The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-07 00:00:00

-tt he people were now determined to exact their rights, and the best thing Ministers could do would be to ro commend a pardon to be granted in the case of the per sons he referred to. He had gee at respect fie the personal character of the Right Honourable Baron( t o Pposite, but sometimes the Government in it oollective capacity, committed acts whis'a the find vidual members of it shrank from ; and if the motion was refused, he should not attribute that result to the personal feeling of the Right Hon. Baronet. He re gretted not to see the Noble Lord (J. Russell) in hi' place, because he wished to call his attention to the particular case of Frost, whose punishment was attri buted to a threat held out by the latter that he would °Ppose the Noble Lord at the then ensuing election.— (A laugh.) He regretted to hear a laugh on so painful a subject as that of the banishment of these poor men from their wives and families. No favour which tin Government could grant would be more gratefully re ceived than that of the pardon of Frost, Williams, anti Jones, and he trusted the House would be actuated not So much by justice as clemency in making an appeal to the Crown for the exercise of its prerogative. He, therefore, begged to move that an humble address Ix presented to her Majesty, praying that the royal cle mency may be extended to Messrs. Frost, Williams, and Jones, and to all other political offenders. Mr. WAKLEY seconded the motion. Sir G. GREY said that the lion. Member opposite had taken the trouble to disclaim a proceeding of which he had never heard him accused--namely, of having been cognisant beforehand of the treasonable designs of 2t lesars. Frost, Williams, and Jones, and of having ab sconded when they were discovered. He had never seen or heard anything of the Hon. Member which would lead him to suppose that he would incite others to crimes against the laws of the country. The Hon. Member had truly stated that the present was not the first occasion when the case of Frost and his companions had been brought under the notice of the House. The motion of the Hon. Member, somewhat modified, was brought forward in 1846, when it was rejected by 196 against 31. For his own part he must disclaim the com Vitnent paid to hi m i n hi s i n di v id ua l ca pa c ity by th e on. Member, more particularly in so far as it was offered hi m at the expense of his colleagues and of his predecessor in office. He could state of his owe knowledge that the most careful investigation of the facts had been instituted as well by himself as by the Right Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), and the result had been, as it was now his painful task to inform the Hon. Member, that nothing but a severe sense of duty could have induced former Go vernments, as it now did him, to resist such a motion as that before the House. It was always a painful office Fto recal to mind the guilt of individuals, who, like rost, Willi ams, and Jones, were expiating their crimes a penal settlement; but the duty devolved upon him of showing that the offences committed by those persons were not of that mild and innocent nature which the Hon. Member had described, but were, in point of fact, of a nature to prove fatal to the peace, the welfare, and even the lives of those very classes whose interests the Hon. Member opposite professed to have most nearly at heart (Hear.) He recollected, at the time, that a plea for the treasonable and seditious manifestations that were made. was offered in the circumstance that the lower classes were goaded into acts of violence by want and destitution. But was such an excuse to be offered for Frost or his corn panions? 'Were they in want of the necessaries or even the l uxur i es of life? No. They availed themselves of the poverty and the consequent discontent excited in the minds of the labouring tclasses, and they did so for the amere purpose of personal ;advancement and self-agg,ran• sstiement. If any doubt were en t er t a i ne d by th e House the grave character of the crime of which they were convicted let him refer to the address of the judge who tried them, Sir N. Tindal, than whom a more enlight enedi and h umane judge never sat on the bench. But the lion. Membe r h a d reste d hi s mot i on , no t so mu ch °n h is denial of the gravity of the crime as on what he termed the illegal nature of the trial, which ought, in his opinion, to have at once been quashed. He r avowal would he ar the Hon. Member admit so much, for his avowal would go forth to those classes who regarded him as a leader that he considered the crime attributed to Frost, Williams, and Jones as indisputable. With regard to he legality o f t h e procee di ngs , none o f t h e j u d ges ad been of opi n i on t h at th e conv i ct i on was not goo d 14 w• On the contrary, their opinion was, that the conviction was legal, and the Secretary of State then had only to perform his duty, which he did with the utmost lenity, the capital punishment having been remitted for the milder one of transportas tion for life to a penal colony. There were other crimi nals tried at the same time with the three chief offendrers, but of these 1.0 were allowed to withdraw their plea and to plead guilty, and these were sentenced to short terms of imprisonment which had long since expired. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he was of opi nion that there was no ground for inducing the House to make a special application to the Crown for mercy to these individuals. If, notwithstanding the blood that had been shed by the misguided and criminal men who were now suffering for their offences, the House were to step in and plead for their pardon, there would be no lin e of conduct by which hereafter to be guided in similar cases. It was most especially the duty of the Government to repress such wicked and dangerous attempts as those of Frost, Williams, and Jones. It was the leaders that the law ought more particularly to lay hold of. It was to the leaders that the atten tion of the authorities ought most strongly to be attracted, and he was quite sure that the Hon. Member Would not deny that to liberate the leaders of an insur gent mob would be an act of the greatest cruelty to those whom they had misled. No person placed in the situation which he had the honour to hold could give his sanction to the motion before the House, without in curring great danger. It had even been admitted by the Ron. Member that no undue severity had been practised towards the three persons named by him. He only re gretted having been in a manner compelled to revive the recollection of their crimes, but he felt that he had only done his duty in speaking to the motion before the Rouse. With respect to the Hon. Member's observation that the case of Frost was not a proper subject for laughter he must stat e th at the laughter a pp eare d to him to have bean solely directed to the absurd imputation of jealousy on the part of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) excited by his fear of having Mr. Frost for a Political opponent. For the reasons he had stated he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion. Mr. C. MORGAN said that he had a very vivid re collection of the facts of the case as they came out on the trial of Frost, Williams, and Jones, and he must, in the performance of his duty, vote against the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. HUME said that the decision of the judges was nine to six on the point that the legal forms had not been complied with on the trial, and on that ground he should vote for the motion of the Hon. Member, as he considered the whole proceedings were illegal, and that Frost, Williams, and Jones were illegally conveyed out of the country. With respect to the general grounds on which the motion was based, he must say that he thought the Government of England ought to stand on higher grounds than those which called for the banishment of political offenders. Russia and England were now the only two countries where political offences were not con sidered to be worthy of pardon. Mr. AGI4ONBY said that the term " all political offenders" was too wide a one for him to assent to, and he recommended the Hon. Member to alter it. He bad voted formerly in favour of a similar motion, and he should again repeat his vote now. Mr. WAKLEY said that every part of the case was so fully and minutely known to the House and the coun try. that it would be a waste of time to enter into the details or to discuss them. Neither would he discuss the questi on o f treason; it was enough that Frost and his companions wer e f oun d gu il ty of that crime. But he would observe that Frost and Williams might have been successful in their enterprise, as others had been in foreign countries, and then they would have been lauded ets patriots instead of being branded as traitors. What he wanted to impress on the House was the feelings eatertained by th e working classes towards those men, feelings which he saw had created an uneasy sensation on the Treasury bench.