The Sun. — London, England, 1848-07-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS, July 14. Their'Lordships assembled shortly after Five o'clock. CANADA UNION ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The Canada Union Act Amendment Bill passed through Committee.' STANDING ORDERS. Lord REDESDALE moved certain alterations in the standing orders.—Xgreed to. CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL. The report on this Bill was brought up, and the third reading was fixed for Monday. POOR-LAWS (IRELAND). The Marqtiii-of-,LANSDOWNE laid certain papers on the table relating to the ; administration of the poor law in Ireland. COUNTY CESS (IRELAND) BILL On the motion of Lord MONTEAGLE, the County Cess (Ireland) Bill was passed through Committee. SANITARY COMMISSION. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table the third report of the Metropolitan Sanitary Commis sioners. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 14. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Mr.". RIIMBOLD took the oaths and his seat for the borough of Great Yarmouth. MARLBOROUGH COLLEGE CHAPEL BILL. On the motion of Mr. BROTIIERTON it was agreed that the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills should haNe leave to sit and proceed on the Marlborough Col lege Chapel Bill on Monday next- FARMERS' ESTATE SOCIETY. _ _ On the otion of Mr. MONSELL it was agreed that it should be an instruction to the Committee of Selec tion to appoint the Committee on the Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland) Bill, to meet upon Monday next. NEW ROSS PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. REPORT. The reports to the following Bills were further con sidered :-- Richmond and Reeth Road Bill. River Nene Improvement and Drainage Bill. SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time: — Lister (or Hudson's) Estate. Miller's Estate. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. HUME presented a petition in favour of Parlia mentary reform. SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition from Liver pool; praying that, if the duties on sugar should be raised, an exception should be made in favour of cargoes ordered under the old law. SPIRIT LICENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. COWAN presented a petition from the spirit dealers of Dalkeith against this Bill. SUNDAY TRADING. Sir E. N. BUXTON presented petitions from several metropolitan parishes praying the House to pass a mea sure to prevent Sunday trading. Captain JONES moved for accounts, showing the total number of gallons of proof spirits distilled in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively ; distinguishing the quantities produced from malt, and from a mixture of malt and unmalted grain, or from any other ingredient ; showing also the total quantity of each sort in the United Kingdom, for the years ending Jan. 5, 1836 to 1848,dist in guishing each year: of the number of gallons of proof spirits, distinguishing the sorts, on which duty was paid for home consumption in each of the three kingdoms, with the rate per gallon, and the amount of such duty; also, the total number of gallons and duty in the United Kingdom, for the years ending the sth day of January 1836 to 1843, distinguishing each year : showing, under se parateheads, the number of gallons of proof spirits,distin guishing the materials from which made, imported into each kingdom from each of the others respectively ; stating, also, the rate per gallon. and the total amount thereof in each case, and what portion of such duty was paid on removal of the spirits from bond, and what after their arrival at the place of destination, for the years ending the sth day of January, 1836, to IS4B ; distin guishing each year ; of the total number of gallons of proof spirits permitted out of distillers' stocks in England, and the total number of proof gallons of British brandy and spirits of wine permitted out of rectifiers' stocks in England; also, the total quantity of proof gallons of rum received in rectifiers' stocks in England, for the years ending the sth day of January, 1836 to 1848; distinguished each year : of the pro duce of the Excise duty received ou spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the number of gallons brought to charge, showing the in crease or decrease in gallons and in duty, for the years ending the sth day of January, 1836, to 1848; distinguishing each year : of the number of detections, and of the number of persons prosecuted for offences in Ireland against the laws for the suppres sion of illicit distillation, distinguishing those convicted in each quarter of the years ending respectively the sth day of January, 1836, to 1848; and of the number of persons confined in each gaol in Ireland for offences against the laws for the suppression of illicit distillation, in each quarter of the years ending respectively the sth day of January, 1836, to 1848.—Agreed to. NAVIGATION-LAWS. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Montreal, signed by the mayor, praying for the repeal of the Na vigation-laws. SUNDAY TRADING. Mr. HUME presented a petition for the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) from St. Luke's, signed by 1,036 persons, against Sunday trading, also another petition to the same effect from another parish. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. The Earl of LINCOLN gave notice that, on Monday, he should ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether •Government intended to withhold from this company fresh grants of land in our North Ame rican territories until the report of the Com mittee appointed to inquire into the state of this company had been laid upon the table. In the event of his receiving an unfavourable answer, he should feel it to be his duty to move an address to the Crown upon the subject. SAVINGS' BANKS. In reply to a question from an HoN. MEMBER, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it weld be necessary to bring in a Bill this session to amend the law relating to savings' banks. IIUZa DUTIES. In reply to a question from Mr. BARKLY, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that he proposed that on Monday the House should go into Committee on the Rum Duties, when he would state thu intention of Government in reference to that question. EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL. Sir GEORGE GREY, in moving the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Bill, stated that the Bill when sent up to the Lords contained a provision requiring that seven days' notice should be given to the tenant previous to an eviction, and that 48 hours' notice of the eviction should be given to the board of guardians of the parish, before the process of eviction was put into force. The amendments the Lords had made were that the latter notice should be given to the relieving officer instead of the board of guardians, and that it should be given within 12 hours after the issue of the warrant of eviction instead of 48 hours before. He proposed thatthe first amendment should be agreed to, but as the second amendment would have the effect of defeating the object of the Bill, of giving time to prepare relief and shelter for the evicted tenant, he proposed to ask the House to reject it.—(Hear.) Mr. S. CRAWFORD hoped that in the consideration of the Lords' amendments sufficient care would be taken that relief was given in the shape of food only. He' thought the other House of Parliament in the alteration it had made in the Bill had shown a determination to p.zse no measure that would do good for the people of Ireland. The Bill, in his opinion , oug ht to g ive p ower to the Lo rd - Lieutenant to direct that, in certain cases, rates should be levied on the estates from which per sons hal been evicted, instead of those rates being levied on the district generally. If the power of t h e state was to be employed to aid the landlords, the state ought to take care that some provision should be madefor the new location of the people that would be removed... Mr. P. SCROPE said a n y one who had paid Eaten-. tion to the events in Ireland could not fail to have seen that the evils which this Bill was brought in to destroy in that country were at the bottom of the hostility against the English and against English legislation. onfor The clearance system which had now . gone h d b some time in Ireland, and was daily extending, a eel) pro ductive of the greatest misery among the poorer classes of tenants, and he believed the present Bill had originated in consequence of some cases of hardships which he had brought under the attention of the House on a former occasion. T he horrors which were the result of the present system of eviction were daily increasing, and he was afraid that the Bill would only go a little way to alleviate the evil. Sir G. GREY was sure there was no indifference on the pert of the House with respect to the distresses of their fellow-countrymen in Ireland.—Hear, hear.) In cases of illegal eviction and acts of violence the parties were liable to punishment. He could not well see how parties could be compelled to state the precise time when they intended to evict. Those evicted would of course receive adequate relief if they were destitute. Ile wished to amend one of the clauses by the insertion of the words " that forty-eight hours' notice shall be given to the relieving-officer." After a short discussion, the amendment, as well as others of a verbal character, were agreed to. A Committee was then appointed to draw up reasons for not agreeing to those of the Lords' amendments, which the House determined on negativing. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND, No. 2) BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill, v Mr. A. STAFFORD rose to move as an amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. He said that tho constituency which he had the hon our to represent were most anxious and willing to relieve the distresses of their Irish follow-subjects, but thought they were entitled to expect that the motley granted for that purpose should be properly laid out and fairly accounted for. Recent accounts from Ireland foreshadowed a state of things—perhaps not so bad as the famine of last year, but certainly one justifying the gravest apprehensions and the greatest precautions. fie bad received a letter from a gentleman in Nenagh, stating that the writer had been obliged to plough up four acres of potatoes, the seed having entirely failed. Under these circumstances the country had a right to see that the public money was properly and efficiently disposed of. lie did not see any prospect of such a result from the operation of the pre sent Bill. It seemed to him that its principle was to be as indulgent as possible to bad landlords and to act oppressively to all the good ones. The mode of seek- THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY in; repayment of the moneys advanced was also most objectionable. Money might be levied in Belfast which had been expended on a wholly different part of the country. The ingenuity of man could scarcely devise a more fatal experiment. If Government desired to miti gate the pressure of the poor-rate, and to assist in re lieving the distress under which Ireland was still, and it was to be feared would be for some time to come, suffer ing, let them do so in an open and manly way, not by false pretences, by a Bill the long and short of which was to give a million more money, and that in a way which would discourage exertion, augment poverty and misery, and consequently add to the necessities of that country.—(Hear, hear.) It was not the way to deal with Ireland to give her to understand that if she did not repay the loans made to her repayment would not be insisted upon, but that the loans would become grants, and payment be evaded altogether. The effect of such a course was to lead Ireland to depend on the money of this country, rather than on her own ex ertions, and the industry of her people.—(Hear, hear.) Believing, therefore, that the Bill would be an evil rather than a benefit to Ireland, he would move as an amendment that it be read a second time this day six months.—(Hear.) - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the Hon. Gentleman had not fairly represented the purport and object of the Bill. Though the whole of the Bill was connected with the repayment of the in stalments of the loan made for the public works to re lieve the distress in Ireland during the last year, there were three distinct objects in the measure, and even should the House determine that no portion of the in stalments should be re-advanced there was yet another object for which it was desirable the Bill should pass. The first part of the Bill enabled Government to re ,advance the instalments as they were repaid for the pur pose of completing the works which were left unfinished last year. The second object was to postpone for half a year the time for repaying the first instalment; and the third was to enable Government, looking to the circumstances of Ireland, to diminish or increase the number of instalments by which the loan was to be re paid, so as to relieve the pressure upon those dis tricts which were the most distressed, and to enable others when time was not an object, and where it would be an advantage to repay the loan at an earlier period than was originally intended, to do so, by diminishing the number of the instal ments. With regard to the first object, the power of re-advancing the money repaid, to which the Hon. Gentleman had objected, it would be recollected that the purpose of the works for the completion of which such re-advances were to be made was to give relief to the destitute poor, and not the execution of the works themselves. It was all along understood that when that purpose was attained the works would be stopped, to be completed afterwards by the districts themselves, it they thought fit. At one time, in the year 1847, upwards of 700,000 found employment on these works, and though it might be charged that in some instances a wasteful expenditure had been incurred, it was impossible for any officer of the Government, looking at the extent of relief required and given, and the difficulties to be encountered, to confine the expenditure within a reasonable limit. It was due to Colonel Jones to say, that the firmness and prudence he displayed had enabled them to reduce this great army of labourers, without any interruption to the peace and tranquillity of the country, or suffering to themselves.—(Hear.) The works for which present ments had been made amounted to 8,000,0001. in round numbers; the sum actually expended was somethins , under 5,000,0001. But a very considerable portion of the works was left uncompleted when the Relief Commission, under Sir J. Burgoyne, commenced operations, early in the year. This naturally gave rise to numerous com plaints, as it left the country, so far as improvement was concerned, in a worse position than though these works had never been commenced ; and the Relief Commis sioners, in their report, specially referred to the great in convenience occasioned by the works being left in an unfinished state, and urged their completion. The direc tion given at the close of the year was to proceed with those works which were indispensably necessary to com plete main lines of communication, and to leave to the grand juries to make presentments for the others if they thought proper. The Board of Ordnance had intimated that to complete such necessary works an expenditure of 650,000/. would be required, and that the completion of the whole would cost about 2,000,0001. The comple tion of a certain portion of these works, it was obvious, would diminish the claims for compensation from various parts of the country, as the advantage the estates would ultimately derive from them would in many cases deprive the parties of all claim on the ground of present loss. As he had said, Government had received the most urgent representations from all parts of Ireland as to the ne cessity of completing these works; and as an act of jus tice, the Government faith having in a manner been pledged in the matter, he felt they were bound to afford s ome facilities for that purpose. He had much difficulty in resisting the pressing demands of Irish Members for large advances of public money to carry out the object, and he had intimated to them that though he could not consent to further advances he should not be unwilling to re-advance the instalments, as they were made for a certain time, say three years, in order to complete the works—the Board of Works in all cases to decide whe ther the proposed works were fit and necessary. The yearly instalments amounted to 315,0001., 945,0004 therefore would be the amount of the three years' in stalments. The first object, then, was to complete the works which had been undertaken under grand jury presentments for the relief of the destitute poor.— (Hear, hear.) But it seemed there were some districts in which public works were not the most desirable way of employing the labouring population in regard to the country or to the labourers themselves, and where it was thought they might be more profitably employed in draining the laud than in completing the roads which had been commenced. An object which was regarded with great interest by many proprietors in Ireland was what was called arterial drainage, and a Bill was intro duced to make advances for carrying it out, the money to be obtained from private sources, not the public funds. So many applications for assistance under this Act had been made that last year it was found necessary to vote 307,0001 to give employment in arterial drain age during that year. That money was exhausted, and the Commissioners were left to obtain further funds as they could from private sources, Government not feeling justified in making further advances ; the result was that many works had been stopped. It appeared to him that it would not be an unwise application of the money repaid to the Exch i equer on the advances already made, if they were re-advanced for the purpose of giving em ployment in this way ; and that when such repayments were not required by the localities from which they came, they might be very properly applied to other dis tricts in which such assistance was needed.—(Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM inquired in how many instances were the drainage works for which advances had been made, completed ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER doubted whether the works were completed in more than a few instances. About 60 of these works were to be com pleted during the present summer, but he could not say whether any of these were finished. Well, the second portion of the measure was to enable Government to postpone the period for the payment of the first instal ment. The provision as to the repayment was, that the presentment should be made at the last spring assizes, and that an instalment should bo paid at each subse quent assize. But at the spring assizes some doubts had arisen, consequent upon an opinion given by Justice Perrin as to the legality of the presentment, and in Ar magh and some other counties none bad been made. It was not until the Gth of June that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the presentment was legal, and that was too late to have the books ready in time for the assizes. An application had accordingly been made for further time, which the Government was the more willing to accede to, knowing the great difficulty all classes had in Ireland, in making payments during the three summer months ; they proposed, therefore, to postpone the first payment until after the summer as sizes —(Hear)---by which time he had every reason to hope (tor there was no ground for supposing that the harvest, both in grain and potatoes, would not be tolerably productive, the last accounts of the potato crop being much more favourable than those received some days before)—that the parties would be enabled to pay that which they were undoubtedly bound to pay.— (Hear.) Then, as to the last part of the measure. It was well known, that not only could no general rule be laid down which should be equally applicable to all parts of the same county, or even the same union. It was shown by the reports of the Poor-law Commis sioners that while in one electoral division the rates could not be obtained, in another there would be no lack of funds, and that while in some places the poor-rate was 12s. to 15s. in the pound, in others it was not more than 3s. Ho admitted the heavy burden on the finances of the country at this time, and that Ireland was bound to pay these advances; but the question was, whether it would not be impolitic to refuse her some assistance until she was freed from that distress under which she was still labouring.