The Sun. — London, England, 1829-07-08 00:00:00

ANTI -SLAVERY REPORTER. rt :h 1 Id TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. 8151 ) - -In my family the Anti-Slavery Reporter has long been received as a publication entitled to implicit credence respecting all matters occurring in our Colonies, and of course occurring at many thousands of miles from the sphere of our own observation. The number for the last month has, however, staggered our credulity, by representing a circumstance which took place in London itself, in a mariner which is directly at variance with all that is stated in the daily papers, and also with the Parliamentary notices. It appears that a Mr. 0. C ave, who, I believe, is not one of the Select Vestry in Aldermanbury, undertook to bring forward some kind of motion or other about negro children, contrary to the mysterious policy of the Anti- S lavery Directors, Nlho wished that nothing should be done this year in Parliament to embarrass the present negociations for the admission of certain of their \Vhig friends into power, and who, from the same mysterious policy, had suddenly superseded their annual meeting after it was actually fixed for the 2d of May. It became necessary, therefore, I presume, to leave Mr. Cave and his motion to shift for themselves; and at the same time to make it appear as if his being unsupported were the result ofaceident, or better still, the fault of the unwelcome intruder himself, who dared to trespass on the Anti- Slavery preserves. For this or some equivalent rea eon the Anti-Slavery Reporter for June, contrives to excus e the absence of the veteran leaders of the Party when Mr. Cave made his motion on the evening of the 4th of June, by boldly and broadly stating, that " almost every individual who felt an interest in the 'question had withdrawn, not even dreaming that such a thing was within the verge of possibility!" They were " not even dreaming," it seems, that Mr. Cave was about to make such a 'notion ; and yet I see that it was for three succes sive days inserted in its proper place among the " i ce° of the House of Commons. The notice being gi ven on the evening of the Ist of June for 2d ;on 2d the m o ti on , I aga i n see, was post poned to the 3d; and I copy from the public news papers the following account of what occurred on the 3d : " Mr. 0. Cave rose for the purpose of bringing forward a proposition to declare that children born of slave parents inee his M a j esty ' s Colonies, after a certain period, should be fr. nt at Et " Mr. Brougham, Sir J. Mackintosh, and Mr. F. Buxton, recommended the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion under existing circumstances! " Mr. 0. Cave declared his determination to persevere. "The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, as on the suggestion of several Hon. Members, Mr. 0 . Cave agreed to postpone his motion till to-morrow (this day), with the understanding that it should Men positively come on."—Times, June 4. Here then is a notice of a motion for the 221 --on the 2d it is postponed to the 3d— and the attempt to bring it forward on that evening gives rise to a discussion between Mr. a Cave, Mr. Brougham, Sir J. Mackintosh, and Mr. F. Buxton, which ends in an express un gerstanding that this motion shall positively be made on the evening of the 4th; and yet, suppressing all these facts, the Anti-Slavery Reporter informs his readers that on the evening of the 4th almost all those who felt an interest in the question had with drawn, not even dreaming that such a thing as Mr. vCave's motion was within the verge of possibility !! any one b e li eve t h at b e f ore t h ose gent l emen cwithdrew, they did not l oo k roun d an d see M r. 'e in hi s p l ace, actually waiting to make this the tl,i'dreatned-of mot i on ? C an any one suppose, after un derstanding of the preceding evening, that they would not have taken the trouble to ask him wether f rom any cause he had changed his inten , jr they h a d even enterta i ne d a d ou b t on the 'h -d J e ct ? Is h possible that these gentlemen sho u ld a ye gone away, not even dreaming that Mr. Cave's meti mi was within the verge of possibility ? Is it possible that the Anti-Slavery Editor can think that th e y d;,l, this is • h c Yet this the impression that would ..are been conveyed to my mind by his ingenious Latatement, if I had possessed no other means of kn owledge besides the Anti-Slavery Reporter ; and With respect to West Indian affairs I do possess no Othe r means. This being the case, Sir, I wish to know what portion I am in future to believe of other statements in the same publication, connected with fa cts remote from my opportunities of exact infor mation, when I see how much is hazarded with re spect to occurrences at home ? With this before , M Y eyes, w h at am I i n future to believe of the " 4 . = althine ss and advantages of Sierra Leone ? All confi dence is at an end. Jul 1 p r ,..Y 2, 1829. AN ENQUIRER. Do look at a remarkable case of Sierra Leone -15 "ey in the Times and Herald, March 4th last. R , e Duchess o f CLARENCE, the Du c h ess o f AxE of I Vxmatt, accompanied by the Prince and Princess Wen/Aa, visited the exhibition of the Brifish Institution In Pali...mall, yesterday. • The Duke of SUSSEX and the Princess So- AfATILDA honoured the exhibition of " Tam ''chanter and Souter Johnny" with their presence. Th e Princess AUGUSTA, the Duchess of and the Princess VICTORIA, the Duchess of GLOU eESTRR, and ethers of the Royal Family, partook of a ur n with Prince LEoroma, yesterday, at Marlborough -4°llBe, Pall-mall. The Duke of CUMBERLAND honoured Sir Monday, KNIGIITLEY with hi s company to dinner on Monday, at his residence in Upper Brook-street. The Princess AUGUSTA dined with the Duke I * Cialtaiqcs on Monday, at his residence in the King's "lace, St. James's. The Princess AUGUSTA and the Duchess of G LOUCESTER honoured the dejeune given by the Mar llioncss of Downsmaz on Monday, at Roehampton, with