The Sun. — London, England, 1829-09-25 00:00:00

blame for the present deplorable state of the Church? He did think the Government of the country, in the first instance; the neglect of the performance of heir duty on the part of the generality of the Clergy, in the second; and the consequent supineness of the Laity, in the third.,--(Hear, hear.) —Every layman formed a component part of the Church ; and a number of individuals constituted what was called the church militant. Now, take away all the mem bers of the Church of England, and it ceases to exist, except in name. Therefore they were all Members of the Establishment, whose duty it was to come forward at the present crisis, in order to point out what was wrong, and propose what may be best calculated to effect good—not: to stretch out the right band of fellowship to those whose glory it was to be instrumental :in crumbling the fabric of the Protestant Church to dust." Lord Mountcashel and his friends are part of the church, are entitled to participate in the spi ritual advantages for which an establishment is appointed ; and if, from the existence of abuses, they are denied these advantages, they have a right to call for the removal of the abuses. The property of the establishment is held in trust for the performance of certain duties; and if, from the distribution of the property, the duties can not be discharged aright, there must be a power somewhere to effect such an alteration in the dis tribution as shall remove the obstacles in the way of amelioration. " The reform shall begin from the church herself." From the church, cer tainly, but not from that part of the church in terested in the perpetuation of the abuses com plained of. No one seeks an alteration in any of those particulars which give to the church its distinctive character. No one seeks to put lay men in the place where ecclesiastics ought to be, or ecclesiastics in the place of lawmen. But there are points respecting which laymen are en titled to a voice as well as ecclesiastics, and all regulations respecting temporalities are peculiarly of the number. If laymen are not to interfere with church abuses, by what right does the Pro testant church enjoy the temporalities formerly en joyed by the Catholic church ? It was not the clergy in England that effected the reformation in the church. On the contrary, the reformation was forced on the clergy, just as reformation must Always be forced on those who are themselves the authors of the abuses complained of. Cler gymen, like all other men, are naturally par tial to those abuses by which they individually profit. In England, the State has inter fered again and again, not merely with the pro perty, but with the discipline of the church. " In King Edward the Sixth's reign," says Dr. South, " the divine worship was twice altered in two new Liturgies. In the first of Queen Mary, the Protestant religion was persecuted with fire and faggot, by law and public council of the same persons who had so lately- esta blished it. Upon the coming in of Queen Eliza beth, religion was changed again ; and, within a few days, the Public Council of the nation made it death for a Priest to convert any man to that religion, which before with so much eager ness of zeal had been restored. So that it is observed by an author, that in the space of 12 years there were four changes about religion made in England, And that by the public council and authority of the realm." It still becomes, therefore, the Protestant Establish ment—the creation of law—to object to reforms by die public councils to which it is indebted for its being. " The Clergy," says Mr. Mill (Analysis of the Human Mind, vol. 2, p. 231), " have invented a name for their own ease. It is love of the Church. This means the love of the interests of the class ; of the wealth, power, and dignity of the Clergy." But the:interests of the Church and the interests of the Clergy are not always identical. It is the interest of the Clergy to obtain, to receive as much, and to do as little as possible ; it ie, the interest of the Church that the Clergy should receive a just recompense, and should labour assiduously. The Clergy, by prosecuting their separate inte rests, may destroy the Church. " Was it not impossible," said Lord Mounteashel, " that a few working Clergymen could instruct the great bulk of the inhabitants in the doctrines of their religion ? And was it, therefore, to be wondered at, that thousands upon thousands had di verged from the Establishment and joined themselves to the Dissenters and Catholics? So that with the Jesuits and Priests in general on one side, and the Dissenters of all grades on the other—all lopping from the Church, and each anxious to promote its own system—the Church of England, whose doctrines bid defiance to, and whose precepts challenged the world, would, in the course of a few years, have faded away, and left but the name behind." It is by not keeping constantly in mind the difference between tile interests of the Clergy and the interests of the Church, and that the love of the Church is al• ways strongest in the Clergy when the interests of the Church are the least attended to, that the Reformation has made so little progress in Ire land. The Clergy of the Protestant Church of Ireland purposely set themselves against the in terests of the Church, by discouragin g , in every possible way, the communication of the Pro testant doctrines to the native Irish in the only language accessible to them. Even at this day there are, according to a table in a recent pub lication, by Mr. Christopher Anderson, not fewer than 3,740,217 of the population of Ire land understanding only the Irish language. It is obvious that the Irish could not be converted except; through the medium of their own lan guage. But the Church resolutely withstood all attempts to furnish them with the Scriptures in Irish. Those pious Members of the Esta blishment who were actuated by G. better spirit were persecuted by their brethren. The suffer ings of Bishop Bede', on account of his exer tions for the natives, will always remain a blot on the Church. But the Church rested not on the number of its adherents, but on the arm of the law. It was an Orange Church. But on a fu ture day we may enter more fully into the state ment of the conduct of the Clergy, which will show how little reliance is to be placed in any reform beginning with that body.