The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TrITTRSDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1844.

of Viscountess Palmerston, Sir George Cayley, Lieut.-
Colonel M`Donald, Mr. Ley, clerk to the House of Com-
mons; Mr. Hoare, Mr. Gladstone, M.P., Mr. Tristram,
of the Yorkshire Society ; the Earl of Enniskillen, and
those of other distinguished individuals, with sums of
money affixed to each. They have been practising their
artful mendicancy for the last ten years, but not with
impunity, as will appear by the following return :
February, 1836, before Mr. Chambers, the male prisoner
one month ; ditto, 25th November, same year, before
Sir F. Roe, one month ; ditto, June, 1837, Mr. Dyer,
one month ; ditto, 7th September, 1837, Mr. Hoskins,
three months.; ditto, May, 1838. Mr. Broughton, three
months ; ditto, at the Middlesex Sessions, nine months ;
ditto, 13th May, 1840, Mr. Hardwicke, six weeks; ditto
14th July, 1841, Mr. Hall, one month ; ditto, 14th
April, 1843, Guildhall, one month. The female priso-
ner bad been committed still more frequently. On the
17th of April, 1843, she was brought before Mr. Bond,
charged with endeavouring to obtain money on false pre-
tences from Mr. Gladstone, M.P., brother to the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade. On that occasion she
gave her name as Pattison, and Mr. Gladstone produced
the letter she gave him, purporting to be from Mr. T. G.
Fuller, of 28, St. James's-street. She said she was a
native of Fettercairn, in Scotland.

Mr. Beale deposed that hegave the female prisoner 55.,
on her producing a letter of high recommendation, pur-
porting to be written by Mr. Keale, a gentleman residing
in Garlick-hill, Croydon. Witness was deceived by the
handwriting, which was like Mr. Keale's. She also pro-
duced a letter, purporting to be from Mr. Tristram, of
the Yorkshire Society, and speaking in the same high
terms of her character, and forcibly depicting her for-
lorn and destitute condition.

Mr. Kettle's clerk said the letter was not in his em-
ployer's handwriting.
The prisoners were remanded, Horsford stating that
Mr. Denison, M.P., the Earl of Enniskillen, and other
noblemen and gentlemen, would prefer charges agains
them.

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS
The following are the results of "A Table of Mortality
in the Metropolis, showing the Number of Deaths from
all Causes registered in the Week ending Saturday, the
15th of June, 1844." The Table is issued from the Office
of the Registrar-General:

Weekly
Total. Average of
Five year..
Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases 194 178
Diseases of variable or uncertain seat B9 111
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses 136 157
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of
Respiration 247 286
Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels 27 21
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other
Organs of Digestion ..
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c 8 5
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &c. 9 10
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles 8 6
Diseases of the Skin, &c. ...... . ... 0 1
Old Age, or Natural Decay 5O 71
By Violence, Privation, or Intemperance
Causes specified' 853 942
Deaths from ill'Causes '' 855 946
DEATHS FROM THE PRINCIPAL DISEASES INCLUDED UNDER

CAUSES OF DEATH.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 19.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION.
Mr. JAMES presented a petition from the farmers of
East Cumberland, deprecating the tactics of the Anti-
Corn-law League, and praying the House not .to allow
foreign corn to come into this country., free of duty.
Several of the petitioners had attached to their signa-
tures, a declaration to the effect that they would
rather have a fixed duty of Bs. a quarter on wheat than
the present sliding-scale. The Hon. Member took that
opportunity of correcting an error which had crept into
the division lists of Monday night, as he was repre-
sented to have voted both ways.—(Laughter.) As he
did not possess the power of übiquity, he begged to state
that he voted with the Hon. Member for Bristol (Mr,
Miles).—(Hear, hear.)
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Petitions against this Bill were prest7nTedbi Sir J.
Y. BULLER from Devonshire, and Mr. KEMBLE from
Camberwell.
Mr. WYSE presented a petition from Ireland in fa-
vour of art-unions.
OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE.
- Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
Westminster, complaining of the letters of some of her
Majesty's subjects having been opened by order of one
of her Majesty's Secretaries of State, a power which
they stated ought not to be exercised except under
especial and pressing circumstances. They stated also
that the practice, if continued, would create a want of
confidence in the Post-office authorities of the country.
—(Hear, hear.) They prayed the House •to take steps
to abolish the Act of Parliament which established the
power, or to make such stringent provisions as would
prevent the abuse of the power which had been so lately
exhibited by one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member presented a similar
petition from the Metropolitan Trades Association.
Mr. WALLACE moved that the petition of operative
bleachers in the parishes of Cathcart. and Eastwood, to
regulate their labour (presented 13th June), be printed
with the Votes.—Ordered.

STATE TRIALS.
Mr. WYSE moved that the petition from William
Ford, Pierce Mahony, and others, on the subject of the
State Trials_ (Ireland), presented 17th June, be printed
with the Votes.—Ordered.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented a petition from the en-
gravers of London, complaining of the monopoly caused
by the proceedings of the Art-Union.