their presence. Prince LEOPOLD was present at the public b reakfast given yesterday by the Marquis and Marchioness of LONDONDERRY,' at Chiswick. The Duke of WEL LINGTON and a numerous party of the nobility and gentry, Wer e of the party. The young Queen of PORTUGAL gave a sit ting for her portrait on Monday to Sir TnoatAs LAW RENCE, at his residence in Russell-square. Her MAJESTY returned to her residence at Laleham in the afternoon. Mr. Ruse (f ormer l y Mi n i ster f rom the United States to this Court), and a number of American gentlemen, waited on the Duke of WELLINGTON yester day mornin g at t he T reasury , to have an interview with a Grace. respectin g the territory in dispute between our G overnment and that of the United States as to the boun- Ddary of the state of Maine and New Brunswick. The uke, accompanied by the CHANcer.Loa. of the EXCHE QUER and Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, the Lieutenant-Gover nor of New Brunswick (who is here OR leave of absence) l ' l 'ceived the deput at i on . Th e conference lasted about an 'lout The Marquis of CIIANDOS and several gen- Iletoen interested in the West India trade and plantations a °4 l an interview with the Duke o f W ELLINGTON yester gar, at the Treasury. . t ,„ The Earl of ABER DEEN v i s i te d t h e D u k e o f "zttrx wroN yesterday. Prince ESTERHAZY, the Austrian Ambas %dor; hal interviews yesterday with the Duke of WEL- LiksITON and the Earl of ABERDEEN. Mr. S ecre t ary P EEL an d Si r G EORGE COCK -14114 111 1,11 visited Sir GEORGE MURRAY yesterday at th e Co. I , The" Duchess of WELLIN GTON h as l e f t town w he r seat at Strathfieldsaye, Hants. The adjourned discussion of the Finance ret'emmittee on Mr. M‘DoNNELL's claim for extra rerun the4tion fur his services as Catholic agent in London for hite Ass oc i at i on was h e ld on S aturday last at Dublin. Committee decided that Mr. M‘DoNNELL had Rot good his claim, but advised an appeal to an Aggre "Me Meeting of. the Catholics. ' Twenty years ago none but London porter im go down in Dublin, but now we see Dublin porter oounced as a bonne bouche for the Londoners. CLON ME L, JULY 4, 1829. (FROAI OUR. COREESPONDENT.) When last I had the pleasure of addressing you, I had then thought that Ireland was at rest, and her people united. Time, that never-failing oracle, has proved the contrary ; for Ireland is not yet tranquil, at least so far as regards this county. It never was, perhaps, in a worse state of irritation than at present. The people of Tipperary are of rather a warm temperament, and are consequently the more easily goaded on to violence. They will not stand harsh or ungovernable conduct, particularly at the hands of those who should be their protectors, and when once a thirst for revenge is aroused within them it ' is no easy matter to crush it. As a proof generally of the state of this county, I refer you to that watchful sentinel of the people's rights, the Tipperary Fr ee Press (a paper which is looked up to by all classes for its impartiality). Scarcely a day passes that our ears are not besieged with the recital of some horrible outrage or murder, in which the police bear a conspicuous part. The common phrase is, " Why, the police is going to the d—l with themselves." Human life at their hands is scarce worth a bauble. The very semblance of a fight at fair or market is considered by them, when they meet with any re sistance, a sufficient excuse to fire on an unarmed multitude, and should they, from excessive num bers, be forced to retreat, the moment they find themselves secure they discharge a volley from the windows of their barracks, and other safe places in which they take shelter. It cannot be denied that when one or more persons are shot, as is usual on such occasions, there is an investiga tion the day following, and it some times ends in the removing of mire party to another station, and that is considered as a sufficent recompence. What a recompence this is to a widow woman in Tippe rary, whose husband was shot the last fair day there ! He was a quarter of a mile away from the scene of action when he received the ball. He has left six children to deplore his loss. Upwards of twelve persons have lost their lives, and double that number have been wounded in this county alone during the last six weeks, and all this from the un discriminating conduct of the police. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE Yesterday Robert Jones, the young man who was on Saturday charged before the LORD MAYOR w►th having committed a. fraud upon the banking-house of Williams, Deacon, and Co., of Birchin-lane, to the amount of 1541., by filling up as a cheque a piece of paper which had the genuine signature of Mr. Charles Woodward, solicitor, of Broad-street, attached to it, was brought up for final examination. The prisoner had been remanded at his own request, and was attended by Mr. Hobler, jun., as his soli citor. One of the firm of Williams, Deacon, and Co., and Sir William Curtis, and Mr. Gates, the solicitor to the Committee of Bankers, were present. The LORD MAYOR asked whether any thing more was to be done than to sign the depositions Mr. Gates called upon Mr. Woodward to attend to the reading of the depositions, and asked that gentleman whether he recollected where he had been on the day the forged cheque was presented. We understood Mr. Woodward to say that he believed he was in Staffordshire. He recollected that he was in town on Monday. Mr. Oates asked whether he did not go to the banking-house on Monday. He replied in the affir mative, and said that his reason for so doing was to fetch away his book. Mr. Gates—Were cheques left open by you to be applied by the prisoner as he should think proper ? Mr. Woodward—l cannot say. Mr. Gates—Am I to understand distinctly from what you state, that cheques with your genuine sig nature were not authorized by you to be filled up by him ? Mr. Woodward—l have already stated before the Lord Mayor what