The Express. — London, England, 1851-11-07 00:00:00

Mr. Seism, a tenant of Mr. Raphael's. They came to St. Albans in a carnage and four, and drove to the Turf Hotel. Th e y were met by a great many persons, and received that d ay up promises before the bag had been opened at all. (L au ghter.) Mr. Slade—Had you intimated to the parties that you had got a candidate who would pay money ? The witness—No. Mr. Forsyth—They knew you too well to doubt it? (Laughter.) The witness—Decidedly. They then commenced the Canvass. The election ended in Mr. Raphael . ' return. Mr. Raphael polled 294 votes, Mr. Renton 4ti, Mr. Wilkes WO, Mr. Craven 126. He had the assistance o f Mr. si m p. gm, who received a third of the 400!. paid to himself, namely, 166!. 13s. 44. Mr. Chinn—Was the 3,500/. generally distributed in the lame amounts as at the last election ? the witnesa—No ; that was rather an extravagant elec tion. Some persons received as much as 24/. ; the amounts ranged between 'even or eight pounds and twenty-five Pounds. Mr. l'hinn—What made that election extravagant ? The witness—There were lone candidates, all of whom Carried on their canvass with great spirit. Ile had mother view also besides that of returning Mr. Raphael. Mr. l'hinn—What was that ? The witness—The return of Mr. Renton. Mr. Slade—You made a bargain for two votes? that many homes were let for 101. nominally when the parties did not actually pay more than 71. or 81. Many voters would show a receipt for 101., and swear that they had paid that amount, when he (witness)knew that, in point of fact, they had not- Had known the ease of a voter going to return his bribe before he took the oath against bribery; and after he had taken the oath going back again for the money! He fancied, perhaps, that he thus evaded a violation of his oath. Believed that none of the candi dates were aware how their money was being applied. Ile always endeavoured to keep it secret from them. Ile cer tainly never received any money from a candidate for the purpose of bribing. Thought that two persons on the list of voters, who Mr. Edwards said had not received money from him, had received some from himself. Of those who voted for Alderman Carden, twenty-one received money at the previous election to vote for Mr. Repton. [The witness titre read the names of the 21.1 Mr. Fairthorn esamined.—Wasasolicitor in the borough, and acted for Mr. Wilkes as his legal agent. The sum he was to have had was 2L 1., hut Mr. Wilkes made him a pre tent beside 9. Ile was sometimes a conservative, but gene rally a liberal—(laughter)--according to circumstances— not pecuniary circumstances. As far as he could recollect Mr. Wilkes's election cost him about 1,0001. Was not at all cognisant of money having been given to voters. No money passed through his hands. He would have Writhing to do with money matters in the eleelan. Heard that Mr. W likes had to spend some money on voters. All the money given to voters was paid without his (witness's) knowledge or consent. The witness—Exactly so, sad that increased the amount to be paid. lie had a perfect understanding with Mr. Illagg, and knew all his secrets. Mr. Itcpton had bound himself not to spend money, and would not give Mr. Blogg the _ . bid now Mr. Commissioner Phinn said the gone through the whole of the evidence on the general question 44f bribery at all the elections except Mr. llarris's ; but they would be glad if an► person who possessed infor mation pertinent to the inquiry would come forward and communicate it after Mr. Harris's examination had been concluded. The conunissioners adjourned at half-put 3. Mr. Phinit—Waii it, in truth, Mr. Raphael's money that bought Mr. Itepton's election ? The witness--Decirieilly. Mr. l'hinn—Did Mr. Repton's friends contrihute any thing towards purchasing the votes ? The witness—l know what I did. Independently of his irsig to great expense, Mr. Bing had no money, and he (witness) lent him ZiftW. to conduct Mr. Reptaites election, which was afterwards returned. Ile never 4.1 W any money except Mr. Raphael's. One of his indueemi nts was, that whatever fee might be charged by Mr. ]lepton to Mr. Biagi; (he knew the amount to be ), if Mr. Repton aumeiled, Mr. Illagg was to hand over to hint half. Only 18 voters plumped (or Mr. Repton; all the rest split their woke with Mr. Raphael. About 260 voters were paid by lII= at that election. LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. - THE INQUIRY AT PRESTON. PRESTON, Nov. 6. The proceedings yesterday terminated by the opening statement sit' counsel on behalf of the memorialists, when a speech of Mr. Ranishay's, delivered subsequently to the presentation of the memorial, was object e d t o by Mr. berjeant Wilkins, and the Chancellor decided that it could not be received unless shown to be so coanected with an terior circumstances as to he es,ential to the elucidation of the charges made in the memorial. At 10 o'clock this morning precisely the Earl of Carlisle took his scat on the bench, accompanied by Mr. Ellice, the attorney-general for the duchy, as assessor, and by Mr. F. pawn Danvers, the sees ctury. A considerable time elapsed, however, before the counsel fur Mr. Itmushayarrived. Mr. Monk and Mr. Tindal Atkinson having addressed his lordship, Lord Carlisle said he had intimated yesterday, ar.d would now repeat, that he did not intend to be bound its this in quiry by any very strict observances of technical forms; but he must observe the general rules of fairness, and he did ' not think the memorialists entitled to enter into matters which occurred subsequently to the presentation of that memorial, unless specifically and specially elucidatiug the allegations therein contained. Mr. O. I). Cooper, reporter, was the first witness called. Ile was in the Counts. Court ou the 25th of August, and heard Mr. Itainshay * deliver a speech on that occasion, a copy of which he now handed in. The substance of the witness's testimony was that be did not re collect Mr. RAM/1110 calling is witness an ass on any occa sion; if he did, he would leave deemed it of sufficient im portance to report it. Has furnished reports to the London Tunes, and has been paid for them according to the length of the report. lie reported for the Liverpool Standard and for the Mercury on the same day. Remembered seeing Mr. Itamshay use gestures, such as closing his fist, while address ing the witness. Mr. T. A. Humphries, another reporter, remembered at tending a dinner given by Mr. Itainshay, at hisown court in Liverpool, on which occasion the judge made a speech, of which he took a note, and a faithful transcript of which he now handed in. The speech of Mr. Serjeont Wilkins was also included in that report. Cross-examined by Serjcant Wilkins—There was no manifestation of exultation or triumph on that occasion. He (witness) hail attended the court chiefly for the pur pose of seeing that the judge was correctly reported ; and he saw nothing extraordinary, the court seemed to be con ducted as such courts usually are. Mr. ILonsitay appeared to be always lenient to the poor suitors; and in witness's opinion conducted himself with fairness. He hod never witnessed any manifestations of indecency or impropriety on the part of the persons present in that court. Re-examined—Had never been present when the judge fined people for contempt of court, and had not known him tine witnesses for not beating the questions put to them. Mr. 1). Mtelenaghan, also a reporter, deposed that on the 29th September, the occasion when Mr. Whitty, sen., was brought before Mr. Ramshay, he was present in court, and took a full note of the proceedings. lle had furnished a faithful transcript for the London Times, and had also a copy himself. lie faithfully and honestly reported those proceedings to the best of his ability. lle continued in court until after Mr. Whitty's committal, and remembered while Hartley was under examination the judge was obliged to send ham out of the court, having put a question relative to a hand, to which Hartley slid nut give a direct answer. His Honour then turned upon him and said, " You uss, don't you know that a hand doubled is what we legally call a fist ?" Mr. Minn—How ninny ♦otcil fur Mr. Itepton ? The witness-24A. Mr. rhino—Then there were only 30 unbribed men ? The witness ash' he must correct his statement. There were 3.5- 2115 received mosey in acme way. Ile looked upon it ;hat there were 6 liberals and 21 conservatives who did not receive asonev. Mr. Wilkes polled 230 votes; Mr. Craven 126. Thomas Barrie, a brother of his (witness's), acted as agent for Mr. Wilkes ; Mr. Gibsn, who had left the town, for Mr. Craven. Ile believed Mr. Harris would be prepared to give information. Mr. Gibson resided, he undi r.tototl, at Boulogne. Mr. Forsyth—ls the term " heavyweight" known in this borough ? The witness—Yee. _ . if.: in the meaning of that word ? The witnens—Why it in applied to those who aro very estrayag.int in their elaimn. _ . . Mr. Forth—What do you all a heavy-weight ? 