The Sun. — London, England, 1835-02-12 00:00:00

PIRIT OF Ti.IE PUBLIC JOURNALS. A comfortable prospect is afforded the old friends of the British, constitution as to the blessings which await us from' the ever-quickening march of democracy, in the attempts of the busier portion of electors through out the country to browbeat their Representatives into a vote for Mr. Abercromby as Speaker, to the exclu sion of Sir Charles M. Sutton. The previous inter meddling of a constituency with the act of its Mem ber, and the dictation to him how he shall give his vote, is barely and doubtfully tolerated by the consti tution of England. A petition to the House of Com mons, in its aggregate character, is the regular course of proceeding. A specific instruction upon any especial matter, transmitted by electors to the object of their choice, cannot indeed be fairly murmured at, where the question is -Ist, one of peculiar local interest, in volving the immediate welfare of the county, city, or borough, from which the instruction or recommenda tion emanates ; 24, where the question is one of such paramount and universal importance, that no section or subdivision of the community, however minute, can be supposed to escape its pressure, but that every village throughout the kingdom is, through the national inte rest or honour, substantially, though not directly, affected by its decision. But we should be glad if any of our liberal contemporaries would inform us on what ground, or through what pr ocess o f remote or contin gent operation, for direct or immediate none is so much as pretended, can the interests of the several constituen cies throughout the kingdom be concerned in the choice of that officer of the House of Commons who merely presides to maintain the formality of its proceedings, whose chief business is to take care that the several stages of each measure follow each other in a fit and recognized succession, and that the members de mean themselves towards each other and towards the House with so much deference and so much dignity, as shall ensure the prevalence of order, and prevent the waste of time in irregular discussion or unseemly al tercation. The Speaker may have other duties, but they are only occasional or incidental. He hardly ever speaks to the merits of any question—he hardly ever votes—he takes less part in carrying or defeating .a public measure then any other representative of the people in Parliament. He is essentially the officer and servant of the }LIM when constituted—not of those who send up as their representatives the several Com ponent parts of it. When the constituencies through out the kingdom obtrude themselves upon such a tran saction by menaces, dictation, or even by advices, they meddle with that which is the exclusive business of their representatives, whom, in effect, they pro tanto endeavour to unseat. When we hear, therefore, of self-constituted election committees meeting and draw ing up resolutions, and transmitting them to their members, prescrib:n g to them what candidate they shall raise to the chair of the House of Commons, our next expectation is that they will point out the person who in their judgment shall be best qualified for the office of chairman of committees —nay, the members of all select committees with their several chairmen. Never was there exhibited in this kingdom a more alarming specimen of passion run wild, or of popular tyranny insatiable in its encroachments on the Constitution. With respect to this present question of the Speaker ship, it has been treated under two points of view -Ist, as regards persons : 2d, as regards principles. In touching on the personal division of the subject, we challenge any of our antagonists in the discussion to point out a singi.n passage of all that we, have written where the slightest allusion to . Mr. Abercromhy per sonally fell front us of an ividious, disparaging, or offensive nature. The single point of his poli tical career on which we offered a syllable of corn inent, was forced upon us by the repeated extra vagance of his supporters in the present contest, who attempted to deduce from it the materials of high panegyric —vi z ., th e Ri g h t Hon. gentleman's acces sion to a Judg e's pl ace , which and the wh o l e party of whi c h he was a member, had long before con demned as a uscle,s sinecure, and his acceptance after wards of a considernVe pension for resigning it. On this topic we hay,: riclid enough to illustrate our own sense of the faits as they stand recorded, and more than gave us an gratification. But a far graver and more interesting argument to dispose of is that by which Lord Ruseell, as it appears, overcame the sent pies of Mr. A:)crcromby—namely, that the Right Hon. Gentleman's election to the Chair would be the " vindication of el great public principle." A letter which we publish in to=day's Times, and which we need not. describe to our readers as an able one, signed " An • Old Member," places this fiction of " a great principle" on its proper footing. The writer there makes out and enforces—in a manner so striking as must arrest the deep attention of every one who reads him, that the only principle which can be vindicated or served by the triumph of the Whig-Radical faction, is the principle of Repeal of the Union—by throwing into the hands of that un principled cheat and liar, O'Connell, the great bulk of the power which would he exercised in the name of the joint Government of Radicals and Whigs. It is plain that th e Ult ra -R a di ca l s b e i ng t h e most numerous as well as the most active, energetic, and overbearing, of the whole partnership, would throw aside the lan guid and vacillating Whigs. With that indiscretion which hangs upon vicious cunning—as his rattle be trays the poisonous serpent ere he bites—O'Con nell has made within the last week, in the course of a speech which proved how mortally the Times had wounded him—by a farrago of outrageous falsehood and absurdity against persons whom he assumed to be connected with this journal—he made, we say, the impudent but not useless avowal, that he would sus pend his machinations for a repeal of the union only so long as the Conservatives should be in power, and renew them the very first moment that he should suc ceed in restoring the Whig party to office I There is in this at least 'no fraud ; there may be inconsistency by reason that there is no dishonesty ; but dishonesty there is none. He fccels his repeal of the Union—that is, the breaking up of the British empire--to be a desperate game—to be a pure chimera—;so long as the Government of Sir Robert Peel shall be at its post to defeat him ; but the hour that the Conservative Go vernment falls, and that any thing under the name of Whig shall usurp the place of it, in that hour every difficulty disappears from before the destructive power —O'Connell triumphs, and old England falls. Can any thing be more obvious than this whole category, or more edifying to the people of England than the lesson thus held out to them ? Are not cause and consequence—are not act and motive—are not premises and conclusion clear enough to satisfy all doubts—to rouse every wise man to precaution, and to animate every patriot with eager courage, and honest hatred of the sworn enemies of Great Britain ? It is above our humble intellect to conceive a combination of reasons more powerful, more terrible, than those we have now briefly indicated, and which our corre spondent has developed with far more skill and force, for deciding every man in this country, who can see an inch before him, to , resist at the very outset a scheme of Parliamentary manoeuvres, of which the object, on the part of its most effective promoters, is, under the mask of a mere change of Ministry, to wrest Ireland from the hand that wields the British sceptre, or to retain her at the cost of an immediate civil war.