The Sun. — London, England, 1859-08-03 00:00:00

4PERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. In answer to a question from Lord DONOTIGHMORE, Earl GRANVILLE said that the Government, giving way to the suggestion of the Earl of Derby, had decided on introducing a continuance Roman Catholic Charities Bill on Thursday nest. THE BUILDERS' STRIKE. Lord BROUGHAM called the attention of their lordships to the strike which was expected to take place in the building trade, and which was creating much excitement throughout the metropolis. He was of opinion that the demand of ten hours' pay for nine hours' work was most absurd, and asked if the Government in tended to take any steps in the matter? For many years he had been the advocate of the working classes, and he was at opinion they had a right to strike if they pleased ; but when, as in the instance that had occurred at Sheffield, they had proceeded to violence, such conduct could not be allowed. The noble lord then referred to the court in France, which had been highly successful in arranging the differences between the employer and the employed. Earl GRANVILLE said the attention of the Govern ment had been drawn to the subject, and they had taken the necessary steps to maintain order during the con tinuance of that lamentable strike. He was pleased to see the subject had been referred to in that house by the noble and learned lord, who was so well able to deal with the sub ject, and he thought it was very much better to throw a light on the affair than hastily to proceed to legislate on the subject. In the present instance he thought the strike was most unjustifiable. The alleged reason for the pro ceeding was that there were a great many men at present unemployed ; but such a proceeding on the part of the men in employment would not afford them the means of obtaining a single shilling extra. The result of the strike, if carried out, could but be most injurious to the working classes, and he trusted that sound judgmentwould be allowed to prevail, and thus the misery always at tendant on strikes would be averted. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said no legislative in terference on the part of the Government could prevent occasional disturbances between employer and employed. Nothing but experience on their own part of the loss and suffering p r oduced by strikes, and a more exte n d e d an d accurate knowledge of the purposes of political economy would ever induce them to abstain from such as that now witnessed. Lord BROUGHAM referred to a pamphlet he had seen, written by a working man, with a view of dissuading his follow-workmen from a strike. _ - After a few observations from the LORD CHANCELLOR, which were inaudible in the gallery, the subject dropped. The Westminster New Bridge Bill was read a second time. The Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Local Government Supplemental Bill was read a second time. The Colonial Legislatures'. Power of Repeal Bill was read a second time. _ _ The Divorce Court Bill was read a third time and passed. The Barbuda Government Bill was-read a second time. The Railway Companies Arbitration Bill passed through committee. The Pawnbrokers' Bill passed through committee. The Boundaries (Ireland) Bill passed through com mittee. • The Marriages (Lisbon) Bill was read a second time. COUNTY CESS (IRELAND). Lord CLEMENTS moved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty for a return of the amount of undischarged queries after Summer Assizes, 1858, and after Spring Assizes, 1859, in each county in Ireland ; the balance in the county bank after Summer Assizes, 1858, and after Spring Assizes, 1859, in each county in Ireland; the balance m Exchequer-bills after Summer Assizes, 1858, and after Spring Assizes, 1859, in each county in Ireland ; and the amount of warrants issued after Summer Assizes, 1858, and after Spring Assizes, 1859, in each county in Ireland. Earl GRANVILLE said he was quite ready to agree to the motion, on the understanding that the return was not to be produced if it was found that the report was already given in the report of the commission. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock. ELECTION COMMITTEES. The members to serve on the following committees were nominated :—Kingston-upon-Hull, Bridgewater, and Pres ton. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Charleston Railway and Harbour Bill, and the Wansbeck Railway Bill, were con sidered and agreed to. The Tacnmshire Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Mr. CARDWELL, the following members were nominated to serve on the select committee on the Chester and Holyhead Railway at Holyhead Bill :—Mr. Cardwell, Sir Richard Bulkeley, Mr. Cornwall Legh, Mr. Wilbraham Egerton, and five members to be added by the committee of selection; five to be the quorum ; committee to meet to-mdiTow. Mr. C. FORSTER moved that the standing order made on the 6th day of April last, and standing orders 176, 203, and 204 be dispensed with in respect to Dickinson's Divorce (India) Bill.—Ordered. The bill was then read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with leave to sit and proceed on Thursday On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the following was agreed to :—That, in the case of Sir John Ramsden's Es tate Bill, the examiner of petitions for private bills have leave to sit and proceed forthworth. INCOME TAX BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) LAW AMENDMENT BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, On clause 1 Mr. HAWES moved the following addition : —Chief constables appointed, or to be appointed, under the Acts of the 2d and 3d years of her Majesty, cap. 88, and other Acts, shall be styled " County Commissioners of Police." After some discussion, Mr. CLIVE said that he had received memorials from Hampshire and other places, setting forth that the altera tion proposed by the hon. member was desirable. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the original clause was agreed to, as well as clause 2. Clauses 3 and 4, with some verbal amendments, were agreed - - The clauses to 9, inclusive, were agreed to. Some discussion ensued on clause 10, to which verbal amendments were moved, but they were withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill - Mr. GRIFFITH moved that the following be added to clause 16 :—" The High Sheriff of any county may agree with the Justices of the Peace for the same county for the employment cf the police constables in lieu of the javelin men at the assizes ; and thereupon the chief constable, on the requisition of the High Sheriff, shall place under his orders a sufficient number of such constables to keep order in and within the precinct of the Court of Assize, and upon such agreement being entered into as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the High Sheriff to discontinue the employment of javelin men." The hon. member said the alteration he proposed was in operation in Hampshirmind other coun ties, and was found to work advantageougly. Mr. WYSE considered that the hon. member was pur suing a most irregular course in moving the addition to the clause, as a promise had been given that, next session, a select committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject of the expenses of high- sheriffs. Sir W. MILES opposed the addition, which he con sidered unnecessary. After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Sir G. C. Lewis, The house divided, and the numbers were— For the additional clause . Against Majority 42 The clause was then added to the bill. Mr. J. EWART moved the followinc, addition to clause 18:—None of the provisions of° this clause relating to a police superannuation fund, or contribution thereto, or payments thereout, shall apply to any city, county, ar borough in which a police superannuation fund has at the time of the passing of this act been established under the provisions of any local act now in force. The motion was agreed to and the clause was added to the bill. Mr. HODGKINSON moved the following addition : " And be, it enacted, that in every city or borough in Eng land in which there shall be a court house or other public building belonging to any county, or to any riding, parts or division of a county, it shall be lawful for her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for such city or borough to use such court house or public building for the purposes of holding therein the petty sessions of such c ity or bo rough, or of transacting therein any business connected with the admirlistration of justice in such city or borough with: out any charge for rent, or other payment, save and except the reasoable and necessary charges for lighting and clean ing such court-house or public building-, when the same is used for the purposes aforesaid. Provided always, that the necessary arrangements shall be made so that the use of the said court-house or public building by the said justices shall not interfere with the business of the county, or of the riding, parts or division of the county,usuallytransacted there in, or with any purpose for which such court-house or public building may be used by virtue of any local act in that behalf : provided further, that in case any difference shall arise between the said justices and the parties having the cepntrol of any such court-house or public building, as to the fe har rr gets or arrangements aforesaid, the same shall be re ed to the Board of Trade, whose decision in the matter shall be final. After some discus sgi • The Chai rman of Com mittees mittees decided that the motion could not be put, and it was accordingly withdrawn Sir J. TROLLOPE moved the:following clause, which, after some discussion, wasthree hr a e greed to :—" Whereas the county of Lincoln is undery, x e est, se l p e arate commissions of the peace, namel. Lindse n, and . Holland, but is for police superintendsnce under one chief constable, and it is found inconvenient and unjust that the superannua tion fund should be