The Sun. — London, England, 1835-02-14 00:00:00

.1"t ~ -~~~.~ 'HUT OF T E PUBLIC JOURNALS. It has been Oftli stated by us within these few days, that under the improbable circumstance of a no minal Whig Government being the result of certain majorities which the Whigs flatter themselves they will soon command in the House of Commons, that new Government must be the hard ridden hack of the Destructives here, and of O'Connell and the Irish Repealers. That conclusion, painful and humiliating as we felt it to be, was forced upon us by the known state of parties—the weakness of the Whigs them selves—first, when compared with the above two classes of Destructives—second, with the solid, numerous, and formidable body of the Conservatives ; and, third, placed between the fires of both. Thus the rationale of the whole case is, that the Whigs, if their hopes, chimerical in our eyes, be realized, must lean for pro tection on one or the other of the simultaneous parties by which the Whig territory would on either side be bounded ; and the truth is too plain to be mistaken, that in the existing state of Whig exasperation and violence, their choice of allies will light upon the Destructive faction. But what we have reasoned upon from general grounds is now made evident by facts which have gradually transpired, and for which our authority is, we believe, incontestable. Recollect that the proposition to be supported is the necessary subor dination of the Whigs to the ultra-Radicals, as a fac tion first, opposed to the King's Government, and next as constituting the Government. Our statement of some days ago, for which every foul epithet imply ing calumny, falsehood, &c., was showered upon us, is, we have no doubt, not alone substantially, but strictly and literally, true—that Mr. Abercromby, the " great principle" Speaker of the combined powers of Whiggery and Radicalism, owes his dignity of can didate for the chair to the high and mighty patronage of Mr. Daniel O'Connell ; and that if the success of the scheme be an ovation for Whiggery, it is for Repeal nothing short of a splendid triumph. It was not until after some delay, and many qualms as to the danger of staking everything upon a factious amendment to the address on a Royal speech which they feared would be popular with the nation, that the aristocrats and plebeians of the ousted party agreed to make joint battle upon the question of " Who should be Speaker ?" Two committees of preparation, we have reason to believe, were appointed ; one British, with Mr. Warburton for Chairman ; another Irish, of which the President was Mr. Daniel O'Connell. This latter worthy proposed Mr. Tennyson for Speaker ; Mr. Warburton's candidate was Mr. Spring Rice. The name of Abercromby had never once been men tioned for the Speakership. However, as angels will fall out sometimes, so beings of an opposite nature are not always, and under all trials, imbued with the spirit of harmony. O'Connell quarrelled with the English Speaker-maker ; nor could the dispute be settled until, on O'Connell's offer to throw Mr. Tennyson overboard, and Mr. Warburton's com pulsory surrender of Mr. Spring Rice, a medius terminus was found in Mr. Abercromby, whose substitution for both the first named candidates, was made by the Agitator the sole condition on which he would corisent to wave Mr. Tennyson's pretensions. If these facts (as we believe) be true, we ask, is or is not Mr. Abercromby the nominee of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, as Radical candidate for the chair? We ask whether Mr. Abercromby ought or ought not to feel himself eternally degraded by owing to such patronage his claims to such an office ? There is a possibility that Mr. Abercromby may not, when he accepted the " great principle" proposal of Lord John Russell, have been let into the whole secret, or sus spected what grandee it was that had taken him so condescendingly by the hand. We are aware that the members of a Whig partnership showed themselves in the affair of the communications with the Bishops to be cautious, distrustful, dry, jealous negotiators. Other people knew more than was imparted to Lord John Russell, and Lord John himself knew more than he seemed to have remembered. Here, however, in this case of the Speakership, there could, we think, at least be nothing in the wind of which his Lordship was not suffered by Mr. Warburton to have full cognizance. If Mr. Abercromby did not then suspect the polluted source of the distinction proffered to him,he now knows it. Or if the Right Hon. Gentleman calls on his friends for an explanation, they of course, after this exposure, will furnish it forthwith. But there is ano ther circumstance worth remarking for its characte ristic pungency in illustration of the rectitude and manly frankness of O'Connell. That pious Catholic, as reported the other day, declared with much vehe mence, by way of contradicting the fact of his having at all intermeddled in the election of a Speaker, that he had never corresponded with Lord John Russell on the subject I What paltry equivocation I The question was,—had he meddled with the nomination of a Speaker ? and his disclaimer was, that he had " not corresponded with Lord John Russell." True this was in the letter, but in the sense most false and unprincipled, for it was not Lord John Russell who had been appointed by the Whig coterie to carry on the correspondence on that subject. It was Mr.War burton. Could O'Connell assert that he had never communicated with Mr. Warburton upon the choice of a Speaker ? But the shuffle was of a-piece with all this man's morality. However, Sir Charles Manners Sutton is to be opposed by the Whig and Radical factions, on principle, because he intrigued to throw out the lastCabi • net, and caballed to get rid of the House of Com mons. Mark the charges. Now, suppose the late Speaker should completely rebut those charges—sup pose he should be able to satisfy the new House of Commons that he had nothing to do with the dissolu tion of the old one ; and that with regard to the late Ministry or the present, he had never uttered one syl lable to his Majesty in the nature of advice, or even of observation—what effect will it have on the con scientious Whig-Radical opponents of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? Will such a refutation of every charge on which they profess to ground their preference of Mr. Abercrdhiby weigh them so as to increase Sir C. M. Sutton's majority by a single vote ? No, truly. If Charles Fox came from the dead to remonstrate with them, it would be all the same. But what, then, becomes of the " great public principle" which has been made the cloak to this frivolous and factious op position ? There is no disgrace which a mob of two or three hundred men, all eager for a common object, will not incur without blushing. Falsehood, hypo crisy, and contempt of the public welfare, which would disgust every separate individual among them but O'Connell, are taken by the aggregate as wholesome food, and swallowed without a symptom of repugnance. —Times. Let the present struggle for the Speaker's Chair terminate how it may (though of what will be the re sult we have never entertained any manner of doubt) it is clear that the Whig candidate will take possession of the prize, or retire from the contest, not a little damaged upon the occasion. We have seldom seen a public man to whose case the celebrated maxim of " save me from my friends" more literally applied, than to the case of Mr. Abercromby. Some how or other, and by the aid, probably, of not a little of that faculty called " mother wit," for which his countrymen are so proverbial, this gentleman had contrived to fea ther his nest for life by means of one of the snuggest, but at the same time disreputable jobs, which, in a country proverbial for such things, it has ever been our lot to allude to. By a singular species of- good luck, if not almost of fatality, both the progress and consummation of this affair escaped the usual vigilance of even the Press upon the occasion, and possessed every prospect of remaining un noticed, had not the Whigs, in an evil hour, brought forward Mr. Abercromby as their candidate for the Speaker's Chair—as the fittest man of their party, as well on the score of distinguished talent, as of high principle, and pure, disinterested patriotism. Not contented with the most fulsome eul9gium upon the hitherto unknown, or at any rate, quiet unpretend ing merits of Mr. Abercromby, his advocates have thought proper to load his competitor, Sir Charles Sutton, with every species of vituperation ; not recol lectinq, in Mr. Abercromby's case, " the glass win dows, ' which, in spite of the blinds by w . .h_ich they had hitherto been concealed, were sure to excite reta.: liation. It has happened, as might have been ex pected—Mr. Abercromby's pure patriotism, his un spotted disinterestedness, stands unmasked ; and this gentleman, whom the Whigs put forward as the elite of their party, to dispute the Chair of the House of Com mons with the most competent holder of it which it has ever possessed, turns out to be, in the nervous language of the Standard, " the holder of the most flagitious pension ever granted or ever grasped ;" and one of whose first duties, probably, were he to fill that Chair, would be, the irksome and anomalous task of presiding over successive debates upon this very sub ject ; for we hold it to be impossible, now that the real facts regarding this unjustifiable arrangement are brought to light, that any Member of the House of Commons can ever again bring a review of the pension list into discussion, without this " most flagitious pen sion" being placed in the van, and restored to the country, from which it ought never to have been taken. It will form, in fact, the great touchstone and test of sincerity for the future upon this interesting subject. We are aware that Whigs and Tories share the culpa bility of this transaction. We are curious to see how they will venture upon its defence. As far as mere "vested interest" goes, that applies with equal force and equal truth to every other pension of every kind. The nine points of the law are too often in favour of the wrong doer, but they establish no moral or equitable right. If the House of Commons ever succeed in obtaining a revision of the Pension List, the question to be asked in the name of the country of every individual whose right to his or her pension is doubted will be, not the superfluous one of " What have you got ?" but " What have you done to deserve it ?" Should this question ever be put to Mr. Abercromby, we should be curious to see how he will answer it. Should it unfortunately be put to him in the character of the first Commoner in the kingdom, his position would be most mortifying and degrading. To avoid this em barrassment would, we should think, be alone induce ment enough to fix the waverers, if there be any, in the approaching struggle on Thursday.—Morning Herald. There is a certain Association in the metropolis which rejoices in the style and title of the " Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge." In the list of the Noble and Learned Members of this body may be discovered the eminent and important names of the Lord Brougham and Vaux, ex-Chancellor of England, actual " Memb. Nat. Inst. of France;" the eminent sponsor of the distinguished Radical pensioner, James Abercromby, the Right Hon. Lord John Russell ; honest Lord Althorp, formerly Chancellor of the Ex chequer, now Earl Spencer, and still prizeman at Smithfield ; the pious Divine and King-honouring Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester; the learned pundit, M. D. Hill, late M.P. for Hull ; Mr. Isaac Lyen Goldsmid, F.R.S., who is reported to have sub scribed a large sum of money towards the re-elec tion of the goose of the capitol ; Sir John Hob house, some time Radical Member for Westminster, afterwards tranquil placeman and nominee of the Not tingham bobbinet manufacturers ; Mr. John Wood, long a noisy spouter of faction, now Chairman of one of the ex-Ministerial jobs : with many other names equally distinguished for loyalty, letters, wisdom, and wit. This noble Joint-Stock Company of Lords, Lawyers, and Levellers, publish a certain book year after year which is called " The British Almanack ;" and in page 13 of that notable production for the year 1835 we find a notice of the Kings and Queens of England from the Conquest, in which there is nothing requiring particular remark until we come to the death of Charles 1., when there appears the following " Commonwealth from the execution of Charles 1., Jan. 30, 1649, to the restoration of Charles ll. Charles 11. (restored), 1660, May 29," with a mar ginal note in these words —" In some historical documents the reign of Charles 11. is reckoned from his father's death." Was there ever seen, we now ask, a more pernicious perversion of history or of morals ? In the first place, this precious production, given to the world under the pro claimed patronage of men who call themselves British Statesmen or lawyers, styles that an execution which was, in fact, the most atrocious judicial murder ever perpetrated ; in the, second place it speaks of " some historical documents," when it is notorious that every Act of Parliament—every record of our annals--recognises the day of King Charles the First's murder as the date of his son's accession, wisely and constitutionally acknowledging the grand principle of our Government, that the " King never dies." It must be recollected that this monstrous absurdity is perpetrated not by illiterate and unknown persons, but by individuals who ostentatiously parade their names in the title-page of a production, of which any child who has studied the first rudiments of the history of his country would be ashamed ;—by Noblemen and Gentlemen, who when this precious book was printed were Ministers of that Crown, which privately and publicly they took every opportunity of degrading, anxious to diminish the reverence with which Britons have been accustomed to regard the sacred name of King. We have felt it our duty to expose this mis chievous publication, in order that the unwary may not be entrapped, and that the factious and unprin cipled individuals whose names are appended to it may be properly understood and appreciated.