'the itne.4-25/. or :11)/. I can recollect three persons who demanded lOW. amongst them at Lord Livtowel's eke lion. 'ld perverts who received such large amounts were lot of the poorevt elan. Would give the names of all the person. hritw•d in ISI7. Mr. Slade—There is a statute of limitations with respect to them. read the words of the act requiring the com missioners to report with respect to each election. Mr. Edwards—There were persons on the register who received money at the last election that dial not receive money at n previous one. Twenty-nine of those who voted for Alderman Carden had received money in 47, and 23 more names on the present registry received money on previous occasions. Thi refine, :i2 of the purity gentlemen received money. If he were to mention the =DIV. of all who did not receive money in 1t417, the number would appear very small. The following Mel,: the names : Joseph Riddle, Thrones Ward Itlaatz, Edward Boys, Wm. Brooks, Benjamin Carrick, Thomas Dilworth, Luke Cherry, Wm. Cherry, John Day, James Anersley Dorant, John Stephen. Francis, Jordan Free, Wm. Illair, - Thos.lleywood, John Walter Homer, David Bottum, Thos. Weedon Kent, Wm. Lichfield, John Brassbridge Nash, Francis James °ambit -don, Joseph Russell, Win. Shepherd, Francis Ro bert Sylvester, John Ward. and James Webb. Mr. Fonarth--That makes 26 in all who did not receive money in 1S1; ? The witness-201 out of 29.5. These were gentlemen voting fur Mr. Raphael, without, as he conteientiously be lieved, receiving any of his money ; as far as he believed, they hail nu money at all. He thought there were bills in two or three instances. There was one man who had II?. at that election ; he was a bootrnaker. The residue of the 1".14 were all paid by him different sums. Ile had nothing clear for himself. After the election, tavern bills came in which he had not expected, amounting to 3:301., and after paying them and Mi. Simla. in's recount, he Lad nothing for himself. Ile made a claim on Mr. Raphael, but re ceived nothing below! the 5001. Spent 1,0001. more in the election in 1817 than at the last one. After a com munication with Mr. Magic, witness said he understood that Mr. Langley also voted for Mr. Raphael, and he certainly received nothing from him (witness). The same remark applied to Mr. Roberts. Mr. Langley's eon received a situation as surveyor of taxes. Itetwoen 1832 and 1817 inclusive, there were seven elections; was concerned in all of them, and took the liberal side on all occa sions, except at the election of Mr. Cabbell ; paid money to electors at all the elections. Pohl tho largest amount at Lord Listowel's two elections, in February and June, 1811 ; those elections cost together about 2,5001. Thu following were the expenses of different elections from 1)432 :—Mr. Henry O. Ward, 183.1, 2,4001. ; July 25, 1837, Mr. Muskett, from 1,8001. to 2,000. ; February, 1841, Lord Listowel, 3,0001. ; June, 11141, Lord Listowel, 2,0001. ; 3,0001. more being spent, but not paid ; August 11, 1846, Mr. Cabbell, 3001. ; in IMI7, Mr. Raphael, 3,5001. : in 1830, 2,5001. Mr. Forsyth—That is 18.700!. Mr. Edwards examined—!tail experience of five or six elections before the Reform Bill. At that time, being a clerk at the Bank, saw three candidates walk into the Bank and deposit 4,0001. each. Agreed with Mr. Blagg that the electors had been more extravagant in thin. demands since the Reform Bill. Previously • larger amount was spent in keeping open house. A great deal of money, too, was spent in bringing up the outlying freemen. The venality of the voters in St. Albans had increased since the Reform Bill. Believed that in many cases the landlord let the house with the vote ; that is, the house fetched a larger sum than it otherwise would on account of the vote. Mr. Blagg and Mr. Barris would admit that fact. If an election cost 2,0001. two-thirds or that amount would be given to the voters. Before the Reform Bill the proportion was reversed. Before the Re form Bill the rule was to pay before the vote was given ; since then it had been the reverse. Did not think ono in ten of the voters considered the receip t of money bribery. Before the Reform 11111 persons start out openly with the bag, and went from house to house to pay the voters. It was perfectly understood between Mr. Blagg, Mr. Osbal diston, and himself that if a man would split his vote he should be paid • certain amount, and they used to sit down to settle th e ma tt er . !l a d never known any member to be unseated for bribery ; the petitions were all unsuccessful. The first petition which he knew of was against Lord Listowenselection in 1841. That failed, there being a compromise. lie (witness) bad never been exis seined. The next petition was against Mr. Cabbell's return ; was withdrawn. Tho third petition was against Mr. Bell's return. Was sorry to say he had heard the bribery oath administered to many electors ; some who had been bribed at previous elections denying it upon oath. Nothing was said to Mr. Raphael, before the election, with regard to the payment of voters. That was • point always un &snood. Mr. Cabbell advanced only :001., which secured' ' his election. Treserveel his (witness's) influence with the electors by kindness to them. Could not bring home is Lord Listowel, or any other candidate, a knowledge of bribery. Mr. illogic re.examined—llis experience extended to ten eketions. Assisted Mr. Edwards at Mr. Bond Cabbell's election, in 1840; there was no comport between them. In 1847, Mr. Rcpton, who was opposed to bribery, spent, in cluding 3001. (witness's fee), 1.21/01. About 500 e. of the mount was paid for votes. Of the 276 who voted for Mr. Repton, 120 were paid. No one received more than five or six pounds. Mr. Repton was not cognisant of bribery either before or after the election. Certain items in the account were used as • blind. lb. Slade—ln point of fact, you rendered a simulated umaint ? Mr. Flagg—A colourable account. raid some of the votes., as little as 21. Among the voters on that occasion were many who voted for Alderman Carden at the last election. Concurred with Mr. Edwards that the venality of voters had increased since the Reform Bal. Could not say that before the passing of the Reform Bill it wu customary for the landlord to have the command of one of the votes. The largest sum expended at any election within his recollection wee spent in 1841. 11r. Repton wu at the head of the poll ; Lord Listowel second. There were also Mr. Worley and Mr. Muskett. For Mr. Repton sad Mr. Worley, the conservative candidates, the expenditure was about 3,5001. About two-thirds went to pay voters. Could state the espaliers of the elections since the passing of the Reform Bill. In 1832 the amount spent for Mr. Turner we, nearly 3,0001., leaving him (Mr. Magi) consi derably in debt. The tradesmen's bills incurred amounted to between 7001. and SOW, There was a six months' swan. The amount expended on the conservative aide in 118:15, including the 7001, left from the previous election, which he insisted on ;having paid, was about 1,8001. At' that election there was a second conservative, Mr. Bern- ford. In 1837 he was coacerned for both the conservative candidates, Mr. Oritnatone and Mr. Cabbell. Mr. Modiste was the liberal candidate. Mr. Grinetonex expenses were about 1,8001, and Mr. EabbelEs about 1,0001. In 1841 the expenditure was very small, under 1,0001. At the -second election in 1841 Mr. Repton and Mr. Worley were the two conservative candi dates, Lord Listowel and Mr. Iluskett the liberal ones. It was supposed from the defeat at the preceding election that tiny (witniu's party) had little chance. The expenses of that contest, including Mr. Worley's, were about 3,5001. lied no knowledge of the expenditure in 1816, except from what Mr. Edwards had told him. In 1847 the expense was abut 1.21'01 Had understood that the expense of Mr. Beresford's election in 1835 wu about 2,0001. Had no doubt that at the election in 1847 Mr. Wilkes spent 1,0001., though he came down on purity principle., and wu the popular candidate. Was certain that when houses were let the vote was an element; also, Gems -examined by Mr. Serj. Wilkins—Was • short-hand writer, and has been in Liverpool six yeses. There were four other reporters in court when the expression " you ass" was used ; hut the witne , s did not know whether a report appeared in any Liverpool paper. Knows that his report hoa bean publicly impugned. He writes Harding's system of short-hand and omits the vowels. The monosyllable " is " he denotes by the single letters; but