- CORPORATION OF DUBLIN.
The Sergeant at Arms having announced, the the
Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of Dublin' were
in attendance, the Speaker directed him to call them in.
The civic functionaries, attired in court suits, and wear-
ing also their robes of office, immediately entered,
and the Lord Mayor, advancing to the Bar,
delivered in a petition, and having made
obeisance, retired. Mr. T. Duncombe having moved
that the petition be read, the clerk proceeded to do so.
The petition was from the Lord Mayor and Corporation
of Dublin, and showed that Daniel O'Connell,-an Hon.
Member of that House, John O'Connell, also. an Hon.
Member of that House, and five other gentlemen, had
been convicted on grounds which appeared to the peti-
tioners to be totally opposed to constitutional prin-
ciples. The petitioners also stated their conviction that
the parties had not had a fair trial--(Loud cheers)
—and that the law of conspiracy, as laid down on
the trial, was wholly subversive of the liberty of the
subject.—(Cheers.) They also stated their opinion that
the trial itself had not been conducted on fair and just
principles—(Cheers)—and that a course had been pur-
sued which had greatlyprejudiced the prisoners when on
their trial.—(Cheers.) All these proceedings the peti-
tioners held to be detrimental to the administration of
justice, and they, therefore, called upon the House to
take the law of conspiracy into their serious con-
sideration, and to preserve inviolate the right of free
discussion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WYSE said he should move, to-morrow, that the
petition be printed with the Votes.—(Hear, hear.)
SOUTHAMPTON MARSH BILL.
On the motion of Mr. HOPE, the Lords' amendments
to this Bill were taken into considerittion, and agreed to.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Chelsea
and Vauxhall, against the Interment in Towns Bill.
NOTICES OF MOTION.—STATE TRIALS.
Mr. WYSE gave notice that, on the 2d of July, he
should move for a Select Committee to inquire into the
formation of the special jury which tried Mr. O'Connell,
and also The course of proceedings that had been adopted
by the Court upon that occasion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed his motion to the
16th July, with respect to the interference of Peers at
elections.

DROPPED ORDERS.
The dropped notices of motion and the dropped orders
of the day were then re-appointed.
POOR-LAWS.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK, in answer to a question from
Mr. Pechell, stated that if the Government did not pro-
ceed with the Poor-law Amendment Bill that they had
introduced, he should go on with his.
COUNTY COURTS• BILL (DUCHY OF LAN-
CASTER).
On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET,
-the further consideration of this Bill was postponed for
a fortnight.

VESTRIES IN CHURCHES BILL. •
On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. HUME stated that it was important that the House
should know the nature of the Bill, because, unless made
acquainted with it, they ought at once to reject the
measure. If the Bill passed, the ordinary business of the
church would be prevented from taking place in it.
The best way to avoid the repetition of such scenes was
to do away with church-rates altogether.—(Cheers.) As
'long as the Dissenters were called on to pay church-
!rates they had a right to attend these meetings and to
vote. If they would excuse Dissenters from church-rates
he would undertake to say there would be no recurrence
of these scenes. He would support a Bill to keep them
,from attending vestry meetings under such circumstances.
Churches had originally been built for the public; but of
late years attempts had been made to turn them into pri-
vate property, and treat them as if the public had no in-
terest in them. As long as every parishioner was bound
to maintain the church, and to pay rates, each, person
in the parish who was called on to pay had a right to
give a voice for or against the rate. He thought the
Bill ought not to pass, and therefore he should move that
it be committed that day six months.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN was glad that the Hon.
'Member for Montrose had in his observations confined
himself to discussing the principle of the Bill. It was
on the principle that he was anxious to take the divi-
sion. He would not enter into particulars, but the
scenes which had taken place in vestries were matter of
public notoriety. Those lion. Members who were of
opinion that it was better not to disturb the present ar-
rangement would vote against the Bill. Those who were
'Jf opinion that those evils would be remedied by it would
vote in its favour. He did not obstinately adhere to the
details of the measure, but he wished to take a vote upon
its principle.
Mr. BECKETT said that in the towns he represented
there was a strong feeling in favour of the measure.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, since the last dis-
cussion, he had had an opportunity of considering the
subject. To the principle of the Bill he was decidedly
friendly, but he thought some of the details might be
advantageously altered. He should, therefore, consi-
dering the scandal that arose from these meetings, sup-
port the going into Committee.
Captain PECHELL hoped the Hon. Member for
Montrose would persist in his opposition.. Many clergy-
men considered that the church was the best place for
holding these meetings.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill was advocated as necessary to prevent brawl-
ing in churches, and now they wanted a Bill to make the
Offence impossible. It was clear, then, that both the
Bills were not necessary. If they consented to go into
committee pro forma-for the amendments of the 'Right
Hon. Secretary, he b'elie red it would be the same
with this measure as with the Masters and Servants
Bill ; it would come out of Committee ten
thousand times worse than it went in. The protec-
tion of the Right Hon. Baronet to a measure was like
the effect of the upas tree—it seemed to poison all it
reached.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He advised the
Hon. Member to stick by his own measure if he thought
it a good one.
Mr. ESCOTT strongly opposed the measure.
After a,few words from Mr. REDHEAD YORKI6;
Lord PALMERSTON thought the Eill made an al-
teration in a practice of long standing, which was con-
venient and congenial to the feelings of the people. No
grounds whatever had been stated for the adoption of the
measure, and the Government had better let the Bill
drop, and bring in another, if necessary, in concert with
the Law Officers of the Crown.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the disorders
and desecration of the church occasioned by holding
such meetings a sufficient ground for the measure. lie
was not prepared, however, to support all the details of
the Bill.

