The Sun. — London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 16. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday). Mr. C. ANSTEY trusted that the House would go into Committee on the Bill. He said he was quite correct when he stated that members of the order of Jesus and Regulars were liable to transportation if they were found in this country within three months after they had received notice to quit the kingdom. Sir R. H. INGLIS said they were not liable if they were registered. Mr. C. ANSTEY said, whether they were re gistered or not they were liable to this serious penalty. He denied that the measure was aggressive. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) said, in sup port of this view, that of late years the Pope had taken aggressive steps against the Protestantism of this country. The Hon. Baronet instanced, in support of his argument, the rumour that it was the intention of the Roman Catholics of this country, with the connivance of the Pope, to appoint an Archbishop of West minster, but there appeared no ground for such a statement. This was the only statement which he had been able to bring against the measure, and in support of his view, that it was but the commence ment of a series of aggressive measures against the Church. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then went on to deal with the objections urged against the Bill in the course of the debate that had taken place. The 38th of Edward 111. recited that g rievances had arisen from citations being served upon British sub jects to appear in courts beyond their own country, and it enacted that some alteration should be made in the mode of procedure in such cases. But in no case was the authority of Rome in matters spiritual doubted or denied. In the opinion of some lawyers, Roman Catholics were still liable to punishment for using any other form of service than that en joined in the Common Prayer-book by the Act of the 13th and 14th Charles 11. He proposed to repeal altogether that enactment. The 7th and Bth Will. 111., c. 24, he also proposed to repeal altogether. The Hon. Member for Midhurst had said that if there were any Acts still remaining in force against the Catholics, such parties could protect themselves from the effects of those Acts by taking the oaths pre scribed by an Act passed in the reign of George IV. for that purpose ; but it so happened that the time for taking those oaths had already expired. He called upon the House to go into Committee on the Bill. The Roman Catholic laity had been admitted into the Legislature, and it was now the duty of the House to take the Catholic priests under their pro tection. He asked no more for the Jesuits and Catholic clergy than had been granted to persons professing the Jewish religion by the last clause of the Religious Opinions Bill, passed in the last session of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that if this Bill were really what it professed to be, it ought not to be allowed to be in the hands of any private Member, however able or zealous he might be. If these declaratory Acts were really so nuga tory, as they had been stated to be, why was so much anxiety shown about their repeal ? Were the Roman Catholic clergy guided by the Pope, or the Roman Catholics of their own country ? It ap peared to him that they were guided by neither ; but he could not help taking that opportunity of express ing his admiration of the letter which the Earl of Shrewsbury had addressed to the Archbishop of Tuam. The Noble Earl truly stated that the Roman Catholic clergy had nothing to do with the conduct of the Catholic hierarchy of that House, and he hoped the letter would have the effect of restraining the aspersions of some of the Roman Catholic clergy of this country. Was the conduct of the Roman Catho lic clergy throughout Europe in times past to be forgotten while considering this Bill ? For himself, he said certainly not ; and befor.2 they adopted the Bill they ought to bear in mind what had been the conduct of the Jesuits in various parts of the Conti • nent during the last few months. It was well known that the presence of Lord Minto at Rome had roused in this country feelings of great suspicion. Frequent questions had been put to her Majesty's Government on the subject, and he was glad that the Noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had stated that Lord Minto was not at Rome in any official capacity. But how, let him ask, did the intimation of the Noble Lord correspond with the dispatches which had been received from Rome ? If he was not mis taken, these dispatches disclosed the fact that Lord Minto had efficial authority to enter into negotia tions with the Court of Rome upon various subjects connected with the aftiirs of Italy and Switzerland. Sir G. GREY begged pardon for interrupting the Hon. Member, but he distinctly recollected what his Noble Friend did say in reference to this matter. His Noble Friend stated, in answer to a question that had been put to him, that Lord Minto had received instructions to negotiate at neighbouring Courts, but that he was not an accredited agent to the Court of Rome. Mr. NEWDEGATE sail, it did not matter what the Noble Lord had stated while there could be no doubt that Lord Minto had already acted in an official capacity at Rome, be his authority what it might. The letter' of the Noble Lord proved thus far, if he was not mistaken ; one passage in it stated that the Noble Lord had intimated to the Pope that it was the wish of her Majesty that the Jesuits should be withdrawn from Switzerland ; while another passage put them in pos • session of the fact, that the Noble Lord had sought ' and obtained interviews with the Lord Cardinal Secretary of the Pope upon the subject of the move ments in Italy. How, then, could Government ven ture to assert in that House that the Noble Lord was not their accredited agent at Rome? He would now take a Ounce at the measure before the House. He for one had objections to relieving the Roman Catholics of this country from all the disabilities under which they laboured; but, looking at the spirit of aggression which animated the policy of the Church of Rome, he thought it unwise to add further to the power which she already possessed. He certainly did not deny that among the Jesuits there were many excellent men, but they had been made the instruments of introducing the most grievous and galling tyranny. Could the House adopt the tone and spirit of the letter of the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam to the Earl of Shrewsbury, in answer to the excellent letter that had been written by that Noble Lord ? Was the highest and noblest in the land to be treated in such a manner by the haughty Prelate of the Catholic Church ?—(Hear, hear.) If such language was to be adopted, it highly behoved the Catholic Peers to look to themselves. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by supporting the amendment against going into Committee on the Bill. Sir G. GREY deprecated the notion that the House ought not to go into Committee on the Bill in consequence of the tone taken by Archbishop M'Hale, in his letter to Lord Shrewsbury—(Hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet, after defending the course pursued by the Earl of Minto in his mission to the Court of Rome, and stating that the construction put upon his acts by the Hon. Member were most extravagant, trusted that the House would by its act relieve him from the charges that had been brought against him. As for the statements against his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Foreign Department, he thought the House would agree with him when he stated that the course he had pursued was calculated to conciliate rather than irritate. Colonel CONOLLY would go as far as any man to remove the provisions of Acts of Parliament that operated heavily upon the Roman Catholics, but he could not allow old and obsolete Acts to be raked up for were epurpose of sweeping away those Acts which necessary for the security of the Protestant populati on of Ireland. He should be sorry to d eny the Roman * Catholics any just rights to which they were entitled, but as he sew that no advantage d fr o te rn g t i h ve e repealhis vote,of those obsolete statutes, he afgelatinbso.tusen though without hostility, ill.—(Hear.) .Mr. GLADSTONE said he should give his vote for going into Committee, without entering thc into a consideration of the question whetherannote because _u.rch. he aggressive church or Rome was an believed he should be thereby doing act of justice. .(Hear.) The Attorney-General, w h om he was glad now to see in his place, would confer a great favour upon the House by stating his Op i nion whether the enactments sought to be ab o li s h ed could be enforced or not.