the word ass, as a noun, be distinguishes by a double s. Produces his note book. Made a pencil mark, at Serjeant Wilkins's request, under the word " WS." It denoted " By the assessor—The mark with the dot wider denotes the word " ass." Croft-examination resumed—Witness mad his notes to Mr. Bean, one of the editors of the I,rerpool Albion, who tran scribed them in the railway carriage on the journey to Lon don. He was requested to go to London to furnish a report to the Times by the agent and coriespoudent of that paper in Liverpool. He had ou several occasions previously been em ployed to report for the London 'limes, DT Mr. Bean, in the ordinary course of business, such as railway meetinn, and similar proceedings. He had reported for the Lirer pool &warlord Inc four years, and was for eight months subeditor of the Liverpool Tomes. Had been sued in Mr. Hamshay's court, since the sitting of the last court ; applied for time, which was refused. lie had a sum due from the Morning /'wt in London, fur Liverpool and American news, which he wished to get, and had taken proceedings against the person who employed hm on behalf of that paper. In August last Mr. Itamshay reheard a fraud case, at the request of witness's brother-in-law, who was defen dant in the cause, and the judge reversed his previous decision. Ile-examined by Mr. Monk—llan no doubt whatever that Mr. Ramshay used the word "ass," on the 29th of Stil -1 timber; he had furnished reports to all the London papers. Mr. L. M. Rogers, a citizen of the United States, arrived in Liverpool on the 21st of September last ; is an importer of books and newspapers in Nassau-street, New York ; was in Mr. Itainshay's court on the 29th of September, and beard the judge make use of the word " ass. ' lie leant to the right, and, addressing the witness, said : " You ass, don't you know that a hand doubled so is a fist ?" Had no doubt whatever of the words having been used, as he took particular notice of the word " ass." Mr. T. B. Phillips, a reporter—Wu present on the Mon day following, and heard the judge tell Hartley ho was an I ass. Is quite certain of the word. Cross-czamined by Serjeant Wilkins—At the time Mr. Ilanishay called Ilartley an ass, witness was not more I than two yards off. 'there were several other reporters present, but on that day witness did not take notes, as he could not get a seat. - Wu present when Six Geo. Stephen spoke of shooting a man through the head, and the senti ment was followed by an expression of enplane, such as stamping of feet. Wituosi had seen such scenes in the assize courts. Remembered a similar occurrence when (Beeson Wilson was sentenced to be hung. Mr. Justice Patteson was the judge on that occasion. lie does not re member his lordship ordering any one into custody, but the judge was cheered as he left the court, and so were the jury. Witness is paid 2d. a line by the London papers, and a guinea a day in Liverpool. Re-examined-A./id not see any one committed on the occasion of either Glerson Wilson's trial, or when the chartists were tried before Mr. Baron Alderson. A loud hiss was given when the government reporter broke down. Heard the words, "You ass," uttered by Mr. ltamshay most distinctly. Mr. Robertson Gladstone, merchant, of Liverpool, was the next witness. Before giving his evidence, he wished to address his lordship relative to the threat held out to wit nesses. Mr. Serjeant Wilkins objected to the course proposed by Mr,Oladstone. Mr. Gladstone said he wished to be protected before giving his evidence. The Assessor said if he would confine himself to stating his object, they might hear the witness. Mr. Gladstone wished to know if the witnesses were to receive protection at the coat of the government ? The Apessor declined to give any pledge. Examined by Mr. Monk—ls a magistrate of Liverpool, and also of the county, and had been Mayor of Liverpool in the years 1842 and 1813. Had heard a great deal of Mr. Rarashay's court, and went there on the 29th of September to judge for himself. On arriving there the judge was examining a witness named Joyce ; but the state in which Mr. Ramshay appeared to be attracted witness's par ticular attention. lie seemed to he excited to a very COD ' siderable degree, and apparently almost bunting with pas sion ; he was taking down the evidence of the witness, and as he wrote he repeated what be was writing. While so engaged, his mind seemed to revert to something which bad previously occurred, and he said, "Let that man con sider himself in custody." It was said in a burst of pas ' non. Hartley was one of the witnesses examined while be (Mr. Gladstone) was present, but did not hear any epithet applied to him by the judge; but witness was absent for half an hour about three o'clock. While Joyce was giving his evidence, the judge said something . about blows • but the witness had nut mentioned anyth i ng of the so rt, he merely said ke had been collared. Throughout the whole of that day the same infuriated condition appeared in the judge, he did not seem to cool down once, and the wit nesa's impression was— , lir. Serjeant Wilkins objected to Mr. Gladstone giving his impressions. It appeared that other people beside Mr. THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 7, 1851. Ramshay could get excited, even those who had bees twice mayor of Liverpool. The Chancellor said—lt was surely competent to the • court to hear what the impression made on the witness's mind was by the conduct of Mr. Ramshay. Witless resumed—When the judge turned to Mr.Whitty his eyes reddened, and it would be impossible to give an idea of the expression of his countenance, which appeared searce4 human. The language addressed to Mr. Whitt, was of the most insulting kind ; and it was a matter of per amazement how Mr. Whitty remained so quiet under language so gross so had been applied to him by the judge. The judge frequently said he would teach the people of Liverpool how to behave themselves ; and the impression made altogether on witness's mind was, that Mr. Itamshay was not of sound mind. Ile desired the bailiff to bring up all who had applauded. One of th! bailiffs said thg whole court applauded, and the judge vrplied, that unless they brought some one before him, he wouid fine them .51.; two people were thereupon brought up, one Brown, a tailor, and Caldwell, a flour dealer. He heard the judge say that only for observing sonic few respectable people in court he would order the doors to be lucked, and tine every one present U. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins—Does not know the ordinary expression of Mr. Itainshay's countenance; he bad never seen him before. Was nut aware that Mr. Whitty had held up Mr. Itanishay to contempt, or that he had impugned Lord Carlisle's motives in appointing that gentleman. Mr. ltamshay seemed to suggest the use of the word " blows" to the witness Joyce, when he had not stated anything like the sex of blows until prompted by the judge. Mr. Ramshay was in an infuriated state of passion when witness entered the court, and seemed almost burst ing with passion when he ordered the reporter for the Alhiwa into custody. Witness did not join in the applause, hut would have been quite justified if he had. (The learned Serjcant accompanied the *skin m's answers by a running commmentary, but Mr. Tindal Atkinson Mb rptecil, and the Chancellor de cided that it was irregular.) The judge appeared to labour under an almost insane notion of the sacredness of own person, and the dignity of his office. Witness was te ver in the county court except on the occasion to which he had referred. Re-examined by Mr. Monk—Recollects a female coming forward to give evidence against the tailor Brown who had applauded, and the judge's countenance then relaxed into a smile, and the redness of the eyes ceased. Witness had promised to contribute to the expenses of this inquiry, and still meant to do so. Mr. J. Jeffery (of the firm of Jeffery and Morrish)—Had carried on business fur twenty years in Liverpool. Went to the county court on the '29th of Septemher. The court was full. The judge appeared very much excites', amount ing in wituess's opinion to a state of frenzy. His countenance was inflamed, his wig was thrown back from his forehead, and witness's impression at first was, that he was labouring under some extraordinary in fluences. Ile had not been in court five minutes before he felt that the liberty of every man in that place was jeo pardised. 