause should be framed so as to give the rate-payers of
a borough the opportunity of adopting the 13i1l, provided I

two. thirds cf their number consented. A clause ho
been inserted with that view, but certainly it did not sr
pear to be likely to attain the' object he advocated.: 'hS
Hon. Member had not given the rate-payers the 0rP,,,,T
tunity of judging and deciding for themselves.
he
whole of the Bill now consisted of the title; for tbe Hon.
Member had struck out the original clauses, and now
proposed to frame a new Bill by the introduction of fresh
clauses. He considered such a mode of proceeding
highly obj,etionable.
Mr. EWART said the introduction of such &Bill bac',
been recommended by a Parliamentary Committee ol
last year, and he thought the Hon. Member indiScresflsc
in opposing a measure which would benefit his gen
tuents; but perhaps the Hon. Member did not consider
the people of Reading a reading
and cries of " Oh, oh.") If it would meet the coos'
nience of the House, he would postpone the further op'
sideration of the clause. thsci
Sir G. PECHELL said that many places other
corporate towns would desire to benefit by them eoul,P.'
and he did not see why its provisions should not be e"
tended to such towns as Brighton.—(Hear.) rd.
Sir G. GREY suggested the withdrawal of the acne" f
people.—( e,
ment which had been proposed on a previous OW °:
the Bill, and its committal pre forma, in order that
might be reprinted and more fully considered. cc;
After a short conversation the suggestion was egr'
to, and the Bill was ordered to be recommitted. is
MARRIAGES BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBA' lr.
Petitions in favour of this Bill were presented by 5
Bouverie, from Dunfermline; by Mr. Wortley, fronl;:ct
rious places in England, and from Linlithgow, Ayr' -
Glasgow (the latter with nearly 6,000 signatures). j.
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Mr; endß. Hope, from Sir J. Herschel; by Sir R. Inglis 1,,,e
Mr. R. Palmer; and Mr. F. Manic, from Daniern3,l,e
Bute—(Cheers from the opponents of the Bill)----sn" also
veral other places. The Right Hon. Gentleman.ll693
presented a petition from Edinburgh signed bY
ladies—(Cheers)—who stated that they viewed 10°,1
feigned sorrow and alarm the progress of the Bill; A •
they believe it will tend to interrupt every feeling of
tural affection and all those feelings which 1101"-st.
between sisters-in-law and sisters' husbands, and entre.o
ing the House not to pass a Bill so distressingly Ansi
to every pure mind in the kingdom.—(Hears
On the qestion that the Speaker leave the chair
the purpose of going into Committee, A , , 1110
Mr. DIVETT rose to move, as an um— t
amen „..ntbs.
the House resolve into Committee this day, six 11- ne,
He considered the Bill a scandalous and unmoral esn,
and if any one thing had astonished him more Olin it
other, in the course of his Parliamentary hear.), for
experience' 0
was the fact that a man of such ability and leirningsbe
the Hon. Member for Bute should have undertskenito.
introduction of such a Bill.—(Cheers.) lie wrottibsi
nished to find that any petitions in faveur of the Prow%
been sent from Scotland, because he believed 0° I%iis
of the people of that country to be almost allan;ere
against it. He believed that the people of MOO° Lee
also adverse to the Bill, and that it was equally
tionable to the women of England. He rePeAtedia osi,
he considered it to be an immoral Bill; be o°"",,xisl
nothing of it in a religious point of view, but 115 9 ore
question he believed that a more mischievous rnie.Tae.
had never been brought under the consideration 0,
liument.—(Cheers.) (Crier
Mr. A. J. B. HOPE seconded the amendment.--,
of " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appearecl---
For going into Committee s•
.Against 40
••• ••• •••
Majority•
The House then resolved itself into
BERNAL in the chair.

Clause 1 wa agreed to.
