The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-09 00:00:00

AUSTRALIAN CORN.

Mr. HUTT moved that the petition which he had
presented from the merchants of London, on the subject
of Australian corn, be printed.
PAUPER LUNATICS.
Sir C. NAPIER moved that the petition of the
Chairman of the Vestry of St. Marylebone, for inquiry
into the treatment of pauper lunatics at the Asylum at
Hanwell, be printed.
LUNATICS IN SCOTLAND.
Mr, F. MAULE moved that the petition from the

Prison Board of the county of Fife, respecting criminal
lunatics in Scotland (presented Bth April), be printed.
INTERMENT IN TOWNS.

On the order of the day being read,
Lord EBRINGTON said that the subject of inter-
ment in towns had recently occupied the attention of the
House and the country to a eonsiderE.ble extent. He
wished to read some extracts from a report of the Com-
mittee of that House regarding churchyards in this

metropolis.—(Order, order,)
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member was not in
order.
The subject was then dropped.
THE NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE.
Mr. AGLIONBY requested the attention of the House
to the subject before mentioned. An article had ap-
peared in the Times newspaper reflecting on his (Mr.
Aglionby's) conduct as a Member of that House. These
remarks were founded on a letter written by him to
the Chairman of the New Zealand Company. He
hoped the House would bear with him whilst he
made a short statement. He did it with regret, and
would not upon merely personal considerations have
intruded the matter on their notice. He did it because
when a leading newspaper commented strongly and
severely on the character and conduct of the Members
of that House, the honour of the House was as
much, if not more, involved than the character of the in-
dividual Member. Ile held in his hand the letter upon
which these remarks in the 7';mes were founded. It was
an extremely long letter, and the article itself was of a
more serious nature. The article alleged two
offences against propriety—that he (Mr. Aglionb) )
being a shareholder of the Company, should no'
be an arbiter in the affairs of the Company.t
He was not conscious of any impropriety in this respect.
He had done his utmost to avoid being a member of
the Committee, on the ground of bias and interest.
He had mentioned his objections to the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Lincoln), to the Under Secretary for the
Colonies, and numerous other lion. 111,mbers, but he was
told that he could not avoid being a member of the
Committee. That it was necesssry for the conve-
nience of the Committee that he should be a member
of it. He then proposed that he should not have a vote,
but that, too, was rejected. He did not act in that
Committee either as a partisan or an advocate, and he
believed that every member of the Committee' would
bear him out in what he stated. The second charge
against propriety was his having an interview
with one of the witnesses who was to be
examined before the Committee. Every Honourable
Member must know how desirable it was that
witnesses whose testimony was unimportant should
not be brought before a Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
Now if he had sought an interview with an individual
to induce him to alter or vary his evidence, it would
have beep highly improper, but the fact was, he had never
done anything of the sort. He certainly did see Mr.
Carrington, but not about his evidence before the
Committee, although that gentleman frequently alluded
to at Mr. Carrington's had a claim against the New
Zealand Company, and he was extremely anxious that
Mr. Carrington should obtain justice, and he saw him
over and over again on that subject.
Captain ROUSE said that Mr. Carrington had gone
out at the request of the New Zealand Company, and
had done his duty in every respect to the satisfaction of
the Company, when, without any fault even alleged
against him, the Company had thought fit to dismiss him
from their service. They alleged that their expenses
were increasing while their funds were decreased and de
creasing, and for that reason they were under the necessity
of dispensing with the services of Mr. Carrington. Now,
the Company had at that time the sum of 100,0001. in
their pockets. With respect to the letter, all he could
say was, that if the half of that letter was true the
New Zealand Company had forfeited their Charter.
He conceived that whenever any person was attacked
in this House, it was the duty of every Member to get
up and defend him.
Mr. AGLIONBY said a few words in explanation.
Lord EBRINGTON said that it would be in the re-
collection of the House that a Committee made a report
with reference to St. Margaret's church-yard, which
stated that it could be no longer used as a burial-place,
the noxious effluvia arising from it having been
the cause of three deaths already. The Com-
mittee had no hesitation in unanimously expressing
its determination that the churchyard of St. Margaret's
should be removed. He would ask the Right Hon.
Baronet whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to act upon that report ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he was not aware
that it was intended by her Majesty's Government to
remove St. Margaret's church yard.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.

Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Hon. Member who pro-
posed this Bill would not persevere in it. He (Mr. Es-
cott) had looked through the Bill only this morning, and
he should say he felt astonished at the compulsory
pswers contained in it; and he would be still more asto-
nished if it should be persevered in in this state. It con-
tained many provisions of an extraordinary und novel
character, such as he conci ived were strongly compulsory;
for instance, it gave a most stringent and compulsory
power to field-wardens over the occupiers of land, a
power by which they could determine upon the manner
in which they should deal with land taken by them, and
which might be either to the detriment or the advantage
of the parish, and yet with a power so undefined they
were to be endowed with it for a period of three
years. In cases of inclosures the Bill gave the power
to demand from the Commissioners, under an inclosure
Bill, a perpetual lease. On these grounds he did hope
that those Hon. Members who gave this Bill their sup-
port on the ground of its being a beneficent measure,
would well consider it, at least before it received the third
reading. But what did it also do ? Why, supposing the
scheme should turn out ruinous—supposing the benevolent
objects should not be carried out, the Bill allowed the
drawing en the parish fund to pay the tithes, rei.ts, and
taxes. He should think that the Hon. Member would
hardly contend for such a proposition. The Bill
in short gave the Commissioners extraordinary powers,
it not only gave them power to fix the rent of
the land, but who should hereafter be the owner
of it. But supposing that the concern should
should no: be a losing one. What then ? Why the
field-wardens were to pay over the profits to the poor-
rates. He believed that there was nothing so objection-
able as mixing up land with the relief of the poor.
He thought that the interference which this Bill occa-
sioned with the parochial authorities, because he thought
that it was very likely that the expense would be thrown
on the parishes. He was glad to say that the condition
of the labonrers had been very much improved since the
Hon. Gentleman had first taken them under his hand.
But he thought that the voluntary system had answered
so well that it was unwise to introduce any compulsory
measure ; and he, therefore, moved that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Mr. W. COWPER said that the Hon. Gentleman had
stated that he had read the Bill that morning ; but
he thought that he had not had time to consider its
provisions. One of the main reasons for making those
provisions compulsory was that they could not be
carried out without the consent of the parishes.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to discuss the details,
and defend the principle of his measure. The object
of this Bill was to afford relief to a vast num-
ber of those who deserved the consideration of this
!louse, a vast number of agricultural labourers
and artisans, who depended upon their daily labour for
their livelihood, would be benefited by it, as a rood of
land would afford sufficient food for a labourer and his
family.
Mr. M. MILNES anticipated only one good effect
from the measure of the Hon. Gentleman—the applica-
tion of waste lands about towns to the most profitable
purposes. The agricultural population would not be at
a:1 benefited, nor did he think that the general advantage
of these allotments was sufficiently established.
After some further observations from several Hon.
Members, strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading

Against it
Majority for second reading —74
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.
The Scotch Infeftment Bill passed through Committee,
and the report was brought up.
(LEFT SITTING.)

IRELAND.
REPEAL ASSOCIATION.