Mr. E. DENISON opposed the Bill.
Mr. EWART said that, according to the common law,
the church was the proper place of meeting. He
was convinced the reasoning of the measure was on that
side of the House, and he trusted from that reasoning
the House would not be induced to pass the BilL
Captain ROUS would vote against the Bill, consider-
ing it an insult to every rate-payer. a
Mr. WAKLEY opposed the BilL All were asking
what was the object of the BilL It was said that
they ought not to contaminate the church by having
vestry meetings held in it. Contaminate 1 Why, if any
building was contaminated, it was that House.—(Cheers.)
The proceedings which had taken place in it lately ren-
dered it dangerous for any man to enter it.----(Cheers.)
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY did not believe that the Bill
was requisite or necessary.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee B7 •
Against it 73
Majority for going into. Committee —l4
On our admission into the gallery, we found

Mr. HUME on his legs moving the adjournment of
the House. There never was any measure more revo-
lutionary with respect to the Church than this, and as
long as the people were called upon to pay church-ratel.
the House was not justified in passing a Bill like the
present. He thought the House ought not to proceed
with any other measure until Ministers had stated
their reasons for bringing in this. Bill. Instead of taking
the present means for preventing brawling in the church,
let the Government adopt the only means for doing so,
namely, that of putting an end to church-rates.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving
the adjournment of the House.

Mr. ROEBUCK said it was strange that those vvh,
professed to feel such awe on entering a church should
be extremely anxious to import church matters
into the Magpie dud • Stump, or the "Red - Liori.
—(A laugh.) Many persons, who . would not, on

any account commit a crime in a church might easily
and readily fall into the commission of one in a tap-
room.—(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the Bill,
therefore, as one calculated rather to entrap people
into the commission of offences than the avoidanCe
of them. In his opinion ecclesiastical matters ought to
be discussed within the church walls, and so sacred
did he hold a place of worship to be, that nothing which
occurred within it could lower or degrade either the
place itself or the holy doctrines inculcated in it.
Sir R. PEEL said, having been asked if it was his inten-
tion to hasten the Bill through the House, he begged to
say he had no such intention, and he had never
shown such. Should the Bill get into Committee there
were clauses in it which he thought ought to be omitted,
and others which ought to be modified.—(Hear.) His
Hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) was not responsible for the
origin of this Bill. In the year 1838 the principle of
the Bill had been affirmed by the House, and this
Bill was in perfect accordance with the views then
expressed. All his Hon. Friend sought now. was,
to get into Comniittee, in order that certain
amendments might be introduced, when the Bill,
as altered, would be printed, and time would be
given to Hon. Members to consider the measure as it
would then stand. Surely there was nothing hasty or
very unreasonable in this:—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL wanted to know the reason why the Bill
was not to extend to Ireland. As to brawling and
tumult, the cause of these evils, where they did
exist, was to be found in the subject of discussion, and
till they put church-rates, and all other matters eon-
nected with the Church, upon a proper footing, 'they
were only changing the field of battle from the hurch
to the Mitre and Crown ; and how far better would it
be to get rid of the war itself.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WATSON called upon the Hon. Member. for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) to persevere in his amendment.
Such a Bill as the present ought to have been brought
in by the Government; or ought never to have
been brought in at all.—(Hear.) As to the violent pro-
ceedings which had been stated to have taken place
in Shoreditch and other churches, he begged to
say that the law. had provided a remedy, and they
would soon probably have a further remedy in the
Ecclesiastical Codas Bill—(Hear, hear)—which pro-
mised to take especial care both of soul and body.--
(Laughter.) It was said the Bill was to prevent the
desecration of the church. What cant ! What hypo-
crisy I Why, was not the noblest church of the land
desecrated every hour of every day by the payment of a
paltry twopence by every Christian who wished to see
its glories and its wonders ?—(Loud cheers.) He had
as much awe as, any man for the edifices of the Church,
but he had as much awe for the law. Talk of brawling,
this measure was calculated to increase it. At present
discussions at vestries was carried on properly, but would
it be so in the Crown and Sceptre ?—(Cheers.) But
then it was said it was a scandal on the Church. Was
it not a scandal to call upon a clergymen to preside
over a drunken meeting at a public-house ?—(Cheers.)
There was not one single petition in favour of the Bill,
and he trusted, considering its provisions, the House
would throw it out altogether.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that it had been asked why
Ireland had been excluded from the Bill. Why, the fact
was that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Recorder for
Dublin had asked the Hon. Member not to include that
country, as it would create too great a ferment there.
He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Bill
at once.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW said he had requested that Ireland should
be excluded from the Bill, because he thought it inap-
plicable to that country.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the people of this country
thought the Bill as obnoxious to this country as the
Right Hon. Gentleman thought it for Ireland. The
Right Hon. Baronet, by his speech and actions, showed
he did•not approve Of the Bill, and surely he was strong
enough in his position to say so manfully at once.—
(Roars of laughter.) Among the supporters of the Hon.
Baronet the other night, was the Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire, and now, no doubt, he felt the effect
of gratitude.—{Loud cheers.) He had always sup-
ported the Church, because he thought if it was dis-
placed they would have a greater evil.—(Much laughter.)
It was the bounden duty of Government to speak out
manfully on this question. The proposal now was to go
into Committee on the Bill—that was absurd. He
thought that it was much better to withdraw this mule,
this half horse and half ass Bill.—(Great laughter.) He
thought the Government ought to take the responsi-
bility of such a measure, if there was any necessity for
legislating, which he did not think there was.—(Hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN replied. The mannerin
which the Government had acted towards him with re-
spect to this Bill deserved his gratitude, and he now
tendered it to them. He also thought the country was
equally indebted to the Government for the course they
had•pursued.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for going into Committee —8
On aur return to the gallery, we' found
Mr. HUME stating that, after two divisions, with all
the influence of the Right Hon. Baronet, only a majority
of eight could be found to support this obnoxious Bill.
He would move adjournment on adjournment but the
Bill should be defeated. He moved that the debate be
adjourned.

