The Sun. — London, England, 1865-03-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST E VEXING. ROYAL COMMISSION. The royal assent was given this afternoon to the Civil Bill Courts Procedure (Ireland) Act (1864) Amendment The Lords Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Bury, and the Duke of Argyll. Their lordship adjourned during pleasure. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. Lord CHELMSFORD presented a petition from Mr John Bagwell, a creditor to the extent of £25,000 on two Irish railway companies, complaining of injuries he had received from the operation of certain clauses in the Bank ruptcy Act. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give the matter his most serious consideration. GAME LICENSES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill, on the motion of Earl ST. GERMANS, was read a second time. COUNTY COURTS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this bill. Lord ST. LEONARDS expressed his opinion that the County Court Judges were' not competent to give decisions in equity, as they were simply common law lawyers ; moreover they had not the machinery at their disposal to give equitable decisions. He objected to the bill because it proposed to give too much power to the County Court Judges, and also that by one of its provisions a sum exceed ing a million and a half of money would be taken from the suitors' free fund. This fund, he contended, belonged to the suitors in the Court of Chancery generally, and it seemed to him highly objectionable that any portion of the fund should be devoted to other than the purpose for which it was intended. Lord CRANWORTH declared himself favourable to the principle of the bill, but was of opinion that the measure would require considerable modification in committee. Lord CHELMSFORD thought the object of the bill a desirable one, but feared there would be great difficulty in carrying it out. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was not astonished at the opposition of Lord St. Leonards, which, he believed, arose from a wish to amend, and not to destroy, the bill ; but he was not at all afraid that the county court judges would not prove themselves fit to discharge the equitable functions proposed to be imposed upon them. These duties would be very simple, and required little more than good sense and a knowledge of the general principles of law. The noble and learned lord referred to several returns of the costs of suits in Chancery for trifling amounts, and which showed that the expense was so great as to be tanta mount to a denial of justice ; thus fully establishing the necessity for this measure. The bill was read a second time, and their lordships ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. - _ Colonel CLIFFORD, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, summoned the members of the Upper House to hear the Royal assent given by commission to the Civil Bill (Ireland) Procedure Act (1864) Amendment Act. PRIVATE BUSINESS. On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER the following bills were withdrawn :—Huddersfield and Halifax Railway, Tredegar, Sirhowy, &c., Water, West Kent Railway, and Devon and Somerset Railway (Extensions). PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the continuance of the duty on fire insurance. Col. SYKES presented a petition from different officers in the Indian army, praying for the redress of the grievances of which they complained by the breach of the Government guarantee. Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from the editor of the Gloucester Gazette, praying the introduction of a bill for the amendment of the law of libal. Mr. Moon, presented a petition from the inhabitants of Victoria and other parts of Australia against the transpor tation of criminals to the colony. SALARIES TO THE POST-OFFICE MASTERS IN REGARD TO SAVINGS BANKS. Mr. CAVE gave notice that he should ask a question a the Government on this subject. BRITISH MUSEUM, &c. Mr. GREGORY gave notice that he would draw atten tion to the subject of the management of the British Museum, South Kensington Museum, &c. THE WATERWORKS BILL. Mr. FERBAND asked when the clause for the protec tion of life and prtperty to be inserted in Waterworks Bill would be laid upon the table of the house ; and whether they would apply to existing waterworks reservoirs. Mr. M. GIBSON said he could not at present give any definite answer to the hon. member, but he would do so in a few days. SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND). Mr. BAXTER asked when the returns relative to the business transacted in the Sheriff courts in Scotland, or dered by the house on the Gth June, 1864, would be laid upon the table ? The LORD ADVOCATE could not state exactly when these returns would be ready for presentation to the house, as they were of a very complicated and very voluminous character. COURTS MARTIAL. Mr. MORRITT asked, in case of a soldier being tried by general court-martial, what time was allowed to elapse be fore the sentence was promulgated ; and also whether it was true that a soldier in the Coldstream Guards was tried by a general court-martial before Christmas, and another soldier in the Scots Fusilier was tried by general court martial on the 12th of January, and neither sentence has as yet been promulgated. The Marquis of HARTINGTON said that the practice was that as soon as a number of cases had occurred they were promulgated in the usual way. THE SUEZ CANAL. Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked whether Sir Henry Buiwer had gone from Cairo to make an inspection of the Suez Canal, and whether he would make an early report on the subject ? Lord PALMERSTON raid that no report on the.subjeci had been received by her Majesty's Government. SEIZURE OF NEUTRAL SHIPS BY CONFEDERATE CRUISERS. Mr. S. LEFEVRE asked whether the attention of her Majesty's Government had been called to a certain minute of instructions alleged to have been issued by the Govern ment of the Confederate States with reference to the seizure and disposal by Confederate craizers of neutral vessels and cargoes without any adjudication by a prize court ; whe ther such instructions met the approval of Government, and if not, what measures had been taken to prevent their being put in force. Mr. LAYARD said that the attention of Government had been called to the subject, and it would not be to the advantage of the public service to disclose the corres pondence which had taken place in reference to the same. MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND. Mr. NEWDEGATE rose to move for a select committee to inquire into the extensive character and increase of monastic or conventual societies in Great Britain, and pre sented some petitions from different parts of the country in favour of his motion. He said that last April he had proposed to the house to institute an inquiry into the statements w hi c h h a d b een made by ulr a a gentleman named Smee, who presented a petition re specting his relation Mr. Hutchinson, who bo member of the Oratorians, who had a pl ace of worship at lf at Brompton and a burial ground at Sydenham. Ithap p hap pened that subsequently Mr. Smee addressed letters to the Duchess of Norfolk, which were printed and circulated ; and perhaps no person had more rea son to complain of the adoption of that course than he (Mr. Newdegate). These letters were printed and circulated without his authority or con sent; and the effect of these letters was to divert attention from the motion he had made on the subject awl to defeat its success. He had referred to another case, in which a gentleman, who was in orders in the Church of England and was about to be pro moted to a living, had been, as he contended, seduced to become a member of the Oratorians, and he read the petition which that gentleman's father had presented, in which he said that his son had been induced by improper influence to take a course that was detrimental to his prospects in life. This petition was taken no notice of, a matter which much surprised him, as the subject of the petition was of great importance. It was contended that the Act of Parliament of 1829 did not apply to the Oratory at Brompton, on this alleged ground,_, that it consisted of a number of secular priests remain in members voluntarily, were not compelled to Against that body, and had control over their property. the assertion he cited the decision arrived at by Catholics a Geneva, to the effect that that body were a regular order of clergy He alluded next to tho increase of monastic and conventional institutions in . this country, and contra s t e d the restrictions th imposed in France and Prussia in regard to should be taken, an d t oppre the period for which religious vows the fact that in Italy it had been considered right to .I , :tr ue monastic institutions, to the freedom permitted institution s st P i r t otestant country. As regarded the increase of the hadution in question, he said that from a small number they* us e_nto convents,the of 58 religious establishments for me with the 10 colleges in Great Britain and Wall ; addition of 19 in Scotland, the number of e h : , increased to 201. To show that monastic Inblensttistrulvtioenres were deemed dangerous and impolitic even Catholic towns in the country, he historical v3staultean- ments as to the course which Cardinal Moreton deemed