The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-05 00:00:00

Victoria Park Bill, were brought up, and the Bills were ordered
to he read a third time to-morrow.

The Report on thz. Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings
nil] was also brought up, and the Bill ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

The House then adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'Clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the Howe of Commons. )
TUESDAY, MAY 3.
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ,S-c.
Petition of the there undermentioned People of the United
Kingdom [presented yesterday] considered ; Motion wade,
and Question put, .‘ That the Petitioners who signed the Na-
tional Petition be heard at the Bar of this House, by them-
selves, their Counsel, or Agents, in support of the allegations
in their Petition :"—(Mr. Thomas Duncembe: )—The House
divided

Blake, Sir Valentine
Blewitt, Reginald
Bodkin, J. J.
Bowring, Dr.
lirotherton, J.
13rowne, R. 1).
Cobden, Richard
Collins, W.
Crawford, W. S.
Dalryluple, Captain
Dash% ood, G. IL
Duncan, Lord
Duncan, George
Easthope, Sir John '
Ellis, Wynn
Elphinstone, Howard
ielden, J.
Pall, Sir B.

NORITY-AYES, 49.
Hoßond, Robert Rundle, John
Hume, Joseph Scholefield, J.
jervis, J. Seale, Sir J.
Johnstone, Alex. Somers, J. P
Muntz, G. F. Strickland, Sir G.
Murphy, F. S. Tancred, H. W.
O'Brien, J. Thornely, Thomas
O'Connell, D. Villiers, Charles P.
O'Connell, Maurice Waklcy, Thomas
O'Connell, 4 J. Wallace, R.
O'Connell, J. I Ward, H. G.
Pechell, Captain Williams, Wm.
Plumridge, Captain Wool, Benjamin
Powell, Caleb Yorke, H. n.edhead
Ricardo, John Lewis
Roche, E. B.
Roebuck, J. A.

TELLEUS.
Dutloombe, T. .
Leader, J. T.

MA,
Acland, Sir Thomas
Aciand, 'l. D.
A'Court, Captain
Acton, Colonel
Adare, Lord
Adderley, C. B.
Aldan, William

.JORITY—NOES,
Ffolliott, John
Forbes, William
Forester, Hon. G.
French, F.
Fuller, A. E.
Gaskell, J. M.
Gill, Thomas
Gl.tdstone, W. E.
Gordon, Hon. W.
Gord n, Lord F.
Gore, Montague
Gore, W. R. O.
Goring, H. D.
Goulburn, H.
Graham, Sir J.
Granby, Marquis
Greena 1, Peter
Greenaway, C.
Greer.e, T. G.
arey, Sir G.
Grimston, Lord
Grogan, Edward
Halforrl, H.
Hamilton, James
Hamilton, W. J.
Hamilton, Lord C.
Hampden, Itenn
Hamner, Sir John
Harcourt, G. G.
Hardy, John
Hawes, B.
Hay, Sir A. L.
Hayes, Sir E.
Heathco e, O. J.
Hen?a;e, E.
Henley, J. W.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Herbert, Hon. S.
Hill, Sir Rowland
Hillsborough, Earl of
Hinde, J. H.
Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Hodgson, F.
Hodgson, R.
Holmes, W. A'Court
Hope, Charle,
Hamby, John
Howard, C. NV. G.
Howard, Lord
Howard, P. H.
Ftnwick, Lord
Jackson, J. D.
James, W.
Jocelyn, Viscount
Johnson, W. G.
Johnstone, Sir John
Johnstone, Hope
.lelliffe, Sir W.
Jones, T
Kelburne, Lo d
' Kerrison, Sir E.
Kirk, P.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Knight, Henry Gaily
Knight, F Winn
Labouchere, H.
Langston, J. H.
Lascelles, W. S.
Lawson, Andrew
Lefroy, Anthony
Legh, George C.
Leicester, Earl of
Lindsay, H.
Lockhart, William
Lowther, J. H.
Lowther, Colonel
Lyall, George
Lygon, General
Macaulay, T. B
Mackenzie, Thomas
Mackenzie, W. F.
Mac:GE/achy, F. A.
Maher, V.
Mahon, Lord
Mainwaring,
Mangles, R. D.
Manners, Lord C.
Marshall, W.
Marsham, Viscount
Marton, G. R. Marty n, C, Cecil
Master, T. C.
Mas erman, John
Meynell, H.
Miles, W.
Mitcalfa, Henry
Mitchell, T. A.