Mr. WANLEY said as this was a subject of slight im-
portance, he should suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel) the propriety of asking the House to re.
scind the vote it had just come to.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. MAGEACHY said the people of England had
been greatly libelled by many orthe remarks that had
been made respecting their behaviour. If they really
wanted correction, it could not be obtained by such libels
as those he alluded to, or by such a Bill as that before
the. House.

Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the Bill should
be withdrawn, and that if the Government really thought
that legislation upon the subject was necessary, they
should bring in a Bill in a manly way, upon their own
responsibility.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said it was evident the
Bill was not to be allowed to proceed. He should, there-
fore, move as an amendment on the Hon. Member for
Montrose's motion (Mr. Hume) "That the debate be ad-
journed"—" That this House do now adjourn."
The .SPEAKER having put the amendment first—
" That the House do now adjourn," there was a roar of
"Ayes," and "one solitary but loud " No." The Speaker
said. the." Ayes" have it, and, amidst shouts of laughter,
the House adjourned at a few minutes after Seven o'clock.

THE NEW POOR-LAW.
TREATMENT OF PARISH 'APPRENTICES.
A good deal of interest has been created among the
authorities of the Croydon Union on account of a reso-
lution recently come to by the magistrates of that divi-
vision, restricting the hours of labour of the poor boys
apprenticed by the union. The circumstances out of
which the resolu.tion in question arose were these :—An
orphan boy had been sent out from the union on liking
to a master shoemaker in London, and, at the expiration
of a certain period, the parties came before the bench for
the purpose of having the boy regularly bound. The
magistrates, not having any information afforded them
by the overseerS, questioned the boy and his master,
when it appeared that on several occasions the lad had
been worked from seven o'clock in the morning until
eleven or twelve at night, and that no regular period was
allowed fpr his meals or recreation, and the bench de-
clined to bind the boy until some further information
was afforded, and Mr. Garraway, the acting overseer of
Mitcham, was appointed to make the necessary inqui-
ries, and, at the next meeting of the bench, he
reported that the master bore a very good character,
and that, although it was true that the boy had on
some occasions been kept at work till eleven or twelve
at night, it was only on Saturdays, or when they were
very much pressed with work. The magistrates, Messrs.
Adams, Lucas, arid Sutherland, on this occasion ex-
pressed their opinion, that from whatever cause it arose,
they were too many hours for a boy to work, and they
remarked that it would be like binding a boy to a state
of complete slavery ; and as they considered themselves
to be placed in the position of the guardians of poor per-
sons, and that it was their duty to protect them, they
would not consent to bind any poor boy as an apprentice,
unless under certain restrictions, and they eventually
came to a resolution that the hours of labour should be
from seven till seven in the summer, and eight till eight
in the winter, and that two hours of that period should
be allowed for meals ; and they directed that a covenant
to that effect should be inserted in the indenture before
they would sign it.
It appears that the person to whom the boy was
to be apprenticed refused to take the boy with
these conditions, and at a subsequent meeting of the
bench, Mr. John Blake and several other gentlemen,
who are guardians of the union, waited upon the magis-
trates, and urged them to rescind their resolution, on
the ground, that if they did not the union would not be
able to get rid of its poor boys, as no master could be
round who would take them upon such terms, and they
also said, that if the bench persisted in carrying out
their resolution, they considered the question of so much
importance that they should feel called upon to make a
special applicatioa to the Poor-law Commissioners upon
the subject. The magistrates upon this occasion de-
clined to make any alteration in their resolution, and the
matter stood- over.