it advisable to adopt in the time of Henry VII., by recom mending the Pope of that day to use his authority for the suppression of those establishments. The visitation made at the time developed a very loose state of morals in those institutions, and the Pope issued a bull, or re script, in conformity with the recommendation he had received. It would be remembered that Henry VIII. considered these institutions so dangerous that he did all in his power for their extinction, although he had been entitled Defenskr Fedei, and yfritten_ a letter against Luther. The hon. member next adverted to the cases of Miss M‘Dermott and Miss Ryan, and quoted different nar ratives as to mal-practices in monasteries mad convents which were current in this country, and he appealed earnestly to accede to his motion for the in iviry he sug gested. Mr. HENNESSY said that in his c Including sentence the hon. gentleman told them he did not ask for a remedy for the grievances of which he complained. That was not surprising, because all the stories which the hon. member had repeated to the house, however marvellous in their nature, presented this common feature, that the laws of the land, as they now stood, provided an ample remedy for every grievance they disclosed. (Hear, hear.) Take the last case on which the hon. gentleman dwelt, and which he told them was the most important ever brought before the house. What were the facts? A young lady, the hon. gentleman said, was confined against her will in a convent. Some persons, whose names they did not know, went to Mr. Justice Wightman and applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The Judge said to them, "If you lay before me an affidavit that you have endeavoured to see this young lady and have failed to do so, I will grant the writ at once, and you will be able to see her." They accordingly proceeded to the convent, asked to see her, saw her, and had a long conversation with her, part of which had been read by the hon. gentleman. The hon. member said these persons were commissioned by Mr. Justice Wightman. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Justice Wightman told these anonymous gentlemen that their first duty was to prove to him, in the ordinary process of law, that they had sought for and been refused admission to the convent—that they had wished to see the young lady, but that the authorities of the convent would not allow them to do so. Well, they went ; and even from the story which the hon. member had told the house, taking the one-sided version of it which these anonymous persons gave, it was perfectly evident that the law of the land was quite strong enough to remedy the grievance of which he complained. But the hon. member had pur sued a course that night identical with the one he fol lowed last year and the year before. He had adduced cases whi6, on his own confession, were still before the courts of law or were to be brought before those courts, and he had gone into certain portions of them, discussing them, and giving one-sided accounts of that which he admitted was to be taken for adjudication elsewhere. Why, what occurred last year ? Then the hon. gentle man brought before the house the case of Mr. Smee and Father Hutchinson of the Oratory. Mr. Smee, whose peti tion the hon. member presented, complained that Father Hutchinson made a will on his deathbed, being of unsound mind, by which he gave his property in charity ; and the hon. member endorsed these statements, told the house that Father Hutchinson was not of sound mind, that he had been unduly influenced by the priests of the Oratory, and at the same time stated that the case of Mr. Smee and the priests of the Oratory was pending in a court of justice ; notwithstanding which he gave his own version of the case to the house, and leading articles appeared in some of the papers taking the hon. gentleman's view of the matter. But what happened? The case was tried in the Probate Court, it was there ably argued, the most complete evi dence was given on each side, and what was the result ? A jury, composed of 12 Englishmen, 12 Protestants, unani mously came to the opinion that the case had not been made out, that Mr. Smee's statements were false, and Mr. Smee himself was condemned in costs. Well, the hon. mem ber had told them of Miss M'Dermott's case, which he said was also to be brought before a court of law. Why, it had been before a court of law. Mr. Selfe and another magi strate had inquired into it, and it had been inquired into, not in public court only, but also privately ; and what was the result ? The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), who in all these proceedirigs was associated with the hon. member for North Warwickshire, attended at the police office and himself heard the magistrate dismiss the case. The fact was that the more these cases were inves gated by a competent tribunal and with the full power which the law of England gave the better. But he asked the attention of the house to the motion which the hon. gentleman had put on the paper. It was now 10 or 11 years since a similar motion was made in that house by Mr Chambers, and since then events had occurred which had materially altered the public feeling in England on the sub ject to which it related. At that period the table was co vered with petitions in favour of the motion, and public meetings had been held all over the country upon it. The people of England at that time, actuated, he believed, by very blind and ignorant prejudices, did think that a com mittee of inquiry, which :should investigate the existence, number, and character of conventual establishments, was, necessary. But then they knew very little about those in stitutions. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Very soon after that however they began to hear something about nuns. At the time of the Crimean war their conduct and practices came to be talked of in that country ; and, speaking from the Treasury bench as a Minister of the Crown, Mr. Sidney Herbert gave to the house his opinion of the character of these ladies. The people of England, he believed, were very much influenced by what they then heard and saw. There were, he believed, at that moment sitting in the house some gallant officers who had seen those ladies in the Crimea attending on our wounded soldiers, and who could bear testimony to their character. But in addition to that something more had happened. About the same time the conventual institutions in England which were in any way connected with education were placed under Govern- ment inspection, and in the report of the commissioners on popular education, which was composed of the Duke of Newcastle, Sir J. Coleridge, two clergymen of the Church of England, and three othergentlemen, who were also mem bers of the Church of England, he found it stated that the Roman Catholic female training schools were supplied with students of a very much higher class than the male schools, the teachers being for the most part members of religious communities, and immeasurably superior to those who tatight in the male schools. Such was the opinion of the Commis sioner on Popular Education in England, and last year a blue-book was published which gave the fullest informa tion with respect to all the convents in Ireland, to which also the motion of the hon. member related. And what (lid the Government inspectors sty in reference to those insti- tutions in Ireland ? On the question of the moral training given in those establishments, and that was the only point to which he would at present allude, the Protestant and Presbyterian officials of the Government—and he would quote from their evidence alone—distinctly said that the moral training in the nuns' was greatly better than that in the lay schools. The Sisters of Mercy had a school in New town, in Galway, and Mr. Simpson, the inspector, who was a . Presbyterian, spoke of the moral training there as being superior to that of other schools, as a natural consequence of the children associating with the sisters. Another Pres byterian made the same statement with respect to another school in the county of Galway, while similar evidence was given by the Protestant inspector of National Schools in the King's County, as well as by others in the north of Ireland. Mr. Kennedy, referring to a school in Sligo, said, " there are eight nuns employed here, and I consider there is no school in the district in which the moral training is so effective or so good." Such testimony was, he thought, suffi cient to show that the hon. member for North Warwick shire and his hon. friend the member for Peterborough really only represented their own views on the present oc casion, and not the sentiments of anybody who was ac quainted with the facts of the case, or who had such ample opportunities of arriving at a sound judgment as the Go vernment inspectors. The hon. gentleman in the frequent allusions which he made to the fathers at the Oratory last year repeatedly asserted that they had acted in vio lation of the Emancipation Act of 1829. (Mr. Newdegate was understood to say that he stated they might be technically within the law.) Well, then, the hon. gen tleman must have changed his opinions on the point since last year. The decisions in opposition to his views which had been given by Sir .T. Wilde in the Probate Court, had, perhaps, opened his eyes, because that learned Judge