—iilorn. Chron. We have received a mass of letters of late, from various Correspondents, relative to the dis graceful condition of the streets of. London at the present time, for want of an effective police. One of our Correspondents says, " It is hardly necessary to state that the hordes of abandoned women who now infest every thoroughfare of the metropolis, and its subuths, have latterly, under the incessant And maddening stimulus of gin, assumed a chataeter of hardened ferocity, and addicted themselves to habits of plunder, so systematic and atrocious as to render them a: this moment the most dangerous and efficient agents in the march of demoralization.' " To the truth of this repulsive picture of the open, undisguised, and unrepressed depravity of the streets of this great metropolis of the " most moral country' in the work!, we can give the testimony of our personal observation. The prin cipal thoroughfares are absolutely taken p oss „.. iton of after dusk by gaup of licentious and drunken women. They obstruct passengers-- insult modest females—di'turb the peace of the neighbourhood with the most outrageous noises, and materially assist the pickpockets in their work of depreciation. As to the " guardians of the night" in general, they seem to be in the pay of the brigands and their female accomplices who " expect their evening prey." Our Corres pondent proceeds to say that " the reversal of the ameliorating influence of women in society, which the streets and public places of London exhibit, is undoubtedly to be ascribed to their inordinate passion for gin and dress—a passion every day increasing among our females of the lower ranks, and even infecting many of the middle classes—for the sake of indulging which they scruple not to sacrifice every feeling and principle of their proper nature and duties."— There can be no doubt that the propensity for ardent spirits is alarmingly on the increase among both males and females in the worki ng c l asses o'f . London, and hence a copious accession of crime and disgusting immorality. Ever since Govern ment lowered the duty on gin, that destructive beverage—that "liquid fire" which consumes both life and character and natural affection and the sense of decency—has been committing its physical and moral ravages to a degree that at length threatens a very general demoralization of the mass of the people. It is among gin-drinkers that thieves principally recruit their forces, and from the same source comes a great deal of that female depravity that swarms all our streets, in fests our pinks and promenades, and fills cur theatres with the odious exhibition of obtrusive unblushing vice. Another cause for the increased consumption of gin besides its cheapness, is the brewers' monopoly, which, by preventing compe tition in the manufacture of porter, has put the publicans under the necessity of selling whatever unwholesome adulterated stuff they choose to supply them with. The consequence is, that London porter has got in general into bad odour—much less of it is consumed than for merly, considering the increase of population, and thus the avaricious and grasping spirit which governs the monopoly re-acts upon itself. They have deteriorated the article to increase their profits, and by thAt means they are con siderably diminishing the trade. If Hogarth were again to return upon earth, his inimitably dramatic pencil would find no dearth of material in the streets of London at the present clay for the composition of another picture of the melan choly and grotesque depravity of " Gin-alley." Great expectations are formed by some " public instructors" of the new police—we await the ex periment. Already have there been several in stances of persons engaged for that s erv i ce b e i ng themselves brought U up to police-offices for drunkenness and other delinquencies. It is not in our power to say what the new police can do, but we can take upon us to state what they cannot do—they cannot, be they ever so sober and ex emplary themselves, put a stop to gin-drinking, the source of so much misery, i mmora li ty , and crime. For this habit the Legislature and Go vernment are in a great measure responsible. The revenue is, no doubt, improved by the hn mense consumption of gin, but how dear is the price at which revenue is obtained when it costs the country no less than the sacrifice of the morals of the people !