—(Laughter.) There were !pillions of the working classes who believed that 'frost, Williams, and Jones had been illegally convicted, Thand that o pi n i on it was impossible to shake. e very counsel on the trial said that this was the Case; and two of the most eminent men at the bar, the Lord Chief Baron, and Sir. F. Kelly also stated that if the objection had been taken earlier, the prisoners must have been acquitted. The motion was only an appeal to the humanity of the House; but it was hopeless to expect the House to make any concession to the pebple. When he reflected on the past he only' wondered that the working classes would ever consent to appeal to the House again. It was not always the people who committed treason. There were kings who had been traitors to their country—royal miscreants— aY, miscreants —who came to England after having 'airily attempted to take away the liberties of their cou ntrymen. Su c h persons h a d experienced the kindest reception from the nobility, and even royalty did not scrupl e to receive them into its palaces. He regretted the c ontrast thus off ere d b y the manner i n wh i ch the .petition of th e working classes for mercy to Frost, Wil• I an 's, and Jones had been received by the House and Government. lie should be betraying his duty if he did not cordially support the motion. bnColonel THOMPSON said that the present was an neopnportune moment for the motion, which would have extesmor.e properly ma d e a week ago or a week hence. nd CRAWFORI) hoped th e G overnment would ex nlercy to Frost and hi s companions, who had now tia r. te u d co t hvve itiaciences.by eight years' sufferings. munityexpressei ii•oa the part of a very large com tion. He had lon• is determination to vote for the mu gerresisted any interference with the Frost of the Frost and his compan'iown by an address in favour of t y s. t but at present he would ask whether it was not likel o raise the Government in the estimation of the House h theye9nsenting to the motion for an address in favour ot if this course was adopted. cr imin als? He should rejoice Sir D. DUNDAS thought it sv argument on the part of the Hon. ohs an extraordi nary not explai ne d that th e p eop l e o f E ng l and (and timber f or Fi nsbury, who h e meant b y the people of En had t) being dis sa • urned, action, with a ver di ct w hi c h had becgtnand ins to l aw , th ere f ore, b ecause of such dissatisction, the House of Commons, lawyers, a n d men of sense, were to surrender all the securities which the I for Property, li fe, and liberty. These men knew a Zil a th ve Penalti es t h ey incurred in the case of failure when thee e ntered upon their treasonable course, and they ha nYo li ght to c omp l a i n that they were now suffering those Penalties.w But what was the offence of these men, and P e at was the penalty they were suffering? The Hon. _ 4ll ,..ns c her for Bolton had asked, had they not suffered 18..u;rintly? Surely that Hon. Member must know that It„fistng to the individual was not the only object of arnent, " Pena ad paucas metus ad omnes veneat." Was not merely what the individual suffered, but what blvt:l,th,e effect. of fthe punishment on society at large. Far from him to interpose against the exercise of the 4U I 'nercy of the Crown in any case in which it might br thought necessary, but this was not, he thought, the tine co interfere to rescue a man from penalties, which 1), was justly suffering, for a crime so great teat he ought to be on his knees from morning to night, thanking Geri that he had time to repent of it.—(llear.) Frost, it shoul.' oe remembered, was a man of education, of station, anti ',f influence in his neighbourhood, the more necessary was it, therefore, that he should have shown an example to those over whom his influence extended of obedience 'o and respect for the law, instead of encouraging them, and leading them on to acts of violence and treason ,: —(Hear, hear.) Then what was his defence at the trial? He said, I belong to a body of chartists. I have great influence with that body. There was at!other to chartist, a Mr. Vincent, in gaol. We did not wish overturn the establishments of the realm, or to subvert the Throne; but we desired to make a demonstration in favour of the principles we held, and to show to the magistrates h o of rt Monmouth ists in fav n t u h r ahe nt thisf er i astrong man s Vincent, an d among the c therefore we did that which you tell us is treason. The defence was, that the Act of which they had been guilty was not treason, but a demonstration. But the law said, by the statutes of' Edward and of George, that he who levied war against the Queen was guilty of high •reason, and this was what the jury, after a most Full and patient investigation, the accused having the aid of the most eminent counsel at the bar, found that they had done. It was true that the jury accompanied their verdict by a re commendation to mercy, on what grounds they did not say ; but that recommendation was taken into con sideration afterwards, and acted upon, and the sen tence, which, let it be remembered, was death, was commuted to transportation for life. There was no difference amongst the judges as to the character of the offence or the propriety of the verdict ; they said they could discover no excuse for the offenders, and when the Lord Chief Justice gave judgment, he told the prisoners that crimes committed against life and property for the most part ended in suffering to the individual or his family, hut in the present case the crime was against all society, and was one which went ro break down every barrier which the Constitution had erected for the safety of life, liberty, and property. There was then no difference of' opinion as to the eature of the crime. The trial was good—the verdict was good and complete—and the judges approved of it. Why, then, did the Hon . Member for Finsbury now come 'orward and tell that House in the name of the people that they were dissatisfied? The Hon. Member must surely have forgotten that on that mischievous night then those treasonable acts, for which these men were now justly undergoing the penalty of the law were per petrated, nine men were shot down and killed. These lied in their guilt, and with the sin of their crimes upon their heads. They were in all probability ignorant people without friends, and had been induced by the influence of Frost to join in the illegal act. But what must be the guilt of that man who led them on to that crime which resulted in death to them ? He had no hesitation in saying that that leader had to answer for those nine lives. —(Hear, hear.) He could not under stand what excuse could he made for that man, who, leading others to criminal acts, in the prosecution of some abstract cause which he advocated, occasioned their deaths. In his view that man would be as guilty of their deaths as though the parties fell by his hand and the penalty should lie with him. The effect of the example of Frost and his co-partners in guilt on the !state of society had not been what it might have been. Fortunately magistrates, the inhabitants generally, and the soldiers, did their duty and they had their reward. Then what ground was there for dissatisfaction?—(Hear, hear.) Was it that strict and impartial justice had not been done? This no one would be bold enough to assert. Or was it that the people were so enamoured of the forms and quirks of the law that, because an objection in point of form had been raised in this case and had failed, they were dissatisfied? But with regard to that objection, a majority of the judges, it was true, decided that it was good; but a ma jority also decided that it was not taken in good time— and, not a majority, but all the judges, agreed that if it had been taken in time the only effect would have been to postpone the trial. Ile did not despise form in legal proceedings. On the contrary, he believed that form gave strength to the law, and was the means of pro tecting the innocent and keeping power in its proper place, nor did he mean to say that there had not been something wrong in point of forms in this case sufficient to justify the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to the extent to which it had been exercised. Of all species of treason the worst was the levying war in the Queen's dominions- This was the crime of which these parties had been guilty, and with his reading of the laws, and his understanding of the object and meaning of punish ment, he could not vote for the motion.—(Hear.) Mr. GARDNER supported the motion. Mr. O'CONNOR, in reply, thanked the House for the fair and patient hearing they had given to the subject. As Hon. Members had objected to a general motion in favour of all political offenders, he was willing to amend this by excluding from it all such offenders, except Frost, Jones, Williams, and Ellis (the man convicted at Stafford) the only parties for whom he was interested, Having so amended it, he would put it to the opinion of the House. The House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority —6B THE LATE RAJA OF SAT I'ARA. Mr. G. THOMPSON rose to move for a Select Com mittee to inquire into the conduct of the Court of Direc tors of the East India Company, and of the Government of India, towards the late Raja of Sattara, and to report thereupon to the House. He said that as the present was a new case, no longer the petition of an individual, but the memorial of 60,000 or 70,000 natives of India, praying for justice to the bereaved relatives of the late Raja of Sattara, he trusted it would receive the attention of the House. It had been contended that the Indian Government had acted with the strictest justice towards the late Reja, but stern facts gave the strongest contra diction to that assertion. Who was the late Raja of Sattara? He was the lineal descendant of the founder of the Mahratta empire —an empire which once extended from the banks of the Jumna down to Tanjore. The late Raja had been solemnly recognised by the Indian Government, and an alliance was entered into with him avowedly to the advantage of e b illi o at t es h triend.g thesin; contracting p art i es . T reat i es had b een into even wi with him by Canning h . Elp a h d i n thankeds ton e General and Lord l Smith for having, by his victories, placed the late Raja on the throne of his ancestors. For 17 years, from 1818 to 1835, his Highness had remained our faithful ally, and had highly di s ti ngu i shed himself by his enlightened and just government of his own domains. Then the Indian Government commenced violating those treaties which confirmed the Raja's authority over the Jaghirs, and plot upon plot followed, until at last he was dethroned and expelled from his domains. The Hon. Member entered into several details respecting these transactions, all of which have been reported in former debates, and said that if a Committee was granted he would under take to prove that