The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1

the same ground as he voted the other night for the mo- ment stole out of the House. It was too late an hour of to listen to their complaints, however it may differ
tion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, not for the sake the night, and the House was too thin, to determine to question as to the adoption of remedies. The
of the petition, but for the sake of inquiry. When he what Members the inquiry should be comrdtted. He of the adoption of the Charter is alto-
looked around him and saw thousands and thousands of therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. ether a different one from that implied as
I g
Ids fellow-creatures starving for want, and when he saw Mr. FERRAND said he had applied to several IS era-
well as stated in the motion of the Hon. Member for
:throe millions petitioning the House for inquiry, he bers of the House to allow their names to be put on the We can conceive no act of the House of
Committee. He had received communications from Finsbury.
could not resist granting it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. OSWALD opposed the motion of the Honourable hundreds of the working classes, and he was now in a Commons more dangerous to the institutions, which it
Member for Finsbury, because he thought it a dishonest condition to prove the statements which he had made. professes a determination to uphold, than its vote of last
and shabby motion, and held out false hopes to the Ile had communicated to the Hon. Member for Salford night. It was at once a blunder and a crime. The aris-
(Mr. Brotherton) the name of a person who gave him
people.tocracy will, one day or other, deeply repent it.
Mr. VILLIERS was not disposed to deny many the information respecting the trck system which he
things that he had heard that evening with respect to had detailed to the House, and inn a day or two after-
extending the suffrage, but when they sat there night wards two friends of the Hon. Member called upon the
after night denound,_ag each other, it was not at all as- gentleman in Manchester, and held out threats to him.
tonishing that the people should think the House ought Mr. BROTHERTON —That cannot be true.
to be reformed. The people, in the discussions that Mr. FERRAND said it was true ; and the Hon.
had taken :place in that House saw the cause of all their Member for Stockport had also used him ill ; for he had
miseries ; and it was not therefore for the House to turn communicated to the public newspapers a private note of
round upon them and refuse to hear them. He did not his (Mr. Ferrand's), and had exposed a person who gave
say the House was bound to adopt all the remedies pro- him information to great obloquy and persecution.—
posed in the petition, but ha could not see how they (Hear, hear.) He would not bring forward the evidence
could refrain from hearing them, as the result of that which was witin witnesses reach, unless the working people
hearing might be that the House might decide upon who were his could be protected against their
progressive alterations in the constitution of the House. masters.
He believed the doctrine proposed by the Orange Lodges Mr. COBDEN said that there must be some little
was far more dangerous than any proposition contained mistake again in this matter ; he certainly did publish
in the Charter. the letter of the Hon. Member, but he thought that
Lord CLEMENTS said, as no Member for Ireland there was no objection to his doing so. The Hon. Gen-
had yet addressed the House, and as the Repeal of the tleman seemed to wish to imply that he had attempted
Union had been mixed up with the debate, he wished to hurt some working man. Why, the writer of that
to say a few words. In Ireland they were not accus- letter was no working man ; he was a man in a respect-
tomed to meet with the sympathies of the public in able station of life, a noted political partisan and u lead-
England. He was not disposed to be made a catspaw of g Tory
bd could not ja in Manchester , a cor
considered (H
as having
a question worthy of discussion by itself. He did not been guilty of a breach of confidence. He was not at
advocate that measure ; but that was not the manner in all anxious to serve on the Committee.
which the question of the Repeal of the Union ought to In answer to a question from Mr. HUME,
be brought before the House. If the poorer classes Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that he should be very
of England were aggrieved let them bring their grievances sorry that the Hon. Member for Salford should be ex-
before the House, but he wished not to be coupled up in eluded from this Committee, and he thought that the
any way with this measure.—(Cheers and laughter.) Hon. Member for Knaresborough would be acting judi-
The sister country had plenty of grievances to complain ciously if he included the Hon. Member.
of. The great reason of complain was, the manner in After a few words from Mr. VILLIERS,
which the representative system had been there carried Lord PALMERSTON suggested that some person
out by the Reform Bill.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh ! connected with the Government, should be placed on
Read, read ! Question, question !") That system re- the Committee.
quired great alteration. lie considered that the adoption Mr. WAKLEY seconded the proposition.
of the prayer of this petition would be utterly subversive After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON,
of the institutions of the country, and he repudiated the Dr. BOWRING thought the best course would be to
idea that Ireland should be brought forward in this adjourn the debate.
manner to serve the purposes of an individual. The debate was then adjourned.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not be influenced in voting The Exchequer Bills Bill was read a third time and
for this measure by reason of that part of it which passed.
prayed for a Repeal of the Union. His sentiments The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
on that subject were distinctly understood, but lie was and the House adjourned at half-past One o'Clock.
not influenced in the vote he was about to give by the
mention of it in the petition In fact, he did nut wi.sli to
be identified with the petition at all.—(Hear, hear.) He
wished to separate himself entirely from the petition. He
was led to give the vote which he was about to give in
favour of the motion, because he belived that Universal
Suffrege was the right of the people, because he believed
that every Englishman was entitled to have a voice in
the election of representatives -to that House. If he
wanted a proof of the correctness of this position he
would turn to the speech of the able and Learned Mem-
ber for Edinburgh, who had been unable to draw
the line where servitude should end and enfranchisement
should begin—for all those who were refused the franchise
were in a state of servitude. The comparison made by
the Noble Lord to the case of the juryman did not apply.
The juryman decided on the property of others, the
voter only protected his oAn. He should vote for the
motion because he felt satisfied that the suffrage ought
to be extended. The state of the country was awful—
the petitioners complained of the sufferings they endured
and asked to be heard at the bar, and in asking that he
thought they were not going too tar.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in reply, said, that after the
manner in which that petition was about to be treated
by the House, if ever the industrious classes should again
condescend to approach that House, he would become no
party to their degradation.—(Cheers and cries of " Oh I
oh 1 '). If the object of the petition had been to bring
about that sweeping confiscation of property which the
Hon. Member for Edinburgh had denounced the weight
of their indignation ought to fall not on the petitioners,
but oe the person who had brought it to the table of
that House.— (Cheers and cries of "Oh!") Yes ! he (Mr.
T. Duncombe) was the person who was responsible for
the petition.—(Renewed cheering.) No man in the
• House ought to have presented such a petition if such
had been its object, and if he believed such to have been
the object of the petition he would not have presented it.
He would not say that if he had drawn up the petition
he would have drawn it up precisely in its present form;
there were many parts of it from which he dissented.
