The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

Orniitt -1141(4

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1845.

The House of Lords met at Five o'clock.

After several petitions had been presented,

The Duke of BUCKINGHAN drew the attention of
the House to the case of the Chaplaia of Aylesbury
Gaol, who had refused to deliver up to the Magistrateb
the written confession confided to him by the murderer
TAWELL.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that no clergyman
had any right to make disclosures of what had been
confided to him in confession, unless in cases of high
treason, or where the life of the clergyman himself was
in danger.
After a few words from the Bishop of EXETER,

Lord STANLEY said, that as the publication of the con•
fession could not further the ends of public justice, the
Chaplain had a right to use his own discretion.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the Chaplain had exer-
cised a judicious discretion.
The Marquis of NORSIANBY hoped the Secretary of
State would exercise his power, for the future, to pre-
vent the publication of such blasphemous and disgusting
letters as those which had been published as having
been addressed by HocKER tO two unfortunate females.
Lord DENMAN considered that the public ought to be
perfectly satisfied with the verdict that had been de-
livered in TAWELL's case. He thought his confession a
matter of no moment, and did not see that any one had
a right to call for the production of any communication
that had been made to the Chaplain.
Lord STANLEY promised to inquire into the matter.
The Earl of Powis then moved the second reading
of the Bill for repealing the law for the union of the
dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, and for creating a
new bishopric, viz. Manchester.
The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed the motion.
The dioceses when united would not be so large as
many of the existing dioceses, and he could not un-
derstand why one Right Rev. Prelate could not :dis-
charge those duties which another Right Rev. Prelate,
whose diocese happened to be in a different part of the
country, discharged efficiently.
A long debate ensued, in the course of which their
Lordships were addressed by the Bishop of BANGOR,
the Earl of WINCHILSEA,I Lord MONTEAGLE, the
Bishop of SALISBURY, Lord STANLEY, and other Noble
Lords ; and ultimately, on a division, the Bill was re-
jected by a majority of 32.

The Commons met at at Four o'clock.
After the transaction of private business, and the pre •
sensation of petitions,
Sir R. PEEL stated, in answer to Mr. LABOUCUERE,
that no official information bad been received of the in-
tention of the Brazilian Government to impose an addi-
tional duty of 20 per cent, on English cotton goods, until
the additional duty imposed on the importation of Bra-
zilian sugar into this country should be removed. The
Right Hon. Baronet alo stated that he hoped to move the
second reading of the Scotch and Irish Bank Bill, and of
the Scotch Poor-law Bill, before the holidays.

Mr. MANGLES, in presenting a petition on the subject
of the Puseyite schism in the Church of England, asked
if it was the intention of the Government to interfere in
the matter.

Sir R. PEEL was not prepared to give any assurance
on the subject.

Mr. MACKINNON postponed his motion on the subject
of interments in towns, as he understood that the Go-
vernment was about to introduce some measure on the
subject.
On the order of the day being read for the House
going into Committee on the Maynooth Bill,
Mr. HINDLEY moved, as an amendment, that the
Speaker do not leave the chair.
This amendment, from the manner in which it was
worded, produced much laughter.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in seconding the amendment, said
that the Prime. Minister had taken in and deceived bis
supporters, and that for himself he had no confidence in
any party, and no hopes for the safety or honour of the
country.
Mr. PLuzerrnE supported the amendment.

The House was subsequently addressed by COl. VER-
NER, Mr. REDINGTON, Sir R. PEEL, who denied that
the Protestants of Ireland were opposed to the measure,
Lord J. RUSSELL, Sir R. INGLIs, and Sir H. BROOKE ;
and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority
of 108, the numbers being, for going into Committee
160, and for Mr. Hindley's amendment 52.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Several of the clauses were agreed to without a
division.

On the 4th clause, Sir JOHN HANDIER moved the
omission of the words which limit the trustees of
nooth College in taking any real property with which
it may be desired voluntarily to endow them.
. _

After some discussion the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN proposed an amendment on
clause 2, which upon a division was negatived by 69.
Sir J. GRAHAM next proposed an alteration in clause
4, relative to the salaries of the officers of the Col-
lege, which was agreed to.
Several other clauses were then passed without altera-
tion, and finally the report was brought up, and ordered
to be received on Monday.
The House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

We cannot help thinking that hard measure has been
meted out in the courts of this country towards Mr.
CARDS WILSON, the victim of that sort of legalised
spitefulness which the antiquated jurisdictions of the
" Channel Islands " can exercise at pleasure, on all
within their reach, in virtue of some unaccountable
oversight in the Imperial Parliament. If the mischief
and the outrage could have been foreseen, that, in such
a case as Mr. WILSON'S these vexatious pretensions—
(derived from the right stock of Norman tyranny)—
might visit upon an English gentleman, brought
up under the protection of equal and consti-
tutional laws, and accustomed to the unfet-
tered exercise of those privileges which are every
Englishman's birthright—no doubt the Legislature
would long since have withdrawn or neutralised the
powers in question. They are offensive anomalies, if
they exist within any portion of the Queen of ENG-
LAND'S dominions, because they are sure to come into
collision, at some time or other, with the inherent per-
sonal and common-law rights, or the statute-created
rights, of her MAJESTY'S British subjects. Now, Mr.
WILSON, having given offence to a sort of Lilliput
Chancery, stood upon his English rights, and wa', Re
do think, scandalously maltreated. Little " Viscounts"
and overbearing Baillies, and an Attorney- General (for
Jersey is blessed with all these), who might have in-
used more of the decorous bearing of the English bar
into his deportment towards the defendant, combined
together in one war upon the tall Englishman. They
seemed to think he could bear it all—and more ! They
fmust have imagined that (in the words of Swirr's
" Lilliputian Ode to QUINTUS FLESTRIN")—
" Bards of old—oftQn told—
When they said-Atlas' head—
Propt the skies.
Nor was he more fortunate at Westminster before the
Court of Queen's Bench. We will not be so disrespect-
ful as to say that the Lord Chief Justice was testy ; but
we remember that the Solicitor-General lost his temper
and somewhat of his wonted courtesy, in dealing with
Mr. CARUS WILSON. Mr. WILSON is now remitted
back to Jersey ; and if he had been SAMSON him-
ssicneteolufaF,lddlleo:ootg-ftisnthrpgaelevatia:t the Arak's Head, in Gaza, in-
s the
et
ar
E.
greater
NreVecau. ,t
Executive
aept 0
of
f3Ae
ext
ohnfaEtnrThaonarlitis'
gat
juaenH Octietyl
con-
stables and gaolers to seize the mighty lion-slayer, than
our profound Civic functionaries ; the ever-agreeable