—Mo7ning Herald. Our readers will find in another column an account, from Parliamentary documents, of the total quantity of malt made in England and Wales from 1787 to 1828, inclusive. — The do cument is an extremely curious one in more than one respect ; and some comments have been made upon it in the last number of the Edin burgh Review, which it will not be uninteresting to present to our readers. The great, and the most important, fact proved by the document in question is, that the consumption of malt has been stationary in England, during a period of no less than 50 years--or rather that .it has in some measure declined ; for in 1787 there were, in numbers, 3,400,000 quarters of malt made, and in 1828, only 3,137,000 ! The most agreeable solution of this startling fact would be, that the people having been duly instructed in Malthusian doctrines, had permitted the popula tion to decrease ; and that, although the quantity of malt made in England and Wales was less in 1828 than in 1787, those who were accustomed to use malt liquor, had enjoyed an equal quantity of it during the latter, as during the former pe riod. This solution, however, will, unfortu nately, not serve us ; for the population, which in 1801 amounted, according to the returns, to 9,100,000, had increased in 1821 to 12,100,000, and must, according to the same ratio of in crease, have amounted in 1827 to 13,300,000. A very great decrease, therefore, in the quantity of malt liquor consumed by each person must have taken place since 1787, and the table to which we have referred, and which will be found in another column, will in part explain the mys tery. It appears from it that in 1787 the rate of duty was only 10s. 6d. per quarter, and that in 1828 it was double that amount ; and it may hence be inferred that the decline in the consump tion of malt liquor has arisen more from over taxation, or some other cause intimately con nected and equally oppressive with it, than from any distaste on the part of the public for such beverage. This, indeed, is the general result in all such cases ; for two and two in po litical arithmetic do not make four, but, on the contrary, are more like to cause a decrease than an increase in the amount of revenue. It may be objected, however, in the present instance, that the duty amounted from 1804 to 1817 to 345. per quarter ; and, consequently, that the decrease in the quantity of malt made cannot possibly be owing to the tax imposed upon it.— It ought to be recollected, however, that during the period in que.'ition, the country was carrying on an extensive war—the trade was brisk and profitable—that the difficulty was to find work men, not to find work—that the labourer re ceived hi; hire in full—and that the currency was at least 25 or 30 per cent. under its present standard. No such facilities for paying the malt tax exist now, and it may, therefore, we think, be very fairly inferred that its enormous amount ha; something to do with the diminished consumption of malt liquors. A cause, how ever, of even still greater magnitude is to be found in the oppressive and unjustifiable manner in which this, and all the other taxes relating to malt, and the liquors made from it, are col lected. The grievances sustained in this respect by the manufacturers of malt ar detailed in the periodical to which we have alluded, in a man ner whiz!! must convince every one that the in genuity of Icgislaton can be taxed no further, to oppress those who are concerned in it. And here indeed is the grand secret of the diminished consumption of malt liquors ; for whatever in creases the labour, diminishes the facilities, or adds to the risks of the manufacturer, neces sarily forms part of the price of the article manu factured, and tends, in proportion to the addi- Lion, to diminish the quantity consumed. That a reform in the. law on this subject is indispen sably necessary there can be no doubt. The stationary nature of the consumption of the arti cle in question is an irrefragible proof that there is something rotten in the system pursued ; and vhen it is considered that the malt liquor forms not only the main luxury, but also one of the principal necessaries of the working classes, we think it will be agreed on all hands that the Legislature could not well be better employed than in endeavouring to furnish them with this beverage in the greatest quantity, and of the best quality. The public is, in fact, but little aware that the Government receives an ad valorem duty of no less than 150 per cent., or rather more, on every bushel of malt that is manufactured into beer, or, in plainer language, that there is paid to Government 14,-d. out of every pint of beer that is consumed in the metropolis—the remain ing penny being all that the farmer, the maltster, the brewer, and the victualler, receive for their grain, hope, expence of manufacturing, and re tailing For example— The Malt duty amounts to £3,340,000 The Beer duty to Maltsters' licences 20,000 Brewers' licences Hop duty 441,000 Total _ £7,165,000 No article but one of primary necessity cou have withstood such an overwhelming load of taxation, as that which, we have now shown, presses on the consumption of beer ; and no one, we are confident, who looks at the amount for a moment can doubt that it is needless to travel farther in search of the causes which have kept its consumption stationary in point of quantity, and greatly dimi nished it when the increased population of the country is taken into the account. But the amount of the duty is not the only evil ; the tax is partial in its operation, and falls with the greatest severity on those who are least able to pi) , it, and at the same time are least able to dispense with the taxed commodity. The malt tax, for example, must be paid, by all who ma nufacture or buy malt ; and, however severe in its pressure, may, in consequence, be said to be • a fair tax; but not so with the beer duty; for while those who brew beer for their own con sumption only pay no tax, all who brew strong beer, intermediate beer, or table beer for sale, are taxed at the rate, in the one case, of 10d. per barrel—in the second, at the rate of 4s. 11d. ! On this subject the writer of the article in the Edinburgh Review observes that— " As