'the questions were nut put in a Nay he ever heard before. Words were put into the mouths of wit [WWl which they had never used; and the word "blows" wa' uttered by the judge as having been uttered by the witness, which the latter bud never used. Was present when the burst of amain..., took plate. Mr. Ramshay called on the bailiffs to bring some one Isaac him who had insulted the court One of the officers replied that all laid done it. He replied "Am Ito be judge and bailiff of nay own Clan ? fine you all five pounds a piece if you don't bring some one before me directly." A female then selected the nein Brown, who was brought up in the custody of one of the offices. The expremion of the judge's face to this woman was rather insinuating than otherwise. (A laugh.) Brown attempted to question the woman as to the truth of her statement, but the Judge would not allow him to do so. Brown then se lected a gentleman in court who was a foreigner, and standing by his side when the applause took place, and who disproved that Brown had taken any part in the applause, but the judge sentenced him to an imperative imprisonment of seven days without the option of paying a fine. One of the bailiffs then stepped ferware and pointed out Mr. Caldwell, Hour dealer, as having applauded; but because of Isis being a respectable man, he was dealt with more leniently than Brown had been. The language used by the judge to Mr. Whitty was most insulting ; ho said That his evil passions were depicted in his countenance, and that the worst feelings of human nature had possession of his breast. Mr. Whitty stood in the box for seven hours, and did not speak throughout the whole proceedings. Wit ness was also present in court on the Wednesday when Mr. Whitty, jun., was on his trial. Preventive measures were taken to keep people out of the court on that day, and the Judge appeared milder that day, but several times showed symptoms of excitement. The judge on that occasion volunteered to advise the witness Joyce to bring an action in that court, to lay his damages at nod., and he would give hint the fall amount. ANOTHER TERRIBLE STEAM-BOAT EXPLO SION NEAR BRISTOL-FOUR LIVES LOST. A painful sensation was created yesterday at Bris tol, in consequence of its becoming known that a terrible boiler cattleman had taken place, accompanied with the loss of several lives, on board of a steam tug boat called the Lady Emily, at Conham, about four miles distant from that My. It will be remembered that soma months ago a paper, for warded by our Bristol corresponde n t, appeared in the Ex press, giving the particulars of some experiments which had been made, with a view to testing the practicability of navigating canals by steam, so as to save the delays and expenses consequent upon the old means of locomotion em ployed. In consequence of the see cess which attended those experiments, the Kennet and Avon Canal Navigation Company had the Lady Emily built. Great care and attention was employed in her construction, her machinery was of superior design and make, and she was fitted with an engine of about IS-hone power, and with the deserip , tion of screw propeller known as " Jones's patent." The original intention of the company was to employ her in hauling their barges 'ipso the canal beyond Bath, but it was found that the weeds and aedges growing in the water I and upon the banks seriously interfered with her successful employment, and she was consequently taken off the upper station, and appropriated t o th e hauling traffic between Bristol and Bath. On Wednesday evening the Lady Emily was on her passage from Bath to Bristol. and it would teem that she WSW being worked up to a considerable if not to her full speed. When about half a mile front Conham, at which place the accident occurred, she overtook and shot ahead of a barge belonging to Miasma. Smart, canal ..arriers, of Bristol, called the John and Sophia ; and it is stated that the men employed on board of the last named yeasel noticed the rate at which she was being propelled, and that one of them, a nein named .L.tnes Gallop, emarked to the captain that the Lady Emily was going faster than he hat ever before seen her go, and that he thought they must be getting all they could out of her. The JOllll and Sophia was being hauled upon the old sys tem, by horns and, as has been stated, the Lady Emily passed her with her barge rapidly, but she had not got to any great distance ahead when the explosion took place. It is described by the crew of the trove as being of the most violent and fearful character. They heard a tremendous noise, as of the discharge of many cannon ; there was then au accumulation of strain, smoke, and ashes • and then ar soon as that had cleared away they looked tor the steam tug, hut could see nothing other. The force of the explosion had blown out the deck, and hurled it into the air, and frag ments of it were alts rwards found at distances from the Root, and the hull of the ill•fated boat had sunk to the bottom of the canal, which, at the point where the catas trophe occurred, was from seven to eight yards deep. As soon as they hail recovered front the first effects of the terror which the awful occurrence naturally gave rise to, Gallop and his companions commenced a search to see if there were any members of the crew of the steamer which had survived the catastrophe, but fur some minutes no trace of any living laving could be discovered. The barge which the tug hall in tow drifted, and ran 'war to the Jan and Sophia, and the barges were passing over the snot where the boat had sunk, when Gallop heard a cry of distress, and a voice exclaiming, • Help, help, for God's sake save me." The captain immediately put in the barge towards the place from whence the cry came, and they found one of the crew of the Lady Emily struggling in the water, and evidently suffering the most extreme agony. Gallop im mediately jumped overboard, and got out the sufferer, who turned out to be one of the crew, named Wm. Haggett. Upon recovering him from the water they found that he was terribly mutilated, his left tout being torn from the leg, to which it hang only by a portion of the flesh. Ott other part* of his body were also dreadful injuries. Ile informed Gallop that at the time of the explosion he was engaged in steering the barge, and hod not the most distant idea of approaching danger. Ile further stated, that besides the captain there were on hoard the steam boat at the time of the accident a man named Wm. Daily and a boy named Griffiths, all of whom, he feared, were killed. He ascribed his own escape from instant death to the circumstance of his being some distance from the boiler. As soon as he had laid Haggett on the bottom of the barge, and paid I int what attention he could, Gallop pro cured a ferry boat from an adjacent ferry, and commenced a search fur the other sufferers, but in this his efforts proved abortive. The only remains of the vessel or her crew he could find were some fragments of the deck, and bits of woos', n piece of the boiler, and a jacket and hat, which were found at no great distance from the No. 3 Breslington tunnel of the Great Western Railway, which skirts the sides of the canal. Gailop also picked up some hymn books, hich it is supposed belonged to some of the ill-fated men. After prosecuting his search for some time, the crew of the barge came to the conclusion that there was no hope of saving any other life, and they therefore proceeded to Bristol and conveyed Haggett to the Royal Infirmary of that city. A consultation of the faculty was immediately hell upon his case, and hi+ leg was amputated in th e h o p e of saving his life : but the injuries lie had received were of so severe a kind, and the shock to his system so great, that he gradually sunk, and died in about six hours after he was taken to the house. Cross-examined by Serjeant Wilkins—ls a member of the Guardian Society. The firm of which he is principal sub scribed 101. towards the present investigation. Witness did not know Mr ltamshay before Mr. Whitty's trial, and did not know he would have had to give evidence here until this morning. The Guardian Society numbers 2,00 d, and he had subscribed to it for nearly 21) years. Mr. Monk asked slut induced Mr. Jeffery to subscribe to the fund fur the purposes of this inquiry ? The question was objected to by Serjeaut Wilkins; and the Assessor in quired of the %line*. when he had subscribed ? Mr. Jeffrey replied, as soon as a subscription was opened. Ile had no previous knowledge of Mr. ltamshay, nor had he the least feeling of prejudice against him. The court was here adjourned for a quarter of an hour. The search for the miming bodies was recommenced at daylight yestcrilav oy a number of men, and after dragging the river for some time they were all three of them recovered from 8y... water into which they had fallen. Some fragments of the boiler have been picked up also. They appear to be of sound and good iron. In some parts the rent to at the rivets. There are, of course, as is always the case upon the occurrence of accidents of this terrible and fatal kind, many rumours afloat as to the probable cause of the calamity, but as a searching inquiry will be made by the proper authorities it would not be right to give currency to them. By charter and ancient usage the river Avon (of which the canal is partly composed) is in the jurisdiction of the city of Bristol, from the Sheepholmes in the Bristol Channel up to a place culled Bonham. Intelligence of the occurrence has constituently been communicated to J. B. Grind," Esq., the coroner for that city, before whom the inquiry will take place. VISITATION OF 'THE DIoCESE OF OXFORD.