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst said that the penalties sought to be abrogated had been repealed, and that they could not be enforced in a court of law; but if the Act of Lord Lyndhurst re pealed some specific penalties, leaving others untouched, he was at a loss to uaderatand on what ground it was contended that the others should not be also repealed. —(Hear.) He was also at a loss to understand why penal enactments should remain on the statute book respecting the admission of bulls into this country on matters of discipline relating to the „ Roman Catholic religion, and which that body con sidered pe r f ec tl y i nnocent i n t h e i r na t ure , as they simply had reference to matters of internal polity. ;T c h i j e gi b ou n a ra, o sn rd i e )f rs proof that the exclusion of certain had led to good lay on those who op\losed the measure. He would not stop to in qu when : sr the * Act of 1829 was a compac t or nut, b u t as t h e danger of the repeal of these ob solete enactmen to had not been ma d e man if est to h i s mind h e cou l d n, gointo the lobby with those who objected to that measure on this ound. Th ; must, to mai n t a i n their argument, )ominic ans , and show that the admission of th e Franciscans, Benedictines, wouk I be dangerous, because one or th e se they c ou ld not well draw the c listinctio n betweeno prima t other. They had fa filed to do so ;no had been shown in the course of the debate 'a against an ease the admission of an y of these religious orders, exceptis t the Jesuits, who held a peculiar and distin c t position in the Court of Rome. The ob jectionable provis ions in the statute-book ac- val di ; es •~... , THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1848. complished nothing save casting a stigma upon the ' religions to which they had reference. The bar should not exist, unless it could be shown that dan ger would result from its removal, and he held that it had not. With respect to the rumour, that it was the intention of the Pope to establish an archbishopric in England, he had heard the statement of the Honourable Member for Youghal, that it was merely a rumour, as nothing of the kind had been yet decided upon by the Court of Rome, on account of the difficulties in the t w io a n y . of admittedestablishing th s a u t ch th a e n re o w ffi o c u e ld with be g a r g e r a e t a s t atisfac differ ence between such an archbishop and the superin tendents of circuits appointed by the Wesleyans and the Dissenters, for the former would have spiritual jurisdiction, whilst the latter were divested of that character. Clauses 24 and 29 pro vided for the appointment of Catholic bishops in England, but he could not help giving his opinion that the holding of such an office by a Catholic would be a penal offence, but at any rate they would be brought into collision with the clergy of other denominations. The case of Ireland did not justify the setting up of a new principle like this in a city where but a small minority of the people were of the Catholic faith. He trusted Hon. Gentlemen would not merely consider whether the Church of Rome was an aggressive church, but whether, in equity, they ought not to do that justice which their fellow-subjects had a right to demand.—(Hear.) The Marquis of GRANBY was of opinion that it would be unwise to disturb the settlement of the question made in 1829. Some cause of grievance ought to be shown before the House consented to re open the question. It had been said that there was one grievance, which was, that there was a convent in Leicestershire, the persons residing at which were liable to be transported under the existing laws.— (Hear, hear.) Such was not the case, because if the parties registered themselves under the provisions of the law they would be protected, and so long as they remained peaceful and loyal subjects of the Sovereign they would not be disturbed. — (Hear, hear.) When he found that several of the Catholic countries of Europe had been compelled to expel the Jesuits from their country, it would be unwise for a Protestant country like this to admit the Jesuits to settle among them, or to remove those safeguards which had been considered necessary in the year 1829. He did not wish to say one word which might be considered offensive to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He felt it to be the duty of the House, while admitting the fullest principles of toleration, to prevent the spread of a reli gion which he believed to be hostile to the liberties and institutions of the country.—(Hear.) Mr. SHEIL said that he might insist that a con cession to the Catholic was made upon security to the Protestant—they ought both to stand or fall together. In the Act of 1829 there were several clauses which were galling to the Catholics, and use less to them. At the time the Catholic Emancipation Bill was carried every religious order which then existed as such was protected upon registering its name, but every individual who became a Jesuit since that time was not so protected. Of what use, then, was such a law to them ? The country was now full of Jesuits.—(Hear, and cheers.) He would ask the House, whether the Jesuit in the wilderness, holding up the cross with the red savages around him, was not as worthy a spectacle as the emissary of Protestantism in New Zealand, who surrounded himself with the fruits of conversion and appropriation at the same time ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for the county of Limerick had given notice that he would move in Committee fur the repeal of the clauses forbidding any Catholic to be Chancellor of Ireland. There were good reasons why that motion should be agreed to. When the Act of 1829 was passed, the Hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) said that his reason for the insertion of such a clause was that he believed there was some ecclesiastical patronage connected with the office. Such was not, however, the case ; if it were so he should not support the motion of his Hon. Friend on the subject. The Catholics at the bar were now very rapidly on the increase, and there was therefore greater reason than ever for the removal of such a resolution as that he had referred to. By passing the present measure he felt convinced that they would do a great deal to remove all the bitterness of feeling which the Catholics were at present labouring under.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY said that he was one of those who thought that the early portion of the Bill was merely introduced for the purpose of giving an opportunity to Hon. Members to display a little liberal language on the subject. The principal portion of the Bill was that which had been kept in the back ground by the parties promoting this measure. A great deal had been said about the cruelty and wrong of transporting a Christian brother. Now the Act merely stated that the person was to be fined or banished, and should he continue in the country in defiance of the law, he was to be transported.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Members said " Hear, hear," but how stood the case ? The Christian brother was not transported because he was a Christian brother, but because he disregarded the minor penalties and continued still to act in defiance of the laws of the country.—(Hear.) He felt it his duty, therefore, to give his support to the amendment of the lion. Member for the Univer sity of Cambridge, that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY main tained that every order sanctioned by the Church of Rome ought to be admitted into this country. A good deal had been said against the Jesuits ; they had been denounced as mischief makers, and cunning designers. They had been stigmatised as the crea• tors of dissensions in states, and the disturbers of the peace of private families ; but the House must forgive him if he did not agree with all these severe opinions. The Jesuits were a strictly religious body, spreading good wherever they went, and as the Es tablished Church could not cure the infidelity that prevailed in this country, he could see no just rea son why the Jesuits should be excluded from this country. Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree with the observations of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, nor could he admit the force or justice of the remarks made by the lion. Member for Dungarvan. He was quite ready to relieve the Roman Catholics from all unnecessary liabilities, but he could not con sent to afford them a fancied relief at the sacrifice of the rights of the Church of England. Conciliation to the Roman Catholics and securities against aggres sions on the rights of the Established Church had always gone hand in hand, and he could never vote for a Bill which made concessions without providing securities against inroads upon the rights of the Church of England. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, having been called upon once or twice in the course of the debate to give his opinion upon the probable effects of this Bill, trusted the House would indulge him for a few minutes while he ventured to give his opinion upon the changes which this Bill was calculated to make in the prevailing law. If he should suc ceed in satisfying the House that there was one Act at least overlooked by the Bill of 1829, he trusted he should have said enough to induce the House to go into Committee upon this Bill. Now, he was decidedly ofopinion that the 13th of Elizabeth chap. 2, was not repealed by the Act of 1829, and as it required an Act of Parliament to repeal the pro visions of that statute, he trusted the House would have no difficulty in going into Committee on this Bill. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared-- For going into Committee .... 186 Against it Majority for going into Com mittee • -32 The House then went into Committtee pro forma, and on the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY it was agreed that the House should really go into Committee on the Bill this day three weeks. WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION. Mr. GRANGER brought up the report of the Committee appointed to try the merits of the West Gloucestershire election. The Committee reported that Mr. Grantley Berkeley had been duly elected a knight of the shire for the western division of Gloucestershire. The report was received amid much cheering. SELECT COMMITTEE ON SHIPWRECKS. On the motion of Mr. HUME, the Select Com mittee on Shipwrecks was appointed after a short discussion. The following are the names of the Members appointed to serve on the Committee : —Mr. Hume, Captain Berkeley, Mr. Gibson, Admiral Bowles, Sir Thomas Birch, Viscount Ingestre, Mr. M‘Gregor, Mr. Roundel' Palmer, Mr. Foster, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Sheridan. LANDLORD AND TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL. Sir W. SOMERVILLE brought in the Landlord and Tenants (Ireland) Bill which 'was read a first and ordered to be read a second time on the 13th of March. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. _ SHIPWRECK AND Loss Or LIFE.--Yesterday ' n telligence reached Lloyd's of the total lo ss of theal " d lJy Louisa, of Fowey, together with the whole of her crew (ten in number), on the Hooper's Sand, off Llanelly, on the night of, the I.lth instant. The steam-tug Sampson put off to save the lives of the men, if possible, but, by the time she reached the wreck, the whole of them had been washed offend drowned ; one dead body was found in the forecastle. The r n in t weather continues unseasonably mild , but h a s beenw) o s very variable. Sunday was a. resplendent day. (n a mil loonr i ni t gyi: r ta a .n in d e yr d aetsh h tee e r a rd vily and constantly from m colder d w e r e th h _ am the weather is t oo aa February. --t; bridge nd mild, isolud, n r a a l n o v ; eo b n ut ftoh i re t whole, however, Advertiser. ELECTION COMMITTEES. WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday) Mr. CROWDER addressed the Committee on behalf of the sitting Member, contendiNg that upon all points his opponents had failed, and concluded by calling upon the Committee not to lend themselves to Earl Fitzhardinge, in order that he might be in a position to tyrannise over his brother. The room was then cleared, and the Committee having consulted together for a few minutes, strangers were re admitted, when The CHAIRMAN announced that it was the opinion of the Committee that Mr. Grantley Berkeley had been duly and properly elected. The Committee then broke up. LAW INTELLIGENCE, COURT OF CHALvCERY, Feb. 16. The Lord Chancellor sat. to-day in the Old JP!I, Lin coin's Inn, for the purpose of giving several judgments and hearing appeals. IN TUE MATTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD. The LORD CUANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this case, which our readers will recollect was argued before his Lordship at Westminster in the course of the last term, upon a petition presented to the Crown by the Rev. Mr. Moorsom, praying that the Lord Chan cellor, as the representative of the Queen, who was the visitor of University College, Oxford, NI declare that one of two fellowships which had been filled up in University College, Oxford, were invalid on the ground of the disqualification of the parties elected. The petition of Mr. Moorsom was directed against the appointment of two gentlemen of the names of Bright and Covington, the former on the foundation of Henry IV., and the latter on that of William of Durham. The petitioner's case was, that neither Mr. Bright nor Mr. Covington fulfilled the requisites of the statute, neither of them being in priest's orders—in sacerdotis constitutes —at the time of the election. Mr. Bright was then only 22 years of age, and not admitted even to deacon's orders, as by the 44th Geo. 111., cap. 43, he could not be admitted to deacon's orders until he attained the age of 23 years, nor to priest's till 24. He was a native of Yorkshire, but that was not of any consequence to the fellowship of Henry IV., to which he was elected. Mr. Co vington, who was elected on the foundation of William of Durham, was not duly elected thereto, as the statute required preference to be given to a native of the dioceses of York or Durham, to which he did not belong, having been born in Lincolnshire. The petitioner was qualified according to the statutes for either fellowship, having been admitted to priest's or ders previous to the election, and being born at Whitby, in Yorkshire. There was no question or doubt as to the probity, learning, and morals of any of the three gentlemen. The Lord Chancellor, on giving judgment, went at considerable length into the facts of the case, and also the statutes, and in conclusion stated his clear opinion to be that no ground whatever existed for impeaching the election to fellowships either of Mr. Bright or Mr. Covington, and therefore that those elections must be affirmed. Mr. BETHELI„ on behalf of the respondents, trusted that the Court would give his clients the coats. The LORD CRANGELLOR said that he could make no order in that respect. He was only acting for the Crown,! who was the Visitor of the college; and such being the case, he did not think any authority existed in him to give costs. Mr. COOPER observed that the authorities on the subject were against giving any costs. Petition dismissed without costs. AXE V. ANDREWS.—JUDGMENT. ..„. The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case, which was an appeal from the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, dismissing the appeal with costs. LANCASTER V. WORD.-JUDGMENT. The LOR➢ CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this ease, which was an appeal from the decision of the pre sent Master of the Rolls. His Lordship, after reviewing the whole cas ,, , dismissed the appeal with costs. GLOVER V. HALL.—JUDGMENT. The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave .judgment in this appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England. His Lordship decided that the order of the Court below was correct, and dismissed the appeal with costs. lishments. Such was not the case, for, by the law of nations, the slave trade was not piracy. It was clear that the real facts of the case had not been duly repro. sented, and there could not therefore be any ratification. Besides, it was a pnkt which, perhaps, Lord John Russell was aware of before this, viz., that he was not " the Queen;" and a letter of his Lordship and the other members of the Government could not therefore be a ratification. And, for aught they knew, her Majesty Queen Victoria might be as ignorant of the circumstances as any individual in the heart of China. The ratification of the acts of the defendant by her Majesty would be, in point of fact, a casus Lai, and as she would be guilty of a violation of the law of nations towards a friendly power, the Queen of Spain would have a right to say, " It may be true that one of my subjects has done wrong, but who gave you the power to interfere in the matter?" The existing treaties between the two countries might be refereed to, but they referred only to vessels afloat, and would not apply to the present case. lle would remind the Court at this point, that in the representations made by the defendant to the authorities at home, and which formed the main basis of the treaty with King Siacca, was the insult committed towards the crews of her Ma jesty's boats. No proof whatever had been given of this. The representations stated that the defendant went to avenge an insult to the British flag, but it had not been proved that any insult had been committed on the British flag. Where then was the ratification of these acts to be found? Praise, however justly awarded to the gallant officer for his conduct in putting down the slave trade, did not amount to a ratification. The whole of the letters put in were from subordinate officers, and did not commit the Crown. The Learned Counsel then proceeded with his address to the jury, and called upon them to look at the question apart from its mural con siderations and solely as a commercial transaction, which it really was. With respect to the treaty no weight could be attached to it; it was wrung from the natives at the point of the bayonet, with a military force already in possession of a portion of their territory. The Learned Gentleman concluded by calling upon the jury to dismiss from their minds all feelings in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant which would seduce them from the strict and narrow path in which they had to travel. If they did so depart from that path of duty then would justice be somewhat leis, and much less, i❑ estimation than it was and had been. lle could assure them that his anxiety was not for his client, for he felt that towards him, however im perfectly, he had discharged his duty to the best of his ability, and with him all relations had therefore ceased; his anxiety was for English justice. Their predecessors in that box had not hesitated to return heavy damages for the value of slaves unlawfully seized. I❑ the case of Madrassa v. Wells the jury gave a verdict of 18,0001. and in several other eases large sums had also been awarded, and he trusted that they would not be less firm, less faithful, or less just to th. law than their predecessors, who by their conduct had raised the admiration of British justice to that height to which foreigners, who, although aware of all the diffi culties and delays of English law, and all the imperfec tions which had been so justly complained of, neverthe less put it above the administration of justice in all the other parts of the world, because they were not afraid to come before a British jury, and felt that they would do their best, and use their utmost exertions to guard against being led away by the operations of any feelings, and that they would always stand firm to principle. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to claim his right of reply. Mr. Baron PARKE said that the Court were of opinion that they could not hear him, and proceeded to sum up to the jury. The facts of the case, although they had occupied a considerable portion of time, were still cmn fined to a very narrow compass, and it was needless for him to request them to divest from their minds any prejudice on the matter, and consider their verdict coolly, having regard only to the evidence which had been laid before them. A bill of exceptions was tendered by Mr. Robinson, upon the ground that there was not sufficient legal evi dence to go to the jury, to prove that a subsequent ratification would be equivalent to a prior command. The jury retired, and after a short consultation, returned a verdict finding that the ratifications had been made by the Crown, with a full knowledge of what the defendant had done; and that, therefore, upon the plea of " not guilty" they found their verdict for the de fendant. Upon the other counts the verdict was for the plaintiff. to deliver luggage to the passenger at the station, and not at any particular part of the station, and the com pany were not discharged from their duty till the lug gage was clnlivered sately at that part of it which the passenger should select with their concurrence. He, however, reserved leave to move to the defendants if he was wrong. _ _ MA. Sergeant TALFOURD then addressed the jury for the defendants. He could not help sympathising with the plaintiff for the loss he had sustained. The only question, however, was whether the railway company was responsible for it ? The railway company had no notice given to them of the responsibility they were contracting. The dressing-case was lost at a time when it had ceased to be under the dominion or control of the defendants. It had been brought safely to the terminus. He contended that the testimony of the lady's-maid could not be depended on. It was unlikely that, knowing the value of the dressing-case, she should not take it with her, or ask for it to take to the hackney-coach ; and so uncertain was her recollection about it, that the witness had written about it to Woodgate station. Whilst in the witness-box she was certain about its being put under her mistress's feet. The hackney-coach was left at the door long enough for such a parcel to be taken away and stolen then. It might have been put outside and lost in the transit. It was not made out, the Learned Counsel contended, that the case was lost whilst under the control of the defendants. A number of witnesses were called for the defence, servants of the company, to prove that they had seen no dressing-case, nor had it been left at the station. On cross•examivation, it appeared that one of the porters on that occasion, a carriage -cleaner, named Baptiste, who assisted in removing the luggage, had left the corn pan's service, and was not to be found, and that both seats of the railway carriage had not been looked under, though the porters examined were confident that no dressing-case was left in the carriage. There was no notice about jewellery stuck up on the platform or in the booking-office, through which passengers went, limiting the company's liability. The hackney-coach had been left at the plaintiff's door without any ono attending it whilst the driver assisted the footman to carry Mrs. Richards up stairs. This was the defendant's case. The jury intimated that they were agreed on their verdict, without troubling Mr. Sergeant'Byles to reply. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1501., with leave to move to enter the verdict for the defendants. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MAR YL EBOIVE. Mr. Jelin Harvey, formerly a banker in Guernsey, but now residing at No. 32, Surrey-street, Strand, was again placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton, when the whole of the depositions taken upon two former examinations were read over by the chief clerk, Mr. Fell. It will be remembered that the charge against the accused wits that of having stolen a leather case containing a Bible and a Prayer-book from the parochial chapel, Kentish town; the said articles, value 275., being the property of Mr. Bulvver, Break neck-cottage, Camden-town. The particulars of the affair have already appeared. Mr. BROUGHTON had o❑ the previous afternoo❑ ex pressed his willingness to accept bail, but gave the prisoner to understand that, in the event of his doing so it must be to a large amount, not less than he (prisoner) in 5001. and two sureties in 2501. each. At the termi nation of the first inquiry on Monday the security en tered into for his attendance at the court on the next day was one-fifth of the sum now required. Yesterday Mr. Phillips, shipowner and broker, 2, Royal Exchange• buildings, presented himself before the bench, and said that for the last thirty-five years he had known the prisoner, who, in consequence of having lost his wife recently, and being left with a large family, upon many occasions, evinced great absence of mind. lie (Mr. Phillips) thought that the bail asked for was very large, and intimated that, if it were lowered, he would willingly become one of the securities, being fully impressed with a belief in the accused's strict honesty of principle. Mr. BROUGHTON—The expression of your belief as to that matter may be of service to the prisoner at his trial, but not here. Mr. Phillips—l would bail him instantly to the amount of 5,0001. if I were satisfied of his steadiness of mind Mr. Phillips then went out, and in the course of a quarter of an hour returned, accompanied by his part ner, Mr. Shaw, and offered themselves as sureties, and on the usual questions being put to them and satisfac torily replied to, their bail was taken; each of the gen tlemen said that no indemnification whatever had been given. The prisoner having also entered into his own recog nisance in 5001., the parties then quitted the court. LAMBE:IIi. William Ebbs, a youth of nineteen years of age, was charged before Mr. Elliott with stealing a horse, cart, and harness, of the value of 151., the property of Mr. Charles Taylor, a corn-dealer at Kennington-cross. On Monday week the prisoner called on a person named Stamford, in St. George's market, who is in the habit of dealing in such property, and told him his master had a horse, cart, and harness for sale, to pay up some arrears in a loan society, and Stamford said he had no objection to purchase them, provided there was not any thing hanging to it. On the following morning, at an early hour, the prisoner forced the lock off the prose cutor's stable door, and called to a man named Page to assist him in getting out the cart and placing in it the horse. He then drove on to St. George's-market, and sold the lot to Stamford for 51., though the prosecutor deposed they were worth more than 151. In the course of the same day Mr. Taylor traced out his property, and Stamford at once gave it up. Mr. ELLIOTT remarked upon the gross impropriety of Stamford in purchasing the property under such circum stances, for one-third of its real value, and said he richly deserved the loss of the 5/. he had paid, and committed the prisoner for trial. SOU7'HIVARK. Julia Hayne, a good-looking girl, 15 years of age, the daughter of a compositor, was brought before Mr. Cot tingham, charged with attempting to purchase poison for the purpose of destroying herself. Inspector Carter, of the L division, said that between five and six o'clock on the preceding evening the pri soner was brought in custody to the station-house in Tower-street, by policeman 106 L, who stated that she was given in charge to him at a chemist's shop, where she went to purchase arsenic, which she afterwards con fessed she intended to have taken to destroy herself. The inspector added, that instead of locking the girl up, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he sent her to the workhouse, where she was kept all night; and that her father and also the chemist from whom she wanted to purchase the poison were now in attendance — the former to relate the particulars with regard to his daughter, so young a girl, contemplating suicide, and the latter to describe the circumstances that took place when she entered his shop. Mr. Jones was then called forward, and stated that he was a chemist and druggist in Blackfriars-road. That on the previous evening about the time above mentioned the prisoner, in a hurried manner, entered his shop with out a bonnet, or any covering on her head, and asked to be served with a pennyworth of arsenic. Witness hap. pened to be in an inner room at the time, and on hearing what passed he went into the shop, and addressing the prisoner asked her what she wanted wi;h the arsenic. Her reply at first was that it was wanted to kill rats, but when he pressed her closely and inquired where she came from, she burst into tears and acknowledged that she wanted the arsenic to poison herself, owing to the cruel treatment she experienced at the hands of her mother. lie then questioned her further on the subject, and in reply she told fern that she became aware of the nature of arsenic, and its deadly effect, by reading ac counts of different suicides in the newspapers, and added, that her life was made so truly wretched at home that she had made up her mind to destroy herself. Finding the girl was in such a condition of mind, ho considered it his duty, instead of allowing her to depart, and pro bably succeed in her application for a deleterious drug elsewhere, to call in a constable, to whom he related some of the above facts, and gave her into his custody, in order that her family might be apprized of what had taken place. The Magistrate, addressing the prisoner, who stood sobbing bitterly, asked her if she heard what Mr. Jones said, and whether it was true? She replied in the affirmative. She said that her mother was in the habit of drinking to great excess when her father was engaged at his business. On those occa sions she ill-treated her, and in order to avoid such treat ment, she (the daughter) left home and got a situation, where she was living in comparative comfort. Her mother came there about three months before last Christmas, drunk, abused her employer, and made her leave her place. Since then her mother continued her ill-treatment; was in the habit of tearing up her clothes; and on the previous day, when she expressed her inten tion of leaving home and getting another situation, and put on her bonnet arid shawl for the purpose, her mother flew at her, tore the bonnet to pieces, struck her, and vowed vengeance against her; and it was owing entirely to her mother's harshness of conduct