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

THE but the people were now determin e d to exact their rights, mercy of the Crown in any case in which it might be and the best thing Ministers could do would be to re thought necessary, but this was not, he thought, the time commend a pardon to be grant e d i n the case of the per- to interfere to rescue a man from penalties, which he sons be referred to. He had great respect for was justly sufferi ng , for a crime so great that he ought to the personal character of the Right Honourable Baronet he on hi s kne es f rom morning to night, thanking God Opposite, but sometimes the Government in its that he had time to repent of it.—(Hear.) Frost, it should collective capacity, committed acts which the Ind- be remembered, was a man of education, of station, and vidual members of it shrank from ; and if the moti on o f i n fl uence i n his neighbourhood, the more necessary was refused, h e s h ou ld not attribute that result to the was it, therefore, that he should have shown an example personal feeling of the Right Hon. Baronet. He re- to those over whom his influence extended of obedience gretted Rot to see the Noble Lord (J. Russell) in his to and respect for the law, instead of encouraging place, because he wished to call his attention to the them, and leading them on to acts of violence and treason. particular ease of Frost, whose punishment was attri —(Hear, hear.) Then what was his defence at the buted to a th reat h e ld out b y the latter that he would . trial? He said, I belong to a body of chartists. I have oppose the Noble Lord at the then ensuing election.— great influence with that body. There was another (A laugh.) H e regr e tt e d t o h ear a l aug h on so painful chartist, a Mr. Vincent, in gaol. We did not wish to a subject as that of the banishment of these poor men overturn the establishments of the realm, or to subvert 1 from their wives and families. No favour which the the Throne; but we desired to make a demonstration in i Government could grant would be more gratefully re- favour of the principles we held, and to show to the i ceived than that of the pardon of Frost, Williams, and magistrates of Monmouth that there is a strong feelin g Jones, a n d h e trusted the House would be actuated not among the chartists in favour of this man Vincent, and so much by justice as clemency in making an appeal to therefore we did that which you tell us is treason. The the Crown for the exercise of its prerogative. He, defence was, that the Act of which they had been gu il ty therefore, begged to move that an humble address be was not treason, but a demonstration. But the law said, presented to her Majesty, praying that the royal cle- by the statutes of Edward and of George, that he who rnency may be extended to Messrs. Frost, Williams, and levied war against the Queen was guilty of high Jones, and to all other political offenders. :reason, and this was what the jury, after a most Mr. WAKLEY seconded the motion. full and patient investigation, the accused having Sir G. GREY said that the Hon. Member opposite had the aid of the most eminent counsel at the taken the trouble to disclaim a proceeding of which he bar, found that they had done. It was true had never heard him accused—namely, of having been that the jury accompanied their verdict by a re cognisant beforehand of the treasonable designs of commendation to mercy, on what grounds they did Messrs. Frost, Williams, and Jones, and of having ab- not say ; but that recommendation was taken into con sconded when they were discovered. He had never sideration afterwards, and acted upon, and the sen seen or heard anything of the Hon. Member which tence, which, let it be remembered, was death, was would lead him to suppose that he would incite others commuted to transportation for life. There was no to crimes against the laws of the country. The Hun. difference amongst the judges as to the character of Member had truly stated that the present was not the the offence or the propriety of the verdict ; they said Snit occasion when the case of Frost and his companions they could discover no excuse for the offenders, and had been brought under the notice of the House. The w h en t h e L or d Chi e f J us ti ce gave j u d gment, he told bmotion of the Hon. Member, somewhat modified, was the prisoners that crimes committed against life and ro ught forward i n 1846, w h en i t was re j ec t e d by 196 property for the most part en d e d i n suffering to the ptigainst 31. For his own part he must disclaim the corn- individual or his family, but in the present case the snent paid to him in his individual capacity by the crime was against all society, and was one which went In o neeember, more particularly in so far as it was t o b rea k d own eve ry barrier which th e C onst i tut i on offeredhim at the expense of his colleagues and of his had erected for the safety of life, liberty, and property. predecessor in office. He could state of his own There was then no difference of opinion as to the knowledge that the most careful investigation of nature of the crime. The trial was good—the verdict the facts had been instituted as well by himself was good and complete—and the judges approved of it. Grahame th Right H onoura bl e B arone t opp os it e (Si r J. Wh y, t h en, did t h e H on. M em b er for Finsbury now come ), and the result had been, as it was now his forward and tell that House in the name of the people painful task t o i n f orm the Hon. Member, that nothing that they were dissatisfied? The Hon. Member must but a severe sense of duty could have induced former surely have forgotten that on that mischievous night Governments as it now did hi m , to resist such a motion w h en t h ose t reasona bl e acts, f or w hi c h these men were as that before the House. It was always a painful office now justly undergoing the penalty of the law were per to recal to mind the guilt of individuals, who, like petrated, nine men were shot down and killed. These Frost, Williams and Jones, were expiating their crimes di e d