—Times. The question of Church Reform naturally excites very great and general interest. 'We have proofs of the feeling that pervades society, and the spirit of inquiry that is abroad, in the number of communications which we receive upon the subject, but few of which we have it in our p ower t o l ay b e f ore t h e pu bli c, consistently with supplying the demands that other important ques tions make upon our columns. From a mass of those communications we have selected one to-day, to which we would direct the attention of our readers. It is signed " A Conservative." The writer, as his signa ture implies, is one who would preserve the sacred edifice of the Church against the violence of its enemies, but not spare its abuses. His letter is well written— of liberal, as distinguished from destructive sentiments —and marked with good feeling and good sense. This letter relates more especially to the subject of Church Reform as bearing upon cathedral and collegiate churches. 'We expressed our own opinion on this part of, the question the other day. Our correspondent baying adverted to our t;entiments, proceeds to say, "you would first of all provide, and that amply, for the preser- THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1835. vation of the fabric, and then for thefidt performance of all its duties. In the latter portion of this short sentence how much is comprehended. And how great is the task you would impose upon men whose high distinction it is to make the attempt to accomplish it I" Yes, we would impose a very great and serious task upon those who undertake the work of Church-reform, because we would have that reform not a partial or a superficial one, but full, efficient, and satisfactory. We would have the dead and rotten - branches lopped from the tree—the fungous excrescences which draw off its nutriment, and inflict upon it disease and debility, un sparingly cleared away—the parasitical plants that entwine themselves round its venerable trunk, and ex haust the sources of its vitality, wholly rooted out, that we might no longer see its strength and freshness decaying under the withering influence of their n o xious embrace. This is not destruction—it is preservation ; it is the means of renewing the vital energy of that Gospel-tree of the Church which sprung, under the favouring care of Heaven, through the storms of per secuting ages, from a seed small as a grain of mustard —that it may throw forth its branches more luxuriantly than ever beside the living waters, that the people may rest under its shade, and that it may spread itself abroad more than ever—a shelter to the poor andan ornament to the land. Such a work of saving and restorative reform is therefore not an acceptable or popular work with those de structive politicians who only recognise "improvement" in acts of desolation, and would make "reform" the han dle to the axe which they are eager to lay to its roots. The description of the uses and advantages of cathe drals, as given by our correspondent, is, in our opinion, perfectly correct. " A cathedral," he says, " nominally the seat of the Diocesan, I have learned to regard, and I believe justly, as the parish church of a diocese—a house of prayer to be always open to all corners, who shall have a desire either to offer up a silent prayer to Heaven, or to join, at the convenient hour, in the public worship of God. This, I conceive, to be not merely the privilege of all, but the indisputable right of every Christian person in the diocese." Nor do the following sentiments, relative to the better applica tion of cathedral revenues, for better and holier pur poses than the pampering of stall-fed pluralists, less coincide with our own :—" I would ask you, then to provide for this by a better management of cathedral revenues than is at present prac tised ; by the utter extermination of those wild branches of the olive tree (the sinecunsts) which obstruct the growth of the fruitful branches ; by the pruning of the superfluous boughs (for of what imaginable use can be a Dean and Chapter and twelve Resideritiary Canons in directing the affairs of West minster Abbey ? Four, as at St. Paul's, are quite • enoush ) By the curtailment o f th ose exorbitant rsin conies which induce little else but luxury and indo. lence upon those who possess them, you would provide yourself with funds sufficient to carry into effect all your excellent purposes." We also agree with our Corre spondent that the servants of the church, appointed to protect the building and its contents from injury, should be paid out of the revenues of the cathedral, and not out of the pockets of the people. Our venera ration for those splendid temples of the Deity— our cathedrals—makes us utterly abhor and detest the practice of converting them into show-boxes for mercenary lucre. We would have. the cathedrals thrown open to all the people, as houses of prayer, well endowed, like our cathedrals, ought to be. We would put a stop to those " disgusting scenes which we are now compelled to witness in these sacred edifices, of verger's thirsting after the con gregation's money, as voraciously as vampire-bats would suck their blood." We would drive the money changers from the temple. We would restore its sanctity to the house of prayer, by putting an end to those practices which desecrate with the sordid rites of Mammon the temple of the living God. Such grasp ing mercenary practices are indeed.wholly inconsistent with the elevated feelings and pious thoughts which our cathedrals, with all their solemn grandeur of ar their venerable beauties seen through the " dim re . gious light" that impressed the mind even o f th e ste Republican defender of the liberties of England with emotions of holy awe, are so• Avell calculated to inspire. Neither the examples of puritanical zeal nor the rage of Republican principles could make th e sou l o f Mil . . ton cease to regard with sentiments of veneration the hallowed magnificence of the cathedral, or the solemn pomp of its service, with the " pealing organ" and the " full voiced" choir, which— " Dissolved him into eestacies And brought all Heaven before his eyes." And yet it is quite possible that a harpy of a verger in truding upon his sublime meditations to extort a fee might dissipate even his glorious visions, and remind him of earth again, with all its grossness, venality, and corruptions. When our correspondent says that " the greatest national consideration should be how to provide for the comfort and happiness of the poor," it is unne cessary to tell our readers that we are of the same opinion, because we have always advocated the com fort and happiness of the poor, and never more than since a systematic attempt has been made by per sons calling themselves philosophers, and