towards her that induced her to go the chemist's shop to purchase arsenic ' to poison herself. The accused's father next stood forward, and com plained of the dissipated habits of his wife, who for the last five years had indulged in li quor t o suc h an excess as to make his home a perfect misery to them. The present was not the first occasion on whi c h s h e had acted with cruelty towards the girl, for which she (the mother) had been given into custody and taken to a Police-court, where she was held to bail, arid in default of finding the required securities, was committed for three months. While she lay in gaol he paid 12s. a week for her board, instead of permitting her to live upon the priso n a ll owance; b u t h e f oun d w h en s h e was liberated and returned to her home she broke out as bad as ever—cornmeaced drinking afresh, and treated his daughter in the way represented. Mr. COTTINGHAN, having pointed out to the girl the sin and wickedness of such an attempt as that she was about to make upon her own life, attributable in a great measure to her mother's vile conduct towards her, then addressed the father, and said, that if he had a spark of affection for the children, he would not permit them to remain an hour longer with a mother who set them such a dreadful example; but if he though t p ro p er to live longer with such a wife that was no reason he should suffer his children to be where she wa s, and if i he pro mised to comply with the advice , hi s child, instead of being sent to prison, should be forthwith discharged, and given up to him. The father intimated that he should certainly adopt the magistrate's kind suggestions, and his clughter was accordingly discharged, and they left the Court together. EUCLID OUTDONE.—The following proposition is so immensely difficult that we offer a large reward—the particulars of which will be duly announced—to any one by whom the problem is solved, It is as follow,,:—Given, a railway time-table—to find the periods fixed fur the starting of the trains.—Punch. GREAT MARLOW. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday). Mr. John Miller, a farmer, of Little Marlow, proved that cne of the electors promised him that he would vote for Sir William Clayton, but he afterwards voted for Colonel Knox, and upon his taxing the elector with his breach of faith, he said his vote was worth 51. The Committee then adjourned till eleven o'clock to morrow. KINSALE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday). Some formal proofs were then put in, after which one r two eases of bribery wore proved, and the Committee adjourned. LYME REGIS. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the legations in the petition presented against the return of Mr. Abdy for Lyme Regis met for the first time yester day morning; Lord Ashley in the chair. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham appeared for the petitioners, and Mr. M. D. Hill, with whom was Mr. Wordsworth, for the sitting - Member. Mr. Sergeant WILL/N . OllAm opened the case for the petitioners—The petitioners complained that the sitting Member obtained his election by resorting to bribery and corrupt practices. The bribes were administered to the voters by his agents, who went down from London for the purpose, and while at Lyme Regis adopted the significant name of Birdseye. lie should prove seven distinct acts of bribery, besides several cases where the sitting Member had given ♦arious voters employment, as a consideration for their voting for him. The peti tion was that of Sir F. Kelly, and against the return of the sitting Member. The numbers polled at the election were, 146 for the sitting Member, and 143 for Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and if he succeeded in neutralising the votes of the seven parties against whom he preferred charges of bribery, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, instead of being in a minority, would be entitled to be placed at the head of the poll. The Learned Counsel proposed to go into the scru tiny case first, but the Committee decided that bribery ought to be proved before the scrutiny could be gone into. The witnesses, however, required to prove the bribery case were not in attendance, and the Committee, therefore, adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow. EAST ANGLIAN RAILWAY. An ordinary meeting of the shareholders in the above company was held yesterday afternoon at the London Tavern; Henry C. Lacey, Esq., presided. The report which was read stated that, in order to complete the works on the line and secure the necessary facilities for the traffic, a much greater outlay than the directors orignally expected would be required. The amount of increased expenditure necessary would be 248,5621., and the ways and means at the disposal of the company to meet the sum was 117,451/., leaving a sum of 131,1111. still to be provided for to put the railway in an efficient state for working the traffic, with a view to a remunerative dividend. The directors recommended the creation of shares bearing a preferential dividend in perpetuity of 7 per cent. per annum; these shares being of course offered to the present proprietors in the proportion of one new share of 51. for every existing 25/. share, and one new share of 31. 10s. for every existing 181. share. Tho re port also stated that the branch from Watlington to ‘Visb,ch was opened for traffic on the Ist instant, and in a few weeks the junction of this branch with the Eastern Counties line from Wisbech to March and St. Ives would be completed, and, by that means, a commu nication would be esiablished with the St. Ives and Huntingdon line. The traffic, upon the portion of the railway s already opened, had averaged 4234 per week. The directors expected an accession of an important branch of traffic not included in the original estimates, viz., coal, in the direction of the River Ouze. The average import of that mineral into Lynn for the last seven years had been 244,000 tons annually, of which quantity about four-fifths passed into the interior in the direction of the company's lines. The directors,in accord ante with a resolution at last meeting, had disposed of the new shares, the deposits upon which, amounting to 3,4771. 135., had not been paid. In compliance with suggestions received from many holders of scrip certifi cates for the new 3/. 10s. shares; the directors were wil ling, at the option of the holders, to allow the same to remain as scrip until the 31st of December, 1852, the period limited for the option of converting these shares into the stock of the company; but it was intended to issue sealed certificates to any of the holders of these shares who might wish to register. The engineer's report stated the whole of the lines which had been opened for public traffic were in a very perfect state of repair, and the works through the Fens upon the Ely line had stood through the winter without the slightest appearance of failure. The piers for the permanent bridges over the river Ouse and the middle level drain, on that line, were carried up considerably above low-water mark, and all difficulty in their con struction had been consequently overcome. The short line for connecting the Wisbech Station with the Eastern Counties line to March, St. Ives, and Peterborough, would very soon be completed, affording a communication with the Ely and Huntingdon line at SL Ives, and with the line of the North-Western Com pany at Peterborough. The works upon the third contract on the Dereharn line (the only part of the company's lines under contract not completed), were progressing, and that line might be opened throughout early in the summer. The statement of accounts showed the total receipts to be 1,066,985/. ls. 2d., and the expenditure 1,062,741/. 1 ls. 2d., leaving a balance of 4,2431. 103. In answer to some inquiries made by Mr. 0. Copeland, a shareholder, it was stated that the banker's charges for the last four mouths, amounting to 7111, included the cost of debenture stamps and the commission paid to brokers for loans. It was also stated that the engineer was not paid by commission, but by salary, which the directors had fixed at 1,000/. a year. No arrangement had yet been made with the Eastern Counties Company with regard to the rent to be paid by them for running over the lines belonging to this company. After a great number of other questions respecting the report and accounts had been put and replied to, Mr. COPELAND said the report presented a most unsa tisfactory picture of the company's affairs, and was entirely different to the prospect held out to the shareholders when they were induced to embark their capital in the concern in the expectation of receiving 101. per cent for the money invested. They now found that the present gross weekly receipts amounted only to between 4001. and 5001. a week, which were scarcely sufficient to cover the working expenses; and notwithstanding the confident statements made by the directors on previous (ccasions, they were now asked to create additional capital to meet the expenses which would be incurred in ex cess of the estimates that had been made. In his opinion the shareholders had been deceived and lured on by the sweet voice of hope, which, however, was uttered only to be broken ; and he had no confidence whatever in the way in which their affairs had been managed, and, if no alteration was made, he was confident the company would soon become a bankrupt concern. Mr. BRUCE, the deputy-chairman, said, if the share holders would assist the directors, and invest them with their confidence, they would consult their own interests much better than by attacking their honour, or indulging iu abuse, because the directors had done everything in their power to promote the interests of the company, and if their proceedings were sanctioned the share holders might rest assured that it would not become a bankrupt concern. A good deal of warm discussion then took place upon the affairs of the company, after which the report was received and adopted. Mr. Abdy, M.P. Mr. Bruce, Mr. Clay, M.P., and Mr Self, were re-elected directors. Mr. Tucker was re-elected auditor of the company's accounts. Resolutions in accordance with the recommendation in the report with respect to the creation of new shares were then passed, and after a vote of thanks had been passed to the Chairman, the meeting separated. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, FEB. 16. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market to-day has been steady, but the transactions are limited, and prices have rather a declining tendency. We close at the following quotations: —Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire (late C. and B.) 16 —East Lanca s hi re , [- Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths (West Riding Union), 2% dia.—Liverpool, Chester, and Southport, 1 Is, 3d. dis.—London and North-Western, 145 Ditto, 401. Shares (London and Manchester), 16 c. p.—Man chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 20/. Shares, dis.— Midland Stock, 115 1 ,4—Ditto, 401. Shares, 45—Ditto, New Halves, 1!I dis.—North Staffordshire, % p.—South-Eastern and Dover, No. 4, 1 !4 dis.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Purchase), 2%p. MANCHESTER, Fan. 16. STOCK EXCHANGE. — The sales are—Huddersfield and Man chester Railway and Canal (24/. paid), 2% dis.—Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 1 n. Manchester, and Newcastle Junction, 2 1.16 dia.—London, Brighton, and South Coast, 36 1 ,4 —Manchester , Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Quarters, No. '2, 1776—Ditto, Preference, 1-16 dis.—Ditto Grimsby (20/. Shares), 5 1-16 dia.—North Staffordshire, 13-16 p.—South-Eastern and Dover, 31.4—Litto, No. 4, 1 9-16 dis.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick, Extensions, No. 2, 3 5-16 p. Gas in Guernsey is charged at the enormous and unsaleable rate of 12s. per 1,000 cubic feet, and what is the consequence? That in a locality possessing a town parish population of 16,000 to 17,000, gas is so expensive a luxury that not even the streets are lighted! and that the shopkeepers even, with pipes and apparatus for it up in their premises, can only afford to light their shops with it on a Saturday evening! To be without a gas work in th ese d ays o f en li g ht enmen t i s t o b e in a very primitive st a t e i n d ee d—b u t t o h av e a gas-work, and still to be in th e same primitive state, shows there must be something radically wrong. The only matter of astonish ment here, how ever , i s t h e utter bli n d ness o f th e gas proprietor to his own interest. Doubtless his argument is this—why, eve n 12 s. scarce l y pay me, h ow t h en can I reduce, without a positive loss, especially with a popula tion who only use it of a Saturday night, or not at all, even in their streets? a topsy-turvy argument indeed!..._ Builder. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 16 (Sittings_ at Westminster.—Trial at Bar, before Mr. Baron PARSE, Mr. Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Baron RoLFE, and Mr. Baron PLATT.) BURON V. DENIIAN. Mr. M. I). Mee rose to reply on behalf of the plaintiff. By the kindness of their Lordships an ex amination was made into the state of the evidence with respect to the pleadings, and many questions originally introduced were now disposed of in favour of the plaintiff and against the Crown. It was not now contended by the Crown that what the defendant did was a justifiable act, except so far as was now attempted to make it so under the authority of King Siacca and his chiefs. Another ground of defence remained to be dealt with, which was, that the act was the act of the State, and not of the individual. The defendant was therefore, according to his Learned Counsel, protected but not justified in his conduct, and was not bound to answer in this action. The plaintiff, in establishing himself at the Gallinas for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade—in him perfectly legal— broke no laws which he was bound to obey, and he therefore stood in precisely the same situation as an Englishman would have stood prior to the year 1807. Breaking no law, sinning against no authority to which he owed allegiance, his property had been visited with destruction by the defendant, who had set up the de fence to which he had already alluded. Whether he deserved the charge of want of candour made against him yesterday by the Attorney-General he could not say ; he had endeavoured to conduct the case for his client in the fairest manner. There could be no doubt as to what were his own feelings and sympathies on the subject of slavery. His education and his principles would never lead him to hold sympathy with the op pressors of his fellow-beings. But was he to set himself up as the judge of the actions of the plaintiff? Was it for him to lecture him on the subject of the immorality of the traffic in slaves, when he could be triumphantly answered by the plaintiff pointing to the history of this country in connexion with the matter? Now it ap peared that a woman of the name of Tri Noman was detained in slavery by Prince Manna, at the Gallinas, whom the governor of Sierra Leone was anxious should be restored to liberty. This was the origin of the attack made by the defendant. The defendant was ordered to cruize off the coast to interrupt any vessels afloat. Such was his position at the time of the attack. lie then pro ceeded in naval array up the Gallinas, and without wait ing to communicate with any person, as he went up the river the force seised a number of canoes, and de stroyed them, on the morning of the 19th November, and possession was taken of the warehouses at Dombo corro; they took the keys of the premises, which they retained until they left the island, using the contents of the warehouse at their own will, for the purpose of re covering back the slaves who had been driven away. The slaves were clothed out of the stores of the plaintiffs at Dombocorro by the defendant. The force then took the gunpowder and the spirits, and destroyed them. And here he must complain of the statements of the Attorney-General that these spirits were purposely poisoned, without a particle of proof of their being so. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-It was stated so in the general order issued by the defendant. Mr. M. 1). HILL—WeII, if it were so, what means had the defendant of proving that they were poisoned? All these things were done before the treaty—there was no doubt upon that subject, all the witnesses agreed upon that point. After this treaty, as it was called, was entered into the defendant waited till he had col lected 800 slaves, all the buildings were destroyed, and when there remained nothing more to be destroyed, the force left Dombocorro. With respect to the amended plea the amendment proposed was, " that King Siacca, with the consent of other persons to the defendant unknown, being chiefs, did enact and make a law that the said goods and chattels should be appropriated to the use of the said King." Now there was no evidence whatever of any such law having been issued by King Siacca or his chiefs. Neither did the treaty itself state that it was made with the consent and authority of the King and his chiefs. There was no evidence that King Siacca even knew anything at all about the matter. But if King Siacca were really present, and was a party to the treaty, still there was no evidence of the law having been issued. A treaty was not law, it was onl,) of the nature of a contract. It was not in proof that the law in question had been made by the chiefs; and even if it was it would be fatal to the plea, which recited that the law was made by persons unknown to the defen dant, whereas their names were known and were affixed to the very treaty which had been produced by the defendant. The defendant further justified his conduct by the treaty. There was a great detention and seizure of the property of the plaintiff before the treaty, but the treaty did not authorise the defendant to seize at all; it was a complete contradiction. There appeared to be a " bull " crept in somewhere. Instead of the treaty being an authority from King Siacca to Captain Denman to do certain acts, it was from Captain Denman to King Siacca. By a supplementary clause in the treaty of the ,high contracting powers, it was stated " Captain Den man, by the request of Prince Manna and the chiefs, at first commanded that the trade goods of the white slave dealers should bo destroyed ;" he, Captain Denman, requested this, " but King Siacca having declared that those persons having acted in defiance of his laws, and, in consequence considered their goods as forfeited to him." He was not quite so absurd as to burn the goods; "they were forfeited to him," ho said. "Captain Denman has withdrawn his demand upon this point,• and consents that King Siacca shall take possession of the goods upon the condition that they are immediately taken from the factories and removed to Ghindemar, or some other place far from the coast." The whole effect of this was to make this petty barbarian chief a monarch, as he was called, a thi e f instead of an incendiary ; he was to take the goods instead of burning them. He apprehended this would prove decisive at once of the case, and called their Lordships' attention to the subject. With respect to the defendant pleading that he acted under command of her Majesty, he contended that a subsequent ratification could not be considered as tantamount to a previous command. Very grave questions would arise upon such a construc tion of the powers of the ratification. By the peculiar form of the plea it was not necessary for him to argue the