i n th e i r gu ilt, an d w i t h t h e s i n o f t h e i r crimes upon in a p ena l settlement; but the duty devolved upon him their heads. The were in all probability ignorant of sho w i ng that the offences committed by those persons people without friends, and had been induced by the were not of that mild and innocent nature which the Hon. influence of Frost to join in the illegal act. But what 'Member had described, but were, in point of fact, of a must be the guilt of that man who led them on t o th at nature to p rove fatal to the peace, the welfare, and even crime which resulted in death to them ? He had no the lives of those very classes whose interests the Hon. hesitation in saying that that leader had to answer for Member opposite professed to have most nearly at heart. those nine lives. —(Hear, hear.) He could not under -(Hear.) He recollected, at the time, that a plea for the stand what excuse could be made for that man, who, treasonable and seditious manifestations that were made, leading others to criminal acts, in the prosecution of was offered in the circumstance that the lower classes some abstract cause which he advocated, occasioned were goaded into acts of violence by want and destitution. their deaths. In his view that man would be as g u ilty But w as such an excuse to be offered for Frost or his com- o f their deaths as though the parties fell by panions? Were they in want of the necessaries or even his hand and the penalty should lie with the luxuries of life? No. They availed themselves of him. The effect of the exampl e o f F ros t an d hi s the p overty and the consequent discontent excited in the co-partners in guilt on the state of society had not been minds of the labouring [classes, and they did so for the what it might have been. Fortunately magistrates, the Mere Purpose of personal ;advancement and self-aggran- inhabitants generally, and the soldiers, did their duty disenaent. If any doubt were entertained by the House and they had their reward. Then what ground was as to the grave character of the crime of which they were there for dissatisfaction?—(Hear, hear.) Was it that convicted, let him refer to the address of the judge who strict and impartial justice had not been done? This no tried them, Sir N. Tindal, than whom a more enlight- one would be bold enough to assert. Or was it that the oiled and humane judge never sat on the bench. But people were so enamoured of the forms and quirks of the the Hon. Member bad rested his motion, not so much law that, because an objection in point of form had been on his denial of the gravity of the crime as on what he raised in this case and had failed, they were dissatisfied? termed the illegal nature of the trial, which ought, in But with regard t o that objection, a majority of the his opinion, to have at once been quashed. He rejoiced judges, it was true, de c id e d t h at i t was good; b ut a ma to hea r the Hon. Member admit so much, for his avowal jority also decided that it was not taken in good time— Would go forth to those classes who regarded him as a and, not a majority, but all the judges, agreed that if it leader that he considered the crime attributed to Frost, had been taken in time the only effect would have been Williams, and Jones as indisputable. With regard to to postpone th e t r i a l . He did not despise form in legal the legality of the proceedings, none of the judges proceedings. On the contrary, he believed that form had been fof opinion that the conviction was not good g ave strength to the law, and was the means of pro in law. On the contrary, their opinion was, that the t ec ting the innocent and keeping power in its proper conviction was legal, and the Secretary of State place, nor did he mean to say that there had not been then had only to perform his duty, which he something wrong in point of forms in this case sufficient did with the utmost lenity, the ca pi ta l punishment to justify the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to the havi ng b een rem i tte d f or t h e m ild er one of transports- extent to which it had been exercised. Of all species of tion for life to a penal colony. There were other c ri m i- treason the worst was the levying war in the Queen's nals tried a t th e same time with the three chi e f o ff en d rers , dom i nions. This was the crimeo which these parties but of th ese 10 were a llowed to withd raw th e i r pl ea an d had been guilty, and with his r ea di of the laws, and to plead guilty, and these were sentenced to short t erms his understanding of the object and meaning of punish of imprisonment which had long since expired. Taking meat, he could no t vo t e f or t h e motion.—(lfear.) all the circumstances into consideration, he was of opi- Mr. GARDNER supported the motion. nion that there was no ground for inducing the House to 111 r. O'CONNOR, in reply, thanked the House for the make a special application to the Crown for mercy to fair and patient hearing they had given to the subject. these individuals. If, notwith s t a ndi ng th e bl oo d t h at As Hon. Members had objected to a general motion in had been shed by the misguided and criminal men who favour of all political offenders, he was willing to amend were now suffering for their offences, the House were to this by excluding from it all such offenders, except step in and plead for their pardon, th ere wou ld b e no Frost, Jones, Williams, and Ellis (the man convicted at line of conduct by which hereafter to be guided in Stafford) the only parties for whom he was interested. similar cases. It was most especially the duty of the Having so amended it, he would put it to the opinion of Government to repress such wicked and dangerous the House. The House divided, when there appeared— attempts as those of Frost, Williams, and Jones. It For the motion was the leaders that the law ought more particularly Against it to lay hold of. It was to the leaders that the atten• Majority —6B tion of the authorities ought most strongly to be THE LATE RAJA OF SAT rARA. attracted, and he was quite sure that the Hon. Member "Mr. G. THOMPSON rose to move for a Select Corn would not deny that to liberate the leaders of an insur- mittee to inquire into the conduct of the Court of Dim gent mob would be an act of the greatest cruelty to tors of the East India Company, and of the Government those whom they had misled. No person placed in the of India, towards the late Raja of Sattara, and to report situation which he had the honour to hold could give his thereupon to the House. He said that as the present sanction to the motion before the House, without in curring great danger. It had even been admitted by the but the memorial of 60,000 or 70,000 natives of India, Hon. Memb er th a t no un d ue sever ity had been practised praying for justice to the bereaved relatives of the late towards the three persons named by him. He only re- Raja of Sattara, he trusted it would receive the attention gretted having been in a manner compelled to revive the of the House. It had been contended that the Indian recollection of their crimes, but he felt that he had only Government had acted with the strictest justice towards done hi s d uty i n s p ea ki ng t o th e motion before the the late Raja, but stern facts gave the strongest contra- House. With respect to the Hon. Member's observation diction to that assertion. Who was the late Raja of that th e case o f. F rost was not a proper subject for Sattara? He was the lineal descendant of the founder laught er , h e must state that t h e l aug ht e r appeared to of the Mahratta empire —an empire which once extended him to ha ve b een solely directed to the absurd imputation from the banks of th e Jumn a do wn to Tanjore. The of jealousy on the part of his Noble Friend (Lord J. late Raja had been solemnly recognised by the Russell) excited by his fear of having Mr. Frost for a Indian Government, and an alliance was entered political opponent. For the reasons he had stated he should into with him avowedly to the advantage of feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion. both the contracting parties. Treaties had Lord collection C. MORGAN said that he had a very vivid re- entered into with him by Mr. Elphinstone and Lord collection of the facts of the case as they came out on the Hastings; and even Mr. Canning had thanked General trial of Frost, Williams, and Jones, and he must, in the Smith for having, by his victories, placed the late Raja on performance of his duty, vote against the motion of the the throne of his ancestors. For 17 years, from 1818 to 1835, his Highness had remained our faithful ht a u ll e y a and Hon. Member. Mr. HUME said that the decision of the judges was had highly distinguished himself b his enli nine to six on the point that the legal forms had not just government of his own domains. y Then g the e Indian and been complied with on the trial, and on that ground he Government commenced violating those treaties whch should vote for the motion of the Hon. Member, as he confirmed the Raja's authority over the Jaghirs, and considered the whole proceedings were illegal, and that plot upon plot followed, until at last he was dethron e d Frost, Williams, and Jones were illegally conveyed out and expelled from his domains. The Hon. Member of the country. With respect to the general grounds on entered into several details respecting these transactions, which the motion was based, he must say that he thought all of which have been reported in former debates, and the Government of England ought to stand on higher said that if a Committee was granted he would under grounds than those which called for the banishment of take to prove that the Raja had been the victim of the political offenders. Russia and England were now the grossest injustice and oppression. The deceased Raja only two countries where political offences were not con- h a d nev er ceased struggling for his rights. In 1836 he sidered to be worthy of:pardon. appointed an agent in England to appeal to the India Mr. AGLIONBY said that the term " all political hoard and the company against the conduct of the local offenders" was too wide a one for him to assent to, and authorities; that agent did appeal, and commu he recommended the Hon. Member to alter it. He had nications were sent out, but not one of tho se corn should again rep ea t hi s vote now. voted form er l y i n f avour of a similar motion, and he munications was shown to the Raja. On two o cca - Mr. WAK sions Sir R. Grant had promised th e Raja toLEY said that every p ar t o f th e case was lay his statement of his case befor e th e I n di a b oar d , so fully an d m i nutely known to the House and the coun- but lie had failed to do so. Th e c h arge aga i ns t t h e try, th at i t would be a waste of time to enter into the Rajah, that he was conspiring w ith th e o th er nat i ve details o r t o di scuss them. Neither would he discuss the question of t reason; i t was enough that Frost and princes to drive the Briti s h ou t o f I n di a , reste d on t h e his companions w ere f oun d gu il ty of that crime. But evidence of two sub a dar s , w h o h a d never b een su bj ect successful in their en t er p r i se , as ot h ers h ad to any cross-exa m i na ti on , an d w h ose sta t ements h a d be would ob serve t h at Frost and Williams might have not been confirm e d i n an y respect , an d upon t hi s evi beeilt been in deuce, without expla na ti on or i nqu i ry, t h e G overnment f countries a oreign , and then they wou ld h ave b een lauded of Bombay had c o nd emne d t h e R a j a, an d i n a secret a patriots i nstea d of being branded as traitors. What he wanted to impress on the House was the feelings dispatch to the Court of Directors, had declared that he had been faithless to his treaties, and had entered into a entertained by the working classes towards those men, league to put an end to British rule in India; and having on e feelings which Treasury h© saw had created an uneasy sensation without sufficient grounds pronounced him guilty, they bench.