— AYLESBURY, TiteliteDAY, Nov. 6.—This morning the Lord Bishop of Oxford commenced the triennial visitation of his diocese at St . Mary's Church in this town, the deaneries comprised being those of Muraley, Waildesdon, and Wendover. The clergy were surnmonot for 11 o'clock, at which hour the service commenced. l'rayers were read by . the Rev. J. It. Pretymiut and the Rev. E. N. Coles. Iliac was no sermon. The biabop commenced his charge by a reference to local matters. lhe returns which be had received from far the greater number of the parishes in the diocese were, through ClutPsgreat mercy, on the whole cheer ing. The number of services in their churches had consi derably increased, the holy communion was more frequently administered, and the average attendance both at the ordi nary services of the church and at the holy communion was larger than it was three years ago. The number of candidates fur confirmatiou had steadily increased notwith standing a higher standard of age had been fixed at which they were admitted to that rite, whilst there was more of attendance and reverence in their conduct than formerly. His lordship then proceeded to impress on the clergy the necessity which existed for making an effort to produce among their congregations the due standard of common prayer, and of attentive worship. They should, then, labour to cultivate a temper of devotion among their people, by aw4kening in them a sense of its importance, and by en deavouring to form their habits to it by such instruction as might make them understand our own form of prayer, and feel a pert in it, by removing out of their way all external hindrances, and supplying all external aids which could as sist them. The application of that principle ought to direct the liberty which the church gave them as to chanting c e rts of the service, or simply reading them. Much h a d done in that direction within the last three years. Fifty five churches had been wholly or in part well restored in that diocese within the last three years, and fourteen new ones had been built, and most of them endowed. The knowledge that those good works had gone on around them might, perhaps, encourage other parishes. His lordship also adverted to the unanimity of the clergy of the diocese in protesting against the papal aggression, and concluded by some general admonitions against those laxities of discipline which made room for the introduction of new forms and strange sects. In allusion to the Gorham controversy, the bishop said— Amongst the most important public events of the last three years, was the judgment which had been delivered in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter." Upon that he had given them publicly his view in answer to their ad dresses at the time, and since then be had seen no reason for altering or qualifying what he then expressed. One thing, however, be would add. Let not any one suppose that they who could nut acquiesce in the wisdom of that judgment, or on the reasoning on which it was founded, therefore of necessity desired to narrow the existing limits of the church, or to drive oat those of their brethren whose views differed from their own, provided only that they be actually subscribers to the Book of Common Prayer, and taughtnothing plainly and directly repugnant to its language. The statements which they condemned did, as they be lieved, transgress those limits. Those statements, as they understood them, absolutely denied the possibility of rege neration being conveyed in baptism, and lowered down p. that blessed sacrament to en empty sign. They did not , believe that such a view was common among their brethren /who had yet spoken of that judgment as if it had sheltered them. They did not believe that the condemnation which they thought should have been pronounced ought to have affected the position of those their brethren in the church, and surely they were right in that view. The church of England had left to her sons a large liberty of thought, and deep would be the injury done to her if that liberty on either side were leisened, so as to affect any who could with faithfulness and truth subscribe to all her formulaic!, taken in their natural sense. The success of any such attempt, from whichever title it came, would be fatal to her usefulness. God grant that instead of suspecting one another, or seeking to find each other out, they might, with loving hearts, bear with and endeavour, by their rorgrowth in light and love, to lessen all their differences. himself, in his office ' the rule he had ever laid down was simple, and he trusted that, through the help of God, his observance of it would be complete—it was to hold of course inflexibly, and to state to them always with all freedom, his own views of truth; but as to all the points on which good men within our church might lawfully differ to be, as their bishop, of nu party ; but, whether he agreed entirely with them or not, to honour all who in their several parishes were striving in love and self devotion to do the work of Christ, and to give them, what• ever were the shades of their opinions, heartily and un grudgingly ovary support and aid which they could gather from his office without abridging their just liberties or com promising his own view.. He was well aware that such a course must expose a bishop to the reproach of his enemies, ' and that the reproach which it was hardest for flesh and I blood to bear, the reproach of insincerity • but he tr usted to be made able to bear even that, if need were , without shrinking, that if God would by th us becoming in its I truest sense, all things w all men," he might, by strength ening their several ministeries, through the grace of 0' od, save some. His lordship then left the church. NAVAL APPOINTMENTS.—ADMIRALTY, NOV. O.— Surgeon-Superintendent B. Bynoe, to Aboukir, convict ship; Surgeon G. Wlaitmarsh, to Rapid; Clerk S. U. Moore, to Victory. REFORM MEETING AT LEWISHAM. A meeting was held on Tuesday, at the Black Bull Tavern, Lewisham, Kent, to receive a deputation from the National Reform Association ; G. Hoorn's, Esq., Syden ham, in the chair. After some remarks from the CHAIRMAN, Mr. MATSON said that the National Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association had sprung from one which was established in 1848 to obtain equal taxation, their ob ject being to WO the taxes oil the necessaries of life, con sidering those taxes the cause of the distress, and substituting a tax upon property. At a general meeting of the mem bers it was, however, considered that the only means of obtaining a 'enaction and equalisation of taxation would be to obtain a reform of the !louse of Commons, and it then became a question what measure of reform was the most likely to be obtained. After much thoughtful considera tion, it was ultimately resolved to adopt the principles of Mr. Hume's motion, that having received the support of a large number of members of parliament. He spoke very highly of the zeal, exertions, and liberality of Sir J. Walmsley, and hoped the meeting would support his exertions by not only enrolling themselves as members of the association, but by contributing to its funds. Mr. WRIGHT rose with great pleasure to propose a re solution: "That in the opinion of this meeting the Na tional Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association well deserves public support. This meeting, therefore, pledges itself to do all in its power to forward its objects." Mr. CARTER (a working man) had muck pleasure in seconding the resolution, which was carried unanimously. A vote of thanks having been passed to the deputation and chairman, the meeting separated. MEETING AT STAFFO6O.