separate ; be it enacted, that after the passing of this Act that the said superannuation fund shall be one common account so long as the police force for the said county of Lincoln shall be under the direction of one chief constable for the three divisions ; but if the said force shall hereafter be separated under different chief constables, in that case it shall be lawful to divide the said superannua tion fund in proportion to the number of men for each ai • v l sion of the said county of Linco ln at that time servingin the said force." Mr. DEE DES moved the following clause :—" The chief constable of any county police force, and the watch com mittee of any city, borough, district, or place, is and are hereby empowered to suspe nd or dismiss any constable within their respective jurisdictions for misconduc t or dere liction of duty; and in case of such suspension or dismissal, all or any arrears of pay due to the said constable committee esh m ee a i l t l t be forfeited ; an d th e sa id c hi e f cons table or is and are hereby also empowered, at his or their discretion, to fine any such constable in a sum of money not exceed ing on e wee k' s pay, and to reduce the said constable from a superior to au inferior rank, such fine and reduc tion in ran k to be in addition to any other punish ment to which the said constable may be liable ; and all punishments, penalties, and fines, such as above enume rated, heretofore imposed or inflicted under any rules framed under and by virtue of the third section, two and three Victoria, chapter 93, shall be deemed to have been legally imposed or inflicted. The court of general or quar ter sessions for any county and the council for any borough, allay, upon the recommendatio n of the chief constable of anysounty police forc e , or o f the superintendent of the mit+ for the said borough, grant to any constable in the oaf I county or borough out of the Superannuation Fund of sairil county or borough a reward in money not exceeding £3, in respect of and as a reward for any meritorious act done by the said constable in the execution of his duty." Some discussion followed, and the hon. member agreed to withdraw the first part of the clause. The remaining portion, with some verbal amendments, was agreed to. Sir_W. MILES moved a clause for the abolition of local parish constables, which was agreed to. The bill with the additions was then passed. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. On the order of the day for going into committee on this - gir G. C. LEWIS wished to make some explanations which he had not an opportunity of doing fully on a former occasion: The object of the bill was to preserve valid Roman Catholic charities to purposes to which those who left endowments wished them to be applied ; but it was pro posed to give power to the Court of Chancery and the Charity commissioners to alter designations. He understood, however, that there was a want of unanimity on the subject. He did not propose to press the bill this session. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Maguire.) He would propose that the exception to the existing law in reference to Ro man Catholic charities should be continued for another year, and he would move that th e or d er o f th e d ay b e dis chared. After a few words from Mr. S. ESTCOURT, Mr. BOWYER said that the great objection to this bill was, that it proposed to give legislative sanction for the first time to the Act of Superstititious Uses of Charitable Trusts. That act was passed in the time of Edward VI. to enable the Sovereign to take possession of certain foun dations on the ground of their being applied to superstitious purposes, but it was never intended to be prospective. Any bill giving legislative sanction to such an act would seri ously offend Roman Catholics ; and he reminded Protestant members that they had no interest in the subject, which related entirely to the administration of the property left for Roman Catholic purposes. It was intended by this bill to bring them under the operation of the Charities Act passed some years ago, which was passed to remedy, the evils that were said to exist in respect to some Protestant foundations. If the house, however, was determined to interfere with the Roman Catholics, he thought they should place them in the same position as Protestants. He had no wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the settle ment of this question, and he hoped a satisfactory measure would be introduced next session. _ _ _ Mr. HUTT regretted the course Government had taken in proposing to except Roman Catholics from the act passed some years previously, and to postpone the matter till next session. He had heard so much about bringing in a measure every next session, that he was not only sick, but entirely distrustful of such promises. Mr. SPOONER could not agree to the equity of the exemption of Roman Catholics from the law of the land, and he was aware that the wealthy and influential portion of the Roman Catholic body were in favour of some legislative enactment on this sub ject. Mr. HENNESSY said that no bill introduced by Go vernment would receive the support of Roman Catholic members which contained any offensive phraseology im puting to them superstitious uses. Mr. BEAUMONT bore personal testimony to the state ment of the hon. member (Mr. Spooner) as to legislation on, this subject by influential Roman Catholics, and the oppo sitiontto the bill was led exclusively by Irish Roman Catho lics, who really had no interest in the matter. Mr. BOWYER said that he was exclusively an English Roman Catholic. Mr. BEAUMONT reminded the hon. and learned mem ber that he was member for an Irish borough, and therefore could not be considered exclusively an English Roman Catholic. After some remarks by Mr. NEWDEGATE, Sir G. GREY, and Mr. KINNAIRD, the motion was agreed to, and the bill was withdrawn. COURT OF PROBATE ACT. This bill went through committee, and was read a third time and passed. The house suspended sitting at 20 minutes to four o'clock. The house resumed at six o'clock. BRIDGWATER ELECTION PETITION. The SPEAKER announced that he had received a letter from Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, agents to the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Bridgwater, stating it was not their intention to proceed with the rietition. Colonel TYNTE said it was just what he had expected. The petition, like so many others, was withdrawn at the eleventh hour. The order referring the petition to the committee was then discharged. AYLESBURY ELECTION PETITION. Sir W. TROLLOPE brought up the report of the Ayles bury Election Committee. The committee had determined that Thomas T. Bernard and S. G. Smith, jun., Esqrs., were duly elected to serve as burgesses for the borough of Aylesbury; and that T. Vernon Wentworth, Esq., was not duly elected. The committee had also come to the fol lowing resolution :—That T. Vernon Went-worth was by his agent, Benjamin Child, guilty of bribery at the last election. That Thomas Polstur was bribed by the sum of two guineas, being paid for the hire of a cart. That it was not proved that the bribery was with the knowledge of T. Vernon Wentworth. The committee had altered the poll list by striking out the name of Thomas Waite, who was not entitled to vote. • The return was then amended by striking out the name of Mr. Wentworth, and the evidence taken by the com mittee was ordered to be laid before the house. CHARGES ON THE CONSOLIDATED FUND. Mr. WISE gave notice that early next session he would move for a select committee to inquire into all charges on and payments mach out of the Consolidated Fund, and to examine the miscellaneous estimates since 1847, with a view to consider what meats could be adopted to reduce the expenditure without detriment to the public service. NAVAL YARDS IN SCOTLAND. Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that on Thursday he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, as Scotland furnished so large a portion of the material for building ships, anh as many of the workmen in the public yards came from that country, it would not be for the pub lic advantage that Government building yards should be established in that country. MAIDSTONE ELECTION PETITION. Mr. DUNLOPreported from the Maidstone election com mittee that they found that Wm. Lee and Charles Buxton, Esqrs., were duly elected. That Henry Smith was proved on his own admission, to have been bribed with a sum of £lO. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. In answer 4 o a question from Mr. HUTT, Sir G. C. LEWIS said he would to-morrow move for leave to bring in a bill to continue for another year the ex emption of Roman Catholic charities from the control of the commissioners. Mr. HUTT begged to say he would offer the bill all the opposition in his power. HERRING FISHERY IN ARGYLLSHIRE. Mr. FINLAY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had received any official intimation of the probability of a riotous collision amongst the herring fisher men of Lochlyne, Argyllshire, in consequence of the sys tematic transgression of the act 14 and 15 Vict., c. 26, by certain fishermen in that locality, and whether any steps had been taken to maintain the peace Sir G. C. LEWIS said the attention of the Government had been drawn to the subject some time since. It was re ferred to the Lord Advocate; he reported that the Fishery Board was quite prepared for anything that might occur, and had taken all the precaution in their power to prevent any disturbances. JUDICIAL STATISTICS. Mr. M. MILNES asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it would be practicable to lay on the table of the house the judicial statistics of England and Wales, which were made up to the 29th day of September, each year, before the succeeding Easter recess ; and whe ther some similar statistics for Scotland might not be ap pended to the said report? Sir G. C. LEWIS said with regard to the police and pri sons statistics, they were furnished from