237.
Morgan, Octavius
Morgan, C.
Monson, Wiliam
Mundy, E. Millet
Murray, C. R. S.
Napier, Sir Charles
Neville, Ralph
Newry, Viscount
Nicholl, J
N orreys, Lord
Norreys, sir D.
O'Brie , A. Staffbrd
O'Brien, W. Smith
Ossulston, Lord
Oswald, James
Owen, Sir J.
Parke, C W.
Pakington, John S.
Palmer, R.
Palmerston, Viscount
Parker, John
Patten, John Wilson
Peel, Sir R.
Plumptre, J. P.
Polhill, F.
Pollock Sir F
Praed, W. T.
Pringle, A.
Protheroe, E.
Pusev, Pntlip
Rashleigh, William
Reade, W. M.
Reid, Sir J. 11.
[lepton, George J.
Rice, E. 11.
Richards, Richard
Rolleston, Colonel
Race, Sir George
Round, C. G.
Round, J.
Rous, Hon. Captain
It ushbrooke, Colonel
Itus,ell, Lord John
Sandon, Lord
Scott, Hon. F.
Seymour, Lard
Shaw, F.
Shirley, Evelyn J.
Shirley, E. P.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Smith, Abel
Smith, J. A.
Smith, Ye; non
Smyth, Sir 0. H
Somerset, Lord G.
Somerton, Viscount
Stanley, Lord
Stanstield, W. It.
Stanton, W. H.
Stewart, John
Strutt, Edward
Stuart, W. Vidiers
Stuart, H.
Sturt, H. C.
Sutton, Henry M
'Ferment, J. E.
Thesiger, F.
Thornhill, George
Tollumache, John
Townley, John
Trench, Sir Frederick
Trevor, Hon. 0. R.
Trotter, John
Turner, E
Vane, Lord Marry
Vere, Sir C. B.
Verner, W.
Vernon, Granville
Vesey, Hon. T.
Vivian, John Ennis
Vivian Hon. Captai
Waddington, H. S.
kVawn, John T.
Welby, 0. carte
Wemyss, Captain
Wilshere, W.
Winnington, Sir 1
Wood, C.
Wood, Colonel T.
NVorsley, Lord
Wortley, J. Stuart
Yorke, Hon. E. T.
Young, John

Mhz, :John Peter
Antrobus, Edmund
Arbuthnot, Hun. H
Archdall, General
Arundel. Lord

Bigot, Hou. W.
Bailey, Joseph, jun.
Baillie, Colonel
Baillie, H. J.
Baird, Will am
Bankes, George
Baring, W. B.
Baring,!F. T.
Barnard, E. G.
Baskerville, T. B. M.
Beckett, William
Berestord, Captain
Beresford, Major
Bernard, Viscount
Blackburn, John 1.
Boiircin, W. H.
Boldero, Henry G.
Borth w ick, Peter
%Meld, Beriah
Bradshaw, James
Bramston, T. W.
Broadley, Hoary
Brodie, W.B.

Browne, W.
Bruce, Lord E.
Bruce, C. L. .
Buckley, Edmund
Buller, C.
Bailer, Sir J. B. Y.
Bunhury, 'Thomas
Busfeild, W.

Campbell, A.
Cardwell, Edward
Carew, It. S.
Carnegie, Captain
Cavendish, Hon. U.
:-.!iiarteris, lion. F.
Chelsea, Viscount
Chetwotle, Sir John
Cholmondeley, H.
Christmas, William
Christopher, It. A.
Clay, Sir W.
layton, It. It.
Clements, Lord
Clerk, Sir G.

..;ochrane, A.
Cockburn, Sir G.
Coll.orne, W. Ridley
Colville, C. It.
Compton, H.
Connolly, Colonel
Coote, Sir C. H.
Copeland, W.
Corry, H. L.
Ccurtenay, Viscount
Cowper, Hon W.
Cripps, J.
Droner, Hon. Dawson
Darby, George
Dawnay, Hon. W.
Denison, E. Beckett
Dick, Quintin

Dickinson, F. IL
Oivett, E. _ _

Douglas, Sir C. E.
Douglas, J. D. S.
Ormieswell, W.
Drummond, H. H.
Dugdale, W. S.

Du Pre, George
East, James huller
Eaton, Richard J.
Ebrington, Viscount
Egerton, W. T.

Eipi ton, Sir P. G.
tarot, Lore
Ernlyn, Viscount
Escott, Bichkum
EYi.ns, William

prPham, E. B.
~;i4&011. Sir It. A.
Ferrand, W. B.
Filmer, Sir E
Fitzroy, Captain

TELLERS.
Frernantla. Sir I'.
Baring, 11 B.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 4.

ATNORNEV•GENERAI. V VISCOUNT CANTERBURY.
The arguments in this case, which commenced yesterday,
were resumed to-day, but had not concluded when-his Lord-
ship rose, shortly after one o'clock, to attend her Majesty's
levee,

ROLLS' COURT, Mat/ 4.
BROWN V. KEATING.
The hearing of this part-heard cause was continued to-day
The facts present no feature of general interest.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Mayo.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
Causes of no interest, except to the parties concerned, occu-
pied his Honour, the Vice-Chancellor of England, the whole
morning.
His Honour Vice-Chancellor BRUCE did not sit to-day, in
consequence, as was stated, of its being levee-day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor %Vic RAIL )
MALLAGIEU V. MILLER.
This cause was mentioned to-day, and was ordered to stand
over until the Counsel had agreed upon a case.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, May 4.
The Court was occupied with the case of the Queen v.
Elmes, which was a motion for a new trial, and merely involved
points respecting a right of passage.