the Raja had been the victim of the grossest injustice and oppression. The deceased Raja had never ceased struggling for his rights. In 1836 he appointed an agent in England to appeal to the India hoard and the company against the conduct of the local authorities; that agent did appeal, and commu nications were sent out, but not one of those com munications was shown to the Raja. On two occa• sions Sir R. Grant had promised the Raja to lay his statement of his case before the India board, but he had failed to do so. The charge against the Rajah, that he was conspiring with the other native princes to drive the British out of India, rested on the evidence of two subadars, who had never been subject to any cross-examination, and whose statements had not been confirmed in any respect, and upon this evi dence, without explanation or inquiry, the Government of Bombay had condemned the Raja, and in a secret dispatch to the Court of Directors, had declared that he had been faithless to his treaties, and had entered into a league to put an end to British rule in India; and having without sufficient grounds pronounced him guilty, they felt bound to maintain that he was so, and to suppress everything that went to prove his innocence. A Com mission was appointed, receiving its instructions from Sir R. Grant; three men sat in the capital of a sove reign prince to try that sovereign, who was not even allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, or have an advocate present. The testimony given was most con tradictory, and yet the Raja was found guilty. This Committee ought to be granted, were it only for the sake of clearing the memory of Sir R. Grant from the stain which must otherwise rest upon it. It was much to Major• General Lod wick's credit that he had made an open confession ; and if the Committee were granted, he would give the fullest evidence on the subject. Not withstanding the Raja was found guilty by the commis sion, when the evidence was transmitted to Calcutta, serious doubts were entertained about it, and means were taken to procure a forged document which did not find its way to Sir R. Grant until after considerable de t Ht l a hw y eeo sa arrived. me T ne ethhtees effected, e t ea s i nhh g dea n daßt sent e o j nna Colonelt, sn t i r f ueoms A i v l dha a een j rn o ss : oa G ifpnp e I n n ji e un r t net a eer l tBnoo3d Bombay;. oiscrokpbl withinawanya es;. and then Govan R ow was secured and et tampered h wi d t i h ti and a confession ext or t e d f rom him, which not confirm the former evidence. Afterward s o a weve petition r a. was forged to prove conspi racy on the part of theßa 750 rupees were promised th e f orger; but these not be ing paid, he came to Colonel Ovens to expose the whole affair. Major Oliphant, one of the directors of the East India Company, protested against the Conduct pnrsued towards the Raja. There were serious charges against Colonel Ovans of a grave and dark character, every one of which he would undertake to prove before a Committee of that House. He would prove that the correspondence between the Raja and the' governor of Goa was forged. He would tell who the parties were who forged it, arid the places where it was forged. If the Raja was guilty, so was the Viceroy of Goa ; and if the Government believed that he really was so, would not they have made representations on the subject to the Portuguese Government? It was said that the Governor of Goa promised 30,000 troops, 15,000 of whom were to be French, and who must march through Turkey, Persia, and Affghanistan.—(hear, hear.) He knew the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would refer to authority, and say that Lord Auckland and Lord Brougham believed the Raja guilty. Bat they pronounced their opinions before the,documents on which he was believed to be guilty were proved to be forged. I t never entered into the heads of Lord Auck lha o afrenttdro T or he Sir R. Gra n t t o d epose t h e R a j a w i t h out affording him a fair trial. A n d up to t h e present moment he never h a d a copy of the evidence given hi m . —(Hear, Court of Directors themselves had such mis givings on the subject, that they wrote to Sir J. Car nac to arrange the matter with the Raja. But there were parties in Bombay who were opposed to this, and when Sir J. Carnac propOsed to draw up articles, Col. Ovans threatened that he would make revelations which I would compromi se the character of Sir J. Carnac l himself. Sir J. C. HOBITOUSE—God bless my soul ! Mr. THOMPSON—The Right Hon. Gentleman se) s -‘ God bless my soul !" He (Mr. Thompson) cried Amen." He would produce an eye-witness of what had recurred, if he was granted the Committee. Tile Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think it incredible. The greater then the necessity for inquiry. The Raja had the alternative proposed to him of admitting his guilt, or being deposed. He preferred hir deposition to the ifishonour of admitting that he was guilty.—(Hear, hear.) He said that lie would lay down his crown, but rhat he would not stain his character. He was accord ingly deposed, and now it was said that it was because he would not sign the treaty of 181 V. He was told that his private property would be respected, but after peace ably submitting to his deposition, neither he nor his representative had touched one farthing of the 300,0001. bich he left behind him. The night after he was de posed he was placed in a cattle shed, and the officers who accompanied him were heard to say this is a business which will make a row in England. Colonel Ovens had for three years intercepted all the Raja's correspondence, and that of his friends in Europe and European friends in India, and it was a remarkable fact that not a single letter could be produced to bring ou him the slightest suspicion of hostility. From 1839, when he was deposed, to the present year, eight years had elapsed, and not one single circumstance had taken place confirmatory or corroborative of the charges brought against him. Months and years bad passed along, and there had been a steady accumulation of evidence in his favour. Fake another fact. Who, connected with India, be• lieved in the Raja's guilt ? Not the residents at the Raja's court —not the directors of the India board—not the present chairman of the directorate.—(Hear, hear.) He would only further remind the House that there were great issues at stake in their decision. It had gone abroad throughout India that the Raja had been unjustly deposed. The people of India were anxiously watching that House, to see if there was any real appeal to the Government at home.—(Loud cheers) They asked for this Committee, moreover, in justice to the Indian Government. The Government of that country was a Government less of the sword than a Government of opinion, and it was necessary to the maintenance of that opinion that justice should be done. He asked for the Committee, then, in the name of the people of India—in the name of all those distinguished men whose characters were implicated—and in the name of British justice, to which no injured mau ever was known to ap peal in vain. —(Loud cheers.) Mr. J. WILLIAMS seconded the motion, observing that very great dissatisfaction would be felt out of doors if the Government refused their consent to this appeal. The question having been put, Mr. BROTHERTON said it would be impossible to proceed with the discussion at that late hour.—(Oh.) He would move the adjournment of the House. Mr. G. C. LEWIS, however, rose and proceeded to speak. He said, the difficulty he might otherwise ex perience in treating this question was very much miti gated by the form of the motion placed before them. When a similar motion had been submitted by the Hon. Member for Montrose the Raja of Sattara was living, and might have been restored to his rights. The Raja, however, was now dead, and the motion of the Hon. Mem ber became of comparatively little importance, and was of a very shadowy and intangible nature. There was an other reason which diminished his difficulty in meeting this question. If ever there was a case where previous decisions ought to have weight, this was the very case. Ever since 1839 this question had been mooted in a great variety of ways. On every occasion, however, the result had been the same. In India, in the Court of Directors, and in Parliament the decision had uniformly been against the Raja, and it was not to be expected that at this period they should re-open questions so long adjusted, and the decisions upon which had never yet been successfully questioned. The Hon. Member, however, had made-serious imputations on influential persons, both living and dead, and it was necessary that he (Mr. Lewis) should address himself to some of those particulars. There were, the House would obierve, three persons particularly interested, Sir Robert Grant, Sir James Carnac, and the Raja of Sattara himself. Now who was the Raja ? He was a mere dependent of the British Government. He was a prince of our own creation. He never at any time had any power indepen dent of our political agency. He coald make no treaty, declare no war, except with British consent, and the de cree' which created him a sovereign concluded by declaring that any infraction of the conditions should be sufficient to deprive him of his power. He claimed a por tion of' the British territory, and that claim was rejected by the Bombay Government. The question was then referred to the Court of Directors, and they con firmed that decision. The Hon. Gentleman then pro ceeded to rebut the accusations which had been made by the Hon. Mover against Sir R. Grant, which he said he had heard with the deepest pain, which he declared to be unfounded as they were undeserved, and the re sult altogether of mistake, surmise, or suspicion. He resumed the direct question by pointing to the Special Commission issued by the Bombay Government, who had come to the unanimous conclusion that the Raja had tampered with some of the British officers, and had engaged in intrigues against the British Government, which were calculated to become subversive of British power, and were totally inconsistent with his situation as a subordinate Prince holding his sovereignty by the grant of that Government. Lord Auckland was dis posed to take a more severe view of the case than Sir R. Grant had done. Colonel Ovens, who succeeded Colonel Lodwick as resident at the Court of Setters, in that capacity, investigated two charges, one of which was of very slight gravity. It appeared, however, from the result of the inquiries, that the Raja was a weak and ignorant man, and was mis led into a belief that, by the aid of the Portu guese Government, he might be placed at the head of the Mahratta Confederacy. Some ill-paid functionaries at Goa did certainly succeed in extracting large sums from the Raja on this score. The charges made by the Hon. Member against Colonel Ovens had been more than once brought forward, and without en tering into their details he would state that he held in his hand complete answers to those charges, and he was prepared to lay them on the table of the House, and to move at some future day that they be printed for the complete information of Hon. Members.