The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

r know of no one more like than Sir Henry Hardinge to
be selected ; but we must still hold to the hope, that
the matter has not yet proceeded so far, and that there
is still left to the Directors a locus of re,-considering
" the read." •

MURDER AT BATTERSEA.

WA'NDSWORTH. - (THIS DAY.)

Augustus _Dams, the unfortunateFrenchmam charged
with the murder of Sarah Eleanor M`Farlane, was
examined this clay befqre Mr. MVO.-
The prisoner .was brought duwn from London in the
oust xly of Sergeant Cummings of the D diiision, and
police-constable 203 of the same section. He was con-
veyed init cab, handcuffed to the first-named officir.
At half-past eleven the prisoner was introduced into
Court, and, despite the heavy charge against him, he
seemed of all present the most unconcerned. He stood
during the whole period of examination, in a most easy
attitude, resting cne hand on the back of a chair, while
the other was negligently pressed against his side. He
gave every attention to the evidence of the witnesses,
and .occasionally interrupted them by asking some
questions.
The evidence of Mrs. Gibson was literally the same
with that detailed in The Sun on Thursday last. She
had been called in to see her sister lying in the Swan
Tavern, Wandsworth, and found her dead from the ex-
tensive injuries inflicted on her neck.

Sergeant Cummings, 3 D, was the next and the only
new witness examined. He stated that the prisoner
Augustus Dalmas had knocked at the door of Maryle-
bone-lane station about one o'clock this morning; that
he requested the reserve constable to show him the in-
spector ; that the inspector, Mr. Brown, not being pre-
sent, he was introduced to him (Sergeant Cummings);
that he stated.to- him that he had been haunted day and
night by the reports which had appeared in the news-
papers ; and that he was the man described as being
the murderer. He (Sergeant Cummings) told him that
if he wished to make any statement, he would
take it down in writing, but cautioned him at the
same • time that such would be produced afterwards.
The prisoner again recapitulated the substance of what
he had said before, and added that he did not accom-
pany the deceased upon Battersea-bridge. He also said
that the only true evidence, as given in the newspapers
on the occasion of the inquest at the Swan Tavern, Bat-
ters( a, was that given by his daughter Charlotte.
l'risoner—Did I su Charlotte, or Augusta ?

_ S;:rgeant Cummings—l cannot positively say which.
Mr. CLIVE—Did you hear both daughters named, be-
fore you saw the prisoner ? Cummings—l certainly
heard Augusta's name, but do not think I heard of Char-
lotte's ; but I cannot be certain which of his daughters
the prisoner named.
Dr. Connor, of Battersea, was examined as to de
nature of the wound; and gave precisely the same evi-
dence as already given by us.
Mr. .Hail, the toll-keeper, observed the woman fall,
called to his wife and another female to assist, and ulti-
mately had her carried into the Swan Tavern.

The youngest daughter of the prisoner, Augusta, was
then called, and merely stated when she was left at her
place on the Monday evening, she observed her father
and the deceased together, and thought they would
walk home.

Charlotte, the eldest daughter, was next called, but
she added nothing to the statement made before the
t..3.)roner. The poor girl was deeply affected, and before
entering Court fainted, and in the midst of her evidence
before the magistrate was carried out in strong hysterical
convulsions.

The police constable 36 V, and Mr. Gosling of the
Swan, were the last wi nesves. They deposed to the
fact that the deceased, in the full knowledge of her dying
state, had declared I)almas to be her murderer.
Mr. CLIVE asked Superintendent Bicknell if he wished
a remand, and being answered in the affirmative, fixed
Friday next for the final- examination of the prisoner.

THE COURT. Tier Majesty left town about
five o'clock this afternoon for Claremont. Their
Royal Highnesses the Prince of 'Wales, the Princess
Royal, and the Princess Alice, also proceeded from
l3uckingham Palace to Claremont this afternoon.
His Royal Highness Prince Albert will preside this
afternoon at the annual dinner of the Royal Academy,
in Trafalgar-square, and in the evening will also
proceed to Claremont.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSB: OF LORDS, May 3.

The Loni) CTIA.S4I.I;OR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five•o'Clock.
RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH.