On clause 2,s providing that marriages hereto
hibited are not to be voidable, but are to be deem
e
marriags except under circumst s,
ance . a sat s
Sir F. THESIGER said they had now arrtre
10
stage of the Bill at which all discussion with regedreoie
its principles ought to be suspended, and when its et, to
only ought to be considered. He wished it, hevie•los t°
be understood, that in now confining his objects
certain portions of the clauses, he did not waive bile.sir4
to object to the principle at some future stage' s 011
he unquestionably intended to do.---(Hear, hear7of
the
object now was to strike out a particular Part
clause, and the question for the consideration - pet
Committee was this—whether the proposed Is 4
to have a retrospective operation—whether eg„ ojece
rimes contracted with a deceased wife's sis,Leal
1835 should be rendered valid, in express and dune 11011,'
lation of a. known law—(Hear, hear.) Atiitetve
Members who thought a change of the law "`"rds to
might, consistently, vote for the omission of the ri4t tb°
which he objected—(Hear.) It was admitted t
retro-active laws were in general a violation er`iegli
principles of legislation; that they ought to he Ott 55
resorted to, and ought not to be adopted otee'ltel:
matter almost of moral necessity—(Hear, hear.) for the
was no instance of the Legislature interfering he left
protection of persons who had wilfully violated / ottiel
more especially when important rights of other St
would be affected by such legislation. - The ques/1,1 toe'
consideration was whether the parties who irojiter°
tracted marriages with their deceased will": deer
„
since 1835, had done so through ignorance or
tence, or had wilfully and deliberately violated whaat he
knew to be the law. On referring to the reP;sttie/
found in the Appendix, No. 18, one of those
wrote :—" I knew, of course, that I was runninsfie Of'
trary t) Act of Parliament." In AppendiX. Acts' a'
another stated :—"I did not imagine that
Parliament could annul or create a real obligg',7,Tre'n,
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Manchester c:;000A"
but an Act of Parliament, though it might nek,,„-oo5e:
might certainly create a moral obligation, if not ac's
tb
to the Divine law. There was no instance in ffr,'irctill3'
Legislature had passed a retrospective Act in„), re'
stances like those of the present case. lie nrigu;sl3'
(erred to the Act of 1835, but he did not think tP-tistel
Act had the bearing for which some Hon. o°r,,/ibibithes
supposed. Up to 1835 marriages within the io
degrees, though they might be annulled by suite
de.'
ecclesiastical courts, yet if not annulled before 0,0 0,0
.0
of one of the parties, the ecclesiastical courts c°o-
- the
afterwards interfere to invalidate them and 00'00'
children illegitimate. In such a case the etfioreli.
law courts, for the sake of the innocent cis ,!c
would have prohibited the ecclesiastical cell 040;
terfering. It was supposed that marriages id; bl/i
the prohibited degrees of consanguinity were 1/001)1.e,
that marriages within the prohibited degrees 0.40
were only voidable. That, however, was • Pr:r,
Before the Act of 1835 either of the parties Testb'e,
hibited marriage might, during the life of
nit 80440
apply to the ecclesiastical courts to annul the ,--ol
or any third party might do so. An indirine. on'
brought the state of the law before the Degt.l6
which took the only course which was open 501-010/6
An lime. MEMBER moved that the House be
0.