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, requested the House to regard those charges altogether without prejudice until they had an opportunity of' examining into the facts. It had been asserted that the East India Company had expressed no opinion on the subject of Colonel Ovens' conduct, but he would ret'er to a letter addressed, by order of the direc tors, to that officer, wherein they state that the charges made by the Hon. Member left no stain upon his public or private character; at the same time they stated that they would not be parties to any prosecution instituted against the Honourable Member for having uttered the language he had done against Colonel Ovens. It the A u withe kConductinconveniencethoughtir , beaayr, a n nade and a ar r ts e e f r ei e r a d d, as s a t the awarem e m do a r tttthhe the G h o o m v e e r . n rsShip disposition of the Court of Directors relative to the Raja, a proposal was made by him to overlook the con duct of the Prince, on condition that he promised not again to enter into fresh intrigues. A treaty, embody ing the conditions which the home Government thought it advisable to insist on, was proposed, by which the Raja engaged not again to enter into any secret arrange ments or intrigues with other Indian states; and this treaty was laid before him for his signature. But he positively refused to do so. The Raja alleged, as his reason, that the preamble contained an admission of his guilt, which he never would make. But he must meet that objection by stating that the preamble did not contain any such admission, but merely stated the belief of the English Government that such intrigues had existed as had been alleged. But even had this objec tion been made—which it never was—Sir James Carnac was ready to cancel the preamble, as, according to the statement of the Honourable Member for Thetford, it was not necessary for the purposes of the treaty. The arrangement which the British Government made on the deposition of the Raja brought no ad vantage to them. They required nothing of him except that he should enter into a treaty con firming a former treaty, and settling the dis puted question of the Jaghirs. The Government would have been justified in annexing the whole of his dominions to the British territory, but they wished their conduct to be above all suspicion, and, therefore, they contented themselves with transferring the government from one brother to another. There could be no doubt but that reasonable ground existed for suspecting trea sonable conduct on the part of the Raja; 'on that ground Sir James Carnac had acted, and hence the Raja's depo sition. This was the view which he (Mr. Lewis) took of the case, and if the House concurred with him, they would consider that granting a Committee of Inquiry would be a measure of no possible utility. Such a Com mittee could lead to no result; for even it they made a report unfavourable to the Indian Government, Members of that House would rely more on the opinions of men acquainted with India than - on the report of a Committee unacquainted with the Indian character, Indian language, or Indian documents. He denied that the Raja's family had been left in a state of destitution. They had an al lowance which, although not sufficient to maintain the regal state which the late Raja had affected at Benares, was what might be considered a full competence in India. For these reasons he must oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Mr. HUME moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir J. HOGG speaking to the question of adjourn ment, vindicated the character of Colonel Ovens from the charges which had been brought forward that even .tbhioneagedvnobtaeeAde for ro put te g hdef c i rnc a w t ot a ahm l r o edr n g i r bt e s tuue pt o e p f nwoo t rt h etr e oen m iel o tei s nt t ost hl a te o t r tou o hlf c dae i t o vbg u i de s r ea hadin c nnc h teei a lni r gn g e e da s t Committ ee was generally considered to intimate * that a facier ctoasewlhiaodsebeteenc;,tumieinsatodinoe3no..utth.ff Mr. ANsTEY said that the Honourable Baronet was H a ouse should pay ;ranted,s tri c o t f at t t h e et n i e i t o l de n hi aa o rc n aoc t mt h e P t h r person this a s a nnyo,t would only of b eI subjectsnd i a tCommittee f i subordinates, gu w i e ry re and of that Company the Honourable Baronet was an influential member.—(Hear.) Mr. G. THOMPSON pledged himself to establish all his charges before the Committee by official documents. The debate was then adjourned to Thursday next. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. STAFFORD moved to nominate the Kitchen Accommodation and Eating-rooms Committee: —Mr. Stafford, Sir G. Clerk, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Hume, Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. H. J. Baillie, Sir R. H. Inglis, the Earl of Mulgrave, the Earl of March, Mr. Alderman Humphery, Lord C. Wellesley, Lord Ernest Bruce, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Dawson, and the Earl of Shelburne.—Agreed to. THE OFFICE OF SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. Mr. HUME, in reference to his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the duties of the Sergeant -at- Arms attending on this House, and the salary, emolu- ments, and patronage of the office, with a view to the regulation of the same before the occupation of the new Houses of Parliament, and previous to filling up the vacant office, stated that he regretted to find the office had been already filled up, as he thought it ought to have been given to Mr. Clementson, the Deputy-Sergeant. He thought the appointment should not rest with the Lord Chamberlain, but with the House. Mr. STAFFORD called attention to the fact that Mr. Clementson, the Deputy -Sergeant, had filled that office for 44 years, and had on various occasions performed the office of Sergeant, and during th ree months on one occasion received the emolument s. It was only due to Mr. Clementson to state the respect in which the House held him, and he hoped that Lord C. Russell, the new Sergeant, would follow his example. The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS ( From the Votes and Proceedings of the HOUR of CnßlAOlitt THURSDAY, APHIS 6. FROST, WILLIAMS, JONES, AND ELLIS. Motion made, and Question put,' That an humble Ad- dress be presented to her Majesty, that her Majesty may be graciously pleased to extend her royal pardon to John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, William Jones, and John Ellis." The House divided:— MINORITY -AYES, 23. Aglionby, 11. A. !Hewitt, Reginald Bowring, Dr. hlialill,l,7cithearniae4jinht Thompson,€,hm,C,oeloorigieel Hume, Joseph Turner, Edmund Clay, James Meagher, Thomas Walmsley, rir J. Collins, William Pechell, Captain Williams, John Crawford, W. S. Pilkington, James Ewart, William SalweY, Colonel TELLERS. Fox, W. J. Scholefield, William O'Connor, Feargus Gardner, Richard Stuart, Lord D. Wakley, Thomas MAJORITY -NOES, 91. Adair, R. Shsfto Grenfell, C. Pascoe Richards, Richard Anderson, Arthur Grey, Sir George Russell, Lerd J. Archdall, Captain Grey, R. w. Russell, F. C. H. Armstrong, Sir A. Haggitt, F. R. St. George, Chris. Bailey, Joseph, jun. H am il ton, G. A. Seymour , Lord Bellew, R. M. H awes, B. Shell, R. Berkeley, Captain Hay, L or d J. Shel b urn e, Earl of Buck, Lewis W. Hayter, W. G. Sibthorp, C olonel Buller, Charles Heathcoat, John Smith, M. Tucker Heathcote, Sir W. Somervilie, Busfeild, William Sir W. Cabbell, B. B. H en l ey, J. W. Spooner , Richard Christy, Samuel H ervey, Lord A. Stanton, W._ll. Colebrooke, Sir T. Heywood, James Sutton, Henry Compton, H. C. Ilobhouso, Sir J. Tancred, 11. W. Courtenay, Viscount Hobhouse, T. B. Thicknesse , R. A. Cowper, W. F. Hog g , Sir J. W. Thornely, T. Craig, W. G. Hotham, Lord Trelawny, J. S. Cubittt, William KePPol, George T. Vivian, J. E. Davies, D. A. Law, C. E. Walsh, Sir J. B. Dick, Quintin Lewis, G. C. Ward, H. G. Divett, Edward M'Taggart, Sir J. Wawn, J T. Hermit, John Mettle, Fox; Westhead, J. P. Dundas, Sir D. Mitchell, T. A. Wilcox, Brodie Ebrington, Viscount Morgan, 0. Wilson, Matthew Elliot, John E. Morison, General Wood, Sir Charles Fergus, John Mostyn, E. Wood, W. P. Ferguson, Sir R. Napier, Joseph Yorke, H. R. Forster, M. Newdegate, C. N. Fox, Richard M. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Gibson, Thomas M. O'Connell, M. J. Graham, Sir J. Palmerston, Vis. Greene, Thomas Parker, John TIMM/. HEIL Lord ➢f. Torun, Henry BANK OF ENGLAND. ANALYSIS OF THE RETURN PUBLISHED APRIL 1, 1945. RECEIPTS. On Increase of Public Deposits .. £495,164 On Cash received in consideration of increased issue of Seven-day and other bills On account of decrease of " Other Securities On account of Banking Profit on in creased "Rest" . 