rich people generally use only beer rnanu. factored in their own houses, and as the poor, from their inability to brew at home, are obliged to buy their beer entirely from public-houses, the real effect of the tax is to impose a heavy burden on the working classes, from which the nobility and gentry of the country are wholly exempted. The hard working labourer cannot get a glass of ale to invigorate his constitution, without paying a duty upon it at the rate of Os. 101 a barrel, while the nobleman, merchant, or banker, in the receipt, probably, of 10,000!. or 20,0001. a-year, may con sume any quantity he pleases, either at his own table, or that of his servants, without having to pay one farthing of duty ! That a tax so scandalously partial should ever have been imposed, or that it should still be continued, and so little outcry be raised against it, is indeed extraordinary. It is, without any question, the most objectionable tax in our fiscal system. The country has rung with well founded complaints of the unjust preference afforded by discriminating duties to West Indian over East Indian sugars. But what is this preference, when compared with that we havi3 now pointed out ? Here we have the rich and the great enacting a law, by which a heavy duty is laid on the beer consumed by the poor, from which that used by themselves is entirely free. It is ludicrous, while such a law is suffered to disgrace the statute-book, to talk about the fairness and equality of our system of taxation. We do not believe that the legislation of Algiers can furnish a more glaring example of partiality of preference than the one in question." For such barefaced preference of the rich to the poor—such an atrocious grinding of the latter, and impudent passing over of the former— there is no apology, as there is also no parallel to be found to it in the history of any country ; but, like every species of injustice, whatever form it may assume, it recoils with double violence on • the heads of its authors. The direct operation of the heavy amount of the tax, and its partial apportionment between th e t wo grea t classes of society, is to diminish the amount and the price of the barley consumed in malt ; and though the land-owner gets his home-brewed cheaper than the brewer can possibly manufacture his, he pays dearly for it, by having more waste land on his estates, and less rent than he would otherwise re ceive. All parties are, in fact, seriously injured by such injudicious and unjust taxation—the la bouring man in being able to purchase a smaller quantity of a healthful beverage than he other wise would—the farmer in getting a less price for his barley (for a greater demand for it would necessarily raise the price)—and the land owner in a diminished rent for his land. Let us now ask whether it is possible to produce, or to demand, more convincing proofs of the impolicy of a tax than those which we have now furnished of the taxes which are levied on malt and beer ? We think not ; and we think also that if our sa pient Legislators have any spark of common sense left—any regard for their own interests, or any bowels of compassion for the wants and distressed condition of the poor,—their first and best attention will be given to the subject which we have now been handling. 'We are often told by them that the distress of the agri cultural interest is owing mainly to the importa tion of foreign corn ; but here, we will venture to add, is a tax which, in its pernicious effects on agriculture, more than counterbalances the greatest quantity of foreign grain which. has ever been introduced in any one year into the United Kingdom.—Morning Advertiser. A gentleman recent l y arr i ve d in this town __ . _ from St. Petersburgh describes the enthusiasm of the people in favour of the Turkish war to be now as great, as was their dissatisfaction at the close of the last campaign. Illuminations had been frequent. The Emperor .NiciloLas is much liked, and had rendered himself very popular by various reforms, such as abolishing the fees—in other words, the bi ihes—heretolore taken by Custom-house officers, many of whom with a salary of about 8 or 101. sterling a year, lived at the rate of 200 or 3001. Elpion nage and the secret p olice are however still in a c ti ve ope ration.—Brighton Gazette. CEDAR OF LEBANON.—There is to be seen, at the present period, at the yard of Messrs. BOLTON and HumennEr, a singulatly beautiful specimen of the wood of the Cedar of Lebanon, grown not merely in England, hut in the county of York, in fact at Cottingham, four miles from this town, The tree front which the specimen we have seen was taken, was cut down on the premises of the late N. SYKES, Esq. and purchased by Messrs. B. about twelvemonths since, but only within these few days been sawn up. On cutting throush the log they were perfectly astonished at the tine grain and beautiful pattern it disclosed. It is figured equal to the finest foreign wood, and bears a most exquisite polish. Without ocular in spection it is not possible to form any notion of its extreme beauty. The age of the tree when cut down is unknown ; it was of large bulk, but net lofty.... Hull Packet, MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, SEPT. 24, William Cobbett, John Cobbett, and Rickard Cob , belt, were indicted for an assault upon Daniel French, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Mr. PRENDERGAST conducted the plaintiff's case. ' Mr. French was the first witness. He deposed, that on the 12th of August last, about half-past four o'clock in the afternoon, he met Mr. Wm. Cobbett, fun. in Piccadilly. In passing, he looked at him with a furious regard, and he (Mr. French) looked