accounts which were made up annually for a year ending on the 29th of September, as that was the close of the official year in the boroughs and counties. The commercial statistics were made up to the close of the ordinary year on the 31st of December , but owing to the winter assizes there was always some delay in their preparation, but he trusted that in future they would always be ready before Easter. He might men tion that our criminal statistics were published far in ad vance of those of other countries—France for example. MARRIAGE OF MEN IN THE PREVENTIVE SERVICE. Mr. BLACK asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if there was any regulation preventing the men in the pre ventive service Inland Revenue from marrying, and if men had been dismissed in Scotland for this offence ? Mr. LAING said that as the preventive service was un der the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, it was his duty to answer the question. There was no regulation ply venting the men from marrying, but the employment was restricted to unmarried men; *the reason was that as the men had to travel over a large extent of country, and to be absent from home about four nights in the week, it was found married men were rather apt to neglect their duty. Four mon bad recently left the service on their marriage, but that could hardly be called a dismissal, as it was a con dition of their engagement from the first. NORWICH ELECTION Col. FRENCH said he wished to ask a question, but as it was a matter of privile g e, he was in any ca se en titl p d t o precedence. He wished to call the attention of the house to the peculiar position in which they then stood with regard to the Norwich election petitions. At the general election Mr. Schneider and Lord Bury were returned. Soon after a petition aas presented against both. Lord Bury then ac cepted office, and the house advisedly—for their attention was called to the subject—assented to a new writ being issued. At the second election Lord Bury was again re turned. Two petitions were presented against this return, and he understood they were referred to the committee ap pointed to try the petition against the first return; they were however, not proceeded with, and the committee only tried the first ; they reported that the election of both members was void ; that they were by their agents guilty of bribery. The 36th clause of the Corrupt Practices Preventi on Act enacted "that any candidate who shall be declared to have been guilty of bribery by himself or his agents shall be ine ligible to sit for the same place during the Parliament then in existence." This was a peculiar case, because when Lord Bury was elected the second time no declaration had b een _ _ made that he had been guilty of bribery; the subsequent decision to that effect placed him in a peculiar position, and it was desirable to have the present case decided before the h m o o u ti s o e n ou to Th is ur su sti e a a y wl e , t f h or ere th fo e r o e t h h e e g r g s ad ea t t o came th b e e s fo p r e e ak th er e of n f h e r t t h h e e r r y the d r e o s f o l i n t s t e i o lt n v t o h i a d t t b h o e t h s e m e o e u m .d b e er e s e t ha been i on d , o rwhether guil guilty e the i n e d o b h l e y B lord aro s u t o n o d o t i h n se a h p i l o d si t N i . i o z n 7 s t i h m a t t l a h r e t r o e t t h a l a . u t e s d o h l o i n s gs seat, but i c s o t u a k l d e n i n o sitt allowingo r vo t t e h Pe writ He thought i t .o h r e thhoeu second elec tion, but h e un d erstood it was done on the assueraindcemthadae; the parties would abide by the decision of the committee on the first election. He begged to ask the Speaker whether the second election was not void. Mr. WALPOLE said that as the subject was one of great importance, he wished to say a few words before the Speaker answered the question put to him. The case was this— after the general election a petition, an th e ground of bri bery,hadbeen prestn: od against the return of Mr. Schneider and Lord Bury; after that the noble lord accepted office, and the question then arose whether, under the circumstances, the new writ ought to issue; he believed the house decided that it that it couought. be and he beli eve d that the Speaker, irt. declaring ld issued, stated what was unquestionable law. The greatest inconvenience would arise if it were not so. Suppose a number of petiti ons had been presented a t th e i op • n en i of Parliamenteainst hon. gentlemen now on the efe w, Treasury bench ; if the house had laid down 0.4 rule that no writ could issue until they were decided, when hen. gentlemen accepted office they could not have returned to the house to give information of the acts of the Government. The general committee of elections had to consider, since i'sl asecond petition presented, whi c h was tht course The committee consid ere d , and beta lieved ttiLvle i re oli was t righ tly, o taje. that they were bound to take th e election petitions in iia ,order in 4 which in, presentedthey o p u r presented; e nt e subsequentd ; and election, they felt that 7, . hence the second p€.42. , tio tt e he ~,_ they; not, consistently with the law, take the two petitions together. That being so, they had nothing but to proceed on the first petition, and upon that they found Lord Bury's return void, through bribery committed by his agents. The Act of Parliament was un der this circumstance imperative, rendering, as it did, the member unqualified to sit for the same place during the same session of Parliament. The question, therefore, re mains, what is to be done with reference to the second peti tion ? Were it not so near the end of the session there would be no difficulty in this question, for the second petition would come on to be heard and would be determined. upon. But in the present state of affairs this would not occur be fore the prorogation. Under these circumstances if the house ordered two writs to issue, it would involve itself in a case of great difficulty. He therefore ventured to suggest that a writ for the election of one burgess only should issue. Sir G. GREY thought this was a very irregular discus sion. There was no motion before the house, and they were discussing a matter upon a question being put to the chair. Mr. FRENCH rose to order. If there was no motion, the right hon. baronet ought not to address the house. Sir G. GREY would conclude with a motion. The hon. gentleman put himself forward on the behalf of Lord Bury, but he (Sir G. Grey) was given to understand by that noble lord that he had no intention or desire to come down to take his seat. He thought that this question ought to be more fitly considered when—as would be thdcase to-morrow— the new writ was issued. To satisfy the anxious desire of the hon. gentleman to be in order—(a laugh)—he moved the adjournment of the house. k Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that he should move that no writ issue in this case until the evidence was in the hands of members. Mr. FRENCH objected to the lecturing tone of the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey). He had never put himself forward as representing Lord Bury's views. He simply brought on this question as one of privilege which he, as an independent member, was desirous for the honour of the house to have ventilated. The SPEAKER said that in reply to the question of the hon. gentleman he had to state that the question was not one of privilege. The only answer which he could give to the question of the hon. member was to refer him to the act of Parliament, which alone could furnish him an answer. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the house now wished the subject to drop. Sir G. GREY withdrew his motion. THE FOREIGN DEBATE. Lord ELCHO said that he had received a letter from his noble friend at the head of the Government stating, that under the severe domestic loss which he had received, the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not be in his place until Monday, Under these circumstances he could not but postpone his motion until that day, on which, however, he hoped the noble lord would give him an oppor tunity of bringing it on. CRUELTIES TO MERCHANT SEAMEN. Mr. M. MILNES presented a petition from James Ken nedy, a seaman at present in hospital at Liverpool, through injuries which had been inflicted upon him at sea, praying the house to take the system under which he was a sufferer into its consideration, and to devise some remedy. Mr. M. MILNES then rose to move that a humble ad dress be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to be graciously pleased to enter into negotiations with the Go vernment of the United States of America, for the purpose of preventing the assaults and cruelties committed on mer chant seamen engaged in traffic between this country and the United States, and of bringing to justice the perpetrators of such offences, many of whom escape with impunity in consequence of the defects of the present system of inter national jurisdiction. In bringing this subject before the house, he begged to state that it was a question which had agitated large and influential bodies of men, both in Eng land and America. He wished to draw the attention of the house to a large mass of crime unpunished end unchallengd ; and to propose to show the Government how that was to be remedied. At present a vast deal of cruelty took place . in the vessels which plied between this country and America. Constantly—sometimes almost daily—occurrences of this kind came under notice in the town of Liverpool, and the hospitals frequently contained numerous cases of the kind. Such, however, was the present state of the law and of our relations with the United States, that the men who had committed these cruelties were perfectly unchallenged. This subject had been very ably explained in a pamphlet by Mr, Bright, of Liverpool, and indeed the few words he should address to the house wonld be but a brief resume of it. The pamphlet was in the form of a