POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
The two Houses of Parliament Met last night, after a week's recess._ In the House of Commons, Mr. CHARLES BULLER claimed precedence for bringing forward Mr. Warburton's petition ; but Mr. GOULBURN objected to ceding priority to motions of the kind on all occasions; and, after a good deal of importunity from Mr. BULLER, and Mr. MITCHELL. and Mr. COCHRANE, who considered their conduct impugned, the House
proceeded with the Order of the Day, and went into a Committee of Supply. It was understood that Mr. Buller would make his motion on Thursday, and Mr. Mitchell threatens a statement on Tuesday.
Captain BOLDER° brought forward the Ordnance Estimates. He stated that in addition to 130,000/, which had been voted far per- cussion-muskets, 50,0001. would be required for the Indian reinforce- ments. But for the fire at the Tower, only half of that sum would have- been needed. He took the occasion, however, to disabuse the public mind as to the extent of the loss by the fire—which did not exceed 128,000/. : there were in the Tower 94,520 stand of arms; 78,000 were destroyed, about 4,000 were saved, and 12,000 were useless before the- fire : the building was already so much oat of repair that it was of no value. Having gone over several small details of increase or diminu- tion, Captain Boldero moved the first of a series of votes ; which were all agreed to, with some opposition from Mr. Wrs.r.rsst Wmassis on the score of economy.
Several votes of the Navy Estimates, moved by Mr. SIDNEY HER- BERT, were also affirmed.
In reply to Major Vivrest and Captain PECHELL, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that he had seen Captain Warner's newly-invented projectile tried, and it was completely successful. Government had offered to have experiments tried by public officers at the public expense ; but Captain Warner made such an extravagant demand for a guarantee of compensation, that it could not be entertained.
The Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill was considered in Com- mittee. Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained that the bill gives to ecclesias- tical corporations the power of granting leases for longer periods than the law at present allows—for ninety-nine years. That would increase the value of the property ; and in the case of corporations aggregate, as a Dean and Chapter, the surplus so created would be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings ; but with corporations sole, the be- nefit would accrue to the incumbent. Mr. HAWES protested against that distinction, as groundless ; and contended that the principle laid down by Lord Stanley, in his Irish Church Temporalities Bill, that the State might deal with a surplus value thus created by the State, should have been observed now, and that the surplus ought to have been ap- propriated, as the late Government intended, to the diminution of church-rates. Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. WAKLEY insisted, that in the case of corporations sole, church property would be alienated for the private advantage of individuals. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, the fact was, that the property of corporations sole was chiefly in large towns,. held by ill-endowed vicars. Lord STANLEY explained, that he had con- curred in modifying the bill to which Mr. Hawes had referred, on the representation that it would facilitate the alienation of church property ; a doctrine he never could sanction. After some very desultory discus- sion, in which Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. WYNN ELLIS opposed the bill, it passed the Committee, on the understanding that a discussion should be taken on the 3d of June, when the bill will be reported.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved the first reading of Lord Brougham's Bribery at Elections Bill. He said that although the addition of one or two words to this bill would answer every purpose he had in view, he should still proceed with his own measure, in order to have "two strings to his bow.' The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second. time on Monday.
Mr. MILKER GIBSON announced, that on the 9th June he should move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent persons in England and Wales from losing their votes at an election by removal after the preceding regis- tration.
Being questioned, Lord ELIOT stated that serious outrages bad been committed in the North of Tipperary. In 1841, during the first four months, the number of outrages was 305 ; in the corresponding period of 1842, 327. The subject required, and had received, the prompt at- tention of Government : the Police of 800 men in the county bad been increased by 100; besides the seven Stipendiary Magistrates, four more bad been stationed in the disturbed districts ; and the forces on the spot are ably commanded. He believed that the atrocious crimes committed in Ireland might be traced to the facility of procuring fire-arms ; and per- haps the law on that point might require sotne amendment.
Several bills were forwarded a stage ; and among them was the Mer- chants and Factors Bill, a measure to. increase the facilities for making advances on goods, by giving greater security to the purchaser as against the consigner in dealing with agents.
In the Upper House, Lord SYDNEY presented a petition from Lord Charles Vere Ferrars Townshend, praying the interference of the House
in a question of privilege. The petition stated, that in May 1807 the Marquis of Townshend, then Lord Chartley, married a Miss Gardner: in May 1808 they separated, and never were in company afterwards. Lady Chartley instituted proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court to have the marriage annulled, on the ground that the husband was incapable of the marriage-duties : pending that suit, she eloped from her father's house With one Jolin Margetts, a brewer of St. Ives ; to whom she was married, at Gretna Green, in October 1809. Their first son, who died soon after his birth, the mother styled the " Earl of Leicester ": in 1811 was born another son, who was called John Margetts ; but in 1813 that child mid several others were baptized by the surname of Townshend : now the eldest of those children has been elected to the House of Commons as Member for Bodmin ; and has qualified as the eldest son of a Peer, by the title " Earl of Leicester," the Marquis of Townshend's second title. The petitioner further said, that he was advised that there were no means by which he could dispute the legitimacy of the said John Margetts at law, and that there was danger that evidence on the subject would be- come extinct. Lord BROUGHAM suggested the appointment of a Select Committee to search for precedents. Lord SYDNEY moved accordingly; and a Committee was appointed.
Previous page
