The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

JuLY 12, 1856. the people's parka in Manchester, under the corpo ration, have declined to expel Sunday bands ; the subject is to be brought before the next meeting of t h e town council with a view to coercing the com mittee. THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE bold their annual country meeting this year in the week commencing Wednesday, the 2nd of August, at Cheltenham. Prince Lucien Buona parte will be one of the visitors. ptlanb. THE MASTER OF TILE Rom.s, in adjudicating in the case of the English shareholders of the Tippe rary Bank, last Monday, referred in strong terms to the case of Mr. James Sadleir and the observations made on the subject by the Irish Attorney-General in the House of Commons. He said : May I now inquire, on the part of the public, whether informations have been sworn in respect of the facts dis closed in this case? If so, have any effectual or bona fide steps been taken to make any of the parties implicated amenable ? Is it intended to prefer a bill of indictment at the next Clonmel Assizes, where some of the overt acts were committed? May I further inquire what is the duty of a Privy Councillor ? In " lilackstone's Commentariee," vol. i., page 230, he says--" The duty of a Privy Coun cillor appears, from the oath of office, which consists of seven articles-Ist. To advise the King according to the best of his cunning and discretion. 2nd. To advise for the King's honour and the good of the public, without par tiality, through affection, love, need, doubt, or dread. 3rd. To keep the King's counsel secret. 4th. To avoid cor ruption. sth. To help and strengthen the execution of what shall be there resolved. Oth. To withstand all persons who would attempt the contrary. Arid lastly, in general, 7thly. To observe, keep, and do all that a good and true councillor ought to do to his sovereign lord." Is there anything in the duty, .as thus stated, requiring a Privy Councillor to obtrude his advice, secretly and unasked. where the responsible advisers of the Government remain passive, and where the general facts were matter of pub lic notoriety, and the details established by affidavits and documents as much open to the responsible advisers of the Government as they were to me? I have reason to believe that not a copy of an affidavit or of any document was obtained by the direction of the law advisers of the Government from the Master's office, or from the official manager, until on or after the 20th of June, the day I gave judgment in this case, although long prior to that date I had called attention to the fact that the Government had made no sign, notwithstanding the notoriety of the frauds of the Tipperary Joint-stock Bank. If the Irish Governs ment were ignorant of all the details, it was their own fault. If the Crown Solicitor had been directed to com municate with me, before or after I had given judgment, I should have referred him to the several affidavits and documents, and given him the dates and particulars of each. I did not obtrude advice or information privately : first, because it was no part of my duty ; and, secondly, because I believed then, and believe now, that it would have received no attention whatever from the Government, for reasons which the public well know. I shall only add that, if no bona fide proceeding be taken at the next Clon mel Assizes, the result will be that the duty of a Privy Councillor and the nature and meaning of the oath will possibly meet with more discussion than the Irish Govern ment may be aware of. There is one other matter which I omitted to advert to in giving judgment—and that is the examination of Mr. James Sadleir, by the Master, in his private chamber, no other person, as I understand, having been present, except the official manager and his counsel and solicitor, That proceeding has been much disapproved of, and I am satisfied that the Master would now concur with me that it is to be regretted it took place. It can scarcely be considered to have been a purely voluntary examination, unless Mr. James Sadleir was very strictly cautioned that it might be given in evidence against him ; and if not, the examination should not, according to the principles of our law, be used directly or indirectly to his prejudice. lam entirely ignorant of the contents of that examination, and, as it has not been brought under my notice during the argument, I have thought it better not to call for it, but to decide the question of fraud upon the affidavits and documents entered on the order. Every fact stated by me on giving judgment is established by reference to those affidavits and documents. I have derived no aid or assistance from such private examination, being alto gether ignorant of the nature and particulars of it. If the examination explained away the facts detailed in my judg ment, counsel for the official manager would, I presume, have brought it under the consideration of the court. The Master, not having entered the examination on his order, did not, of course, form his opinion upon the contents of such examination, being aware that there would be an appeal. The affidavits and documents on which he decided are entered on his order. The appeal in this case against my order may, if the Lord Chancellor thinks fit, be dis posed of during the present sitting. The Master of the Rolls, on Wednesday, further observed : That he