The Sun. — London, England, 1846-04-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 8. INDIAN CORN. (Continued from our Afteraoen Edition of yesterday.) Mr. P. SCROPE said he quite agreed in the sentiments of the Hon. Member who had just sat down. If this House had any chance of passing this Coercion Bill with the same expedition as that which marked its progress through the House of Lords, then there might be some reason for thus pressing it on; but when the Government saw that the discussion which had been raised upon the first reading of that Bill was, in fact, a discussion upon the principle of the Bill, and upon its merits, they must hare seen also that they couldnot escape a protracted discussion upon it. From the moment then that the Government had ascertained that fact all the responsibility of the delay of the Corn Bill rested en tirely upon them—(Hear, hear) —and if that discussion should be followed up after the recess, he did think the public would be impressed with the ic:e,a that the Government had some unexplained and inconceivable reason for protracting the Corn Bill, and forcing on this Coercion Bill instead of it.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM said he had explained that twice before. Mr. P. SCROPE said he had heard the explanation only the day before yesterday. Sir J. GRAHAM said he had given the explanation 1 m before. en HARRIS said he could very well understand the reason why the Coercion Bill had been brought on at that particular period, and he should protest against the two ques tions being mixed up as they had beer. Mr. FORSTER would appeal to the farmers' friends them selves, and ask them why they persevered in delaying the Corn Bill? He could assure them that their long speeches would not have the effect of changing a single vote in that Rouse.—(Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHA 11, in answer to some question from Mr. Christie, said that those. questions were questions of which he had given no notice, and therefore he could not give them any answer, and he should here observe that it was extremely 'niconveaient that such a course should be adopted. In reference to the Wootton Basset union, he begged to 7.,ay that it was not in the power of the Commis • skims ,o censure the guardians, but they might point out to the - a s the manner in which the law should be carried out. Ile communicated with the Poor-law Commissioners to know what steps they had taken, and on the sth of February they addressed the letter to the board of guardians from which he had read the extract. If it were required he would lay the letter itself on the table. Sir R. PRICE regretted that the Government should per sist in forcing the first reading of the Coercion Bill upon the House, and he equally regretted the opposition which was so pertinaciously given by the Irish Members. Neither of them appeared willing to give way, and the consequence was, that the business of the country stood still, and that a mea sure intended te benefit Ireland in no small degree was de layed. Mr. FITZGERALD begged to eorrect an expression which had been made by the Hon. Member for Eversham, and which was calculated to lead to misapprehension of the real state of Ireland. The Hon. Member had alluded to the im portation of potatoes into Wales, and he inferred from that that there was a surplus over the quantity required. Ile could as'sure the Hon. Member that in this he was perfectly mist 2 :lsen. The fact was that the prevalent disease was on tte increase, and they were glad to dispose of their potatoes before they would be utterly ruined. He gave the Right lion. Baronet credit for the measures he had introduced for the purpose of giving relief to Ireland; and with regard to tke Coercion Bill, he could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that the opposition given to it by Irish Members did not arise from any desire to throw impediments in the way of the Corn Bill, but solely because they considered the Coercion Bill ill-timed and uncalled for. He found that, during the last assizes in Tipperary there bad been no capital conviction, and that in the north crime had else diminished. Mr. WYSE thought the conduct of the Irish Members in offering every apposition to this measure could not be im pugned. They felt bound to do so in compliance with the wishes of their constituents, and because they considered the Bill an odious and unjust one. The Government had it in their power to adjourn the measure, and thus they would secure the good wishes and hearty co-operation of the Irish Members in the future stages of the Corn Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP said he fully agreed with the Hon. Members who had just sat down. He gave the Irish Mem bers all credit for the open, manly, and straightforward, and he would also say the consistent manner in which they had opposed the Coercion Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He wished the present measure of her Majesty's Government was one calculated to conciliate the people of Ireland. He wished to see the people of that country prosperous, and he .was compelled to say that the measures brought for ward for the last twenty years in that House were not calculated te promote the welfare of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The Government should introduce a measure that by its beneficial results, would restore peace and plenty to the peasantry of Ireland. —(Hear, hear.) Such a measure would a l wa y s mee t w ith his (Colonel Sibthorp's) concurrence and hearty support, for he considered it would be more adapted to the condi tion of the country than the Coercion Act proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. The papers were then ordered to lie on the table. THE ART-UNIONS BILL. On the question of the orders of the day for the House going into Committee on this Bill being put, Mr. WYSE said he wished to know from her Majesty's Ministers the nature of their opposition to the measure. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the op position to the Bill was grounded upon the fact of the power sought to be given to the Government, namely, that of being empowered to declare the Art-Unions legal. Now this was in amount reviving the system of lotteries, for the Art-Unions were founded upon such principles, and to de clare them legal would be most impolitic. Mr. WYSE would, after this explanation, postpone the consideration of the measure till that day fortnight. THE RAILWAY DEPOSITS BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the House having resumed the Chairman reported accordingly. Report to be brought up on the 24th of April. RAILWAY LEGISLATION". On the question being put for the House going into a Com mittee of Supply, Mr. LABOUCHERE rose, and said he wished to call the attention of the House and the Right Honourable Baronet opposite to a most important subject. They were about to separate for the Easter recess, and yet no Bill or re solution had been introduced into either House of Parliament with respect to the railway measure the Right Hon. Baronet alluded to the other night. Now, it was important that something should be known with respect to that Bill imme diately, or great loss would ensue to some of those parties who were engaged in promoting railway schemes, and he wished to ask th e Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would put the railway world in posses sion of the principle, if not of the details, of the measure? Sir R. PEEL was much obliged to the Hon. Member for calling attention is this important subject, and he could assure the Hon. Member and the House that no time bad been lost by the Government in considering this measure. It however involved the nice details of the law of partnership, and it was, therefore, important that the measure should be considered by tke highest legal authorities before it was introduced to the Legislature. The highest authorities had accordingly their attention directed to the subject, and no time would be lost in bringing in the Bill when it was finally settled. He was strongly, however, in clined to think that it was desirable for the Board of Trade to issue a circular addressed to the different railway companies, informing them, without going into the details, of the general principles which the Government were dis posed to agree to in introducing this Bill. He should, there fore, advise his Noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give some public notification to that effect. METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS ACT. Mr. TUFNELL wished to ask the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department when he intended to proceed with the Bill. Sir J. GRAHAM replied, that it was impossible for him, in the present state of public business, to give a positive answer to the question of the Hon. Member. In the first place, there was the important Bill relating to the law of settlement, which involved the whole question of removal, and then there was the Highway Act, and the Militia Act, all of which had to be disposed of, as well as the third read ing of the Corn Bill, bef•'re this measure could be brought forward. He did not, however, despair of being able to pro ceed with the Bill in the course of the present session. Mr. M. GIBSON hoped that the third reading of the Corn Bill would be got through before they pro ceeded with the other measures sanctioned by the Rig'at Honourable Baronet. Government might very easily have had the Bill read a thi r d ti m e before the Irish Coercion Bill came on, had they resisted the c 4 ercive policy of the protectionist party.—(Hear, hear.) He for one strongly objected to Honourable Members being placed under duresse in this way—compelled, as - they were, to dispose of one Bill before they could proceed with an other.—( Hear, hear.) Sir W. JOL LIPPE said, that as he had been alluded to in this discussion, he felt himself compelled to deny that he had offered any obstruction to the progress of public busi ness. He certainly had stated that he would offer his de cided opposition to the Turnpikes Bill, which he conceived would be highly detrimental to the public if it were allowed to pass in its present shape. Sir R. PEEL, in answer to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), denied that there had been any understanding whatever between the Govern ment and 'Hon. Members on his side of the House with regard to the Corn and Coercion Bills.—(Hear, hear.) lle might state that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Corn Bill, and not to introduce any Government business of any kind whatever, until the sense of the House should have been taken with respect to the passing of that measure.—(Hear.) If the arrangement to which the Hon. Member for Man - Chester had alluded had been entered into by the Govern ment, it would have been a most unworthy proceeding on their part.