had clearly shown that the statements which had been made by the hon. gentleman in that house had no foundation what ever in law, and the jury immediately found a verdict in favour of the fathers of the Oratory. All he could say was that he was not surprised the hon. gentleman had again come co be m m p e le r tely baffled and beaten, to that house, because in the courts of justice he had been and his statements found to gentlemaneationsll e en co h u i l s d h n . o t t, aeart h . e e.al might resear ad e d, h. coHmis plimenet d the le fhon.fabrications. Chesterfield to his son when he told him that-ice given c by Lord historic anecdotes reraindedla* of th t e s a e n m st t o o ri be es were so extraordinary that even if he believed ert f true he would advise him not to repeat the o T, hi o s r v if he did )wloiueldshbeougildn tthoereenftrteapinassdoouvberts the anecdotes of ( so A Pe lau op g l h e . the hon. gentleman, as the invention of those anonymous gen tlemen who supplied him with his information, n ' and as to some extent, no doubt , the result of those long consul tations which he held with the hon. member f or Peter borough, for some time past they were to be seen in ev er y hole and corner, putting their heads together and comparing notes for their present great campaign. (A laugh.) And what was near being the upshot of those deliberations. Why, that when the motion was put from the chair it would ap pear as if it was to be lost for want of a seconder, until the hon. member for Peterborough rushed to his seat. But, be that as it might, the molion was one for inquiry, in the first place, into the number of con ventual establishments; and why was it, he should lik e to know, that the hon. gen tleman asked for information on that point? He told the house he had got all the statistics on the subject. Where did he get them ? As a matter of fact, the number of those institutions was elaborately set forth in the Catholic Directory, while their character could be ascertained from any person acquam • ted with them — and t he y were many —of whom he might choose to make inquiry. What the motion of the hon. gentleman meant, so far as it re lated to inquiry into the " existence" of conventual estab lishments he could not understand. That they existed was a well known fact, and there could be as little doubt that their existence was in accordance with law. But the truth was that what the hon. gentleman was aiming at was to raise the pop u l ar i n di gna ti on o f w hi c h he spoke against those ladies who passed their lives in educating the poor, attending erd the sick, and p er f orm i ng ac t s o f c harity, who had never done the hon. gentleman or anybody else the slightest injury, and in making out a case against whom he had, so far as th e f eel i ng of the House was concerned, signally failed, as he would also, he had no doubt, fail in the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEATE observed, that in France the Government had a certain control Over convents which the English Government had not in this country, and that it was de sirable to ascertain at what age young girls were allowed to take vows, for what period they bound themselves to lead a life of seclusion, and othor matters of which the public generally appeared to be ignorant. Mr. WHALLEY supported the motion in a speech that excited frequent bursts of laughter and ironical cheering. Sir G. GREY—I can assure the hon. member for Peter borough that I had no d e si re t o s t an d i n th e w ay of his _ _ addressing the House. The hon. gentleman began by saying that there was an impassable gulf between himself and the hon. member for North Warwickshire, who brought for ward the motion ; and I believe the House must feel that there was certainly a wide distinction between the mode in which the latter handled the question and the tone adopted byjthe hon. gentleman who spoke last. The hon.member for Peterborough recommends calm and dispassionate inquiry, but his speech was hardly an illustration of the temper of mind in which the question ought to be discussed. (Hear, hear.) Before dealing with the general subject, I will reply to the questions which the hon. member has addressed to me. He says he holds me responsible for every act of every police magistrate within the metropolitan boundary even for what was said and done by Mr. Paynter in 1859, when had not the honour to be Home Secretary. I need scarcely say I cannot accept such responsibility. The hon. member . asks me to condemn the conduct of Mr. Arnold. I cannot do se. The case in question did not come before me in any shape. I saw the reports in the newspaper, as everybody else did, but I had no reason to suppose that Mr. Arnold did not on that, as on every other occasion, discharge his duty in the most conscientious manner. (Hear, hear.) Again, the hon. member asks whether in the M'Dermott case Mr. Selfe communicated with me. He did not—there was no occasion for his doing so. It was a case in which he could not interfere as a magistrate, but in an extra-judicial man ner, as might be inferred from his having consulted Mrs. Selfe (a laugh), and from humane motives he endeavoured to ascertain for Mrs.M'Dermott where her daughter was,and whether the girl was under any restraint. But no communi cation took place on the subject between Mr. Selfe and the Home-Office. The hon. member further says I am respon sible for the omission to enforce the law requiring the regis tration of the Brompton Oratory. lam not aware of the existence of any such Act. By the Catholic Emancipation Act all members of any religious order bound by vows or oaths, are required to register themselves within sixmonths after coming to this country. There is no law, however, that such a place as the Brompton Oratory should be regis tered. I have been informed, on what I believe to be reli able authority, that the members of the Oratory are not bound by any religious vows, and therefore do not come within the scope of the statute I have mentioned. If the hon. gentleman knows that these persons are under vows he should have brought the matter under notice of myself or the Attorney-General, in order that proceedings might be instituted, if there be any ground for them. The case of Mary Ryan has really nothing to do with:the subject of this motion. (Hear, hear.) The illegality committed in that instance is not connected with any conventual esta blishment—it was a forcible abduction of the person, and amounted to anassault, for which the offenders were crimi nally responsible. The papers on the subject have been laid on the table, and it is only fair to say that Mr. Wilkes, one of the medical members of the Board of Lunacy Commis sioners, who saw the girl and examined her condition, re ports as follows : " In my opinion, Mary Ryan is still of unsound mind, labouring under a very common form of melancholia, with a suicidal tendency. I also think that she is not in a state to be safely taken care of out of an asylum." It also appears that every person actuated by benevolent motives, or sent by the Government, received every facility in visiting the girl, and that she is treated with kindness and consideration. The only reason why she was not brought back to this country—a course which both the Belgian Government and the managers of the institution would gladly have pursued—was that her state of health was such as to render it probable that her removal would have exposed her to a renewed attack of mania. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the general question, I cannot help expressing my regret that after the interval which has elapsed since this subject was last before the house it should have been revived by the hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) 1 implicitly believe the hon. gentleman's assertion that he is not actuated by any religious bigotry, but is only acting in what he regards as the honest discharge of his duty, and I also believe that he represents the opinions of a very large number of persons in this country—(hear)—but with the recollection of what has before taken place in this house I do not think that it is judicious to press such a question upon its attention. In 1853 Mr. Thomas Chambers brought in a Bill which led to very long discussions. It was founded upon, I think, the same as gumption as the present motion—viz., that many per sons are subject to the undue and improper exercise of coercion and restraint in conventual establishments, and that the existing law does not afford adequate means for their relief. The bill was lost on the second read ing, and its place was taken by an amendment, meved by an hon. and learned gentleman not now a member of this house, to the effect that a committee should be ap pointed to inquire " whether any and what regulations are necessary for the protection of the inmates of establishments of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue influence in procuring the alienation of their property." The object of that motion was much more restricted than is that of the resolution now before the house, but it ledto a . very protracted debate, and ultimately, owing to the advanced period of the session, it became a dropped order or was discharged without any decision be ing come to. In the next session Mr. Chambers, deferring to what appeared to be the opinion of the majority of this house, moved for a committee