but more than 40 Members being present,
terteresle
Sir F. THESIGER proceeded to state the
rem
-f
the Act of 1835. He observed that it wag*
Are-, theod
fact that Scotland was excepted from that 101111 lig
of Scotland considering all such marriages ,;are
void. That there might bo
os no plea of igne't eir.es
Legislature declared, in ptive terms, tb° Seer' d
future marriages within the prohibited 00 le,
whether of affinity or consanguinity, should betherefc'ee
void to all intents and purposes. No one'
could plead ignorance of the state of the la!'eotts'oio
theless there were parties who since 1835 112'",;°,11 PS re'
such marriages, and it was for those Parr,.; 11,gs or
Hon. and Learned Friend proposed to interreh;,oo
trospective law for the purpose of rendering tlibe 4,0'00
riages valid, and for investing them with all
and rights that belonged to legitimate marriegf,,terlete,
what grounds were the House called en Scloi
His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member ''t.0110,7 c 0
ampton had appealed to the House on the tote', ee
compassion for the children; but if they fee), 00' of
such a principle in the present case, might
L-outo,bdetha
called on to extend it to other cases? seoeioo'
illegitimate children in the country grestlYeZt his els
number born of these prohibited marriages,,",;te f,°„l
and Learned Friend would not, surely, legitT elwfte,
parents out of compassion for those illegitin:e wti" se'
His wish was to exclude from the Bill tlso9eosts
wilfully violated the law. He knew tbe,:„ peiere
Learned Member for Bute was actuated,vi farelioir
ested motive in bringing forward thisrad 10 pet
and he appealed to him whether it w,49,0-01d,i):10(
that parties who had violated the law /".„- if wseel°
in the position in which they would have bee- e
sifttl* leel
had been different and these marriages is- the' te;
parties had not contracted marriages havnw of 0 lightg9
mate rights of marriage. Their unions were his 1'
rooy
tricious—not of a matrimonial character, en, are irtiel
Hon. Friend proposed, without any religie„°; the P" tiler'
to wipe out the stain of 15 years, and Prwdalliseitato
on the same footing as if they bad been T-„pes,,„ivo
vied. His Hon. and Learned Friend he" lireeolii"
the number of persons interested in tb°„.seet; 11.'011
marriages. He believed if the cases had u'ooele" 040
House of Commons would never have been troisteilidl,s,
the question at all—(Hear)—but was it e,°:„ shOlid
any just principle of legislation that the al, iiolol,ool°
altered because a number of persons bnitrets
Many parties who at present possessed of d?"tee
have those rights defeated if past marrisge'r6 oit
scription were rendered valid. The rnetifirect fi° Obi
stood would therefore be a flagrant and "1,, to Of ory
of the rights of property. He would venttuwieosle
no precedent could be found for such ai; felt Os
ceeding; and under those circumstances, ~desitig
duty to move the omission of the words re" S t tb.,!
O OP
operation of the Bill retrospective. were ,01 otes .do
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said he was
was a question on which gentlemen en boon thegioes,
very deeply; but as there were arraYe"not th°
which he advocated some of the most 00'..ionin
and some of the wisest and the most Pie:e thengf
Legislature and throughout the country' hard? stn
Hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Direct) be.."ad &floor'
within the bounds of prudence when he " one. isir 11/
the Bill as an immoral and a scandalouLt
hear.) Now, he was anxious to state ttoslinest Seethe,
relationship, by connexion, or, he Inigh. wrest Vlienciii
friendship even, had he ;he slightest 10.,, the o.
question.—(Hear, hoar.) With respect lit:is 0011'
ment which had just been proposed bY ,".uts. that f tee,
thinio the 0 tee
Learned Friend, he could not help prina ectebi,
amendment, in point of fact, went to the ish to A t
Bill. He did not, he should observe, disobeyed
any relief to the man who wilfully upersono
roe
law. But he believed that many Tote ige° pef:
contracted those marriages in "unaPisO- tbabse As
of the existing state of the law; al/barna, be 15 .9
ties, as well as to their innocent that t Flo!,
anxious to afford relief. Be believe_tL, tisken„ort„eh
of a number of those marriages hn,"_",,7ch the ott.
without the censure of the circles in:_u_ooo
joini;vijore
moved proved that the law was note " ,
Week. for •
the state of public feeling upon the u.lceaeot . boot
Friend had asked him to point out Ile. Noe
the •
course which he then proposed tn.:2`830,
tli
lieved he could comply with that 43 wiinv
of Lord Hardwicko no minor could Ism