—On Monday evening upwards of eight hundred of the reformers of Stafford as sembled in the Shire Hall to receive a deputation from the National Parliamentary Reform Association in London, in the persons of R. Kettle, Esq., and If. J. Slack, E sq . Th e chair was taken by T. 11. Elley, Esq., the mayor, who ex pressed his conviction that it was of the utmost importance for the people to take the present opportunity of declaring their opinion upon the great political question of the day, upon the proper solution of which the future prosperity of our country would so much depend. A resolution to the effect that nothing short of the principles of reform embo died in the annual motion of Mr. Hume would satisfy the people was proposed by George Sidney, Esq., a magistrate for the county, in an able speech, which was received with great applause, and having been admirably seconded by Mr. Peplow, was spoken to at considerable length by Mr. Slack. In the course of his address Mr. Slack reviewed the history and present state of our representative system, and con cluded with a glowing picture of the benefits that would arise to our country at large if the voice of the people was fairly heard. Mr. Silvester then proposed a resolution of eonffdence in the National Parliamentary Reform Associa tion, and its president—Sir J. Walmsley, M.P. The me lion was seconded by Mr. Allwood. Both resolutions having been carried unanimously, the meeting separated, after a vote of thanks to the mayor. TRIAL BY JURY. Yesterday evening the fifty•seventh anniversary of the acquittal of Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, and John Thelwall from a charge of high treason, was cele brated by the friends of parliamentary reform, at Rad ley's Hotel, Bridge-rtreet, Blackfriars. About one hun dred gentlemen eat down to an excellent dinner, the rood old English cheer of which showed that, whatever reforms our politics may require, our culinary affairs are in a high state of efficiency. the chair waa taken by Dr. Errs, and among the company were Mr. W. J. Fox, M.P., Dr. Taus enau, Mr. D. Masson, Messrs. Beckwith and Moody (two veteran members of the original corresponding society), N. Ainger, Jun., It. Burnett, R. D. Cumming, W. Notcutt Green, Thornton Hunt, F. Lawrence, G. If. Lewes, I. F. Monett, J. Mottram, O. F. Nicholls, G. Outtram, J. H. parry, W. Strudwicke, J. Stansfeld, W. Sheen, M.A., and P. A. Taylor. On the removal of the cloth, the usual loyal toasts were disposed of, and the company separated. - - BANK OF CEELON.—Yeesterday a special main of the shareholders of thi s b an k was h e ld at N o . 8, W - brook, 11. O. Gordon, Esq., in the chain. The secretary read the advertisement calling the meeting, and stated that it had appeared in two London newspapers. It was then resolved unanimously—. That the affairs of the bank be forthwith wound up, and that therefore the company be dissolved, and that the court of directors do take all nsoessuy means for that purpose." The meeting then adjourned. Raba intelligence. EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY. Harms ins Loses JURTICIA or aresia. PELLY O. WATHEX. This was a petition of appeal from the decree made in the cause by Vice-Chancellor Wigram, in March, 1819. It appeared that in 1.839 the plaintiff became second mortgagee of the freehold estates of one AVilliam Lewis, the legal estate in which was then vested in a first mortgagee. In 1811 the mortgaged property was sold by Lewis, the mort gagor, and upon the completion of the sale the legal estate in fee was assigned by the first mortgagee to Bassett, one of the defendants, as trustee fur Lewis, and a term of years in the souse property was assigned to Gurney, upon a like trust. Before and at the time of the sale the defendants Wathen, Bassett, and Gurney were partner* as solicitors, and on the completion of the sale the title deeds relating to the property in molt gage came into their hands as solicitors for William Lewis, by whom they were retained in the matter of the Kale. At that time certain mortgages made in 1840 and 1811, and which were entitled to a priority over the plaintiff 'a mort• gage, had liceolue vested in Wathen by assignment. The bill was filed by the plaintiff as Pula' mortgagee against the mortgagor and the pia mortgagees for redemption. The defendants Wathen and Bassett had been partners as solicitors before the introduction of Gainey into the firm, and it appeared that certain document, relating to the mort gaged property had originally come into the possession of the firm AVathen and Bassett as solicitors of Lewis, and hail been retained in the possession of the new firm created by the introduction of Gurney as a partner. The questions to be determined were first whether the lien claimed by the ' defendants upon the documents in their pos.essitm was good, not only against the mortgagor but also against the plaintiff. Secondly, whether the lien originally acquired by the firm Watheu and Bassett continued utter the tatera tMit of the firm by the introduction of Gurney ; thirdly, ' whether the lien claimed by the firm Watheu soil Bassett extended to papers which first came into the possession of the firm Wathen, Bassett and Gurney; Mortlily, whether Wathen was entaledtua lien upon the title deeds which had come into his possessiuu, not as soli citor of Lewis, but asasaignee of the mortgagees of 1810 and 1811 ; and, fourthly, what was the proper form of decree to he made, having regard to the various mortgagee and ineumbrances upon the property. The court below had decided, first, that the claim of lien of the defendants, as solicitms, has subject to any prior equitable claim in the plaintiff, although the deeds might have come into the pos ses-ion of the solicitors without notice of such prior cquita• blc claim; secondly, that the lien of Wathen and Bassett upon the papa•rs brought by them into the new firm still continued; thirdly, that the firm, Wathen and Bassett, could have no lien upon payers which first cane into the possession of the firm AN ;alien, Bassett, and Gurney ; and lastly, that Wathen WAS nut entitled to any lieu as against his client upon papers of which he had become possessed, not as soli citor to the client, but as assigner of the mortgagee's. Mr. Bolt, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Bazalgette, were heard in support of the appeal ; and the Solicitor-General and Mr. 1k sir in support of the Vice-Chatowlior's judgment. 'their Lordships said they would take time to consider their judgment. BEPOR Tin MS.TI 4 of TH. ROW. FLIOUT T. THE DeILS OF UCCKINGIIAM, The further hearing of this ease w•.iy resumed and con• eluded. _ . It appeared from the statement of Mr. Ileum.ll, fur the plaintiff, that in February, 1845, a deed was entered into between the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquis of Chandus, in which the marquis agreed, in consideration of an annuity of 1,000/. or of 3,000/, if be married, to join with the duke is charging the entailed estates of the duke, with 1,100,0001. to be applied in liquidation of the duke's debts. On the 27th of May, 1847, another deed was eve nasal between the same parties. It recited that under the powers of the femur deed 409,0001. had bten raised, but that the duke, instead of applying that amount to the payment of his debts, had applied more than 200,000/. of it to his own purposes ; that further debts had been incurred, a list of which was given in a schedule of the dead, and that the total amount was 1,461,000/. It then recited that the duke had applied to the marquis to join him to charge the estates with a sum sufficient to liquidate the debts, and that the marquis had refused, hut had proposed to purchase the estates. The deed then proceeded to convey the Buckingham and Chandua estates and the unsettled estates and chattels, which latte r were stated in the deed to be of the value of 330,00 d/. to the marquis, it being covenanted that the marquis should first receive 3,0001. a year, and that he should then at his discretion apply the remainder of the rents and profits towards liquidating the debts mentioned in the schedule. Mr. 11oupit contended that the deed was invalid, on the ground of want of consideration. The only consideration was, that the marquis, the purchaser, should receive 3,0001. a year. There was no covenant to pay the debts, but the marquis was, at his d acretion, to form a fund towards pay ing them. The value of the property was two millions; the debts a million and a half; and he contended, there - fore, that the deed was a mere colourable deed entered into with a view to delay and defraud the creditors, and teat the real effect of it was that the marquis was to be a trustee fur the duke and receive 3,0001. a year for manage- • ment, which was borne out by the circumstance that them was a covenant in the deed that the marquis should ac count to the duke. Ile also alleged that ea only was the consideration colourable, but the schedule of debts was colourable also, as it did nut include many debts which the duke at that time owed. As further drawing that there was no valuable consideration in the deed, the learned counsel chill a case in the Court of Exchequer, reported in the Law Journal, in which the Marquis of Chandin appealed against a