letter, addressed to his hon. friend the member for Bedford, by whom the sub ject was to have been brought forward in that house. Un happily, however, his hon. friend was now a member of the Government, and hence, through our system of politics, his talents were (except in his own department) lost to that house and to his country. (A laugh.) As an instance of the imperfection of the present state of the law, he would bring to the attention of the house a case lately decided by Baron Bramwell. In that case a man committed a murder two miles beyond the jurisdiction of this country, and although the facts were proved, the learned judge could only direct the jury not to find a verdict. This was done, and the man was handed over to the American consul, who at a great expense had him and his witnesses conveyed to America. They had no sooner got there than the witnesses absconded, and the murderer, was, therefore, set at large. So in another case, the operation of the laws enabled a Corsi can sailor to put himself beyond restraint, and this man, who had been guilty ofmurder, was now at large soraewhere inthis country. These cases were no doubt of a heavier kind than many, but the ordinary cases of cruelty were so numerous that they had obtained a name for themselves, and were known in Liverpool as " consul's cases." From June, 1857, to June, 1858, 138 consul's cases were taken ; from June, 1858, to the following March, 80 eonsul's cases occurred. Since then 23 cases had occurred. In some of these cases men who were engaged as stewards were put to the work of common sailors, and were cruelly treated because they were unfit for the work. In many of these cases the offenders were not Americans ; in fact, in a great number the only man in a ship against whom a charge of cruelty could not be substantiated was the American captain. The house would agree with him that for this state of things a remedy ought to be found, and he believed that the people of Ame rica were equally desirous to find a remedy. The remedy he would suggest was of two kinds. Iu the first place, he thought that the powers of the consuls might be safely in creased so as to give them a jurisdiction to try offenders. And in the next place, the tribunals of this country might with the intervention of the Government of the United States, be enabled to try guilty parties. With regard to the consuls, he would remind the house that, in the origin of the consular system, under the French Minister. Colbert, these officers claimed the exclusiveprivilege oftrying French subjects. Without going to anything like this length in the case of the consuls for America, a means might yet be found of enabling them to deal with these eases. With re gard to the plan of extending the jurisdiction of our tribu nals, so that there might be some objection in the heavier cases, but in those cases which might be disposed of by a stipendiary magistrate he saw no reason why the :plan should not be adopted. He trusted that this subject would be taken up by the Government in a large.and comprehen sive spirit, and that no technicalities would be allowed to stand in the way of its settlement, He believed it would be dealt with in a fairand openmanner in the United States, and he had seen a letter from that eminent writer, Mr. Hawthorne, expressing an opinion that in the States everydisposition would be shown to avoid difficulties. He had once seen in a work on international law a fantastical notion put forward that the law relating to the high seas must remain as variable as the sea itself. He hoped, how ever, that in these days it would be found not to be so, but that the Government would be enabled so to adjust matters on thLt greet highway that the cruelties which now dis graced it might, with the help of that great nation across the water. at once and for ever cease. (Cheers.) Mr. J. EWART seconded the motion with a few obser vations, but spoken in so low a tone that their purport did not reach the gallery. Sir G. C. LEWIS said the hon. member for Pomfret had done good service by bringing 'up this subject, and the evil alleged by him to arise from the present state of international law was under consideration. He (Sir G. Lewis) could not admit however that the evil arose from the present state of things, as the international law did not permit, except by treaty, any jurisdiction to one country's tribunals over the subjects of another for crimes committed on the high seas. There was an extradition treaty with the United States ap plying to murder, arson, forgery, and one or two other crimes committed in another country by the subjects of the other. In this case murder, or attempt to murder, was com mitted in an American ship on the high seas, and conse quently, according to the present construction of the law, on American territory. On touching at an English port the offender might be handed over to the American Consul to be sent home, but that course was seldom taken on account of the expense. He was not amenable to the English law any more than if the offence had been committed on the land territory of the United States. It appeared that cruelties were often committed in American ships on the high seas, and the present state of the law offered no remedy. The question then was, whether any conventioncould be entered into with the United States so as to meet these cases. There was one obvious way, and that was to include them in the present extradition treaty. The objection to that was the expense which would attend its working. Another plan was for the United States to give us power to treat such cases in English courts, the United States to have the same power in America. It might be provided that on the arrival of an American ship at Liverpool, and notice being given that a crime had been committed on board, the English magistrates could deal with it—the same privilege being given to America. He saw no objection to such a treaty, nor did he think that Parliament would hesitate to I sanction it, as the intelligence of American courts of justice would, no doubt, givo ample security for the fair trial of British subjects. But there was another plan upon which his hon. friend had touched, and that was the arming the consul with powers to try criminals. Even that plan. if the two Governments would consent to it, might be effec tual ; but he wished to remind the house that this country had never allowed a foreign power to exercise jurisdiction within its territory. If you gave the power to the consul you must give hill; the aid of the civil power both for arrest and for custody, so that in any case he would be exercising criminal jurisdiction under the English law. He would no doubt follow the English law, and have an English barris ter for assessor, and therefore it would resolve itself into an application of the English law. _however, he quite con curred in the sentiments expressed by his hon. friend, and he thought the subject one well worthy the consideration of the house. Mr. HENLEY said that the subject was one of the deep est importance. No doubt many offences were committed in American ships coming to England, and most probably a similar number were committed in American ships going home. He wished, therefore, that the hon. member had told them whether there had been any or many trials of such cases in the American courts, as their number would be some guide as to the attention with which a proposal of reciprocal criminal jurisdiction would probably be received in the United States. As to the expediency of such a plan, they must remember that if theyadopted it with one nation they could hardly refuse it to another, and then it would become a question whether they would like to submit Eng lish subjects to the tender mercies of an Austrian, Spanish, or Russian police. The consular plan involved the putting our persons at the disposal of the officer of a foreign power. The question was surrounded with difficulties but the hon. member had acted judiciously i n bringing it before the house. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the subject had eng•zgad the attention of the law officers of the crown for some time, both under the present Government and its pre decessors. It had been the desire of both Governments to come to some arrangement with th. 2 'United States, but the difficulty was that this Government could suggest no expo 7 di,Gut but that of submitting the cases to the ordinary civil authorities of the country. To the proposition of giving ju dicial authority to the consul, he (the Attorney-General) and his eolleagaes had alwaye en the most strenuous op position, as ho never couldeauset te 4 - 4:05/A tlo ri M. jurisdiction from the ordinary tribunals of the country.) (Hear.) But then a reciprocal arrangement might be esta- Wished, and it was no objection to it that oth er na ti ons might asfr, for what was concaded to the United St a t es. Th e atTang'emen.t 044' carried out t er,ms o f perfect equality, and these term§ eo4ld not be complied with wept by a country whose forms of criminal procqthlre Were the same as thce of Engla.nd. With respect to gtvnag au th or i t y to the consul, nothing IdU am ore common than for an Amer rican captain, on arriving at Havre or some other c on ti nen . tal port, t o go a t once to his consul, charge his whole crew THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 18b9. with mutiny, and them all detained in prison until he was again ready for sea. There were three points to which he trusted the attention of the authorities would be directed. First, the facilitating of the working di the extradition treaty, now so expensive; second, to provide a reciprocal jurisdiction for cases not included in the treaty; and third, the possi bility of establishing a summary jurisdiction in cases of dis pute under special contracts. He mentioned these matters to show that he had not overlooked the subject, and he ear nestly hoped that the address would be productive of some satisfactory arrangement. Mr. MILNES, in reply, expressed his gratitude for the manner in which Government had received his motion. With respect to the number of trials in America he would remind the right hon. member opposite that there was a great dif ference in the crews of inward and outward bound ships. There was no difficulty in getting sailors to go from Europe to America, but in manning ships to return to Europe there was fierce competition, an extensive crimping system was carried on, and much cruelty was practised. He hoped his friends in the Government would not overlook the case of the murderer, who was now at large be cause th e au th or iti es of this country had no power to secure him. The powers of the extradition treaty, which were now exclusively con fided to the metropolitan magistrates, should be extended to the stipendiaries at Liverpool and the other seaports. RIGHTS OF THE CROWN IN FORESHORES, &c. Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH moved for a select com mittee to inquire into the rights as claimed by the Crown and other bodies connected with the foreshores, tidal rivers, estuaries, and the bed of the sea round the coasts of the United Kingdom. An HON. MEMBER here moved that the house be counted, and there being only 38 members present, the house stood adjourned at a quarter past eight. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, AUG. 1. Nisi Prius Court.—(Before Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.) CRESSWELL AND OTHERS V. JACKSON AND OTHERS -EXTRAORDINARY WILL CASE. Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.,Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Field, for plantiffs; Mr. Sergeant Hayes, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Flowers, for the defendants. Mr. Field opened the pleadings. Mr. Macaulay stated the plaintiffs' case. The cause, he said, w as a very serious one, and as far as the characters of five gentlemen and the pecuniary interest of many persons were concerned its import ance could hardly be exaggerated. The real ques tion was the validity of certain codicils to the will of Mr. George Nuttall, who orig inally by business was a land surveyor. Some venty-eight years ago he settled at Matlock, where his grandfather resided ; and after a time, though possessed of con siderable property, he carried on his business as a surveyor, and died in 1856, leaving property worth £2,000 a-year. Towards the latter part of his life he did not carry on his business as a surveyor, but was occupied principally with the affairs of the parish as surveyor of the highways. Mr. Nuttall was to the fullest extent a man of business, and oc casionally made the wills of persons with whom he was acquainted. Notwithstanding, however, the fact that his solicitor was also his intimate and per sonal friend, to him was maintained that reserve and privacy which distinguished all Mr. Nuttall's dealings as far as his own circumstances were con cerned, and the only disclosure he made was an un true one, when he said he was heavily in debt. To Mr. Newbold, his professional friend, he gave no notice of the distribution of his property, but he often applied to him for skeleton wills, with which he was supplied. In 1854 Mr. Nuttall's first will was drawn out in a fluent style of handwriting by himself, and was executed in the presence of two of Mr. Newbold's clerks on the sth of September, 1854. Mr. Nuttall was suffering from a tumour on his back, and from the above date till his death Mr. Newbold knew nothing more about the distri bution of his property than the mere execution of the will witnessed by his two:clerks. On the Sun day, or the Monday, in the week of his death, Mr. Nuttall was seized with a fit of paralysis, and on the Friday died. His mother had formerly lived with him, but being dead, a woman named Cathe rine Marsden, who appears to have had numerous relations, lived with him as his housekeeper, for many years. The Marsdens, who were cousins ; Mr. Mellor, living at Brampton ; Mr. John Nuttall, of London ; the postmistress of Matlock ; Mr. Job Knowles, of Matlock ; and Mr. Newbold, appeared to be the only persons who could be said to have been intimate with him, with the exception of Mr. Else, one of the plaintiffs. Mr. Else was married to one of the Marsdens, and he might take it that the assumption o f M r . Nuttall's preference for Mr. Else was found expressed in the codicils. When he was a boy Mr. Nuttall took him up and taught him accounts, and gradually advanced him till he made him collector of the highway rates, and afterwards assistant surveyor for Matlock and for Darius and no one doubted that Mr. Else would be largely benefited by Mr. Nuttall's will. A few days before the 7th of March, 1856, Mr. Nuttall was seized with the fatal attack from which he died on the Friday. On the evening of his death Mr. Newbold was sent for, the object being to search in the deceased's bedroom for the will, In the bedroom was a large cupboard, in which, In a bundle of tithe receipts, was a gummed envelope, which was found to contain a duplicate of the will executed in Mr. Newbold's office, and in the presence of his two clerk. Mr. Robert Cresswell, Mr. john M arr i o tt , an d M r. John Nuttall were executors, and the two first-named were sent for, as they lived In the neighbourhood. The door of this room was then locked and the key taken away by Mr. Marriott. In consequence of a statement made by Mr. Job Knowles a further search was made in the cupboard on the day of the funeral, and either Mr. Marriott or Mr. Cresswell found in a printed book a duplicate of the will exe cuted in September, 1854, and on the paper which enclosed the will were these words," This is my rigt will," and of that mis-spelling probably more would be heard in the course of the case, as his learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Hayes, intended to object to the validity of the codicils on the ground of some orthographical mistakes which would be pointed out. The grounds upon which the codicils were disputed imputed nothing less than conspiracy, forgery, and f e l ony aga i nst four attesting witnesses and against other gentle men, including the executors and professional ad visers. In one of the duplicates would be found an interlineation giving £lOO a year to Mr. John Else, and £5O a year to Miss Marsden, and this, Mr. Newbold's clerks said, had not been shown to them, and therefore it was without effect. After the second duplicate had been found, in conse quence of Mr. Knowles making a further observa tion, another search was made in the cupboard, but nothing was found. Mr. Else, who afterwards occupied the house in which Mr. Nuttall had lived, being out of town, the contents of the cupboard were sent to Mr. Newbold's office. In the deceased's bedroom there was a large desk containing some bundles of papers, which were sent to Mr. Else's house without his knowledge, by Mr. Newbold. Till the 21st of April, nothing was known of any other testatory paper except the two wills; but on that day Mr. Newbold sent word to Mr. Else to search among the desk papers for some vouchers, and as he was doing so he found an envelope gum med up, and addressed, in the handwriting of a gentleman who would be called, to " G. Nuttall, Esq., Matlock," and when that was opened it was found to contain a testamentary paper, which would be called codicil number one, and an epitome of the will, all in the handwriting of the deceased. The epitome set forth that the executors were R. Cress well, John Marriott, and John Nuttall; and aho contained a list of 30 persons to whom his red duary property was left, with " three fields at Darley to J. E." They had, then, the remarkable fact that with the epitome of the will was found the first codicil, all in the writing of the testator. Without knowing , what the case for the defendants would be, lie took leave to say that the codicils 3, 2, and 1 must stand or fall tog ether. In the ori,gi nal will of 1854, the testator had left the house of his occupation to Catherine Marsden for life, and the remainder to Mr. Nuttall, of Lontleis, the codicil number one he devised it after the life of Mr, Nuttall, to Mr, Else. Two other persons were largely endowed by the original will ; one of these, a Miss Shelden, afterwards Mrs. Ashworth, had been in the service of his mother, and another was a Mrs. Blackshaw, but upon these legacies were annuities to Mrs. Else and Mrs. Marsden. The codicil number one was signed by two of Mr. Nuttall's men servants wno witnessed it, and who notwithstanding any different tale they might tell now, had told Mr. Newbold that they saw Mr. Nuttall sign the paper before they put their names to it, and they also made an affidavit to that effect. This was necessary, as in the attesting clause there was a slight impropriety, inasmuch as it-did not state that both the attesting witnesses were present when the testator signed By these proceedings the men, like most of their class, having become aware that there was a slight imperfection in the codicil, entertained an idea that a large property was d e p en dent on their will and pleasure, but at this tittle neither of them gave out any intimation of any irregularity in the attesta tion. The names of these two men, who would be called, were Buxton and Gregory. In June, 1856, one of them reproached Mr. Else, by telling him that a gentleman had asiciA him if :0100 would be of any use to him it' he would say he did not see his • master sign. Inquiries were made after that gen tleman, but he never appeared again. In Isl 7, Gref;ol7, who was retaine4 iq th te fif y v i c * of Mr. 41sg, 014 t 9 Mr. F l lso, ton being present, " It is very hard we have had nothing for saying we saw the paper signed." Mr. Else indignantly or dered him off the premis es , an d h e h a d ne ver been on them since. When Mr, Else return94l AVM turn tlW gfc.nind, )AtixOn repeatecl sgme thing h4e what gregory hikd .5441 4 and then Mr. Else, believing Chet the two were conspiring together, took the advice of Mr. Newbold and the magistrates' clerk, but it was decided