BAIL COURT, May 4.
YATES V. LEVI.
Mr. EDWARDS appeared to show cause against the rule ob-
tained in this case, calling upon the plaintiff and his attorney
to show cause why the writ of summons, and all subsequent
proceedings should not be set aside, and why they should not
pay the defendant's costs. The rule was obtained on two
grounds: the first was that the attorney's residence was not
endorsed on the writ of summons ; and the second that the at-
torney had not taken out his certifieate. With regard to the first,
the plaintiff's attorney stated in his affidavit that his real residence
was endorsed, and that he had lived there for two years, and one of
his servants swore that when Mr. Yates called she did not say
that her master did not reside there, but that he was not there
"at present." With regard to the second ground, the
plaintiff's attorney declared in the affidavit that he had been in
the country during the months of November and December of
last year ; that he wrote to his clerk to take out his certificate,
but that, instead of doing so, he left kis employment without
his know:edge, and that he did not therefore know that his cer-
tificate was not taken out.
Mr. CI-JAMBE as, in support of the rule, read the affidavit of
Mr. Yates, in which he swore that he called at the residence
of the plaintiff's attorney, and was told he was not there. The
residence of the plaintiff was likewise not to be found in the
Master's book. With regard to the certificate, he contended
that the attorney being guilty of irregularity, the rule ought
to pass
His Loansfixe discharged the rule without costs.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 4.
The Court was occupied today in hearing causes upon the
special paper, none of which involved matter of general interest.

CONS IS TOI? COURT, Mop 4.
CHURCH-RATES.—THE BRAINTREE CASE.
GOSLING V. GOSLING.
At the sitting of the Court this day, Dr. LusititsaTose de-
livered his judgment in this case, on the admission of the libel.
He said, before he proceeded to the principle question ,at issue
in this case, it was necessary that he should dispose of some
objections that had been made to the admie.ability of the libel.
One of these objections was, that at the meeting at which the
rate was proposed, an amendment was moved, which concluded
by finally refusing the rate. No poll was demanded or taken,
and on a show of hands the amendment was therefore
declared carried. Now, the Churchwardens being in
the minority, proceeded themselves to make the rate
now in dispute, and it is contended that it was neces•
nary, in the first instance, that a poll should have been taken,
on the ground that in many cases an individual may be entitled
to a plurality of votes, and that the real number cannot be
ascertained unless he voted ; and next, that in a show of hands
a majority of the individuals present may not censtilute the
majority of votes. He thought the objection could not be sus-
tained, for this reason : that no po 1 being demanded, the whole
Vestry must be taken as acquiescing in the decision of the
Chairman. If it was necessary that there should always be a
poll, though it should not be demanded, it would occasion great
inconvenience and a great impediment to the dispatch of public
business. It must also b
,be remembered, though the argument was
n
that if the majority must be considered
asonot
inamendment, it was a fair presumption
that,t altogethert
he present
conclusive,
fayurnf
c thea
se
they were in favour of the rate. That
argument was not always conclusive. It might be that some
voted against the amendment who disapproved of the manner
in which it was put, and who at the same time might be dis-
posed to negative the rate itself. On this head, therefore, the
defendant had ne substantial reason to complain, though pos-
sibly the fact might have some bearing in a subsequent view of
the case. It was stated as an objection to tile rate, that
the estimate included the repairs of the Church. It appeared
certainly to include the chancel-door, but as it might be the
door both of the chancel and the common nave, this could not
be considered fatal to the rate, as it was a circumstance that
might be expected. The last of these objections arose from
the pleading to the conclusion of the fifth article of the libel,
where it was alleged that a large number of the inhabitants
rated were in such a state of poverty that the rate could not
be recovered from them, and that the loss extended to 1,000/.
This fact might be urged to meet any objection that the rate
was excessive, but he was not aware that it vitiated
the legality of the rate itself, or rendered it his duty
to reject the libel. It bud been considered that all who were
excused from paying poor-rates, on account of poverty, should
be excused from church-rates ; but he could not. take upon
himself to say that the occusiers in this case ought to be ex-
cused on account of their povvrtY• Having disposed of these
objections, he would now go to 'the important questions raised
upon the admission of this libel. It was necessary, first, that
he should give a brief summary of the facts. The decree was
issued from this Court, founded on affidavits setting forth that
the church was out of repair, and that a rate had for several
years been refused, and citing the prohibition that had emanated
in the former case from the Queen's Bench, together with
the circumstances under which it was issued. The decree
called on the Churchwardens and parishioners to put the church
into a proper state of repair, and ordering the Churchwardens
to call a Vestry on a certain day, at a certain hour, and in a
certain place, for the purpose of making a rate, and directing
the parishioners to attend and make it. That decree was duly
signed, and the Churchwardens declared their readiness to sub-
mit to the lawful authority of the Court. The Vestry met on
15th of last July, and a rate was proposed ; an amendment of
considerable length was proposed, the contents of which it was
no part of his duty to examine; the amendment refusing
the rate was moved, and on being put to the show of hands,
the Vicar, who was in the chair, declared it to be carried. No
poll was taken, and all therefore acquiesced in his declaration.
The Churchwardens, with severalother individuals, then signed