The Duke of WELLINGTON took that oppDrtunity
of informing the Noble Marquis opposite (Normanby),
that his Noble Friend, the President of the Board of
Control, would be in: his place on Tuesday next.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he would, under
those circumstances, postpone the question of which be
had given notice respecting the communications which
had passed between the Government and the Court of
Directors, regarding the recal of Lord Ellenborough
from India.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented several peti-
tions in favotir of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
Belfast against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from two
RoMan Catholic congregations in Lancashire, in favour
of the BilL
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented several peti-
tions from various places in Ireland against the Bill. He
had also for presentation several petitions on the subject
of the Presbyterian marriages, which he should defer,
as other Noble Lords. had more important petitions to
present.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions for and against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill from Thetford, and from
places in Ireland.
The Marquis of BUTE presented similar petitions.
Lord COTTENHAM also presented petitions on the
same subject.
Lord ICINNAIRD presented a petition from the
congregation of a free church, the locality of which we
could not catch, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from twelve
Unitarian Ministers, of the highest character and long
standing in their vocation, in favour of the Bill.
Lord CLONCURRY presented (as we understood) a
petition against the Irish Registration Bill.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from a
Unitarian congregation, in favour of the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE would suggest to his
Noble Fri9nd (the Duke of Richmond) the expediency
of postponing to a future day his proposed motion for
returns with respect to the importation of foreign wool.
The Duke of RICHMOND assented, and the motion
AN as fixed for Tuesday.
On the motion of the Marquis of BUTE, the North
British Railway Bill was read a second time.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to movo that
the House should resolve itself into Committee on this
Bill. He expressed his surprise at the opposition which-
had been shown towards the Bill. The petitions, how-
ever, against the Bill were generally in the same hand-
writing, and he had no doubt emanated from the same
source, and therefore he did not feel much fear for the
Bill he had introduced on account of these petitions.
This Noble and Learned Lord went on to state—lt must
be remembered, that there are numerous petitions, also,
on the other side; but I humbly presume to say they are
widely different in character from those I have men-
tioned, and entitled to much greater attention. There are
petitions from members of the Established Church—peti-
tions from Presbyterians and various denominations of
Dissenters, not couched in general terms, but pointing
out specific hardships and evi's, and praying a remedy
for the complaints which they made. There is an oppo-
sition, however, of a Very different description which
this Bill is destined to encounter—l mean thatof a night
Reverend Friend of mine (the:Bishop of London), formi-
dable not more for his talents than for his character and
position. Ido not apprehend, however, considering; the
strength and justice of the case, even the effect of that
formidable opposition. I 'feel some surprise indeed at
the new association into which my Right Reverend Friend
has fallen; but great advantage must be derived fro:n it
if, as I am persuaded he will, my Right Reverend Friend
uses hie influence to temper their zeal, and, if possible,
to put an end to the differences which unfortunately
prevail amongst them. lam happy to say, that as to
one part of the Bill—l mean the first section—no? differ-
ence of opinion exists as to the ne"essity of some change.
The Bishop of EXETER, in a loud tone, " No, no,
no."—(A laugh.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, this is the only
quarter from which I have heard any objection. I be-
lieve my Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) does
Fn ort ela jointe. in
wthhe at oipai n itohneseentertainedthis b the y
section,
n and theev.
state of the law which it is intended by it to correct ?
Some charities with respect to places of worship were
stablished at a period when by law that species of wor-
,' ship was illegal.. Subsequent Acts of Parliament passed
legalising the form of worship. Though the foundation
was illegal, those charities have since become legal ac-
cording to our present law. The more liberal character
and spirit of the present age have repealed the statutes
declaring they were contrary to law. Notwithstanding
this, as the foundation of those charities was illegal, it
has been considered, notwithstanding the alteration of
the law, that the defect was not completely remedied ;
and for the purpose, therefore, of preventing the con-
scquences resulting from those charities being vacated
by process of the courts of equity, I have introduced the
present clause into the Bill. The object of this clause is
that those charities should be considered as if they were
founded sul sequently to the Act which legalised them,
What can be more reasonable—what more just ? If
they are legal, the foundation of the charity should be
declared so also. And what is the object of their being
set aside and declared void ? To ves them in the
Crown, and thus devote them to other purposes than
those for which they were originally intended. Until I
hear some argument urged against the Clause, I rest, on