—Morn- TIIE SUN, LONDON, SATUR DAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1835. ing Post. From positive assurances we know that Mr. Aber cromby's election by a considerable majority is a mat ter of certainty. The Tories have, from the first, drawn largely on their invention with regard to defec tions from the Whigs. In some cases they have been sufficiently imprudent to name individuals, which has generally called forth an indignant contradiction. Thus, for instance, in this day's Chronicle, appears a letter from Mr. D. W. Harvey, giving the he to the asser tion that he intended to vote for Sir Charles Sutton ; and with respect to the alleged intention of Mr. Ten nyson to be absent on the 19th. A letter from Mr. Barker, in our columns, distinctly states that it is the intention of the Right Honourable Gentleman to be in his place on the 19th. The Times and Standard must count largely on the gullibility of their readers, when they gravely connect the Repeal of the Union, with the success of :the Reformers. The first of these Journals gravely states, that the Whigs " could not carry on the Government, without the aid of O'Connell and his crew, with out havin g for a colleague that identical revolutionist who has devoted his life to the Repeal of the Union, who wants only the downfal of the present Ministry to push more violently than ever that insane and san guinary project, and who could do no otherwise as Minister of the Crown than bring a Bill for the Repeal of the Union' into the Imperial House of Commons ! Are the eyes of Whiggery to be for ever closed ? Will no gulf—no precipice—no earthquake, rouse the doomed and irrecoverable victim." The old Thunderer bursts forth here. We are reminded of the days when our Morning Contemporary exhausted the vocabulary of abuse, when Tories and High Church men were the objects of its attack. It is evident that our Contemporary deems this a vein which may be wrought to advantage. " Are the eyes of Whiggery to be for ever closed ? Will n o gulf— no precipice—no earthquake, rouse the doomed and irrecoverable victim ?" Most of our readers must remember the effect produced on the Vicar of Wakefield when he came to hear a second time the famous passage about " the age of the world." Most readers of The Times must exclaim in like manner, " Surely we have heard this before I" The closing of the eyes—the gulf—the precipice—the earthquake— the doomed and irrecoverable victim—are all imprinted on the memory. But then Whiggery has taken the place of Toryism. Next year, however, Toryism will probably be instated. The gulf will once more yawn for the Tories—the Tories will be on the brink of the precipice. Really it is too bad to pretend that Mr. O'Connell, or any other Irishman, has the slightest chance of gaining the least support in this country for any project for a Repeal of the Union. In the late Parliament, when the subject was brought for ward, out of all the Whigs, Radicals, and Pltfa Radicals, only one Englishman, Mr. Kennedy, could be found to vote for the motion. Any Englishman or Scotchman, returned by a popular constituency, who should countenance a Rel cal of the Union would have little chance of ever finding his way . into Parliament I this country the very idea is scouted. Mr. Cobbett, we beligve, in Ireland, , avowed himself ^ l .l. ; but it may be 40173 h -doll wiletioF a- nion survived_ the . t . h_ e encourage p-,77 across the Channel, We are firmly persuaded that nothing meat given to the Orange ascendancy in Ireland could make the idea of repeal popular even among the Catholics. Be this, however, as it may, it is quite certain that no member returned by the constituencies of this island will ever countenance the Repeal of the Union. Whether Tories or Reformers be at the helm, they must, like Mr. Canning, con sider the Repeal of the Union as visionary as the res toration of the Heptarchy. The Times knows this well, and Mr. O'Connell knows equally well that if his eloquence were ten times more powerful than it is, it could produce no impression on an Imperial House of of Commons. If ever Ireland be separated from Bri tain (an event we deem next to impossible), this re sult will not assuredly be produced by votes of an Im perial Parliament. Oppression may prepare the Ca tholics for the desperate measure, and rebellion may be abetted by foreign enemies. 'We are putting the worst conceivable case. We are. far from supposing that Mr. O'Connell or the Repealers contemplate a separation to be effected by such means ; indeed we much question whether any Repealer seriously himself believes in the possibility of a sepa ration. The Repeal seems to be used as a po litical stalking-horse. Mr. O'Connell indeed, re peats from time to time, (he did at the Dub lin dinner on the 11th) that he hoped to see the Repeal of the Union accomplished. Many of the Scotch, long after the Union of 1707, continued to demand the Repeal ; but we believe, that in most cases, they would have been not a little disappointed had they been taken at their word. The Standard seizes with avidity on the declaration of Mr. O'Connell, that " the Whigs who would soon come in, would be Whigs of a totally different character from those who had been there before. If another Administration was formed, it would be two-thirds Radical." Our politic Con temporary had been wondering how it happened that the Melbourne and Grey Ministries were anxious not to defeat Sir Charles Sutton, and this declaration at once helps him to a solution. . " Our readers (exclaims 774 Standard) probably now be gin to see the bottom of the plot, and to see, also, why the Grey and Melbourne Whigs, ' those who were in before,' but who are not to be in again,' their places being reserved for ' two-thirds Radicals,' do not extend any very cordial counte nance to the project of the conspirators. Mr. O'Connell next adds an explanation, that ' though cherishing his design of Repeal as warmly and enthusiastically as ever, he will not touch upon that question before the downfal of the Conserva tives.' * " Here we have it all. Sir C. M. Sutton is to be beaten by Mr. O'Connell's arrangements." A new Cabinet of a totally different character from the Cabinets of Lords Grey and Melbourne,' and composed of two-thirds Radical,' is to be formed ! Mr. O'Connell is to take office in the new Adminis tration, with the avowed design of promoting the Repeal of the Union ! All this is' confessed by Mr. O'Connell—all this must be known to Lord John Russell." How clear every thing now appears by the help of the key discovered by our contemporary ! Mr. O'Con nell is a formidable Repealer indeed ; for lie has al ready repealed the union of Reformers—and Whigs, Radicals, Ultra-Radicals, and Repealers, will instantly become more hostile to each other than to the Tories. In short, the Tories are in now for the session at least. Indeed so certain is it, that our contemporary may drop the summons at the head of his leader to the Conservatives to assemble on the 19th. The Tories may now bide their time. What a pity that Mr. Hughes Hughes could not benefit by this discovery It is a discovery which seems quite level to the capa city of that gentleman and of Mr. Richards.