of inquiry. The motion was carried by a considerable majority, but what followed? We were led into eternal debates night after night upon the question of ;the nomination of that committee or upon mo tions for the discharge of the order. There were many acri monious debates ; much valuable time was lost ; ultimately it was found impossible to nominate the committee, and no practical result was derived from those discussions. (Hear, hear.) That is rather a warning to us not to enter upon the course to which we are invited by the hon. gentleman than an encouragement to expect from it any useful result. With what view is the inquiry proposed? I was in hopes that the hon. gentleman would, according to the ordinary practice of Parliament, have shown that he asked for in quiry with a view to legislation. We do not appoint com mittees merely to gratify curiosity, or to obtain informa tion which the person seeking it says he does not desire to make the basis of Parliamentary action. Mr. NEWDEGATE said he stated that he desired to lay the facts before the house, and would leave it to the wisdom of the house to apply the remedy. Sir G. GREY—I think an hon. gentleman ought to trust a little to his own wisdom, and, when he brings a subject before the house and asks for the inquiry of a committee, ought to show that some practical result is likely to be at tained, and state that, after inquiry has taken place, he will be prepared to recommend the house to take some legisla tive action. ' The hon. gentleman does not do that ; he merely wishes to obtain the information and lay it before the house, without takingany ulterior proceedings upon it. I should like to know what the hon. gentleman's object is. Is it the inspection of these institutions, or is it, as I rather gathered from his speech, their absolute suppression ? On what ground does he think that Parliament ought to inter fere in this matter? Does he believe that there are many P rsons a state of absolute physical coercion and restraint, and e that the law is unable to provide a remedy ? I know that such a belief prevails very extensively, and is held by many people much more strongly than by the hon. gentle man himself. There was sent to me a few days ago a copy of the Bulwark, or Reformation Journal, dated the Ist of March, containing a paragraph headed, "Protestant Action in Parliament," in which it is stated that • " On the 9th of February a special meeting of the Gene ral Committee of the Protestant Alliance was held in Lon- don, when the following resolutions were unanimously adopted That there has been a large and sudden increase in the number of conventual establishments in Britain, and at the present time there are 201 of these institutions in England and Scotland for females, containing, it is believed, many thousand inmates, most of whom are under a consider able amount of constraint, and are deprived of the liberty of quitting these establishments. That it is desirable that Parliament should institute inquiry upon this subject, and that the following petition on conventional establishments be adopted.' " The petition repeats this statement in substance, and con cludes : " Your petitioners therefore pray your honourable House to institute an inquiry into the existence and condition of monastic and conventual establishments, and to take such means as shall secure the due observance of the law and the liberty of the subject." Now, sir, what proof has been given of the inadequacy of the existing law to meet any of these supposed cases of phy sical coercion ? The hon. gentleman has cited several in stances, but they seemed to me to show that the law is power ful enough to deal with these cases when they occur. He must know that if there is reasonable ground to suspect that any person is confined and kept in restraint against his will, an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made on his behalf, and if it were supported by affidavits the court would at once grant the writ. I was not acquainted with the particulars of the case with respect to which the enoughdeg a te and—Nine I a a ffi ra g ti n a s s u o v ta r i b e t s e s t t ] ao h ma the i n e i n f e eil a nl a ffi te, ffi gs d aci d a l hon. gentleman sa id t h at he had 27 affidavits. [Mr. New cinf u a vi t v eiyts i s t t ioo w r n wereo, u sr m d omwi a e dnlieg q t yt u dh i i sao t w cl h os ic in h g th p e r re oc co ee u di ld n there were in any conventual establishment dungeons into which women were forced, and from which they were not allowed to come out alive—circumstances which would justify a magistrate in ordering the police to enter the establishment and make a thorough examination—the hon. gentleman would be the last man to put such affidavits into his pocket until he had an opportunity of bringing them .before the House of Commons. He must have known that judicial proceedings could be taken to ascertain the truth of the affidavits, to stop the proceedings complained of, and to bring the parties concerned to justice. In this country such p roce edings would meet with u niversal censure, and ants to strengthen the Catholics would unite with Protest be found, and hands of any one who was en g a g ed in their exposure. (Hear, hear.) In these conve ntual establishments and colleges ladies of rank and education areh t o t the friends of does the hon. gentleman really suppose t a rETE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 186 these ladies leave them absolutely at the mercy of those who have the control of these establishments, that they never visit them, that they are: so dead to the natural affections which are implanted in our hearts, and to the obligation of those duties which are imposed upon us as members of society, as not at any time to inquire into the condition of their relatives who have taken the veil, and that they would not be the first to seek for the investigation of any such disgraceful proceedings as are now complained of ? (Hear.) The real fact is that the evil—for as a Protestant I cannot deny that it is an evil—arises not from physical, material restraint, but from that moral restraint, from that obliga tion which is felt to bind the consciences of those ladies, and even though they may have taken the veil at an early period of life, and may afterwards repent of their vows, prevents them from leaving these establishments. These feelings are very much those which were expressed in touching terms by the lady at Staplehurst to whom the hon. gentleman referred, and who said she had taken the veil with an earnest desire to devote herself to the service of God, adding that all her relatives were Catholics, and that she knew nothing of life, and asking where she should go if she left the asylum of the convent. (Hear, hear.) Does the hon. gentleman believe that any action of Parliament can reach motives of that kind—motives which, however much we may regret their existence, must still be respected ? I do regret that any young person should take vows which are to last for the whole of her life. (Hear.) At the same time I am bound to say that there are many of these esta blishments in which the persons who enter devote them selves to a life, not of asceticism, but of active virtue and benevolence, employing their whole time in the education of the young, the reform of criminals, or other works in which Protestants may well desire to imitate them. (Hear.) This committee is asked for, not to inquire into the exist ence of convents, not into their increase, because the hon. gentleman has given us exact statistics upon that head, and I believe that an accurate list of all such establishments is to be found in the Catholic Directory—(hear, hear}—but into their character. Do you mean that it is to enter the con vents, examine into their regulations, and ascertain what practices prevail in those institutions ? Is the committee to travel about the country, or is it to call before it the in mates and superintendents of convents ? And if you adopt the latter course, do you think that you will find any one who will appeal to this committee to deliver her from the bondage in which the hon. gentleman seems to think that all these ladies are kept? The only thing that you can do to effect the object which the hon. member seems to have in view is absolutely to prohibit the existence of any con ventual establishments in this country. (Hear, hear.) And I believe this is what the hon. gentleman desires to do. Now I ask, would that be either just or desirable? With regard tc convents of men, they are so far prohibited by the act 10, Geo. IV., that it is provided that persons in this country who had taken vows of this nature were bound to register themselves within six months after the passing of the act, and persons coming to this country and who had taken the vows were bound to register themselves within six months after they came here. With regard to the future establish ments of such convents, they were declared to be absolutely illegal. There is, then, an absolute prohibition existing with respect to the future establishment of convents in which religious vows are taken by men. But the hon. gentleman says, in spite of all this, they have increased, and are increasing. Well, then, if that be so, is there any en couragement to us to go on imposing restrictions and pro hibitions which it is impossible to enforce? (Hear, hear.) If