pretend ing to be " Liberals," to abridge their comforts—to make a mockery of their misfortunes, and trample their rights in the dust. It will not be denied that the poor have as great an interest in the instruction and consola- tions of religion as the rich. To them the " voluntary system," as it is called, makes religion a sealed book, for it only extends its advantages to those who can pay. The Church of England was intended, not merely to open wide the portals of spiritual knowledge to the rich, but to preach the gospel to the poor. They have an interest in its reform and preservation, because it is endowed for their spiritual comfort and improvement. The system of exaction practised in our cathedrals now pretty generally excludes them from those holy places which ought to be as open to them as to the most af fluent members of society. We believe that, allowing the people to have free access to the cathedrals, and the works of art and memorials of piety which they contain, would not only promote the religious feelings of the mass of society, but improve the public taste. It is truly said, that " they would learn to love those venerable structures as their own—to gaze on them with delight, and to prize all those.: splendid memorials of public virtues, which they are now chiefly inclined to mutilate and destroy." It is the spirit of exclusiveness, arising, in this instance, out of sordid cupidity, which tends to degrade and barbarize the public taste. Let the people become familiar with works of art, and as they become sensible of their value, they will extend to ' them their prot ec ti on . Confident we , are, that as re gards cathedrals and the treasures of art which they contain, liberality to the people will be repaid with gratitude, and religious impressions go hand in hand with intellectual improvement.—Morning Herald. "It was reported yesterday in well-informed circles, and the report emanates from authority, that overtures have been made by the Ministry to Lord John Russell, of some other leading man among the Whigs, to the effect that if the Whigs will throw overboard Mr. Abercromby, and bring forward Mr. Spring Rice in his place, the Tories will not oppose that gentleman, and will give up Sir C. Manners Sutton." We have the above report from a Tory friend ; but we beg his pardon for not believing it to be true. The Tories must be more weak than we supposed them to be, to make such an expression of their weakness, and the Liberals the most egregious fools to listen to the pro position. The offer was no doubt made to divide the Whig camp ; but the offer will be in vain. The union is complete—the Tories are beaten—and the Whigs would be the veriest fools on God's earth to listen to the counsels of their enemies.—Morning Advertiser. Having been successively driven from position after position upon the subject of the Speakership, our Whig-Radical Contemporaries arc, we perceive, en deavouring at last to entrench themselves in that which is, perhaps, the most untenable of any they have yet attempted to defend—the pretext, namely, that Sir Charles Manners Sutton is less eligible for the office than Mr. Abercromby, because the political sentiments of the Speaker of the House of Commons ought to be in accordance with those of the majority of that assembly. How, we beg to ask, then, did it happen that the Whig Ministry and their adherents never once thought of the necessity of this corre spondence two years ago, when they solicited Sir Charles Manners Sutton to occupy the Chair, al- though in the Parliament which then existed it was manifest and notorious that political sentiments pre dominated, which were not in unison with those enter tained and professed by that Right Honourable Gen tleman ? To this question one answer, and one only, can be given. They preferred Sir Charles Manners Sutton for Speaker to any other individual, because they believed that the business of the House of Com mons would proceed with greater regularity, expedi tion, and facility, under his guidance and direction, than under the guidance and direction of any other of its Members ; and because,. both as Ministers of the Crown, having to conduct many important public mea snres through the House of Commons, and as the au thors of the Reform Bill, naturally anxious that the character of that assembly should be well sustained during the first Session of its reformed existence, they had the strongest personal added to the strongest pub lic motives for desiring that the business of legislation should proceed with ease, promptitude, and decorum. This explanation of the conduct of the Whigs in 1833 ie clear, explicit, and satisfactory. It is that which they themselves have given, and it is only fair to admit that it is very creditable to them as a political party. But now comes another question, which we lament to say, cannot be answered in a manner equally honourable to the Whig party. How happens it that any of the men (we hope and expect that they will be but few) who in 1833 implored Sir Charles Manners Sutton to assist them in the capacity of Speaker of the House of Commons, in carrying on the business of the country in Parliament upon the alleged and sole ground of his pre-eminent and un rivalled qualifications for the office, should now, in 1835, seek to supply his place by another person, and by one whom their own repeated and emphatic decla rations authorise us to describe as less qualified for the discharge of its onerous and important duties ? It cannot be pretended that the objection to Sir Charles as Speaker on the ground of his belonging to the party of the minority is as strong now as it was in 1833, when the Whigs literally forced him into the Chair. On the contrary, the party to which ti a Right Hon. Gentleman is understood to be personally attached, if it do not constitute a numerical majority of the whole House, is undeniably at the present moment the strongest in point of numbers of any of the various parties of which the House is composed. Why, then, we are curious to know, should any section of the Whigs now be so anxious as they show themselves to exclude from the chair the gentleman whose election in 1833 they laboured so zealously to pro mote ? We have already suggested the only an swer which can possibly be given to this question. The Whigs were in office in 1833. It was con ducive to their interest and convenience at that period that the business of the House of Commons should be well conducted, and, in order to this, that the man best qualified for Speaker should be placed in the chair. Personal and public motives in the minds of the Whigs were then arrayed on' the same side of the question, for the management of the affairs of the country were in their hands. But now the case is entirely altered. The Whigs are out of office. It is no longer essential to their interest or convenience that the business of the House of Com mons shall be well conducted. They care not, there fore, whether the Chair be filled by a good Speaker or a bad one. In a word, the personal and the public motives of the Whigs, which when combined gave the chair to Sir Charles Manners Sutton, are no longcrin unison. Every public consideration must impel the Whigs to vote now as they did before. But some of them, we fear, are about to demonstrate that in their minds public considerations are of little force unless when corroborated by personal motives, andthat when ever the two classes of feelings come into competition, the latter are sure to prove triumphant.