—Morn ing Chronicle. .The amount of absolute and unconditional promises to vote for Mr. Abercromby, as Speaker of the House of Commons, and against Sir Charles Manners Sut ton, was up to yesterday 314—and in favour of the latter scarcely 236. We have these facts upon au thority which we have no right to question ; and we can add with equal assurance, that many answers to the letters which have been transmitted by the chiefs of the Liberal party to different Members of Parlia ment, but whose votes are not doubtful, have not yet been received. What becomes, then, of the boastings of the Tory papers ? What of their - arrogant asser tions of a safe majority ? No one, fit to be out of Bedlam, would now take an even bet upon the sub jeet—and no one who reflected upon the state of the question, when Mr. Abercromby was first put forward, could have doubted . for a moment that all genuine Reformers would vote for him, and against Sir C. M. Sutton—not on account of the relative qualifications of the two gentlemen—not because the one is a Whig, and the other an ultra-Tory—but because, in the success of the one, or the defeat of the other, is involved the question, on the one hand, of the future progress of liberal measures, and, on the other, of the supremacy of despotism, and the annihi lation of the glorious prospects which had begun to dawn upon the country after the passing of the Reform Bill. They who regard the question which is to be de cided on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock, as a mere personal question, or even as a party ques tion, either egregiously delude themselves, or are very desirous of deluding and deceiving others to their de struction. We again repeat, that it -is no party —no personal question—but a question of principles, and of principles only—a trill of strength between the principle of darkness and the principle of light—be tween Toryism on the one hand, and Liberalism on the other—between a faction which possesses a great portion of the property, and but little of the confidence of the country, and the great mass of its intelligence and population on the other—in a' word, between corruption, want of principle, despotism, and tyranny on one side—and, on the other, the elastic spirit of the age, which cherishes honest and moral conduct in public, as well as in private men —which detests corruption, and would readily un sheath the sword, were the cause of freedom to be in the slightest danger. To say as Messrs. Hughes, Richards, and Co.—Tories in heart, though Reformers in profession—that the question of the Speakership was no fit occasion on which to try the strength of the advocates of just or unjust, liberal or illiberal principles—is neither more or less than to attempt an apology for cheating the people out of their rights, and doing that which is unjust. It is of the utmost importance that the question should be decided at once ; for not only are the interests of this country involved in the triumph, or defeat, but those of all Europe. Already are the carrion birds of despotism swooping through the air, in order to pounce upon the expected field of liberal slaughter ; but if England be true to herself—if she do her duty, as she has always done—if Englishmen, as Scotchmen and Irishmen will prove themselves to be, be honest to their profes sions—they will turn the tercel kites down the wind, to peck at such fortune as they may meet with on the day of their final haggandism.—Morning Advertiser. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. Yesterday, before the LORD MAYOR took his seat in the Justice-room, an emaciated woman applied to Mr. Hobler for advice in the following exigency :—Her husband was ill ; she had four children, who had not a morsel of food, and the trade (that of selling milk) was so low, that the profits were not sufficient to keep the life in a family only half the size. She had applied to the parish for relief, but although the overseers knew that their distress was no sham; they refused to give a farthing to alleviate the Misery of so many, except upon the cruel condition that the house should be immediately left by the unfortunate tenant. The condition, if complied with, would have the positive effect of depriving them of the only shelter they could find any where, and they had struggled for some time to exist. The power of enduring starvation was not, however, calculated to last beyond a certain time ; and the applicant declared that, if the overseers persevered in their refusal to assist the family, death must be the consequence to the poor children. Mr. Hobler said that, in mostinstances, the parish officers were now deaf to the suggestions of the Magistrates, out of whose hands the new Poor Law Bill had taken the power of ordering relief to be administered, even where relief was most necessary. Mr. Hobler then gave some pecuniary relief to the applicant, and advised her to apply when the Lord Mayor was in the Justice-room. The applicant said that she should represent the hard case of the family to his Lordship. Put 00 day pffssecl Wit4 o l4 TePPW4 Pf the application, The object of the overseers is, no doubt, to get a tenant who will be able to pay the poor's rates, instead of one whose misfortunes oblige him to solicit the parish bounty. On Thursday Mr. Kilner, of Mincing-lane, was charged with having used very ferocious threats-against Mr. Cum ming, an egg-merchant, some days ago. The case caused some astonishment, exhibiting a ludicrous mixture of jea r4 an i 3 '6operifTicit>. - Mr. Cummini said that the conduct of the defendant had been, to a certain extent, described before the Lam beth-street Magistrates some days ago. The defendant, who had been on intimate terms with him, thought pro per to take a fancy to his wife not very long after he had married her, and, unfortunately, the lady did not repel the improper attentions k with sufficient indignation to termi nate or check them. This was very disagreeable, and every day added to the intimacy, notwithstanding the strong expostulations made upon the occasion. It was very remarkable that when Mr. Kilner entered the house the window-curtains were always closed, and the boy James was sent out of the way. It was also re markable that if Mr. Kilner happened not to call upon one day he was sure to call twice the day after, and that the visits were uniformly made when he (complainant) was from borne. Mrs. Cumming, in reply to the accusation of being an accomplice, said that the gentleman was a very proper person, and merely wanted her husband upon busines ; but complainant thought it rather odd, if such were the case, the defendant should call at times when he was known to be engaged out of doors. With the impression strongly upon his mind that things were not as they ought to be, he (complainant) met his wife in conversation with the defend ant, and upon asking the defendant how he dared to seduce her from her lawful husband, was threatened with a broken head, and had the fist of the defendant within a few inches