—(Hear, hear.) The poor law rate, which was almost a new burden to Ireland, had amounted up to the last rate to 2,500,0001., and the last rate alone was 1,500,0001. In many districts, especially in the west, it was found impossible to raise the funds necessary to give relief under the poor-law, much less to repay those instalments, or for the landlords to find em ployment for the labouring population in useful improve ments, as arterial draining and other agricultural works which would tend to the permanent prosperity of all classes, without assistance.—(Hear, hear.) Believing these objects to be of great importance, it appeared to him a legitimate employment of these instalments (as they came in for a limited period only) to advance the money to those localities by which they were paid, or should these not require it, then to other districts where it was most wanted, and thus diminish the pressure for giving should probablyemploy mentn to the people. —n the ensuing year, a ndaffo F r r d id th ay e meansnext ofhe. have to make a statement as to what had been done to afford relief to the sufferi n g p eo p le in those districts in the west of Ireland, where it was only by the aid of the British Association, and the food that remained in the Government stores, that the people, especially in Mayo, had been kept alive. Mr. GOULBURN observed that the Right Hon. Gen tleman had not referred to those financial considerations which in his view were the fatal objections to this mea sure. He had told them that this Bill had three objects —the advance of moneys for the completion of unfinished works—the postponement of the period at which the re payments were to commence—and the granting a power of extending the payments of the sum for which Ireland had contracted for so lengthened a period as in his mind to render n u ll an d vo id th e c hances of these payments being mad e . If a proposition had been made to postpone the period of the payment of the first instalment merely he might have cheerfully acquiesced in such a proposi tion. But what did the proposition before the House mean ? It professed to have the completion of the public works of Ireland and the extension of arterial draining in view. Now, if these objects were in view, how were they to be accomplished without the levy of a rate ? Yet, from the statement of the Bight Eon. Gentleman the attempt to levy a rate would be, it would seem, nugatory and fallacious. The Right Hon. I Gentleman had dwelt upon the evil of undertaking public works, for the purpose of employing the people of Ireland, which were not brought to a state of com pletion. It was clear that such works were disadvanta geous rather than beneficial to the country, and thus the community was actually injured by the assistance which was given to them. But this money, it was as serted, was to be applied to a work of great importance namely, the promotion of arterial drainage; but, if it were to be applied to that purpose, what was to become of the completion of those roads which were to have been of so much advantage in elevating the condition of the country ? He was actuated by feelings of the greatest kindness towards Ireland, and was desirous to join in giving her every assistance whose application might be useful; but if iu carrying out that assistance a course was to be pursued similar to that which was adopted when they gave such large sums for the construc tion of the roads in that country, which eventually proved hurtful instead of advantageous, he certainly would not join in the support of any such course of proceeding. They would destroy the moral character of the country if they inculcated the notion that when money was lent to Ireland that country stood on a different footing from any other with respect to the repayment of the loan.—(Hear, hear.) When Ireland was in a state of great distress, England was called to her assistance; and the first proposition was to advance a large sum to enable her to get out of her difficulties, which was to be repaid by instalments in a series of years. It after wards appeared that a full repayment would press too heavily on her means, and England determined that one half of the money should be given as a grant, and that the remainder should be paid back by instalments. Under these circumstances he thought that this country L had a right to calculate that the exchequer would receive back the portion of the money thus promised; but the answer was that the money had been spent in unpro ductive works. Now, why was this? Because the people who undertook the management of the present ments in Ireland did mot distinguish between useful works and those of an unproductive nature, but pre sented for all, and threw the burden of discrimination on the Government which they Should have borne them selves. He was disposed to give Ireland every assistance consistent with the financial prosperity of the country. but further than that he could not go, recollecting as he did how closely were the financial and commercial in terests of the two countries interwoven. The economi sation of the revenue—the equalisation of revenue with expenditure was a very important point to look to, and the way to effect this was not by throwing charges on the consolidated fund. When they heard of 315,0001. a year being taken out of that fund, it would be well to see how Ireland stood in relation to it. Ireland already owed the consolidated fund 8,300,000/. Of that sum 3,400,0001. was owing for debts contracted previously to 1847, and the remainder formed the debt which had been incurred in the course of that year; yet the amount of interest paid by Ireland this year was only 3,5001., being somewhere about 9d. per cent. on the whole loan. Now when the bargain was made it was understood that it was to have been adhered to, and that according to the stipulated terms, 315,0001. a year would be paid by Ire land until the loan was liquidated. Now, when they were told of an additional million to be taken from the consolidated fund, it would be well to consider how this country can bear the remova . . of such a sum in her present condition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinCtly stated that he expected a deficiency of not less than a million, even under the most favourable cir cumstances, and that million would have to be paid out of the balances of the Exchequer, this, of course, making them lower than they were at present. The million which it was proposed to devote to Irish relief would necessarily be taken from the same source. He did not pretend to say what was at the present moment the balance in the Exchequer; but in January last it was 8,500,000/., while in April it had decreased to about 6,000.0001. There had been a consideruble falling off during one period at least of the year, and at no dis tant period they might expect this balance to be brought to a very low point indeed. On economical considera tions, therefore, this proposition to draw another million from that source should not be enter tained. The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to condemn the Bill on the ground that the poorest districts of Ireland would be those on which the heaviest rates would be levied, while they Isere comparatively ex cluded from participation in the proposed g rant. He also strongly objected to entrusting t o th e Board of Works the selection of the works which were to be executed, after the experience they had of the inefficiency of that hoard during the emergency of last year. The Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have come down to that House with a list of the places which required assistance, an account of the nature of the works to be executed, and an estimate of their expense. With such documents before them, the House could satisfy itself that the works were really useful and necessary, and take care that they should not be executed in districts not requiring assist ance by money, the payment of which would fall heaviest on the poorest baronies.—(Hear, hear.) He had heard nothing to shake the opinion he had formed when the Bill was first proposed, and he was therefore determined to continue his opposition to it for this reason, as well as those he had stated, that it seemed to him this measure meant nothing less than an abandoment of the attempt to levy a rate in Ireland for the purpose of repaying the loan which had been given to that country. Colonel DUNNE opposed the amendment. It seemed to him that it was altogether a matter of necessity that the measure should be adopted and money distributed in those districts which were unable to support themselves. He admitted that the expenditure of similar grants during the year just passed had been wasteful and extravagant, but they should either go the length of letting the people starve or give them work. It was absurd to expect that rates could be collected when the charge on the land in many cases exceeded its value. Mr. NEWDEGATE said it appeared to him that the greeter part of the money spent in Ireland was as much lost to the resources of the empire as if it were thrown into the sea, and he was decidedly opposed to a continu ance of such a wasteful expenditure. A great mistake had been made when the proposition to grant a sum of money for the construction of railways in Ireland had been rejected. The supporters of that proposition were told that the length of time which must elapse before repayment could take place was a fatal objection to the scheme; but he now asked what chance of repayment there was of the money which had been advanced, not for the construction of railways which would have been advantageous to all, but for works which were actually injurious to all?