at him in a stern manner. After he had passed, he came back and tapped him on the shoulder, and " Mr. French, I wish to put a few questions to you." To which he replied, he would have no objection to answer any questions which might be put to him. He said he did not like to question him in the street, and would accompany him to his house. To which he objected, as he said the questions he had to put must be put before wit nesses. He declined answering any questions be fore another person, as he was at variance with some of the Cobbett family. Ile then requested him to meet him at Barn Elms, which he declined, as he knew his father was not there. He then said, you know that my father is not there, and from whom have you obtained your intelligence ? He re plied, it was of no consequence. He requested him a second time, but he replied that he had to be at Hammersmith before seven o'clock. He then bid him good day, tied they separated, and he (Mr. French) proceeded home. As he was walking up Silver-street, about six o'clock on the same evening, he arrived at a solitary part of the road where a coal waggon was standing. The three brothers at the bar were looking between the waggon; when he approached Mr. Wm. Cobbett, who was armed with a stick, he immediately rushed upon him, and struck several blows on his side. Mr. French then pro ceeded as follows :—" I endeavoured to run away, but the two younger brothers stopped me. I said, I think I yet have strength sufficient to master them,' and struck a blow at William; but I was knocked down, and fell, crying out that I was mur dered. Whilst on the ground, I received a blow on my throat from the club. I felt pain from that blow until six o'clock the next morning. They con tinued to beat me when I was on the ground. The people around cried shame. Mr. French being now asked by his Counsel whe ther he had given the defendants any provocation, proceeded to state what he conceived to have been the cause of their attack upon him. We report the witness's extraordinary statement nearly as he deli vered it, with the exception of some parts, which, it will be obvious, it was necessary to omit. Mr. French said, I have long been on habits of intimacy with Mrs. Cobbett's family. For nearly six months past (I cannot speak with perfect accu racy as to time) Mrs. Cobbett has been extremly communicative to me on the subject of her family concerns, which I always listened to with extreme reluctance. She used very plain and intelligible language as to the nature of her suspicions concern ing her husband and Mr. Riley. I did not under stand her meaning►, notwithstanding her plainness of language, for a long time, thinking she could know nothing of the crime to which she alluded, and therefore I always upbraided myself for suspecting that a lady could allude to such a subject. A cir cumstance, however, occurred some time ago, which induced me to put the question to her—whether she really imagined and meant to convey to me that she suspected any thing unnatural between Mr. Riley ' arid Mr. Cobbett ? Upon which she replied that " she did—what else could she possibly mean ?" The circumstance which gave rise to my putting this question was the following :—Some time previously to my putting the question to her— The CIIAIRMAN said it did not appear to him to be relevant to the case, that the witness should state what induced him to ask the question. Mr. French—l will not sate the circumstance. The CIIAIR3IAN-It is for the Counsel to ceasider what course should be pursued. Mr. PRENDERGAST—I had not the honour to hear what the Chairman said. The CIIAIRMAN—I hardly know what I am say ing—the case is so extraordinary. I think, how ever, the witness should not state the motive for asking the question. Mr. French proceeded—Nfrs. Cobbett told me that she had cut her throat on these suspicions about a year ago, and that she was very likely to do it again, unless Mr. Cobbett sent off Riley, left Barn Elms, and came to his family at Kensington, whi ther his sons and daughters, alike with her, were all determined to bring him. She said that they were indignant at his goings on, and were only waiting for the arrival of James and Nancy from Italy (brother and sister) to compel him to come.— She told me likewise that the cook, upon one occa sion -- The CHAIRMAN—It is the duty of the defend ants' Counsel to stop this. Mr. PHILLIPS—I have, from my clients' direc tions, to give the prosecutor a carte blanche, to state what he pleases. These being my directions, I will observe them. With you the case is different. Where the character of a family is at stake, it is for you to decide whether this evidence is legal. I think it is mit. Mr. PRENDERGAST thought that the witness had stated all that was sufficient. Mr. French said that the most important part o! his statement was untold. The CHAIRMAN said he was placed in a very awkward situation. He thought it was the duty of Counsel to interfere. Mr. PRENDERGAST again expressed a wish that Mr. French should stop. Mr. French—How is this ? I hope I shall not be betrayed • The CUAIRMAN—AII this is as new to me as if it lad come out of the other world. Mr. PRENDERGAST—It i 8 new to every body. Confine yourself, Mr. French, to answering this question—Did you communicate these facts to Mr. Riley and Mr. Cobbett ? Mr. French—Yes, with another fact, the most important of all. Am I to go into this fact or not ? The CHAIRMAN—I do not know. Mr. French—The defendants' Counsel wishes me to go on. Mr. Pint.ups—l do not. This sort of :uproar continued a few moments longer, until, during a pause, Mr. French attempted to proceed with his narra tive—Mrs. Cobbett told me, on one occasion, when