considered it necessary, in vindication of him self, to notice some observations lately made and reiterated by the Attorney-General in his place in the House of Com mons relative to Mr. James Sadleir; and for that purpose he would forward to London a statement of facts by that night's post. That statement he would make public at the sitting of the Court on Friday. He (the Master of the Rolla) could not allow th.: allegations put forward to go uncontradicted. No amount of mystification should or could now get rid of the matter, owing to the character it had assumed, as he (the Master of the Rolls) would THE PRESS. show beyond all doubt, for he would not state a single fact which he would not be prepared to prove. The charge made by the Attorney-General was of a most serious nature, involving character, and he was determined that no amount of liopimitry or in)stitication should get rid of it. Upon Friday he would state the facts at length at the sitting of the court. The Lord Lieutenant is at present on a visit to Limerick. Mr. Smith O'Brien returned to Dublin on Monday afternoon. THE TIPPERARY MILITIA, stationed at Nenagh, broke out into open mutiny on Monday last, on being refused payment of their bounty money, and on being ordered to give up their clothing, upon disembodiment. On Monday morning, during parade, a man who refused to give back his clothing was sent off to the guardhouse at the Summerhill Barracks. The five companies on parade hearing this, at once dashed at the guard, rescued the prisoner, and gutted the guardhouse. After some time and trouble tho men were got back into line and expostulated with by their colonel and chaplain, but they refused to give up their arms until the bounty money was paid, and were finally marched off to their barracks in Pound- street, where they appear to have remained quietly till about ten p.m., when, seized with one of those unaccountable Tipperary furors, the whole body of men broke out of barracks, rushed through the streets, attacked and demolished the different police-stations, tried to stop the mail starting for Limerick, broke open the gaol and committed other acts of riot, forced the Summerhill Barracks, ransacked the magazine for powder and ball — all of which since the morning had very wisely been removed and secreted by the o cers— and then, with peculiar Irish humour, brought out the band of the regiment, and to some lively airs, firing and shouting, paraded the streets of Nenagh for the rest of the night. During Tuesday the town continued in a great state of excitement; the men re fused to give up their arms or return to duty, or to disband without their bounty money or clothing. Meanwhile intelligence of the state of affairs having been quickly despatched to Major-General Sir James Chatterton, at Limerick, detachments of the 30th, 41st, 47th, and 55th Regiments, in all 520 men, under command of Colonel Hart, arrived from Templemore, and, having loaded their pieces, marched up to the Summerhill Barracks. Contrary to expectation, the gate was thrown open; the troops marched in and formed into line in the barrack-square. The small body of militia in bar racks having formed opposite, were then asked by Colonel Hart to give up their arms ; they refused, the Riot Act was read, the square cleared of all civilians, and both parties stood opposite one another. At length, after some little trouble, the militia were disarmed. Meantime a body of militia straggling about the town commenced firing outside the bar rack-gata. Ono man fired a shot through the keyhole of the wicket, and killed a soldier inside. Another body went round the walls, and fired several shots at the troops, three of whom were severely wounded. A part of the troops were immediately detached in chase, and drove off the rebels. General Chatterton, with a squadron of the 17th Lancers, and two hundred infantry, arrived at eight o'clock to reinforce the troops from Templemore, when some street fighting and a regular melee took place. The militia attempted to hold a position in the Market-place, but were quickly driven out, and taking to the fields kept up a lively skirmish for some time ; at length their amunition failed, and by half-past nine they were hunted down, surrounded, disarmed, and marched off to prison. Two militiamen were killed, and six wounded, while a pensioner was shot in the streets, one soldier (a Crimean man) killed, and eight or ten severely wounded. An inquest was held on the bodies on Wednesday, and a verdict returned accord ingly, except in the case of the pensioner, whose death was Aargau' by the jury to "a wantof discretion shown by the troops, whose firing into a respectable house was unjustifiable." The rebels it is believed will be tried by the civil power. Pit( nub Volta. A BREACH OF PROMISE CASE, of 60111(3 interest, was tried at the Common Pleas, on Monday. The persons concerned were of some standing mid re spectability in life. A Miss Smith, daughter of a gentleman formerly in the Audit-office, and residing at Hornchurch, Essex, sued a Mr. Woodflne, a brewer in an extensive business in the same place. The usual course of true love appeared to have been quite a railway in this case—it ran so smoothly right up to the station-ary point. Mr. Woodfine became acquainted with Mr. Smith, paid particular atten tion to his daughter, proposed to her, was accepted, spent every evening at the house, regularly dined there. every other