—(La ug h ter.) There were felt bound to maintain that he was so, aad to suppress million ' s of the working classes who believed that everything that went to prove his innocence. A Coin- Frost, Williams, and Jones had been illegally convicted, mission was appointed, receiving its instructions from and that opinion it was impossible to shake. The very counsel on the trial said that this was the Sii. R. Grant; three men sat in the capital of a sove ; and t wo o f t h e most eminent reign prince to t r y th at sovere i gn, w h o was not even bar ecas men at the allowed to cross - exam i ne tho w i tnesses, or have an , the Lord Chi e f B aron, and Sir. F. Kelly al so stat e d that if the o bj ect i on had been taken earlier, the advocate d present. The t es ti mony g i ven was most con prisoners mu s t h ave b een acquitted. The motion was tra ictory, and y e t th e R a j a was found guilty. This humanity Committee ought to b e grante d, only an appeal to the of the H ouse; b ut i t was sake ofc Sir R. Grant fro m th e learing the m emor y of were it ouly fo r th e hopeless to exp ec t th e H ouse to make any concession to the people. Wh en h e reflected on the past he only stain which must otherwi se res t upon i t. It was much wondered that th e wor ki ng classes would ever consent to Major• General Lodwick's credit th a t h e h a d ma d e an open confession ; and if the Committee were granted, to appeal to the House again. It was not always the he" would give the fu llest wasevidence onthesubject. Not people who committed treason. There were kings who withstanding the Rajafound guilty by the commis had been traitors to their country—royal miscreants— sign, when n the evidence was t d ran h smitte . d to Calcutta, ay, miscreants—wh o came to England after having serious doubts were vainly attempted to take away the liberties of their were taken to procure ts : forged docum t en i t t' wh a i n c d h did dot countrymen. Such persons had experienced the kindest find its way to Sir R. Grant - uptil after considerable . de- reception from the nobility, and even royalty did not lays. The resignation of Major-General Lodwick was scruple to receive them into its palaces. He regretted then effected, and Colonel Ovens the contrast thus offered by the manner in which the He arrived at the Raja's residennsce a i p n po j i ti n n ted in . h i . s i place. hin retition of the working classes for mercy to Frost, Wil- two months he had sent numbers of letters e i t B o 3 B ‘ ' om w Bombay; lie ws, and Jones had been received by the House and and then Govan Row was secured and tampered with, Government. He should be betraying his duty if he did and a confession extorted from him, which however did not cordially support the motion. not confirm the former evidence. Afterwards a petition Colonel THOMPSON said that the present was an was forged to prove conspiracy on the part of the Raja; ,PPortune moment forth • been more - r e motion, which would have 750 rupees were promised the forger ; but these not he m,. sProperly made a week ago or a week hence. ing paid, he came to Colonel Ovens to expose the extend S. RAWFORD hoped the G overnmen t would whole affair. Major Oliphant, one of the directors of extend FORD to Frost and his companions, who had now the East India Company, protested against the conduct expiated their off' en ce - • njul)!.• BOWRx xso a s hy eight years' sufferings. pnrsued towards the Raja. There were serious nity Feesex rs - l ei i c on the part of a very large com- charges against Colonel Ovens of a grave and dark ion. if e , is d etermination to vote for the mo- character, every one of which he would undertake to prerogative of t%),"ege resisted any interference with the prove before a Committee of that House. He would prove Frost and his cons Crown s whether it pani oos 1 7 an address in favour of ihat the correspondence between the Raja and the was not lik o , ut at present he would ask governor of Goa was forged. He would tell who the estimation of the LlO-1. to raise the Government iu the parties were who forged it, and the places where it was an addr ess i n f avour 07tiabi consenting to the motion for forged. If the Raja was guilty, so was the Viceroy if this course was adopted. criminal;? Sir D. DUNDAS th • He should rejoice of Goa ; and if the Government believed that ho really ought it w (and he Member for Finsbur argument on the part of th e Jr was an extra° d• • so, the Portuguese Government? It was said was would not they have made representations on the id that the people of England (a on r inary subject to ' that the Governor of Goa promised 30,000 troops, 15,000 who . he meant by the people fished with a verdict which had o ri f r ho had not explained of whom were to be French, and who must march in h g e to law, therefore, because of e n gland) being dissa- through Turkey, Persia, and Affighanistan.—(Hear, (s'nuxturned, accord- hear.) He knew the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite were House of Commons, lawyere, and dissatisfaction, would refer to authority, and say that Lord Auckland k the law gave for to surrender all the securities which f rproperty, life, and liberty. These ine ezherenellthe men of sense, and Lord Brougham believed the Raja guilty. But they pronounced their opinions before the documents Penalties they incurred in the case of failureln on which entered upon tl • he was believed to be guilty were proved to be • ht leer treasonable course, and the hen theY forged. It never entered into the heads of Lord Auck to complain that they were now suffering Penalties. those land or Sir R. Grant to depose the Raja without what But what was the offence of these affording him a fair trial. And up to the present moment was the penalty they were suffering men, and he never had a copy of the evidence given him.