At the last meeting of the bench, Mr. John Drum-
mond attended professionally, on behalf of the parish
authorities of Mitcham; and went at great' length into
the whole subject, contending that the magistrates, by
law, had no power to come to any such resolution as the
oae above alluded to. He then cited the Act of Parlia-
ment under which the parish had the power of binding
boYs apprentices, and read the preamble of it, which
commenced as follows :—" Whereas many grievances
have arisen by the binding of poor boys to improper
persons, and at a 'great distance from their homes and
their parents," &c.,. and he argued that, when the
magistrates were informed that proper inquiries had
been made by the overseers, the signing of the inden-
ture was merely a magisterial act, and that they had no
power to go into any of the details of the apprentice-
ship. He admitted that the inquire magistrates had a discre-
tionary
power to into the fitness of the party to
whom the apprentice was to be bound, but that it was
quite beyond their province to restrict the hours of his
abour.

Mr. ADAMS intimated it to be his opinion that the
Legislature had made the magistrates parties to the binding
of parish apprentices, for the very purpose of protecting
those who probably had no relations or friends to pro-
tect them, and who were therefore likely to become vie-
' tims to the cupidity of parish officers. The preamble of
the Act which referred to many grievanceses having
arisen by the binding of poor boys to improper persons,
confirmed this impression, and showed that the magis-
trazes were empowered to inquire into all the circum-
stances of the -party, and to take care that the
apprentice was not in any manner ill-treatad. In this
case not the least
„pains
_were taken. by the.overseer4
the first instance to ascertain how the boy had been
treated ; but he was brought there to be bound, as a

•
, matter of course, and it was only when the magistrates
felt it their duty to interfere, that the overseers went to
make inquiries, the result of which led to the passing of
the resolution.
Mr. Drummond said he had no 'doubt- the bench had
been actuated. by the most humane miives, but he sub-
mitted the law did not give them the power to make
such a resolution. If the boy was over-worked or ill-
treated in any other manner.he would have a remedy by
applying to the magistrates.
Mr. REID, the 'Chairman of the' bench, expressed his
opinion that the bench had not the power to carry out
the resolution they had come to.
Mr. ADAMS said-the magistrates on the former occa•
sion had acted under the advice of *their clerk, who was
their professional a,lviser, and he was quite prepared to
adhere to that resolution. If there was really a doubt,
whether the law gave them power to make such a regu •
lation, it would be necessary that they should consider
the point, or the parish might, if they pleased, apply for
a mandamus.

After some furthei discussion the bench took time to
consider the question, and in the meantime the matter
was ordered to stand over.