But what was it that the people asked for ? They did
not wish for a sweeping measure of confiscation ;
all
they asked was to be permitted to bring their cause be-
fore the House, and if they were permitted to do so he
would produce at the bar of that House the advocates of
the petitioners, working men, to show that the evils of
which they complained originated in class legislation,
and those who so had libelled them would then perceive
that these men were not only entitled to the franchise,
but that the House would be neither dishonoured nor
disgraced by seeing some of these men sitting on the
benches as Members. There was nothing like confis-
cation in the petition. In some parts it was worded
ambiguously, and he would do the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite the justice to say that he had not taken
advantage of the ambiguity. He did not com-
plain of the conduct of Members opposite—it
was of the conduct of those on his own side of the House
that he complained.—(Cheers.) The petitioners prayed
the House, it' it refused inquiry, then to pass the Charter,
and concluded by expressing their desire to promote the
peace of ,the United Kingdom, the security of property,
and the prosperity of commerce. What was there itt
that to show that they desired the confiscation of pro-
perty, the destruction of the Monarchy, the destruction
of the Church, and of the sponging out of the National
Debt. The Right Hon. Baronet took part of a sentence
from the speech of the Right Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath, who had stated that the petition had
emanated from a malignant cowardly demagogue,
whose name he would indicate if he were not
beneath his contempt. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) did
not know to whom the lion. and Learned Member
alluded ; but if it were to the individual to whom he
(Mr. Duncombe) supposed it was, the Hen. and Learned
Member had been grossly misled. He had a document
in his possession, signed P. M‘Dowal, J. Morgan, and
John Campbell—(Laughter)--and those were the indi-
viduals who had drawn up the petition. These three indi-
viduals, he was bound to say, drew up the petition, and
he did not believe any other individuals even saw that
petition until it was printed and submitted for signatures
to the individuals who had signed it. He was extremely
sorry to see the course about to be adopted with respect
to that petition, for all he had to ask of them was to
hear the petitioners. The Charter was not the question,
in the first instance. After having heard them, it would
be time to rise and propose a remedy. All before
them, then, was simply to give the parties a hearing.
He said that three millions and a half of the industrious
classes were entitled to that hearing. It would be a con-
selation to those individuals to be heard. He could not ! ; - nn. twuentara ...... t. , .............
believe; as Hon. Gentlemen had represented there, that
by allowing the working classes to be within the repre-
sentative or electorial branch of the constitution, would
endanger the nation ; on the contrary, lie felt convinced
that it would add to the stability of the institutions of the
country.—(Hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 287
Majority against the motion —238
Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved for returns relat-
ing to the system hitherto adopted for the suppression of
the slave-trade on the western coast of Africa.
Captain PECHELL thought the motion of the Hon.
Member involved a reflection upon the officers of her
Majesty's navy who had been employed on that station,
and that an opportunity of explanation ought to have
been allowed.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, that if he saw any attempt
in the present motion to throw a slur on the officers of
the navy, he should certainly oppose it; but he could
perceive no such thing, and why the Honourable Gen-
tleman could suppose that such a return would
cast a slur on the officers employed on that
station, he certainly could not see. The more that House
and
the public were made acquainted with every action
of the navy, the more they would be satisfied with the
condsict of the officers and men. He had no objection
to the motion.
Captain PECHELL, amidst (cries of " Spoke,
spoke," " Chair, chair,") explained that his ob-
jection was the absence of all information whereon the
Hon. Member could ground his motion.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was surprised at the lion. and
Gallant Member's objection. It was the first time that
the Hon. Gentleman had ever made any complaint with
respect to the motion, though it had been on the paper
upwards of a week, and had been once postponed.
lie (Mr. S. Wortley) disclaimed any intention of
pessing a slur on the noble profession of the navy.
Visoount PALMERSTON said, that as far as he was
c oncerned, he should be happy to support the motion of
tse lion. Member. lie considered the exertions of the
n ivy were beyond all praise, in their attempts to suppress
Ore slave traffic. There was no mode of suppressing it,
except by means of a naval police, and every effort was
made by the Admiralty for the purpose of putting it
dte,vn.—(Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY in ex-
ra lanation, the motion was agreed to.
PAYMENT OF WAGES.
Mr. FERRAND moved that the following Members
be) nominated to the Select Committee on the Payment
of Wages Ferrand, Lord Ashley, Mr. Stuart
I,VortleY, JohnFielden, Viscount Jocelyn, Mr. Shar-
i."' Craw2nrd, Mr. Henry Redhead Yorke, Mr. Baird,
M. George, William Wood, Earl of Hillsborough, Mr.
Thomas_ Duiezombe, Mr. Beckett Mr. Charles Pelham
Villiers,' Sir John Hamner, and Sir John Guest.
Mr. IC-10THERTON said that befor e the motion was
agreed te, he would move that Mr• Cobden be named
as one of the Committee.
eight Mem., ,ers from the othlteraPridar.ed that there werei.s
(Mr. Brotl xenon's), but there was e and seven from
wshire.— (Hear, hear.) The Cortim?an person from Len-
to be a osie-sided one.—(Hear, heer2ttee appeared to him
have pet sorts who knew the diffe • e
betweenlie should like to
print-we arks—(Hear, hear)—persons mills and
.0 understood
something of the subject.—(Hear, hear)
te The f
some Com-
mittee would not give confidence to the country
interest were
person connected with the. Manufacturing i
Mr. Cob-
llot upon it, and he should-therefore move that
den's name now headded -to the Committee.
Mr. C. BULLER.wOttlik wove that the debate should
td. s p terra ed. After all ..the nenxdbeseothalltehxadashepeern_
ndt,he
of the
I •
.t,. eoktly an order. A great( des aof nonsense hadbeen
Vs on the subject, and the character of
. w e yo manufacturers of the country was
• s -alfectede y it. He had observed that whenever there
waa a Flo, uci4 of this Bert the Members of the Govern-

MADRID BOURSE, Aram 25.—Two bargains in the
Threes, for 700,000 reals, at 221, for 60 days. One for
400,000 reals in the Fours, 19 7-16, for 60 days. Twelve
in the Fives, for 6,800,000 reals, at 271, *, ;at carious
dates, 274, 5-16, 28,

The French Journals are tilled with loyal birth-day
addresses to the KING, and right Royal answers. They
They are so fulsomely panegyrical on all sides, that we
shall be readily excused for taking no notice of them.