not to prefer a criminal charge against them, and Bux ton was also that day discharged from Mr. Else's service. The importance of this part of tire case was immense. Two men had clearly signed the codicil with their own hands, and after wards they sought to make money of their know ledge. He supposed that Mr. Hayes would not contend that these men did not sign in the presence of Mr. Nuttal, or that they signed it at Mr. Else's dictation, but there could b e no o th er o bj ect i on to, it. By this time Mr. Else had become the surveyor of highways for Matlock, and wanting a bodk which it was known Mr. Nuttall had possessed, search was made for it among those conveyed to Mr. Newbold's office. After some trouble the book was found, and on being opened by Mr. Newbold, jun., was found to contain a paper pinned inside and endorsed " codicil number two." The proper steps were taken to have this opened in the pre sence of the executors, and then it was fo un d t o b e attested by Mr. Job nowles and Mr. Adams, a surgeon of many years' standing in Matlock. The codicil No. 2 was dated 6th of January, 1856, and wrapped in it was found a piece of paper, contain ing an extract upon a religious subject in the hand writing of the deceased. This extract it would be proved the decceased read to a gentleman on the very day the codicil was signed, and both Mr. Adams and Mr. Knowles would tell the jury the circumstances by which they were able to fix the date of signing it. As the two codicils had been discovered, the parties whose situations under the will were altered by them were duly informed of the fact, and no opposition was then expressed, nor was any imputation cast by them upon the gen uineness of the documents; and if it had not been for the surmises and hole-pickings of a professor of writing who gets his living by throwing doubts upon title-deeds, there would not have been any Chancery suit or assize cause. Nine months after the discovery of codicil number two there came to light codicil number three, which did not make any very material alteration in the position of parties to the will, its effect being to make Mr. Else resi duary devisee instead of Mr. Nuttall, of London. Some months after the death of Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Else occupied his house, and at the back, over a stable, there was a room which it was said. Mr. Nuttall had used as a sort of a den for him self alone. Mr. Else employed a lad to clean this room, which was very dirty and covered with cob webs. The window was a high one, and before the lad commenced his cleaning, Mr. Else, in the presence of the boy, attempted to open the window, when the window board or seat came out, and he nearly fell backwards. He was putting the board back into its place, when the lad cried out, " What's that ?" and on looking under the board in a narrow recess they saw an earthenware jar, which they took out. In the presence of the boy Mr. Else took out of the jar a paper packet, around which wrapped a canvas purse containing 20 sovereigns. Mr. Newbold was sent for, and in the presence of the proper parties the packet was opened, and codicil three was found attested, as number two had been, by Mr. Adams and Mr. Knowles, who would prove the attestation without fail. Buxton and Gregory would also be called, and would be constrained to swear, as they had d one t w i ce be fore, that they si gne d the codicil number one. The estates in the regular way were all put up for sale by auction, when notice was given by the Nuttalls to the purchasers not to compete. A suit in Chan. cery followed, and the Court had ordered the issue to be tried before a jury. A number of witnesses were called in support of the plaintiff's case ag stated above, which occupied the Conrt until itS rising at eight o'clock in the evening. AUGUST 2. The case was resumed at nine o'clock this monns'. ing, when Sergeant Hayes addressed the jury on behalf of the defendants. They had - to try the validity of, three distinct documents, and to solve the questimi as to whether or not two of these documents were net in the handwriting of at least two individuals. Now the question which the jury would have to decide was whether the plaintiff, Mr. Else, was to be believed in his statement that he found the codicil in a jar, or whether they considered on the other hand that they were not the genuine documents of the tes tator. Else must make out, if he could, that they were the genuine documents of the testator. The learned counsel then proceeded to analyse the evidence brought forward on the part of the plain tiffs, beginning with the original will of the late Mr. Nuttall, of London. He naturally gave his house and furntiure to Ann Marsden, who had been his housekeeper, and after h er d ea th t o go to hi s nephew, John Nuttall, of London. In the codicil it was altered to be left to John Else and Ellen Marsden, his wife. Thetestator had also a lease of some mines at Motteram, in Cheshire, and these were left entirely to John Else, assistant overseer of the parish of Matlock, but were subject to paY' hi t s,' several legacies as follows :—To John Nuttall; of London, £4O yearly; Sampson Roe, £4O yearly; Catherine Higleton, £4O; a legacy of £4O yearly to Ann Dobson, and £4O yearly to Wm. Nuttall, of Derby. His leaving these mines to Else showed that he had a natural affection for him. There was, also a devise of certain property at Ashover to Elizai Blacksliaw, and at her death to go to John Nuttall,, of London. There was also a devise of houses at Ashover, to Miss Maria Treviss, assistant post mistress at Matlock. The next devise was a most valuable ont ; it was property at Brockhurst, to Sarah, daughter of Samuel Holmes, a servant of his mother's. The property at Bonsall and Matlock4 Wensloy, and Snitterton, he left to Elizabeth Sheli don; it app ear i ng th a t he did not know whether' her husband was dead or alive, Now the codicils transferred, this valuable property to John Else ; and he would say that that devise had been tam-, pered with, and that the interlineation h a d b een put ' in by some one and not by Mr. N u tt a ll. T o the! original will (A) he wished most particularly to call; their attention. It was the beginning of this rays- . terious ease. They had heard that Mr. Nuttall's papers were all kept in the cupboard; it was there. that the original will was found, but it was not there that the codicils were found. Mr. Nuttall had been dead some time when one codicil was found, and{' afterwards there was the discovery of another one! in the mysterious jar in the above hay chamber) And here he would remark upon the fair way in which Mr. Newbold had given his evidence ; but every one who knew Mr. Newbold could not ex pect otherwise from a straightforward honourable; man of business. Mr. Newbold saw him a few days! before his death, when he attempted to get to tho closet, but could not. He died, and in that closet was found the will produced, but no codicils. But in a week 'afterwards they have Job Knowles. Job Knowles says, "There is something else to be, found." He makes mysterious statements, andi I directly afterwards a search is made and a codicil! is found, on which is written, "This is my will." The question for the jury to decide wits who put it th ere, and from what motive? In t hi s will there are interposed the words, " s' a bj ec t t o th e ready pay men t o f £ lOO annually *-o Job Else, and £5O annually to Catherine queathing the Matlock pr,. narsden," after bei ei:t an Bonsall ro4 perty to Mr s . Sh e ld on done such a thin , -. Would Mr. d ha ve done have as " order 'a payment of £l5O a year out of a lift interest ? The next event is the via'',of Mr. John Nuttall, of London, whose P lalaren h'e (Sergeant Hayes) represented. Mr. Nuttall examined the property, and left the manages ment of matters to Mr. Else, but unfortunately Mri John N u tt a ll, w h o waa engage d b y Si r J ose ph Pax-', ton to erect a mansion a long way off, died in the April following in Paris, leaving six young child ren. Soon after another codicil was found, with particulars of property at Bonsall and epitome of his will, all gummed up in an old envelope. Mr. Nuttall was a business man. Why did he not god to his closet in his bedroom, take out the will; and attach the codicil to it ? [The learned ser geant read the codicil, which gives an annuity of £5O to Mr. Newbold, and property to Mr. Thos. Newbold, son of Mr. Newbold, solicitor, and, leaving legacies to John Else and Catherine. Marsden.] Who (said the learned counsel) found the codicil ? Else. Who benefits by it ? Else and, Marsden, and the two Mr. Newbolds. If th a t was ' a genuine document, why should a large young Newbold be left to yOun Newbold ? Why did h e leave £5O a year to Mr. Newbold ? If he had been desirous to leave those gentlemen legacies, why not include them in that long list of annuitants who had been mentioned in the original will? The motives of the writer of the codicil, in inserting Mr. Newbold's name therein, was is get that gentleman's interest in endeavouring to prove that the codicil was the genuine document of the testator. Who was the witness to this codicil ? Job Knowles, to whom a legacy had been left. The learned counsel then ()ailed attention to the handwriting of the codi c il, and to the bad sp e lli ng of the same. Was it con sistent to think that Mr. Nuttall, a man of intelli gence and business, could possibly make such mis takes ? He (Sergeant Hayes) unhesitatingly said it was impossible that he could have written that document. The first codicil was proved by Buxton and Gregory, and there was no doubt that they have made two statements. He (Sergeant H a y es ) had exami ne d t h em in the Court ofChancery, and they both said they did not see Mr. Nuttall sign it, and' that afterwards they received £2O each from Mr. Else. He contended that evidence given by men who told two different tales could not esta blish the validity of a codicil even if they swore—* to use a familiar but a vulgar term—" until they