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HERBERT (Kerry), as we understood, opposed the introduction of this measure, because the area of taxation would be enlarged in consequence. The best way to assist Ireland was to individualise responsibility, but an increase of the basis of taxation would have a con trary effect. Sir R. FERGUSON agreed in the remarks which had been made with respect to the increase of size in the unions and electoral divisions. In the large unions the poor-law was a dead letter, but they had managed, at a great expense it was true, to struggle through in the small ones. lie for one would not support the Bill if the Right Hon. Gentleman had selected the machinery of the Board of Works for directing the operations which it was proposed to undertake; but he believed that no advances would be made except in localities really requiring them, and where the local gentry pressed for them. He had no doubt that the Board of Works would work well if it were reduced to the footing on which it originally stood, namely, the exercise of a system of control, and to that position he hoped soon to see it brought. It was well known that in the county of Mayo the Government last year had been obliged to appoint paid guardians of the poor, and even now there was not the least possi bility of making any levy for the poor rate, still less for the purpose of public works. In fact, in the west of Ireland the whole state of society seemed to be entirely broken up. Sir L. O'BRIEN said that, having the honour of fre quent interviews with the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of this Bill, he felt him self in manner bound to suppott it, but he thought it right at the same time to state that he had received and presented a petition from the grand jury of the county of Clare against the measure, and stating that they would prefer to repay the debt they owed within tea years rather than have its repayment protracted for three years longer.—(Hear, hear.) The petitioners described the reckless manner in which the public advances of money had been expended; and in that respect they complained that they had been left no option in the se lection of the public works to be executed, but had been constituted the mere passive agents of the Government officems; and in consequence they stated that good roads had been broken up; oust the population had been taken away from the cultivation of the land to be employed upon unproductive works, and the result had been that i 6 n o, a o n oo o u p t e - r d s o o e n r s i r n e l t i h e f e ct to the u nt y a o m f C o u l a n r t 7: d been 000 L per receiving er month. However, as this Bill would accomplish one important and benevolent object, that of postponing the repayment of some of the advances, on that and other grounds, if the Government should think it wise to persevere with the Bill, he should certainly give it his support. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had opposed this Bill as not being a good measure of finance; and he argued that it was better to have 1,000,000/. in the Exchequer, than to part with it for the purposes contemplated. As a measure of finance, he (Lord J. Russell) agreed with the Right Hon. Gen tleman that if they bad simply to consider whether they would keep 1,000,0001. in the Exchequer, or whether they would lend that sum out in the way proposed, it would be better in the present financial condition of the country to follow the views of the Right Hon. Gentle man. But this was only one portion of the question to be considered; and looking to the state of Ireland during the last few years he (Lord J. Russell) could not think that financial considerations solely ought to govern the decision of the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the public works which had been undertaken in Ireland. This had been done under a system which began under the auspices of an Administration of which the Right Honourable Gen tleman had himself been a member, and when large sums of public money had been granted and others ad vanced for public works during periods of great destitu tion and distress. The system had been extended far beyond everything which had been done prior to 1847, when the supply of the ordinary food of the people ut terly failed. With the experience they had had, he ac knowledged that a far better plan to have relieved the distress of a people who were starving would have been to have afforded fi t n h d e i m ng d t i h re e c m tly fo f o o d, food in the em p c l h o e y a i p n e g st t p h o em upon pos sible mode, rather than the adoption of a mixed mode of 9 orks. Experience had sh own t h at a l t h oug h there, p w nuabnil as ice , i wy n apparent advantage in having works of public utility executed by these paupers, yet that in the end it would have been a cheaper system to have fed the paupers, and to have required nothing from them in re turn, but to have employed the best able-bodied labourers on the public works, giving them such wages as the species of work on which they were employed deserved. Ai. EVENING, JULY 10, 1848. though, however, such was the result of past experience I he (Lord J. Russell) still thought the object of the mea sures of 1846 had been introduced to combine the two ; objects. He found that Irish Members' spoke of the works which had been undertaken as if the primary ob ject of those measures had not been to feed 3,000,000 of people who otherwise would have been entirely without the means of sustentation.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) stated that the works undertaken had all been selected by the offi cers of the Government, but that assertion had been com pletely answered by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson), who had declared they had been selected from the various barony presentments made by the country gentlemen themselves to the Board of Trade, and thence to the Treasury. Therefore, if the works were valueless and unproductive, the country gentlemen acquainted with the localities, and not either the Board of Works or the Government, were to blame for the selection of those which had been undertaken. —(Hear, hear.) But the works having been under taken for the purpose of feeding the population, great inconvenience must have resulted from a sudden ter mination of labour on the works which had not been completed, and the question now was whether, having obtained some portion of the moneys before advanced, it was not advisable that the Government should be em powered to re-issue part of that so repaid, in order to the completion of the works. It was obvious that many of the roads might be completed so as to be of some public utility. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goul burn) argued that it would have been much better to have Called for the repayment of all the advances, and then, in a Committee of Supply, to have proposed the grant of a separate sum for public works in Ireland. He (Lord J. Russell) could agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman if there had been such a repayment of the advances as would have justified that course, but he was afraid the repayments had not been such as the Right Honourable Gentleman seemed to suppose. While in some districts a repayment rate of ls. or ls. 6d. in the pound could be obtained, in others it was almost impossible, under present circumstances, to obtain repayment at all, and therefore it was proposed by this Bill that a certain discretion should be left with the Government, and that where some small advances had been repaid, a portion of these repayments might be re-issued; and in other cases, where the state of the country required it, a further postponement of the re payment of former advances should be granted. As to the question whether or not there ought to be an in quiry into the operation of the poor-law in Ireland, this was not the time to discuss such a proposition. It was rather too much to say that they should pass a law one session and seek to inquire into its operation in the next, before the parties charged with its execution had had time to carry it into lull effect.--(Hear, hear.) From some parts of Ireland he had heard that there was scarcely enough raised from the rates to keep the people alive, while in other districts ho received satisfactory ac counts that the poor-law worked beneficially. The time might come when it would be well to look into its work ing; and then, to any amendment which might be sug gested, the Government would be ready to consider it, with a view to making the existing law more perfect and beneficial.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SA DLIER said that, under all the circumstances which surrounded the question, he felt bound to give this Bill his support. At the same time he must remind the Noble Lord that the local authorities in Ireland had been left no discretion in the selection of the public works which had been undertaken under the first Act which had been passed on this subject. If the expendi ture on many of those works was returned to the House, he thought it would be found that much had gone in cigars and soda water for the officers sent to curry the Act into operatioN, rather than to the population for whose benefit the law was intended. No good would be done until the area of taxation was reduced for poor law purposes. It was monstrous that in Ireland there should only be 130 unions, while in England there were upwards of 600. Ho felt satisfied that stoner or later the areas of the Irish unions must be diminished. _ _ Mr. R. M. FOX decried tho works which had already , been carried on by the Government in Ireland, and con tended that more discretion in their selection ought to be left i❑ the hands of the local authorities. Mr. P. SCROPE contended, that without looking to France for an example, Ireland had herself proved that no Government could beneficially undertake to feed and employ the population of any country. The works un• dertaken in 1846 had been wholly unproductive, and ho was firmly convinced that with no result the expenditure of public money bad not only been useless, but profli gate. He maintained that all advances made should be absolutely repayable, and from the repayment there ought to be no escape. If this principle was followed he would undertake to say that in the whole western dis trict of Ireland, including Mayo and the barony of Erris, instead of 'the lands remaining waste, they would be made by their owners productive, and able to maintain the population resident upon them. Mr. P. S. BUTLER thought the proposition now made by the Government neither unreasonable nor re prehensible—it was demanded by the urgency of the case. The present time required the Legislature to deal with facts and not with theories, and therefore, regard ing the present measure as one of practical utility, he should give it his most cordial support. Mr. GOULI3URN, in the absenCe of Mr. Stafford, was understood to withdraw the amendment, and the Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. F,XTRAORDTNARY CASE. The billowing is a succinct account of the recent trial in the Court of Queen's Bench (Tuner and o:,hers V. Manlc), by the verdict of which a poor family' have un expectedly come into possession of nearly 70,0001. The case was concluded on Thursday. The plaintiffs, thirteen in number, were the brothers and sisters, and nephews and nieces, of Mr. John Turner, of 13, Huntley-street, Brunswick-square, de- ceased ; and the defendant was Mr. Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury. The deceased died on the 30th of January, 1842, intestate and insane ; and on the 25th of November,lB43, letters of administration of his personal estate were granted to Mr. Maule as nominee of the Crown. The plaintiffs claimed to be the next of kin, or the representatives of the next of kin of the intestate living at his decease ; and this was an issue directed by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce to try these two ques tions, affirmed by the plaintiffs and denied by the de fendants :-1. Whether John Turner, to whom the de fendant has administered, was the son of John Turner and Elizabeth his wife, formerly of the parishes of Livermere Magna, and Fornham St. Martin, Suffolk, or of one of those parishes ? 2. Whether the said John Turner was the person baptised under the name of Theophilus, on the 14th 01 January, 1763, at Badwell Ash,•Suffolk ? Sir F. Tetesscen addressed the jury for the plaintiffs. They were aware whenever any person died intestate the Crown was entitled to the whole of his property. It appeared, then, that on the 30th of January, 1842, a person known as John Turner, then about 80 years of age, died at a house, No. 13 Huntley-street, Brunswick square. Upon his death the Crown, suggesting that the deceased had left no. relations, took possession of the whole of his property, amounting, it was admitted, to upwards of 60,000/. Prior to his death a commission of lunacy had been issued to inquire into the state of mind of Mr. Turner, and ten months before his death he had been found to be a lunatic, and died in that state. Ad ministration of his property was subsequently granted to the Solicitor to the Treasury, who was the nominal defendant in the present issue ; but from several circum stances which came to the knowledge of different poor persons in the county of Suffolk, they were led to be lieve that John Turner, the deceased, was identical with their relation Theophilus Turner, who many years ago had left his native village in Suffolk. Accordingly, with the scanty means which they had at their disposal, they filed a bill in Chancery against Mr. Maule, and declared that they were the next of kin of the de ceased, and were entitled to the whole of his per sonal estate. Mr. Maule put in an answer to that bill, from which it appeared that the Crown had no knowledge whatever of who John Turner was, or who his father or mother were, or whether or not he had any relations. The matter was then referred to one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, before whom an in vestigation had taken place, and witnesses were examined on the part of the plaintiffs, in order to establish that they were the next of kin of the deceased. New facts were thus brought to light, and from quarters in which it was quite unexpected ; and in the result such a body of evidence was discovered as would establish in the most distinct manner the relationship of the plaintiffs, and that they were entitled to the property. The point which he (Sir F. Thesiger) undertook to prove was, that Mr. John Turner, deceased, was the same person as Theophilus Turner, the relation of the plaintiffs ; and in order to do this it would be necessary to call the at tention of the jury to the history of the Suffolk family. In the year 1744 there lived at Livermere, in Suffolk, one John Turner, a gardener, who in that year made his will, and left a legacy to John Turner, and IN. to the clergyman of Livermore for his son Theophilus; and in case Theophilus should be dead, or should never return home to Livermore, that sum was to be paid to Ann, the daughter of Diana, the testator's sister. That will showed that old John Turner had a son Theophilus, who was absent. In 1755 John Turner, the son of old John, married Elizabeth llilder at Livermere, and had a numerous family, and lived at various places in the neighbourhood of each other in the county of Suffolk. They had three children at Livermere, and then removed to Bad well Ash, about three miles off, and there, in the year 1763, Theophilus was born, whom he (Sir F. Thesi- N eer) would prove to be identical with the deceased, John Turner, of Huntley -street. His baptismal register was dated the 14th of January, 1763. The family afterwards returned to Livermere, where a daughter, Sarah, was horn, who was baptised on the 26th of December, 1764. The family then removed to Fornham St. Martin, where another son, George Milder Turner, one of the plain tiffs, was born, and baptised on the 28th of November, 1788. John Turner, the father of this family, became the gardener to the Rev. Dr. Ord, who lived at Forn ham St. Martin, and his son Theophilus, being a boy of quick parts, went to a school kept by a Mr. Plum, an excellent writing master, and afterwards, by the kind ness of Dr. Ord, he was sent to a school at Bury St. Ed munds, where it was said he received a classical educa tion. It appeared that Theophilus was at one time in tended for the sea service, for Dr. Ord used familiarly to call him " Jack," and " Jack the sailor;" but, having taken some fruit out of Dr. Ord's garden, a quarrel took place, and he left Fornham St. Martin, and afterwards obtained, through Dr. Ord, a situation as teacher in a school near London. At the time when Theophilus left his home in Suffolk there was reason to believe that he dropped the extraordinary name of Theophilus, by which he had been distinguished, and from that period till the time of his death he held no communication with his family in Suffolk. It would, however, be shown from the incidents in the life of the deceased that the two persons were identical. The deceased Mr. Turner was first found as a clerk in the Ordnance-office in the Tower, an appoint ment which he owed to the patronage of Sir Charles Frederick, the Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, as appeared from a book belonging to Mr. John Turner, the deceased, in which was entered a copy of a letter written by Sir Charles Frederick to his successor, the lion. Mr. Pelham. Mr. Turner continued in the Ord nance-office till the year 1787, when be became a clerk in the Sun Fire-office at Cornhill, and in 1805 removed to the branch office in Craig's-court, where he acted as chief clerk or secretary, and in 1825 retired on a pension of 2001. a year. While in the Sun Fire-office Mr. Turner obtained a share of a prize in a lottery, and this was the foundation of his fortune, which subsequently amounted to 60,400/. From the year 1807 to 1824 Mr. Turner lodged with a Mrs. De Russiere, at 120, Great Russell street; and from 1824 till his death at 13, Huntley street, Brunswick-square ; in the first instance with the tenant, Mrs. Thurstone, and on the death of the tenant he occupied the whole of the house himself. He was a person of remarkable appearance, about five feet six inches in height, and very particular in the dress ing of his hair, which he wore powder e d. He was marked with the small-pox, and there was an appear ance of an injury in his eye or eyebrow, which quite corresponded with the description of Theophilus, who when young had scorched his eye with gunpowder. He wore tight pantaloons, and had a peculiar shrugging of his shoulders, which was characteristic of him. His habits were peculiar, and in some respects inconsistent. He was in the habit of visiting Mr. Fitzgerald, a gentle man residing in Portland-place, where he met good com pany, and twice a year visited Mr. Fitzgerald's establish ment in Suffolk, where he enjoyed himself in shooting. Slr. Fitzgerald was also in the habit of sending up game for Mr. Turner, of the Sun Fire-office, who used to go for it himself to the White Horse in Fetter-lane, or to the White Swan, in Skinner-street. When in the society of persons who were above his own rank Mr. Turner was rather reserved as to his origin and family ; but when he was in the society of those below him he talked of his early history, and made those communications as to his history which would be the polar star to guide the jury to their determination. If Mr. Turner was Theo philus, he left Suffolk nearly seventy years ago, and it was unnecessary to remind the jury how difficult it was for the plaintiffs in their humble station to prove their relationship ; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) undertook to prove that John Turner, who died in January, 1842, was Theophilus Turner, the son of the gardener of Dr. Ord. Sixteen witnesses, most of them unconnected with each other, would establish the fact. It would be proved by six witnesses that they had heard him say that he was son of a gardener, and one would prove that he had said that his father was the gardener of Dr. Ord. Mr. Turner had been a schoolfellow at Bury with the Rev. Mr. White, vicar of Allhallows, Barking. If Mr. Turner was Theophilus, he must have been a teacher in a school; and it would be proved that on more than one occasion he had stated that he had been a teacher in a school near London. If he was Theophilus, ho must have had a sister Sarah; and it would be proved that he had spoken of a sister of that name. Dr. Ord had called Theophilus by the name of " Jack," and " Jack the sailor; and it would be shown that Mr. Turner called a boy, whom he took some notice of, by the same names. Thus it will be shown that if Theo philus was born in Suffolk, so was John; if Theophilus was sent to a school at Bury, so was John; if Theophilus had a sister named Sarah, so had John; if Theophilus was a teacher in a school, so was John; and if a particular name was affixed to Theophilus, that same name was affixed by John to a lad for whom h e had taken a liking. Beyond that, he (Sir F. Thesiger) would prove that M r. John that,, was sometimes called Theophilus in London, and that on one occasion Mr. Fitzgerald was heard to banter him and say, " Your name is not Jack, Theophilus." It would also be proved that there was a person named Jones, who let lodgings in Bell -alley, Coleman -street, and whom Mr. Turner