The Toulonnais has the following letter from Algiers, dated
April 20 :—" It seems certain that General Bugeaud is raised
to the dignity of Marshal of France, and M. de Lamoriciere to
that of Lieutenant-General. Yesterday evening, after the ar-
rival of the Extraordinary, convoys we: e ordered to embirk
troops for Oran, to which place the Governor-General is also
going. It i 3 true that report adds that General Bugeaud is
recalled, and that the Marshal's baton is bestowed to make up
fur the recal. It is again affirmed that General Bugeaud re-
fused to return to France, and that to prolong his stay in Africa
he is going to Oran to prosecute the war."—Le Constitution-
nel, Mav
The Crocodile steamer, which arrived at Toulon on the 28th
of April, has brought news from Algiers to the 25th. The
Governor-General had gone on the '2oth, accompanied by se•
yeral other Generals, towards the :liaison Carree. On the
25th he was making preparations to go to Oran. The Came-
leon, Fulton, and Tenare steamers, were taking troops on
board, which they were to convey to that part of the coast.
An immense convoy left Algiers on the 25th, for Blidah.
An order of the day, dated Algiers, the 20th of August,
announces that General de Bar, who, during the absence of
the Governor. General, will have the chief command at Algiers,
will likewise have the superior direction of the administration.

Commerce.
A return of the real property of the State has been distri-
buted to the Members of the two Chambers by order of the
Minister of Finance. The approximative value in capital is
1,283,441,698 francs. That part of it dependinc, on the War
Department is estimated at upwards of 206 millions, and the
portion relating to the Marine to 125 million 4. The forests are
valued at 729,553,283 francs.—Journal des Debuts.
BOURSE—PARIS, MONDAY, MAY 2.
First Highest Lowest Last
Price Price. Proc.. Price.
rench 5 per Cents ...... 119 20 79 120
.1..; ye, rents lO7 50 ... 107 50 ... 107 .. 107 50
4 per Cents.
I,er e.wntr Bl 8J .01 9J . Z5l 80 ... SI 92
,r,nk or runlet
Defitte Munk s.nois %hares :030 5050 ...5018 75 75
Seleiiin ?tank 1811
tieigian 5 per Cents.
3 per 1055% ... 105% 105% .. 1,15%
Acove l6 ... 257,4 ... 25%
Pat4ive 5 ... 5 ... 4% ... 4%
Portuguese 5 per Cents.
!ctpulitati
st 5
1 Ronan.., lO6 ... 106 ... 106 ...

-,-_-_--
STEAM TO NEW YORK.
TH E GREAT WESTERN,
Lieutenant' HOSKEN, R.N., Commander,
IS INTENDED TO SAIL FROM
LIVERPOOL....Saturc'ay, f
2lst o May, 1842
BRISTOL Saturday, 16th of July
LI VERPOOL....Saturday, 3d of September
BRISTOL.. ...... Saturday, 22d of October.
FROM NEW YORK.
Thursday, 28th of April ... ...... For LIVERPOOL
Thursday, 16th of June For BRISTOL
Thursday, 11th of August Far LIVERPOOL
Thursday, 29th of September For BRISTOL
Thursday, 17th of November For LIVERPOOL.
For Freight, or further information, apply at Bristol to
CHRISTOPHER CLAXTON, Managing Director.
Lk,zdon—T. NI. Ward, Great Western Railway-Office, Bank.
Liverpool—Gibbs,' Bright, and Co., North John-street.
Birmingham—John Poncia and Son, rershore-street. -
Hull—W It. Goddard, Hull and East Riding Times Office. !!
Leeds—Haigh and Womack, Accountants, Benson's-buildings':
Glasgow—H. B. Webb, Glassford. street.
1 Paris—Andelle and Soulas, Rue de l'Echiquier, No. 20.
Havre-de-Grace—William Davidson.

7,
THE WEATHEIL—NooN, MAY 4.
ROY AL GALLERY OP SCIENCE, A DELAIDE-STREET.
thermometer .... 55 I Highest 67 I Lowest 45
Barometer 29.98.—Wind N.W.

- -
HIGH W ATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
1.2 minutes after 8 I Evening .... 26 minutes after 7.

Ot

'Z nit

1,, ~'

~~~~ x

:49

and at its conclusion he announced the engagement of Miss i original authority, it was not set up by the Court of Exchequer , the ability of every species of property to bear the tax, was ter
Adelaide Kemble, Miss Rainforth, and a first-rote corps dra- , Clmber, for pre hose reasens he thought that that ease was be coutidered—none was exempt. In those days, land and stock,
matique, to ()pen the summer season on elenday. th 9th inst. not only not a cedent, but not even an authors yon the pre • were the only property yielding a profit, and for that reason. as
Mademoiselle Plessy appears for the last time it, the St. : sent occasion. IT was mere than erobaele that the pressure of in the case of the poor-rates, land and stock were the only
James's Theatre this evening, in Le Misanthrope Valerie, and business e hen LotStoweli had become J udge of the Admiralty rope ty m ne. ally a.ssessed. but no property was exempt.
La Jeune Femme Colere. ; Court, and the little inter est exceed by the case, that less re- In the Poole case, which had been heard about
CO II 't
The f search and r ference to authorities were brought to bear en the twenty years since, it was decided that ships and stock
The ceremony of lanirg the first stone of the Victoria tower, ; Proceeding thn eould be so under other circumstances. in trade acre I able to be rated. It mattered not if the •, .
which is the intended Royal entrance to the new House of Peers, I in the course which he ( Dr. nushington n had pro- owner or occupier resided out of the parish. He was still liable -.
will, it is said, take place in August; an. d if her Majesty should t posed to himself on the present occ
asion. he would next ex- to the Church-rate. 'I his Poole case was do be found in the .