decision of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, who had decided that the deed was subject to an ad valorem duty of 1,0001., and it was contended on the part of the marquis that the consideration was merely nominal, and that the deed, there fore, was subject only to the 355. stamp, and the court de cided in his favour. Mr. Rogers followed, contending that the plea that the deed was executed iu good faith was insufficient. It might be, indeed, that the deed was executed in ;good faith between the parties, but in bad faith towards the creditors. Nor was the plea supported by any averment. Mr. liemaley, is reply, contended that the plea was good in farm and substance. It was geed in point of substance inasmuch as the marquis covenanted to indemnity the duke eirinst his creditors. Then it should he remembered that, with the exception of the unsettled estates, the duke was merely tenant fur life; the limitation of the estates was by the owners, and though no money passed between the duke sod the marquis, yet as the marquis covenanted to lay aside the rents and profits, after paying himself 3,000 L a year, to form a fund to pay the debts and indemnify the duke against the creditors, that was a valuable and sufficient con sideration. His Honour said he would give his decision on Monday. ELLIS V. iIOWSIAN. This cause came on upon further directions and costa. The cause originated under the will of a Mr. Bond, who devised his property to his wife with remainder at her death to his son Bayley Bond, who was a person of weak intellect. la 1818 Bayley Bood, at the suggestion of his mother, who was then a widow, the father havil; died, married a Miss Fuller. Atter the marriage steps were taken to set aside the marriage on the ground that Bayley Bond was of unsound mind and incapable of entering into a marriage contract. The result was, that upon inquisition, Bayley Bond was found to he of unsound mind. A committee of his personal estate was in conse quence appointed, and an allowance allocated for the main tenance of the lunatic, and subsequently Mr. Baldire was appointed the committee. The lunatic had a son bora of the marriage, who survived his father, and himself died in January, 1813, and by his will bequeathed his property to Mr. Baldire, who sought to establish his right, by legal proceedings, to that property, under that instrument but i failed. The question, now raised, was, whether he should be paid the costa incurred by the litigation of his claim. His llouour refused to make an order that Mr. Baldire I should receive costs, and directed that the costs of the trus. tee, Bowman, should be taxed, and paid out of the personal property, as far as it was available, and the residue to be raised by sale or mortgage out of the corpus of the estate. Strome Vicv-russcsuoa Velure. BATES ft FINWICK.—T,KVST YOU CIIAItITABLB uses. In this ease a bill had been filed by George Bates, as the heir-at-law of Thomas Bates, seeking to set aside a will, on the ground of a secret trust for charitable purposes, and also on the ground that the testator was insane. The will was dated the 14th of June, 1849, and by it the testator devised all his estates, which were of very c insiderable value, to William Backhouse and John Church Backhouse in trust, to sell and pay his delfts and funeral and testa mentary expenses, and to retain the whole of the residue in trust for themselves for ever. The will contained no legacies whatever. The testator died on July 26, 1819, and suspicions having been entertained that he would make some disposition to disappoint his family, immedi ately after his death inquiries were made of the defendant, Fenwick, who had acted as his solicitor, este the disposition of the property. He produced the will of the 11th of June, but the parties not being satisfied further communications took place between the brother of the plaintiff and the Backhouses, and on 7th of August he inquired whether there were any secret trusts—no satis factory answer could be obtained, and application was then made by the solicitor of the family for leave to inspect all the testamentary papers and documents which the testator had left. This was refused. Afterwards it was stated that the Backhouses held the property for some charitable uses, but all information as to their nature wee refused ; and in consequence on the Bth of December, 1849, the original bill was ti'ed against Fenwick, and the Backhouses. It appeared, by the answers, that the tes tator as long ago as the year 1814 had fo:med the plan of giving his property for the purpose of distributing the Scriptures in loth* and China. Three wills had been made prior to that one now disputed, dated respectively in the years 1814, 1829, and 1836. That of 1836 was precisely the same as the present, with the exception that the devisees were Jonathan and John Backhouse, uncles of fhe present defendants. They had since died, and the testator seemed to imagine that tho defendants, who were their personal representatives,would become his executors, and accordingly ' wrote to them on the 29th of January, 1849, to the following effect : " To the executors of the late Jonathan and John Backhouse, who have kindly undertaken to act as the executors of my will I wish you to employ Mr. Fenwick to sell my estates, and not to take any trouble yourselves. I should wish you to retain 1,0001. for yourselves and pay 0001. to Fenwick above his bill." Then followed certain sums to be paid to other persons, but no legacies to any of his family, and the testator concluded by desiring that they would invest the residue in the English funds to be used in propagating the scriptures in the Indian empire or China through the in strumew silty of the East India Company, or such other parts as they should think fit, and if the whole should not be expended in their lifetime that they should appoint ex ecutors to carry out the testator's objects. It was further provided that this letter should not be opened until after the real estate was sold. The testator afterwards discover ing that the executorship w ould not descend to the present defendants made the will now in dispute, and on the lath July a paper was written by Fenwick at the dictation of the testator, and left in his (Fenwick's) custody, directed to the Messrs. Backhouse, and containing almost exactly the same wishes as that of the 29th January. And there was also a letter written by one of the devisees on 25th September, 1819, to his cousin, who had been employed in the business, showing that before the death of the testator they were per fectly aware of the nature of the bequest and considered themselves bound to carry it out. The Solicitor General and Mr. hardy appeared for the plaiutilf, and contended that there was enough in the evi dence to show that the testator was labouring under a mor bid delusion as to his family sufficient to render him inca pable of making a will ; but if any doubt existed on that point the heir at law was entitled to an iwue to have the point decided. But independent of that question, the plaintiff was entitled to relief because the whole scope of the testator's proceedings was to give e ff e ct t o hi s chari table bequest. The will contained no trust except to pay his funeral and testamentary expenses and his debts, and that was a mere blind. Then if the trust was void the de vise of the legal estate was void also, but if .not the court would hold that there was a resulting trust in the devisees for the benefit of the heir at law. The evidence went to prove that the devisees knew before the testator's death what wits the object of the devise, and that that object was illegal, but they nevertheless were prepared to carry it. This was going further than was necessary, because it was sufficient if they heroine itcstuaintial with the object afterwards, and still test hound to carry out the wishes of the testator. The whole case showed that the testator had devised the scheme le defeat the provisions of the statute of mortmain. The arguments for the plaintiff had not concluded when the court ruse, and tho ease was adjourned till Satur day next. COURT OF QUERWS 13EXCIL—YrJrninuAY. SITTINGS Is litsco.-14kroas ImeD CANINO:I.Iy I'ATIIC4OI4 AND Nlk. BLAKE D. MIDLAND Cl/UNTIL:I ^IL %,DAVAY COMPANY.