—Morning Post. Every day supplies us with additional evidence of the certainty of the success of Mr. Abercromby. The Times, is quite at a loss to know what the Reformers will do after choosing Mr. Abercromby. " What (says our Morning Contemporary) do the Whigs expect would come after. Do they believe that the Ministers would resign ? Those who do are shal low greenhorns. The Duke of Wellington did not accept the seals of office, nor did Sir R. Peel return post-haste from Italy, to be sent to the wall by any factious vote—no, nor by a dozen such votes. They know what is at stake, and will stand the hazard. If a peevish address even were to be sent up to the Crown, his Majesty would not be pushed from his stool by such an apparition. Nothing but their delin quency would induce the Sovereign to dismiss expe rienced servants, in submission to a capricious or a selfish vote, dictated by those whose exclusive pur pose was to trip up the heels of the Ministers whom , they threatened, an d t o occ upy th e i r v a cant places." We never imagined the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel would be very anxious to quit their places. What his Majesty would or would not do in a given case, is not a question which ought to be mooted. We have nothing to do with his Majesty. We know only his Majesty's Ministers ; and it is to us a new reading of the constitution, that any set of Ministers can hold their places long, in defiance of the House of Com mons and sense of the country. The Standard in an unguarded moment told us that another dissolution would be attempted, should the House of Commons not prove sufficiently subservient. The Times seems to point to such a proceeding wh en it sa y s th a t nothing short of delinquency would induce his Majesty to dismiss his Ministers. If Sir R. Peel has the courage to try such an experiment, well and good. We do not fear the re sult. The country would unquestionably return a House more decidedly opposed to Ministers than the present. And we do not believe ,Sir R. Peel such a greenhorn (to borrow from our contemporary's vocabulary) as to provoke the indignation of the con stituencies by a course quite unprecedented in our modern history. Let him, we say, only try the peril ous experiment ! The Tories will do their best to keep their places, and the Reformers will do their best to oust them. He must be a craven Reformer indeed who will be less disposed to oppose Ministers, and who will remain with his hands folded, because the Times chooses to tell him that all his votes will have no result. That remains to be ascertained. We ap prehend the Reformers will not be thrown on their backs by a succession of majorities. They will follow up their majorities by measures, which, allowing to Ministers the possession of more than an ordinary share of audacity, will probably bring them to their senses. The English are said by Goldsmith to be pe culiarly cast down by the maladie de poche. We heard a foreigner in a court of justice yesterday boast (he had much besides of which to boast) of his poverty.— he said he gloried in it. But few men in England boast of the want of money ; and a Ministry without money would have but a scurvy following. The House of Commons, having the command of the purse-strings, might provide for the public service, and leave Minis ters rather scantily provided for. There is certainly a great convenience in having a well-filled Treasury, and we apprehend that that convenience cannot be obtained without the consent of the House of Commons. And is it supposed that the Reformers will be deterred from doing their duty by gasconading like this ? They believe Ministers insincere in their professions. They know that they opposed all the ameliorations, for the sake of which the country demanded the Reform Bill ; and they know, moreover, that they procured the dis missal of the Melbourne Ministry, because that Ministry were determined on remedying abuses in Church and State. Knowing this, they would be greenhorns, indeed, were they to suppose that the present Minis ters professed to be Reformers with any other view than to delude the country. They believe that Minis ters took office in the hope of being able to undermine the Reform Bill—of regaining the ascendancy for the Oligarchy which they lost by that Bill. They are persuaded that Ministers cannot succeed in their schemes ; but they know that the very attempt will dreadfully agitate the country, and must endanger its prosperity. _ Under such circumstances, it is their . - duty, their bounden duty, to seize every opportunity which presents itself to them to deprive Ministers of the powers to do mischief that they derive from being in office. The question of the choice of Speaker is important, because the Reformers have determined to try their strength on it. We will not now inquire whether the Reformers acted wisely or not, in determining to carry the election of Mr. Abercromby. We think they have decided aright. But this is of inferior. moment now._ Having decided to make the attempt, every true Reformer is bound to support it. Is it supposed that advantage would not be taken of any apparent weak ness of the Reformers evinced by the vote ? What true Reformer would choose to give a triumph to his enemies ? to strengthen the Tories by the waiters on Providence, drawn over by the first demonstration of strength ? Our Contemporary the Times held out to us, as an only ground of confidence in Ministers, that if the Reformers did their duty, Ministers would be compelled to move in the grooVe formed by the Reform Bill. But if the Tories were to have majorities, what would become of the groove ? The professions of Ministers would at once take their flight to the limbo of vanity. We repeat, the Reformers have nothing to do with the personal inclinations of the King. They are in duty bound to believe that he has no personal inclinations which are not constitutional. The Con stitution knows only Ministerial responsibility ; and with the aid of majorities of the House of Commons Ministers will soon be brought to their senses.— Morning Chronicle. PRIVY COUNCIL. The Lords of the Privy Council met again yesterday on the appeals against the rules prepared by the West India Compensation Commissioners. Dr. Lushington was heard in support of the appeal of Mr. Woodcock, and at the con clusion of his address the Vice-Chancellor intimated to the counsel for the Commsssioners, that it was not necessary to trouble them to reply in answer to Mr. Woodcock's appeal, and as to all the Appeals his Honour observed, " That their Lordships thought that, generally speaking, these rules had been very carefully framed, with great consideration for the rights and interests of all the various parties concerned, and that there had been a great degree of thought properly ex ercised upon the subject ; at the same time they were of opinion, that in so►ne respects there must be a slight altera tion in the r►►les, and the alteration of a few words in some parts would have the effect, as their Lordships thought, of obviating some of the objections that had been made. The Vice-Chancellor further intimated, that it was their Lord ships' intention, in the course of this week, to settle amongst themselves those alterations which they thought ought to be made in consequence of what they had heard, and then they meant to submit them to the parties who had opposed them, and also to the Commissioners, for their consideration, prior to their final adoption, and for which purpose they would meet on Saturday next, at three o'clock." Their Lordships afterwards (as a judicial committee) were occupied on an appeal from Bengal, Homabaee v. Punjeabliace. The appellant, who is widow of Desabhaee, rests her claim on the will alleged to have been made by the deceased, the respondent claiming as the adopted son of the deceased. Messrs. Miller and Wigram stated the appellant's case, and their Lordships then adjourned. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WEBB V. WEEDON. The examination of the defendant's witnesses was resumed in this case this morning at half-past nine o'clock. • After the case f or th e defendant had been gone through, Mr. Sergeant WILDE rose to reply at half-past three o'clock, and did not sit down till half-past six. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE told the Jury that the plain tiff's complaint was that the defendant had published a statement, charging him with having, with Mr. Galloway, fraudulently procured Mr. Knight, a lunatic, to execute a codicil to his will, and with having afterwards put Martin for ward to establish its validity, in order himself to evade the costs. In answer the defendant pleaded that he was not guilty of the publication, and two special pleas of jus tification, on each of which he wished to have the opinion of the Jury. The alleged libel purported to be an account of proceedings in the Prerogative Court. In general, reports of what took place in the Courts of Justice were privileged publications, on account of the impossibility of all persons being present in Courts of Justice, and the benefit justice derived from its administration being as much known as possible. If a. person published a report of any indecent or blasphemous matter which occurred in a Court of Justice, it would be an exception to the rule ; for no benefit could result from the publication, whilst injury might. His Lord ship then entered into an examination of the pleas put in by the defendant, and was about to go through the evidence far the purposa of pointing out the evidenee which bore upon the several points, The Jury here interuptcd his Lordship, and said that it was quite unnecessary for him to read through the evidence. They retired to consider or their verdict and at eight returned into Court, and said, that they found the report to be correct ; but that, in every other point, their verdict was for the plaintiff, with fifty pounds damages. EXCHEQUER COURT. MOSCATTI V. LAWSON. (Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.) William Botherby, Esq., examined by plaintiff--Is re gistrar to the Bishop of Winchester. Employed plaintiff in June, 1833, to instruct his sons during their absence from school. When, they went back to the academy, plaintiff instructed his daughters in Italian till about December. Had paid plaintiff about sixty guineas. By Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Did not employ him again in consequence of the paragraph in the Times. Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Plaintiff had told him that he had been wounded in Russia ; understood the wound was from a bullet in his leg. Never heard him say Sir Astley Cooper bad offered him a thousand pounds for his head, in consequence of the wound in it.—(Laughter) Never heard plaintiff say so high a price was set upon his head. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL,—I was a post obit.—(Laughter.) Cross-examination renewed—Said he had been to China, and seen the wall. Heard him relate that he had crossed the deserts of Arabia. Plaintiff did not say he had gone through them in the disguise of a quack doctor.— (Laughter.) Presumed, from his statement, that he had traversed the deserts on an elephant.—(Laughter.) Did not hear plaintiff say that he was condemned to death by the Arabs, and that his life had been saved by a woman. Did not hear plaintiff mention the enormous serpents he had seen. Had stated that he had fought many duels and was an excellent shot. Heard him say that he had killed more than one in Italy and France. Plaintiff had told him lie had been to New York. Had been introduced at Mr. Pettigrew's conversations to plaintiff, as " Marquis" Moscatti, by Dr. Moore. Plaintiff did not say where about in Italy his estates were situated. Did not say they were near Mount Vesuvius.—(Laughter.) John Roberts, Esq., a ship-owner, had employed the plaintiff to instruct his family, and that he had declined his services in consequence of the attack in the Times. Samuel Smith, Esq., was called to prove a similar fact, when— Mr. Baron A LDERSON suggested that sufficient witnesses had been called to prove special damages, and that to call more would be a waste of time, without any additional ad vantage accruing thereby to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had better call witnesses on his other points. The plaintiff declined to call any more witnesses at present. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL then addressed the Jury, and said that the question was whether the articles in the Times were true, and of that point the plaintiff was fully aware. In this charge to the Jury the plaintiff had tried to excite the compassion by representing himself as an unfortunate, friendless, and persecuted foreigner ; but he had not at tempted to prove that the charges preferred against him in the Times were not true. The proceedings of this day had presented to them a melancholy exhibition ; for while he believed the plaintiff to be a man of considerable acquire ments he did think that he was cursed with a total disregard of truth, and that he knew not the difference between truth and falsehood. He was of opinion that Moscatti had been born in low life, and that while he bad raised himself by his talents lie still retained all the vices incident to his situation in his younger days. Plaintiff had certainly much amused they world by his fiction, and till that fiction was discovered many eminent people rejoiced in his friendship. They had in evidence that he had told the most palpable untruths, and he (Sir John Campbell) could not imagine that the plaintiff had brought his action for any other purpose than that of esta. blishing himself the greatest romancer in Europe. In fact, plaintiff completely rivalled the celebrated Baron Mun chausen. ( Laughter.) There was scarcely the most trifling shade of difference between them—Munchausen was a German Baron, and Moscatti an Italian Marquis.— (Laughter.) The learned Counsel alluded to the travels and campaigns of which the plaintiff had described him self as the hero ; but not only had he figured in these, but he had fought in many duels, and in all of these he had hit his antagonist in the eve.