—(Hear, hear.) But there had been no such en gagement—(Hear)—and he believed that the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, ( Lord G. Bentinck) had distinctly stated the other night, that there had not been any such arrangement entered into between the protectionists and the Government. Mr. M. GIBSON.—I did not say that there had been any arrangement.—(llear.) I stated that I had seen in the public papers that there had been such arrangement. METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL. Mr. B. HAWES said he must complain of the delay which the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the home Department had occasioned with respect to this mea sure. When the first Bill on this subject had passed this session, that Right Hon. Baronet stated that there was an other amended Bill which he should introduce at a very early period during the present session, and it was with that understanding that he (Mr. Hawes) had voted for the former Bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM begged to assure the Hon. Mem ber that every exertion was being made to mature the Bill in question, and lie promised that it should be introduced on an early day after the Easter recess. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said that as he had been up to t hat moment engaged in a railway Committee, he was not a ware of the proceedings that hid taken place during his ab sence ; bat he wished to take that opportunity before the Home rose of once more repeating, on the part of himself and those Irish Members who sat on his side of the House, who were opposed to the passing of the Irish Coercion Bill, that while they were determined to perse vere to the last, and the very uttermost, in their opposition to that measure, they were at the same time anxious not to cause any delay to the progress of the public business of ,he House, and they were therefore willing to withdraw any notices of motion which they had fu: such days as might be fixed for the discussion of the Corn Bill, to which as lie and they had already stated they were prepared to give their cordial assent. They were prepared to support the repeal of • the corn-laws, but they felt it to be their imperative duty to oppose, in every stage, the progress of the Irish Coercion Bill Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that he would, on an early day after the recess t .e4 t her Majesty's G overnment w h et h er, if the tenants , 0 0i quit the f arms w hi c h litifed_at theliadAng of their landlo r d s , un d er circum oances-similar fo tl t dse which occurred in the other pro- Tvilicira of Ireland, it woulctbe lawful for the proprietors of the / laid to can ill- the aid of the military to compel a surrender THE SUN, LONDON, THUKSDAY EV.ENING, APRIL 9, 1846. of the property. The Right Honourable Baronet the Secre tary of State for the Home Department had the other night stated that the sanguinary doings which took place in the southern parts of Ireland did not take place in the northern, although the law with regard to landlord and tenant was the same over the whole of Ire land, Now he (Mr. Scrope) believed that although the strict letter of the law was the same, there was still a custom or usage in the northern parts which did not thus sanction summary eviction of tenantry which occurred in those parts of that country, of the sanguinary doings of which the House had heard so much ; and he was of opinion that it was in consequence of that custom, or usage, that so much peace prevailed in Ulster.—(Hear, hear.) He would, after the re cess, ask the Government whether the law sanctioned such a custom, er whether it would enforce the arbitrary rights of the landlord in Ulster in the same manner as it did in the other more unfortuate parts of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) LEGAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. WYSE moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of legal education in Ireland. The motion was agreed to. COMMONS INCLOSURE. Sir J. GRAHAM obtained leave and brought in a Bill, which was read a first time, for the inclosure of commons. MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND). Mr. WYSE gave notice that he should, after Easter, bring in a Bill to abolish ministers' money in Ireland. The House then adjourned until after Easter. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) tirely to the engineering difficulties to be anticipated in the construction of the proposed railway and tier, and to the in comprehensiveness of the estimate, considered that a more advantageous line might have been selected betweengiridge water and Minehead, which would not require such an out lay of capital, affording equal accommodation to the public, and not depreciating to such an extent the value of property. Mr. M‘Neal, an assistant to the last witness, spoke to the gradients, &c., he took on this line, disagreeing in many of those taken by the engineers promoting this scheme. In his cross-examination by Mr. Cockburn his testimony was some what shaken. The Committee on its rising adjourned until Tuesday, the 27th inst., when the consideration of this case will be resumed. Sub-Committee No. 6. IVARWICKBEINE AND LONDON (ZADEP.. TON AND ZANNITRY LINE). (Continued from cur Afternoon Eatitioa ef yesterday.) An allegation of omission with reference to property in the parish of Banbury, marked 38 and 34, was not sustained. It was next alleged that five houses situated in the parish of St. Nicholas, Warwick, were not numbered on the plans deposited with the clerk of the peace for Warwick and those in the Private-bill Office. - Evidence having been heard, the Committee found that the allegation was sustained. The next allegation was to the same effect, with reference to the property marked 8, in Leamington Priors, which consisted of a house, outbuildings, and a yard. It was stated on behalf of the promoters that it was im possible to mark every point accurately, and that the mark 28 on the plan was sufficiently descriptive of the property in question. The CHAIRMAY said that the Committee must report that the standing orders in this case had not been complied with, but would accompany the same with the explanation given on behalf of the promoters, which the Committee considered quite satisfactory. Several other allegations to the same effect, and under similar circumstances, were admitted. It was next alleged that there were discrepancies between the respective plans, which allegation was abandoned, and several others of a similar character were entered into, but not sustained. The case for the petition having closed, the Committee found that the standing orders had not been complied with. LAW INTELLIGENCE. PRIVY COUNCIL, April 8. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council mot yesterday in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords present were, the Lord-President (the Duke of Buccleuch), the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, the Judge of the Admiralty Court, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, Sir Alexander Johnstone, Sir H. East, and Sir Edward Ryan. IN THE NATTER OF TIIE PETITION OF IDCLJEE HYRAIVIGEE, OF BOMBAY, AND OTHILES.—THE PARSEE MURDER CASE The arguments i n this case, which were commenced on Saturday, were resumed and concluded to-day. The case came before their Lordships upon the petition of Eduljee Byramgee, of Bombay, now a prisoner at Singapore, on behalf of himself and eight other Parsee natives of Bombay, for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Bombay, sentencing them to trans portation to Singapore, for the wilful murder of a Parsee named Muncherjee Hormusjee. The facts of the case may be thus stated. In the town of Bombay the population was divided into political parties, and a person of the name of Muncherjee was a workman in the office of a newspaper, published in the Parsee language, called the Chabook. It appeared he was a person of great bodily strength and violent habits, having been several times imprisoned on charges for assault. On the 21st of April, 1844, a person named Burjorjee, with whom Muncherjee had frequently fought, accompanied by a body of his friends, came into the street in which the newspaper-office was . Muncherjee, who anticipated the visit, was also provided with a body of his friends; a violent tumult arose, and the witnesses examined on the trial stated that Muncherjee was dragged through the street by his opponent, until he met his death from wounds inflicted by a knife or knives (that being one of the questions). It was remarkable, that although the number of persons on each side was very considerable, and although the trial lasted ten days, only two witnesses were called on the part of the prosecution, and they were accidentally present, and persons of indifferent character. One had been born a priest, and was then acting as a menial servant. The other was the keeper of a liquor shop, who had recently been dis charged from prison for an aggravated assault ; and the Chief Justice (Sir H. Roper) described them "as per -8018 upon whose testimony, when their passions or in terests were involved, he could not place any great re liance." The account they gave was, that four of the eighteen ?arsees who were tried for the murder had knives, and they struck the deceased and wounded him with them. The Chief Justice expressed great doubts of the truth of that statement, as the surgeon's evidence was that all the wounds were inflicted with one . knife, the knife held by Burjorjee, who, upon his conviction, was executed, having confessed that he was the only person who stabbed the deceased. The jury found the eighteen persons guilty. There was one most important objection to the verdict arising from misdirection. The jury, after being in consulta tion five hours, returned into Court and asked the Chief Justice, would they be justified in returning a verdict of manslaughter? The Judge answered, "Gentlemen, it is either murder or it is nothing." There was also another most important miscarriage upon the trial. Their Lordships would be surprised to hear that during the ten days the trial lasted the jury were allowed to separate, and were not under the least control. The consequence was a miscarriage on their part, which in one sense was honourable to them, as it arose from their anxiety to ascertain the truth, but they misled themselves by their own inquiries, and the result was that they found two persons guilty of wilful murder whom they now believe to be innocent. The petitioner and one of the other parties produced witnesses who stated that they were members of a club which met every Sunday, at a bungalow about a quarter of an hour's drive outside the town, and that at the time the murder was committed they dined there in company with the petitioner, and that he remained in the bungalow until eight o'clock that night. The witnesses were severely cross-examined, but without eliciting any inconsistencies. It appeared that during the progress of the trial a doubt arose