was the fact. I cannot deviate from that statement. The LORD MAYoR- 7 -The depositions shall be read over to you, and you can suggest any alteration you may think necessary. Mr. Gates—The prisoner stands in so serious a situation, and my duty is such, that I feel it neces sary to press a question which I have asked before upon the witness. Did you or did you not authorize the prisoner to fill up this cheque ? Mr. Woodward —I have already given an answer to that question in my depositions. I must not deviate from that statement. Mr. Gates—You have this day raised a doubt which, upon the former examination, you did not at all allude to. I wish to have that doubt explained. The LORD MAYOR—Is there any part of your depositions given upon a former day, which you are disposed to retract upon more deliberation ? Mr. Hobler (the chief clerk) then read Mr. Woodward's depositions, and when he came to that part in which the deponent stated that he had never authorized the prisoner to fill up cheques, Mr. Wood ward desired that that averment should not remain. He had at the time, he said, a multiplicity of busi ness to attend to, and he could not precisely recol lect whether the prisoner had been authorized to fill up cheques by him at any time. Mr. Gates—lt appears from what you now have stated, that you intrusted the prisoner with your signature to blanks which he was at liberty to fill up. I ask you whether that (showing the cheque in question) is not one of those with which you so in trusted him ? Mr. Woodward appeared to hesitate about an an awe!.; and upon being again questioned, said that his Lordship must see the necessity of his observing great caution in a case of the kind. The LORD MAYOR.—Was the prisoner in the habit of filling up blank cheques ?—Mr. Woodward. —No. Mr. Hobler, jun.—Has he never filled up cheques to your signature ?—Mr. Woodward—l cannot say positively that he has not done so, and my reason for saying so is, that in consequence of the multi plicity of business to which I had to attend, at the period alluded to, from my connexion with the Gas Company, 1 was obliged to have him to act for me in my absence. I beg to say, that I wish it to be stated in my depositions, that the prisoner was merely in my occasional employment. Mr. Hobler (the Chief Clerk)—That is of no im portance in a case of this kind. It might if the charge happened to be one of misdemeanour. Mr. Woodward—l see it stated in the depositions that I " believe" the signature to be my hand-writ ing. Now I wish it to be stated that " I have no doubt whatever of it." I also see that I am made to say that the body of the cheque was in the hand writing of the prisoner. Now I wish the words "to the best of my belief" to be introduced here. It is also mentioned that the prisoner had no authority from me to fill up cheques. I wish the words to be that " he had not authority to use the said signature in a cheque." Mr. Woodward, in endeavouring to observe the caution whick he said was so necessary, became ex tremely unintelligible sometimes. Mr. Gates--The young man's situation is a very perilous one. You must know whether on the 3d of November, 1827, you did or did not authorize him to draw 1541. from Williams's bank for you ? Mr. Hobler, jun., said that Mr. Woodward had already given his evidence upon that point, and asked whether his Lordship considered that sufficient had been shown to justify a committal. The LORD MAYOR said there was quite enough, and committed the prisoner to Newgate for trial. We understand that the prisoner's father was 40 years in the banking-house of Williams and Co., and was highly respected there. Letters from several gentlemen who attended the meeting at Ennis, of the " friends of Mr. VESEY FiTz- GERALD," have arrived in town this morning, announce that all intention of contesting the county of Clare with Mr. O'CONNELL hail been definitely abandoned. A baronet, largely connected with Clare, stated to the same effect, in the hall of the courts this day.—Dublin Even inu Post. FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT. Whitehall, July 3, 1829. The Lord Chancellor has appointed David Tanner Sweetlove, of Maidstone, in the county of Kent, Gent. to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. The Lord Chancellor has als ) appointed John Golds worthy Shorter, of Hastitvzs, in the minify of Sussex, Gent. to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. In the Gazette of the 12th of May last, in the appoint ment of his Majesty's Agent and Consul General in the dominions of the Emperor of Morocco, for Edward A. W. Drummond Hay; Esq. read Edward William Auriel Drummond Hay, Esq. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. William Bonus, Ware, Hertfordshire, innkeeper. Edwin Smith, Cheltenham, silk-mercer. Samuel Cooper, High-street, Wapping, victualler. BANKRUPTS. John Peter Bennett, Union-court, Broad-street, mer chant, to surrender July 10, at three, 21, and August 18, at two, at the Cuurt of Commissioners. Coombe, Token house-yai d. Richard M.,tt, Newington-causeway, Surrey, July 10, at one, 14, at twelve, and Aug. IS, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Blake, Essex-street, Strand. Edward Aldred, Milk-street, Cheapsid e, warehouseman, July 10, at two, 17, and August 18, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Phipps, Weaver's-hall, Basing hall-street. Edmund Tyrell, Brownlow-street, Drury-lane, victualler, July 10, 21, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Com missioners. Evans and Ilarpur, Kennington-cross. Edmund Mutlow, Leominster, Hereford, linen-draper, July 10, 21, and August 18, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Barry, Old Jewry, London. George Hewett, Reading, Berkshire, corn-factor, July 10, 17, at eleven, and Aug. 18, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Perkins and Frampton, Gray's-Inn -square. Edwin Esam and James Craig, Cheapside, linen,drapers, July 17, at four, 28, at three, and August 18, at two, at the Court of Commissioners. Ashurat, Newgite-street. John Tweralow, Hatherton, Chester, maltater, July 29, at four, 30, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the Corbet Arms Inn, Drayton-in-Hales, Salop. Rosser and Son, Gray's- Inn-place; Warren, Drayton-in-Hayes. John Stevens, Birmingham, grocer, July 20, 21, and Aug. 18, at one, at the Royal Hotel; Birmingham. Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pearse, and Hunt, Frederick's place, Old Jewry, London ; Webb and Dolphin, Birming ham. William Frederick Bradbridge, Liverpool, linen-draper, July 28, 29, and Aug. 18, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Clare, Liverpool; Taylor and Roscoe, King's Bench-walk, Temple. Richard Fox, Quorudon, Leicestershire, baker, July 16, 18, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Loughborough. Norris, Allen, and Anthony, John-street, Bedford-row ; Bosbrooke, Loughborough. John Pidgeon, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, boat-builder, July 27, 28, at five, and August 18, at one, at the Nor folk Hotel, Norwich. Austin, South-square, Gray's Inn, London; Nixon, Norwich. James Russell, Keswick, Cumberland, mercer, July 16, 17, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the Queen's Head Inn, Keswick. Addison, Gray's •Inn ; Lightfoot, Keswick. John Gilbert, High-street, Southwark, Surrey, hosier, July 14, 21, at twelve, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Hamilton and Twining, Ber wick-street, Soho. Richard Ridley, Brighton, Sussex, hat-maker, July 14, 17, and Aug. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Brough, Fleet-street. Thomas Everill, Worcester, maltster, July 22, 23, at eleven, and Aug. 18, at nine, at the Unicorn Inn, Wor cester. Becke, Devonshire-street, Queen-square; France, Worcester. Thomas Kelsbaw, Liverpool, merchant, July 17, 18, and Aug. 18, at one, at the George Inn, Liverpool. Taylor and Roscoe, Temple, London ; Lace, Miller, and Lace, Liverpool. Martha Charles and Thomas Burrows, Duke-street, St. James's, tailors, July 10, 17, at twelve, and August 18, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Taylor, Great James-street, Bedford-row. George Atkinson, jun., Sculcoates, Yorkshire, grocer, July 16, 17, and August . 18, at twelve, at the Kingston Hotel, Kingston-upon-Hull. Shaw, Ely-place, Holborn, London ; Thorney, Hull. William Harrison, Cover-Hill, within Saddleworth, York, woollen cloth-manufacturer, July 24, 25, and Aug. 18, at two, at the York Hotel, Manchester. Greenhalgh, Manchester ; Scott, Lincoln's Inn-fields. John Firth and Richard Firth, Sheepridge, Yorkshire, fancy-manufacturers, July 16, at nine, at the Sun Inn, Bradford, 28, at one, at the George Inn, Brighouse, and August 18, at ten, at the Rose and Crown Inn, Hudders field. Strangwayes and Walker, Barnard's-inn; Barber, Brighouse. DIVIDENDS. Robert Griggs, jun. Dover, grocer, July 30, at twelve, at the Guildhall, Canterbury. John Smith. sen. Burgh-in•the-Marsh, Lincolnshire, grocer, July 31, at two, at the White Hart Inn, Spilsby, Lincolnshire. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh and William Marsh, Great Scotland-yard, navy-agents, July 28, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. Thomas Dodgson and Thomas Hartley, Cheapside, warehousemen, July 28, at nine, at the Court of Corn missioners. Richard Ryland and William Ryland, Savage-gardens, corn-factors, July 28, at twelve, at the Court of Coin- missioners. Jane Case, Ormond House, Kennington-lane, Vauxhall, schoolmistress, July 28, at eleven, at the Court of Com- missioners. William Powell, Cheltenham, coach-builder, Aug. 1, at twelve, at the Lamb Hotel, Cheltenham. William Bolton, Banbury, Oxfordshire, and Thomas Bolton, Grimsbury, Northamptonshire, coal-merchants, July 29, at twelve, at the Red Lion Inn, Banbury. Thomas Jepson, Heaton Norris, Manchester, common brewer, Aug. 1, at one, at the York Hotel, Manchester. John Wilcox, Bladeley Wood, Shropshire, grocer, Aug. 3, at ten, at the Bull's Head Inn, Wellington, Shropshire. John Phillips, Tavistock-street, Covent-garden, linen draper, July 31, at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. _ . Philip Cope, Bridgnorth, Shropshire, grocer, Aug. 3, at twelve, at the Bull's Head Inn, Wellington, Shropshire. William Sherwood, Thos. Gilbert, and William Piper, Paternoster-row, booksellers, July 28, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Francis Grunwell, jun. Leeds, cheesemonger, July 28, at twelve, at the Court-house, Leeds. Henry Fauntleroy, Berners'-street, banker, July 14y al &even, at the Court of Commissioners. Edmund Sexton Gorman Munkhouse and Michael Arthur Gorman, London, merchants, July 28, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Timothy Heald, Grenada-place, Kent-road, merchant, July 28, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. James Daniell, Lime-street, provision -merchant, July 21, at two, at the Court of Commissioners. Joseph Goodwin, Sturton, Scawby, Lincolnshire, far mer, July 28, at four, at the office of Nicholson and Emp son, Glamford Briggs, Lincolnshire. Ebenezer Thompson, Globe-stairs, Rotherhithe, ship— builder, July 31, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners. John Newman, Cletkenwell, brewer, July 28, at tea, at the Court of Commissioners. James H irris, King-street, Soho, linen-draper, July 28, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. John Shaw, Thomas Shaw, and Samuel Shaw, Mold Green, Almondbury, fancy cloth manufacturers, July 28, at ten, at the George Inn, Huddersfield, Yorkshire. William Kaye, Almondbury, Yorkshire, fancy cloth manufacturer, July 30, at eleven, at the George Inn, Huddersfield, Yorkshire. John Dickenson, Almondbury, Yorkshire, fancy cloth manufacturer, July 30, at eleven, at the George Inn, Huddersfield, Yorkshire. John Foster, Knaresborough, Yorkshire, timber-mer chant, July 30, at eleven, at the Court-house, Leeds, Yorkshire. CERTIFICATES—JULY At. - . . John Christopher Knight, Finsbury-place South, drug gist and apothecary. Thomas Nixey, Oxford-street, hosier. Thomas Coburn, Witney, Oxfordshire, woolstapler. Henry Howell, Walsingham-place, Lambeth, merchant. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Richard Houghton and Zachariah Barnes Houghton, Liverpool. William Heywood and John Howson, Manchester, ca fenderers. Thomas Lockwood, Martha Martin, William Bevan, sen. and William Bevan, jun. James Dickson and William Abbott Kent, Wilson-street, Finsbury-square, silk-manufacturers. Thomas Shewring and Robert Veysie, Bath e shoe makers. • Joseph Deeley and James Wakeman, Birmingham, comb-manufacturers. Peter Hodges and Richard Lambert, Merthyrtidlil, Glamorganshire, ironmongers. Samuel Marsh, William Goodwin, John Dean, and William II mdley, jun., Stafford, earthenware-Manlike turers. W. Spensley and J. G. Lynch, Alder►nanbury. John Drakeford and David Drakeford, Manchtster, merchan ts. Robert Taylor, Thomas Bowley, and Robert Tayltr, jun., Charing-cross, boot-makers. Timothy George Ad tins and William Baldock Etiritke, Haymarket, coach-makers. Aaron Crosfield and John B - allock, Newport, Men moutbshire, provision -merchants. John Borthote and Joseph Greenway, Villiers-wharf, Strand, coal-merchants. Samuel Wilson and Charles Pritchett Bousfield, Old Jewry, silk-manufacturers. John Woodward and James Morton, Holborn-hill, carpet- manufacturers. James Bounds and Charles Eplett, Bristol, ship-joiners. George Wheeler and S unuel Bacon, Ortne-square, Bays water, surgeons. James Thompson and Robert Crowther, Wavertree, Lancashire, stone-masons. Alexander Veiteh, Robert Cowan, and Thomas Brown Milnes, St. John-street, West Smithfield, fender•manufac turers. Thomas Moore and John Noble, Preston, surgeons. William Siddal Palmer and Edward Cross, Liverpool, tea-dealers. Henry Wicks, sen. and Thomas Wicks, jun., St. John street. William Stevenson and William Thompson, Edinburgh, haberdashers. Samuel Stocker and William Harvey, Bristol, patten ring manufacture's. Harry Stoe Man and John Jackson King, London, general merchants. Thomas Butler and James Rodwell, St. Ives, Hunting donshire, boat-makeis. Robert Theakstone and Fawdington Theakstone, Liver pool. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. J. Smith, Jedburgh, and J. Smith, Kirkcannel, cattle dealers. J. Grant, Edinburgh, banker and W. S. SELECT VESTRY SYSTEM OF ST. MARTIN'S. FENN V. GRIFFITH AND OTHERS, OVERSEERS OF THE PARISH OF ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS. At one o'clock yesterday Mr. Fenn, accompanied by a number of the inhabitants of St. Martin's pa rish, appeared before Sir RICHARD BIRNIE, Mr. MINSIIULL, and Mr. ROBINSON (a County Magis trate), that hour having been appointed for hearing an information which had been laid by Mr. Fenn against the Overseers of St. Martin's, under the 17th Geo. 11., cap. 38, which imposes a penalty of five pounds, and not less than twenty shillings, upon the Overseers, for refusing to show the accounts of the parish, in a ",just, true, and perfect state," to any inhabitant who is a payer of rates, who has tendered sixpence for viewing the same. Sir R. BIRNIE was about to leave the office, when the case was called on ; and Mr. Fenn said he hoped the worthy Magistrate, who was acquainted with some important circumstances connected with the subject, would be pleased to give his attendance as the question was one of great public importance Sir It. BIRNIE said it was Report Day, and he must go to Whitehall. Mr. MiNstium, asked if there were any person in attendance from St. Martin's parish ; ar►d no answer being made, the Magistrate observed, that if the Overseers did not attend, he should issue a second summons; and if they did not then appear, he would take the evidence ex-parte, and convict them in their absence. Mr. RAWLINS, the Vestry Clerk of the parish, soon afterwards entered the office, and stated that he aF peared for the Overseers. The information was read : it stated that Mr. Fenn was rated to the parish, and, that on the 25th of June last, he applied at the office of the Overseers to see tile last year's accounts of the ex penditure of the parish, and a book was handed to him containing various items, and amongst them was the sum of 241. paid to Mr. Cuff, of the Free masons' Tavern ; but no bill or voucher was shewn to him explaining the nature of the claim of Mr. Cuff; and, although he paid the sum of sixpence, as the Statute directs, the defendants refused to shew him a just, true, and perfect account of the expenditure of the parish, and he (Mr. Fenn), there fore, prayed that they might be convicted in the penalty of which the Act imposes. Mr. FENN was sworn, and deposed to the truth of the facts stated in the information, and he read the clause in the Act of Parliament upon which the in formation was laid, as follows : " That Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor shall yearly, and every year, within 14 days after other Overseers shall be nominated and ap pointed to succeed them, deliver to such succeeding Overseers a just, true, and perfect account in writ ing, fairly entered in a book, or books, to be kept for the purpose, signed by the said Churchwardens and Overseers, hereby directed to account as afore said, under their hands, of all sums of money by them received, or rated and assessed, and not re ceived; and also of all goods, chattels, stock, &c. that shall be in their hands, &c. arid of all moneys paid by such Churchwardens and Overseers, &c.; and the Churchwardens and Overseers are hereby required to permit any person► assessed, or liable to be assessed, to inspect the books of the parish at all seasonable times, on payment of sixpence, &c. And if any Overseer, &c. refuse to obey and perform the several orders and directions of this Act, or any of them, every such Overseer, &c. so offending, shall, for every such offence, &c. pay the sum of .51., and not less than 205., to be levied by distress on the offender's goods, by warrant of such Justices," &c. Mr.RAwuNs—Theinformation charges the Over seers with having refused to allow Mr. Fenn to in spect the parish books; now that is not true, for they we►e shewn to him. Mr. FENN----I have sworn that " a just, true, and perfect account" has not been shewn to me. I saw a book containing sums in the lump. Mr. MINSHULL—Are the parish books here, Mr. Rawlins ? Mr. RAWLINS—No, they are not; I did not think it necessary to bring them. Mr. MINSHULL—I see no reason why they should not have been produced. Mr. RAWLINS—I am not bound to produce them ; and my answer to the present case is, that the accounts which are the subject of the informa tion before you have been audited, and legally passed by two Magistrates in Petty Sessions ; and that you have now Be jurisdiction in an inquiry relating to these accounts. Mr. MlNsturLt.