the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that in violation of the law persons have been admitted or are being admitted members of communities bound by religious vows or oaths, let him lay the evidence upon which he founds that belief before the Attorney-General, and then the Attorney-General will decide whether that evidence is sufficient or not. But the hon. gentleman, perhaps, will say that the object of his motion is to attain that end. (Hear, hear.) Then, I say, Sir, that is an object which a committee of the House of Commons will never assist him in accomplishing. (Hear, hear.) He asks the house to appoint a committee for the purpose of obtaining evidence upon which to found a prose cution against the persons who give it, evidence which the persons summoned before the committee are compelled to give. (Hear, hear.) Now, I ask, would the house ever do that ? (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Ox ford (Mr. Neate) alluded to France, and said there is a class of convents there subject to visitation. But, then, they are under the sanction of the State. We have made an excep tion with regard to convents in which women live who are bound by religious vows. We do not pass any law with re spect to them ; but, then. we do not recognise and sanction them ;we do not profess to regulate them. (Hear,-hear.) Will the hon. gentleman the member for North Warwick shire, and the hon. member for Peterborough agree to take them under the sanction of the State ? (Hear, hear.) If so, you can then make regulations which you cannot make now, and which it would be most inexpedient to make if you refuse to recognise them. (Hear, hear.) The effect of the prohibition of female convents would not be to diminish by one the number of the inmates of those establish ments, but it might be to drive them abroad, where they would be further than ever from their relatives and friends. (Hear, hear.) For all these reasons I think it would be extremely inexpedient to enter upon this inquiry unless the house is thoroughly satisfied of the existence in those establishments of physical coercion and restraint, which the law is at present unable to reach. I believe that no proof has been afforded either of the existence of such cases or of the inadequacy of the law, and, retaining that opinion, I shall vote against the motion of the hon. gentle man. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SCULLY, who was received with loud cries of "Di vide," said he was sure the house would give him a hearing as it always did to any one who was personally concerned in the question before it. (Oh !) He had never listened to any debate in that house with so much pain. (Oh !) The observations of the hon. member for North Warwickshire had been most insulting to him and to every Catholic mem ber. (A laugh.) He would not characterise the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough, for he was sure that hon. gentleman did not know what he was saying. (Laughter.) But his friend the hon.member. for Oxford (Mr. Neate), whom he would not have suspected of such ideas, had said that ho would support the motion on the grounds that he, as a Protestant, felt it necessary to interpose in behalf of the friends of Roman Catholic members who, out of reverence for the heads of their Church,would not inter fere for the protection of their own relatives. He (Mr. Scully) would have the greatest contempt for himself if any such feeling for priest or bishop, or even for his Holi ness himself, should prevent him from affording every pro tection in his power, not only to his own relatives, but to any other persons. He was in the habit of going to convents, he had sisters in them, and was it to be supposed that he felt no interest in their happiness ? Let. hon. gentlemen only change places, and imagine themselves some 30 Protes tants in a Catholic Parliament of some 600 members, and ask themselves what would bo their feelings under similar imputations. A sister of his was superioress of one of those convents, and he would bring the hon. member for North Warwickshire there if he wished. (Laughter.) He would bring him to any convent he pleased—there would be no difficulty in getting in. Any gentleman might do so who sent in his card ; in fact, there were no private female esta blishments of any kind into which it was so easy to get ad mission. He had great experience of convents, and no complaint of restriction or restraint had ever reached him. There were only 31 Catholic members from Ireland in that House, and onefroni. England, the noble lord the member for Arundel, and they were of course in the minority. The motion might be carried before the election, but what good would it do ? If it were an electioneering motion, what a miserable course to take upon such a question ; and then it was confined to Great Britain. (No, no.) Yes ; the terms were "to inquire into the'existence, character, and increase of the monastic and conventual establishments in Great Britain." (Hear, hear.) But Irishmen in England and out of it would deeply resent such a motion. It was the Catho lics who would be aggrieved if such absurd stories as had got into the head of the hon. member for Warwickshire were true, and it was a personal imputation on them of the most abominable kind. Did any one suppose that he would weigh his seat in the balance against the persecution in a convent of any relative of his ? The question was not what had happened in former times or other countries. (Hear, hear.) Did any one suppose that any lady now was im mured in a convent against her will? If so, would it not be known ? Then there was the trumpery case of Mrs. MTermott. The whole facts were in the hands of the hon. member for Peterborough, for it was he that drew up the affidavits, and he might easily see that it was a trumpery case if he only know how to draw the right conclusion. (Laughter.) The house then divided, when the numbers were — For Mr. Newdegate's amendment, 79 Against it 106 ••• ••• ••• Majority ••• ••• —27 The amendment was therefore negatived. ORDNANCE SURVEY. In answer to Sir W. JOLLIFFE, The Marquis of HARTINGTON said the report on the Ordnance Survey in the southern counties of England would be in the hands of members next week, and would furnish detailed information as to the progress of the sur vey and the publication of the Ordnance maps. The latter could not be published until the survey was made, but the two operations would go on simultaneously. The house then went into committee prof. The Court of Chancery (Ireland) No. 1 Bill was read a secoad time. The Industrial Exhibitions Bill passed through com mittee. _ W..." BRITISH KAFFRARIA. On the order for recommitting the British Kaffraria Bill, Mr. A. MILLS wished to know whether, in the ev ent of another Kaffir war breaking out, th e Imperial Governme nt would have a right to call upon the Cape colony to pro tect the territory p ro p ose d t o b e a nnexed to it by the b ill without the conse n t o f th e C a p e Legislature. Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that it being impossible to maintain the territory as a Crown colony, owing to its limited resources, without coming to Parliament for assist ance, the only alternative was to annex it, by the consent of Parliament, to the Cape, of which it naturally formed a portion ; and ho did not deny that it was an exercise of Imperial authority on the part of this house. The bill would in fact do more than carry out the views respecting our colonies of which til e hon. member was the exponent. Mr. MARSH approved of the bill as a fair and econo mical measure. Mr. ADDERLEY, having read all the papers relating to the subject, had come to the conclusion that the Govern ment had no alternative bat to ,introduce this scheme or abandon the territory altogether. Yr. CARDWELL remarked that for the defence of the Cape colony, and the suppression of the Kaffir disturbance on the frontier, there was no doubt we should be in a much better position after the passing of the bill than we were at present. The bill was then passed through committee. The select committee on Africa Western Coast was nominated on the motion of Mr. ADDERLEY. The select committee on commons and open spaces in the neigh bourhood of the metropolis- was also nominated on the motion of Mr. DOULTON ; and the house adjourned at a quarter to ten o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION'. HOUSE OF COMMONS—MARcH 3. MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL SOCIETIES Order for commitee of supply read. Motion made and question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair." Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words " a select committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of monastic or conventual societies or establishments in Great Britain," instead thereof. Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." The house divided — Ayes, 106 ; Noes, 79. AYES-103. Baines, E. Forster, C. O'Brien, Sir P. Baring, T. G. Fortescue, C. S. O'Ferrall , M. Beamish, F. B. Gavin, Major 0' 1: eilly, M. W. Beaumont, W. B. Gibson, T. M. Padmore, R. Beaumont, S. Greene, J. Palmer, Sir R. Beecroft, G. S. Gregory, W. H. Palmerston, Visa Bellew, R. M. Greville, Col. F. Peel, F. Blake, J. Grey, Sir G. Pilkington, J. Blencowe, J. G. Grosvenor, Earl Pollard Urquhart W Bouverie, P. P. Hadfield, G. Potter, E. Bowyer, Sir G. Handiey, J. Ramsden, Sir J. W. Boyle, G. F. Hartington,Marquis Ricardo, 0. Brady, Dr Herve}, Lord A. Rogers, J. J. Bright, J. Headlam, T. E. Russell, A. Bruce, H. A. Henuerson, J. Russell, F. W. Bury, Viscount Hennessy, J. P. Schneider, H. W. Buxton, C. ' Howard, C. W. G. Scholefietd, W. Cardwell, E. Howard, Lord E. G. Scourfielo, J. IL Castlerosse, Vist. Hutt, W. Scully, V.; Cheetham, J. Ingtam, R. Shafto, R. D. Clay, J. Johnstone, Sir J. Sidney, T. Colebrooke, Sir T.T. Jolliffe, Sir W. Smith, J. A. Collier, sir R. P. Kekewich, S. '2. Smith, J. B. Collins, T. Kinglake, Serj. J. Stanley, Lord Colthurst, Sir G. Lawson, W. Taylor, P. A. Cowper, W. F. Leader, N. P. - Tolleinache, J. Crawford, R. W. Leatham, E. A. Villiers, C. P. Dering, Sir E. Lennox, Lord G. G. Watkins, Col. L. Dillwyn, L. L. Locke, J. Weguelin, T. M. Douglas, Sir C. Longteld, R. Williamson, Sir H. Duff, M. E. MacEvoy, E. Wood, Sir C. Enfield, Viscount Maguire, J. F. Woods, H. Ewart, J. C. Matins, R. Fenwick, H. Marjoribanks, D. C. TELLERS. Fergudson, Sir J. Morris,W. Fitzgerald, W. S. Morritt, W. Brand, H. Fitzroy, Lord F. Murphy, N. D. White, L. NOES—r 9. Anstruther, Sir R. Ewing, H. E. C. Ogilvy, Sir J. Archdall, Capt.3l E. Fleming, T. W. O'Neill, E. Ayrton, A. S. Foley, H. W. Papillon, P. O. Aytoun, R. S. Gard, R. S. Pousonby, A. Barrow, W. IL Getty, S. G. Repton, G. W. J. Baxtzr, W. E. Gore, J. R. 0. Robartes, T. J. A. Beach, Sir M. Greenall. G. Rose, W. A. Beutinck, G. W. P. Gurney, S. Russell, Sir W. Beresford, W. Hamilton, Lord C. Selwyn, C. 3. Bovill, W. Hanbury, R. Smith, Abel Bremridge, R. Henley, Lord Smith, Augustus Bridges, Sir B. W. Holmesdale, Lord Somes, J. Brooks, R. lio: slab, T. B. Surtees. H. E. Bromley, W. D. Kinnaird, A. le. Sykes, Col. W. H. Butler, C. S. Knox, Major W. S. U'ollemache, F. J. Caird, J. Langton, W. U. G. Torrens, R. Cargill, W. W. Lefevre ' G. J. S. Vance, J. Carnegie, C. Lefroy, A. Vansittart, W. Cave, S. Long, R. P. Verney, Sir IL Churchill, Lord A. Lysley, V. J. Waloegrave-Leslie Clive, Capt. G. W. Mackie, J. Whalley, G. H. Cole, H. Malcolm, J. W. White, J. Cole, J. L. Martin, P. W. Wyndham, P. Craufurd, E. H. J. Merry, J. Doulton, F. Miller, T. J. TELLERS. Du Cane, C. Miller, W. Dunlop, A. M. Mills, J. R. Newdegate, C. Ewart, W. Neate, C. Stuart, Lt.-Col. W. Metropolitan Board of Works. The weekly meeting of the Board was held yes terday at the offices in Spring-gardens; Mr. Thwaites, the chairman, presiding. Mr. POLLARD read a letter from her Majesty's Office of Works relative to the Park-lane Improve ment Bill. The First Commissioner had expressed an opinion that a special clause should be introduced into the bill in order to provide for the protection of the rights of the Crown tenants in Hamilton-place, and to this the chairman had replied that the Lands Clauses Act had been incorporated in the bill for this purpose, and that at any rate the tenants could be heard before the committee on the bill. The First Commissioner now reiterated his wish that a special clause should be introduced into the bill, as he said the position of the tenants in Hamilton-place was very peculiar, inasmuch as their only injury might be the conversion of their quiet street into a noisy thoroughfare, an injury -which was not provided for by the Lands Clauses Act. Several exclamations were made by members that a special law was wanted for the West. Major LYON said the letter must excite universal surprise, asking as it did that a few persons should be selected for compensation, which the law of Eng land did not give to others. The erection of a rail way station close to the Palace of the Queen had no doubt been a great annoyance to her Majesty, yet no special law was sought to award compensation for the injury which the scream of the railway whistle had been to the dwellers in Buckingham Palace ; and how Mr. Cowper could suppose that such a law would be made for the inhabitants of Hamilton-place he did not know. The Board ought to express an opinion that such special legislation would be unjust. Mr. TITE, M.P., said he had pointed out to the Right Hon. F. Peel that the Lands Clauses Act, as incorporated in the bill, would give inhabitants of Hamilton-place the right to claim compensation for any injury they might sustain, and the right hon. gentleman had stated he was satisfied it would do so. Mr. NEWTON was of opinion that if opposition were thrown in the way of the bill the best thing to be done would be to withdraw. it. If such a clause as was asked for by the Hon. W. Cowper were in troduced, there would be no end to the expenses of the Board, for all sorts of injuries would have to be compensated for in all the improvements which the board carried out. Mr. CoLuNsoN moved that a letter should be sent to the First Commissioner, stating that the Board would not agree to the introduction in the Park lane Improvement Bill of any clause not in the Lands Clauses Act. Mr. HEALY seconded this motion. Mr. FREEMAN said after the experience of the Board in the Thames Embankment Act, through a special clause in which Act the Board had been made to pay very heavily for land, it would be very un wise to permit any more special legislation. The CHAIRMAN said if he understood the feeling , of the Board it was that they would resist the in troduction of any fresh principles such as this ; for, if the Board agreed to special legislation on behalf of the Crown tenants no objection could be made to have special legislation for other persons whose in terests might be affected by the board's works. Mr. MILLER, M.P., said the bill, he supposed, would go to committee, and if the clause were then introduced the bill would be abandoned. He did not however, think that the committee would introduce such a clause—a clause to give compensation to per sons for carriages going past their doors. The resolution proposed formally was " That in the opinion of the Board the interests of the parties affected by the Park-lane Improvement Bill are suf ficiently protected by the Lands Clauses .Act, and that this Board cannot be a party to any special legislation on the subject. On the suggestion of Mr. Miller, the last sentence was struck out, and the resolution to the word " act" was unanimously agreed to. Mr. TITE then called attention to the difficulty hitherto experienced in obtaining a sufficient supply of granite for the northern Thames embankment, and moved that a reference should be made to the Thames Embankment Committee to consider with the engineer whether some other description of stone than that used on the northern side might not with propriety be used for the facing of the southern em bankment. The hon. member said his only reason for introducing the subject was that the works might be pushed on as swiftly as possible, and he did not think the northern and southern embankments could be carried out together if it should be decided to use granite on both. He showed specimens of a lime stone which, he said, was almost indestructible, was used for great works on many parts of the Conti nent, and was cheaper than granite, and advised that the committee should consider whether this might be used. A lengthened discussion arose, in which Mr. New ton, Mr. Samuda, Mr. L. Taylor, Mr. Miller, M.P., and other members took part, and the chief objec tion to the stone was its colour. Mr. Tin, in reply, pointed to the Customhouse quay, and the embankment to the Rouses of Parlia. ment, and asked if any one could tell him what colour the stone of those places was ; to which the remark was vouchsafed, amid loud laughter, that the river had not been pure, and it would be when the embankment was made. The motion was carried. The engineer, Mr. BAZALGETTE, in making his monthly report of the main drainage and Thames Embankment, stated that the frost and unsettled weather of the past month had retarded all building operations, but that progress had been made with the board's works. He stated that the sewage was now let through the aqueduct over the Metropolitan Railway, and thus the connexion had been formed between the eastern and western portions of the Middle Level Sewer, which was now available to receive and carry off the whole of the drainage in tercepted in its route, conveying it from near the Mensal-green cemetery to Barking-creek. The length of the sewer was 12 miles, and its cost about £316,000. On the western extension se yers work had been done to the amount of £13,638, and only 300 ft. of sewer remained to complete the work. On the Northern Low Level Sewer £96,450 represented the work done up to the present time. On the north side of the river 81 miles of the Low Level Sewer had been completed at a cost of about £204,000 ; work to the value of £13,200 had been executed at the Green wich and Deptford sewers, and with respect to the Crossness outfall works, these were rapidly approach ing completion, and their cost at the pr,esent time was £288,500. On the first contract of the Thames Embankment the single-piled dam hadbeen replaced by a double cross dam, and excavations had been made for the steamboat pier at Westminster, a work which had been somewhat retarded by leakage and other causes. Upwards of 400 piles had been driven in the main line of dam, 950 ft. of caissons had been sunk, and about 40ft. of the lower part of the wall constructed, about 1,547 ft. of intercepting sewer constructed, and 160,000 cubic yards of filling-in material. supplied. The value of the