Mr. Riley and Mr. Cobbett lived at Barn Elms, in a wing of the house— Mr. PRENDERGAST—The Court cannot legally re ceive this evidence. hlr. French—Upon my honour, I do not under stand this conduct. I wish I could plead my own cause. The CIIAIRMAN—You are stating what is not necessary to the cause. Mr. French—'hatifiroy c l a i43 ‘-a: o a f the assault. It atsosultat. state was, thi l n t k is t q h u e it e e hief impossibl e po to report all that passed in these interlocutory passages; for not unfrequently the Chairman, the two Counsel, and the witness were all speaking together, and the confusion really surpassed any thing we ever beheld in a Court of Justice. Mr. Fiench, the moment silence prevailed, went on with his statement, which, however, we do riot think it ►necessary to repeat. The witness was now cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—I communicated these facts first. to Mt. Ril e y. I told Mr. Riley to tell Mr. Cobbett to come to me. When he came I communicated the same facts to him. During the progress of the com munications which Mrs. Cobbett made to see, I frequently saw Mr. Cobbett; but I did not under stand what she alluded to. I have dined with the family once or twice. I was always treated with hospitality. Cobbett printed a book, which I wrote, at his own cost. He said that I should have the profit after his expences were paid. I told him he might do what he pleased with the book. I once showed Mr. Cobbett my bare breast. It bore the marks of nails. I told him I was on my knees at prayer when I received them Mr. PRENDERGAST thought the rules oflaw ought to be adhered to as much as possible. The nail marks appeared to have nothing to do with the case. The CnAmmAN--When the Counsel asks a ques tion respecting the circumstance, I must suppose that it bears upon the case. Mr. PRENDERGAST—Was this something that took place bet ween you and your wife? Mr. French—Yes, in my own family alone. It is totally unconnected with the case, and is only mentioned to expose me. I am, however, most anxious to explain the circumstances. (After a stormy discussion, the cross-examination was proceeded with, and the cir cumstance of the nail marks was for the present passed over.) During the time Mrs. Cobhett was making .communications to me, I four or five times received little presents of game from Mr. Cobhett and members of his family. I considered them to be a tacit remuneration for assistance which I ren dered Mr. William Cobbett in Latin. I have had the power of taking Mr. Cobbett's Register gra tuitously for three or four years. I omitted to take it, until at length Mr. Cobhett upbraided me, and I took it more to please him than myself. I did tell Mr. Cobbett that Mrs. Cobbett had accused him of indulging in unnatural propensities. Question—Was any member of the family pre sent when Mrs. Cobbett communicated these facts to you ? Answer—No ; but the sons and daughters were present when she said that Riley was worse than the imp of hell, and was capable of any thing. Where did the communication take place ? Once in the parlour, once in the drawing-room, and once in a private lodging of my own, where I never admit any women, and did not wish to admit her. How long was it after you ascertained Mrs. Cob bett's meaning that you communicated it to Mr. Riley ? —Not more than two or three days. How did you account for the nail-marks in your breast ?—Be connected in your examination. You jump from one thing to another; however, I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining the circumstance. Mr. French then told a long story about his hav ing one evening seen Mrs. Riley, who is separated from her husband, part of her wav home. He after wards had occasion to s t o p a t Pi m li co on business till a late hour, and did nut reach home until half past two o'ck ek in the morning. His wife, who he said was of a very jealous disposition, supposing that he had been all the time in company with Mrs. Riley, attacked him whilst at prayers, and left the marks of her nails on his breast. He concluded by declaring with much fervour that he considered adultery a heinous crime, and would not associate with any man who was guilty of it. Nothing material was elicited by the re-examina tion of the witness. In reply to some questions put by Mr. Phillips, through the Chairman, the follow ing statement was produced : " I told Mr. Cobbett to confront me with his wife, if necessary. I said,' I hope you believe every thing.' He said Yes; it was always my firm con viction when the cut her own throat—(you must have heard something about that—the Times alluded to it)—' " Mr. Pt-mums—Do not mimic Mr. Cobbett, sen Mr. French—l am not mimicking. That is ex actly the motion of his arm, and it is very proper.— Mr. Cobbett proceeded—" She came in with the fixed deliberate intention of cutting mine, but Riley accidentally being there the --- cut her ow n ." Cobbett further said—" It was not Riley who shut the door, but I. I was apprehensive that she would cut my throat, or cut her own with the view of making the world believe that I had done it." After some further observations of little import ance, Mr. French retired front the box, observing that he thought enough had transpired to give the Jury an insight into the case. Three witnesses were called, who saw the assault committed, and from their description of it it cer tainly appeared to have been of a violent nature. One of them, a man, said, that Mr. William Cobbett had a stick with a knob at the end, not quite so large as his fist, with which he " paid into" Mr. French. He thought that if the stick bad struck a vital part, it would have caused death. Mr. Riley was then called, and sworn, but Mr. Prendergast did not examine him. Mr. Pittwrs—ls this gentleman here for orna ment only ? Mr. PRENDERGAST—I have called him that you might examine him if you please. How ever, I will ask whether Mr. French has correctly stated what took place between him and Mr. Cob bett in the witness's presence ?