whether it was practicable for a buggy to be driven up to the gate of the place where the club met, as had been deposed to by the witnesses for the alibi. Accordingly, two of the jurors were deputed by the body to settle the matter by personal examination. These parties proceeded in their buggy during the morning drive allowed them for relaxation, pending the trial, to the cemetery in question, until they arrived at a point where the read deviates into two, one leading to the right, the other to the left, they took the right hand road, and found they could not reach the gate of the cemetery without alighting and walking some 150 or 200 yards. Having thus, as they supposed, established that the read leading to the cemetry was impassible for vehicles, they returned and reported to the other jurors that in this re spect they had disproved the evidence for the defenc e. This circumstan ce weighed very much with the jury, and induced them to dis believe or doubt the whole of the evidence in 'support of the alibi. After the trial, the two jurors entertaining some doubt whether they had net acted on a misconception of the road in question, again drove to the cemetery, taking the road to the left, and found no difficulty whatever in reaching the gate. This discovery was immediately communicated to Mr. Crawford, who defended the petitioner, with a view, as they stated, of giving the prisoners the benefit of the dis covery. This was clearly a miscarriage in fact, as the ether was a miscarriage in law, and no stronger case could be imagined to show the wisdom of t he En g lish law in never suffering the fury to separate during a trial. There was ano ther thing, the Chief Justice said, " The impression made on my mind by the evidence and deportment of the first witness was highly unfavourable to the alibi, but that impression was weakened as each succeeding witness gave his testimony, until at last, though still doubting whether the case for the prosecution against the petitioner and Eduljee might not be true, I also greatly doubted whether the al leg ed alibi could be false. It was, however, a question to be determined by the j ury." The Chief Justice states that before he summed up he retired for re freshment with his brother judge (Sir E. Perry) who had taken a different view, and that he impressed him (the Chief Justice) with that view, and that he summed up in a way which does not accord with his present impression, and did not accord with his impression at the time he heard the evidence. The result was that the jury found the petitioner and five others guilty, and recommended them to mercy. Sentence of death having been recorded against them, they were transported for life to Singapore. And under these circumstances the petition was presented for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court below. Mr. M. D. Hill was heard on Saturday last on behalf of the appeal. Sir J. BAYLEY shortly addressed their Lordships to-day on the same side. The Attorney-General and Mr. L. Wigram were heard against the petition, and Mr. M. D. HILL having replied at great length, Their Loapswars stated that they should take time to consider their judgment. Their Lordships then adjourned. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 8. The business commenced this morning at eight o'clock in both Courts—Mr. Baron Platt, on the Crown side of the hall, being engaged in the disposal of a number of cases of the most disgusting character, the particulars of which it is impossible further to allude to. (Before the CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.) LEWIS v. MEADOWS. For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Skinner; for the defendant, Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr. James. Both parties in this case, which was an action of libel, are ministers of a religious sect entitled "Independ ents;" Mr. Lewis having for upwards of twenty-five years presided over a chapel at Glastonbury, and Mr. Meadows having also for a considerable period had the care of another chapel in the same town. Some months since Mr. Lewis received an invitation to go to a new scene, and to take charge of another congregation at Westbourne. After some negotiation, however, the proposition which had been made to Mr. Lewis fell to the ground from some cause which he was unable precisely to ascertain, until he found that a number of the most infamous and calumnious reports were afloat respecting him, to which he was in duced to attribute the circumstance above adverted to. Being naturally anxious to clear his character from the aspersions which it had received, and being, moreover, desirous to assertain the source whence the fabrications emanated, he at length discovered that some anonymous letters reflecting upon him in the vilest terms had been circulated through the neighbourhood in which he lived. Having reason to suspect the defendant Meadows was the author of two of these, the present proceedings were instituted, the two letters being selected as con taining the libellous matter contained in the declaration. The defendant, by his plea, altogether denied the au thorship of the first letter, and as regarded the second, he suffered judgment to go by default. The only question, therefore, wnich remained, was the amount of damages to be assessed. By an arrangement between the parties before the trial, it was agreed that the defendant should pay 2001. to the plaintiff in full satisfaction for the in jury which he had occasioned him, and that each party should defray his own costs, provided that a sufficient and ample apology were offered on the defendant's behalf. Mr. GODSON, on the part of his client, having fully complied with the latter stipulation, the above terms were acceded to, and the jury were discharged. LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.-DENNETT AND OTHERS V. NASH AND FICKERSGILL. (Special Jury.) For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Valentine Lee ; for the defendants, Mr. Whately, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson. The Learned SERGEANT, in opening the case, stated t l h s a s. t 6 th d i . s , awlleagsedantoabcetiodnuettoo r t e b c o o p y l e a r in th ti e ffs su (wb m o o f a 2 r ,9 e 44/. at torneys and solicitors), for work and labour, and for money expended to the use o f the defendants, and was one of that class of cases whic h is dail y g ettin g more numerous, arising from the late general frequency of railway speculation. The company with which the plaintiffs became connected as attorneys, and from which originated their present demand, was projected in May, 1845, the intention of the original schemers being to connect Worcester, Wolverhampton, Oxford, and London by a shorter line than any at present existing. iieito rs i t , It was first known as the Oxford and London Direct Railway, a n d a f terwar d s a s the Worcester, Wolver hampton, and Oxford Extension, under which i t w as _ registered. Thi s change i n the name was made on the 7th of October, 1845 • and a numerous m eetin g of thos e favourable to th e un d er t a king was held on the 9 th of the same month a t th e George and Vulture Tavern. Amongst others, N as h, one of the defendants, attended ; otherma many resolution s were p a ssed and adopted, and, amongst wasand a se m ttl r e . d D th in a k t s b o l n es t s b r e s. euryy Dennett eor. should b e i ntkhe matters,s solicitors Mr. P er gill was introduced on the 26th of September, shortly after which time Messrs. Dennett entered into for very active operations for the purpose of warding a ll t h e pre li m i nar i es nee df u l to comply with the standing orders of the House of Com mons. The meeting convened for the 9th of Oc tober was afterwards adjouined till the 10th. 60 or 70 letters were sent out to announce the meetings, both of which Dickson attended, and informed those present that it would be requisite for him to hire a con siderable " staff " of su rv eyors, Sze., because he had only then six weeks before the " fated " 30th of November to complete all the surveys, and, from the great demand for labour at that time, it was necessary to pay in propor tion. O n t h e 14th of October anot h er meeting was held, which the defendants both attended —Nash presiding in the chair, and a smaller committee of six was appointed to superintend the affairs of the company, both the de fendants being appointed to serve upon that committee ; meetings were afterwards held from time to time,which they were represented as having attended. Prospectuses and advertisements were issued ; .the proposed capital was stated at 600,0001., in 30,00 0 sha res, and soon. after the announcement was made public 60,000 shares were actually paid for. Not very long after a change seemed to have occurred, difference of opinion arose between the committee and the plaintiffs ; but still Dickson, the sur veyor, went on actively with his operations, and the plaintiffs also worked day and night. On the 30th of Novenaber.all was announced to be in readiness for Par liament. No less than 911 notices had been given along the projected line, which were charged for by the plain tiffs at an average of 15s. each. Messrs. Dennett, how ever, found that nothing further could be done, although they called upon the committee either to allot the shares at once or to dissolve the company. The committee, however, refused to do either, and the plaintiffs in due course presented their bill, which not being liquidated, they deemed it advisable to proceed against some of the committeemen, and finally determined upon selecting the defendants for that purpose, although Nash had pre viously withdrawn from the committee, an act which might possibly in some measure affect his liability ; for, though he seceded from the eommittee, yet he remained a member of the company. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd con cluded by observing that the plaintiffs had paid Dickson alone 700/. in cash, and had made other disbursements amounting to 2,1001. out of pocket, besides having devoted a considerable amount of their attention and skill to the subject. At the conclusion of the Learned Sergeant's speech, and before any witnesses were examined, a protracted discussion ensued between the counsel engaged in the case and their clients, which terminated in an arrange ment that a ♦erdict should be entered for the sum of 2,400/. GARBETT V. ADAMS AND OTHERS. (Special Jury.) For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Whately, Q.C., Mr. Alexander, Q.C., Mr. Greaves, and Mr. Dowdeswell ; for the defendant, Mr. Keating and Mr. Selfe. Mr. Sergeant TALFOU RD, rising on behalf of the plain tiff, said that his client was a Mr. Edmund Garbett, an attorney living at Wellington, Salop, and that the de fendants were gentlemen of the highest respectability, namely, Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Blandford, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Holcombe, This case, like the pre ceding, arose out of railway transactions • the defendant, Mr. Sergeant Adams, having been , in dctober last, the chairman, and the other defendants committeemen of the Shropshire Mine cal Railway Company. Mr. Adams, the nephew of the Learned Sergeant, and a Mr. Yar borough, his partner, were the London solicitors, and the plaintiff was appointed the country solicitor, in which office he continued to act until about a week ago. Some little time since the company had fallen into disunion, and Garbett delivered in his hill amount ing to 1,8531. 