THE SUGAR DUTIES.
(From the _Manchester Guardian.)
The Administration of Sir Robert Peel,- which was re-
cently placed in a situation of great difficulty during the dis-
cussions on the Factory Bill, has received another, and, we
think, a ruder shock, by an adverse decision of the House of
Commons, upon the Ministerial resolution fixing the future
amount of the sugar duties. It will be seen from our report
of the debates in the House of Commons on Friday night,
that Sir Robert Peel, in accordance with.the intimation con-
tained in his speech on the budget, moved a resolution to the
effect that, from and after the 10th November next, the duty
on sugar from British possessions should be 245., and on the
produce of Java, Manilla, China, and such other countries as
Government might hereafter declare, 345. per cwt. On this
resolution, Mr. Philip Miles, one of the Members for Bristol,
and a large West India proprietor, moved an amendment, to
the effect that the duty on British sugar should be 20s. per
cwt, and on foreign 305., with the exception of white cloyed
sugars, on which he proposed a duty of 345. per cwt.
At the first sight, it may probably appear to some of our
readers, that the principal difference between these two pro-
positions is a reduction of duty, by that of Mr. Miles, to the
extent of 4s. per cwt. below the rates proposed by Govern-
ment. Now if this had been the real state of the case, we
think few of our readers would doubt as to which of them
ought to have had the support of the Liberals and free traders
in the House: Fully believing, as we do, that the present
sugar duties are too high, and that a substantial diminution
of them would be highly beneficial to the country, and, even-
tually, by no means injurious to the revenue, we should have
been exceedingly glad to witness the triumph of Mr. Miles's
amendment, and the consequent adoption of duties of 20s.
and 305., in lieu of 245. and 345. per cwt. on British and
foreign sugars respectively.
But a mere general lowering of the duty was by no means
the object of Mr. Miles, and the Members of the West India
interest, who supported his amendment. They were per-
fectly well aware that the whole, or very nearly the whole,
of the foreign free-labour sugar, which, under the proposed
change in the law,. can be introduced into this coun-
try (though = not • more valuable • than good West
India brown Muscovado sugar), is exported from Java
and Manilla in the state of white cloyed. sugar, on which
Mr. Miles sought to place a discriminating duty of
14s. per cwt. instead of 10s. In. other words, •the object of
that gentleman was really to obtain for the growers of sugar
in British possessions an additional protection of 4s. per cwt. ;
and the proposed reduction of duty to 20s and 30s. (on brown
sugars) was neither more nor less than a cunning trap to
catch the votes of those who might think the duties proposed
by Sir Robert Peel were too high. Into this trap, we regret
to say, nearly the whole of the Liberal Members, including
Lord John Russell, Mr. Laboucbere, and other leaders of the
Liberal and free-trade party, rushed with inconsiderate steps,
and thus placed themselves in the very false position of vot-
ing, by implication, for an additional protection. to the Bri-
tish colonial sugar-growers. We say by implication, because
the formal effect of the vote was merely to negative the pro-
posal of the Government; but, as the choice really lay be-
tween that and the amendment of Mr. Miles, to vote against
the one was, in effect, to vote in favour of the other.
To the general error of the party who took this false step,
the conduct of Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr: Milner Gibson,
and'about twelve more of the free traders, formed a very cre-
ditable exception. They saw and pointed out the hollowness
of the pretext under which Mr. Miles sought their votes,
and supported the Ministerial proposition ; but the result
was, that Sir Robert Peel's resolution was negatived by a ma-
jority of 20; the numbers being, for it, 221 ; against it, 241.
Of course this defeat, coming so soon after the previous
defeats on' the Factory Bill in the House of Commons, and
on the Welsh Bishopric Bill in the House of Lords, caused a
very great sensation in London ; and reports were exceed-
ingly rife, to the effect that Ministers had either tendered, or
determined to, tender, their resignations. . Whether there was
any foundation for these rumours, we are quite unable to
say ; but it' is clear from the result, that, if Sir Robert Peel
and his coadjutors ever thought of- resigning, they aban-
doned their intention, and determined to try the chance of
another appeal to their supporters in the House of Commons.
This they made on Monday evening, when Sir Robert Peel,
after explaining at great length his views upon the subject,
declared his intention of moving upon Mr. Miles'a resolution
(which had then become the original motion before the
House) an amendment, the effect of which was to substitute
his own scale of duties in lieu of that which Mr. Miles had
proposed; and he intimated pretty plainly, that, in the event
of being defeated on that amendment, he should decline to
continue in office. A very, long and interesting debate
ensued, in the course of which Lord John Russell and some
other Members of the Liberal party declared their intention
of adhering, to the principle of their former votes, by sup-
porting Mr. Miles's resolution, but intimated that they
should endeavour to extend- the discriminating duty on
clayed sugars to those from British possessions. This inti-
mation was, .no doubt, intended to remove the appearance of
a vote in favour of additional protection ; Nit, if they could
have carr=ied out their views on this point, they would Hot
thereby have removed the objection, seeing that the discri-
minating duty would have applied to nearly all the foreign
andto little ornone of the West India sugar to be imported.
'We are glad to say, however, that, on a division, Mr.
Miles's proposal was negatived by a majority of 22 the
numbers being 233 for, and 255 against it. Sir Robert Peel's
amendment was afterwards carried without opposition ; and,
theugh not yet entirely out of danger, we hope it will
speedily become the law of the land. It is, as the recent
division clearly shows, the best measure which we'are likely
to obtain in the present composition of. the House. of Com-
mons ; and, in addition to its intrinsic value, it has the im-
portant extrinsic advantage, that it must very speedily bring
about further and more beneficial changes.
Of course, on an occasion like the one which we have been
describing, there are many curious changes of opinion, and
some which will expose the parties concerned to severe
animadversion. Amongst the votes which have excited
the greatest amount of astonishment amongst certain
classes in this neighbourhood, is that of Mr. En-
twisle, the newly-elected Member for South Lanca-
shire. When it became known here that his name was
included in the list of the -majority against Ministers,
his Tory friends stoood perfectly aghast ; no doubt recall-
ing to mind his declaration that he was going to Parliament
as a staunch supporter of Sir Robert Peel. To us, however,
Mr. Entwisle's conduct caused no surprise at all. We knew
pretty well, that, in case of a difference of opinion between Sir
Robert and the thorough going monopolists in the House,
Mr. Entwisle was pretty sure to fling overboard his allegi-
ance to the Premier, and to go to the utmost extent in favour
of monopoly. This opinion we, publicly expressed at the
time of the late election ; and Mr. Entwisle has very- soon
verified our prediction. He gave his vote against Ministers
on Friday, on the ground, as declared by himself on Monday,
that he wished to give further protection to the West India
interest. Having, however, as we suspect, received some
earnest remonstrances from his friends on the vote he had
given, the Hon. Gentleman announced that he should abstain
from voting on Monday, and he retired from the House before
the division. We imagine that some of his mercantile sup-
porters will begin to beef opinion, that they have got a very
pretty bargain in their new representative.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

MEETING OF TAE JOCIEY CLUB.

The following is a copy of the official report of the
meeting of the Jockey Club noticed in this paper on
Tnesday last :
A general meeting of the Jockey Club was held on
Saturday, June, 15, 1844, present—

Right Hon. G. S. Byng,
The Earl of Stradbroke, Stewards.
The Marquis of Exeter,
The Earl of Albemarle Colonel Peel
The Hon. Col. Anson George Payne, Esq.
Sir D. Baird Hon. Captain Rous
S. Batson, Esq. Earl of Rosslyn
Duke of•Beautbrt J. V. Shelley, Esq.
Lord George Bentinck W. S. Stanley, Esq.
C. C. Greville, Esq. John Stanley, Esq.
General Grosvenor The Earl of Verulam
John Mills, Esq. Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart.
W. A. Roberts, Esq.