—(Hear, Member for Bolton had ? The Hon. Directors themselves had such sufficient! ` asked, had they hear.) The Court of Su . y? Surely that Hon• Member not suffered misgivings on the subject, that they wrote to Sir J. Car ffering to the individ I . must know that sac to arrange the matter with the Raja. But there Punishment, "Pe individual was not the It a- Pena ad paucas only object of were parties in Bombay who were opposed to this, and as not merely what the Fetus ad omnes veneat." when Sir J. Carnac proposed to draw up articles, Col. vsas the effectofthe individual suffered, but what Ovens threatened that he would make revelations which be ' it from him .punishment on society at large. to interpose a ' Far would compromise the character of Sir J. Carnac gainst the exercise of the himself. Sir J. C. HOBTIOUSE—God bless my soul ! Mr. THOMPSON—The Right Hon. Gentleman says " God bless my soul !" He (Mr. Thompson) cried " Amen." He would produce an eye-witness of what had occurred, if he was granted the Committee. The 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 dishonour of admitting that 'he was guilty.—(Heav, hear.) He said that he would lay down his crown, but that 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 1819. 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. which 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 arid European friends in India, and it was a remarkable fact that not a single letter could be produced to bring on 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 had passed along, and there had been a steady accumulation of evidence in his favour. Take 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 man 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 bad been the same. In India, in the Court of Directors, and in Parliament the decision bad 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 observe, 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. lie could 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 Ovans, who succeeded Colonel Lodwick as resident at the Court of Sattara, 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, ho 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 d a y t h at 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 refer 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 was proposed to issue a commission of inquiry into the conduct of the Raja at his capital, but Lord Auckland thought this course might be attended with inconvenience, and referred the matter home. Sir James Carnac afterwards assumed the Governorship of Bombay, and as he was aware of the 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 Honour a bl e 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 if 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 Ovans from the charges which had been brought forward that even ing. A long catalogue of the most atrocious charges had been put forward, but not one tittle of evidence had been advanced in their support. He should be inclined prima A c l ‘r ie s c ase Tto E yh whose said d been ttchs at to vote f or th e C ommittee were it not that granting a made mt a ho d en e out.t the Committe e was generally considered to intimate that a e H Honourable ouse s ßaronet hould the p was ay pe rso nMr. strict attention on this question. If a Committee were granted, the characters not only of Indian subordinates, but of the India Company, would be subjects of inquiry, 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, Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. 11. J. Bailli e , Si r R. Stafford, Sir G. Clerk, the Earl of Arundel and S urrey, Mr. Hume, H. Inglis, the Earl of Mulgrave, the Earl of M arc h , Mr. Alderman Humphery, Lord C. Wellesley, Lo r d E rnest 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- tf • meets, 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 alreadyifilled 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 three months on one occasion received the emoluments. It was only due to Nlr. 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 o f the House of Commons. FROST, WILLIAMS, THURSDAY, Armi 6. Motion made, a n d Q uestion put, " That an humble Ad dress be pres en t e d to her Majesty, that her Ma j esty may be graciously pleased t o extend her royal par d on to J o h n F rost, JONES, AND ELLIS. Zephaniah Williams, William Jones, and John Ellis." The House divided : AIINORITY—AYES, 23. Aglionby, 11. A. Blewitt,;Reginald Hall, Sir Benjamin Thompson, Colonel Bovvring, Dr. Ilindley Charles Thompson, Georg, Clay, James Hume, Joseph Turner, Edmund Collins, William Meagher, Thomas Walmsley, ~ i r J. Crawford, W. S. Pechell, Captain; Williams, John Evart, William Pilkington, James Fox, W. J. Salwey, Colonel T ELLERS. Gardner, Richard Scholefleld, William O'Connor,:Feargus Stuart, Lord D. Wakley, Thomas BIAJORITY—NOES, 91. Adair, R. Shafte Greed!, C. Pascoe Anderson, Arthur Grey, Sir George Archdall, Captain Grey, R. W. Armstrong, Sir A. Haggitt, F. R. Bailey, Joseph, jun, Hamilton, G. A. Bellew, R. M. Hawes, B. Berkeley, Captain Hay, Lord J. Buck, Lewis W. Hayter, W. G. sssßsß ß ihetiu. i y.ee c ssliT h Gssb:c a u reolli crollid:i,fsLe:,e.:R,LFCrlAodc. Chris. r h j:dl a l. . r o d f Buller, Charles Heathcoat, John Heathcote, Sir W. Som erville. Sir W. Busfeild, William Cabbell, B. B. 7 Henley, J. W. Spooner, Richard Christy, Samuel Hervey, Lord A. Colebrooke, Sir T. Heywood, James Compton, H. C. Hobliouse,•Sir J. Courtenay, Viscount Hobhouse, T. B. Cowper W. F. ' nogg, Sir J. W. Craig, W. G. Hotham, Lord Cubittt, William Keppel, George T. Davies, D. A. Law, C. E. Dick, Quintin Lewis, G. C. Divett, Edward Duacuft, John Dundas, Sir D. Ebrington, Viscount Wilson, Matthew Elliot, John E. Morison, General Wood, Sir Charles Fergus, John Mostyn, E. Wood, W. P. Ferguson, Sir R. Napier, Joseph Yorke, 11. 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 3331111:: tTrucgateuge, Morgan. }l.7ootx: T. A. Sir 3 . Willcox, , eIwI TTTTS . sSSSIvi,I I , r uthami i jaeaaaebilinw:lirincittircesattdiok natnhihi°::,xe:n:lndie, at,jsy':):Jdi.iis,lll.,:el'eTlTCGrT',l,3Enji.o.:B...lr. . 1 ilVYscoi R. rßke..n. A. Tucker TILLERS. MU, Lord M. Tufnell, Henry BANK OF ENGLAND. ANALYSIS OF THE RETURN PUBLISHED APRIL 1, 1848. 