used to visit on the most inti mate terms; and that OR one occasion, when taking luncheon there. Mrs. Jones was heard by:two or three witnesses to call him by the name of " The." or " Theo." It was deeply to be regretted, that when Mr. Maule had taken out letters of administration on the part of the Crown, and taken possession of all the books and papers of the deceased, he had felt it to be his duty to dispose of all those books. Those books were no doubt in themselves of little value, but they would have furnished evidence of the strongest character in favour of the plaintiffs. It would, however, be proved by Mrs. Bower, the daughter of Mrs. de Russiere, with whom Mr. Turner lodged for 17 years in Great Russell-street, and also by another lady, who lodged there at the same time, that they had seen books on Mr. Turner's table with the name " Theophilus Turner" written in them. In addition to these facts, it would be shown that there was living in the Tower a Mrs. Fairweather, the wife of a messenger or storekeeper. She was the daughter of William Turner, one of the sons of old Turner, and first cousin to Theophilus; and it would be proved that the deceased was in the habit for a great many years of visiting her, and that he made her an allowance for her support. Those visiSs would be proved by six or seven witnesses, and that Mr. Turner called her his " Cousin Amy " or Cousin Amelia," and that she called him her " Cousin The," or " Cousin Theo philus," or " Cousin John." It would be important now to connect Mrs. Fairweather with the Suffolk family. Isabella, one of the sisters of Theophilus, had been mar ried to a person named Thomas Dersley at Ingham, and sometimes came to town; but the deceased had warned Mrs. Fairweather not to let any of his relations know where he was, and threatened if she did to with draw her allowance; and, accordingly, it would be proved that Mrs. Fairweather had given orders to her daughter not to eo.nniunicate the fact to his relations. In order to connect the deceased with the Suf folk family, the Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that there was in London one 'Thomas Turner Dersley, a potboy, who afterwards went to Leicester, where he got into the employ of two gentlemen, who some time afterwards had two horses stolen, and sent Dersley up to London, with a man named Pitt, in search of them. Soon after their arrival at the White Swan, near Smithfield, they found one horse and one thief, whom they lodged in Giltspur-street Prison; and when they were dining at the White Swan the deceased, Mr. Turner, came in and inquired for a parcel, and seemed much annoyed at its not having come. Some conversa tion ensued, in which Dersley said he came from near by Bury, when the deceased, Mr. Turner, asked him if he knew Mr. Turner, the gardener of Dr. Ord? To this Dersley replied, 64. I should think I do—he was my grand father.'' Mr. Turner then inquired about his uncles and aunts, walked about the room for some time, and then put some questions about his missing uncle, and at last declared himself co be the uncle of Dersley. This took place in the presence of Pitt and Hatfield, a police officer, who, however, did not hear the whole conver sation ; but they would prove that the old gentleman was much affected. lie also said he would call again on the following day, which he did, and asked for his nephew, and gave him three half-crowns. Mr. Turner then took his nephew with him to the Sun Fire office in Craig's-court, and gave him his address in Huntley-street. The nephew called there afterwards during Mr. Turner's absence from home, and when the tact was mentioned to Mr. Turner he expressed no sur prise that his nephew should call. But shortly after wards it appeared that Mr. Turner's better feelings of kindness towards his poor relative were stifled, and he got a Mr. Wright to address a letter to his nephew, in forming him that he (MreTurner) did not want to have anything more to do with his poor relations. It ap peared that Dersley told his mother that he had seen his uncle, but he did not tell her where he was to be found, probably thinking that if he kept the matter secret he might get the whole of his uncle's fortune. In the year 1832 Dersley was apprehended on suspicion of horse stealing and lodged in St. Albans' Gaol. When there he gave a reference to his uncle in Huntley-street, and police-officer was sent up to Mr. Turner to inquire into the truth of the prisoner's statement. The police officer saw Mr. Turner, who, not denying his relation ship to the prisoner, refused to interfere on his behalf, and added, that as he had made his bed so he might lie. The prisoner, however, was discharged from prison by the magistrates, as there was no evidence against him. Mrs. Fairweather died in the year 1832, and her husband in 1837; and Mrs. Dersley, the sister of the deceased, who had been for years on the look-out for her lost brother, and had often made herself ridiculous by the manner in which she had gone about, when she came to London, inquiring for her brother, Mr. Turner, was baffled in all her inquiries till the year 1841. In that year the deceased was found to be a lunatic, and a re port of the proceedings on the commission published in the Weekly Chronicle, having been shown to her, she lost no time in coming up to London and went straight to Huntley street, where Mrs. Dersley and Mr. Turner re cognized each other as brother and sister. Mrs. Dersley then sent into the country for a person of the name of Last, who had been at school with Theophilus at Mr. Plum's; and when Last came up to London he recognized him as his school-fellow, and as the son of the gardener who had worked at Dr. Ord's. Upon the death of Mr. Turner some important testamentary papers had been found, by which legacies amounting to about 10,0001. had been left to different persons, and those legacies had been paid by the Crown, upon the parties entering into bonds to restore the money it the plaintiffs should esta blish their claim. On Wednesday many other witnesses were called for the plaintiff, who stated that they had frequently seen Mr. Turner on a visit to Mrs. Fairweather in the Tower; they had heard her call Mr. Turner " Cousin The.," and sometimes " Cousin John." The witnesses also gave a description of the person of Mr. Turner. Other witnesses said this Mr. Turner always went by the name of John, but that in his boots was written the name of Theophilus. Dersley was called, and bore out the statement of the Learned Counsel as to what had taken place between him and Turner. In cross exami nation, he said, after I had sea). Ur. Turner I informed my family of that fact; but I did not let thorn know what his address was, because I thought I might get some blunt out of him some day or other, but it seems he did not keep his word. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. After justifying the Crown in the conduct that had been pursued, he assured the jury that they as yet had heard nothing of the real state of this cause. The whole of the plaintiffs' case was based on improbability, because he would show that, by the testimony of the witnesses they had heard, the Turner they had spoken of had acted throughout upon a false assumption. He would most clearly prove that the Turner to whom this large property belonged was a totally different person to the Turner of whom the plaintiffs' witnesses had spoken, and the real question was whether the plaintiff Turner was the Turner who had died intestate? He would show that the intestate had memorialized the Sun Fire•office, and in that me morial he had stated that ho had been a clerk in that establishment for more than 40 years, and was then 70 years of age, and he had asked, on that account, that he might be permitted to retire upon a pension. Upon this memorial the directors had adjudged that the party should have a pension of 2001. a year. It was therefore impossible that the intestate could have been the same person as the one of whom the plaintiffs' witnesses had spoken. The Crown had only one object, and that was to see that persons who were really not entitled should not take this large property ; as the law officer of the Crown he felt bound to institute the strictest inquiry. The evidence on the part of the plaintiffs, he contended, was contradictory, but he should be enabled to place be fore them a straightforward case, and he would call be fore them witnesses who had known the intestate for a considerable time and had heard him give an account of his own history ; ho had always told them how much he regretted that he had no relation- to whom he could leave that which he possessed. The statements were in consistent and improbable ; they were against the inte rest of the party, and they would go to show that throng out he had been acting upon a false basis. The case was proceeded with on Thursday, and con cluded. Henry T. Raven produced the copy of the register of the baptism of John Turner, the son of James and Elizabeth Turner, from the parish of St. James, West minster, dated the 14th of September, 1755, which stated that John Turner was born on the 23d of August, 1755. This witness also produced a piece of paper in the intestate's handwriting, stating that his name was " John Turner," and that he was born on the 23d of August, 1755. Mr. George Delmar was then called. He stated that he was a solicitor in Lincoln's Inn-fields. Knew the intestate, John Turner, well. First knew him in the latter end of the year 1812, and was his soli citor and confidential adviser up to the time of his death. He believed the copy of certain letters in a book produced were iu the intestate's handwriting. (A book was here shown to the witness.) He be lieved also the copies of the two memorials presented to the Sun Fire-office to be in Mr. John Turner's handwriting. Also believed the entry of the memoranda which were in the book to be in the handwriting of the intestate. He believed the entries of accounts and re ceipts to be in the handwriting of Mr. John Turner (another book was here shown to witness). After Mr. John Turner became a lunatic, witness made a most minute search through the intestate's papers. He found various names in several books, but did not find the name of Theophilus in any of them. The documents produced by Mr. Raven were handed by witness to that gentleman. Mr. John Turner passed a good deal of time with witness, and often dined with him. He