7s. 10d., of which he had been paid 1,0101., leaving a balance claimed by him of 843/. 7s. 10d., be sides which he demanded 3041. commission on 4,000 shares disposed of by him for the company, independ ently of this other claim. Application was made to the Master of the Rolls to tax the bill, and he made an order to that effect, directing further proceedings in the meantime to be stayed. In addition, however, to the other debt, the plaintiff made a further demand for 11141., alleged to have been incurred for services per formed subsequently to those particularised in the pre vious bill, and also for advertisements and other ex penses, whereupon the order of the Master of the Rolls was amended, to allow the action to proceed in respect of these latter items. The present cause was confined to the claim accruing since the 7th of January, and 3041. for commission on shares, which it . was maintained the company had agreed to pay, independently of all remuneration for professional services. The first plea upon the record alleged that no signed bill had been de livered; in reply to which it was urged that, as regarded the sum claimed for commission, no signed bill was re quired, as that constituted a debt due to the plaintiff, irrespective of his character of attorney. The defend ants, however, denied the existence of any such agree ment as that to which the plaintiff referred. The first witness, Henry Pooley, was then called and examined by Mr. WHATELY—He stated : Last August I became secretary to the Shropshire Mineral Railway, and continued in that capacity till February last. I attended the meetings of the committee during the in tervening period. Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Blandford, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Holcombe also attended those meetings. All the resolutions of the committee were reduced to writing. There were several discussions about the commissions payable to the country agents. I was at a meeting at Newport, at which Mr. Webster was present, upon an occasion when Mr. Brown had claimed commission for disposing of some shares. The members present agreed that he should be paid, and he was paid. At the next meeting, a week after, Sergeant Adams was in the chair. Cheques, I believe, were signed at that meeting in order to make the above payment. Direc tions were given to me to write to the local agents that they should have commissions on the shares disposed of by them. This was about two months before the meet ing at Newport. Mr. Garlsett was a local agent. All the local agents were solicitors. 1,000 or 2,000 shares were allotted on Garbett's recommendation. Cross examined by Mr. KEATING—AII the time that I was secretary Mr. Garbett was the country solicitor. I do not know that the duties of the country solicitor and local agent were dissimilar. He attended the board meetings, they did not. The meeting at New port was about the sth of December. Mr. Webster was present on that occasion. The resolutions re specting the local agents were then agreed upon. I only attended one meeting at Newport. The claim by Brown for commission was discussed. He sought about 3001. or over; he accepted 301. odd. That was not the first meeting at which the claims of local agents had been discussed. The country agents and solicitors ful filled the same kind of duties. Re-examined by Mr. WHATELY—Yarborough and Adams were the London solicitors to the Company. Here a suggestion was offered by the Learned Chief Baron, to the effect that, in his opinion, the point at issue would be more fairly dealt with by submitting it to the Master, as be (the Learned Judge) was of opinion that the items particularised by the plaintiff were taxable by that officer. Mr. KEATING, on the part of his clients, observed that this was exactly what they had desired all along. They meant not to deny their liability, but they were solicitous that the amount to be liquidated by them should be spe cified by a competent party. After a lengthened deliberation it was finally agreed that the plaintiff should be nonsuited, liberty being re served to him to enter a verdict for such sum (if any) as the Master should find to be due to the plaintiff. WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Taunton , April 7. John Hill and Thomas Quick were indicted for as saulting Martin How, and robbing him of some silver. Mr. Phinn and Mr. Thring were counsel for the pro secution, and Mr. Stone for the prisoner. There was no doubt the prosecutor, who is a butcher, had been knocked off his horse and robbed of 31. 10s. The only question was one of identity. The prosecutor stated that he knew Hill by his voice, having known him for fifteen years. Three witnesses said they had seen the prisoners to gether near the spot about six o'clock, which was the time of the robbery. For the prisoners a vast number of witnesses were called, who most clearly proved an alibi ; and Mr. Baron ROLFE stopped the case and directed an acquittal, at the same time telling the prisoners that he believed them to be perfectly innocent. Henry Harris and Robert Tippaney were indicted for assaulting and robbing James Charlton, at Keynsham. Mr Phinn was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Stone for the prisoners. This was a case very, similar to the preceding. Three persons swore to the identity of Harris, who, however, called the person at whose house he lodged, and who was the postmaster, and he clearly proved that Harris was in bed at the time of the robbery. Verdict—Not Guilty. 1V ORTHERN CI RC Ul T.—Liverpool, April 7. (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.) OLDHAM V. PUGh. This was an action of assault. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins ;ad Mr. Hoskins were for the plaintiff, Mr. Atherton for the defence. The defendant is an attendant at the Brunswick Chapel in this town ; the plaintiff a member of a family who for some time have had a pew there. On Sunday evening, the 11th of January, the plaintiff, in company with another person, went to the chapel. The service had commenced some time before, and they had some doubt whether they should go in. They were standing in a lobby at the back entrance, leading to the passage by which they would descend to the pew occupied by the plaintiff's mother and family, the chapel being built in the form of an amphitheatre. While they were there the defendant came up the stairs, and collared the plain tiff, accusing him of having put some dirt in his hat at the front entrance of the chapel about half an hour before. The plaintiff and his companion assured him he was mis taken, but he persisted in the ch age, and dragged the plaintiff down the stairs and out of the chapel. The plaintiff subsequently applied to him for a retractation and apology, which was refused. An action was threatened, and the plaintiff again offered, if the defendant would pay two guineas to a charitable institution and one guinea for the attorney's costs, to allow the matter to drop, but this proposal was also rejected. It seemed now clearly established by the evidence of persons who were in the company of the plaintiff pre vious to his attendance at the chaps], that the defendant must have bee❑ mistaken in the party by whom the affront had been offered him. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages lig. (Before Mr. .Justice COLERIDGE.) HINDSON V. WARD. This was en action of trespass and false imprison ment. Mr. Knowles and Mr. James appeared for the plain tiff ; Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defence. The defendant, in November, 1843, was in comma nd of a ship called the Bounty Hall, and the plaintiff was a mariner on board that ship, then lying in the river Bonny, on the coast of Africa. The trespass and false imprisonment complained of consisted in period ut i ninety days. The statements of the witnesses were exceedingly con tradicory. According to the evidence of two of the crew, the plaintiff had been engaged in coopering up some bar rels on deck, and had in his hands a hammer and driver, with which he was employed in fastening the hoops. Some angry words took place between him and some of the other coopers, and the mate, a person named Whitting ton, came upon deck to settle the disturbance. The wit nesses stated that the mate coming up to Hindson, took hold of the sleeve of his shirt, when the hammer with which Hindson was working came into contact with the mate's ear, and inflicted a slight wound. The mate sent for the captain, who was then on shore, and on his corning on deck he called Hindson aft. Hindson went towards him with the hammer and driver in his hand. The de fendant asked him what he was doing with them, and he said he was working. On this the captain struck him over the eye with a gun-barrel plugged with wood, which he used as a walking-stick, and directed him to ba imme diately tied up. The captain gave him eleven lashes, and the second and third mates then took the cat, and gave him very severe punishment. He was then chained down to the tiller in such a position that he could neither stand up nor lie down. He remained there all night, and the following day a court-martial, as it was earned, was called, consisting of all the captains then in the river. The plaintiff was tied up, and while ho was in that position, with his back to the parties, a discus sion took place as to his punishment, when they all, with one exception, agreed he should be flogged again. The captain called the crew aft, and told them it was at his option to flog the plaintiff, that he would not do so, but would put him in irons. He had accordingly the hand cuffs again put on him, and he was chained si ith the bight of a topsail close to a small locker about seven feet long and five feet high, which had been used for paints, which were cleared out for the occasion. This was for him to go into when it rained, but he could move back wards sad forwards about six yards on the deck. He remained in this custody for ninety days, and was finally sent home by another ship. It was stated that his back was in a frightful state, and the smell was so offensive that the man whose duty it was to wash him once a week was scarcely able to endure it. For the defence it was stated by the testimony of the mate and some of the captains of the other vessels that the plaintiff, on the mate coming on deck, felled him by a blow of the hammer, which inflicted a severe wound on his ear, and had produced symptoms of lockjaw. On the captain coming on board with two other captains, and calling the plaintiff aft, he refused to lay down the hammer and driver, and on the captain attempting to take them from him, he attempted to strike him. The captain then struck him with his fist, and they struggled together until the captains present took the hammer ow, of his hands. It was for this be was flogged and put in irons ; and it was alleged that his condition, as detailed by the witnesses, was very much exaggerated. The case occupied the Court the greater part of the day, and the jury were still shut up in consultation whea our report came away. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS. Subjoined is a li3t of all the sentences passed on the prisoners in the three Courts during the past session:— Transportation for Fifteen Years —Wm. Kidd, T. Smith, Ann Sykes, and Mary Turner. For Ten Years —W. Chaffey, J. Lawlor, E. L. Dwyer, J. Wilson, J. Maloney, J. Jones, J. Gwyett, Mary Ann Smith, Elizabeth Nicholson, Eliza Russell, Margaret Donnegan, Francis Leonard, Sarah Greenwood, Hen rietta White, T. Payne, J. Hollywood, T. Wallis, J. Stone, W. Caffle. For Seven Years—J. Lewis alias Druce, J. Richards, J. Connolly, C. H. Cross, R. Moore, J. Freeman, 0. Suffolk, H. Braby, R. Meatyard, Thomas Fidler, Ellen Bird, J. Braham, J. Hobburn alias Currier, T. Davis. GROUP IX. This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Lord Wcrs ley in the chair. All the members of the Committee present. WEST OT SCOTLAND JUNCTION. Mr. AItDRXWS then proceeded to reply on behalf of this line of railway. He would occupy the time of the Commit tee as little as possible while he addressed himself to the ob jections brought forward against the Bill, and placed before the Committee the principal grounds on which he submit ted the Bill for the favourable consideration of the Committee. In doing so he was persuaded he would be able to prove that these objeetions were far from being unsuperable, and that 'the measure was imperatively necessary. He would first address himself to the objections brought forward. It had been said that the promoters of the Bill had broken faith with the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway and the public of Glasgow, by the aban donment of the Harbour branch and the Queen-street station. This was not so; they brought forward the scheme in entire integrity, and it was only when the Clyde Trust en deavoured, by witnesses, to impress the mind of the Committee with the idea of danger and inconvenience, that the promoters abandoned the harbour branch and the junction in the tunnel. He never said that the harbour branch should not be made, or that it was valueless. No, the promoters of the Bill gave it up because they thought the junction over the Clyde was more important than the harbour branch, and because it was intimated that the two could not be made conjointly without danger to the public. There was no breach of faith, therefore, either with the Clyde trustees, or the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway. He denied, moreover, that the land for the Stob- cross docks bad been purchased, because the Mineral Harbour branch was carried last session ; for, from the evidence adduced, it ap peared that in maps of Glasgow, long before last year, these docks were laid down ; and it had also been shown, that the land was purchased not for docks to accommodate the mineral traffic, but to give increased accommodation to the general trade of the harbour, which at present was so ill supplied with room. He regretted that he had had to address the Committee before the natural and understood period on which he expected to be called on to do so, as he could then have better shown the character of the opposition banded together. That the Greenock Railway Company should oppose the Bill, would, if it were an inde pendent company, exhibit a shameful dereliction of duty, on the part of the shareholders, in cutting off the great advan tages which the proposed connexion would confer on the pert cf Greenock. But the true state of affairs would have come out, had the Caledonian scheme been gone into, as then it would have been shown that the real motive was, not the general benefit of Glasgow, but the advancement of the interests of a rival Company, that did not appear in its real position before the Com mittee. With respect to the alleged inconvenience to the harbour of Glasgow, that had been shown to be but little; but even were it worse than represented, the real question was, " what is good for the public?" If it had been shown that Greenock, Ayrshire, Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, and Aberdeen, in fact, Scotland generally, would be greatly benefited by the Baltic, then ought the public interest to be consulted before that of Glasgow. The damage done should not be allowed to neutralise and defeat a great national measure like the present. That was the true way in which to view the case. The letter of the Admiralty, on which so much had been said, meant merely that the Committee should hear all the evidence, and judge according to the facts adduced. It meant that the Committee should decide, and they (the Admiralty) should then deal with the matter. If the Bill was agreed to by the Committee, the power of veto might still be exercised against the Bill, or it might be stipulated by the Admiralty that the works should proceed under their inspection, and upon such plans as they might think best. With such a power in the hands of the Ad miralty all idea of danger to the harbour was at an end. His Learned Friend Mr. Hope had talked a great deal of the Provost of Edinburgh and Perth being anxious to have the junction in order to get a good supply of capons and eggs and bacon. He would only say in answer to that attempt at wit, that the Provosts of those two cities were not the only witnesses called to show the necessity of the junc tion, but commercial men bad been called from all parts of Scotland, and some parts of England, to prove the absolute necessity for the line ; and more would have been called had not the Committee expressed their satisfaction on this point. But those who lived in glass-houses should take care how they threw stones. If the Provost of Edinburgh liked good capons, his Learned Friend (Mr. Hope) represented the Provost of the turtle-loving city of Glasgow ; and perhaps the secret of much of the opposition offered would be found in the fact of the pleasure arising from a trip to town in the spring time of the year for a month or two, living at a splendid hotel, and faring sumptuously every day. That might have a great deal to do with the proceed ings before the Committee. The care of traffic had been so satisfactorily made out to the Committee, that they stopped the further examination of witnesses. The Learned Gentleman then referred to the crossing over the streets, commenting on the evidence, and main taining that no junction through Glasgow could be made with less injury to a town than the present. So little injury would be done that, notwithstanding the strong banded op position against the Bill, not a single inhabitant of Glasgow had been called to prove any damage to property, or to speak against the way in which they were to be affected by the line. Last year it was complained of that the bridge was too far down, and the arches were objected to; so to meet the objections then urged, it had now been proposed that the viaduct should be brought close to the present bridge, and the arches and piers be made the same, so as to offer as little obstruction as possible to the cnrrrent of the stream. The space to be occupied by the viaduct would not be 108th part of the harbour, while the Stob-cross docks, it had been shown, would furnish every necessary accommodation that might be required for the crowded shipping of the river. But even with regard to the space to be occupied, it had been shown, that from the height of the arches, the smaller vessels, and the steam-boats would still be able to use the space. Regarding the viaduct and the opposition of the Bridge Trust, he would call the attention of the Committee to the resolution of the Bridge Trust since last year, to the effect that they would abandon their opposi tion if the promoters of the line would not pass over the top of the existing bridge. This had been agreed to, and though, in compliance with the desire of Lord Ellenborough, the piers of the two bridges were proposed to touch each other, the two bridges were essentially independent, and would not interfere at all with each other. Nor had it been shown that danger would arise from the foundation of the bridge. The present bridge had been built several years, and though the river had been deepened two or three feet below the brick-work of the foundation, yet the bridge was as firm as ever. The water was now running daily against the top of the piles yet no sand es caped. and the bridge appeared to be as firm as any in the kingdom. In respect to the foundation Mr. Walker was called, and he only gave hearsay evidence, which had been derived from Mr. Atherton. He had not examined the foundations himself. Against the opinion of Mr. Walker he would place that of Mr. Miller, who had planned nearly all the great railway works in Scotland, and had catrie 1 a great number of them into successful operation. He had staked his reputation on constructing that bridge, and he had no doubt satisfied himself that it could be erected without difficulty. The opinion of Mr. Miller was fortified by Mr. Lyon, the foreman of Mr. Gibb, the builder of the present bridge, and Mr. Gibb, the son of the con tractor, both of whom affirmed that no foundation could be better for a bridge—that it was good hard sand. These were two witnesses of the greatest expe rience, against whom they had the statement of Mr. Atherton, the resident engineer, who was looked up for at the last hour to give evidence against the Bill. The two former, he submitted, in taking their evidence into account had much greater opportunities of knowing the nature of the foundation than the latter, and were more entitled to influ ence the minds of the Committee. Clearly, then, the balance of evidence on the point of foundation was in favour of his cli ents. But to put an end to all doubt, he was willing that a clause ahould be inserted in the Bill to the effect that whatever damage should be done should be made good, or that the bridge should be rebuilt, if necessity should be seen for it from any injury done to the present bridge. The Learned Gentleman then addressed himself to the proposal made for joining the two lines passing round the city. Con tending that it would be utterly useless as a passenger line, from going over so many mineral lines, and could not be seriously entertained as a measure to fill up the gap between the north and south of Glasgow. The Learned Gentleman having recapitulated the leading points of his case, concluded by calling on the Committee to admit the preamble of the Bill as proved. _ _ _ The room was then cleared. In a few minutes the par ties were called in, when The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had come to the de cision that the preamble of the Bill was not proved. The Committee then adjourned till after the Easter holidays. GROUP XIV. SOUTH-3141.11TERN. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. CALVERT, on the part of Mr. Angerstein and Mr. Syd ney Smith, of Lewisham, cross-examined Mr. Stephenson, with a view of showing that the property of those gentlemen would be most materially injured by the proposed line. Mr. BIGG elicited that a fresh station would have to be erected in Maidstone (although there is one now in exist ence there) in consequence of the difference of the levels of the proposed and the existing lines. A solicitor in the body of the court put some questions for Mr. _Edward Levett, of Sittingbourne. Mr. ALEXANDER having re-examined, stated that be had now concluded on the landowners' cases, and as it was im possible to conclude the re-examination on the whole case that day, perhaps the Committee would see the propriety of adjournment. The CHAIRMAN assented, and the Committee rose for the Easter recess. BRIDGEWATER AND MINEBBAD RAIL WAY AND PIER. (Ceatinaed from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) The consideration of this case was resumed (after a con versation arising from a motion made by Lord Granville Somerset, last night, in the House of Commons, that the sitting of all Committees on Railway Bills after Easter should be deferred until the 27th of April), by the further examination of Mr. Greene, an engineer. and Mr. Thompson, likewise an engineer, who stated that they were aequainted with the country laying respec tively between Bridgewater, Taunton, and Minehead, and con sidered that the. description and undulating state of the land situated between the latter places offered greater facilities for the construction of a railway than the proposed line now under consideration. The evidence of these witnesses related en- CALEDONIAN EXTENSION. This Bill, which was re-committed, was again considered. Mr. BURKE appeared in support of a petition from certain landowners, kc., along the line complaining of non-compli ance with the standing orders. He said that the promoters of the Bill had laid down two alternative lines. Now, accord ing to the 16th clause of their Act, they should have given due notice to the landowners, lac., on the line of the branch from Ayr to Mairkirk, and that the necessary notices had not been served, giving an accurate description of the line. Mr. GRAHAM, who appeared on behalf of the promoters, offered a few observations in reply to the elect that the line in question was not an alternative line, but a branch, and produced evidence to show that such was the case. The portion of the line alluded to was from Cumloch to Muirkirk. The CHAIRMAN ordered the room to be cleared, and, on our re•admission, stated that the Committee were of opinion that the allegation was not sustained. It was next alleged that there was an error on the datum line, which was sustained. The Committee adjourned shortly before five o'clock to the 21st instant. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY MEETING. A special general meeting of the Eastern Counties Company was held yesterday at the Station, Shoreditch, at one o'clock—G. Hudson, Esq., M.P., in the chair—for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the sharehol ders to the following Bills now before Parliament: — A Bill to repeal so much of the Cambridge Improve ment Acts as might authorise the levying of any tolls on railway carriages. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from Tottenham to Barnet. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from Hertford to Huntingdon, with a branch to Bedford. . . A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from Tottenham to Farringdon street. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from the Eastern Counties Rail way at Cambridge to Lincoln, with branches. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from Lincoln to the York and North Midland Railway, at South Milford, in the county of York. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to enlarge their stations in London and at Strat ford, and for other purposes. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from Epping to a point of junc tion with the Eastern Counties Railway, at or near the Ilford station thereon. A Bill to enable the Eastern Counties Railway Com pany to make a railway from a point of junction with the Brandon and Peterborough Extension of the Eastern Counties Railway, in the hamlet of March, in the parish of Doddington, in the Isle of Ely, and county of Cam bridge, to the city of Lincoln. All the Bills were unanimously approved. The only observations that occurred were made by the Chairman, to the effect that the connexion with the York and North Midland line would be likely to carry out the anticipa tions which he had held out at the last meeting, of in creased profit. The Lincoln and March line was a loop line originally announced by himself at Derby, and was subsequently taken up by the London and York Com pany. The CHAIRMAN said that he was happy to congratu late the meeting on the unanimity which prevailed, be cause he believed it was a good augury of future success. There was another source of congratulation is the in creased traffic for this week—it had been 7,4451. 4s. 7d. ; they had carried 2,000 head of cattle and 4,200 sheep. There were now forty-eight trains per day in and out of the station at Shoreditch ; and though all might not yet be done which it was desirable, yet still much had been effected, and he did not doubt but that the traffic would prove as much as 10,0001. in August. The shares were still far under their ultimate value, but they had passed well through the late panic, and he had no doubt but that in the course of time they would be fairly appreciated. There had been a severe cheek, it was true, but there was another similar check in 1846, but which was then partially occasioned by the disarrangement of the American trade. In addition there was a great jealousy in Parliament of all railway schemes, but it was undeniable that the country did require the facility for traffic, and under the circum stances none were such eligible parties for providing it as the old companies who were already estab lished, and who, if assistance were required, no parties would be so able to go to the money-lender with a good chance of success. Such being the case, he felt assured of ultimate and complete prosperity, and he might appeal to the propriztary as to whether the pro perty of the Eastern Counties Railway was not in a far better position than it was twelve, months since. This being his feeling, he was gratified in being able to say that the public were impressed with the fact that in the support of competing lines they would have to pay for two capitals instead of one, and thus it was very probable that the wildness of speculation would cure itself. The object of railway policy was simple in the extreme : to work a line as cheaply as was consistent with true economy, to secure as much accommodation as possible for the public, and to obtain as large dividends as was consistent with fairness. The electric telegraph had already been com pleted. [Here the Honourable Gentleman read a com munication just received from the Chesterford station, which announced the arrival of the train at that place at twenty minutes past one o'clock, the time being then about twenty minute; to two o'clock.] This would, no doubt, be of great advantage in pro viding additional security for the public in the event of any derangement of the trains. With respect to the opposition of competing lines now before Parliament, he had been astonished to hear an in fluential Member the other day state that it mattered not what the differential cost of a line might be, whether 500,0001. or 200,000 L, for it was a well known fact, that no, line with the exception of the Stockton and Darlington line, had been ;formed without the Company going into the money market for a loan, and as the old companies were the safest and the best customers, the probability was that the new com panies would have to borrow under very disadvantage ous circumstances. This was a point the more im portant, inasmuch as Parliament was just now very in tent upon the abstraction of money from general com mercial enterprise to the formation of railways. He had endeavoured to rectify the evil which might arise to original shareholders in new companies. As the matter stands at present a scripholder who had purchased from the original allottees might, in the event of the concern turning out a bad one, put his scrip into the fire, and leave the individual who had signed the contract deed to pay whatever loss might be incurred. The remedy he had himself proposed was to compel the scripholder to sign within a definite period, and thus take upon himself the responsibility which was otherwise sustained by a party by whom it ought not to be borne. In conclusion, he trusted that the Directors would be able to give a truer dividend each succeeding meeting for some time to come, and that they would be able to say that the traffic amounted to 10,0001 in August. He was happy to say that the utmost unanimity prevailed among the directors. The Hon. Gentleman was continually cheered through out his address, and after a few inquiries from a share holder, respecting Mr. Atwood's Harwich line, to which the Chairman replied that the Eastern Counties Com pany were likely to receive from, and were ready to give, every facility to that company, thanks were voted to him and the meeting separated. EXPERIMENTAL SQUADRON.-Sir Charles Napier has obtained a return, which was on Tuesday made public, giving an account of the weights, draught of water, &c. ' of the Experimental Squadron on the second and third cruize. Viscount Ingestre has recently procured a return respecting the Experimental Squadron on the three cruizes. The pre sent document shows the weights, draught of water, &c., of the squadron on the second and third cruize, similar to the return of the first cruize, the greatest inclination of each ship when carrying sail, and the greatest number of degrees each ship rolled, and the number of spars sprung and carried away during the cruizes ; their defects on returning into port, and the expense of making the defects good. The expense of making good the defects of the ship St. Vincent was 1251. 12s. 2d and 4/. Some defects in the same ship are not yet taken in hand. The defects in the ship Trafalgar amounted to 1011. 7s. 4d. and 1431 18s. 10d. ; to the Queen, 80/. 14s. 9d., arid 67/. 15s. Bd. ; to the Albion, 25/ 19s. 5d., 201. Ils , and 5131. 23. Bd.; to the Rodney, 236/. 19s. Ild., 28/. ss. 8d and 947/. 18s. 2d. ; to the Vanguard, 4111 . 