4,334 .5573,0 APPROPRIATION OF TUB ABOVE. Discharge of decrease of " Private Deposits". For purcha.e of increased Govern ment Securites Increased issue of Seven day and other bills .R 569,955 Amount not returned to circulation ... 3,056 N.B. Although the Bank of England increased its amount of bullion during the week 193,6531., public ac commodatioa by way of circulation was only decreased 3,0561., vic.:— Increase of Bullion Increased issue of notes £155,985 Ditto ditto Seven day and other Bills 34,612 Ilfracombe, April 2, 1848. ..£190,597 £3,056 FINE ARTS. BURNS AT BANNOCKBURN. A large, bold, and somewhat striking picture has been recently painted by James M. S crymgeour, re presenting Robert Burns, on the back of a ragged little pony, returning home with his friend Dr. Currie late on the night when the great storm of 1793 burst over Scotland. This sin gular production has recently been en graved by G. H. Every, and a proof before letters has been submitted to our consideration. A double interest attaches itself to the incident repre sented by the artist—the interest of the occasion itself (Burns in a great storm) and the interest of the result of that occasion, namely, the compositio n dur ing the r oar o f the elements of the immortal lyric, " Robert Bruce's Address to his Army on the field of Bannockburn !" That this renowned war-song was actually conceived and shaped into eloquence during the tempest of 1793, we are assured by the account penned by Dr. Currie him self. In the engraving the bard is represented as calm in the very midst of the tumult of the earth and of the sky—his manly (and to us always beautiful, because manly,) cou n t enance is revealed by the ghastly sheen of the lightning, in the eyes there is the rapture of poetic inspiration, and on the lip there is the enthusiasm and intrepidity of the patriot. In the lower features is the expression of that unutterable scorn which dictated those withering verses : " Wha will be a traitor knave ? Wha can fill a coward's grave ? Wha sae base at be a slave ? Let him turn and flee!" While in the upper features one can recognise the divine afflatus, such a s must have been vis ibl e on th e noble face of the pl oughman with the lines th a t follow— "Wha for S cot l and's king and law Freedom' s sword will strongly draw, Freeman sta n d, or freeman fa' ? Let hi m follow me ! "By oppres s i ons woes and pains ! By your sons i n servile chains ! when he was inspired We will drain our dearest veins, But they shall be free 1" This too, b e it remembered humming its music, —that air whi c h tradition declares to through his b ra i n to the tune of " Hey tuttie tutt i e ' have been the choru s o f B ruce at the battle of Bannockburn — and of whi c h a i r we remember that Burns himself speaks, s omew h ere, as having filled his eyes with tears when h e h ear d it played e n the hautboy ! Al together th e engraving is meritorious, except—a huge exceptio n we w i ll acknowledge—in the fact that the pony is a s muc h like a real pony As it is like a whipping-post. METROPOLITAN SEWERS COM MISSION. On Tuesday, in the forenoon Visc ou nt Ebrington, M.P., the Hon. Frederick By n g , Mr . Lambert Jones, Mr. Hutton, Mr. L es li e, and other of the Commis• sioners belonging to the above Commission, met at the Sessions-house, Newington, for the purpose of hearing and deciding appeals against a rate made b y the Commission on account o f the sewers situate ill the counties of Surrey and Kent. The Right Hon. Lord Ashley in the chair. This district comprises the parishes of Camber well, Christ Church (Blacktriars), Lambeth, Rother • hithe, Bermondsey, St. Olave's, St. John's, and St. Saviour's. The number of appellants was upwards of 1,000. The parish of Lambeth was taken first. Poverty was alleged as the excuse in the majority of instances, for the non-payment of the rate. Mr. LESLIE observed, that if the tenants were unable to pay;the landlords ought to be compelled to do so. If the tenant was held responsible, and the fact became known that the landlord was not liable, an inducement would he given to landlords to re lieve themselves from the rate. Ho saw no reason why the landlord should be excused, after it had bee n shown that the tenant was unable to pay. The 31st clause of the Act of the Surrey and Kent Commi s . sion he held to be conclusive upon that point. Mr. HERTSLET, the clerk of the correspondence, said that it was the practice in that Commission t o rate the tenant, and in case of default to follow the occupier, who would recover from the landlord. Mr. Conrail, clerk to the district, said that the Commissioners could have imposed the rate upon the owners of property, but they thought it proper to rate the occupiers. Mr. HUTTON remarked that he noticed several instances of tenants who were not able to pay their rents. He thought the landlord s oug h t to be rated, or the Commission would lose the rate altogether. • Mr. Limns said, that from the A c t, 2 3 , 1 of Henry the Eighth, the rate was laid as a ta x u p on property. According to that statute, therefore, power was vested in the Commissioners to rate the owners. The Rev. WM. STONE thought the question of such importance that counsel's opinion should b e taken thereupon. Mr. ITERTSLET said, if the landlords were made liable, some thousands of pounds would be annually recovered which were now lost to the Commission. Viscount EBRINGTON, Mr R. L. JONES, and other Commissioners, having spoken, a motion to the effect " that counsel's opinion be taken upon the question," was put and carried unanimously. The other cases were then gone into, and all com plaints entered for subsequent consideration. Some of these complaints went to show that although the parties had paid sewer-rates for years to a large amount, typhus fever raged amongst them, and that 'it cost them from 20s. to 50s. per annum for the cleansing of their cesspools. The Court was then adjourned, after a sitting of several hours. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-IVariviek, April 6. THE QUEEN V. GUTTERIDGE. (Before Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.) At the conclusion of Mr. Gutteridge's address last night he proceeded to call witnesses to establish his alle • gations with regard to Mr. Hodgson's want of skill in the tying of the subclavian artery, the wounding of which, by causing a flow of blood, caused the death of a patient. The following witnesses were called : Mr. Wood, sen., surgeon of the Birmingham Hospital. —I remember an operation upon the subclavian artery in 1843. Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Vaux were present. I performed the first part of the operation and Mr. Hodg son the latter I should consider that the most irnpor• tint part of the operation is in securing the subclavian artery. Some haemorrhage took place after the vessel aas tied. The patient expired on the following Thurs day. By dissection I discovered (in my opinion) death was caased by a wound in the subelas Lie vein. I know the present Bishop of Manchester, and recollect calling upon him by request of the late W. Balker. The subject of conversation was relative to the operation. I told the Rev. Mr. Lee of the ope ration, and the cause of death was from a wound in the subclavian artery, accompanied by ltemorrhage. W. Balker w as present. lam not sur e th a t I to ld M r . L ee who made the wound, but it was caused during the latter part of the operation. I understood that Mr. Barker was engaged t o prepare the proceedings of the meeting or the General Hospital for publication, and Mr. Lee. My opinion has always been the same as to the wound, and I believe that I stated it to Mr. Lee. I was pre sent at the annual meeting in Sept. ber, 1844, and I recollect the operation being t t o h o e k subject ' 9f discussion. The Bishop of Manchester took romiceot part in that discussion. I have seen the report P where letters of Mr. Clarkson and Mr. the meeting by Mr. Lee. ETh r e ap r p e ea o r r , t as produced at in.] The first three or four lines . P of p w a a g s e 38 are not correct. It was a large artery. lt . was not merely s twig, but a trunk ; p age 39. " During the dressing.' e . tsee book]. I think that is c o orrect, as I f thinki it was considerably more than":w sponged the blood up, whi c h was not a ounces, or gradual oozing, but it immediately filled u p. I remember an psa being used at the meeting—" two teaspoonsful,' expression ot i h o e n best of my recollection. I have seen the paper now handed me, and saw the drawing at the time of 'the dis section (see page 29). I cannot say what I heard from Mr. Lee, but he did not speak of the information he had received from me (page 40). I believe you contradicted him in that part, and I believe you used the words now read, " I will not allow," i. e., I believe the statement of Mr. Ledsam to have been correct [handed in]. Cross• examined—To the best of my belief I never heard Mr. Hodgson's opinion upon the matter till yes terday. It was a largo nerve—the part of the inedicus nerve. I should think six. teaspoonsful of blood would be an ounce. ,F The slip was about three-quarters of an inch long. Mr. Gutteridge was not at the operation. When the second rush of blood came I said to Mr. Hodgson, " Where does this blood come from ?" He replied, " I suppose from some vein." Mr. Gutteridge handed in Swan's plates . of the nerves, and the subclavian artery was pointed out by Mr. Wood, and the artery which was included in the ligature. Mr. Thomas Green—l am a surgeon in Birmingham, and have been in practice for twenty years. I remember the operation at the General Hospital, when the sub clavian vein was tied. Mr. Hodgson performed the latter part of the operation. William James Foster—l am a schoolmaster, and live at Bewdley. I know the Blue Coat School at Birming ham, and was master there for seven years up to Sep tember, 1847. I lett in consequence of the opening being good. I remember a particular Tuesday evening in January, 1844; and I recollect it in consequence of waiting upon Mr. Lee to attend a