— OOMPFNOATION IaNDEU LOUD CAMPHKLL'I ACT. . " This was an action tried at the last assures at Derby be fore Mr. Baron Parke, when a verdict was found fur the plaintiff fur 4,0001. It appx•arcd that :lie plaintiff was the widow of a Mr. Blake, who was killed in consequence of the collision in the Clay-cross tunnel on the 9th M May in the present year. and the action was brougat under the re cent statute to recover damages for the injury which the plaintiff hail sustained by the loss of her husband. Sir F. Kelly now moved for a ink calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had on the ground of misdirec tion and excessive damages—misdirection, not in any matter of low, hut as to the principle upon which it was compe tent to the jury to assess a compensation. At an early period of the case, during the opening by Mr. Mellor for the plaintiff, Mr. liumfrey, who appeared for the defend ant, nt once admitted the negligence, and that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action, the only question that remained being the amount of tlam :gr.; upon which Mr. Baron Parke intimated his opinion to he in conformity with that which had been held in many eases ut Nisi Prins under the same act by the Lord Chief Baron, namely, that upon the true constriction of the statute the claim of the plaintiff must be limited to the pecuniary damage which she had sustained. This was contended against by his learned friend for the plaintiff, and. in summing up the case to the jury, the learned judge said he did not s, e how any other damages could be claimed upon the construction of the act, but it was competent to the jury if they could see any other ground upon which they couol give damages to do so. It was impossible for any direction to Inc more vague and general. Mr. II umfrcy, for the defendants, had insisted upon the application of the rule laid down by the Chief Baron, and Mr. Baron Parke ob s erved: "I can't say that is the only thing ; I can only give the jury my no tion of it, and they must settle it themselves." After going through the statute, the learned judge said to the jury, " If you consider the plaintiff ix entitled to anything be yond the pecuniary loss, you will say so, and estimate it accordingly." It appeared that the deceased hail been a partner in a fins in the iron and steel trade at SlieHicld, and that his average share of the profits for a series of years amounted to 5401. per annum. Ile had also an income of 300 f. a year, arising from freehold and other property. It appeared that the widow, by the death of her husband, came into possession of property to the value of 7,000..., and received his share of the prelits of the trade fur five years front his death. The learned judge went into a calculation of the interest of the plaintiff in her deceased husband's income and property, taking it at about hi years' purchase, and deducting from the amount the 7,000 f. of which the plaintiff had become porsconal, the 1 , 31311 CC (upwards of 6,000/4 being assumed to be the amount of compensation to which she was entitled. Now he (the learned counsel) objected altogether to this male of dealing with the matter. The income had been calculated at SW. Instead of the share of it, which might have b-en expended on the plaintiff had her husband lived, and nn deduction hail been made for life insurance, or provision tor a family which there was a right to have expected, the deceased bing 34 years of age, and the plaintiff get years of age, at the time I of his death. Moreover, the inc ))))) e (two-thirds of which was derived from trade) was calculated tar though it had I been as certain as a government income, or the interest of money in the funds, whereas it might entirely have been put an end to by bankruptcy or other causes. Upon these grounds, he contended, that the damages were must cx 'l celotive. i:;;;lCampbc:l said that the Court would be very reluc tant to interfere in any case of this sort, if a distinct prin ciple had been laid down on which the jury could act; and if acting upon it, they had found certain damages, that ' court, or any other court in Weelminater Hall, would ho extremely reluctant to interlCre with their diseretion. But in this cage it seemed doubtful what principle the jury acted upon, because at one time they seemed to have been directed that the compensation must be confined to peen- Mary loss. Ile would g:ve no opinion upon that point at present, but he was not prepared to say that such must ne cessarily be the rule. It appeared here, however, that the learnedjudge having said at one time that the compensa tion must be confined to pecuniary loss, then left it to the jury to give whatever they might think lit, nut limiting it to pecuniary loss. The court believed the act to he a most efficient one, and when it came before them judicially it would be their duty to sec that it was carried into effect. It was extremely important that it should be decided on what principle the damages should be calculated ; and under the circumstances the court thought it desirable that a rule to show cause should be granted. Rule granted. THE QUEEN v. CARDWELL.—PEHJUHY. Mr. Pigott said this was an indictment for perjury which was tried before Mr. Justice Erie at the l as t assizes for Berkshire, when a verdict was given for the crown. He had now to move for a rule to sect aside the verdict and for a new trial. Lord Campbell inquired if the defendant was in court. Mr. Pigott said his client had been sentenced by the learned judge at the end of the trial. Lord Campbell did not sec any reason why the role that the defendant should be in court when such an application was made should be dispensed with in the present ease. Mr. Pigott said there were cases reported in which it had not been considered necessary, and he did not know that the attendance of the defendant would be required. Lord Campbell said this was peculiarly a case which re quired the presence of the defendant, sentence having been passed upon him which he had evaded. When he did ap pear, as there seemed to have been some misapprehension, the motion might be renewed it it was within a reasonable time. Mr. Pigott said it was but justice to his client to stato that no warrant had been taken out against him, and there fore tkere had been no evasion of any process on his part. JiUStNES4 OF THE 601:14T. At the rising la the court, Lord Campbell said there was a list of 14 motions, all of which he hoped would he dis posed of to-morrow. It might be corm moot, however, for the bar to know that the court would not take the special paper to-morrow (this day.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YF.STERDAT. Ilrreniom iw BAMCO.-11r.ruaz Cunrs Jurricx ham-, N. Jimmy Mauer, M.. Jusucit WILLIAM}, AAP Ma. Joinest . . Buswita v. BELL.—A PEaystiss JeRY, Mr. Evans, Q.C., said that the plaintiff in this case was assignee of Messrs. Leach and Cookson, who were formerly silk manufacturers at Macclesfield, but who bccaine insof vent. The action was brought to recover certain MIMS of I money paid by the insolvents to the defendant, upon the ground that the payments were made by way of voluntary preference, and at the trial before Mr. J ustiee Wight man at Chester a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 813/. The case now came bef o re th e cour t I upon motion for a new trial, on the graund that the verdict was perverse, or at least against the evi -1 dence. The action arose out of the following circum . stances:—ln 1850 the silk trade was in a depressed state, and in December of that year Messrs. Leach and Cookson were unable to meet is bill fur 2:85f. 19.. Id. which they bad given to the defendant tor goods. Sever al other bills held by other persons came due about the same time, and although Messrs. Leach and Cookson could not nay in money, they had a large quantity of goods in London. This being so, the defendant agreed to renew his bill, and to assist Messrs. Leach and Cookson with mewl, stipulat ing that he should receive the produce of all sales in London until be should he freed from liability. The plaintiff's case was, that. the payments made under this arrangement amonnted ti a voluntary preference, and could be recovered back by the insolvent's assignees. Tho learned judge thought that as to the amount of the bill of exchange there might be evidence for the jury, but as to the other sums ho gave his positive opinion that there was RO case. The jury, however, cuutrary to this direction, found a verdict fur the full amount, and this verdict it was now submitted to the court was clearly perverse and ought not to be allowed to stand. The Chief Justice said the Court would sae Mr. Justice Wightman upon the subject. BATHURST O. MURRAT.—LA JAHOTTIEHR IRON WORKS. This was an action to recover 608 i, paid by the plaintiff upon certain shares taken by him in this company, upon the ground that he bad paid the money upon representa tions as to the state of the company, and the state of the roads leading to the works, which were false to the know ledge of the defendant, who took a leading part in the management of the concern. The jury found a verdict for the iblaintiff. Mr. Serjt. Channel now moved for a new trial upon afil davits, which stated that the defendant was surprised r ot ^ ~< :.~~.,