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 APPROPRIATION OF THN ABOVE. Discharge of decrease of " Private Deposits" . For purchase of increased Govern ment Securites Increased issue of Seven day and other bills ~5 i 3,0'. •x@569,955 --- Amount not returned to circulation 3,056 N.B. Although the Bank of England increased its amount of bullion during the week 1 93,6531., public ac commodation by way of circulation was only decreased 3,0561., viz.:— Increase of Bullion £193,653 Increased issue of notes £155,985 Ditto ditto Seven day and other Bills • 34,612 ..£190,597 Ilfracombe, April 2, 1848. £3,056 FINE ARTS, BURNS AT BANNOCKBURN. A large, bold, and somewhat striking picture has been recently painted by James M. Scrymgeour, re presenting Robert Burns, on the back of a ragged little Ipony, 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 composition dur ing the roar of 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,) countenance is revealed by the ghastly sheen of the lightning, in inspiration, the eyes there is the rapture of poetic 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 as be a slave ? Let him turn and flee!" While in the upper features one can recognise the divine afflatus, such as must have been visible ou the noble face of th e ploughman when he was inspired with the line s th at follow— " Wha for S cotland's king and law Freedom' s sword will strongly draw, Freeman st and, or freeman fa ' ? Let hi m f o llow me ! " By opp ress i ons woes and pains ! By your sons in servile chains ! We will d ra i n our dearest veins, !" This too, b e i t remembered humming its music But th e y s h a ll be free through his b ra i n to the tune ' of " H tuttieey tattle —that air w hi c h tradition declares to 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, som ew h ere, as having filled his eyes with tears when h e h eard it played on the hautboy! Al together th e engraving is meritorious, except—a huge excepti on we will acknowled e—in the fact that the pony is as much like a real pony as it Is like a whipping-po s t. g METROPOLITAN SEWERS COM- On Tuesda MISSION. y, in the forenoon Viscount Ebrington, M.P., the Hon, in Byng, Mr. Lambert Jones, Mr. Hutton, M r . Leslie, and other of the Commis sioners belongin g to the above Commission, met at the Sessions-house, Newington, for the purpose of hearing and decidi ng appeals against a rate made by the Commission on account of the sewers situate in the counties of Surrey and Kent. The Right lion. Lord Ashley in the chair. This district comprises the parishes of Camber well, Christ Church (Blackfriars), 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 l andlo rd was not liabl e , an inducement would he given to landl or d s to re lieve themselves from the rate . He saw no reason why the landlord should be e xcused, after it had b een shown that the tenant was unable to pay. The 31 s t clause of the Act of the Surrey and Kent Commis 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 to rate the tenant, and in case of default to follow the occupier, w ho would recover from the landlo r d. Mr. CORNELL, clerk to the district, said that the Commissioners could have i m posed the rate upon the owners of property, but the y t h ought it proper t o rate the occupiers. Mr. HUTTON remarked that he noticed several instances of tenants who were not able to pay their rents. He thought the landlords ought to be rated, or the Commission would lose the rate altogether. Mr. LESLIE said, that from the Act, 23d of Henry the Eighth, the rate was laid as a tax upon 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 be taken thereupon. Mr. HERTSLET 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 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 horse, and they applied to Mr. Lee 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 tho 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,:and she thought the same of him as she did when she was up-stairs. 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. WiIITEHURST Witness thought Mr. Lee's intoxication must be observable to any person of common sense. His discourse was a good one; but coming fro m M r . L ee it w as not an excellent one. From an ignorant person it would have been ex cellent.s His language was not so clear and beautiful a usual. ••••• •••••• Charlotte Bayliss resided in Birmingham. Remem bered her son being ill. Was with him. [The witness then corroborated the account of tho last witness.] Mr. Lee ordered them all to leave the room as soon as he came in. Stood a short time at the top of the stairs—a very short time. Was at the bottom of the stairs when SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 7, 1848. tit cost them from 4 205. to 50s. per annum for the cleansing of their cesspools. The Court was then adjourned, after a sitting of several hours. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Wancick, 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 a r t er y, th e woun di ng 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 iu 1543. Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Vaux wer e p resent . I perform e d t h e first part of the operation and Mr. Hodg son the latter. I should consider that the most impor tant part of the operation is in securing the subclavian artery. Some hemorrhage took place after the vessel da was tied. Th e patient expired on the following Thurs y. By dissection I discovered (in my opinion) death was caused by a wound in the subclavian vein. I know the present Bishop of Manchester, and recollect s h u i b ra ject by of earsaatilo:.aysrequest cnnver s a t o i o f n the relative was t e to the operation. I told the Rev. Mr. Lee of the ope ration, and the cause of death was from a wound in the suablcklavian artery, accompanied by hsemorrhage. W. whom present. was present. lam not sure that I told Mr. Lee ade the wound, but it was caused during the latter I been same t a h s a t t 0 1N:r e . Barker wou n d, engaged to prepare the proceedings of the meeting of the General Hospital for publication, and Mr. Lee. and I believe that I stated it to Mr. Lee. Ipre sent at the annual meeting in was September, 1844, and I recollect the operation being the • Awp ß c faa a y a rs l Balker. kionoepgfrit