not perform the ceremony, it is expected that Prince Albert amine the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the 2d vol. of Dr. Adams's Reports, page 33. In that case it had
will officiate. former Braintree cases What was the decision, and how far been held that, as it had been the custom to rate stock in trade,
The Earl of Kinnoul had a grand dinner party on Monday was it alienable to the altered circumstances of the case slow the omission ot sto..k in trade was fatal to the rate. The
in . -
last. before the Court? The decision upon that occasion was, that origin of Church-rates was unknown, nor was there any , mode
The Countess of Wicklow gave a brilliant ball last night, the Churchwardens, after the rate had been refused by the nta- iof fixing the exact date when they were first levied. The • '
.-
Cavendish-square. jority of the Vestry, could not make a valid rate. That was earliest case was to be found in the year-books in the time of
The first meeting for the season of the Horticultural Society the sole question then, and it was decided with legal strictness. Edward 111. This igno:ance of ;the origin of Church-rates
was held yesterday, in Regent-street. Sir Oswald Moseley, But it was clear the Court of Queen's Bench never contemplated i could be easily ace ount ed for. The extent of the obligation to
Vice-President, in the Chair. • the distinction taken by the Court of Exchequer Chamber be- l repair depending on the ability of the individual, the Veetry
The Duke and Duchess of Roxburgh, with the infant Mar- tween a rate made by the Churchwardens alone, and a rate made ; would naturally be led to adopt measures to ascertain the
guts
e, of Beaumont, arrived at Berwick, on Friday, from Fleurs by the Churchwardene and a minority of the Vestry. The opi. I tint of that ability, ar.d the rate would be a consequence
Castle, Kelso. . Mon of the Queen's Bench was clear. That Court decided on ' incidental to the obligation. Then with regard to the remedy
Yesterday the Lord Bishop of London held a Confirmation at the principle that the rate made against the consent of the ma- 'in cases of refusal or neglect, it was manifest that
St. James's Church, Westminster. jority of the Vestry was illegal.- How was he to deal with that that the remedy must be in strict keeping with the obligation,
/WLISCMLIaIigIeatTS. decision? Not as a precedent. bettering and controlling the and as the obligation was a religious one, the remedy was to
A fire broke out in the south ward of the Millbank Peniten- free exercise of his own opinion in the present case, for the ibe sought in the Spiritual Courts alone. The obligation was
tiary last night, whets the carpenters' and smiths' workshops in Court of Exchequer Chamber had declared that. j not a common-law obligation. Before the statute de circum-
that quarter of the prison were destroyed. the late decision of the Court of Queen's Bench spectu Ecclesice, Spi; itual Courtshad punished persons, not for
The lion. Mr. Douglas Tennant, wife of a brother of the ought not to be considered. But be apprehended not payiee rites, but because the reiwirs necessary to be
present Earl of Morton, died at Pisa on the 25th. that it was his duty to consider the principles and reasoning on done had been left undone. Those punishments consisted of
The Dowager Lady Lyttelton, daughter of the late Earl which that decision was founded, and how far they were apples excommunication and the infliction of fines, and of inter-
Spencer, and renther to the present Baron Lyttelton, has been cable to the present ease. The first principle was that the i diets. These remedies were ail-powerful in those days.
prospectively appointed, it is said, as Governess to the Princess law required a clear demonstration that every tax was lawfully
Then came the Reformation, bat no toleration. No
Royal. imposed. That doctrine was in slim unison with the principle one was suffered to entertain a religious opinion different
...........,-,............--,......---..-s-. laid down by Lord Tenterden in the ease of Cotton v. Hardy, from the religious opinion of the Establishment, and in the
LA. VV. IN TE 11_, IA IG EN' CE. 2d Adolphus arid Bingham, a select vestry case, in which lee , Ist. of Elizabeth the Court of High Commission was estab-
decided, that with respect to the Church Butleing Act, he lished, and no one who knew what were the powers
---40.---_ could not give the vestry the power of imposing a church- rate, !of that Court could doubt its eMeiency for the
CHANCERY Co LIRT--(T HIS DAY.) because that power had not been specifically accorded to them ; purpose of enforcing the fulfilment of these obligations.
-
A TNORNEY- GENERAL v VISCOUNT CANTERBURY. by that Act. The next principle it appeared to him super- ; when its powers were wielded by such men as Land and his
The arguments in this case, which commenced yesterday, fluous to notice. It was that the imposition of a tax must be , coadjutors. That Court was abolished in the time of Charles
were resumed to-day, but had not concluded when his lend- directed either by Act of Parliament, or common law, or by I the First, and the Ecclesiastical Courts were left to their
ship rose, shortly after one o'clock, to attend her Majesty's custom immemorial. The third principle was to the i own powers. Those powers, in regard to enforcing
levee. effect, that no usage prevailing in support of surds a Church-rates, had always Veers exercised in a criminal,
tax could be received as evidence against at. Fourthly, and not in a civil form, and that such powers had up
to impose the tax in a different way was evidence against to a late period been effective no person could doubt.
the power claimed. Fifthly, the absence of such power Those powers which had been given them by the Statute de
in the books of Reports, was evidence against it. ; and, sixthly, circumspectu Ecclesix, were still in existence. That law
the onus of proving the legality of tne power claimed, neces- was not an obsolete law; it had at ill a legal existence ; but
sarity devolved on the parties who claimed it. These seemed the Court had never before been applied to to enforce
to him the chief general principles the Court of Queen's Bench their payment, or to punish for the non-payment of such
had applied to the case before him. But what did the Court a rate as the present. He was unwilling to speak on the
of Queen's Beech do when the case came before it as a Court subject of mandamuses. It had been said that a mandamus
of Error ? It agreed that there was no power of making a rate might be issued calling upon the Churchwardens to make a
by the Churchwardens alone, against the decision of the Vestry; Church-rate. now, the question of Church-rates it appeared
but it also held that there was a wide and substantial difference to him was a matter purely of ecclesiastical cognizance.
between the Churchwardens alone, and the Churchwardens Church rates were incident to the obligation to repair,
snd the minority of the Vestry together, as to making a rate. and that obligation was a matter of spiritual, and
for in case of a refusal by the parishioners to make a rate, if not of lay cognizance, and could not alone be enforced by
the Churchwardens possessed the poser of making it alone, the Ecclesiastical Courts. Having thus stated his notice of
they might do it at a future time, however distant. This was the nature of the obligation. he would now consider the means
the opinion of the Court, openly and distinctly stated, in the of enforcing it. It was said the case of a municipal corpora-
words he had quoted ; and it was to this that he must devote Lion refusing to proceed to the election of an officer was a case
his best attention. But first, it was necessary to know what strictly analogous to the present—and the case of Olding.and . •
the Court of Error had declared, what it would not Weeks, 2d. Burroughs, had been quoted as establishing, . a
do, and what it had reserved. The Court said it would not doctrine strictly analogous to the one sought to be
enter into a discussion whether the rate. as made by the Church- established in the present case. Now what were the facts of
wardens at the par ish meeting, was a valid rate or not. If, in that case? It appeared that an election was to take place of a
the election if cerporation officers, the nisjority only protest Towneelerk fur the town of Nottingham; that when the elec.
against the election, the minority hone been held to represent tors met one portion of the constitueney, the minority consi-
the whole number. Again, in the case of a rate made lay a dered the office to be filled by the Mayor having.nominated a
minority of the parishioners arid the Churchwardens, the Court person to that office. Tee minority, however, consisting of ninee
would give no opinion on it, but desired to reserve to proceeded to hold the election, and chose Alm Segrave to fill— -
itself the liberty of forming an opinion on it the office. The majority, consisting of 11, protested against . . .
CONSI STOR V —(T N. 1 S DAY). whenever the case should occur. The present case the election, but no other candidate being nominated no divi-
was unfettered by the case of Guardan v. Selby, as the ques- sion took place. The Court of Queen's Bench decided. that
CHURCH-RATES.—THE BRAINTREE CASE, tion was undecided by the Courts of Queen's Bench and the the Mayor had no right to nominate that person-AG fill Ike
..