—l have a jurisdiction which is given by the Statute, which says that the Overseers shall be liable to a penalty if they do not exhibit the accounts to a payer of poor's rates on his tendering the sum of sixpence; and the fact of the accounts having been audited or passed does not affect the provisions of the Statute in any way whatever. Mr. RAwuNs—l say that after the accounts have been passed by the Justices in Session, you have no jurisdiction over them. Sir RICHARD BIRNIE—The charge here is for not producing the accounts to a Payer of Rates; and the amount of the items we have nothing to do with. Mr. FENN again called the attention of the Ma gistrates to the Act of Parliament, which said nothing about the Overseers being exempted from exhibiting the accounts after they were audited and passed. There were many items in the Overseers' Accounts which were objectionable; in addition to the bill of Mr. Cuff's, there was the sum of thirty pounds charged for beating the boundaries of the parish on Holy Thtirsday; and, upon inquiry, he found that the stun was actually paid for a dinner at the Freemasons' Tavern. Mr. MINSHULL said that the Overseers ought to have produced the books to Mr. Fenn. Mr. RAWLINS said that they were shown to him. Mr. MINSHULL said that the item of 211., paid to Mr. Cuff, was not, in his.judgment, " a full, true, and perfect account of the expenditure;" it should have been added, " as per bill," and then Mr. Fenn might have referred to the invoice, and he would have had no cause of complaint. Mr. RAWLINS—The accounts are kept in the same way as they were when Mr. Fenn was Over. seer. Mr. MINSHULL—How can the parishioners know what the lumping item of Cuff's charge is for, un less they see a bill ? Mr. R SWLINs—Mr. Ferri knows very well what the item is for; the same ch n•ge was made when he was in office. Mr. MINSHULL—If you had produced the invoice to Mr. Fenn, there would have been no ground for this information ; as it is, I say you have not sheen him a full and perfect account of the expenditure. Mr. RAWLINS—I say we are not bound to spew the invoice. Mr. MeNsitueL—l say you are bound to spew a full and fair account of your expenditure, and the bills are most material parts of the parish accounts. Mr. RawuNs—l say we are not bound to show the vouchers. Mr. Mussituu,—But you are ; and if you do not, I shall inflict the penalty. If the accounts are kept fairly, what reason is there to withhold them from the inspection of the inhabitants ? Mr.RAWIANS—We shall not produce the vouchers. Mr. MINSHULL--Then I shall fine the Overseers the sum of 51., and they may appeal against my con viction. Mr. RAWLINS—I again deny that you have juris diction ; and if you convict and proceed to levy the penalty by distress, you will be liable to an action. Mr. MissusTeL—l certainly shall convict if one of my brother magistrates joins with me, it being ne cessary that two magistrates should decide upon a conviction. Mr. ROBINSON was of opinion, that, after the ac counts had been audited and passed by Magistrates in Petty Session, no information could be supported relating to such accounts. Mr. MINSHULL declared again, that the auditing and passing of the accounts had nothing to do with the charge imputed to the Overseers by the present information. Mr. ROBINSON was of opinion, that a full and true account had not been shown to Mr. Fenn ; but he felt diffident in entertaining an information touching accounts which had been sworn to by the overseers, and had been passed by the Magistrates. Mr. MiNsituLL—l only look at the fact of the books containing sums in the gross, and no vouchers having been produced. Mr. FENN—I beg leave to explain a circumstance of some importance. Before the accounts were audited and passed, I applied to see the vouchers, and the Magistrates said that I should see them. I was told that I should know when the Petty Ses sions would be held to pass the accounts. I ap plied repeatedly to see the vouchers, and on the third of July I was told that the accounts had been passed in Petty Sessions on the second. I asked Mr. Rawlins why he had not given me previous in formation when the Sessions was to be holden, and he replied that he had received no instructions from the Board on the subject. You see there was a determination to pass the accounts in private, or I should have received previous notice of the Ses sions; and I was the more surprised, because Sir R. Birnie shortly before had, in his evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons, declared that he never would pass parish accounts. until he had the vouchers produced. Sir R. BIRNIE observed, that he had asserted that he would not pass the accounts, unless they were previously examined; and before the accounts in question were passed, they were examined by three parishioners, who had compared them with the vouchers. Mr. FENN—The accounts ►were examined, no doubt, by the parties against whom I complain. Mr. RAWLINS—NO, they were not. Mr. FENN—Pray who did examine them ? Mr. RAWLINS—(No reply.) Sir R. BIRNIE— Why do you not say who were the three persons who examined the accounts before I passed them ? I say that each bill was ticked off item by item, and why do you not say who were the three parishioners? Mr. RAWLINS—I have no objection, if you wish it. Sir R. BIRNIE—I wish •it ! I have no wish on the subject. Mr. RAWLINS—AII I have to say is, the accounts are kept in the same manner as when Mr. Fenn was overseer. Mr. NllNsHum..