opinion p oh o hpe n subject of discussion. The Bishop of Manchester took a prominent part in that discussion. I have seen the report where letters of Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Barker appear, as produced at the meeting by Mr. Lee. [The report was handed in.] The first throe or four lines of page 38 are not correct. It was a lar ge:4 - tory. It w as no t mere l y i. e. seeL book ]• I think that • " During the dr ess i ng ,' it was consid era bl y more thiasnnot correct, as I thi n k two ounce; for I sponged the blood up, Whi c h but it immediately filled up. remember a gradual oozing, te an expression being used at the meeting—" two best of my recollection. I have seaei n poo th nsful, ' to the handed me, and saw the drawing at the timee paper now n d o ts w section (see page 29). I cannot say what I hear l d f om - Mr. Lee, but he did not speak of the information he r 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 large nerve—the part of tho rnedicus nerve. I should think six teaspoonsful of blood would be an ounce.OThe slip was about three-quarters of a n inch long. Mr. Gutteridge was not at the said . to operation. When the second rush of blood came IMr. Hodgson, " Where does this blood come from ?" Ile 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 ar t er y w hi c h was i n cluded 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 left 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. 1 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 he 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 ho 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. Lee. 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 he might tall. I raised my arm, but it was not necessary more than in one instance. Ile did not stumble a second time. I raised my arm, fearing he might fall, being impressed that he 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. fie himself asked to go into the room more than once; and I hoped he would bo wearied with waiting, and not go. He went in, accompanied by Mrs. Leo, 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 ho 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. He 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. 1 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. Lee was in a state of intoxication upon the evening alluded to. This morning the examination of witnesses for the de fence was resumed. gentlemen ; " one of the party, but not the prisoner, returned the compliment ' but the prisoner said, D o you want to fight ?" Roper said, ".No ; he would rather run than fight." The prisoner then struck Roper's hat off. Roper put it on again. The prisoner then came towards him, and Roper thrust his hand out at him to keep him back. The prisoner then turned round all at once, and stabbed Roper in the left breast. Roper caught him, and tried to take the handle of the knife from his 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 away, dragging 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 cus tody, telling Carter that the prisoner- had stabbed him, and he hoped justice 'would be 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 home. 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. Upon undressing Roper he found 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 called, and he stated that he 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 a 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 caught hold of him and dragged him out and struck him, and then witness struck Roper. . The coinpanioll.of ItopiPilien attacked witness aad knocked him down,. which ihim 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 through.:The witness said he was so much injured that he had been 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 die niorning after the affray. --- 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. Mr. Lee told her to make herself contented, for he would not 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. WHITEHURST—Was sure that Mrs. Foster brought Mr. Lee in. Had not 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. Re-examined—When she came out of the room she made a remark about Mr. Lee. The defendant (to Mr. Whitehurst)—Will you not ask what it was? Mr. WHITEHURST—NO, not I. Clara Walker was the senior teacher at the Bluecoat School. Had 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. He spoke to her. He said that when the funds of the institution were better, he thought that sbe 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 sure there was, and unless he knew what it was .he should a b an d on his interest in him. Foster then told him that it was nothing that Mr. Lee knew of him but what he knew of Mr. Lee, and then he told him all .. about it. Wi tness said that . 11: ought to have mentioned it to the committee. Ile said that he had mentioned it to Mr. Griffiths. The Hon. and Rev gad conversed Yorke was the rector of St. Philip' s , with Mr. Foster relative to the Bishop 1846. Had seen the Manchester. This was in Lee. to to Lord Calthorpe reflecting upon Mr. with Mr. Foster. Believin thaposversed upon it o must be some mistake, he called upon Ifr. thereFostert cootncloradictit. He refused to do so, saying that h e could n o truth, and witness inquired into th e grounds. sFowiunticil that he had formed that opinion on two distinct facts— certain indistinctness, and a false step in coming down stairs. Mr. Foster said that Mr. Lee addressed the children " beautifully, as Mr. Lee did everythin g 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 con 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 Bluecoat 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 1/. 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 sch oo l o f S t. Philip's. Was at Rishop Ryder's church on the evening in question. Heard Mr. Lee read the prayers. Had seen him before. lie 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 was 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 forgotten which, and 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 for about half-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," &c. 