this statement and the position I have made out—l rest
on the support I expect to receive from my Right Rev,
Friends—on the decided opinion expressed everywhere
Out of doors on the subject, and I shall not trouble your
Lordships further with any observations respecting it.
Now, as to the material point to which opposition is di-
rected. I must state what the nature of the provision is.
Nothing can be more simple. Places of worship are
established by deed or will, for some benevolent purpose,
That place has been established for one hundred and
fifty or two hundred years ; but for a long period, say
thirty, forty, fifty, or seventy years, the congregation
meeting in that place have entertained the same religi-
ous doctrines and opinions. No change whatever has
taken place during that period. It is a matter of
speculation what the opinion of the original founder
was. He has not in his deed of trust stated the
doctrines and opinions which he is desirous should
be propounded and inculcated in that place of wor,
ship. Why not take the usage which has prevailed
for so long a period as evidence of the original inten•
tion of the donor ? If in a deed it be declared to be
the declared will and intention of the donor that
particular doctrines should be preached. and in-
culcated, to such a state of things this clause did not
apply ; but when it was not laid down what parti-
cular doctrines should be preached, or what the precise
object of the foundation was, and yet that the parties
frequenting the chapel had uniformly, 'and for a long
period continued the same usage as to religious worship
and doctrines, I ask your Lordships why we may not
reasonably take the usage as evidence of the intention
of the donor, and not allow the title to the occupancy
of the chapel to be impeached in a court of justice ? My
Lords, a Noble' and Learned Friend of mine stated, on a
former night, the principle on which this law was
founded. It is a principle well known to our law—that
uniform possession for a long series of years establishes
a title. That great principle of our law is embraced in
the law of every civilised country, and is adopted by our-
selves from the wise jurisprudence of ancient Rome.
That principle we apply to our estates—to our civil
rights. Why not apply it to a case of this description ?
Parties value their rights as connected with property of
this description more highly than those appertaining
beenningto
ordinary property. Those places of worship
frequented by their fathers and grandfathers.
The burial ground attache .l contains the names
of their relatives and parents, and is it not,
therefore, most natural and important that the
principle applied to civil rights should be put in force as
to property of this mixed character ? With respect to
civil rights, if a party obtains unlawfully possession of
land ; if he acquires property by a fraudulent act, or one
of violence, still, if he is allowed to remain in uninter-
rupted possession for a long series of years (and indeed,
not a very long period according to modern law) his
title:becomes indefeasible. The person kept out of pos-
session may say" lam wrongfully dispossessed. I have
distinct evidence of the fact ;" the answer .is " an inde-
feasible title has been acquired against you by lapse of
time, and this has been built on a wise principle of the
law." Evidence is lost by lapse of time; witnesses
die, and their testimony is gone ; parties ar© no longer
able by distinct evidence to establish what their rights
were. The lapse of time effects all this. It has also its
counteracting effects. It establishes continued possession
eincahihn3t of
le
wtdlwhteaai
extended
tesanother,lost.ematerialdThis
thusimportance
sm iots od
abehenaroalnnsa
establishedns cdi
en
consider h andw
ittprahers
ephi nit:sepci evidencepuibnler principle
neetsrhre eeot recognise eftgt aeei wwes eri "ndi
ibme ee ns af et
r-
taabed to it. Everybody knows that the rule I have
alluded to did not extend to eas?s where the Crown was
concerned, the Crown being supposed to be so much
engaged with public affairs, that it had not an oppor-
tunity actively to superintend' its own peculiar interests.
Perhaps there was another reason for the exception. It
was not thought right that the weakness or supineness
of the immediate possessor should impair the rights and
interests of the successor. This for a long period was
the law of the country; in modern acts it was consi-
dered a false principle to establish this limitation in the
case. of the Crown, except so far as to require posses-
sion for a longer period against it than in the case 'of a
sul aect; and after lung discussion the rule, excepting
the Crown from the operation of the principle I have
named, was abolished. In the case of the Church, too,
Lord Tenterden, in our own times, abolished the ex-
ce'Lition which said that no time should run against the
Church. Why enter into this detail for the purpose of
impressing on your Lordships the importance of this
rule, and the universality of its application? The cir-
cumstances which I am about to detail, though not
coming within the scope of this Bill, will serve to
throw light on the species of inquiry which must be
instituted, if some such measure as the present be not
passed. I allude to Lady Hewley's charity. Give me
to say that is not a single case ; many such are now
pending, and many more threatened. The Noble
anancd.
yet
no,
ilioaeturahoisri Learned Lord obryd
which
hn
itwaepnpteaorned ttohatgi
belong.f
I;ad setpeern
hd
ae
dnh;
tse:vthee ajudhgiees-
ta,hriLdee
so,
b;qd,
question
votedon7 sin favour awe,
,ohuor.mo Theyf
didat rhee
()thws the
;,f,u claimants.nthd the
Ths
cticetneacertieirthseempartiee intended.'" The
report to the Nrinilc'ec! onflictitig claims, and
skr- The Vice-Chanel dlor
had a wend time to sift the most COASIOting ey*