—(Laughter.) He (Sir John Campbell) and his learned Friends had thought they should be able to prove that plaintiff had said he had not a wound in his cerebellum, and that Sir Astley Cooper had offered him 1,0001. for his head. They had not suc ceeded in that ; but they had ascertained that plaintiff had described himself as suffering under a wound, which seemed to be a sort of ambulatory wound, now in his leg, now in his side, now in his abdomen ; in fact, in any part of his body in which it might suit him f or th e t i me b e i ng to h a ve it. (Laughter.) Did not these departures from truth prepare the Jury for the plea of justification which hi.: clients were about to put in ? Had the plaintiff confined himself to romancing, the Tinter would not have touched him, but have left him to please those who delighted to listen to such monstrous absurdities. But at length his lies assumed a more injurious and malicious character. Among other falsehoods, plaintiff described himself as writing the foreign articles of the Times, at a salary of three guineas a day. He further stated that he had seen a receipt for 5,0001. at the Times office, from that journal to Louis Philippe, being the amount of a bribe given by that Sovereign to the paper for advocating the line of policy he pursued. There was a most distinguished scholar and respectable gentleman con nected with the Times, he alluded to Mr. Barnes. Plain tiff had represented himself, as he (Sir John Campbell) would call witnesses to prove, that he had dined with that Gentleman. Plaintiff said on that occasion they dined off plate presented to Mr. Barnes by the Pacha of Egypt ; that he had seen two golden bowls on the sideboard, on which were inscriptions stating that they had been sent by Louis Philippe to the editor. To complete his story, plaintiff said he had seen two cashmere shawls on the sofa, one of which had been given to Mrs. Barnes, by the Schah, and was of so a fine texture, that it might be enclosed in a snuff-box, and that it had cost 500!. even in Persia —(Laughter.) These reports coming to the Times, inqui. ries were made, when it was discovered that a:2 defendant had not only circulated these calumnies in England, bui propagated them on the continent. Sir J. Campbell then proceeded to read the paragraph complained of in the Times, and, commenting on the circumstances which had led to their insertion, said the Times had behaved with great forbearance towards the plaintiff, who had written against the Times to the Standard, and it was highly cre ditable to the latter journal that when it discovered the false statements of which it had unconsciously been made the vehicle, that it made the most honourable reparation to the Times. Moscatti was so habituated to fiction that he appeared more offended with the Times asserting his pacity to write leading articles than charging him with wil ful falsehoods. But if plaintiff had been engaged to write foreign articles for the Times, his want of veracity was such that he would probably have written that Louis Phi lippe was going to war, or the Duke of Orleans would be killed with a poke in the eye.—(Laughter.) Even had he the ability to write foreign articles, his war:: of veracity would have been an utter disqualification. He would pro duce witnesses to show that plaintiff had never dined with Mr. Barnes.—(The Learned Counsel read a letter, in which it was stated that plaintiff had told a foreign book seller in Regent-street that he could command reviews in the Times, Atheneum, Literary Gazette, and New Monthly Magazine.) He often left places where he had called in a great hurry, saying he was going to the Times office.— (Laughter.) Persuaded the bookseller to send three copies of a foreign book published by him to three reviews, where he said he could procure a notice. The books were not re viewed, and poor Balliere lost books to the amount of 30s. Plaintiff had said that when lie dined with Mr. Barnes, the Chancellor was expected but he did not come, and sent his bro ther instead (Laughter.) Plaintiff had also described Talley rand as offering him 100,000 francs not to write on the siege of Paris in the Constitutionnel, but the plaintiff had refused. He (Sir John Campbell) believed the plaintiff had told so many lies that he bad become his own dupe. He was not much of a craniologist, but he thought when the plaintiff's cranium was examined, the bump of invention would be found very much expanded—(Laughter.) If there was such an organ as mendacity that would be cer tainly discovered on an investigation of plaintiff's skull— (Laughter.) The plaintiff ought, in the words of the Times, after his base conduct, to " have gone to some obscure corner to hide his head till his name and offences were for gotten," but in coming to Court, Moscatti seemed abitious to have it proved that he was one of the most infamous liars in the world. He did not know whether to look on the plaintiff most with feelings of compassion or disgust. He doubted whether that man had not lost his reasoning facul ties as well as his moral senses. It would be necessary to contradict his malicious lies,, and be (Sir J. Campbell) hoped that the plaintiff would from that time, if capable of reformation, endeavour by his future conduct to make some atonement for the offences of which be had been guilty. If such an alteration took place in plaintiff's conduct the Learned Counsel did not doubt that the Times would give him the assistance and support of which his behaviour had proved him so unworthy. Hippolite Balliere, a foreign bookseller, living in Regent street, was the first witness called fbr the defence, and exa mined by Mr. PLATT—The plaintiff called at his 'shop in 1832 and 1833 very often. On one of those occasions he told him that he was engaged to write foreign articles for the Times at three guineas a day. He said he could com mand any review of books in the Times. He told him that he had written an attack on Joseph Bonaparte, which had appeared in the Times, and added that he was going to write against the Duke of Orleans, who was then in London. Plaintiff called the Duke of Orleans a vagabond, and said that he could shoot him. Plaintiff would often leave his shop, saying he must be at the Times, to write for it. He induced me to send three copies of a foreign work, pub lished at 10s., to the New Monthly Magazine, Athenceum, and Literary Gazette, and gave witness his card to read with the books. Witness accordingly forwarded them, but they were never noticed. Never got his books returned. Cross-examined by the plaintiff.—Balliere, do you know that when a man perjures himself in this country he is transported ? Witness—Of course I do. Did not know the exact date when he first saw plaintiff. Did not remember when plaintiff first called that he brought a physician to speak about publishing an anatomical work. Plaintiff—Do you swear that ? 'Witness (very loudly)—Yes, I do swear.—(Laughter.) Plaintiff—Oh, Balliere, that is too bad.—(Laughter.) Witness heard plaintiff say, when he first came, that he was a poor man. Thought him a very rich man, for he said that he had a house in Regent's Park, and that he had the Duke of Sussex and other great people to a party. Was sure that plaintiff said he wrote for the Times, and said that he thought he talked so much to make him ap pear a very great man. Plaintiff—Did I ask credit of you ? Witness—No ; you gave me eighteenpence for a book, and then you grumbled. Dr. Eliotson, cross-examined by Mr. HUMFREY—In the beginning of 1832 was introduced to plaintiff as Marquis Moscatti. Plaintiff said that he was a Knight of Jerusa lem, and a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, for which he had a pension of 2.50/., of which he had just been deprived by Talleyrand. Soon after, to his surprise, witness learnt that plaintiff was in distress, and relieved him, on seeing his breeches all torn.