DUBLIN, APRII:T.--:-The weekly meeting of the Repeal As-
sociation, which took place as usual, in the Conciliation-hall,
to-day, was very much crowded, and :most of the leading
members were present.
Upon the motion of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. J. O'Brien, M.P.
for the City of Limerick, was called to the chair, and addressed
the meeting at considerable length.
Towards the close of the Chairman's observations Mr. R.
0. Porter, the author of a pamphlet on Federalism, which
was published last year, and attracted much attention at
the time, entered the hall, and was received with prolonged
cheering.
Mr. O'CoNNELL said that he had much happiness in mov-
ing that Mr. Porter, who had filled the office of High Sheriff
of the county of Fermanagh last year, be enrolled a member
of the Association.
The motion having been carried by acclamation,
Mr. R. G. PORTER said that he would lay before them,
plainly and briefly, the reasons which induced him to join
the Association. He had joined it with no feeling of ani-
mosity to the English people, but, on the contrary, with the
strongest desire to promote harmony and intercourse between
the inhabitants of the two countries.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, M.P., expressed dissent from the views
put forward by Mr. Grey Porter, and declared himself an un-
conditional Repealer.
Mr. O'CoNNELL concurred with Mr. O'Brien in thinking
that the union should to begot rid of in the first place ; when
that was accomplished, he was ready to talk with Mr. Porter,
and those who thought like him, respecting what they would
take instead of it.—( Hear, hear.) Ile thought that now he
might expect that the union would be repealed, and that
Sir R. Peel would be the man to bring in the Bill which
would effect that object. When they called to mind the
manner in which Sir R. Peel had acted respecting Catholic
Emancipation, their conviction of the approach of repeal
would be strengthened. Hurrah ! then for Peel and repeal!
—(Cheers.) On the last day of meeting he did not hazard
any opinion with respect to the proposed Maynooth grant, and
he had intended to be cautions this day, but having just read
the Bill, he had no hesitation in pronouncing it to be most
excellent, and the speech by which it was accompanied was
as fair and manly as the plan itself was admirable. The sum
of 30,0001. was to be at once granted for building ad-
ditions to the college, and otherwise improving, and
that without any restriction or limitation whatever. The
sum of 6,000/. was to be given to the president and profes-
i.ut p:alutondhbnoiceeuhrete,t
eiaom restrictionnn dabh unobjectionable.
Hw ea s
sort) to enable them to remain in the college, instead of going
away. to country parishes, and the students were likewise
liberally provided for. It was done in a noble and generous
grateful for it. He repeated that the
Bill was excellent in all its details, and quite satisfactory and
Theofifr
firmly
yy increasedkbienlid ev.
ebdi
igttrhawanottuflod:tathhs
aatt ot
mvbearekye g
grant
them givennt
give
gnaphint tothobel rga
eynato,i,taT3th:anun
;I:oa yrn odur e,
piagitation repeal?—(Cries
Repeal l ?
Association (C
;1. i
ee sn of"bNi all' " Conciliation-
hallohdheo
poteigeihtwtaos prayweii
afworaryeoouf.;—he(fLaayuogu(iratbericainmdperheseseirson:
)whiSehirthße.

Bill wogid produce on the minds of the people of this
country, and accordingly the evening of the bringing
it in he set the Americans at deilance.—(Hear, hear.)
If he persevered in his present line of conduct towards this
country Ireland would set them at defiance too. If justice
were done to Ireland, America would not dare to attack Eng-
land.—(Hear, hear.) Ile wanted Sir Peel to buy the
Irish people from him. lie bad done some good by the May-
nooth grant, let him give them an adequate representation
and an extension of the franchise in the House of Commons,
and see how many more mouths he should stop by that.—
(Laughter and cheers) Mr. O'Connell proceeded to urge
the necessity of labouring for the repeal as the only way to
obtain concessions to this country, and concluded with an
earnest entreaty to the people to desist from outrages, the
perpetration of which could not fail to retard their approach
' to the goal of nationality.
Messrs. Grattan, J. Kelly, M.P., and J. O'Connell,
M.P., subsequently addressed the meeting.
Mr. O'CONNELL announced the repeal rent for the week
to be 33.3/. Os. 7d., and the Association adjourned to Monday
next.

TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DIVIDENDS DECLARED.
W. Schofield, machine maker, Oldham--first and final div.
of 33.5 d. in the pound, April 9, and any following Wednes-
day, at the office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
I-I. Port, screw manufacturer, Burton-upon-Trent—a div.
of 6.y. in the pound, any Tuesday, at the office of Mr.
Whit More, Birmingham.
W. Wood, screw manufacturer, Burton. upon-Trent--final
div. of 714,1. in the pound, any Tuesday, at the office of Mr.
Whitmore, Birmingham.
W. Wood and H. Port, screw manufacturers, Burton-upon-
Trent—a div. of -Is. 6d. in the pound (upon new proofs only),
any Tuesday, at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Birmingham.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basingball-street.
J. Hook, contractor, Nine Elms, May 1, at one—L.
Watson, smith, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, April 29, at
one—W. E. Gould, carver and gilder, Finsbury-place South,
April 29, at twelve—J. Palmer, draper, Lynn, Norfolk, May
1, at one—T. Herridge, builder, Wharton-street, Clerken-
well, April 29, at twelve—J. Davies and H. Edwards, linen
drapwrs, Westminster. road, Lambeth, April 29, at half past
twelve—G. Fielding, ironmonger, Thrne, Oxfudshire, April
29, at two—B. Reynolds, silk printer, Mitcham, April 29, at
half .past eleven-LH. Thompson, timber merchant, King-
street, Clerkenwell, May 2, at half-past one—R. W. Robin-
son, sen., and R. W. Robinson, jun., grocers, Bedford, May 2,
at half-past one.