boy named Bayliss, who was sensible to all about him. The regular clergy man of St. Phillips (Mr. Downes) was away, and the other returned home, a distance of four miles from Bir mingham. It was past six when I went to Mr. Lee, and I went direct to the Free School. I saw Mr. Lee in the hall at his house. No one was present. I was struck by Mr. Lee's manner. The unsteadiness of his walk, and the impertinent manner in which he spoke to me. My impression at the time was that he was intoxicated. I delivered to him the message. The boy being in a dying state, I thought it incumbent on me to request the attendance of a clergyman at the boy's bedside. I apologised, stating that the other clergymen were not in the town. He said he would come; and he asked me what time my address to the children would take place. I told him at eight, and he said he would come and hear me. I then returned to the school, and Mr. Lee came about seven. I next saw him in the sick ward, a room unconnected with the house, large, and capable of containing three beds. When I first went into the room Mr. Lee and the child only were there; Mr. Lee was speaking and asking the child questions upon religious subjects. As I entered he spoke to me, and my impression still was that be was intoxicated; there was a strangeness in his appearance to what I had ever seen upon any preceding occasion, and I had been in the habit of seeing him frequently. Mr. Lee requested the child to repeat the confession after him, which he did, but sometimes he could not hear the whole, and Mr. Lee was compelled to repeat it. His voice was not distinct, and had I not have known the words I could not have fol lowed. It was much unlike his usual voice, which gene rally was very distinct. In my opinion he was intoxi cated. He did not read any portion of the Visitation of the Sick service. Mr. Lee offered up an extempore prayer, kneeling; part I heard, part was inaudible. The mother was in the room at the time Mr. Lee entered. I did not see the mother in the room; the mother was standing on the stairs. I left, accompanied by Mr. Leo. There had not been a chapter of the Bible read by him. I was in advance with a candle, and still I was of opinion he was not sober. He was slipping or stumbling going down the stairs, and I was fearful ho might tall. I raised my arm, but it was not necessary more than in one instance. Ho did not stumble a second time. I raised my arm, fearing ho might fall, being impressed that ho was intoxicated. We went into the matron's room, and he then went into the dining-room. My opinion was still unaltered. Mrs. Lee and the matron were in the room. The supper was delayed, because I did not wish Mr. Lee to be seen by the children in the state in which I supposed him to be in. tie himself asked to go into the room more than once; and I hoped he would be wearied with waiting, and not go. He went in, accompanied by Mrs. Lee, myself, and the matron. There were nearly two hun dred children in the room, and four assistants, two females and two men. Supper not having been cleared away, he remained till it was; two of the ushers were near the door entrance—Smart was one. Mr. Lee was at the top, or what is termed the carving -table, and I was about to deliver my address, which I had previously prepared. Mr. Lee stepped up and said, " Mr. Foster will deliver the address." I had the written discourse in my hand, and he must have seen it; he then ad dressed the children on " our Saviour's first miracle," the subject of the day, the changing of water into wine. I perceived the smell of his breath, and sup• posed he had been drinking wine. When he addressed the children, it was not in his usual manner, and such as to strike me as objectionable. Ile spoke, probably, twenty minutes, and he then knelt down while I read the usual prayers. I and the matron ac companied Mr. and Mrs. Lee to the door, which was soon after eight. I know Mr. Griffiths, a solicitor, who was at that time chairman of the committee. I saw him the next day, having endeavoured to do so in the morning, but could not. I went to his office in Waterloo -street, upon school business, which I had done frequently. I related the circumstance to that gentleman, as nearly as I now have done. I told him as chairman of the committee, and not in his private capacity. I considered by telling him I had removed all responsibility from my shoulders, respecting irregularities in the institution. I also reported it to the Rev. Mr. Downes, who ought to have performed the duty, had he been in town. I mentioned it to him the first time he visited the institution, some few days after. I had conversed with Mr. Griffiths's niece that time upon the subject. I told Mr. John Brierley Payn, who was one of the committee. The witness, in his cross-examination, was fixed in his opinion that Mr.i Lee was in a state of intoxication upon the evening alluded to. This morning the examination of witnesses for the de fence was resumed. Mary Ann Foster, the wile of the gentleman examined yesterday evening, deposed as follows:—Previous to her marriage she was matron of the Bluecoat School for ten years. She recollected a Sunday in June, 1844, when a boy named Bayliss was ill. He was in an unhappy state of mind, and required religious consolation. They knew that the usual clergy connected with the school were from hone, and they applied to Mr. Leo to attend. This was about six in the even ing, and Mr. Lee, in company with Mrs. Lee, came in about three-quarters of an hour afterwards. When witness met Mr. Lee in the hall she observed that his manner was very different from what it usually was. She accompanied Mr. Lee from her own parlour to the sick ward. Mr. Lee, in an imperative manner, requested witness and . others immediately to leave the room. Her impression was that Mr. Lee was intoxi cated. She returned to her room, and requested Mr. Foster to go to Mr. Lee, as, in consequence of the boy's illness and Mr. Lee's state, she was much alarmed. On Mr. Lee's return down stairs, he and Mrs. Lee remained in her parlour until the children had nearly done sup per. While he was in the parlour witness observed the Bishop's manner, land she thought the same of him as she did when she was up-stain. Their usual supper hour was between half past seven and eight o'clock, but on that occasion they delayed it later, in the hope that Mr. Lee would leave. They were anxious that he should leave, as they did not wish the children to observe Mr. Lee's excited and intoxicated appearance. After supper, although Mr. Foster was prepared to deliver his cus tomary address to the children, Mr. Lee undertook the duty. Witness was within two yards of him. She observed in him great indistinctness and hesitation, different to his usual manner. Mrs. Lee looked anxious and uncomfortable. The manner of Mr. Leo was spoken of by herself and husband the same evening. Cross-examined by Mr. WHITEHURST Wi tness thought Mr. Lee's intoxication must be observable to any person of common sense. His discourse wee a good one; but coming from Mr. Lee it was not an excellent one. From an ignorant person it would have been ex cellent. His language was not so clear and beautiful as usual. Charlotte Bayliss resided in Birmingham. Remem bered her son being ill. Was with him. [The witness then corroborated the account of the last witness.] Mr. Lee ordered them all to leave the room as soon as he came in. Stood a short time at t he to p of the stairs —a very short time. Web at the bottom of the stairs when Mr. Lee and the master came down. They were side by side. Mr. Lee asked her if she was the mother. She said that she was. Air. Lee told her to make herself contented, for he would riot be here long. She said no thing. There was not much light on the stairs. She saw them, though, quite plain. Couldn't scarcely under stand him (Mr. Lee) when he spoke. Didn't know him. He was thick in his talk. As they came down stairs Mr. Foster took hold of Mr. Lee's shoulder, and told him to take care. She then returned to the room where her child was. Cross examined by Mr. WHITEIIURST—WAS sure that Mrs. Foster brought Mr. Lee in. Had riot said that Mr. Foster came up too. Never said so to Mr. Griffiths. It was so long ago she could hardly remember. She had talked to Mr. Griffiths. Did not remember ever saying so to him. If she did say so she couldn't think how. Was very much vexed at being turned out. Did not sob or cry. Did shed a few tears at the top of the stairs Nor did her daughter sob or cry. She did in the kitchen. The matron did not stop with her a moment. lie examined—When she came out of the room she made a remark about Mr. Lee. The deferulant (to Mr. Whitehurst)—Will you me ask what it was? Mr. WUITEHURST—No, not I. Clara Walker was the senior teacher at the Bluecoat School. lied been so for upwards of eight years. Saw Mr. Lee in the dining-room. Supper was not quite over, she thought. Had frequently seen Mr. Lee before. There was something particular that evening. He was remarkably excited. She was not capable of judging whether or not he was sober. lie spoke to her. He said that when the funds of the institution were better, he thought that she should have further help. He spoke in a freer and pleasanter manner to her than usual. That was her impression—a more familiar manner. She did not notice Mrs. Lee's manner. She appeared rather timid. Had not been in the habit of seeing gentle men not sober, and therefore she thought something was the matter. The Rev. John Downes was at the time curate of St. Philip's, Birmingham. Heard from Mr. Foster that during his absence he had been wanted by him to visit a boy. Was on the committee of that school. Was chair man of the School and Education Committee. Cross-examined—Could not say whether or not Mr. Foster said that he had come first to his house. Had often ordered the relative out of the room under such circumstances. By the foreman of the jury—There was no evening service at St. Philip's at that time. John Brierly Payn—Was chief constable of Bir