were slack in th e f ace ." H e (S ergeant Hayes) was not there to convict any one of forgery, but he said the codicil was nor the genuine document of the testator. Gregory and Buxton were . bad of pe rsons that could be induced to a J ast the sort ssist in such matters, but f rom th e various statements they made no reliance c 9.1111 be placed upon them. In passing on to notice the second codicil he would re mark that the plaintiff's witnesses admitted that they were not written in the style of handwriting usually adopted by Mr. Nuttall. Besides the papers found with the first codicil, it was stated that what was called an epitome was also found. It appears that this opitome was written at two different times. The first part was a summary of the will, and the name of every annuitant. It gives the names of executors, R. Cresswell, J. Marriott, and John Nuttall. But, stuck in a corner, and evidently put in afterwards, was "Y.E. G. odel." And lower down the name of an original legatee had been erased, and the word "J. E. Newbold" inserted. It was perfectly conclusive that it could not have been written by the testator, but it was put along with the codicil, in order to give a colouring of genuineness to it. With regard to the second codi cil, why was it not with the will ? Why was it not with the first codicil ? The learned sergeant then alluded to the mysterious finding of the second codicil in a highway book by Mr. Else at Mr. Newbold's office, and pinned in the book along with a pie,:e of patper, on which was written a religious sentiment. The absurd tale of the finding he left for the jury to say whether they believed or not. Else stood about in Newbold's office for about an hour, when all at once they pick up a book, and exclaim, " Bless my soul, it is a codicil !" He agreed with his learned friend, that all these codicils must stand or fall together; they were all found in the same miraculous manner, under the same mysterious circumstances, and composed of the same wretched orthography. In this wonderful codicil the word contiguous is spelt " contigaous." Would Mr. Nut tall, an educated man, write thus ? The learned counsel called the attention of the jury to the wrong spelling of the words in this codicil. This codicil was discovered on the 16th of December, in the year following Mr. Nuttall's death. Was not the second codicil from the same mint as the first ? Was it not in the same handwriting as the first ? The same orthography ; the same blunders ; and the same liberal bequests to Else? Let them just look at the evidence of the medical man, the old. gentle man 67 years of age, and very deaf, who was the witness to the signing of the codicil along with Knowles; he says that it was on a Saturday night that he put his hand to a something, but had not the slightest idea of what it was. He said if it had not been so small he should have thought it had been a will. Was the story credible ? He had no hesitation in saying it was not—it was morally impossible. Besides, he contended that the story of Knowles contradicted that of Adams. Knowles said he told Adams that they hail -wit nessed an alteration in Nuttall's will, whilst Adams said that he had not the slightest ides what he had been signing. Th e l earne d counl.74el then proceeded to argue that Mr. Adams, keing probably in very poor circumstances, had. peen induced to lend him self to something He would say he ought not to have done. brat the codicil was not written by Mr. Nuttail, and Mr. Adams did not witness the signing of it. With regard to Job Knowles, he seemed to have always been in the mess. Every codicil that is found, Job Knowles is there. He knows everything, and throws out dark hints of other documents still to be found. Job Knowles, when asked why he did not state that there were other codicils, said "he thought it would be a breach of confidence." But it turns out that in the second codicil Job Knowles' son gets an annuity of £2O per year. In the first codicil Mr. Newbold's son gets it, in the second codicil Mr. Knowles' son gits it. And now they approached the third act in this extraordinary drama—the finding of the third scodieil. Nine months after the second codicil had been found the discovery of the third took place. It had been buried in a place where no one could find it, but by a miracle it had fortunately been disco vered. Why was not this codicil placed with the others ? Like the other codicils, something was found with it to give it authenticity. In the other codicils papers were attached ; with this 20 sove reigns were found. It is dated in January, and one year and nine months elapsed before it was found. " The only man servant," the boy they examined ,yesterday, was taken up by Else to clean the win dow in the room over the stable. He had never been there before; and on being asked if he had seen Mr. Else in the room, said, " Yes, he had seen him there once, a few days previous." He stood clew:, to the window. Could they have better evidence against Else ; nay, could not the jury at, once ima r>"ine they saw Mr. Else" planting" the jars. The lad was taken into the room ; Else 'seizes the board, and the cry is at once raise , l, " Rollo, what is this ?" The learned c ounse l . lead the codicil, which took away all the , property that had been for merly devised to oer, and transferred it to John Nuttall ) stonemason ; Mrs. Sheldon to receive an o_l"muity of .£3O a year for life. In the same codicil the property that had been formerly devised 'co Mrs. Blackshaw was revoked, and the same io be left to J o h n N u tt a ll, o f London, or else- N.rfnere, stonemason. Did the jury think that Mr. Nuttall would do so gross a thing as to take away the property he had devised to those parties ? But of course Catherine Marsden, the wife of Else, is thought of. She is to have an annuity of £5O a year, and Else is to have the residue. In all the codicils Catherine Marsden and Else are rather taken care of. In conclusion, did they believe, know , ing what Mr. Nuttall was doing in his lifetime, could they say that he was the author of the codi cils ? Why all this change ? Why was everything to be left to Else and Marsden—Marsden and Else ? Why should it be taken from those to whom it was devised ? It looked to him to be utterly impossible that these documents represented the real will of Mr. Nuttall at the time of his death. If the jury were net satisfied with the codicils they must give the defendants a verdict. That verdict would not involve a charge against any one. If it had been in the other court it would have been otherwise. A deal had been said of the testator's handwriting, but he would call before them witnesses who were familiar with his handwriting, and who would state positively that the handwriting of the codicils was not the writing of Mr. Nuttall. They were not bound to make out a case against Mr. Else ; they were only bound to prove that the codicils were r: ot the genuine instrument of Mr. Nuttall. Some litters he 'admitted theyhad but w ee e n r e p in i n h t i o s h I r a . n E d l w s e r ' i s t n a g n d ; s a , n a d n d although he 'who had forged t ( h th e e e l e e d a i r e n i e b d h s e erg w e e a n n i t d ) w as o k ul w d h n o ot say 7, as most able to do years in his employ, and s en 12 E he,1),., writing. Who could imi tatewita?s Mt familiarh r e . w writing s it e iwh h b nicr had t SC) as John Else ? Wh.) would benefit by the ' oci;: e ' l l s ? The greatest gainer would Again, the blunders in the spelli ng . b H e e J w oh ou n l E d Else. " . ..lad some letters written by Mr. Else to show tl'at he did map great blunders. (A lett er t o ackson from r. Else was read, in which a ' .. .umber of words were spelt wrong.) Otherwise it was a tolerably well written letter. Please was " pleas," wait was written " wate." The plaintiffs had got papers without end belonging to Mr. Nut tall. Let them find one if they can that is not per fectly speit. Further, there was something stronger than what he had alluded to as to the handwriting of Else. He held in his hand a county court sum mons served by Else, and endorsed by him, in which he says, " served the daughter"—the very same spelling of the word that was found in the word daughter is spelt by Else " doughter." He (the learned counsel) could find twenty other cases, but as Else admitted they were in his handwriting it was not necessary to prove more of them. The learned counsel concluded by expressing his con fidence that the jury, under all the circumstances; would give a verdict for the defendants (The learned serjeant's address to the jury occupied four hours in delivering.) The case was proceeding when our report left. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, August 2. THE MURDER AT LEDBURY. John Isaac Jones, 26, attorney's clerk, was ar raigned on a charge of murdering Mrs. Harriett Baker, by choking and strangling her, at Ledbury, on the 17th May last. The prisoner, who appeared collected but exces sively pale, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Skinner stated the case for the prosecution at some length, and the evidence was just begin ning when our parcel was despatched. M. Powell explained the course the prosecution intended to take—to show the position of the pre mises, and the things contained in them, the person who saw the deceased last alive, the person who saw the prisoner next in the morning, his conduct then, and the subsequent events. NORFOLK CI RCUIT.—IPswics, August 2. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) FARROW V. WHITEHEAD.—LIBEL. Mr. Couch and Mr. Metcalfe were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Mills and Mr. Bulwer appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff in this case formerly lived at Fram lingham, in this county, add carried on the business of a tailor, a draper, a n d ou tfitter there. Th e ac ti on was brought to recover from the defendant, a miller, residing in the same town, damages for a libel he, as correspondent to the Ipswich Express and _Essex and SIVA& Mercury, had caused to be inserted in thotpaper on the 13th of July, 1858, to the follow ing effect:— `PRAMLINGHAM.