GOSLING V. GOSLING. Exchequer Chamber, but it received great consideration in the office, and that the election of Mr. Segrave was a good
At the sitting of the Court this day, Ur. LUSHINGTON de-
Court of Error, both with reference to the general law of the election. With regard to the circumstances, it was im-
ivered his judgment in this case, oe the admission of the libel.
cane, and its possible analogy to cases of frequent occurrence in possible not to see that two cases could not be more
He said, before he proceeded to the principle question at issu.
Cormirations. First, then, was the premnt rate valid by the widely different than that case and the present. But it
in this case. it was necessary that he should dispose ef sone
ecclesiastical and common law, without resorting to the might: be argued that in the decision of that cases some
objections that had been math. to the admis ability of the libel.
nalogy of Co poration law. There is, in the opinion of the principle had been laid down, which might be a guide in
One of these objections was, that at the meeting at which the
' ourt of Exchequ, r, a wide and substantial difference be- coming to a judgment on the present. The grounds of that de-
rate was proposed, an amendment was moved, winch concluded
twecn a rate made by a churchwat den and the minority vision, as expressly stated by Lord Mansfield, were that as the
by finally refusing the rate. No poll was demanded or taken,
el- the vestry, and one made by the churchwardens alone in electors present did not vote at all they must he held to have •
and on a show of hands the amendment was therefore
Vestry. It was most important to weigh am; ascertain in virtually acquiesced in the election by those who did. There
declared carried. Now, the Churchwardens brims hi
what that wide and substantial difference consisted, for on the wasanoilier principle laiddown also, which was,that the elector
the minority, proceeded themselves to make the rate
existence of that. distinction, as jar as this view extended, de- who voted fur efi unqualified person, having had previous notice
now in dispute, and it is contended that it was neces•
pended the applicability of the decision ; between the two given him of such ditqualifieation, had thrown his • vote
sary, in the first instance, that a poll should have been taken,
cases there was one most important and substantial difference, at' ay. Now, how could those principles-beapplied to the present
on the ground that in many cases an individual may be entitled
videlicet the time when the rate was made, whether it was case? A Vestry had been held pursuant to a monition from the
to a plurality of votes, and that the real number cannot be
made at the Vestry immediately after the refusal by the majo- Court. The Churchwardens had proposed a rate ;an amend-
ascertained unless he voted ; and next, that in a show of hands
city of the Vestry, or at a sub. Sequent period by the Church- ment refusing the rate had been proposed and carried by the ma-
a majority of the individuals present may not constitute the
wardens alone, for it was obvious if it were riot valid when jcrity of the parishioners in Vestry assembled, and the Church-
majority of votes. He thought the objection could not be sus
made in the Vestry by the Churchwardens alone, wardens had then proceeded to make a rate ef 25. in the poupd.
tained, for this reason : that no pn 1 being demanded, the whole
it was impossible to' fix any time within which it That welled been signed by themselves, and by the Vicar,
Vestry must be taken as acquiescing in the decision of the
could be made. There was nothing to exclude by some ot the parishioners ; but it had not been proposed to .
Chairman. If it was necessary that there should always be a
the time from being a month, or six months, or even ten the Vestry, on the part of the Churchwardens, for it appeare
poll, though it should not be demanded, it would occasion greatd
months, and the effect of this might be that the churchwar- that after the show of hands had been taken there there, ha
inconvenience and a great impediment to the dispatch of public dens, by postponing the making* of the rate, might, if they had been no voting. The facts were totally different, and the
business. It must also be remembered, though the argument was
the power of doing it by themselves,- not in the Vestry, make p inciple on which the cases alluded to had been decided
not altogether conclusive, that if the majority must be considered
a rate upon consideration of subsequent circumstances which were inapplicable to the present cases How could the Court,
as not in favour of the amendment, it was a fair presumetion
perhaps ought to have been submitted in the first instance to by declaring the rate a valid one, take upon itself to decide that
that, in the present ease, they were in favour of the rate. That ihe Vestry. It was true that this difference was of less im- because a rate was proposed it must be voted in a moment ;
argument was not always conclusive. It might be that some
portance, if the doctrine that the Vestry was merely ministerial, that the Vestry had not a right to consider what re-
voted against the amendment who disapproved of the manner
was adopted to its full extent, for if the Churchwardens pairs were necessary, how they were to be performed, end how
in which it was put, and who at the same time might be dis- were the only judges of whet was necessary, and the they were to be paid for, whether by one rate or by several, or in
posed to negative the rate itself. On this head, therefore, the Vestry were bound to raise the money for them without what proportion the inhabitants were to be assessed ? In the . ..
defendant had no substantial reason to complain, though pos-
any opinion either of the matter itself, or whether the rate was Nottingham case the election was held to be good, because the
sibly the fact might have some bearing in a subsequent view of
made by the Vestry or by the Churchwardens afterwards, the voters protesting against it did trot vote at all ; those were the
the case. It was stated as an objection to the rate, that
difference could not be of so much importance. But on the very words of Lord Mansfield ; but that had not hap-
the
the estimate included the repairs of the Church. It appeared
supposiiien that the Vestry had some discretion to exercise, he petted in the present instance. The majority had
certainly to include the chancel-door, but as it might be the
rimmed svith the Court above, and should say that the distinction voted in favour of the amendment refusing the rate,
door both of the chancel and the common nave, this could not s
vas an innpietant derision. He could not understand how, in 'I here was no analogy between the cases. The question to be
be considered fatal to the rate, as it was a circumstance that
the present case, the concurrence of the minority could confer derided was, not whether it was a natural obligation upon the es
might be expected. The last of these obections arose from
any legality on the act, which would not attach to it if made by parishioners to keep the parish church in repair—not whe-
t
the pleading to the conclusion of the fifth article of the libel,
the Churchwardens aloue. The minosity might consist of num . Per the Court could proceed to the enforcing of that obli-
where it was alleged that a large number of the inhabitants
berstrom amere minority down to asingle indieidual. He couldnot gation, but whether a rate made, as the present one had
rated were in such a state of poverty that the rate could not
rely on this diff co
difference. He would now endeavour toconsider been, by a minority of the parishioners, was a valid one . s
be recovered recovered from them, and that the loss extended to 1,0001.
whether there was any authority at common or ecclesiastical whether the . votes were not thrown. away, and the act ;•
This fact might be urged to meet any objection that the rate
law as applied to the present case, so as to render this rate which was directed to be done by the parish, was not done .