mingham; appointed in March, 1843, on the Managing Committee of the Bluecoat School. Mr. Foster told him that Mr. Lee had come to the school in a state of intoxication. Foster told him the story in consequence of his asking him as to Mr. Lee's treatment of him. On account of Mr. Lee's having talked to witness about him, witness asked him " what it was that Mr. Lee knew of him that he did not, as he was certain there must be something, or Mr. Lee could never show so much anxiety to get rid of him?" Foster said that there was nothing to his knowledge. Witness said that he was s ure t h ere was, and unless he knew what it was he should a b an d on hi s i nterest in him. Foster then told him that it was nothing that Mr. Lee knew of him but what i he knew of Mr. Lee, and then he told him all about the committee. it. Witness said that he ought to have mentioned it to The lion. and Rev. saidhad • d• Mr. Griffiths. that he mentioned it to Reify Had conversed Y or k e was t h e rector of St. Phili p ' s , conversed with Mr. Foster relative to the Bishopof M anc h ester. This was in 1846. Had seen the Il,eeetter to Lord Calthorpe reflecting upon Mr. Lee. with upon it cougltsibrnon Foster r ere must be some with Mr. Foster. Believing contradict o so withit . mistake, he called upon 11e refused to do so, saying that he the that he had formed that opinion on two distinct fact truth, and evilness inquired into Found certain indistinctness, and a false step in coming down stairs. Mr. Foster said that Mr. Lee addressed the n children " beautifully, as Mr. Lee did everything of that kind." Witness was elected a governor of King Ed ward's School in 1845. Was struck with the passage pointed out, as it referred to a particular friend's et, duct. Wrote this letter. Was bailiff of the school at the time for that year—that was, chairman. They thought that any inquiry was unnecessary. Couldn't exactly say whether or not he read this (the letter to Lord Calthorpe) through. He believed that when he SAW the name he tossed it on one side.—(Laughter.) The Bishop had done duty at witness's church three times. Had frequently asked him. Cross-examined—He did not accede to his request. He was always unwilling to officiate. Looked upon the charge as coming from a quarter needing no answer. Had had constant opportunities of seeing Mr. Lee's habits. No man of his acquaintance was so little liable to the charge that had been made against the Bishop. Never saw the slightest grounds for such an imputation. Asked him to officiate in his church for the express purpose of showing his disbelief in the charges. Was elected a committeeman of the Bluesoat School in 1845. This was the resolution of the committee of the Blue. coat School when Mr. Lee was made a bishop. Anne Elliott—(This witness immediately asked, " Who was to pay her expenses?" and declined to answer until she was paid. She had received I/. The officer of the court accordingly stated that she was to have two more, which were paid.) Usually attended Bishop Ryder's church. Had seen Mr. Lee frequently. (Here the witness's husband, standing by her, was seized with epilepsy, and she was therefore allowed to go out with him and the surgeons). Edward H. Fresher was a schoolmaster in the na tional schools of St. Thomas. Had resided previously at Droitwich. Came over to Birmingham as a candi date for the school of St. Philip's. Was at Bishop Ryder's church on the evening in question. Heard Mr. Lee read the prayers. Had seen him before. He ad- dressed a meeting at the school of Bishop Ryder's church on that occasion. Never saw him before that time except once casually. He appeared nervous that evening, and indistinct in his utterance. Formed no opinion at the time. Was rather astonished, as he spoke so clearly the other time. The appearances were like intoxication. Imagined the appearances were so because he heard the defendant make the charge at the public meeting. Had now an opinion that it was intoxication. Anne Elliott (examination resumed)—Could see Mr. Lee clearly. Thought that he read monotously, without emphasis, and in a very sleepy tone. Did not know what to think. If it had been any one else but Mr. Lee, should have thought him slightly intoxicated. Cross -examined.—First thought that at the time. Could not harbour the opinion that he was really in toxicated for a moment. Edwin Cottell—Lived at Birmingham. Attended Bishop Ryder's church. Considered Mr. Lee's reading very "incoherent." His impression at the time wus that the gentleman was drunk. Recollected relating the thing to one of the congregation. Mr. Lee attempted to read that portion of the service which related to the churching of women, or else he gave notice of it, witness had forg o tt en w hi c h, an d then skipped into something else. He either gave notice or read a portion of it. There was a general sensation in the church. The people looked at each other and moved their heads. This was caused by Mr. Lee's conduct. It made an im pression on his mind. - Cross-examined—Attended Mr. Gutteridge's meeting at the Town-hall. Thomas Rollison was churchwarden of Bishop's Ryder's church.—(This witness was here taken ill, and attended by Mr. Hodgson. The Court adjourned f,e about huh-an-hour. The witness appeared again some what revived.)—Was on the occasion in question in the vestry. There saw Mr. Lee and the curate. Was not sure that notice of churching was given. Was present at the service. Saw Mr. Lee. Paid attention to his manners. He was rather nervous, and possibly a little agitated. There was a want of clearness in his enunciation. The churching service ought to have been read. Thanksgiving was returned. Specially in the General Thanksgiving, the words " particularly to her," &e. were used. The churching service was not commenced. "My opinion is that Mr. Lee was sober." I had no opinion at all about it at the time. My impression was that Mr. Lee read the service imperfectly, but I could not attribute it to any cause other than exhaustion or something to that effect. Saw Mr. Moore in the vestry after service. Made no remark to him. Did on the following day or on the Tuesday, witness didn't know which. Perfectly recollects the circumstances, and nothing was said to Mr. Moore about Mr. Lee on the evening in question before service. Could not have said anything then and forgotten it since. Could not recollect making any ob servation on Mr. Lee after service that evening. The defendant here stated to the Court that he required the evidence of a professional man, which was of the utmost importance to him. That gentleman was now engaged in a medical consultation ; he, therefore, wished to have his evidence taken to-morrow (Friday), allowing the counsel for the prosecution to reply immediately with a special reply on the additional evidence. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE stated his inability to comply with this request. The time of the country must be taken into consideration ; besides which, counsel would labour under great difficulty in making a reply on half a case. Mr. Gutteridge had concluded that the case would go on into tomorrow (Friday) in any case. He had actually paid the expenses of the witness in question. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—After having been sub paused, in the fourth day of the case it was an insult to the Court for him to soy that he was detained by a con sultation. It should have been put off. The defendant's case was then, at about three o'clock, concluded, and Mr. WHITEHURST proceeded at once w ith his reply. The sister of the defendant, a lady of and most intelligent appearance, sat by acted as a junior counsel, patiently ver y y assisting hima side, am a b n l d e throughout the whole of this very long trial. The lady seemed perfectly conversant_ documents connected with tbe wl e t a h se a . ll the features of and HALF-PAST SIX O'CLOCK. The Learned JUDGE is still continuing, though seem ingly about concluding , h is summing up. Having gon e through the whole o the evidence,,4 e n r a bearing ot the l his Lordsh i p i s upon the n making observations evidence an d drawing the attention o f th e j ury to o whole evi , the several pleas on the record. WESTERN CIRCUIT.--Taunton, April 5. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.) John Tynele was indicted for maliciously stabbing and wounding Benjamin Roper at Frome Stilwood, with the usual intents. Mr. Bagley was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. Edwards for the prisoner. It appeared that Roper was a spinner living at Frome. On the ❑ight of the 23d of August he was at the Black Swan public-houie with Fanny Viner and another per son. He left about twelve o'clock, and came up to thf, prisoner and two others. Roper said, " Good night, gentlemen;" one of the party, but not the prisoner, returned the compliment ; but the prisoner said, " Do you want to tight ?" Roper said, "No ; he would ratherru h n a t thanoff.6Rtgq h e t r ." put l it ‘he on again. The prisoner prisoner then stru c k Roper's then came tow ar d s hi m , an d R oper t h rust hi s h an d out at him to keep him back. The prisoner then turned round ull at once, and stabbed Roper in the lett breast. Roper caught him, and tried t o ta k e t h e h an dl e o f t h e knife fro m hi s 'hand, for the blade was left sticking in Roper's breast, Roper drew out the blade, and then he dropped on the ground, but he still held the prisoner. Roper called out " Murder!" and the prisoner tried to get awuy, drugging him :30 or 40 yards. He then caught Roper by the throat with one hand, and held the other hand over his mouth. A man of the name of Car. ter came up, and Roper gave the prisoner into his cue tody, telling Carter that the prisoner had stabbed him, and he hoped justice would he done him, as he did not expect he should live many minutes. A surgeon was called up, who examined and dressed the wound, and Roper was taken to his borne. He was confined to his bed for a fortnight, and to his house for five weeks. The prisoner was a perfect stranger to Roper. The surgeon stated that the wound was dangerous. Up on un d ress i ng Roper h e f ound another wound in his side. The prose cutor's story was corroborated by the man and the woman who were with him. On behalf of the prisoner, his brother, who was one of the party, was call* d, and he stated that ho was standing with his brother at the door of his lodgings that night. Roper and another man and a woman came up. Roper asked the prisoner if he would run for e quart of ale? The prisoner said he was not in running order after his week's work. The prisoner then went inside the door, and Roper cau.4ht- hold of him and dragged him out and struck him, and then witness struck Roper. The companion of Roper then attacked witness sad knocked him down, which laid him sense less on the ground for two hours. At the commence ment of the affray the woman who was with Roper told him to draw his knife and run the Irishman through4The witness said he was so much injured that he had bees confined to his bed for a fortnight, but he did not em ploy a medical man because he had no money. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he had been at the magistrate's office the morning after the affray. The jury found the prisoner " Guilty of stabbing, witk intent to do grievous bodily harm," and he was sentenced to be transported for fourteen years. William Green was indicted for uttering a forged note, purporting to be that of the North Wilts Banking Com pany, on the 12th of November last, at Bath. Mr. Phinn was counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Stone defended the prisoner. The prisoner was a bookseller and newsagent at Bir mingham. It appeared that on the 12th of November last, about ten o clock in the morning, the prisoner went to the shop of a Mr. Butcher, a grocer at Bath, and ordered a pound of 4s. 6d. tea; this being given him he offered a 51. note of the North Wilts Banking Company in payment. The change was given to him, and he left the shop. In about an hour after this the prisoner went to the shop of a Mr. Lewis, and there he bought a railway wrapper, the price of which was 145.; he offered a 5/. note, purport ing to be one of the North Wilts Banking Company, in payment, and said he was anxious to have change as he had two sovereigns to pay to a person who was outside. From some cause or other Mr. Lewis suspected that all was not right, and he asked the prisoner to wait while he got change. Mr. Lewis then went to the bank, and upon inspecting the note it was discovered to be a for gery. Mr. Lewis returned to his shop and found the prisoner standing at the door. He engaged him in con versation till an officer came, and he then gave the pri soner into custody. He was searched, and a pareel dropped from his flannel drawers, which was found to contain nine notes exactly similar to those he had pro duced at the shops of Mr. Butcher and Mr. Lewis. He had 221. in gold and some silver. The notes were forged, but were certainly as good forgeries as were ever seen. The prisoner was found Guilty and sentenced to twelie years' transportation. CENTRAL-- CRIMINAL COURT. OL I) CO UR T. STABBING Yenry Parker a tailor, aged 26, was found guilty of dangerously wounding Mary Ritchie, a young woman with whom he had cohabited for some time, and by whom she was in the f wa at the time. The c ase must be fresh in the recollection of oar readers. The woman had left him, and gone to her mother, and because she would not come to him Wkel4 he came for her to h er mot h er ' s house, although boa had previously told her he would see her no more, he rushed into the room, when he stabbed her severest times, and then similarly assaulted her mother. The prisoner was found Guilty.—Sentence was de ferred. THE CHARGE •GAINMT LORD KINCSTON.—At five o'clock in the evanng the grand jury at the Central Cri minal Court ignored the bill charging the defendant with indecemey assaulting:George Cull, on Friday last. NEW COURT. (Before the RECORDER.) Andrew Green alias Henry Arnold Green, 52, de scribed as a surgeon, but who is better know as Dr. Green, was arrainged upon several indictments for felony and misdemeanour. Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantine prosecuted; Mr. Prendergast appeared for the defendant. The particulars of the various charges of swindling and fraud against this person have been so fully detailed in the police reports that it will be unnecessary to give the evidence at any length on the present occasion. The first case gone into was that of Mr. Dobbs, a hosier, in Princes -street, from whom the defendant had obtained a quantity of articles; but as it appeared that they had been delivered at different times, and that to some extent credit had been given, although there was no 'doubt of the prisoner's fraudulent intention, the Court ruled that the charge of larconcy could not be sustained, and a verdict of Not Guilty was therefore re turned. The prisoner was then charged with stealing some silver money belonging to the servant of a coffee house in Drury lane, where he was lodging. The jury, after hearing the evidence, returned a ver dict of Guilty. He was then charged, upon a third indictment, with obtaining money by false pretences from M. Soyer, the celebrated chef de cuisine of the Reform Club. In this case it appeared that the defendant had intro duced himself to M. Soyer by a pretence that he wished to have the advertisement of a work upon cookery, which that gentleman had just published, for a paper of which he was the manager, and in the course of con versation bearing that M. Soyer was about to send an advertisement to the Times, he said that his own printing-office was close to Printing-house square, and he volunteered to take the advertisement, and M. Soyer gave him a sovereign to pay for it. The prisoner went to the Times office after business hours, and took the advertisement into the printing-office, an said he had brought it from M. Sayer, who was etto have it inserted the next morning, but he c ap a y for it, as M. Soyer had given him a b a d sov e He was told that the advertisement should b e in serted, and the next day the prisoner had th e i mpu d ence to call upon the prosecutor and tell him that the sovereign he had given him was a bad one, but he had paid for the advertisement out of his own pocket, and M. Soyer then gave him another, and very sok n afterwards received a satisfactory intimation of his having been victimized, by having to pay another sovereign for the advertise ment that bad been inserted under the circumstances mentioned. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, And the RECORDER sentenced the defendant to lit months' imprisonment. There were several other charges of swindling against the prisoner. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SU!. SIR,-With reference to a paragraph which appeared in The Sun of Monday last, announcing the lamented deceaie of Mr. Burke, ben., ono of the authors of " The Peerage," permit me to state that, in consequence of that gentl eman ' s i l l health, " The Peerage" and " Landed Gentry" have been, for several years, con ducted by his son, Mr. John Bernard Burke, of the Middle Temple, the present editor. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, HENRY COLUMN. 13, Great Marlborough-street, April 6, 1848. DEATH or Sta THOMAS BARING, BART. Tbis venerable and much respected Baronet, whoa* name has been so well esteemed in commercial circles, expired on the 3d inst., at his seat, Stratton-park, Manchester, after a lengthened and severe illness. The deceased Baronet was the eldest son of Francis Baring, Esq. (a Devonshire gentleman, who founded the London branch of the family), by the daughter of William Herring, E sq ., a Croydon, and co-heir of Thomas H e rring , Archbishop of Canterbury. He was bora in 1772, being the elder brother of Lord .Ashburton, and married in 1794 the eldest daughter of Charles Sealey, Esq., a barrister, in practice at Calcutta. By this lady, who died in Jul Thomas, M.P., now the headof 1 .. 1844, he had issue four sons and three daughters; via., Charles, in holy orders; the Right Hon. Francis, late Chancellor of the E ch i" Charlotte, married J ohn, of Oak , the Lon wells; Emily, married to the Rev t owy.the Rev. George Frances, married to the Right II . illiana Dupre; and on. Ilenry Lahonehere. The deceased, some years since, w tu o ne o rdMSu. hous e;P ss . e ; x ; represented the borough of Wycombe in Parliament; little part in politics. He but latterly bad taken very party. e was a member of the old Whig ROYAL ARTILLERYI W ' OOLMCH, APRIL 5.--Th e formation ' of th e two additional companies to each of the ten battalion s of the Ro yal Artillery h as b een fi xe d for Thursday next, the 13th be in stant; and the commis sions of the officers who willpromoted by the aug mentation are to be dated Mitchell's th e 10th inst an t. C a pt ain company, 10th battalion, left the garrison here on Monday morning for Chester, T ynemouth, and Carlisle, to relieve Major Robe's company, 2d battalion, and the relieved detachment from Chester joined the garrison yesterday evening; the others from Tvnemouth and Carlisle, will arrive on Friday. It is reported, but not officially, or with a certainty that one of the two companies just arrived from the West Indies, in the Apollo troop ship, is ordered to land at Plymouth, to do duty there, and that the pre sent company at that station will proceed to Ireland. The companies returned from the West Indies are Cap tain Savage's, Ist battalion, and Captain Fisher's, 6th battalion, the former from Barbadoes, and the latter from Jamaica, where they have been stationed sines November, 1843. Captain Ormsby's company, 6th battalion, and Captain Crofton's, 7th battalion, are to be , elieved during the present }ear; the former from Mon treal, and the latter from Kingston, Canada, where they have been stationed since the 10th of June, 1843. T HIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAI EVENING, APRIL_. Y, .848.