question. Mr. Baron PARSE said, the Court were of opinion that the evidence of a subsequent ratification could be given in evidence, un der the plea of command, but whether such ratification , was equivalent to previous command was a point which they wished;to have argued. Mr. M. D. thee said that he would then proceed to argue first, that this was not only not such a ratification as was required, but that in point of fact, it was no ra tification at all. There were three circumstances to be considered. First, the facts themselves; secondly, the representation of such facts ; and, thirdly, the ra tification, real or supposed, by whom it was made, and how made. No publication of the ratification had taken place in the Gazette iu such a manner as to inform the Queen of Spain and the whole world that the proper mode of proceeding on the part of the Queen of Spain, in making application for redress in respect of acts which had operated to the injury of one of her subjects. No representation had been made by Captain Denman, or any other person, to the Crown, or the authorities of this country, that the attack had been made by that gentleman prior to the treaty having been concluded between King Siacca and Captain Denman. The Noble Lords, Russell and Palmerston, whose letters had been put in, appeared to go on the assumption that the establishments at the Gallinas were piratical estab- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. IG. (Sittings in London, after Term, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE and Special Jut ies.) RICHARDS v. LONDON AND BRIGHTON AND SoUTII COAST RAILWAY COMPANY. Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Phipson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Taltourd and Mr. Swann for the defendants. Mr. PutrsoN opened the pleadings. The first count of the declaration stated that the defendants were the owners of the London and Brighton and South Coast Railway, and were also the owners of certain carriages on the railway, and were common carriers ; and that on the 10th of November, 1546, Charlotte Susannah Richards, the wife of the plaintiff; was a passenger from Woodgate station, near Bognor, to London, and that. amongst other luggage she had a dressing-case, con taining jewellery and articles of great value, and by reason of the want of care and negligence of the defendants the dressing-ease was lost. The second count stated the defendants to be com mon carriers from Woodgate to the hackney coach stand at London-bridge station, where it was their duty to deliver the dressing-case to the plaintiff ; but by reason of the defendants' negligence the dressing-case was lost. The third count stated the defendants' duty, as common carriers, to deliver the dressing-case by the hackney coach at the plaintiff's residence. To this declaration :the defendants pleaded, 1, not guilty; 2, a denial that they were owners of the railway or of the carriages; 3, a denial that they were common carriers ; 4, a denial that the plaintiff's wife was a passenger with her luggage ; 5, that the dressing-case contained ar ticles of jewellery of above the value of 101., and that the directors had posted a notice at the station that they would not be answerable for the loss of such luggage, unless an increased rate of charge was paid; that_ the value of the dressing-case was not declared, nor any increased rate of charge paid ; 6, a denial that the dressing case was ever delivered to the defendants to be carried. To these pleas the plaintiff replied that the defendants were guilty of the negligence charged against them without the causes in their special pleas mentioned. Mr. Sergeant BYLES, in opening the case for the plain tiff, said the plaintiff, Major Richards, was an officer in her Majesty's service, and the action was brought to recover the value of a dressing case, containing trinkets of considerable worth, which was lost by the negligence of the railway company, who were the defendants, on the 10th of November, 1846. In the autumn of 1846 the plaintiff's wife was staying at Bognor for her health; she was an invalid; and on the 10th of November she re turned to London. She drove to the Woodgate station, having, amongst other luggage, a dressing case containing articles of jewellery, the loss of some of which no money could c ,, mpensate. There was in it a gold cockle-shell watch, made by Rundle and Bridge, and presented to the plaintiff by the late Queen Caroline; also some valuable earrings. a present from a gentleman high in office in the Portuguese Government, and some valuable rings and ether articles belonging to Mrs. Richards. The train left Woodgate station about two o'clock, and arrived at London• bridge at half-past 5. The dressing case was put under Mrs. Richards's feet. Mrs. Richards was su ill with a spinal complaint that she hod to be lifted in and out of her carriage. A lady's.maid was in the carriage with her. On arriving at London-bridge, the company's servants called a hackney coach, and whilst the footman and lady's maid were attending to Mrs. Richards, two of the company's porters said they would look after the luggage. The luggage was placed in the coach, and Mrs. Richards was driven to No. 2, Cambridge-terrace, Hyde Park. On arriving there, the dressing -case could not he found. The Learned Counsel then stated that, as common carriers, the defendants would be answerable for the sate delivery of the luggage at the plaintiff's house, and also that they were respon sponsible as bailees for the safety of the luggage be tween the railway and tho hackney coaches at the terminus. The facts put in issue by the pleas would be proved, and it would be proved that there was no notice posted at the Woodgato station requiring increased carriage for articles of jewellery, &a , and limiting the liability of the company under the Carriers' Act; the defendants would not, therefore, be entitled to the bene fit of that plea. The hackney-coachmen were the agents of the company, as only certain people were admitted into the yard, and they were the agents of the company to complete their contract of safely delivering the pas sengers and their luggage. This had been decided in the case of "Pickford v. The Grand Junction Railway Company," reported in 12 Meesom and Welaby. If he proved these facts, and that there was a want of reason able care on the part of the company, the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict of the jury. Then as to the damages, he should call the lady's-maid to describe what the dressing-case contained, and a jeweller would speak to the value of such articles being about 1301. or 1401. The peculiar value attaching to them could not well be estimated. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on the part of the defendants, would give no trouble about the value of the articles. They might be taken to be worth 1501. The lady's-maid, Jane Soper, then proved the facts opened by the Learned Counsel—that the dressing-case was safe till the carriage arrived at the station at Lon don-bridge ; that when her mistress was lifted out of the earring° two of the railway porters told her to look after her mistress, and they would see that the luggage was all put right. They then drove to Cambridge-terrace, and the dressing-case could not be found. She had no doubt of the dressing-case being put under her mistress's feet at Woodgate. On cross-examination it appeared that she had written by direction of her mistress to Woodgate to ascertain if the dressiug-case was left there. The driver of the coach at Bognor was called to prove that the dressing-case was put into the carriage. The footman proved that he never saw it after leaving Bog nor. The clerk of the plaintiff's attorney proved having gone to the Woodgate station to search for the carrier's notice, and there was no such notice hung up there. A demand of payment for the last dressing-case was then proved, which was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Sergeant TALSOURD objected that the plaintiff had no case. The undertaking of the defendants was to receive Mrs. Richards and her luggage, and the duty imposed on them was to bring them safely to the end of the journey; and that there was no further duty on them to carry the luggage either to the hackney coaches or to the residence of the plaintiff. The defendants were mere gratuitous bailees in carrying the luggage from the railway terminus to the hackney coaches, and the luggage was safe at the termination of the journey. Mr. Sergeant BYLES admitted the strength of the objections as to the first count, but submitted that on the other .:ounts he was entitled to recover. His LOUDSLIIPwas of opinion that the contract was , . „, PUBLIC BUILDINGS. There is a fate against the public buildings of this country. The spell is not in our architects, it is a in our quarries, it is not in our resources, but aois, where or other in the chapter of accidents and in the mind of the people. " Tell it not in Gath," we are almost afraid that constitutional monarchy is rather republican in its tastes. Since the fall of Wolsey the history of our national architecture has been one series of shortcomings and reverses. Harry the Eighth was more given to pull down than to build. His three children trod in his steps. Queen Elizabeth loved to see her favourites ruin themselves with magnificent mansions, and lived on their splendour. Charles the First was a man of taste and employed Inigo Jones to build a palace worthy of this empire ; its numerous quadrangles would have filled the whole space between Northumberland House, Parliament-street, and the river. One bit was finished—namely, that out of which the royal founder stepped to the block. The fire of London and Sir Christopher 'Wren almost redeemed the credit of the nation. But that great man thwarted, stinted, insulted in every possible way, spent a long life of