was excessive, but he was not aware that it vitiated ,,
the legality of the rate itself, or rendered it his duty valid, U,. the former rate was illegal. There was one par- by the parish, but by a few individuals. But how could be ~ • . -
titular circumstancem attending the making the present rate understand that this was what the law, as received in these
to reject the libel. It had been considered that all who were
which must not he left out of consideration, for he believed it Courts, required it to be a rate made by the majority of the ,
excused from paying poor-rates, on account of poverty, should was of vital importance to the case. This sate was made, not parish.? Then, again—with every diffidence in him own ability to,
be • excused from church-rates ; but he could not. take upon
at a Vestry summoned in the ordinal's' manner, but in conse- understand, or perspicuity to explain—he was pelled to say,
himself to say that the occu •iers in this case ought to be ex-
quence of a monition issued from this' Court, calling that he did not perceive the analcgieswhich wereeileged to exist - •• -
cured on account of their poverty. Having disposed of these
,n the Churchwardens to take the necessary steps to put between this case and that of a corporation, to which a mends,
objections, he would now go to the important questions raised
the church in repair, anti to call a Vest! y fur the purpose of mus had been issued. But if a mandamus were issued from the' :
upon the admission of this libel. It was necessary ,first, that
making a rate. He had had tome doubts, and expressed them, Court of Queen's Bench to compel a corporation to do an act
he should give a brief summary of the facts. The decree was
issued from this Court, founded on affidavits setting forth that and they were not now al ogether removed, as to the propriety' which the majority were bound by law to do, would it be a sad-
,W fixing the day and hour of the Vestry in the monition. Be ficient answer to that writ to say that a part of the corporation
.J
the church was out of repair, and that a rate had for several
hat as it. might, tie rate was made in pursuance of the three- had obeyed that law. Having gravely considered all the •
years been refused, and citing the prohibition that had emanated
don of this Court, and till the contrary should he decided alleged analogies of the common law,- and carefully examined
in the former case from the Queen's Bench, together with
he must consider that direction as legal, rah and made on the cases relied on for their support, the impression on
the circumstances under which it was issued. The decree
competent authority. But with regard to a rate so his mind was that none of those principles or autho.
called on the Churchwardens and parishioners to put the church
made, though there were precedents with regard to rities were applicable to the present ease. Even if
into a proper state of repair, and ordering the Churchwardens
the issuing of a monition, yet with regard to a he could see similarity where he saw nothing but dis-
to call a Vestry on a certain day, at a certain hour, and in a
tate made by the Churchwardens and the minority of the similarity, he should still hesitate before, upon his own judge
certain place, for the purpose of making a rate, and directing
Vestry, he confessed he found in Ecclesiastic il law no prece. ment, presiding as he did over an interior tribunal, he should •
the parishioners to attend and make it. That decree was duly
dent whatever in the single case of Rogers v. Davenant, introdece here doctrines hitherto unheard of in these (the
signed, and the Churchwardens declared their readiness to sub-
, and it was certain that this case was riot an authority, for Ecclesiastical, Courts. It seemed to him incredible, thee if , .
mil to the lawful authority of the Court. The Vestry met on
flaking the rate, in conjuction with the Vestry. Since the the law were as laid down in the Exchequer Chamber, in the
15th of last July, and a rate was proposed; an amendment oh
last hearing, he had carefully examined the precedents col- course of so many centuries during which these Courts had.
considerable length was proposed, the contents of which it was
lotted by Archdeacon Hale, bin, he could find in them no trace . existed, and dur:ng which so many great minds had been ap-
no part of his duty to examine; the amendment refusing
ef an authority affirming the validity of a rate made by • plied to ascertain what the law of these Courts was, it should
the rate was moved, and on being put to the show of hands,
the Churchwardens in conjunction with the minority of the have been first discovered in the year 1841. He would -be
„.
still more astonished if such were the fact, as this law would
the Vicar, who was in the chair, declared it to be carried. No
Vestry. There was one case indeed, occurring in 1601, in
poll was taken, and all therefore acquiesced in his declaration.
which' a rate was made by the direction of the churchwarden be a ready remedy for Many evils, and would du away with
The Churchwardens, with several other individuals, then signed
alor;d, to rei , burse the Churchwardens of a former year. many harsh proceedings. Still, until the year 11341, there
the present rate, which was not again put to the Vestry.. In But he thought that none of these precedents came up was a perfect silence on the subject of this mode of ob.
the present case then, the question he had to decide was, taming judgment; but on the contrary, in all the cases.
to the circumstances of the present ease. A precedent
whether the rate so made, was legal and valid. If it were athe making of rates was held to be in the majority of -
plicable to the iresent case would be one where
legal and valid rate, the libel must be admitted ; if not, it must the Vestry. The argument that the ancient remedy is no longer
aaP-rate was mede by the Churchwardens and a minority of the
be rejected ; but it should be borne in mind, that all the ob-
servations he was about to make he Intended to apply , Vestry, and afterwards enforced by the Ecclesiastical Court; and applicable to the present times, has been answered le?
a high authority—the Court of Queen's Bench itsel •
where 'the proceedings were had ag inst individual parish-
to nothing but the validity or invalidity of the rate ;The decision of the Court of Queen's Bench to which
loners. That was indispensably necessary. ( Here the Judge
this was the sole question he had to determine,he alluded, was given in reference to the n Wager of Battle," a; ,
entered into a classification of the various questions in cases
and to that his observations would be confined. He waswhich was as revolting and unchristian a practice as had been
somewhat similar to the present, in nee e of which, he said, he
anxious to state his opinion and the grounds of it, and he wouldhanded down from the times of ancient darkness. What said .4.
could discover a case of a rate made by the Church-
consider, first, the case of Gaurdan v. Selby, in its bearing onLord Ellenborough ? That " the wager of battle, however re- „ e
wardens being allowed, much less of its being enforced.
this present rate; second, the effect of the judgment of the
Remembering the deep interest which this question „f Church- smiting it might appear to many, was the law of the land, and -
...