—lf the accounts were then kept improperly, that does not make it right now. Sir R. BIRNIE—No, two blacks do not make a white. Mr. MINSHULL—WiII you produce the books and voucher ? Mr. RAWLINS—I certainly will not. Mr. MINSHULL—YOU have appeared for the over seers; and do you mean to take advantage of their not having appeared in person ? Mr. RAWLINS—I shall take any advantage, either legal or technical, in a case of this description. Mr. MINSHULL—Then I shall issue another sum mons against the overseers; and if they do not ap pear in person to-morrow, I shall hear the evidence, and decide in their absence. Mr. RAWLINS—Why does not Mr. Fenn take his remedy by appealing against the order of the Magistrates ? If they have passed inaccurate or im proper accounts, he may have good reason for ap pealing to the Quarter Sessions. Mr. MINSHULL—He has good reason, I think, in what he has done, and you are bound to show him the vouchers as part of the parish accounts. Mr. RomNsoN--Where are the accounts ? Mr. RAWLINS—In my possession. They were placed !here by order of the late Overseers. Mr. MINSHULL—You do not appear to be of opi nion that this Act of Parliament ought to be put in force; and I, who know nothing of your parish quarrels, feel myself called upon to enforce its pro visions when I see they have been violated. A Gentleman stated that a number of the parishioners of St. Martin's were in attendance, who ►were extremely anxious as to the result of this in quiry ; and the determination of the Overseers not to allow the parishioners an inspection of the ac counts was calculated to excite suspicions that there was some very extraordinary reason for it. Mr. MINSHULL—What may be the cause of with holding the documents I know not ; I, however, am of opinion they are bound to show them to the parishioners, and I have directed another sum mons to be issued against the Overseers to attend to-morrow. OA the authority of a professor of physiology, it is gravely stated in the Anthology, printed at Florence, that a hog was some time ago killed in the neighbourhood of Bologna, on one of the intestines of which the words, " lanza guida da," in black and permanent characters, were distinctly visible ! The butchers of Geneva have a singular mode of preventing flies from attacking the meat in their shops. They rub the walls and boards, upon which the ►neat is placed, with the essential oil of laurel, the smell of which keeps away this troublesome insect. On Monday two pigs in a stye, at the House of Correction, in this city, without any previous symp toms of indisposition, dropped down dead. Their bodies were opened, but nothing which led to the discovery of the cause of this singular fatality was observed in the ex amination.— York Herald. AN UNPLEASANT CUSTOMER.—Last week a person having the appearance of a gentleman, but who evi dently proved himself the reverse, called at the Old Hart's Horns Inn, Barnet, and ordered dinner, the best the host could afford, which was of course furnished him. After dinner, he regaled himself with several glasses of wine, brandy and water, &c p•and inquired if he could be accom— modated with a bed ; on being informed in the affirmative, the landlord informed his guest, previous to going to bed, that it would be necessary for him to pay the expences already incurred. He treated the "request with indiffer ence, but the landlord, as a matter of course, persevered in his application, but was informed by his liberal friend, that he had no money, but would remit it to him when he reached Edinburgh, whither he was bound. This not sa satisfying the host, he had his friend locked up for the night, and appeared next morning before the Barnet magistrates, who decided in favour of the traveller, intimating to the landlord that he could not detain the man a moment under such circumstances. Really this requires to be remeided. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. We have given it as our decided opinion, that emancipation has accomplished the full measure of good which it was reasonable to expect from it in so shalt a time,—namely, that it has sub dued every particle of disaffection Which existed in the minds of the Catholics to wards the Go vernment ; and therel'ore, may' whatever coarse and barbarous habits m prevail amongst the people in their treatment of eh other, or of ob noxious individuals, the State has nothing to . fear from them. The multitud e ' are not now kept quiet at the word of command they no longer look upon self-restraint and disCiplined obedience as means of baffling the constitits.ted authorities, and when a foreign enemy of Fn land shall invite them, of eventually breaking off all connexion with her. The Catholic peasantry are now dismissed from school, and the natural tendencies of an elastic, buoyant, reckless, and impetuous character, have burst out with great force because of the restraints which had for two or three years past been galling them. If Ns change has proceeded from the Catholic Relief Bill, every man who knows Ireland will admit. it to be a blessed change, inasmuch as the great night mare of disaffection is at once removed, and minor evils only remain to be progressively encountered. But such remarks are no further applicable than to the Catholics of Ireland. If the Catholics have been won over to the State, and even their resentments against the old Orange system been in a great degree obliterated or forgotten, the contrary spirit prevails, we regret to my, amongst the partisans of that same old faction, who seem now to have laid aside all sense of decency