—lle has. Mr. French said there was a female relation of Mr. Cobbett in Court, whom he wished to examine. Mr. PIZENDERGAST said he did not think she could depose as to the facts before the Court, and therefore he would decline calling her. Mr. PHILLIPS then addressed the Jury for the de fendants. He said that such a case had, perhaps, never before been introduced into a Court of Justice, and it reflected little honour on the English bar that it should have been so ostentatiously exposed before the public. That Mr. Cobbett should frequently be dragged before the public was not surprising. Exposure to calumny and slander was the debt which great talents too often unfortunately paid in this world. But he confessed he was astonished that a person in the rack of a gentleman, a member of the British bar, a husband and a father, should willingly come into that Court and depose to the facts which he had stated. What, he asked, did that man deserve who could act the part which French declared himself to have acted ? Here was a man who for years had enjoyed the confidence of a family,—treated with hospitality by every member of it,—receiving acts of kindness, small, perhaps, in extent, but undoubted as to their motive,—engaged in giving utterance to slanders too odious almost for human utterance. According to his state ment, he had been occupied for six months in hear ing the most odious slanders against the husband from the lips of his wife, and yet, although he was in the constant habit of seeing the husband, he never opened his lips to him on the subject. No man of proper feeling could have sitten down at table with Mrs. Cobbett after having heard from her such an imputation on her husband. He believed that Mrs. Cobbett never said any thing of the nature attri buted to her; but upon that.he should have to make an observation to the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. If Mrs. Cobbett had desired to make such a communication, would she have se lected a stranger for her confidant ? Mr. French was wise in one thing—in his conversations with Mrs. Cobbett he had never had a single witness. His statements, therefore, could only be contradicted by the improbabilities of the case. Mr. French here interrupted the Learned Coun sel, and declared in the most solemn manner his dis belief in the imputations made against Mr. Cobbett and Mr. Riley. Mr. Pntuars said he was a little surprised that Mr. French had not made this declaration before in one of the many episodes with which he had in dulged the Court. If Mr. French did not put cre dit in the imputation, so did Mr. Cobbett not be lieve that it had ever been made by his wife. H e was justified in stating this on two grounds :—first, because Mr. Cobbett was living with her at this mo ment; secondly, because he had been a witness fcr many a year to her faithful affection—to her more than feminine constancy with which, through good and evil report, she abided by him a kind mother and tender wife. What better proof could be de sired of the falsehood of the prosecutor's statement as regarded Mrs. Cobbett, than that the th:eeyoung men at the bar were fired almost to madness when they heard the slander that was directed against her. He believed that if the prosecutor had died under the blows which he received from the sons of the injured Mrs. Cobbett, thousands would have said that the provocation was commensurate with the punishment. Imagine the situation in which the prosecutor had placed Mr. Cobbett's family. There was the wife sitting at table opposite to the husband whom .she was Said to have accused of a dreadful crime; the husband opposite to the wife who had endeavoured to bring him to an ignomi• nious death; the three young men and their sisters reduced to the dreadful alternative of beholding in their father an unnatural monster or in their mother . the most foul and infamous of slanderers. The Learned Counsel concluded with observing, the.. the defendants had committed an infraction of the law, yet their inducement to it was of so powerful a nature, as to deprive it of an aggravated character. The CHAIRMAN expressed his gratification that " • case was about to terminate which must have caused pain, if not torture, to every one who had been . compelled to listen to it. He then proceeded to recapitulate the evidence to the Jury. Whilst the Chairman was reading the evidence, Mr. and Mrs. Cobbett, sen., entered the Court, a nd sat down at the extremity of the bench. It w as, however, hinted to them that it might be unpleasant to hear some parts of the evidence, and they retired. The Jury found the defendants Guilty of the assault, but under " strong provocation." Mr. PHILLIPS then said he had an affidavit to ' offer in mitigation of punishment. It was the affi davit of Mrs. Cobbett, denying that she had either directly or indirectly said any thing of the kind atm. tributed to her by Mr. French. Mr. PRENDERGAST prayed that the prosecutor might be allowed to file affidavits in reply. The Court having heard the beginning' of the affidavit read, decided that it could not he received. The CHAIRMAN said, that the Court, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, sentenced the defendant William to pay a fi n e of 20/. to the King, and the other two defendants to pay a fine of 40s. each. The Court likewise or dered that the defendants severally