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 sas 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 Loan 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 s_ub poinaed, in th e f ourt h d ay o f t h e case it was an insult to the Court for him to say 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 with his amiable and sister of the defendant, a lady of and most intelligent appearance, sat by his side, and e m side, acted as a junior counsel , patiently assistin g hi m throughout the whole of this very long trial. The lady seemed perfectly conversant with all the featur es o f a n d d ocumen ts connected - with the case. HALF-PAST SIX O'CLOCK. The Learned JUDGE is still continuing, though seem ingly about concluding, his summing up. Having gone through the whole of the evidence, his Lordship is making observations upon the gen era l bearing of the whole evidence, and drawing the att en ti on of the jury to the several pleas on the record. The jury found the priioner " Guilty of stabbing, with intent to do grievoui btidily 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 parcel 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 ,welve years' transportation. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT . found STABBING,_ ING .--Benr Parker, a t a il or, aged 26, was young w om a n of dangerously wounding M ary Ri tc hi e, a h had d for me time, and by wh om she wase in the cohabite family way at so the time. The case must be fresh in the recollection of our readers. The woman had left him, and gone to her mother, and because she would not come to him when he came for her to her mother's house, although he had previously told her he would see her no more, he rusbod into the room, when he stabb e d h er several times, and then similarly assaulted her mother. The prisoner was found Guilty.—Sentence was de ferred. THE CHARGE AGAINST LORD KINGSTON.--At five o'clock in the evening the grand jury at the Central Cri minal Court ignored the bill charging the defendant with indecently 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 larcency 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 hearing 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, and said he had brought it from M. Soyer, who was anxious to have it inserted the next morning, but he could not pay for it, as M. Soyer had given him a bad sovereign. He was told that the advertisement should be inserted, and the next day the prisoner had the impudence 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 soon afterwards received a satisfactory intimation of his having been victimised, by having to pay another sovereign for the advertise ment that had been inserted under the circumstances mentioned. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, And the RECORDER sentenced the defendant to 18 months' imprisonment. There were several other charges of swindling against the prisoner. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,--With reference to a paragraph which appeared in The Sun of Monday last, announcing the lamented decease of Mr. Burke, sen., one of the authors' of " The Peerage," permit me to state that, in consequence of that gentle man ' s ill h ea l th, " 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 COLBURN. 13, Great Marlborough-street, April 6, 1848. WESTERN CIRCUIT .—Taunton, April 5. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WicuTmAN.) John Tynen was indicted for maliciously stabbing and wounding Benjamin Roper at Frome Selwood, 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 night of the 23d of August he was at the Black Swan public-house with Fanny Viner and another per son. He left about twelve o'clock, and came up to the prisoner_ and two others. Roper said, Good night, DEATH OF SIR THOMAS BARING, BART. - This venerable and much respccted Baronet, whose name has been so well esteemed in commercial circles, expired on . . a lengthened and sevr r e an il c l i n s ss e ßa . ring, Esq (a D evons hi re was the eldest sou of F the 3d inst., at is seat, Stratton-park, by the daughter Esq., gentleman, who founded the William LondoHn oferbrrianngc,hof the family),r and co-heir of Thomas Herring, A rc hb ishop of Canterbury. He was born in 1 772, being the elder brother of Lord Ashburton, and married in 1794 the eldest daughter of Charles Sealey, Esq., a barrister, in a c n h d ae th e r e e ll e er d e a f ug t h h t e er E s; xe v h iz e . : practice at Calcutta. By this lady, who died in July, h s . s oE u m e r s l o a n t s e M.P., now the head of the Lon don Hose;u Charles, in holy orders; John, of Oak illgehthafidorrni ussex ; Charlotte, married to the Rev. George t 1 h l e 4 41 Wells; Emily, married to the Rev. William Dupre; and Frances, married t o t h e Right Hon. Henry Labouchere. The decea se d, some year s since, represented the borough of Wycombe in Parliament; but latterly had taken very party. little part in politics. He was a me m b er o f t h e o l d Wh i g ROYAL ARTILLERY, WOOLVVICEI, APRIL 5.--The formation of the two additional companies to each of the ten battalions of the Royal Artillery has been fixed for Thursday next, the 13th instant; and the commis sions of the officers who will be promoted by the aug mentation are to be dated the 10th instant. Captain Mitchell's company, 10th battalion, left the garrison here on Monday morning fur Chester, Tynemouth, and Carlisle, to relieve Major Robe's company, 2d battalion, and the relieved detachment from Chester joined the garrison yest er d ay even i ng; the others from Tynemouth and Carlisle, will arrive on Friday. It is reported, but not officially, or with a certainty of its being correct, 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 since November, 1843. Captain Ormsby's company, 6th battalion, and Captain Crofton's, 7th battalion, are to be relieved during the present year; the former from Mon treal, and the latter from Kingston, Canada, where they 4ve been etzttioned dace the 10th of June, 1843.