to wards the King's Government, and all conceal ment or qualification of their abhorrence for its Catholic subjects. If disturbances arise hence forth in Ireland, they will be the work of Orange - - men. That infatuated or wicked body are every where preparing to celebrate by the grossest in sults, if not positive outrages upon their Catholic fellow-citizens, the approaching 12tii of July. It is not six years since the Orange processions, shoutings, firings, and flags of defiance to the Catholics, were pronounced to be unlawful, wider Lord kVellesley s Government ; nor is it mots than five years since all such demonstrations were suppressed by authority, and for the time put an end to. It appears that they are on the point of breaking out again. The accounts in our iristi letter of yesterday were of the most alarming nature. " Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, and Mona. ghan," says our correspondent, " are sounding the notes of preparation. In Fermanagh, the means of actual war are collecting." The Orange " Gentlemen" of that county,—those who ought to be pledges to the kingdom for the maintenance of internal peace,—were holding Orange Lodges, resolving that the Orangemen of Fermanagh should continue to assemble, for the purpose of protecting themselves ".against the innovations of Popery,"—in plain English, for the purpose of resisting the law of Catholic relief. The same incendiaries, if not traitors, resolved to place no further confidence in the King's Go vernment. A clergyman of the faction declared from the pulpit, that " all ties between thg . Sovereign and himself were dissolved"—tha4 " he owed him no further allegiance, and that no Protestant was bound to pay him any ! That the time was coming when it might be necessary to vindicate their rights," &c. If the Catholics be provoked by such fury as this—if Ireland be involved by it in a civil war—if the throats of Protestant and Catholic be cut in consequence, whose crime is it ? Is it the natural or legitimate effect of a law for the esta blishment of religious liberty ? or of a villainous faction, that feels the name of liberty an offence to its own lust of arbitrary power ? We recom mend to attention the spirited and patriotic pro ceedings of the independent interest of Cork, where the election expences of a liberal candidate are to be supported by a public contribution.— Times. Several of our Contemporaries are at this mo ment engaged in discussing the merits of the controversy between the Edinburgh and Ifiest minster Reviews, between the Utilitarians and Anti-Utilitarians. The Westminster Review at its outset assailed the Edinburgh Review for its want of principle. The Edinburgh Review, in its two last numbers, has retaliated by a fero cious onset on Mr. Bentham and Mr. Mill, and the principles which they have advocated. Others have been drawn to take a part in the warfare, as is usual on such occasions ; this will in the end be productive of good. The Scotsman of Satur day last observes, with regard to this contro versy " The Edinburgh Review has been of infinite service as as timulus to thought. The writers were equally bold and felicitous. They were brilliant also; although in this respect Candour requires us to say, that they seemed more anxious to dazzle, or even to blight, with something like meteoric splen dour, than to illuminate a new path with the mild and steady radiance of a fixed star. It must be granted that, at the outset, the whole field of knowledge seemed open to them. If not the master spirits themselves, they were in the secrets of the master-spirits of the age. But they did not keep pace with the progress which they stimulated others to make. In the philosophy of mind, they actually remained at rest, while the world around them was advancing. They have never reviewed, and, in no instance, have they shown that they had appreciated the works of Dr. Thomas Brown. In physio logy they have been equally stationary. The minor branches of literature have been habitually ne glected. And, with the exception of some ques t►ons which have been attempted to be made practical ones by a statesman, connected with this work, to whom his country is greatly indebted, the Edinburgh Review has committed itself with none of the great interests of the race. We can accou►►t for much of this from the circumstance, that the con • ductor and principal writers had all embarked in professional or political pursuits, and connected themselves with existing interests and parties; but, if it be wished that the Journal should start off afresh, or even keep its ground, there is a necessity for its beginning forthwith to deal with much that has been neglected; and to do this upon large, in dependent, and comprehensive principles. " A remarkable instance of the faulty spirit in which this work has been too often conducted, is to be found in the seventh article of the last (97th) number, which, under the name of a Review of Mill's Essays on Government, purports to be an examina tion—au exposure - or extinguisher—of Utilitarian Logic and Politics. It is not by the late Editor. It is trenchant—full of smart things, and well turned paragraphs. It is clever ; and it is able, as far as any thing can be so, which is without any leading or guiding principle. The writer has obviously no re verence for age and talent united—for one who, as soon as he could think, committed himself, heart and soul, with the great interests of his race, and to the promotion of which, on views honestly taken, and supported with high talent, he has devoted a long life. - We need not say, we allude •o Jeremy Bentham. There is a radical defect of moral feeling in the manner in which Mr. Bentham is treated here, and in his former article on Judicial Evidence, by this anti-utilitarian. There is another radical defect which pervades the whole of his article. lie cOll tends truly that man is not actuated exclusitely by self-interest; that he has ' tastes and propensities'—