A letter was read from Baron de Teissier, one of the
stewards of Epsom races, stating his full concurrence in
the desire expressed, that Epsom races should in future
be under the control and management of the Jockey
Club, for the time being.
It was resolved that the stewards of Newmarket for
the time being should act conjointly with the stewards
of Epsom in the management of Epsom races.
Several resolutions were proposed, and, after some dis-
cussion, their further consideration was postponed till
Monday, for which day a meeting was ordered to be
called.

MONDAY, JUNE 17.
PRESENT :
Right Hon. G. S. Byng, )
The Rail of Stradbroke„C Stewards.
The Marquis of Exeter,
The Hon. Col. Arson The Hon. Capt. Rous
S. Batson, Esq. J. V. Shelley, Esq.
C. C. Greville, EFq. W. S. Stanley, Esq.
Viscount Maidstone The Earl of Verulam
Lord C. Manners Viso.uot Villiers

The Marquis of Normanby I Sir W. W. Wynn, Bart.

Geo. Payne, Esq.
The Members of the Jo, cey Club.having assembled to
take into consideration some circumstances which have
lately occurred on the Turf, and which segm urgently to
require that the attention of the Club should, without
delay, be directed to them, have come to the following
resolutions :

First—That cases have occurred in which persons
haNie frandidently entered to run for stakes (which, by
the published conditions were limited to horses of a spe-
cified age), horses above tl.e age so specified; gaining for
the horses so entered an unfair advantage over their
competitors, and thus races have been won by horses
which were in reality not qualified to start.
S y—lt appears to the Club that such proceed-
ings not -only tend to defraud the owners of those horses
which would otherwise have been winners, but are calcu-
lated to inflict- an injury upon the Turf, by bringing
racing into disrepute, and by deterring honourable men
froM entering into a competition in which they run the
risk of being encountered by such dishonest rivals:

Thirdly-7--Thst the Club,-as patrons•of• racing, have in:
this matter a direct interest separate from that of the
individuals who may happen to be sufferers by such

frauds ; and that it behoves them to take care that iii
all such cases the law, by which such frauds are punish,
able, should be duly enforced. But it may frequently
happen, that the individuals upon whom such frauds
have been practised may, on application to the stewards
of the race, obtain redress, so far as regards the pay.
-went of the stakes ; and, being content with this, may
'not choose to incur the trouble and expense of prosecu*
ing the offending parties, and thus such parties, or other
parties of a similar description, may be induced by the
expectation of impunity to repeat attempts of the same
kind.

Fourthly—That in all CRECS in which it shall he tsta-
blished to the satisfaction of the Jockey Clab,that a trauti
has been practised, or attempted by any person, in re-
gard to the uttering or running any horse for any race,
or that- any other fraudulent proceeding, which is
punishable by law has taken place in regard to any race,
the Jockey Club shall, if they think fit, with the consent
of the party aggrieved (in case such party should decline
to prosecute), take such steps as may be recommended by
proper legal advisers, for the purpose of inflicting on the
offenders the puniShment to which they have rendered
themselves liable.

Fifthly—When the age or qualification:of a horse is
objected to, either before or after running for any race
in which he is engaged, the Stewards, or those
whom they may appoint, being members of the Jockey
Club, shall have power to order an examination of the
horse's mouth by competent persons, and to call for all
such evidence as they may require; and their decisions
shall be final, unless they shall think fit to recommend
that the question in dispute be carried into a court of
law.

Sixthly—lf a horse shall run in any race in England;
or elsewhere, and it shall be proved to the satisfaction
of the stewards, or of those whom they may appoint,
that the horse was not of the age represented, the owner,
or part owner, trainer, or groom, or person having the
charge of such horse at the time, shall be for ever dis;
qualified from running or training any horse where the
rules of the Jockey Club apply, and from being env;
ployed by any member of the said Club..
Seventhly—No horse foaled out of the United King-
dom shallberentered for any race where the rules of the
Jockey Club prevail, unless the owner shall, at the time
of naming, produce to the person appointed to receive
such nomination, and leave with him a certificate &pm
some racing club of the country where the horse was
foaled, or from the mayor or other public officer of the
district, stating the age, pedigree, and colour of the
horse, and the marks by which it is distinguished.-
The appointment of the Marquis of Exeter as stevvare
of the Jockey Club, under rule 4, was notified to the
meethig, and unanimously confirmed.
Another meeting of the Club is to be called on Satur-
day next. •

HATCHAM PARK RACES—YESTERDAY.
Sweepstakes di 3 sovs. each, with 25 added ; three yrs-,
old, 7.st 41b ; four yrs, Bst :lb ; five yrs, 9,4 ; six yrs
and aged, 9st 61b ; mares and geldinys allowed MS
winners once in 1844, 3bs, twice. slbs, and thrice;
7lbs extra. The winner to be sold for 150/., &c.
Heats, once round and a distance. (3_ Subs.)
Mr. Coleman nd Devil-among-the-Tailors, 5 yrs. 1 -1
Mr. Parr's Ninety-one, 3 yrs
Mr. Clarke's Mespelus, 3 yrs