of his face. The defendant said that the complainant was in fact jealous of every body, and carried the passion to the most ridiculous extremes. In fact, it was only necessary for a person to look at the wife to set the green-eyed monster in full play upon the unhappy man's imagination. He declared that there was no pretence whatever for saying that there existed any amour between him and the lady in question, whom he had met accidentally on the day the threat was said to have been used. With respect to the calls he had made at the house of the defendant, they were occasioned by some pecuniary matters which he wished to have settled. The complainant persisted in stating that the defendant's object was to keep up an illicit conversation with his wife, a:id was of opinion that such proceedings were not at all creditable to a person who had a wife of his own. The Loan MAYOR said that he could not adjudicate in the case of the imputation of seduction, but he should hold the defendant to bail. Yesterday Mr. Cumming came to the Justice-room, and expressed his regret that the case did not appear in the Newspapers of the day. Mr. Hobler believed that it was from compassion alone it was suppressed ; but he had no doubt, if the complainant wished, that the public would be treated with a brie account. _ _ Mr. Cumming—My friends were all disappointed at not seeing it. It is supposed that I can't make out a case of trim. con. ; but I think that this letter, which I hope to see published, contains proof of the offence Mr. Cumming,—Sir,—l received a warrant to appear before the Lord Mayor to-morrow, for what purpose I am at a loss to know. I had hoped all angry feeling was buried in oblivion. Although you have accused me wrongfully, yet I forgive. At a time like this, you must be aware my feelings are more than I can describe, having Mrs. K. laid up, and my only boy not expected to live ; also a death in the family yes terday. You are quite mistaken if you think I wish to injure or annoy you ; but at the same time I must request you to drop the subject after to-morrow, as I shall put it beyond doubt of your being in error ; and after that, I shall never allow you or any one else to charge me in the way you have done. " Mincing-lane, Feb. 11, 1835. W. K." Now, continued the complainant, I consider that letter convincing proof of what has taken place between this man and my wife. Mr. Hobler confessed that he was blind enough not to see anything like an indication of criminal conversation in the letter, which, on the contrary, appeared to his blunt sensibility to be a complete denial of any thing of the kind Mr. Cumming hoped that the public would be permitted to judge. His wife was now lying ill in bed. Mr. Hobler—What then, is she of whom you speak in such a manner at home with you? Mr. Cumming—Oh dear, yes. She is at home—l am very fond of her, indeed. It is true she is not so fond of me, or of truth as she ought to be, but I love her tenderly, and it is too bad that I am to be made unhappy by this man. The complainant then tied up a bundle of letters which he wished to exhibit, and departed sighing deeply. BOTV-STREET. On Monday last Mr. Walmsley, a pawnbroker at the corner of Blackmoor-street, Drury-lane, appeared upon summons to answer to a complaint exhibited against him by Major Michael Brown, under the 39th George 111., for unlawfully refusing an inspection of his book of sales, which the complainant, under the statute, had a right to demand. The penalties under the clause of the Act in question are extremely heavy, being 101., and three times the value of the goods pawned. Mr. Brown stated that in August, 1833, he pledged a gold watch at the defendant's shop for 91. He did not redeem it ; and on the sth instant he called, and having paid a penny, as required by the Act, he demanded an in spection of the books, in order that if the watch, when sold by auction, had fetched more than the amount of the principal and interest, and the expenses of sale, he might claim the overplus. He at the same time held the dupli cate in his hand, near enough to the defendant for him to read the entry upon it, but Mr. Walmsley refused to per mit him to inspect the books unless he gave the duplicate into his hand. An altercation ensued, and it ended in Mr. Walmsley positively refusing to allow witness to look at the book. The defence set up was that the complainant merely showed the duplicate at a distance, and that defendant could not see to what it referred. Sir F. ROE said that under the circumstances he must convict if pressed to do so, but he would postpone the case in order that the parties might have an opportunity of com promising the matter, which would be the best course in such a case. Yesterday the parties again appeared, and stated that no arrangement had been come to, and the complainant prayed judgment. Mr Stafford, solicitor for Mr. Walmsley, made an ob jection that there had not been a written information lodged, as required by the statute, but that the summons had been issued upon a mere verbal complaint. Sir F. ROE differed from Mr. Stafford. Mr. HALLS, after a long conversation, was of opinion that a written information was necessary under the Act. Sir F. ROE—Then, of course, the information must be dismissed, and I am rather glad that I have this loophole afforded me to avoid ordering a penalty, because I think an improper degree of petulance was exhibited., At the same time my view of the general principle is the same. The case was then dismissed, Sir F. Roe observincr that the complainant could consult a legal adviser, and if the law allowed it he could lodge a fresh information. The complainant adopted the course he did upon the advice of Sir F. Pollock, and he should certainly not let the matter drop. MARLBORO UGH-STREET. Peter Scott,:a remarkably diminutive personage, brought , Samuel Palmer before Mr. CONANT, " for having," as the warrant expressed it, " against the peace of our Lord the King, assaulted and beaten him on Monday last." "May it please your Worship," began the complainant— " my business is obstructed, my person threatened, my life in danger, and my wife and family thrown into bodily fear, by the conduct of the defendant, who keeps a cobbler's stall close to the door of my own shop." Mr. CONANT—WeII, state what he does? Complainant He never sees me, your Worship, but he gives a whistle, so (whistling), and cries " Snob! " Three weeks ago, I was white-washing my airy, when, hearing the usual . sound, I lifted up my visible hopticks, and saw the prisoner whistling and singing out " Snob !" I flew into the house, and, from the corner of the kitchen window, upon my sacred oath I saw him pull a latch key out of his pocket and burglariously try to open my street door with it. 1 called my wife and family and lodgers to come and be witnesses ; but he, find ing it would'nt fit, made his escape, having, however, again whistled, and cried out " Snob ! " Mr. CONANT—Confine your statement to the assault. Complainant—This is important. Three days after this my wife having told me that the kettle would'nt " bile" for ten minutes, I went in to my neighbour, Mrs. Dart's, shop to have a pennorth of hoisters. " Mrs. Dart," says Ito her, " I've - got two feather-beds to sell, one is 30s, and— Mr. CONANT—Come to the assault at once. Com plainant—" And the other el., because I've just had the ticking scoured." "If that's your price, Mr. Scott," said she, " then we can't deal." Mr. CONANT—What has all, this stuff to do with the assault ? Complainant—l wish your worship to be in pos session of the whole of the scandalous proceedings. So as I was eating the hoisters, in comes the defenant, who again whistled, and sun.