work done was £27,146 ; of materials, £21,966 ; and of plant, £51,538 ; in all, £100,650. On the second contract, that between Waterloo-bridge and the Temple, the stone work had during the month been brought up to an average level of 13ft. above low water for a length of 226 ft. The brickwork of the Low Level Sewer was also completed for the length, and the subway above was in course of construction. The dam on the river was progressing, and 190,000 cubic yards of material had been filled in behind the line of wall. The value of the work done was £59,615 ; of materials, £9,338, and plant, £16,110 ; in all, £85,063. It was agreed that the Board should oppose any application by the Messrs. Hall for a licence to store gunpowder near the southern outfall works at Erith. The Charge of Conspiracy to Defraud Insurance Offices. Yesterday Mr. John George Barry and Mr. Alfred Barry, brothers, wharfingers;at Meriton's wharf, Bermondsey, who with threo of their foremen and clerks, named Thorne, Arnett, and Sedgwick, stand charged with conspiracy to gether to defraud the Royal exchange and other insurance offices, were brought before Mr. Alderman Stone at the Justice-room of the Mansion-house, for further examina tion. To render the proceedings of yesterday intelligible it is necessary to be remembered that in June last, and again in November, a fire took place at the wharf of Messrs. Barry, destroying large quantities of valuable commodities, but principally jute, seeds, and rice, the, fire of November being of the two much the more disastrous. The defendants are accused, in effect, of conspiring tegether to misrepresent and exaggerate the quantities of merchandise burnt on those occasions, and particularly in November, with the view to defraud various insurance-offices in which it was insured. Mr. Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Humphreys, solicitor, of Newgate-street, again conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in structed by Messrs. Tilleard and Co., Old Jewry, defended the Messrs. Barry ; and Mr. Lewis, jun., and Mr. Moss the three other prisoners, Thorne, Arnett, and Sedgwick. John Still, a clerk to Messrs. Barry, was called, and proved that the signature " Barry Brothers" to a list of goods destroyed by fire on the 7th of June at their wharf, was in the handwriting of Mr. Alfred Barry, the list itself being in that of a clerk named Duckett. The cargo ledger pro duced, so far as it related to the cargo of the Sebastian Cabot, from Calcutta, showed, he said, under the date of the Ist of August, 1863, that the entire importation of jute by that vessel was 500 bales. There was afterwards written off that number certain quantities which had been delivered (110 bales in all) down to October, leaving 390 out of the 500 ; and the 390 were represented to have been destroyed by fire on the 7th of June. The warehouse report-book of Messrs. Barry, of the date of the 17th of August, 1864, showed that 164 bales of jute, with distinctive marks, by the Sebastian Cabot, had been removed from No. 1 warehouse into the barge Susan ; 48 bales by the ship Raleigh, 74 by the William Cole, and 10 by the Alameda. The entries, ho said, were in Arnett's handwriting. By Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—After the second fire there was a great deal of confusion on the wharf. The books had to be carried away in baskets and bags. He could only speak of the entries as to jute, and not as to the disposal of the jute. Josiah Fage, who had been in the service of Messrs. Barry, and who gave the information to the insurance offices which led to their arrest, and that of their servants, was recalled by Mr. Giffard. .He said he was engaged in break ing down certain bales of jute by the Sebastian Cabot, and assisted in putting them into a barge called the Cat. That was about six or seven weeks after the fire. The barge was brought under the door of the warehouse No. 1 for the purpose, and he tallied the bales with chalk on the back of the door. He had since pointed out the door on which he chalked the tallies to Haydon, a detective officer, the tallies being still visible. By Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—He had been in the offices of Msssrs. Barry since they were in custody. He could not say ho was there alone. He went there to see the police officers. They had sent for him, and after remaining for some minutes he was told he was not wanted. • Detective Sergeant Haydon proved that since the last examination he went to warehouse No. 1 with the witness Fage, who pointed out to him a chalk tally on the door. It was written with abbreviations as regarded the names of the vessels by which the jute alleged to have been put into the barge Susan had arrived, but these explained it appeared that of the jute so disposed of 164 bales had come by the Sebastian Cabot, 48 by the Raleigh, 74 by the Wil liam Cole, and 10 by the Alameda. Mr. Charles Crowther, examined by Mr. Giffard—l am a merchant at 50, Lime-street, and was formerly in the ser vice of Messrs. Barry, as managing clerk. I kept the cargo ledger, invoice books, and others. I left them 10 years ago, and have for the last six years been in the habit of buying various commodities of- them. During 1864 I bought several things of them. I have my cash-book and check book here. I produce two checks of my own, one dated the 22d of August last for £2OO, and another on the 27th of September for £249 16s. 11d. They were paid by me to Messrs. Barry, and afterwards returned to me as paid through my bankers. There are also one for £77 4s. 4d. dated the 27th of October, 1864, and another for £2OO dated the sth of December. Those also were sent by mo to Messrs. Barry, and afterwards returned to me through my bankers as paid. They refer to sweepings bought by me of them, of which I produce certain memoranda. They were made at the time of the various purchases. " Linseed, clean samples," mentioned in one of them, are not sweepings. The entries are as I bought the goods. I cannot tell whether they were all sweepings. One item refers to commodities that were thrown on their hands, and were not sweepings. Duplicates of the memoranda were sent by me to Messrs. Barry at the times to which they refer. One contained an entry as to 174 cwt. of loose jute purchased in Sep tember last by me. I arrived at the quantities by the delivery-notes brought by the carmen of Messrs. Barry. I did not keep the delivery orders. The course of busi ness would be this. Mr. Alfred Barry would see me on the corn market and show me samples, and I would after wards arrange the price with him. lie would then give me a memorandum, for which I should have to get a pass-note, and upon presenting the pass -note the goods would be delivered. There were no invoices. The doing business by me in that way without invoices is only with Messrs. Barry. From others I have invoices sometimes. I refer to the counterfoils of the checks I have mentioned. The checks for £2OO and for £249 odd refer to the goods mentioned in the first 11 memoranda. The two other checks for £2OO and £77 4s. 4d. relate to the goods in the remaining documents. That left a balance due to Messrs. Barry by me of £45 odd. I have not paid them that, because I have an account against them for about £3O. I see an entry in the cashbook of Messrs. Barry of the 27th of August last, " Sal vage and contingencies, C. Crowther, £lOO. Wages account not passed through bankers, £100." I cannot say what that re fers to; I have not the least idea. I did not pay them £lOO on the 27th August, nor did they pay me any money on that day. I don't know anything of a sum of "£l3 ss. Bd., per C. Crowther, for salvage and contingencies, October 31 ;" nor of "Wages account, per C. Crowther, £166 11s. 3d." The check for £249 16s. 11d. refers to several transactions men tioned in 11 of the documents I have produced. I do not know of any sum passing between me and Messrs. Barry for " salvage and contingencies, per C. Crowther, £66 10s., Dec. 7, 1864 ;" nor for "£133 10s. wages account." I know of no such transactions. On October 31, I did not receive a check from Messrs. Barry for £249 16s. 11d., nor any check about that time ; nor on Jan. 30 last a check for £2OO. I never received any check for a salvage and contingency account. By Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—There was a considerable amount of refuse at Messrs. 