Beth heats won easy.
The New Cross Handicap of s.soy.s. each, 2 ft, if declared,
with 50 added ; the winner to be sold for 3001., &c.
Once round and a distance. (9 Subs ; 2 paid)
Mr. A. C. Liticeb Dahlia, aged, Bst. (C. balchin) 1
Mr. Docheral'a Molly Moggs, 3 yr-, 7st 7ib
Mr. Prescott s Paradise, aged, Bst 10Ib

Mr. Hewett's Midnight Str, 3 yrs, 6st 6lb
Mr. E. R. Clarke's Llangollen, 5 yrs, Bst 101 b 5

.Won by three parts Of a h•ngih, after a tine race.
Sweepstakes of 3 sovs: each, with •20 adde4 ;
before—the winner to be sold fur 1001. orce
round. (6 Subs.)
Mr. Parr's Dart, 53 rs (Owner) 1 1.
Mr. Cowley's Adrian, aged
_ _

Mr. French's Argus, aged
Mr. Smith nd Caution, 5 yrs
Won easy.
The winner was objected to by Mr. Cowley, on the
ground that she should have carried more weight for
winning. The stewards are to decide upon it to-day.
BIBURY CLUB MEETING—WEDNESDAY.
The Champagne Stakes of 30 sovs. each, and 50 added,
h ft;; for 2 yr old colts, Bst 101 b, and fillies, Bst 71b.
Last three-quarters of the New mile. Winners 4lbs.

3 3
4 dr

extra. (8 Subs.)
Captain Delme's Alarm, by Venison (Mann) 1
Mr. J. Day's Winchester 2
Lord Chesterfield's f by Hornsea, out of Dime 3
Mr. J. Day's Nutbourne 0
Mr. W. Etwall's Agis, by Defence o
7t040n J. Day's two, and 2to 1 agst Alarm. Won
b 3.7 a. length.

The Bib—ury Stakes of 25 sous. each, 10 ft, and 5 only, if
declared, with 50 added ; the second to save his stake.

Two miles. (28 Subs., 20 of whom declared.) . ..
Mr. Brooke's Ajax, 6 yrs, lOst 111 b (Owner) I
Mr. J. Day's Tamburini, aged, lOst 121b'2
Mr. Collett's Cattonite, 5 yrs, llst 81b - • 0
Sir S. Spry's Subduer, 4 yrs, lOst 21b
Mr. Sadkr's Bellissima, aged, 11st B.lb 0
Mr. Etwall's Palladium, 5 yrs, llst
Won by a length ; a dead heat for third between
Cattonite and Subduer.

The Produce Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h ft, for three-yrs-
.old ; colts Bst 71b, and fillies Bst 31b. Nevi
(17 Subs.)
Mr. Herbert's Antler (J. Day, jun.) 1
Duke of Richmond's Red Deer (allowed slbs) 2
Mr. Lay's Fairplay (allowed 511,5) 3
Duke of Richmond's Pastoral (allowed 51bs)
Won by three parts of a length. Even betting between
Red Deer and Antler.

• Handicap (late of .501.). One mile.
Lord Glenlyon'sßro to Pharoah 4 yrs (Capt. Williams) 1
Mr. John Dais Yates; 3 yrs, lOst 41b • 2.
The tello.wing alto ran :—Mr. Pearce's Jack, 5 yrs,
Ilst 101b—Mr. Holt's Hampton.-5 yrs, I Ist—Mr. W.
Etwall's Pelerine, 6 yrs, lest 121b—Lard Chesterfield's
Tidily Winks, 3 yrS, lOst 7113—Sir W. O. Malley's
Russell Frog, aged, 10st 41b—Lord U. Bentina's Brett
Mogul, 3 yrs, lost 21b (carried lOst 616)—Mr. Pryse's
Jack Cade, 3 yrs, 10g—Mr. Campbell's Fie, 4 yrs; 9st
121b—Mr. Osbaldeston's Escrick, 3 yrs, 9st 121 b—and,
Mr. Peel's Spring Bok, 3 yrs, 9st 31b. Betting-3 to 1
agst Bro to Pharoah, and 5 to 1 agst Jack.

Won hy Italia length, Escrick and Hampton well up.
Free Plate of 501 ; for three yrs old, 9st 101 b ; 'four ) re,
lOst 81b ; live yrs, llst2lb ; six yrs and aged; 1 Ist 71t4
Three quarters of a wile. The winner to be sold for
not. &e.
Mr. J. Day, jun.'s Fisticuff, 4 yrs (Mr. Osbaldeston) 1
Sir W. o'.Malley's Noma Cr,ina. 6 yrs
Lord G. Bentinek's The Great 'Mogul, 3 yrs
Mr. Saddler's Sister to Gobno, 3 In 0
Mr. W. Etwall's Spanish Ox, 4 yrs
Won in a canter.