appeared to have received a good education. He read peculiarly well, and was in the habit of reading aloud. He never beard him pronounce any word with a provin cial accent; he never used low or obscene observations in conversation, and was a person of strict veracity. Never heard him during his mental life speak of his relations. Ile never carried a stick with a gold knob, but generally an umbrella, and wore pantaloons with gaiters and shoes. Never saw him wear Hessian boots, or boots of any kind. In 1838 the intestate sent for witness about the disposition of his property, and showed him a letter which he had received. When witness bad read it, he said, " I don't wish the Queen to have any of my pro perty." The writer of the letter advised the intestate to make his will so as to give time for some money affairs to be settled between them by instalments. Witness then said if the intestate did not make a will his pro perty would go to the Crown; upon which he replied that he did not wish his property to go to the Crown, but was not then prepared to make a will, as he had not made up his mind on the subject. On one occasion the intestate said he wished he had married, that he might have had an heir to leave his pro perty to. He often expressed a wish that he had married. He was a person of pallid complexion—cer tainly not swarthy. His eyebrows wero thin, not bushy. He wore powder all his life, and was of a most amiable temper, but not free with his money. Witness had received a legacy of 200/., part of 400 L from the Crown, being a portion of the intestate's property, and had given a bond to restore it in case the claimants were successful. i n t hes ttm e h Cross-examin edouse b w y it S h ir 3r F i . r. T j ags itf. u T E u n r . n — er W a i t tn m es r s s. Do lived Russiire's, in Great Russell-sereeb a a 1812. Had never heard the intestate say that he bad been a teacher in a school. Mr. John Turner was rather a corpulent man, and had a twitch in one' of his shoulders. He was marked with the small-pox. The " mental life" of the intestate closed in 1839, but his memory had begun to fail before that time. The first time the intestate spoke of his relations was not until the latter end of the year 1839. The intestate spoke of his father, but witness treated it as a delusion. He said the house in Huntley street was his father's, and the pictures there belonged to his father. The intestate also said he had a half-sister, but he did not recollect her maiden name. He also said that his half-sister was a teacher in a school; that she had a son who was a clever boy, and had been educated in Westminster School. He also said his sister was a teacher in a school in one of the streets at Westminster, which was kept by a person of the name of Toogood, and that had she been alive at the time she would have been 80 years of age. This was in the year 1840. Had heard the intestate often utter the word " Sally," he called his servant Salty, alth oug h h er proper name was Lucy. Witness refused to communicate with the soli citor of the claimants, and stated the reason in a letter. He had made inquiries as to whether the intestate had any relations. Re-examined by Mr. HILL—None of the papers of the intestate threw any light upon whether he had any relations. The resolution of a meeting of the committee of the Sun Fire-office was then read, which stated that the general rule of the company that no person could enter their service above 30 years of age should, in the case of Mr. John Turner, be dispensed with. The witness also read a resolution of a meeting of the committee of the Sun Fire-office, dated 20th July, 1825. The resolu tion decided that the memorial of Mr. John Turner, praying to be allowed to retire, should lie on the table. The witness next read a resolution, dated January 5, 1826, in answer to a second memorial presented by the intestate, praying that he might be allowed to retire on a pension, as he was incapable, through his advanced age, of discharging the duties of his office. Mr. E. Farrer—Was a surgeon residing in Guild ford• street, Russell-square. Knew the intestate, and was his medical man. Began to attend him from 1838 until the time .of his death. Latterly he attended him daily. First knew the intestate in 1837 through a Mn'. Watts, a friend of Mr. Turner's. Had been present on occasions with Mrs. Watts, when witness had said to the intestato that he had better make his will, or his property would go to the Crown. Mr. Turner was in the habit of say. ing, that although he had no relations he would take care that the Qteen did not have his property. He said his age was about eighty. Was present at an interview be tween Mrs. L Dersley and Mr. Turner. Witness re membered Mrs. Dersley coming into the room, accom panied by two younger females, and saying, " Ahl that is my dear brother John; I should know him anywhere." The intestate then rose, and shook hands with Mrs. Dersley. Ono of the.young women asked him if he knew Mrs. Dersley, and he said, " No, no;" but he was glad to see her, and talked of his father, which he was always doing. At this time the intestate was a lunatic. The name of " Theophilus" was not mentioned. Mrs. Parsley did not resemble the intestate. Witness was present at the interview between the intestate and Last. Last looked at him, and said " That is John Turner." Last asked him if he remembered Dr. Ord, to which he replied, " No, no,". his usual manner of answering all questions after he became a lunatic. ' Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGEn—Was in the habit of " plying" the old gentleman to make his will from 1839. There was not the least resemblance be tween Thomas Turner Dersley and the intestate. Mr. Frederick Prescott proved that he had heard the deceased state that he had no relations. Had received a donation of 800/. from the Crown, and given a bond to restore it in case of the plaintiffs succeeding. Mr. John Fitzgerald examined by Mr. HILL—Had received 500/. of the testator's property, and had given a bond for 1,0001. His children had received 50/. and he had _become surety to the Crown for the repay ment of the same, if the plaintiffs should recover. He, knew the intestate intimately ; he was in the habit, from 1794, of being acquainted most intimately with his uncle, Mr. Fitzgerald,. who died in 1818. He bad walked with the late Mr. Turner by the Tabernacle, in• Tottenham-court-road, and the intestate said, " If you want to know my age, that stone will show you," and he afterwards said " The date of the building being erected was the year in which I was born." In the year 1835, Mr. Turner said he was a fine old boy for eighty. In 1802 witness became .the possessor of Bretfield-house,. in Suffolk, and Mr. Turner came down in October, 1802,; and he then said he had never been in the county of Suffolk before. He never was called Theophilus or said • that was his name. He was a thorough " Cockney " in) his habit'. Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—Mr. Turner' had lent him 7,0001., which he owed him at the time of! his death ; but he always :paid the interest. The prin cipal was now paid. . Mr. E. T. Watts gave nearly similar testimony. He had received altogether from the Crown 1,1001. out of the intestate's property, and had given a bond to return it if the claimants should be successful. Lucy Clapperton examined by the ATTORNEY-GENE' • RAL—She stated that she had lived 17 or 18 years with the late Mr. Turner. She was five years with him be fore she became housekeeper. He told her that he went to school at Chelsea, and that he was as a parlour boarder. She had often asked Mr. Turner whether he had any relations, and be said he had none living. Be fore he became a lunatic her master told her that he had a half-si6ter, of whom he was very fond, but that she was dead, and had been a teacher in a school. Mr. Turner told her that he caught the small-pox when at school at Chelsea. The intestate called her Sally, because he was fond of that name. He said he wished to settle his affairs, and leave his property to certain charities and among his friends. When Mrs. Dersley saw Mr. Turner he had quite lost his recollection, and said his father was living• He never lost that impression. He said ho was born about the s ear in which Whitefield's Tabernacle was built. He said he was baptised in St. James's Church, Piccadilly, and that he should some day get the certifi cate of his baptism, by paying 2s. 6d. for it. Mr. Turner never had a cane with a gold knob, but always carried a cotton umbrella. Cross-examined by Sir F. THEstoEn--Witness had received 1501. from the Crown, but had given no bond to return it. She and her husband had set up in the busi ness of a baker. Mr. Turner told her that his eyebrows were burnt off with gunpowder when he was a boy at school. Charles Hodgkinson produced the rate-books of the parish of St. Giles's, from 1759 to 1772, by which it ap; peared that a" James Turn er , o f G reat R usse ll- street , was rated at 1/. 5s This concluded the case on th e p ar t o f t h e C rown . Sir F. TIIESIGER, as evidence in reply, called a witness of the name of Allsop, who put in a copy of the bar , tismal register of Mary, the daughter of Keen Fitz gerald. The register was dated, " Parish of St. James, Westminster, June, 1755." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this ;as 1 4 being relevant to the matter at issue. Mr. Justice ERLE inquired what motive the Learned Counsel had for producing this evidence ? Sir F. THESIGER said that the late Mr. Turner was $ great friend of Mr. Fitzgerald's, who had married Mary, the daughter of Mr. Keen Fitz4erald ; and that it was possible he might have gone to see the registry of the parish of St. James, W es t m i nster, f or some purpose o f . Mr. Fitzgerald's, and there having discovered the name of a John Turner as being born in 1775, had adopted it as his own register. He should also put in the certifi cate of the burial of a John Turner, who was buried in 1756, and described in the certificate as a child. There • fore it was possible that the John Turner set up by the Crown bad died the same year in which he was born. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his Learned Friend was mistaken upon that point, as the John Turner whose burial certificate he had was the son of a Henrf Turner, whereas the John Turner whom he said was the intestate, was the son of a James and Elizabeth Turner. Mr. Raven was then recalled to prove this fact, and he, stated that he had searched the register of the parish o 1 St. James, Westminster, and found that a John Turner, child, was buried in 1755; he was, however, the son of 0 ,- Henry Turner, but witness had not the copy he made o f the certificate. The copy of the certificate in question was then sent for, and two burial certificates were subsequently pro' duced in court, by which it appeared that two children of the name of John Turner were buried in 1735, in the parish of St. J ames ' s, Westminster, the father of one of whom was a person named Henry Turner. Sir F. THESIGER then replied upon the whole case in a most powerful and argumentative speech, which lasted upwards of three hours. Mr. Justice ERLE asked the jury, first, whether John Turner, to whom the defendant had administered , was the son of John and Elizabeth Turner who resided in Suffolk ? and, secondly, whether John Turner was the ' person baptised under the name of Theophilus Turner, at Badwell Ash, in Suffolk, in Jan. 14, 1763? The jury immediately returned a verdict for tile plaintiffs. TRAINING INSTITUTIONS FOR NURSES.--ThUTSCIN a meeting was held at the Hanover-square. Rooms for the purpose of forming a society for the training and ill' structing nurses in the performance of their duties. The chair was taken at one o'clock by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who was supported by the Earls Nelson and Harrowby, the Bishops of London, Norwich , Salisbury, and Manchester; the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth , Dr. Todd, &c. The meeting, in the course of the pro ceedings; was addressed by all the gentlemen above' mentioned, who advocated in the best manner the cause of those who were to be benefited by the training of the nurses, and combated th e not i on t h at b y forming class of female assistants and visitants of the sick chef were borrowing from the Church of Rome something that would tend to injure the Church of England. The ladies who should go forth to assist the poor were prac tising virtues enjoined in the Holy Scriptures, and there was no doubt of their zealous co-operation. The seeietf, . was as yet in its infancy, but th ere cou ld b e no d ou b t 0 1 the increase of its powers when the objects for which it was formed were explained to the public. A number of ' resolutions concurring in the views taken by the speakers were then carried by acclamation. A vote of thanks was then passed for the Chairman, who acknowledged the compliment, and about three o'clock the meeting ws . dissolved. On the Bth inst., at West -grange, Edinburgh, the lady of David Carnegie, Esq., of a son. On the 9th inst., at Marlborough-hill, St. John's-woods the wife of John C. F. S. Day, Esq., of a son. On the 12th inst., the wife of C. Ring, Esq., of Doctor?' commons and Mitcham. of a daughter. On the 13th inst., the lady pi A. Robinson, Esq., barrister' at-law, of a son. On the 11th inst., at the Oakery-cottage, Beckenham, t he wife of J. J. Talman, Esq., of a son. D. On the 13th inst., at St. MA Pau ßl l E 's, Knightsbridge, the W l ' t . W. F. Thursby, rector of Abington, near Northamptl' o Elizabeth Sophia, only daughter of the late Thomas Beck' with, Esq. On the 13th inst., at Crawford, R. F. Mountain, Escl'' youngest son of Dr. Mountain, to Mary Anne Je s uit 5' youngest daughte r o f J. F. B urnett, E sq., o f May-place, Sell' On the 13 t h i ns t . , at L ew i sham, Kent, N. B. Englehes": Esq., jun., of Doctors's commons, to Caroline, third daughte' of the late Rev. W. Marsh, Chaplain of Morden Colleg e ' Blackheath. On the 13th inst., at St. James's, Westminster, Mr. Graffty, of Warwick-street, to Elizabeth Stevens, 1 011 . 11 ' daughter of the late Mr. J. Madge, of Plymouth. DIED. On the 11th inst., at Sutto7ilouse, near Hounslow, h i° Peto, Esq., aged 77. On the 12th inst., at Notting-hill, Mrs. Aldridge, aged B 4 ' On the 12th inst., at Hackney, Middlesex, Elizabeth Ann e ' widow of R. H. Wilkins, Esq. On the 12th inst., at Bedford-pla ce , Russell-square, If' Ryde, Esq., aged 71. Or the 12th inst., at Warnhatn• cour t , near Horsham. r. srS• Fuller, Esq., of Upper Tooting, late of the firm of gee Child and Co., aged 92. On the 12th inst., at Hermes-hill, Pentonville, Smith, aged 65. On the 12th inst., Mr. G. Wright, of Stockwell—cresc ent ' Clapham road, aged 37. On the 13th inst., Mr. W. Edwards, of Basinghall—street' - at London : Printed and Published by MURDO 2,:. YOUNG II .2 t No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The S un Office, 141 °•.; gt Strand, in the Precinct f the Savoy, in the MOW Middlesex, Saturday, July 15, 1848. WAYS AND MEANS. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, when the Right Hon. Gentleman took a formal vote of money out of the consolidated fund for supplies already voted. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday. POOR REMOVAL BILL. On the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to this Bill, The SPEAKER observed that some of those amend ments might be held to be an interference with the pri vileges of this House. Lord J. RUSSELL said it had been customary, on Bills connected with the administration of the poor-law, to waive that consideration ; and ho should recommend the House to do so in the present instance. Mr. BAINES said that the amendments were not such as to interfere at all with the principle of the Bill. After a conversation the amendments were agreed to. PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES (SCOTLAND) • BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill should be received, Sir J. GRAHAM said he had intended to take the sense of the House on an amendment which he meant to propose, and which went to the principle of the Bilt ; but as the motion had come on rather unexpectedly (it being fixed for halt-past eleven), he would postpone his motion till the next stage. ---- E;;;dy.RUSSELL had no objection to this course, provided the discussion was not allowed to interfere with the progress of other public business. After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS, the report was received. _ SAVINGS' BANKS IN IRELAND. Mr. REYNOLDS moved for a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the laws regulating savings' banks in Ireland, and on the large deficiencies in se veral branches of those banks, in consequence of frauds committed by the officers, with a view to the amendment of the law, and the better security and protection of the depositors. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject, and he, therefore, hoped the Hon. Member would not press his motion. _ _ _ Mr. lIUME asked when the Bill would he brought in? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said al most immediately ; the Bill was already drawn. Mr. H. A. HERBERT hoped the Hon. Member for Dublin would not postpone his motion. Mr. REYNOLDS said the subject was one of vital importance. He had been anxious to amend the ma nagement of savings' banks, and to give to the depositors that security which they now erroneouly believed them selves to possess. By the failure of the St.lPeter's Sa vings' Bank in Dublin the depositors had lost 50,0001. ; and if this sum was not recoverable from the Govern ment he hoped the trustees would be made liable for it. Though he was unwilling to press his motion, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to bring in a Bill, he trusted that Bill would provide for reimbursing those poor persons tor the losses they had suffered. He' would postpone his motion till that day week. The House adjourned at Twenty minutes after Nine. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH - STREET. Jeremiah Sullivan, a sturdy Irish beggar, was placed before Mr. Bingham, charged with begging in Regent street, and resisting the constables in the execution of their duty. Luke Reany, a Mendicity constable, said that last evening about six o'clock, he saw the prisoner go up to several gentlemen in Regent-street, and in an importu• nate manner demanded alms. Witness went up to him and told him if he persisted in begging, he should take him into custody. The prisoner questioned witness's authority to interfere with him, and said he should go on begging and defied witness to take him in charge. A crowd of people had by this time assembled and witness proceeded to take the prisoner away. He resisted him, and triad to throw him down. His conduct at length became so violent that witness was obliged to procure additional assistance to take the prisoner to the station. The prisoner, who denied the charge, was committed to the House of Correction for one month, with hard labour. William Brian!, another Irish vagrant, was then charged with attempting to rescue the last-named pri soner, and assaulting the constable. Luke Reany sa id, a s he was taking the p risoner Sul livan to the station Brian came up , and , la y in g hold of his (Sullivan' s ) collar, told him no t to g o with a "cou p le of b--. Red-honors." Witness ca utioned the p risoner, and desired him to g o away. Brian refus ed, and putting his foot between w it ness 's legs, threw him on the ground. He then pulled cut a knife, and, with a dreadful oath, swore he would rip witness's g—s up. Several of the bystanders came to his aid, and, after a sharp struggle, succeeded in taking the knife from him, and lodged him In the station. Mr. BINGHAM committed him for two months, with hard labour. A SECOND JOHN jACOU ASTOR.—The Quebec papers chronicle the death of George Pares, Esq., who died in that place lately, at the advanced age of 95. He was born in Germany, November 21, 1752, and emi grated to America when very young, in search of a livelihood. By his industry and intelligence he accumu lated the largest fortune in Canada. After:the great:fire inNuebec, in 1845, he remitted to his numerous tenants in the La Roche suburbs all their back rents, in some cases five or six years being due.—New York Journal of Commerce. The ef the aetlee, trill be tract I Stores, ~ 10~ 1 the , hifeal land, TER Voei Lore teat] tern Ja ;-,111 , P7 SOAP Sati daring The Tender any n 4 Sather Eve] mid be Ina a lielli ciAT, enjoys C called In holder tee 2 either DON, Stuff Who b Drape Air Ilty, t Willie W. M Edwa Joha. Bober Bober Met are re Cop QUOIN on ap The fi Tea 6 Piii)l JAA ands the. bOtii Of M /10un trOU BAIT Testi }lf atree Ring 111 IIIS( in LI 368, 65, 53, by • Av the We aes We