Court of Queen's Bench on the former Berintree ease ; thirdly,
sans had excited, and the laborious and painful investigation he was booed to adminis'er it." One more observation :as
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the same case ;
which had been made by the most learned persons respecting occurred to him (Dr. Lushin,gton) before he quitted this cases
fourthly, he should end avour to examine the Ecclesiastical It he were willing (which he was not) to admit the doctrine
it ; also, that the questions were nicely divided, and that the
and Common Law, and their authority in respect to the vali-laid down in the Exchequer Chamber, that the rules of law ;,
present point, and those intimately cenneeted with it, were
dity of the rate in question ; and, fifthly and last: y, he no
elections was analogous to this case, the law was
adjudicated upon by no less than twelve Jtulges of the land,
should apply himselt to the doe tine of the election no such thing. He was bound to decide this case not by the.
and that no eecnsiastical authority had been produced upon
of corporate officers and Members of Parliament,
it, he might venture to say that there was no such case in common law hut by the ecclesiastical ; and he could not lind
which doctrine, it was contended, ought to govern the preserit
existence; and as it would be but a mere waste of time, and in the whole body of that law,. or in all the records of cases
case, and uphold the validity of the rate. With regard to the
a false parade of authorities, to go through the and decisions, the faintest testimony of any analogy between .
rroceedin s in the matter of Church-rates and elections, Par-
case of Gamdan v. Selby, it appeared to him, that not only
other cases, he would abstain from citing them. I
had the doctrine laid down in that case been repudiated in the
A similar observation applied to any investigation he had been
liamentarye or corporate. He was therefore bound to reject this
Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer 'Chain -
able to make respectirg the authorities of common law. If
libel, and to pronounce the rate invalid. He was aware
her, but the Court of Queen's Bench impugned its authority,
there had been any authority applying to the case of a rate of the responsibility which rested on him in this matter. 110
and that in very strong terms. He then quoted the
madeby the Churchwardens and the minority of the Vestry, knew how many evil consequences would be ascribed to his miser
decision :of the Court of Queen's Bench, which im-
pugged the decision as laid down in the case referred to. could any one doubt but that it would be produced.
deavoured honestly, fearlessly, and assiduously, to find the law
In Ventris' reports, there was a solitary case, but there was
re-
Discarding, therefore, the notion that the case of Gaurdan v.
nothing in it, save conjectures unsupported by facts, and it and having found it, he would not resort to subtle
Selby was any longer a precedent to govern and bind down hisfinements to defend it. He was well persuaded, from
could not by possibility be made to apply to tire present case.
own judgment, he would now consider whether, though nothe history of this country, that the continuance_.
All the autorities cited against the validity of the form of
longer binding as a precedent for the position attempted to beof bad laws, and the prevention of good ones had, in no staid ,
t had a strongoke ofaptphlieation to the present case,
established in the former case, yet it ought to be considered as ftmeasure, been occasioned by laudable, though mistaken endea- ael•
an authority not to govern him, but to which he ought to pay inarsamen.ch as they majority in the Vestries. It
would unnecessalynoccu y time if re to advert to those
consideration in the present case. He had carefully examined
p„recedents and the Reports orrs which had been published yours to make the law measure out according to particular i
all the proceedings in that case—he had done so before—and
former cases. This,- then, was his opinio,
.1 that notions of justice, and to make subtle distinctions lo ward or' . ,
he was not disposed to retract any one observation he had for- '"
in the total absence of any authority, of either evil and injurious results, which, if they be the effect of tile s!,
merly made upon that case. He would not occupy time by law, ought to be remedied not by the Judge but by the Lo•
. ,5;41
ecclesiastical or. common law, to support the validity of gislator.
referring to all the particulars of the case, but some might
this rate, it was clear that, upon such grounds, it couldY
be slightly touched on, in order that the gronnds of his
be supported. If he were, then, to enforce such a
opinion might be clearly manifest, and might not rest on ge-
rate, •he would be making a law, and net declaring
neral declaration. He disclaimed having at any time laid any
ono ; and that, too, in a matter where every Court had been
stress on the decision of that case. There were some facts
most cautious, namely, the imposition of taxes. Those preli-
and circumstances connected with that case which, after all the
minor considerations having been disposed of, he would now
consideration he could bestow. upon them, and having read all
address himself to the last question, namely, whether, there
that was written in explanation of that case, still appeared to
Hein g no authority, as already stated in support of this rate,
i
him to be utterly inconsistent with all regularity of proceedng
it was notwithstanding to be sustained by analogy to the law ap-
in those Courts beyond what had ever happened. One ot the
In
to particular corporations and to Parliamentary elections.
circumstances which struck his attention on the present
In applying himself to that part of the question he felt the
occasion was (arid the able Counsel who argued the case
utmost distrust. When he approached the subject of mends.-
had, he was surprised to find, taken no notice of
muses and quo warranto's, he mistrustedhimself. An analogy
it), the irregularity in the proceedings. In this case
had been attempted to be drawn between the ease of members
of Gaurdan v., Selby, the same individual was Surrogate
of a Corporation, assembled together to proceed to the election of
• '
a member ot that Corporation. The majority refuse to elect i
in the Archdeacons Court, the Vicar-General's Court,
and the Censistory Court. That would account for the
the minority, proceed to the election, and the election of
tuhe minority is held to be a valid one, and the majority who re-
Court sitting in the same place—for the individual pro-
ceeded against being summoned to the same place; but it could
fused to proceed to the election, are held to have thrown areas'
never account fur what appeared in those proceedings the utter their votes. It was contended that the case of Church-rate's
confusion between the two Courts, so that no man could yen
was analoeus to this, and that, those refusing this rate had
ture to say, after he had examined the original proceedings, in
thrown their votes away. In order to come to this conclusion,
which Court the suit was commenced and carried on. He
it was
would not go through all the proceedings in that case from the nece,sary, first to understand the principle on which the
commencement, but would only point out one or two case had been decided at common-law, and secondly,
facts or circumstances sufficient for his present purpose. to compare the facts of the two cases, in order to
The Court here refemsd to the proceedings in the above-men• ascertain what was the analogy subsisting between them.
tinned case, showing that the citation in it was directed in the It was said the cases were analogous. Be would endeavour to
name of the Archdeacon alone, and yet the person cited was t o ap- ascertain if this were the case. In order to du this it was ale-
pear in the Consistory Court. The libel was in the name both cessary to consider the legal-origin and usages of Church-rates
of the Archdeacon and Vicar -General, and the monition to themselves. That the parish was bound to repair the Church
answer the libel seas in the name of the Archdeacon only, and was established by all the ecclesiastical authorities, and by all
cited Gaurdan to appear in the Consistory Court. He would those of common-law likewise, but with regard to the nature
not go through other circuit stances in that case which of the remedy to be appliee in case of refusal, andd there
appeared appeared equally remarkable as showing the confusion in it regard altsoditff.oeretnhcee mofeaensineifofnenfo7hineg
sthtaattutreemde
de
ye,irte.m.
from begthnin, to end. But there was one circum-
s'aLtignreEacciesice established' the fact,first, that before the pass-
stance, infinitely more remarkable, to which he would .