19 s. 10d., 2,0061. 15s. 7d., and 4831. 78. 3d.; to the Superb, 54/. 19s. 7d., 1,2531. 19s. 7d., 701. 143. I Id., and 1,101/ 9s. 3d. ; to the Canopus, 1271. ls. 6d., 301. 7s. Ild., and 9361. 10s. 4j ; to the Darin g , 18s. 6d. and 402/. 16s. 7d. ; and to the Rattler, 2271. 55., 441. 2s. 2d., and 1,6001. 15s. The return extends to 13 pages. At length the Place du Carrousel is about to be levelled and paved. The first operations were commenced two days ago, and those parts which are now In the worst condition will be nme k liately repaired. By the end of May the pavement of this vast rea will be begun. The whole expense will, it is said, anaostnt to 00,090f.-Paris Paps". The Earl of Kenmare his subscribed the sum of 2001. towards the Kerry relief fund, IMPRISONMENT AND HARD LABOUR. For Two Years—Henry Wilson, W Allen. For Eighteen Months—J. Brazier, W. Burdett, W. Allen, jun., W. Brecknell, J. Nicholls. For Twelve Months—W. Roper, H. Frazer, J. Callo way, J. Bridget, C. Franklin, J. Bridger, W. Weston, J. Hyde. J. Trevitt, William Turner, Thomas Nye, J. Starke, Thomas Ower, J. Oakam, J. Greening, Wil liam Challis, Ernest Fillen, J. Coffee, J. Bishop, J. Thomas, George Wood. For Nine montits—J. Olney, J. Clarke, Charlotte Duffin, Jane Chappell, G. Moody, J. Williams. For Six Months—E. Cornwall, H. Smith, Thomas Knapp, Ann Knapp, Margaret Riley, J. Mapton, Sullivan, J, Beefield, R. Thorpe, C. Cushion, Mary Alin Miles, Bridget Smith, William Bairnes, M. Jennings, Ann White, Eliza Voules, Ann Driscoll, Martha Berry, E. Ogden, J. Stamford, J. Bruckworth, F. Johnson, H. Brown, Letty Copeland, Ann Eliza Putnam. For Four Months—J. Pearson, J. Sr art, J. Hardy, S. Newsom, D. Carter, Mary Ann Rogers, J. Snooks, Thomas Green. For Three Months—Louisa Hellier, Sarah Brown. Jane Edmonds, Mary Ann Gibbs, J. King, T. Kent, J. Brown, J. Leonard, M. Crawley, H. Horsted, W. Asop. T. Connor, C. Smith, J. Dunbar, W. Briggs, J. Hetherill W. Harley, H. Jackson, H. Farrell, H. Larter, J. Bruning. For Two Months—D. M. Cox, J. Williams, T. Edwards, J. Myers, J. Lewis, George Anderson, C. M'Carty. For One Month—F. Smith, J. Bidwell, Ann Jones Ann Duffin, D. Evans, J. Niel, and H. Blackwell. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-ROUSE. A young man, who stated that his name was Thomas Winch, was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with having robbed the captain of a collier, trading to London, of ten sovereigns. Captain John Lymes — , of Middleburgh, near Stockton upon-Tees, stated that, on the 14th of February, he came from his ship, which lay in the Regent's Canal, to St. Mary-axe, with a cheque for 101., which he got cashed ; and on leaving that place he met a gentleman, with whom he entered casually into conversation. They repaired from the street to a tavern in Thames-street, to enjoy a glass of ale together ; and they had not been long together when the prisoner entered the room, and perceiving that the witness was a seafaring man, asked him if he was ever in New York ? His reply was in the affirmative. The prisoner said he had been sixteen years servant to an old gentleman in the United States, who had bequeathed to him part of his property near Dover, and money in the bank, which he (the prisoner) was de sirous to lend out at a per tentage, and that if either witness or the other gentleman wished to take any, he was ready to lend it. The LORD MAYOR asked whether the other gentle man and the prisoner appeared to be acquainted with each other?—The witness replied that they were quite strangers to each other as well as to him. He said, in reply, that a small amount of money would be of no service to him, but if the prisoner had made such a quantity of money as could be of use to lay out in shipping, he did not mind. The other gentleman said that he could take a hundred pounds or two if it would suit the prisoner, and that he would go out and get a stamp receipt for the money, and he would return back and the receipt should be signed. The other gentleman then went towards the door and beckoned to witness, who followed him, and the prisoner hoped they would both return. The other gentleman, evidently nettled at the expression of a doubt, turned back, and, to show that he was serious, threw his purse, which appeared to contain a quantity of cash, into the prisoner's hat, which lay upon the table, as a security for his return. The prisoner, haring expressed a similar hope as to witness's return, witness, not to be outdone in the respectability of the dealing, flung his ten sovereigns into the same hat, to answer for his punctuality. Down stairs the witness and the other gentleman then walked, but the latter got out of the house first, and, as witness lin gered a little at the bar, he observed the prisoner, as he thought, slip out at the back door, which ltd to the wharfs. Upon going up stairs immediately afterwards witness " found all gone." The LORD MAYOR—What became of the gentleman who went to buy the stamp? Witness—The other gen tleman never came back from buying the stamp receipt. The prisoner—l declare, my Lord, I never saw the prosecutor before yesterday, when he stopped me and charged me with the robbery. The LORD MAYOR—WeII, witness, where and when did you see the prisoner again ? Witness—As I was going along Threadneedle-street yesterday, I met him with an umbrella in his hand in front of him, and the moment he saw me he crossed over to the other side of the way, and I followed him. The moment he came to the corner of the next street, he began to move very quickly, and finding that I was following him, he ran as fast as he could. I ran too, and as he turned up a court, that had no thoroughfare, I beckoned to a policeman, who followed immediately, and we took him into custody. A policeman, who apprehended the prisoner, described the hant up the court, and the capture. The prosecutor accused the prisoner of having robbed him of 10 sovereigns, and the prisoner said he was ready to pay, The prisoner was taken to the station-house, in a pas sage of which he contrived to deposit the umbrella he carried. In that umbrella we found twenty-six imita tion sovereigns, and nine imitation half-sovereigns, a purse, and a bundle of tissue paper cut into the size of bank notes, and on the prisoner's person was found a woollen purse containing two bills of exchange, pur porting to be Quebec Bills a long time due, &c. The prisoner declared that he had no umbrella at all with him. That he knew nothing of any robbery, and could prove an alibi with the greatest ease if he had time. The Captain said he was to sail next clay, and did not know when he should be able to return to London. The LORD MAYOR said it was quite impossible ; that he could not think of allowing such a criminal, who was so well known to the police as a most ingenious thief, to escape for want of prosecution ; and, to the gratification of all present, bound over the captain to prosecute at the next sessions. The prisoner was then committed to Newgate. WORSHIP-STREET. Richard Minor, ostler, in the serviceof the coach proprietor of Finsbury, vMatr.thWe Wray, e charged He coayi nnpei sa v:: aatshsnst place d h w av a having g on violently d u tyn assaultedb elrotrappeared, Mr.p el3li Broughton, that c g o h n t s a o t s n a :b il l o'clock c who i n theflo r m s e o s r h i o l i e ;g a I l o e f y t , h S e hlosrte instant, ditchs behtewemeent2thaenpdr3isoon' k w as staggering abouti ut n a state of drunkenness, and s houting and egi creating hbour h s o l an Tuproar officer that succeededihe disturbed with thewhop n greatdifficulty in removing him to the door of the house in which he lived, where he was about to leave him, when he suddenly turned round, and exclaiming " Take that," kicked him with such savage violence in the lower part of his person, that he instantly fell to the ground in a state of insensibility. Two of his brother constables, who had been drawn to the spot by the prisoner's riotous conduct and witnessed the attack he had made upon Haynes, immediately seized the prisoner and en deavoured to take him into custody; but the accused made such a strenuous resistance, that both these officers were also knocked down, and it required the combined efforts of all three constables to take him to the police station. The officer Haynes, who appeared to be com pletely crippled from the effects of the violence that had been exercised upon him, handed to the Magistrate a certificate from Mr. Mather, the divisional surgeon, which stated that the subject of it had been ever since suffering severely from a very dangerous kick, and was still in such a state as to be incapable of resuming his duty, The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said that the officers would swear his life away if they could ; that he had no recollection of kicking the constable at all; and that, if he had done so, it must be purely accidental. Mr. BROUGHTON said, :hat as the utmost punishment he had it in his power to inflict was scarcely adequate to meet the aggravated nature of. an assault of this description, he considered the only proper course to pursue would be to send the case before a jury at the sessions ; but the complainant having requested the Magistrate to adjudicate upon the matter, as it would cause him the greatest inconvenience to carry the case any further, his request was ultimately acceded to, and the prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprisonme nt and hard labour in the House of Correction, without the option of the payment of any pecuniary penalty. THAMES. Mr. BRODERIP gave his decision in a case of cone siderable importance, arising out of the parochial feuds and differences existing in the parish, of St. Dunstan, Stepney. It will be recollected that a church-rate for the rep of the ancient parish church and the new district c:titire u of St. Philip was defeated after a severe contest a f?li weeks since by a majority of 110. The leading Vis' senters followed up their success by establishing a St" - cisty, called " The Stepney Anti-Church-rate and Ps rochial Reform Association," and nominated four persona named Deering, Spooner, Bird, and Horton, at a rec ent vestry, to be returned to the magistrate to fill the ;thee of ov erseers o f t h e h am l e t o f Mile-end Old-town, whi ch ' comprises a great portion of the large parish of Stepney' The Church party nominated Messrs. Cocks and Cott" who filled the office of overseers last year, and Messy!' Bromley and Walmesley. The rector decided on the show of hand s t h at t h e persons nominated by the awl church-rate party had the majority. The four persona nominated by the church-rate party were, however, rc turned with their opponents, and the magistrate we / caled upon to select four of them to be overseers for the ensuing year. The church-rate party claimed the not" jority on the show of hands, and objected to the a ppoint' mans of Messrs. Deering, Spooner, Bird, and Ilortoe, on various grounds. The principal