architectural martyrdom. For the sufferings he endured with patience he might almost be canonized. His plan for the metropolis was shelved, and his original design for St. Paul's was cut into two stories, divided into aisles and otherwise mal treated till little but the architect's marvellous power of construction survives. Gibbs was a great man, but only built a few churches. • Of the civil edifices raised since that date the tale is soon told. Somerset house is a splendid exception, but still unfinished. The Post-office and the British Museum are gloomy and grand, or severe and stupid, as people may hap pen to take it. It already turns out that neither of them is large enough for its purpose. The Bank scarcely rises to the elevation of a very handsome mews. The Exchange is the finest civil structure in the city, but it is what Euclid calls a trapezium, having a gigantic portico at the little end, and a dwarf tower at the big end; it is externally a nest of shops, and in ternally a very narrow quadrangle, containing a very large statue. The National Gallery we leave at pre sent in the hands of its numerous and implacable foes. Buckingham Palace is sent hack to the architect to be disguised in a new title•page and frontispiece, like an unsaleable book. These are some of our failures. Time would fail to tell of all. How is this ? Me diocrity of talent may have something to do with it, for the genius of a Palladio, a Michael Angelo, or a Bramante, nay, even of our own Wren, would have broken out through any obstacles ; but the chief reason h economy and interference. Yet, we must say, that if liberality is anywhere expedient, it is in the public buildings of a great constitutional country. Those buildings are the outward expressions of a political unity which should be loved and admired. The greater the nation the greater also is the tendency of private wealth and display to throw the state into the shade. We need not go beyond our own country and metropolis to witness this result. The mansions of the nobility, not only in their imposing aggregate, but even in some particular instances, give an air of meanness to the public edifices. There is little of which the people can he proud to call it their own. There is little to improve their taste, to raise their aspirations, and impress the image of the common wealth on their minds. When they have stood upon Waterloo-bridge —a private speculation—and seen the river froat and private terrace of Somerset-house, when they have walked through the Royal Exchange looked into the Long-room of the Custom-house, paid twopence for a peep into St. Paul's, been hur ried at sixpence a- head through the Tower, ascended the really magnificent staircase of the Museum, if they are fortunate enough to hit the right day,—examined the strange medley of pictures in the National Gallery, and felt a mo mentary awe in Westminster Abbey, the people have seen about as much as they are likely to see in this metropolis for many a long year. Hardly is there one public place, ore portico, one exhibition, one sacred aisle, one place consecrated by the recollections, or the trophies, or the productions of genius and worth, into which the wearied commonalty can escape from their dingy homes and noisy thoroughfares. Hardly is there one pile which they can contemplate with pride as faithfully representing the institutions, the genius, and the patriotism of their country The new houses of Parliament are a great, and in our humble opinion, a successful attempt to supply this deficiency; and it is with a degree of indignation that we see them exposed to a storm of paltry cavil and sneer. After so safe a deliverance as they met with through the fiery ordeal of last night's debate, we can hardly regret that occasion. But they who are moderately acquainted with the his tory of great buildings, and the lives of the most distinguished architects, will only recognize the repetition of a hacknied vulgarism in the attacks upon all that Mr. Barry has or has not done. In those attacks we see nothing but a sentiment which, in spite of its economic pretences, flippant criticism, and turbulent impatience, displays the want of a high and generous patriotism. The new palace of West minster is the palace not merely of a great monarch but of the first and noblest constitutional Govern ment in the world. As St. Peter's to the Roman Catholic communion, as our own St. Paul's to the churches of the Reformation, so are the Halls of West minster to the cause of constitutional liberty all over the world. Such is the spot now covered, such the idea now embodied, by the august pile slowly rising on the banks of our Thames. The design and style of the building were hardly brought into question last night. As, therefore, every month's progress has further developed its merits, and it has already outlived many hasty criti cisms to which it seemed obnoxious in its earlier stages, perhaps it is unnecessary to express any strong opinion on this subject. There is no great edifice in the world which is entirely successful, or, still more, which is altogether f or t una t e i n it s s i tuat i on an d sur rounding objects. 'With its site and the c i rcums t ances provided for him, with some troublesome conditions imposed, with many purposes, both peculiar and com plex, to be answered, with the genuine architecture of the fifteenth century to be adapted to the uses of the nineteenth, with the Council Halls of a vast empire to be erected round the throne of the Planta genets, and all to be done usefully, worthily, and last ingly, Mr. Barry has so far achieved as much as might have been expected from any architect of ancient or modern times. On this point we will only appeal to Lord Morpeth's and Sir Robert Inglis's eloquent description of his almost overpowering task, and the successful devotion with which the architect has given himself to it. In such undertakings, which are un avoidably progressive in their scale, their purposes, and their decoration, it is eminently unfair to revert too rigorously to the original estimate either of time or expense. The stringent rule of using one quarry, the addition of a vast embankment to the original plan, the increased accommodation for private busi ness, the fire-proof construction, the growing de mand for internal and external decoration in every possible form, and the new and most elaborate plans of ventilation, have all created a delay, which, after all, is nothing compared with the tedious progress of other great buildings. The edifice, or rather the vast collection of edifices, ought to be regarded rather as it is than as it was to be. If it can be shown to be actually excessive in any point, to be extrava gant either in style or dimensions, let it be so stated ; but it is evident that the Legislature was under no obligation to adhere to an insufficient or naked design. The excess on the original estimate has not, indeed, been so formidable as Mr. Osborne and his supporters would have us suppose ; but, be it small or great, it is not the question. What we have to ask is whether the building be proportioned to the wants of the Le gislature, to the dignity of its purpose, and to the glory of this empire. If it does not exceed this pro portion—if it does not transgress that standard of splendour which is fixed by the town and country residences of our wealthy nobility, and if it only gives the British Constitution a palace and a home that can vie with the Hotels de Ville of the German burgher, or the gorgeous halls of despotism, then we have no reason to grudge the expense, to chide the delay, or to censure an architect who has only shown himself equal to the occasion.—Times. [ADVERTISEMENT.I-TAE VIRTUE OF HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS 1114IILY 98TEEMED TMILODGILIOUT Itrota.—The Editor of the " Benares Recorder," publishes the following extraor dinary cure:—Heerah Lail, a cloth merchant, residing at Nagpors, had suffered for more than eighteen months with dreadful uleeroaa -ores all over his legs aid body, totally disabling him from business, he had expended large sums in medicine from the Ilakeems, with out relief, when an European gentleman, who had proved the effi cacy of Holloway's. Ointment and Pill's, recommended their use, which advice he followed, and in the course of twenty days be warn perfectly restored to health, from a disease which had brought him down to death's door. Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor 1101- loway's establishment, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. On the 10th ult., at Park-place, Maida-hill, the wife of E. F. Salter, Essi., stirgeon, of a d aug h ter. On the 11thinst., at Shad Thames, Mrs. Henry Carpenter, of a son. On the 12th inst., at the Willows, Upton, Essex, Mrs. D. Henry Fry, of a son. On the 12th inst., at Enfield, Middlesex, the wife of E. Robertson, Esq , of a son. On the 12th inst., at the Rectory, Little Ponton, the wife of the Rev. P. W. Worsley, of a son. On the 13th inst., at Balham, Surrey, lire. S. Churchill, of a daughter, still-born. On the 14th inst., at Sackville College, East Grinstead, the wife of the Rev. J. M. Neale, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 31st of January, at Bordeaux, Lewis de Drusina, Esq., of Mauritius, to Miss Georgette Couve, daughter of the late Anthony Cool-% Esq. DIES. On the 19th of January. at Montreal, Canada, the Hon. James Reid, late Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench ' On the 11th inst., Mr. James Parsons, of Long Acre. On the 12th inst., Mrs. Walken, Kensington-square. On the 14th inst., at Cranford, Middlesex, the Rev. S. Freeman Statham, aged 65. London: Printed and Published b♦ MURDMO YOUN No. 112, Strand, Printer, at the Sun Office, No. 11 ° a • Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the conntY cf kliddleaex, Thursday, February 17, 114*. r 1 l