- out " Snob !" at the same time laying his hand on my shoulder with a push, which in the eye of the law is an assault. Mr. CONANT—And have you taken out a warrant for such a trumpery proceeding? Complainant—A trumpery proceeding ! What! is a tradesman to have a man always whistling at him and snobbing at him ? If such attacks are not repressed by the extremities of the law, there's no know ing what sanguinary things may take place. The defendant, a pale, peaceable-looking journeyman cordwainer, assured the Magistrate that he was the %ag grieved party ;• for the complainant usually set up a number of hackney-coachmen to annoy him when at w , ak in his stall, and on one occasion the complainant, 10, 10 , though a pigmy in person, was a Goliah in pluck, 'nail violated the privacy of his sanctum by making a forcible entry therein, and threatening to assassinate him with his own awl. The complainant then called Mrs. Dart, who confirmed the fact of the "hoiste;s," but negatived the assault. Mr. CONANT therefore dismissed the warrant, and ad vised the defendant to restrain his penchant for whistling in future. The Complainant, who was as red as a turkey-cock at the issue, darted an indignant look at the victorious cob bler, and marched out of the office. HATTON-GARDEN. Yesterday George Gallagher, a middle-aged man, was brought before Messrs. ROGERS and BENETT, by Keys, a parish officer of St. Pancras, in order to be passed to the Lunatic Asylum at Hanwell. The prisoner was bound in a strait-waistcoat, and looked wildly. The parish surgeon having been sworn, Mr. BENETT asked him on what point the prisoner was mad? Surgeon—He imagines that he is entitled to con siderable property. Mr. BENETT (to the prisoner)—Well, are you entitled to any property ? Prisoner (in a broad Irish dialect) —En titled to property ! To be sure I am—Didn't my godfather lave it to me? How did he leave it ?—Why, he was the richest man in the kingdom, and he left me his jewels, his money, and the whole of his property ; and nobody has a right to claim it but myself. Mr. RocEas—Did he will it to you ? Prisoner—To be sure he did, and to nobody else. Have you seen the will:—No, never, but didn't he tell me that he would do so ? Have you seen your godfather lately ?—Faith and I never saw him—he left England soon after I was born. Mr. BENETT (to the surgeon)—ls he mad upon any other point ? Surgeon—No. He informs me that he has got more plate, jewels, and money, than one of Meux's dray horses could draw. Prisoner (to Mr. Rogers)—Ocb, then will you see me rightified ? Mr. ROGERS—Yes, certainly I will. Prisoner (earnestly)-06, by my soul then, if you do, I'll make you a handsome present, and you shall never want in this world—you shall have plenty. Mr. ROGERS—Ay, more than one of Meux's Amy horses can draw. Prisoner—Yes, faith, and if you dr,, give your son a glass of gin and a gold seal. Keys here handed the order for his removal to the Luna tic Asylum to the Magistrates, to be signed by them. Mr. Roms—Have you given notice to the Asylum that the man is about to be sent to them ? Keys—No, Sir ; but it will be all the same if you give your signatures. Mr. ROGERS—I shall certainly do no such thing until such information is given. Keys—lf you sign it I can then write to the Asylum on the subject. It will save trouble, as our surgeon is present. . . _ Mr. RoC,Eas—The poor man is evidently insane, and in such a case I shall not give my signature before you satisfy me that there is room for him in the Asylum, and you must take proper care of him until the necessary forms have been gone through. Mr. BENETT concurred that such a mode was correct, and declined giving his signature. The Magistrates then ordered that a letter should be for warded by the officer to Hanwell Asylum, and that the lu natic and the doctor should attend on a future day. Q UEEN- S QUARE. William Monk and Maria Jane Monk, his wife, were brought up for examination before Messrs. WHITE and BURRELL, charged with robbing their ready-furnished lodgings. The male prisoner, who was stated to have been an offi cer in the army, appeared to be in the most abject state of destitution. He had scare* any clothing whatever but a ragged pair of tronsm and a flannel jacket, not even a sbirt, an,(l NY, he* bronght to the station-house was bare fo9t4l4til. one I) , f the police-constables humanely gave him a pair of shoes, Mr. John Shepherd,of No: 9, Vine-street, Waterloo road, stated that the prisoners took apartments in his house abeut three months ago. The male prisoner never came out of his bed-room during that time. Suspecting latterly that part of his furniture had been taken away, he made inquiries at different pawnbrokers ih the neighbourhood, and found that various articles had been purloined. A sofa cover, and a set of brass fire-irons, had been pledged, together with several other articles, his property, at 'Tur ner's, in the Waterloo-road, and he gave both prisoners into custody. The prisoner Monk said that his wife had taken the ar ticles to the pawnbrokers', by his directions. He had been ill for a length of time, and he had•sent things to the pawnbrokers', through downright starvation. He had for merly been in a very respectable station in society, and said that if he were sent to prison it would be his death. On the prisoner being brought up again yesterday it was intimated to the magistrates that as it appeared to be a case of great distress, the charge would not be pressed, and the prisoners were, of course, discharged. G UILDHALL. Mr. Miller, the assistant overseer of St. Sepulchre's, a tended to answer the complaint of a cab-driver, named Mortimer, who had lately married a widow of the name of Scott, who had three children chargeable to the above pa rish. The facts came before Sir C. MARSHALL and Mr. Alderman LUCAS, a few days since, the parish insisting on enforcing the new Poor Act, as to making a man, who mar ries a widow, chargeable with the maintenance of her first husband's children, and the Magistrates resisting the ap plication, as contrary to policy and humanity, Sir C. MARSHALL, on seeing the parties again, remem bered the whole matter. The parish had taken the widow's eldest boy into the poor-house, and allowed her 2s. a week to support the other two ; but upon her marrying, the pa rish stopped her allowance, and sent home the eldest child. The stepfather refused to take the latter, and urged that he was of an age to be apprenticed, above fourteen years old, and that the parish ought to apprentice him. The parish wished to remove him to the stepfather's settlement under