should enter into recognizances of 100/. to keep tke peace to wards Mr. French. CONFESSION OF DAVID EVANS. The following is the confession of David Evans, who was tried and convicted of the wil ful murder of Hannah Davies, at the Carmar then Autumn Great Sessions, on the 16th day of September, 1829 : " This is the confession of me, David Evans► who am justly condemned to suffer for commit; ting a great offence against the laws of God and man. I die in charity with all men. I forgive all who may have offended or injured me, and I hope that all whom I might have injured in word, or deed, will forgive me also. I was re' ceived by I3lannah Davies as her lover, and was , much attached to her. I visited her on Thurs day, the 11th of June last, and remained in her company on that occasion about two hours, and before we parted she asked me, if she were to go to her father's house the following Saturday. would I accompany her. I said I would, and promised to meet her on the road near Esgar Fynwent. I left home between nine and ten o'clock, and took a bill-hook with me, and told my sister that I was going to mend some gaps in the hedges. I began my work, but before I finished closing one gap, Hannah Davies came and called me, and asked if I was coming. MY answer was, that I would rather not come that night, and gave as an excuse that my sister was washing my stockings. She said, Come this night, or 1 will never forgive you.' On this I went, and we proceeded along the road to Civil sifigw, in the parish of Llanybyther. We then went over the mountain, and proceeded along in a friendly manner, until we reached the spot where the murder was perpetrated. As we were passing the small hollow where the body was found, I struck her with the bill-hook, which I had concealed under my coat, across her neck. She did not fall to the ground on the first blow; a second, which I immediately dealt, brought her to the ground, but on what part of the body it fell, I cannot exactly say, nor how many more blows I struck, for I was bewildered, and almost frantic, and scarcely knew what I was doing. was instantly smitten by my conscience after striking the first blow, and was sorry for the act, but was urged to finish the deed for fear she would recover, and that the attempt would be discovered, and I suffer for it. I did not drag her from the r oa d t o th e rav i ne , b ut s h e f e ll, should think, in that direction, from the force of the blows. I then ran homewards as fast as I could, and on the way dipped the bill-hook in a pool of water to wash away the blood. I reached home about one or two o'clock on the Sunday morning, and got to bed very silently, where lay about an hour. I then got up, wiped my shoes, and put grease upon them. These w ere . the shoes produced on th e t r i a l. Upon leaving the house on Saturday, I told my sister, to pre.. vent her coming out of the house, that she ! night. not see me going with Hann a h D av i es , that ! would drive the cattle into the night field ; an d in order to deceive her further, I finished mend' ing the gaps in the hedge after I got up on th e Sunday m orn i ng . I d o not t hi n k my s ister heard me coming into the house, for I came i n as silently as I could, and she was in bed. Ther e was no blood on my clothes, and I had no ac' complice whatever in committing this m urder' I was instigated to this dreadful act by a feeling of jealousy ; and I earnestly implore all youn4 men to take warning by my melancholy end, and not give way to unruly passions. I return my t most sincere thanks to those in whose charge have been ever since the awful and just sentence of the law passed against me, for the very ho' mane and tender kindness and attention, spiritual and temporal, which I received from them. • - " DAVID EVANS." This confession was delivered voluntarily, by the prisoner in Welch, and reduced t o wriii4 in English by us. THOS. JONES, Chaplain of the 08°1 ' D. A. WILLIAMS, Clerk. DYE FROM POTATOE-FLOWERS.---Sir SINCLAIR has ascertained, by a series of experiments CO n " ducted under his superintendance by G. PAGE and. C l) ** dyers, Prince's-street, that permanent and beautiful CO'; lours in silk, cotton, and woollen goods may be prode° ° from the flower of the potatoe. Sir JOHN says, that t h ,": colours are " equ a l t o the fi nest tints procured from r i " most valuabl e f ore i gn mater i a l s, an d i n r i chness o f ehl they are likely, in some cases, to be even superior ;" he adds, th a t " it i s a pecu li ar a d vantage a t this discovery that the cutting off the flowers of the paid ° t not prejudicial to the plant; on the contrary, by prevell, o ing the for m ati on o f th e see d or app l u there is reason ' he believe th a t it w ill a dd t o th e weighT, and improve quality of the root."— Caledonian Mercury. BIRTHS. ~1 of On the 224 inst. in St. Paul's Church -yarel, the 1.--1 the Rev. R. H. of a slaughter. VP At Ba ll,Ponsonhy-ha the lady of Edw. Stanley, of a son. MARRIED. At West Bolton, Captain W. Kirtley, to Marg . eldest daughter of the I..te George Robinson, Esq• o f foimer place. On the 24th inst. at St. George's, Hanover-squar e. tate Cockerel], Esq. to Joanna, youngest daughter of the • Brigadier-General Catlin Craufutd. DIED. .asoor On the 24th inst. Sarah, the wife of Mr. E. 111 of King-street, Cheapside. trAcloPP On the 24th inst. Catherine, wife of William of Kingsland-crescent, in the 41st year of her Age' viiza- On the 22d inst. at Denmark,hill, Camberwelltr Col beth Charlotte, eldest child of Henry and Elizabl t .:\ . vert Smedley, of the Sanctuary, Westraitutter, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BIURDO YOUrikso VIZ OPIUM, II!, SkIArPJ •;I ' D•M i /