just advert, namely, that in the libel, which was dated in of that Statute the parishioners were accustomed to keep in
November 1796, it was stated that the rate was made by the Ire'ir the nave of the church ; and, secondly, that the Spiritual
Courts of those days punished persons refusing to du so. The
majority of the Vestry, and yet that rate was proved on evidence
Statute further directed than, in all such cases, the Spiritual
re tto have been matte by the majority et the Vestry. Those
eeine ,m alone
were, Borne
of the circumstances which struck his mind in the seas to judge, Ind thatemporal the Coreenon
against
Courts were rot to issue any protection
consideration of this case, but it appeared to him not to have hint. That proved that the 1
attracted that notice, which, under other circumstances, Courts had
in some cases interfered by prohibition, and that, by that
such a case would necessarily have caused. The allegations
statute they were restrained. from (Ming so ; and, consequently,
and pleadings, that that rate was not made by consent of the that the obligation to repair was to be enforced in the Spiritual
majority of Vestry, were signed by Lord Stowell, then
sir William Scott, and were never opposed in the Arches Courts only. As it was a natural obligatien, nothing was said
about it in the Statute, bin all the authorities went to show
Court. Then there was not a single authority cited one side that it was a natural obligation. At that time the whole na-
or the other in the arguments. But with regard to the present case, ,
Selby , tern pretested one religion—to profess a different
whether he ought to receive the case of Gaurdan v. from that pi iffessed by the nation, was in those dayst religionh
as overruling his judgment, or rather, whether he ought te heresy,
and a (moat crime to sup ent that religion,
depart flout the exercise of his own judgment, and b w to it . was
na
luf bind on all, and therefore .
M. a precedent applicable in the presene case, it was clear fromevery one was equh ye
(accoYulitable for the upholding of tl
the report of Dr. Robinson that Sir Wm. Wynn had not the l sacred edifice. I.h
religious nature, therefore, of the obligation
slightest notion that he was considering the question which the itself
establishedgasfejurise
diction to those Courts for enforcing '
Court was on the present occasion to decide, and consequentlyg it, which were
fd
to maintain the l* •
Sir W. Wynn could not have decided it. Sir W. Wynn .established re igion of the laud. The men a-
thought he was deciding the question, when the Vestry had re- non of the whole proceeding wa
s, and still continued to be,
I that the enforcement of this obligation was pro salute
fused a rate, whether it was competent to the Churchwardens i
anima, and thereforethe had- exclusive
to make that rate ; but he never dreamt of the present ques- Spiritual Court,
lion, whether sech a men, h ins wade by the r herelas melees t iseietion The el 1. r a ~elusive
jR • . . . 1 igation wa, therefore t'est'y i.
'
' i •
''
..'.
''
'''
' ''''
' .'
''''
' ''..
-'
. -....
' ''
l''
'''''''
the extent of the 'bit' It't'iO he re
wee t n 'e
easred, and, OarefQ.-e,
prossly cited as an authority, and yet that, upon at least its i

ROLLS' COURT.-(TII1S DAY.)

?1,
LLOYD'S SHIPPING-(THIS DAY.)
LONDON, MAY 4.—Wind this day at noon variable.
DEAL, MAY 3, A.M., wind N.W. noderate.—tith,
\V. S. W. li;zlit.—Arrd. Minerva, Furlong. Mauritius ; Arsol.
Victoria, Arot ina, Tenerlife ; Porcupine, Cleveland, Smyrosi
Arrd. from the river, Lord Lowther, for China; ditto 11:‘,
sld. Adelaide, China ; Berkshire, Inglis and MargaLo,
Bombay ; .Alcdora, Cape Circassian; Montreal, Jane Lov'''
OFF DOVER, MAY 3.--Arrd. Pawasso, westward, for L011(1013.
BRISTOL, MAY 3.—Arrd. Eliza, Saunders, AlatriliUS.
MILFORD, :MAY 2.—Arrd. Recovery, Sierra Leone.
PORTSMOUTII, MAN 3.—Wind Y.N.W.—Arrcl• Alert,
Hurth, St. Cruix, for Copenhagen.
COWES, MAY 3.—Arrd. Hector, White. Cuba.
OFF SALCOMitE, MAY 3.—Arid. Roseberry, Singapore.
F.tIMoETII, MAY 2.—Wind variable and high.— -s1( •
Oriental steamer, Alexandria ; Montrose steamer, Gibraltar.
Pool.E, 11.1 r 3.-61 d. Lord Nelson, Prince Eugene,. an'
Hebe, Newfoundland.

SPONTANEOUS CONIBUSTION.—As there has heat
much said and written on this subject, it is of great importancw
that we should know, especially as the Lucifer match is noW'
used so extensively, what mischief is likely to result from its'
use, and from the use of substances of a like nature; and asr.
the followirg letter from Professor Booth may suggest a hint
to lucifer match makers, it deserves public notice
Gentlemen,—l have seen so much of the disastrous effects
arising from substances containing ingredients liable to sponte
neous ignition in producing fires, that as I looked upon the 0;
troduction of your Self-lighting Sealing Wax with jealousy,;
have tested and analyzed it with great care. By this I fin
all my objections to its use removed, as, from the absence °
sulphur in its combinabon, it is impossible that spontaneon*
ignition can take place with them, as has o,:curred with.CO'
grove matches, and other pyrotechnic componnds. The coo
bitstible elements are perfectly free from danger, and I hive
hesitation in pronouncing yours as safe as ordinary seal/.
wax, as smart friction alone will cause the.r ignition.—l bard
the honour to remain, your obedient servant, ABRAHA
BOOTH, Lecturer on Chemistry, late Lecturer at the Re...,
Adelaide Gallery, &c.—London, April 23, 1842.—gessiW,,
Davis, Brothers, and Co., Patentees of Self-lighting Se
elie
wax, Poulti y."
sw^
MARRIED.—On the sth of March last, by,sPec.i.,at:.
license, at the Hope, in the parish of Manchester, in Jam
Frederick Peatt, E'sq., of Nos ark, in the same parish, to lea
Margaret Eleatv‘r Swaby. of Eaton-square, London,
(laughter of Joseph James Swaby, Esq., late of Chapel
in Kilnsey, in the county of York, and granddaughter and 70t,
heiress of the Hon. Joseph James Swaby, late of the 11013114..
Almitpclicr, in Jamaica, and Custos Rotulorurn of the per'is
St. Elizabeth, in that island.
IRON TRADE. It is commonly reported that Sof
large orders for rails have arrived at Cyfarthfa. Soo'
18,000 tots we hope it is true.— Welshman.
Lcmdon Printcd . v l; ;
No. I Strp.n . (it'aiv, N.) Its:. .;' '
t("1 '
the Collet, #
Wednesve4ay► May 40842.