—THE LATE CHILD MURDER. —From inquiries made on Sunday last we are in formed that the young woman. Jane Ellen Farrow, is improving in health, and it is thought will be sufficiently recovered to take her trial. We are also credibly informed that during her affliction she has been treated in an almost inhuman manner by her parents, which naturally leads to various re ports being circulated in the town." The plaintiff had a family of several daughters, acid among them was one named Jane Ellen, who superintended the millinery business carried on at the plaintiff's. Unhapp i ly J ane Ell en f orme d an intimacy with a man in the neighbourhood, and the result was she became pregnant. On the 24th of June last the dead body of an infant was discovered in a drawer in a room of the plaintiff's, but how it came there subsequent e ven t s did not s h ow. A coroner's inquest was held, and the inquiry terminated in the jury finding a verdict of " Wilful murder" against Jane Ellen Farrow, the daughter of the plaintiff. The daughter, then accused of the murder of her child, was so ill at the time as not to be able to leave her father's house, and a police constable was always with her until a day or two before the day of her trial, when she was removed to Ipswich gaol. In the charge to the grand jury the learned judge who then presided advised them to throw out the bill so far as it charged her with the capital offence, and the grand jury did so. The young woman was even tually tried on the minor charge, and after a long inquiry she was acquitted. From inquirifis insti tuted after the appearing of the libel complained of, the editor of the _Express admitted that the defend:- ant was the author of the paragraph. Evidence was then given to show that the plaintiff had applied through himself and his solicitor, to the defen.dant to make an apology. Mr. Sulky, the editor and proprietor of the Ipswich Express and Essex and Sujoll Mercury, in his cross-examination, said the defendant was , L e regular corr es p on d ent to his newspaper. T he paragraph in question, he said, had been inserted inadvertently. If witness had reP.d the paragraph on its receipt he should not has:e permitted its In sertion, as his communicatie,n with the plaintiff would show. The paper birculation is from 1,000 to 1,200. The plaintiff, in his 'examination in support of his case, said he had been in business at Framlinghenl, for upwards o f 30 2, - ears, and that since the allegeo libel had app eare d i n the Ipswich. Express he had lost his trade, and that he now resided in Ipswich* Mr. Mills eross-examined the plaintiff at sense length, but failed in his endeavour to get the plain tiff to admit that he had treated his daughter un kindly, as had been represented in the paragraph in question. Mr. Mills having addressed the jury, submitting that the defendant had been justified in writing the paragraph in question, consequent upon the rumours prevalent at the time at Framlinghant, then called witnesses for the defence. The defendant said he vas the regular correspow dent of the Ipswich Express. He had been informed by several persons of the mode in which the plain.- , tiff's daughter had been treated by her parents•—• conduct of the most inhu man kind. Before the action was brought he offered to make an apology and pay the sum of £5, and since the action has been brought he had likewise offered to make an apology in three of the local newspapers of the county, al l of which offers had been refused. Had n o ill-feel ing, grudge, or malice against the plaintiff when the paragraph was sent to the Ipswich. Express. Made inquiries of Inspector Sporle as to the treat ment the girl received in her father's (the plain tiff's) house. Mr. Saines Lamer, a woollen-draper, Framling ham, said he had heard " dozens" of rumours every day to the effect o f great i rregularity in the plain tiff's house, that the police had to interfere for the sake of comfort in the daughter's sick room—that the plaintiff's daughter had been denied the use of things that were needful two or three days after the " melancholy occurrence." Inspector Sporle, of the Framlingham district-- I was entrusted with a coroner's warrant on June 25, 1858, to apprehend the plaintiff's daughter. 0 0 the 26th July she was removed to Ipswich. I car gaged nurses to attend upon her. I paid for the, necessaries sh e h a d. I h eard a rumour from one a the nurses that she wanted necessaries. The Judge—That is not a rumour. (Laughter.) Witness (examination continued)--Had a poli ee• man there continual y. I have on one or two oc Ca' sions admonished the plaintiff with reference to .ttio conduct towards his daughter. Had been called to account by respectable inhabitants of Framlingha.ni for not removing the daughter from her fathe r'o house in consequence. The Judge—But these are not rumours. S. J. Brown, Independent minister at Framleing ham, deposed to the rumours in circulation at Frain liugham during the period in question, with - refer ence to the conduct of the plaintiff towards his sick daughter. _ _ Mr. Mills having summed up defendant's mo t and Mr. Couch having replied, His lordship, in summing up, said it was for Ole jury to say what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £5. The Judge refused to stay execution. COUNTRY MA.REBT& BRISTOL—AuG. 2. In the sales of wheat at to-day's market an advance of 1 5 was obtained on late rates. Barley a slew sale, at la per qr. decline. Oats 6d to is lower. Bums and peas at late quotations. Flour in demand. SHEFFIELD—Auo. 2. At this day's market there was a fair supply of wheat, and holders commenced by requiring an advance, whicbr however, was not conceded. Ultimately a moderate busi ness was done at fully last week's prices. There was no chang in other kinds of grain, except oats, which ware somewhat lower. Flour prices unaltered. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...l6s 6d to 17s White )1 Beans )) ...18s 6d to 20s Od „ 1) ... 18s Od to 21s Od Peas, per qr ........................ 4-8 s Od to 54s CA Grinding barley, per qr .............. 33s Od to 35s (Od 33 Od to 35 tuoi Oats Malting ditto, ....................... 9 ......... .. 24s Od to 32s 'Od Millers' prices for. flour... • 6d, la . Bd . , and is 10d per Hay' trMsArnitopsB,slB4;swtohelts 141 b. t r i :e a r cr ton. 28 36 , to s , to 365;• oat straw, 2 NEWCASTL E - UNDER-LYNE—Aua. 1. At this corn -market whe a t was in small supply, :gni prices ranged from 44s to 52s per 36 stone. There was SO much passing in spring corn, oats being quoted at 28e 0 32s per 24 stone ; beans, 44s to 52s per qr.; barley, —s ---s per qr. LIVERPOOL—AuG. 2. We had a very good attendance of dealers at our cc exchange this morning, and the demand for both wheat a 3 i flour was quite in retail, with a reduction of ld per cen t from last market day. Flour had a better inquiry, a il d more money was obtained for low-priced qualities. Bea PO rather easier. Oats and oatmeal are difficult to mo - Peas and barley each neglected. Indian corn a dull as Pe? at previous prices. 2. Yesterday w e had unsettled weather ; it is now fine agai ba• The show of fi ne f resh wheat is limited, and prices for au P ll are well maintained, but the trade is slow for other qua ties, with no alteration in value. Barley nominal. Bea 11 0 make late quotations. Oats and other articles as before. Averages for the week : Wheat ,3776 qrs., at 44 s 101 d 8ar1ey........ • 66 „ 2Bs 9d Peas • 10 ........43s Od Beans Oats — ~ ........ —s Od Rye ...... —s Od Arrivals this week : Bar e at 1,423 qrs. y . .................... • — Oats — Rapeseed 1,057 Beans ................. lll Peas ........... Linseed NORWICH CATTLE—JULY 30. A very small show of store beasts to (day, comprising Sc fat shorthorns, and Irish. Sales again restricted, and we had a poor attendance. Scots, 4s to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6( ito 4s 6d ; Irish, 3s to 3s 6d. Fat beasts, 7s 6d to Ss Od ;p et stone. Sheep —The pens were well filled. —Fat sheep, 7s 6d •to 8s 6d per stone, and all sold. Pigs —A good supply. Store pigs 16s to 20s ; fat port :1 5s 6d to 6s 6d per stone. BIRTHS. GARDNER.— On the 28th ult., at Shoeburyness, the wife of Colonel Gardner, R.A., of a daughter. LITTLEHALES.—On the 2d inst., at Brompton, the wife . 41 Frederick Littlehales, Esq., of a son. MORRIS.—On the Ist inst., at Rugby, the wife of Henn 1 9 Morris, Esq., Madras C.S., of a son. SOLOMON.—On the Ist inst., at Strafford House, Finchicl the wife of of a aughter . Mr. Henry Sol omon, of 24, Finsbury-plan d MARRIAGES. NEWTON—Goocu.--On the 2d inst at the Church of ? Holy Trinity, Bishop' s - road, Frederick, eldest son of • Newton, Esq., of We stbourne-terrace, Hyde-park, t ° Anna Longridge, eldest daughter of Daniel Gooch, Esq. I of Fulthorpe House, Warwick -road, Paddington. STEVENS—MORRIS.—On the Ist inst., at the parish churl of St. Mary, N ewington, Charles James Stevens, t ° Sarah, young es t d aughter of Joseph Morris, Esq., Lud gate-street, city. AITS. BOULTON.—On the 1 D st / inst , T Mr. Wm. Cox B ou lt on , his residence, Cowper-road,. Stoke Newington, Middli , sex, ag3d 26. COLTSON.—On the 28th ult. at Milton-next-Gravesena , -; William C o lt son, Esq., late of the General Post-Offices aged 81. LANE. ---On the 29th u lt ., at Ipswich, Samuel Lane, Esq..", aged 80. Hown.--On the ist inst., at 31, Chiswell-street, Finsbur3 Mr. James Howes, aged 68. ROSCOE.—On the 30th ult., at Richmond, Surrey, Willia . Caldwell Ros coe , E sq., of Carnarvon, aged 35. SMITH. —On the Ist inst at Hadham-place, Herts, Jam , I° Smith, Esq., aged 75. " WILLs.—On the 29th ult. suddenly, Francis Wills. Bag M.D., of Shillingthorpo'House, Lincolnshire, aged 67. LONDON : Printed and Published by MT.JRDO YOUN of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Suo Office, No. 1) Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county P I Middlesex, Wednesday, August 3, 1859.