13arry's wharf always from seed; that is the case at all such wharfs, and "swe e p ings is a perfectly well understood and recognised term. I have had no transactions with the Messrs. Barry since the fire in November. I received a check from them in Decem ber last but that was in respect of transactions before the fire. Jute ld always sampled on-the wharf and kept for a certain time, an in case of any damage the wharfinger has had to bear the loss, and then the damaged commodities remain in shi P OS session. Sometimes articles are not ready at hand, and they require to be reinstated. That frequently happened when I was there. In those cases the wharfinger would have to pay the value, and if the goods were afterwards found they would become his property. To the best of my b elief that is a usual practice at similar wharves. These are the largest seed warehouses in the metropolis. They were verl large when I was employed th ere , an d they have sin ce be end greatly extended. The articles I bought always requ ire d sifting and cleaning. I have never bought a bale of soul jute of them that I remember. Mr. Alex. Rosa (Rose, Wilson, and Graham), Thread needle-street, was recalled. He had heard the eviden ce of tl-!0 last witness as to missing and damaged goods. W itness own firm frequently received checks from Messrs. BarrY claims which they had made on them on account of mislin or damaged goods. In a large warehouse like the irs ther s e . would be necessarily always a great quantity of sweePillgid Witness's firm had frequently put up by auction and se, sweepings and damaged goods lying at the wharf of gessrd, Barry. On these occasions a regular catalogue was Printe and the auction was quite public. By Mr. Giffard—lt was only customary for wharfingers to deal in goods thrown on their hands; they cou ld not 11€11 ) themselves. It was not usual for a wharfinger to deal In a goods. Sweepings might be out of 20 or 30 ships. Ile 511°1i if call 900 quarters of sweepings a large quantity in one year, purely . sweepings. He remembered one of the do ck ? era pames selling 500 quarters in six months on one occasonci By Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—" Sweepings" migh t inchl damaged goods and parcels. Besides being a wh arfinge d Mr. Alfred Barry was an assayer of seed, and VMS entitle as such, to half a bushel out of a certain quantity ° adulterated and sample seeds, and that would afterWarav belong to him. hin Benjamin George Hogg, a carman, deposed that it the last year he had often conveyed jute and other goods for Mr. Crowther from Meriton's-wharf to his depot at florseir down. Mr. Crowther was recalled, and, in reply to g r. l' el ,:1 ; 7 said the goods referred to by the carman were thos e Be '- purchased at Meriton's-wharf. this Mr. Lewis, to the Bench—l only want to show b on inquiry is being prolonged for no earthly purpose. herts Mr. Edwin Radmall, managing clerk to Messrs. 14) ; a t and Brown, assessors of fire offices, said he received at Meriton's-wharf the list produced of the goods destr oyea of the June fire. In that list it was stated that 390 bale,srhe jute by the Sebastian Cabot were destroyedby the fire. ed list, errors and omissions excepted, was afterwar d s retu-Toi. to Messrs. Barry, and after they had made certain Otbe tions and alterations to it the list was sent back . of warehouse book of Messrs. Barry he found no en trie s f ' sales to Mr. Charles Crowther ; but he found 60 ent"eo; deliveries by the carman Hogg. In no case was gr• th o se ther's name mentioned in the book in connexion With deliveries. donM ra.uSdamLuaenlePasTrreosLCsuorlaemneaen,sub-manag.2.r. to i j ° 11 11 1 : Company, Sing o f street, city, proved that a policy for £l,BOO in l a vc* „ e t Mr. Theodore Baxter was issued from the office in re .. ,%, e t of 394 bales of jute at Meriton's-wharf. It was in I ' 9 ', - i n % the June fire. Towards September, 1864, after the e ' 3 3 l had been paid, Mr. Alfred Barry called at the office a uci , s t i l l o with respect to that claim the office had omitted to g e l the usual wharfinger's certificate of the goods being th ere ti ,iveo time of the fire. Witness said they had satisfied thero6' as the goods were there by verbal i quiry, but still it wo e a . oversight that the usual certificate had not been o btaio ia vy. Mr. Barry said theymust at once see that a dishones t te, ant might get his money without the wharfinger's certim:3 and that the wharfinger might be d e f rau ded of his rell ' the Mr Theodore Baxter said he received his cla ini tpre' policy with respect to the jute by the Sebastian Cabe', never sented to have been destroyed by the same fire. Il e , 11 1 , - ,Jee heard from Messrs. Barry, or from anyone, tha t 1, of jute by that vessel had been found in Warehouse li o a At this point an application was made by the Prose to to have the prisoners again remanded for a week. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine thereupon renewed bis a P , i e t tB tion that the Messrs. Barry might be admitte d to b°.`" did also the solicitors for the other prisoners, gr. lj _ e t 92 marking that they had already been eight weed 311 K -1 0011 pending the inquiry. Mr. Alderman Stone said when he declined to D" airi to bail on the last occasion he was in hope that the rn4 the might on the present occasion have terminate bY ple a parties being either discharged or committed. It se e If now that the inquiry would be a very lengthened one. I d the remand asked for had been for a day or two be st not have accepted bail ; but when he found th at the loug-ro_ interval allowed by law for a remand was aske d b y the Poo secution, and that time was really essen tial to them to c plete their case, he thought he should be justified it :l '; n milting the defendants to bail, but it must bo substantial character—namely, each of the Messrs. 13 ' 1 , 1 ,: n i themselves in £2,500, with two sureties for each a t- s , 0 of £1,500, making .£ll,OOO ; for Thorne in £ 5 OO analnt r sureties of £250 each, and each of the two other P ris°---e £250 and two sureties of £125 each. „ n Th e The bail demanded altogether amounted to Xl37ovv•fortl - requisite sureties for the brothers Barry were at onc e coming, one of them being a leading director of on° , of ther e insurance companies, and they were liberated; and was a difficulty in the case of their three serv3lit°' they were again removed in custody. COUNTRY MARKETS ~,..-------- LIVERPOOL.—FRIDAY. i n We had only a meagre attendance at our ra arkei . 0 - i jot e" and the demand for wheat slow, at about the 11. 1 Friday. Flour dull and the turn lower to. ' it to o e corn still neglected, and holders find it dan cli " without making a small concession in price. LINCOLN.—FRThAY. ar'" `to 5 9°1 ( 0 New white wheat, 40s to 44s ; new red, 3 6 5, g rio,,„ to done. Barley for malting, 32s to 34s per cl i r i l fi 's s °' 27s to 31s per 30 stone. Oats,' 22s to 255. •"`"- 42s per qr. DERBY—FRIDAY. to 4 iii Pe O r : o v New white wheat, 41s to 44s ; new red,l 37o i stone. Barley for malting, 30s to 33s per qr. ;_f d ` , 0 0 , v9 g 27s to 28s per 30 stone. Oats, new, 23s to 25s ; ° 37 , to 27s par 24 stone. Beans, old, 42s to 45s ;i ne w ' per qr. AKEFIELD.—FDAT. s g Good supplies o W f grain this week.Rl Wheat Itle i e S at o; retail demand at last Friday's prices. Barley " aia; rates. In other articles no change. ell, 41 The following are the averages for the v.re'i-oy, Feb. 27 :—Wheat, 2,332 qrs., at 40s ll i d; qrs., at 30s ; oats, qrs., at —lBs Od ; at s Od ; peas, qrs., at —s Od. • STAMFORD.—PILTDAY. r os' n9O P e 3os New white wheat, 40s to 435; new red, 3 5s t ° 7 74 t° o• ' stone. Barley, malting, 31s to 34s • • ding 2l if s t°l3 per qr. Oats, new, 18s to 245; old, 25s to 2 8 sP er Beans 38s to 40s per 38 stone. Peas as heretofore. BRISTOL SUGAR.—FRIDA I ' . t Joel; There has been a fair demand this week for ritos tions of sugar, and prices are rather high er ; doi os. sugar sells steadily at late rates. Rum, nothinb COAL It Price per ton at the ARK - RT. close of the taarlcet• 1 1 6 South Kelloe • ......... Kelloe .............. • 9 . Cassop ................ g 5 Wylam .... .. Walls End ....... 13 17 ; Keiper Grange. ... " 1 1 0 East Hartlepoo ••••. South Ilartlepoolo•••• 6 Hartlepool ...... •"••• Caradoc ...... ••••"•''''' 1 6 6 Tunstall ...... •••••'''' 1 1 0 Russell's Hettoi?. • • 4"; ll Birehgrove Grsie 164 ; sold, s. d. Davison's W. Hartley 15 0 Cowpen Hartley Hastings Hartley l5 0 Walls End Hetton Lambert's W. Hartley 14 9 Carway and_Dulfryn Malting 22 0 Braddyll'sHetton l7 9 Tanfield Moor Butes 13 9 South Hetton Walls End Haswell l9 0 Eden Main Heugh Hall l7 0 Ships ai market Births. 0 00 , fb Of HUMPIIREYS.—On the 2d inst., at Dover, the w .. ; - sal °. ,c Humphreys, of Lincoln's-in; barrister, of Wi n o ,plA' ' MOCATTA.—On the 3d inst., at 15, U p per W f ° b 2 ll. o• te W.C., the wife of Abraham Mocatta,Esq., c a' - ° l l g l 4 '-i' f NORREYS.—On the 2d inst., Lady NorreYs7 c ''' s 4 cl h 3 o lv" ° ° FERCIVAL.—On the 2d inst., at Clifton Coll e g e ' - the Rev. J. Percival, of adaughter. Idaniages. - ~ hil l ' , g t Al lll- ol e : O'DossELL—CHESNEY.—On the 28th ult., at E-, oft - 0.- Blarney, Nicholas Michael O'Donnell, Lieuscitar more, co. Cork, to R.A.ae, eldest daughter a e .01 General Chesney, , v o rifo' , e t SCRYMGEOUR—STEELE.—On the 2d inst., av -- 011 ' 01„5utef Sturrock Scrymgeour, Esq., Manager Corporation, Singapore, to Susan, s econd ' John Steele, Esq., Forfar. 11 lacis Hou -W se Deaths. BE::: ~ - I ,o o n r tht h- ge a 2 t 4 e t hi teu lt., at , her retshiedeolifiipStet°:“*.°' Bellew, aged 58. , Vallotil FALLON.—On Jam es o f the Ist inst., at Peckham, Mr. ' Regent's-park , s-p rk, 10 aged 64. GROVER. niovert p re allee Suddenly, at Kensington, 3 1179 * — Bton '- the Rev. — John S. Grover, Vice-Provost of le aged 78. li I A LAWRANCE.—On the 28th ult., at Maida-bill, M. . co MACDONALD.—On the Ist inst., at ranee, Esq., aged 69.) ter° Cqm . pden-hill, Kensington, C tain Gordon v' I r a ef4, donald, R.N., aged 71. P _,: ' vo lioi, ridg e YATES.—On the Ist inst., Mary, Wiie O. lna/ Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, and 3, Nevill-par/r/ wells. 3, Gioncest,teariiio ..,s0 London :Printed and pubmhed by wiLA34,.., 00' 1 0. of No. 112, Strand, Painter, at Tas Sniq 07-coloti Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, Middlesex. — Saturday , March 4, 1865.