In the Country.
T. Cartwright, banker, Heaton Norris, Lancashire, May 2
at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—W. Howell,
bookseller, Liverpool, May 2, at half-past twelve, at the Li-
verpool District Court—J. Hawksley, merchant, Arnold,
Nottinghamshire, May 7, at twelve, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
C. S. Haward, grocer, Colchester, May 2—W. E. Gould,
carver and gilder, Finsbury-place South, April 29—J.
'Thorley, glass dealer, Northampton, April 29--4. Maudeno,
market gardener, Grove street, Hackney, May 2—S. Smee-
ton, cattle salesman, Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire, May 2
S. Rugg, carpenter Southampton, April 29—C. Lee, miller,
Wakes Collie, Essex, May 2—W. Belines sculptor, Osna-
burgh-street, New-road, May 2—T. Smith, hackneyman,
Burrowes-mews, John-street, Blackfriars-road, April 29
J. Hall, cowkeeper, Wallsend, Northumberland, April 29
P. Wright, grocer, Leeds, May 2—J. Scott, paper dealer, Li-
verpool, May 2—R. Hill, currier, Exeter, May I—J. Dalton,
joiner, Salford, Lancashire, May I—G. E. Lanham, builder,
Southampton, April 29—J. Clark, carman, Brunswick-cot-
tage, City-road, April 29—A. Francis, W. Davey, and M.
Francis, ironfounders, Aberystwith, Cardiganshire, April 29
—W. Moyes and T. Moring, carmen, Camomile-street, April
29—G. Bartlett, plaster manufacturer, Wellington-street,
Goswell-street, April 29—J. Curwen, cheesernonger, Bridge-
place, Vauxhall, April 29—W. Blinkhorn. manufacturing
chemist, Little Bolton, Lancashire, April 29—H. Wehnert,
tailor, Leicester-square, April 29.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
W. Naylor, M. Mural], and J. Wood, machine makers,
Bradford (so far as regards J. Wood)—A. T. S. Dodd and E.
Leech, surgeons, Chichester—W. Milner J. P. Morley, and
W. P. Morley, silk manufacturers, Leek,i Staffordshire (so
far as regards W. P. Morley)—H. Jones and E. Hughes,
licenced victuallers, Hosier-lane, West Smithfield—C. P. Pitt
and C. Breese, japanners, Birmingham—J. Dawson, T. Curtis,
and J. Haigh, cloth finishers, Leeds (so far as regards J. Daw-
son)—R. Crathorne and J. Stephenson, millers, Beverley,
Yorkshire—W. C. Figes and H. Hallett, ironmongers—A. IL
and W. Cockshott, chemists, Bradford—G. Buckwell, A.
Buckwell, and C. D. Buckwell, timber merchants, Brighton
—R. and. J. Bayley, packers, Friday. street—E. Ackroyd,
M.
F. Wilson, and E. J. Newton, colliers, Gildersome, York-
shire—J. Whitaker and H. Woreley, silk dealers, Hudders-
field—W. Major, James Radcliffe, and F. J. Gill, manufac..
turers, King-street, Cheapside— G. Davison and G. Roles,
tailors, Sheffield—J. Moon, E. Moon, R. Moon, W. Moon,
and C. Hopley, merchants, Rio de Janeiro—T. Haigh and C.
Bell, stock brokers, Bradford—J. Brown, W. Morcom, and
J. Stone, Manchester—C. E. and W. C. Bernard, West India
merchants—E. Thorp, J. Thorp, J. Terry, M. Terry, J.
Thorp, and H. Thorp, sawyers, Bradford (so far as regards
E. Thorp)—W. Webb and S. Barker, nickel refiners, Bir-
mingham—P. L. Simmonds and F. Clowes, publishets, Corn-
hill—E. and M. Harrison, oil merchants, Liverpool—W.
Bray and H. Edmonds, clothiers, Bradford—P. Craig and B.
Saunders, milliners, Wadebridge, Cornwall—H. Deighton,
W. 11. Deighton, E. Maude, and J. Deighton, wine mer-
chants, Otley, Yorkshire.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
William Henry Keltie, grocer, Glasgow, April 11 and May
2, at twelve, at the chambers of Monteith, Glasgow.