objection, howev er ' was that they were members of an illegal association t ° resist the payn.ent of church -rates, and, if they we r° elected by the magistrate, the parish would be kept ie continual agitation. The Di ss e n t ers ma i n t a ined that the majority, on the day of nomination, was on their side, and the rector had so declared it. Mr. Parker, the vestry clerk of the hamlet of Mile end Old-town, attended to hear the magistrate'sdecisi ele which he delivered as follows :—" The nomination this instance appears to have resulted in a shors hand;, an unusual and a very unsatisfactory method"- unsatisfactory, because it is easy for these who have 1)° right to intermeddle to hold up their hands ; and he cauie, when it is adopted, each party generally, as is this case, claims the majority. The rev. chairman, St_ e deed, records, that the first four names on the list in parish-book had the majority on the show of hand . tt. but the objectors declare that ti , e majority was wri t them, and .ehat the chairman acted as he did from O% of experience in the conduct of such meetings ; h party calling itself the Anti-Church-rate Association , the other hand, &litre that the majority R ai with the Fight names were on the list handed to me for appoi nt ; • but at the same time the parish-book was 1,, S", handed to me, and the four names which are first On t1 1 list are last in the book. Under these circumstanrT, 1 and taking the whole case into my consideration, I tbittr! it right to choose the four n a m es w hi c h stan d fi rst i n tr s original entry in the to wn - c l er k' s b oo k , and aPP°I,4 John Cocks, James Cott, J o h n Eb enezer Bromley, 'free Henry Benjamin W a l mes l ey to b e overseers o f t h e of the hamlet of Mile-end Old-town for the year es suing." BOW STREET. O CHARGE OF FIIRIOUNIR IDING.— G eorge Elli s, a J , r , in the ser v i ce o f t h e propr i etor of The Sun news paP.;; appeared u p on a summons b efore Mr. Henry, to ansW,.," o • a complaint p re f erre d aga i nst hi m f or r idi ng a 13°— over two persons in the Strand. t• Mr. Catchpole, a jeweller, residing at 120, Bet il e t street, stated, th a t on T ues d ay, t h e 31st o f M arc h, au", h - e half-past si x o ' c l oc k i n t h e evening, he was crossing,',„. Strand from Ki ng William -street to the opposite s '"; accompanied by his wife, when he suddenly felt a b ore se come against him, w hi c h h e did not see approach, wood pavement being a short way off. They Y i d , s thrown on the stone pave men t w i t h great v i o l enc e, r . O cause of which he could not see, from the conte s t e r which ensued. His wife had been extremely ill a 0 since, and it was only on Wednesday last that she pronounced by her medical attendant to be out of daeV e l and witness received several bruises in different par ts his person. Mr. Griffiths, a clerk in the Admiralty-office, So le :: set-house, said that he was in the Strand at the ti% when his att e ntion w a s att rac t e d by a h o rse galleP, D i e s towards the City at a very rapid rate, perhaps sin r or seventeen miles an hour, he believed by the fendant, and when opposite an optician's shop, he s the complainant and his wife knocked down as they o ?, ii crossing the street in an oblique direction, the lady b e ! n l next to the horse. Witness turned round, there its an involuntary cry of horror, and the horse having e°, - 0 1 pulled up, the rider seemed anxious that they should fl, suffer further injury, as he was riding his horse 1 11/ quietly. He then raised the lady, who seemed stue n i t h and suffering from pain, which was also the case tit the complainant. Witness expostulated with the mw r i, for riding at such a rate, and he seemed very 01 ;4 saying that he had done the best he could to prevent accident. tl l5/ Mr. Edward Clarke, optician, 428, Strand, stated he was in his shop and saw a horse coming in full ge' ee r, which was increased on getting on the stone psi h o the rider urging the horse with the bridle and with heels. t In answer to the defendant, the witness said thee 00 was no judge of speed, and could not say how fast horse was going at the time. fliet A constable of the F division said, that on questio 0 the defendant, he said that he was obli ge d t o hurry f tc d o the House of Lords with the reporte rs ' co py, and tha t would be found at his employer's office. t In answer to the c h arge , t h e d efen d an t sa id tha' ne r complainant and the lady popped from behind au nibus, which caused him to pull up instantly. A 10 Mr. HENRY said that the case being clearly proOlri‘ had power to inflict a tine of 405., or one month's sonment. ear The complainant said, th a t w h a t ever course was 10 sued, he was determin e d t o p rocee d b y act i on agaie s . defendant's master. -,for Mr. HENRY replied, that he had also power to r e remuneration to the amount of 101., but that would f or . vent other proceedings being resorted to at any f u period. tip Mr. Catchpole said that he entertained no vina le oll feeling towards the defendant; but in accordance h el the advice of his friends, he would take everyie) means against his employer, ou public grounds, W such a nuisance. g tO S Mr. HENRY then said, that as Mrs. Catchpole 1 01 , t ei entirely out of danger, the defendant might be iti° l c oo for manslaughter, and possibly murder, should th e pal prove fatal. He should call upon th e d e f en dant °Wt. in bail, himself in 201., and two sureti e s in 104 ell e "' appear in a week and answer the charge. y rit The sureties were entered into, and th e defendse• discharged. THE WEATHER.—The months of spring thamter,' elapsed have been as remarkable as the preceding v g ,jl o, February and the earlier part of March were unusually iolc and vegetation presented a cheerful aspect, only to be bit f; ened and checked by the severe frost that followed.. h ip a rather a remarkable circ u m s t ance that till the wind March, there had not been twenty-four hours' con toe frost for months. The f ew days' frost of that month, by ever, did much to forward agricultural operations by 11r, verising stiff soils. The greater part of the oat-seta eir been put into the ground in this vicinity in favourab le cumstances, and barley sowing has commenced. P — frOr t usually large breadth of beans has been laid dovro',lB ll ,' hesitation of farmers to incur the risk of planting the of potatoes that, but for the dread of " the disease , toy would have been inclined to have done. Seed P °- el sound and of good quality, are plenty, and freely offe r or 16s. and 18. s. per boll. A bulky crop of grass is a ntia ve rr. Clover has, indeed, been browned by frost, but it is ~e h where thickly planted, and a few days of warni! a vo speedily restore its healthy appearance. We have 11 ' 4 it several grass parks being let at a considerable rise • year's prices. —Scotsman. re ° GENERAL AVITABILE.—Extract of a letter mo p Naples :—" General Avitabile, who was for a long time in 0 10,4 vice of the Shah of Persia, and with General Ventura wase „ c ola'," in disciplining large numbers of the Seikh troops, is noW „ i d/ j here, and we went yesterday to his house, near Portici, te,„1:0? him. It is very interesting to hear him talk over the late slibeiSA if he had been a spectator of it all, so entirely at home is ~,sO7lO concerning it. Had he been there, he would now have be en, '; the army against us, and he takes no little credit to hisnOt, pOl5 having been so difficult to repulse them. He describes theta:icy:o7 the bravest and most fighting race in all India, but tearfully ' 0 00 in their mode of warfare ; and he foretells the 1' ss of ma'' o f our brave and gallant fellows before they are subdued." te e, A SSOC IATION FOR CLEANLINESS.—The comm oisr, the Free Baths and Wash-house establishment house-yard, East Smithfield, have just made an a d " l t o e lo i l their operations in the gratuitous supply of whitewa sh ro e, neighbouring poor, and even in whitewashing their where where the infirmity of the inmates prevents their do I °° operation tketnselves. BIRTHS. 170 n the 3d ult., at Porchester-gardens, Bayswater, Mrs- A Sehlon, of a daughter. f car On the 24th ult. at George-square, Edinburgh, the lady o H e nry Drummqpd, 3d Bengal Cavalry, of a daughter. ,00v On the Ist inst., at Malpas , Monmouthshire, the lady 0 0 E. Mulles Marsh, Esq., of a daughter. On the 3d inst., at Tring-park, Herts, the lady of the Re f. 0 1, Williams, of a daughter. Si t On the 3d inst., at Stamford-hill, the lady of Charles Esq., of a son. villls ° On the 3d inst., in Bedford-row, th e l a d y o f Thomasl. -po' d v 1i e ,00 1 q 1,... . tto : li s f: q eea . , 44d o ttia l ihu a l giu hss a ttt.e 7 a. h at t t s e r uns si ~d .4 0 g e l x ib -p u l r a y e '- e park, the lady of Edw . ,- _ OO /1 of a daughter. Regent's-park, Mrs-L-I,o:re On the 26th ult., a t St . G ermans-place, Black h ea th, A. Durham, Esq., of a daughter. On the 4th inst., at Upper Clapton, Mrs. C. G. Henna' , ° ojl, On the 4th inst., a t Lit t l e St anmore , Middl esex , the wife . , tor P Sladen, jun., Esq., of a d aug ht er . of t P- On the 4th inst., th e w if e o f M r . J a mes Sutton, Jun., ( 0 Exchange, of a son. On the 4th inst., at Wilton-place, Belgrave-square, the 15610°,01, C. Hastings, Esq., of a daughter. Job ° Jr On the 4th inst., at Croom's-hill, the wife of Edward oi l. Esq., of a daughter. 1" On the 4th inst., Mrs. Thomas Shepherd, of Newbeiti°'joce of a 5011. 310' d• On the sth inst., at liThitcheart-lane, Tottenham. - «a ,' Dodson, of a daughter. yr Jo, On the sth inst., at the Hermitage, near Uxbridge, e Fell, of a daughte On the sth inst., r. at Alexander-square, Brompton, lf Hance, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son. 01 , MARRIED. n ter , On the 3d inst., at St. Michael's, Bath, R. W. CarPe, - .00 Susan, youngest surviving daughter of the late BeW 13,0 , o r house, Esq., of Kingston, Jamaica. On the 7th inst., at St. Paul's, Islington, Edward M.D., of Gower-street, Bedford-square, to Julia llaul daughter of Charles Huggons, Esq., of Islington. DIED. On the 6th inst., at Charmouth, Dorset, John Chan- ~Dte,,r aged 82. 13 ,1° )r On the 31st ult , John Flint, Esq., of Western Coitatte6, On the 2(1 inst., Elizabeth, wife of Mr. Thomas Wee." mill, St. Alban's, aged IS. 6 ' sl' On the 3,1 inst., Emma, wife of Mr. F. Jupp, Sle" Op , niond, aged 39. o O n n t t l i t ie e A sth inst., F l r r e . d J c o ri li c n k, S t k h e e lt t o h n ir , d of i ß en ull;s f tr j e s e n t,L l i r s i tt ringsl o ; C . btef d. of Wandsworth, aged 9. Di ? Th n ia th e, e } s :s t q h ., Clifton, 4th Light Dragoo Dragoons. rid, the Infan .” " ... : o o g d, On the sth inst., at Wonnley House, Hats, W. .'" of 5.7 On the 6th inst., Elizabeth, wife of F. Helps, Esq" hill, Kent. i ' 01110. London : 'Printed and Puloiished by MITI:DO , ttle r strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, strand , of the Savoy, in the County of AliddleseX , 9, 1846. ~r 't i~~~ 1` r ~,..~