—(Laughter.) Ordered him a new suit immediately. Invited plaintiff fre quently to his house ; but always when he had parties of li terary men, who he thought might serve the plaintiff. Mr. Barnes dined with witness, when plaintiff was introduced to that gentleman. Soon afterwards, in July, 1833, witness went to dinner with Mr. Barnes, in Nelson-square, and told it to plaintiff next morning. Plaintiff did not of course dine at Mr. Barnes's. Many persons had told witness that plain tiff was a great exaggerator, in fact they used another word. —(Laughter.) Having detected plaintiff in a falsehood rela tive to a sofa belonging to him, witness, in a friendly manner remonstrated with plaintiff on the ill consequences which would result to him if he continued his habit of telling falsehoods. Moscatti, very much offended, took up his hat and said " May I never come into your house till I tell another lie." Witness saw nothing more of the plaintiff, and was much surprised at his absence. Witness subse quently wrote to the editor of the Times, touching the re ports plaintiff had circulated of him. When he dined with Mr. Barnes saw none of the costly articles described by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had also told him that he was a tre mendous duellist, and that he had killed one of Lord El don's nephews, a transaction arising out of being sent for by Lord Eldon and Sir John Leach to give evidence against the late Queen. Cross-examined by the plaintiff—Had not desired to lie introduced to him. Had heard that plaintiff knew thirty three and spoke twenty-three languages fluently.— (Laughter.) William Costello, Esq., examined—ls a surgeon in Bru ton-street. Met the plaintiff in the summer of 1833, in the Strand, coming from the City. Plaintiff, in the course of conversation told him that he had come from the Times, and had seen a receipt from the Times to Louis Philippe f0r5,0001., which he said had been paid to the Times by the King of the French, for supporting the course of politi cal conduct which that Monarch chose to pursue. He was not quite sure whether it was 5,0001. or cinq mille francs the plaintiff had said, but recollected 5,0001., because plaintiff had said the same to Mr. Merle, who had ex pressed himsels ready to confirm this. Mr. Merle was on the Continent. Mr. Alsager, a proprietor of the Times, swore that never to his knowledge had there been a receipt given for money received from Louis Phillippe or any other foreign Poten tate for services rendered by the political writings of the Times, nor had money ever been received for any such pur pose from such quarters. It was his business to superintend the money department of the paper. This was the defendant's case. The plaintiff, in his reply, which occupied about twenty minutes in the delivery, declared that he was the victim of a conspiracy on the part of Barnes and his friends and College associates, who were the constant companions of his dinner table. Dr. Elliotson stepped forward, and, in contradiction to the assertion of the plaintiff, stated that he had not been at College with Mr. Barnes, nor was he in the habit of dining with him oftener than once a year. The plaintiff said it was impossible for him to find wit nesses to rebut the evidence brought against him. He was a poor Neapolitan gentleman, and was to be made a sacri fice to the caprices of Mr. Barnes. He did not and never bad pretended that he had himself seen the receipt for the im :iney of Louis Philippe, but it was natural for him, seeing so ina ,7 changes in the opinions and politics of the Times, to supposethat it was at least paid for its corruption. Was it not natural for him and others to think so ? He should leave his case ift the hands of the Jury, assuring them that until he became the victim of the attacks of this changeable Journal he was the delight of all societies, and had mer e engsgements than he could perf o rm. Mr. Baron ALDERSON here suggested to the plaintiff that he had better consider whether it would not be ad' visable that he should consent to the withdrawal of a Juror' The plaintiff expressed an unwillingness to adopt the suggestion of the Learned Baron ; but the Jury having timated their concurrence in the opinion of the Bench, this course was followed.—The trial lasted to within a few minutes of seven o'clock. CONSISTORY COURT. VALLANCE V. VALLANCE. This was a suit instituted by. Mr. James Thomas Va l " lance, a surgeon of West Ham, Essex, against his wife, al l the ground of adultery. Dr. ADDAMS stated the case. Mr. Valiance in 14 9 married his wife, and about a year after went abroad, upo n an appointment as a surgeon, to India. He returned to England in Ju ne 1833, w h en h e f oun d M rs . V a liance at h„L;ngs, and visited her the re . H e soon a ft er wards re turned to I ,,;:_xion,but was not long there when he received from his wife, ack „,2wledging her infidelity, and imploring forgiveness. In the .No:Tmher follOwin7 Mrs. Valiance gave birth to a child. The noi;.-access of husband for nearly three years was clearly proved. Dr. LUSHINGTON (the Judge) bad atteatively read the evidence, and was clearly of opinion that the birth of the, child and non-access of the husband was proved fully eO4 satisfactorily, and he pronounced for the divorce. SURREY SESSIONS. Caroline Bernard, a genteel-looking young woman, about thirty-five years of age, a native of the French metropoli s ' was indicted for stealing twenty yards of lace, the propertl of Messrs. Kirkpatrick and Cornell, linen-drapers, of N ew : ington-canseway. When the prisoner was arraigned alo n e with the other prisoners, she looked wildly round the Court , and, giving a sudden shri e k o f d es p a i r , swoone d away. ° P her recovery she was accommodated with a chair at the bar, and during th e course o f th e t r i a l s h e ev i n ced grea t distress of mind, and appeared anxious to conceal her fac e ' over which she kept her veil. There were several Of t he unfortunate woman's friends in Court, and it appeared die t she had given a fictitiou s name w h en fi rs t t a k en i n t o custo 4 to spare the feeling of th ose t o w h om s h e was a lli e d, and i° that name she was put upon her trial. Thomas Jones, a shopman in the employ of the prosecT tors, stated that on the 17th ult. the prisoner called at big employer's shop between twelve and one o'clock in the dela She requested to look at some la c e, and th e s h o p m an plat a box of that article before her, and, after h av i ng examin ed it, she expressed a desire to look at some more, at the same time selecting a card of narrow lace which she desired to be, left on the counter, in the event of not being furnished with a pattern nearer in point of quality to that which she wanted., The shopman then went to the window fo r th e purpose ° getting another box of lace to exhibit, and when he returned bea at once missed a card of lace containing 25 yards, el l saw that the prisoner was very much confused in her Me e ; ner. She said that