the new Act, but the Magittrates put it to the discretion and good sense of the overseers whether, upon closing their accounts with this pauper, they could not afford a 5/. fee to learn this boy a trade. He might be passed to another parish, but as this was liable to maintain him only till he was sixteen, when he would return to St. Sepulchre's, had they not sufficient interest to apprentice him ? It was for the benefit of the inhabitants of St. Sepulchre, as well as of the boy and of his stepfather, that the parish should ap prentice him. The clerk observed, that if St. Sepulchre's apprenticed the boy they would give him a settlement elsewhere. If they did not apprentice him he might not learn a trade. St. Sepulchre's would be liable to support him after a few months, and, perhaps, in fifteen years, he might bring a wife and children to be supported by St. Sepulchre's for the rest of their lives. Mr. Miller replied, the clerk was supposing a case which might not happen. The boy might not live, or the " De structivesn might get the upper hand, and alter the law of settlement again, or the boy might be able to support him self and children too. By the new law, framed according to the highest authority, by gentlemen who had the most profound knowledge of everything, this boy was not now chargeable to St. Sepulchre's, and possibly might never be • chargeable again. Why, then, should St. Sepulchre's ex pend Si. or 101. in learning him a trade ? He. wished to show deference to the Bench, but having a better know ledge of the applicants than the Magistrates, he could not accede to their recommendation. The man was determined to conceal what parish he belonged to, so that if he should desert her, which was not improbable, St. Sepulchre's would have to support his wife and family, though they clearly belonged to some other parish, and it was only by accident, such as this application about the boy, that the knowledge of the husband's parish would be attained. It was very material for St. Sepuichre's that this fact should be ascer tained, and he, therefore, refused to give any apprentice fee, but he was ready to pass the first husband's children to the second husband's parish, if he was unable to sup port them. Sir C. MARSHALL knew St. Sepulchre's were not bound to apprentice the boy, but he believed it to be ex pedient that they should do so, and he thought they should temper the law with humanity and discretion. As a work ing man, the new husband had a hard bargain in taking two children with the widow. Some questions were then put to the husband, who persevered in refusing to tell what parish be belonged to, and intimated that he should expect the allowance of two shillings a week to be renewed, in addition to apprenticing the boy. This somewhat changed Sir Chapman's desire to relieve him, but did not alter his opinion of the expediency for the parish to adopt the recommendation he had before given. Mr. Miller asked whether he could not punish the hus band for threatening to leave his family ? The clerk said that the law had been repealed. Mr. Miller still refusing to bind the boy the husband and wife quitted the room, declaring that they would run away together and leave the three children to the parish of - St. Sepulchre. Mr. Fish, of Lisle-street, Leicester-square, complained of the indifference with which he had been treated at the General Post-office upon complaining of a letter, containing a sovereign and country notes to the amount of 731., having been stolen. He said his son was travelling for him, and paid 2s. for the postage of the letter, as a money letter, at Winchester, on the 11th of January. It did not come to band, and on complaining at the Post-office, he was told the Postmaster should be written to. The next time he called he was told the Postmaster had no recollection of the letter, and had not put such a one on his way bill, as he should have done in due course with any money letters. The Post master was written to a second time, but no farther intelli gence was obtained, and he had called four or five times since, and had been treated with great indifference and peel ness, and was told he might call again, Having written to Lord *m7llol.ollop i thl3 aphlect, his Lordship had an swered ihat he 1144 inquired into the eireurnstanees,that no blame attached to the Post-ofoe, and that ho could not do anything in it, Now, in his (Mr. Fish's) opinion his Lord ship should not have come to any conclusion till he per sonally confronted the Winchester Postmaster with his son. Mr. Fish said he wished to know what steps he should take to do himself justice. Vv Sir CHAPMAN MmtsHAT,I, said 4 Ival ;0 1 Lis I:,,oviv to assist Mr. Fish—lN 40 better take the advice of .o• • qpl49 l OF. Mr. Pig' said 4 lawyer would be sure to advise him to go to law, and that would probably end in increasing the loss. —(A laugh.) Sir CHAPMAN said that still they were much obliged to the lawyers for their assistance at times. He could not give him better advice. In answer to a question, Mr. Fish admitted he had re ceived safely 50,000/. in remittances through the Post office. PRIVY COUNCIL. The Judicial Committee of his Majesty's Privy Council sat yesterday in the Council Chamber, and concluded the appeal from Bombay, Homobaee v. Punjeabhaee. ; The property in dispute is the real and personal property of Dosabhaee, a Parsee inhabitant of Suratovho died on the 25th of June, 1820, the appellant claiming under a will alleged to have been made by the deceased (Dosabhaee) in favour of the appellant, who was his second wife ; the re spondent, who is the nephew and son-in-law of the deceased (Dosabhaee), claiming as the adopted son. Their Lordships, by their decision, which was delivered by Si: J. Bernard Bosanquet, affirmed the decree of the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlutt (in favour of the re spondent), and expressed their opinion that that Court had done right in coining to the conclusion that the adoption bad been proved, and that the will had not been satisfac torily established. The decree of that Court was therefore affirmed, but without costs. COURT OF CHANCERY. BUXTON V. FITZHERBEItT. This was one of several applications which has been made to the Court for the purpose of amending or getting rid of certain minutes of orders, which the late Lord Chan cellor had handed out to the Registrar, through the means of his officers. In the present case there are two causes, one of Buxton v. Fitzherbert, the other of Palmer v. Fitz herbert. The note delivered to the Registrar by. one of Lord Brougham's officers, as his Lordship's judgment, was headed with the title of the first cause alone, and contained merely the words " Affirmed—no costs." It was now contended by Sir WILLIAM HORNE that this note disposed of the whole matter : that the omission of the name of the second cause was intentional ; and that the judgment applied to all matters pending in the suits. Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. BURGE argued, on the other side" that the judgment related to one only of two matters, very different in their nature ; and that being so vague, even if it was intended to apply to both, it could not now be acted on• Sir W. HoRNi having replied, The LORD CHANCELLOR said there undoubtedly w a s no evidence on which the Court could act, that the not, o f the judgment was really the decision of the Lord CiAancellor. The cases must therefore be reheard. HOPKINS V. POWIS. This was an application of nearly the same nature. There were three causes, Hopkinson v. Powis, Harrington "• Long, and Harrington v. Powis. In the, cause of Hopkin" son v. Powis, a petition had been presctnted to discharge Or vary an order made in 1823, for the purpose of taking ac counts of the administration of the property of the late Mr• Long. Lord Brougham, o'd the last day of his sitting's► handed out a note, in whi.ch he disposed of the three causes seriatim ; but with res-..ence to the petition praying the dig' charge of the order 1833, the note contained these words —" Order to be reversed, and deposit returned." Mr. Knight, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr. Barber, now cow tended that the matter must be heard. _ _ Mr. TINNEY and Mr. BEAMES contended, on the other side, that the word reverse was intended for discharge. The LORD CHANCELLOR read the word reverse as mean' ing discharge, because the petition itself prayed a discharg e of the order ; and he cast out of consideration the questioo of the deposit, which he regarded as a mere slip. If the Registrar could not draw up the order according to this alteration, or if it did not meet the justice of the case, the parties might have the matter reheard ; arid he thought they had better in that case bring the matter on to-morrow' while all parties . were prepared, so that the affair might be finally disposed of. His Lordship rose at three o'clock. ROLLS' COURT. BAINBRIDGE V, GLAIR. Mr. TINNEY, who appeared for the plaintiff, Mariann e i Allsop Bainbridge, opened thi s case on th e su pplementa l bill on Thursday last. ".,:he original bill was filed again. ° the defendants, the trastees under the testator's will, c ertain legatees under the 'will, and the testator's heir-at-law. Th at bill had been br,ught in, but his Honour the late Master ()fed Rolls had tiered it to stand over, with liberty for the pl4nt` to file a 'supplemental bill, for the purpose of stating a e elini 9 deed. of confirmation. That bill had been filed, and now wit h original bill was before the Court. The facts of the Of were briefly as follows :—The testator in the cause, M r ' Thomas Bainbrigge, of Wood Seat, in the county of Derby a gentleman of large landed property in the counties of Derby and Leicester, by his will, dated the 18th of July, 1818, n e : vised the bulk of the large property to his natural g ran' daughter, the present plaintiff, with remainder to her issue, 0 , in default to the issue of the testator's natural daughter, tier in further default to his own proper and right heirs. 11 , e ` also appointed three of the defendants, Mr. Blair, in Wood, and Mr. Hawthorn, the executors and trustees ° his will. The testator was a person of very eccentric 1 1: bits. Having about thirty years previous to his de 3t i , been disappointed in love, he withdrew himself from seei g ` i and his family, went upon the turf, and subsequently r e : sided in a small village on the borders of Nee? i wood Far es and associated with persons of the lowest condition of lifel with his servants and those of the worst ch a racter $ l l, habits. His hatred of his family iuereased, and the 0 1 1 object of his affections was the child of one of his servan; of which he was the reputed father. This child lie gave e° education, and who herself had an illegitimate child to e , only seventeen years of age. This natural grand-daugh t ; of the testator was the present' plaintiff. The execnW proved the will. In support of his case, the Learned Of tleman went at great length through a voluminous cor rvi pondence, and cited several cases. , tbe Mr. BICKERSTETH and Mr. WRIGHT appeared for defendant, Mr. Blair, the acting executor and truste e ° L the testator's will, and who, as far as the case was ope° ° ' took a similar interest as the plaintiff. , Mr. PEmßEßToNippeared for several of the le‘tate ei under the will. r f o Mr. SPENCI appeared for the defendant % t'he tes tat ° heir-at-law. ar HisHoNoua postponed the further reari ng o f the gurnent until to-morrow (this day.) COURT OF KING'S, BENCH• (Concluded from our First FAT ition of yesterday.) KING V. ANI? .OS. After the case for the prom:cation ßU had closed, obje c , s ov were taken to the form of the dr ic l arat i on b y M r. IVIAuLP Mr. KELLY, and after a v er y ler. gt h ene d argument , t heir V o l ships decided that th'," declara'cion could not be sustained or the jury under flu', direction of the Court acquitted tho fendant. EXCREQUER COURT. PIERCE V. OUSELEY , This was an action by a dress-maker, and lodging -11 -1; keeper against the defendant, General Ouseley, for sla ° 6o o whereby the plaintiff had been injured i n h er reputa, and prevented, in consequence, from letting her apart 1 11 r, Mr. THESSIGER appeared for the plaintiff, and r oe CRESSWELL for the defendant. The details of this have been frequently before the public. v nOL' The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damagfj? BIRTH. Sttoe l4 ' On the 13th inst., in Tavistock- s q uare , Mrs. William e of a son. 64 ' London : Pri n t o A Published b_Alt/RDO YOTT' "' o_ 112, S.l, at The S us Moo No , 112, Strand, in to e 9g.l\l#4t,lire C Panie Pose , inark i tendi t prej n4 rests, nth„ Foste r 'joh n t ''ranris Of I.:, 31: PITIL bu MARRIED. CAP I On the 10th inst., at Colne, Edward Every, Esq., late et . p in his Majesty's 80th Regiment, secon d son o f Si r H enr y Et 011 Egginton Hall, in the county of D er by, B ar t., to Eli z abeo child of Thomas Clayton, Esq., of Carr Hall, Lancashire. 01 b' On the 11th in s t., Willi am Rutter Bayley, Esq., of 2 e 11 1 Hill, near Bath, to Flora B ower , y ounges t d aug ht er o f th e Lieut.-General Monro, of Edmonsham House. r Aleg e ,' On the 11th inst., Edmu n d Bl a k e , E s q., 8.A., of Caius Cambridge, third son of John Blake, Esq., of Norwich, t ° , r fol' „, youngest daughter of Joseph Sewell, Esq., of Po r i ng landy 1 1 0 .4„ e ' On the 12th inst., at St. J a r aes ' s Cb' irch, John Carriek,„loo_, Esq., eldest son of James Q. Moore, 2 , sq., of Corswall, CP" Caroline, youngest daueat er o f th e l ate J ohn Bradley, Esq' borne Hill, Stourbridge. f or DIED. of On the 12th inst., at Gravesend, Sarah Russell., wide v " i die ~, ''l late Robert Russ e ll, E sq ., Zill a h, surgeon i n Carrara, Es t , On the 9th i ns t., a t Mortonhampstead, Devon, Nich o las Lightfoot, of High-street, Islington, in his 2 (th year. W. On the 10th inst., a t Liverpool, Eliv. Mary, of the wife Reuss, formerly of L on d on . Marl , On the 19th inst., at Y or k-t errace, Regent's-park, • second daughter of Robert Small, Esq., in her 25th year' Wol• t j e On the I Ith inst., in Grove-lane, C;umberwell, Colonel ,sioes in his 51st year. Oliver, of the Hon. E as t India Cvmpany's Madras Esta bb • . Li CAI " 183,3 ,i _~ Prop, th e , N Th each ; r eru4i i tv 8