Sunday (au infallible sign of an engagement), took a house, bought two cariages, and in fact did everything so perfectly en regle that the wedding-day was fixed for the 3rd of April last, and ~a9 breakfast ordered. But here unhappily the train ran off the rails, and an "alarming accident oc curred. Mr. Woodfine's relations were of low origin, and some misunderstanding arose about a Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, his sister, not being asked to the breakfast. Mr. Smith asserted that they had been asked ; but somehow or other the letter containing the invitation had not been delivered, and so Mr. Woodfine chose to be indignant, and put off the wedding, on the additional plea that his intended wife was ill-tempered and extravagant; "and," added Mrs. Woodfine, the mother, who was present at the interview, and one of the " not asked " to the break- fast, "your daughter, Mr. Smith, cannot love my son, as she has allowed him to take a house a mile from the brewery"! An apparent make-up after these parentum ira,—which, by the bye, are anything but conducive to the " renewal of love,"—was followed by a decided break-off, some coarse language on the part of Mr. Woodfine, and hence the present action. The Attorney-General get up as the defence that the quarrel had been fomented by the mutual ill humours of Mr. Smith and Mrs. Woodfine ; that had those excellent people not interfered so much, Mr. Woudfine and Miss Smith would by that, time have been loving husband and wife, instead of hostile opponents ; that the young lady's character had never for a moment been impugned; and that, instead of attempting to reconcile the differences which had arisen, Mr. Smith had rushed off to his solicitor, with what object was evident, when the defendant was a wealthy man of business, worth 6,0001. a year. The learned Judge, in summing up, laid down the law in a manner which may possibly interest bachelors and spinsters. He said the first question for the jury to consider was, whether the mar riage was broken off with the consent of the young lady ; if not, what damages were they to give her, and, in order to test this, they must look to the dates of the letters, and all the surrounding facts and cir cumstances : When an engagement (c9ntinued the learned judge) is entered into without the knowledge of the parents, and subsequently broken off from a sense of duty to them, in that case you might give small damages ; but when the match is deliberately entered into snd approved by the families on both sides, if in such a case the marriage is broken evasively, and without the lady's consent, you ought then to give heavy damages. Reading over the chief part of the evidence, his lord ship concluded by saying that the matter was entirely in the hands of the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff— damages, 3,0001. ANOTHER ACTION, arising out of the Campbell- Corley case, was tried at the Common Pleas on Tuesday, Mr. Campbell in this instance bringing an action for" maintenance of suits " against Mr. Corley, who was charged with instigating various parties to originate suits in Chancery under the plea of the plaintiff's illegitimacy. The principal witness, a Mr. H. Thew, deposed to Mr. Corley having in 1852 advised him as next of kin to file a bill against Mr. Campbell. Mr. Corley promised to find the money for the legal expenses, recommended witness to go on, the bill was dismissed, a second was filed, and witness, ruined by the costs, applying to Mr. Corley for advice was told to get " whitewashed." The jury found a verdict for Mr. Campbell for 5621., the whole amount of costs proved. A LIFE-ASSURANCE ACTION in the case of the late Mr. Joddrell was tried this week, the Medical and Invalid Assurance Company objecting to pay a policy of 2,0001. on deceased's life, on the ground of false information at the time of effecting the insurance in 1852. Mr. Gesmore, a Derby surgeon, proved that Mr. Joddrell bad suffered from an epileptic fit and from delirium tremens in 1840, and that he was always given to excessive drinking. Verdict for the company. TOWERS, HARWOOD, AND FLECKHART, the three men concerned in the robbery, with violence, on the '2sth of April last, at the house of Mrs. Humphrey, Stamford-hill, were tried on Thursday at the Cen Criminal Cow t, before Mr. Justice Williams. Iho jury found Fleckhart guilty, and acquitted the other prisoners. Sentence of death was recorded against Fleckbart, but the learned judge intimated that transportation for life would be only inflicted. MR. RICHARD DtaiN, the notorious " dun " of Miss Burdett Coutts, was examined on Thursday before Mr. Henry, at Bow-street, and, limn the evidence of Dr. Lavers and Dr. Sutherland that he was of unsound mind and dangerous to himself and others, ordered to be placed under restraint in a lunatic asylum. THE first examination in bankruptcy of Mr. Mare took place on Thursday. The assets not having been realised, an adjournment was ordered till November. DAVIDSON'S DIVORCE CASE has been heard before the House of Lords this week, and the bill ordered I to be read a second time and committed. Mr. DANIEL WILLIAM WADE, the commission agent, residing at Lorimore-terrace, Walworth, charged with feloniously wounding William Nowland with a sword, and also with violently assaulting Mrs. Julia Shortland and Mrs. Elizabeth Lock, was committed for trial on Wednesday by Mr._Llliou, who refused bail. Ail