she should make no purchase then, b e " requested that a pattern of lace might be looked o ut fer, her, and that on her return from Kennington she would cab in as she was passing. She then quitted the shop, and th e witness informed Mr. Kirkpatrick that a card of lace o se taken, and that he suspected the lady who had just left the warehouse with having purloined it. Mr. Kirkpatrick in': mediately directed witness to follow her, and he brag'''. her back to the shop. When she was accused of steal the card of lace, containing twenty-five yards, she denied tt in a most emphatic manner, said that she was res pectabl e ' and not a person that would be guilty of such an o ffence' While the witness and his employer were standing near the prisoner, be (witness) saw the lace fall from her persol down at her feet on the floor, and although it was obser ved both by himself and his employer, yet she still assevera ted her innocence. The prisoner, who is well acquainted with the Eng. language, declared her innocence of the offence. Several ladies, at whose houses the prisoner was engag e ! to give lessons in Fret;ph and music, bore testimony as the respectability of her character hitherto. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty, and The CHAIRMAN said that the sentence was, that the P ri ' soner be imprisoned for six months and hanl labour. THE MARKETS. COAL mAn.i Per Ton s. d, Clt , ,ster Main lt 0 East I'vrey l5 0 Hebburn :Main Holywell l9 6 Pimtop %Vindsor St. Lawrence ... :Fr.-Feb. n Per 'Pon Walls End Lanchester, Stan hope and Tyne Company 1 6 Walls Medomsley, Stun- ~ 0 hope Company jg 6 \VA, End N, winatch .Itl Tantield West Hartley y lam ' l9 6 Dixon's Butterhnowl. . . Sturges Gawber Hall -6 0 Walls End Bell, Robson & Co 19 Walls End Ilewicke and Co 2l! 6 Walls End Bcown's l9 6 Falls land Gosforth 2l (1 WAls End Heaton 2O 6 Walls End Hilda l,l 9 Walls End Jesnaond Walls End Killinovorth Ships arrived since L Walla End Northumberland NVails End Perkins 1 0 WrOs End aiker ......... 3(2, %lalls End thwalyn ............ Wails F,n Lambt n .......... 5 2:3 Walls End Russel's lietton..• ‘2 5 Walls End Stewart s Walls End Adelaide Walls End Auckland O ll Wa Is End Gordon 6 Walls P- .h Durty `;" 0 .aUs End Sout. aas End 'fees . )urham.... ......... is Tees... 0 Walls End St. Helen's ••• ~ Walls End West Hetton ...... 0 Wall; End Henderson ......... last market-day, 70 COUNTRY :ORN MARKETS DURING THE WEE Wheat. ; Barley. Oats. Beans. P 4 ' 3 ' . Per Quarter. s. to a. ls.tos.l s to s. a. to a. sto 6 ; Abingdon----- 54 CO 30 34 22 30 38 Andover --. 35 43) 23 34 23 33 Birmingham-- 56 58 30 40 16 22 33 - tridport -----s. 33 50 32 36 26 30 39 -- Circlicester -----3 t 48 24 32 23 27 40 F.:ringdon-- 54 66 36 40 26 34 4fi . Guildford —..--..... 33 54 '2B 35 2') 30 46 —• „ Henley.-- 42 58 26 32 23 26 43 , Hereford ----- 50 56 '26 32 24 27 46 Highworfh --. 42 60 32 42 28 34 s') --- Maidenhead --- 58 68 34 44 22 30 36 37 -- Monmouth— --- ai 42 29 34 22 30 34 ... Rexiing -- 30 53 j 22 36 28 V 2 40 --• Sal : , bury —.--.. 36 50 i3O 33 '23 28 36 45 --. „.... Southampton 54 58 33 40 28 32 42 0 . Strond . 3'3 44 28 36 20 24 46 Tewke,bury --- 343 —i 26 22 32 111 -- 49 Uxbridge -- 40 48 128 32 17 '2B 44 %Vantage 3O 57 24 30 19 32 34 12 --- Warminster --.... :32 52 28 36 24 27 34 40 Windsor----...... 59 21 22 35 , W:)rrester._ 36 48 :10 32 '24 '29 40 —____--, CHELTENHAM MARKETS. Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d . Per lb. ei ' / to.' Wheat 7 Barley Oats 2 6 3 3 Veal Beans Pease 5 0 7 0 Lamb Flay _......../ Per Quar er. Wheat, White ----- Red Bailey LEWES MARKET.—Feb. 10. s. d. to s, d. Per Quarter. s. d. toe c/ 6 42 0 43 0 Oats l9 0 '2 5 0 39 0 41 0 Pease 0 43 nd• 34 0 3(1 0 Oil Cake...l3 . s. per Thoul.a..„. HULL MARKET.—Feb. In. Wheat, Old 36s. 3Ss. 40s. New 36, 381. 40s. -- Foreign —s. —s. —5 ln bond... —s. —s 1. Oats, Poland —s. 18•-. 215. Old 18;.201. 211- -- Small or Feed.... —s. 17s. 20s —s. —s. —s• -- Foreign —5 —B. —s —e• Barley, Norf. & Suf ... 2(is 20a. 31s. Line. & Wold —s. 31s Os -- Foreign - 6. --1. Beans 335. 345. 358 Foreign —a. —.4 --e• Pease, White —s. 365. 425. Grey —s. 30s. 345. Tares —s. —s. —s. Foreign —s. —s. --s• Rai eseed. in bond none Free, per last 304 321. Os. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE LOUR BASINGHALL-STREET, TO-MORROW. (From the London Gazette.) IL ,i 1 S. Ashby, flour-dealer, Upper Thames-street 2l Oll J. Windross, linen-draper, Bishop-gate-street-without H. J. A. G. Richardson bill-broker, Portl nd-place fl it P D. L. Hildesheimer, grocer, New-road, Woolwich 2 0 H. W. Williamson, hone-dealer, Cambridgeshire l 1 1 J. B Foster, brickmaker, Lower-road, Islington •I J. Crisp, hosier, Sydney-alley, Leicester-square I 0 J. Callow, victualler, S. John's-street, Clerkenwell 1 1 0 0 J. Martin, wine-merchant, Upper Thames-street . ........... 1 G. J. Kain, coal.merchant, Blackheath Park, Kent • LADY STEPNEY'S NEW NOVEL.—We are Lade; quested to state that " The Heir Presumptive," by i r , Stepney, in 3 vols. post Bvo., was published this day by Bentley, New Burlington -stre e t, and ma y b e o btained 0 -- respectable booksellers throughout the United Kingdom. STATUARY.—A new candidate for sculptural failige, has this week made his debut i n Edinburgh. He is a se taught genius from Perth, whose first essay has been to et l ' body the bacchanalian orgies of the triumvirate " Rab, A, 11 ,' and Willie," as described in the bard's immortal lyric. ‘-' 47 sidering the disadvantages under which the artist labouret, these figures are not without merit.—Edinburgh Evening IR TH. e,,dfr On the 10th inst., at West B brook, H e rts, Lady Georgians 0 of a son. ...I SO . On the 11th inst., in Belgrave-square, the lady of Rich.— derson, Esq., M.P., of a son. The wife of the Rev. John Duncombe Shafto, of a daught_ MA R. On the 10th inst., at Tho rnha R m M IED agna, Suffolk, Thos. L° yett ' ~„b, Esq., of Fernhill, Salop, to the Hon. Emily Henniker, thirdcla" ter of the late and sister to the present Lord Henniker. v ir cer On the sth inst., at the Abbey Church, Great Malvern , v• tershire, James Williams, Esq., of Worcester, to Abigail , daughter of the late George Woodyatt, M.D. yate s f On the 10th inst., at Churchover, Richard Barnardiston bte r Esq., late Captain in the 59th Regiment, to Mary, second daug of Richard Pack, Esq., of Floor House, Northamptonshire. DIED. On the 11th inst., in her 7:2d year, in Bedford-square, E,% - ii jor Walker, widow of the late Thomas Walker, Esq., formerly ° Regisrar of th Cort of Chancery. sbe tb On t the 30th e inst., u at Ivy Cottage, Blackheath, Kent, E I-1 Sophia Anne, fourth daughter of the late Henry Daniel, Esq'n o iclo On the 9th inst., Mary, relict of the late Peter Patten m in the county palatine of Lancaster. On the 9th inst., at Turvey-house, Bedfordshire, Arch second son of Samuel Clarke Jervoice, Esq. On the 10th inst., Alfred, the infant son of Mr. Bullock , 01 001' born. —••••"-- London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , °„ f oo t 112, Strand, at The Sun O ffi ce, No. 112, Strand, in the to of Middlesex. ill K an and succei eate ME r their obi e in Advie for wai eau 0( Prete( 61 ` LI Hy o syp] a 4 a 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 None env, 7 , 0 inclu +Lpi e , Sri( indu c tam e when te nor Feat "Y ~ _Ai a ' rAtint