The Sun. — London, England, 1828-11-12 00:00:00

to look deeply into this heart-oppressing subject. Mr. Peel has already reaped from his former la bours a portion of that reward which must act upon all public men with a force beyond every rival stimulus,—the approbation of reasonable merr,—either for his own efforts, or' for his co operation with the efforts of others, at the amend ment of the law. The great principle recom mended by a reference to the history of the above important proceedings is one with which Mr. Peel has not yet grappled in an ext ens i ve or prominent degree ; we mean the reinforcing our criminal jurisdiction by a nominal mitigation of punishments. As revenue is improved by a re duction of taxes, because the consumers are mul tiplied, so, beyond dispute, will justice be ren dered more productive by a policy which, under the name of tenderness, engages a greater num ber of civilized minds to aid rather than obstruct its administration. The thing has long been ttso clear for controversy. The law of capital punishment in many instances defeats itself by going directly to help the escape of the criminal. Adapt the punishment to the public sense of justice, and every honest man will enrol himself amongst her Ministers.—lbid. • The account which Mr. Sheil has given of the liberality of the Catholics in foreign coun tries, as compared with that of Protestants in England, is so utterly destitute of truth, that it would not require any notice but for the con firmation which it has received from one or two contemporaries. England, they say, is the only country in Europe, containing different religions, in which all are not on an equal footing, with the exception of Piedmont, in which some thou sands of Protestants are not liberally treated. To judge fairly of the liberality of Catholics, we have only to turn to Italy, the seat of the Head of the Catholic Church, and we there find that, till very lately, every one who ventured to differ from the Catholic faith was subject to the tor tures of the Inquisition ; and that, at present, not only no Protestant can hold any situation under Government, but he is prohibited from worshipping God according , to the tenets of his religion. An exception has lately been made in favour -of ,4blie English , ; but even this has been reluctantly - given, and with so many restrictions relative to the outward appearance of the place of worship, as to prove that the Pope, if he had the power, would allow only one reli gion to exist. During the , lifetime of the late Pope, who had a great regard for the English, public worship in the city' of Rome, according to the English form, was permitted, or rather winked at, by thesGovernmetitll but under the present Pope, they 'hare been obliged to with draw from the city, and hold their meetings in a private house outside the walls. This treatment of Protestants, however, is not confined to them %viten living, but is extended to their dead bodies. They are not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground, but only with unbap tized children, or persons who, by their principles or professions, have rendered themselves obnoxious to the Church. In Spain and Portugal, where the Government is so completely under the con trol of .the Priesthood, we are not surprised that the same system is adhered to ; but certainly it is rather . astonishing that in all the Republican and free States of South America the same illiberal treatment of Protestants should be continued.— Various attempts have been made by leading men in this country, and we believe also by the agents of Government, to induce the Repub lican leaders to adopt a more liberal policy ; but all that could be obtained was the mere tolera tion of the Protestant worship in private houses, entirely divested of every appearance either of churches or chapels. Mr. Shell, in his Penenden Heath speech, after alluding to the burning of Servetus and the persecu tions of the Catholics, wisely dropped the subject, by admitting that both were equally to blame. Nothing could be more incorrect, however, than such an inference. In the one sect such an atrocious means of repressing heresy was only the exception, in the other it was the general rule ; and all acquainted with history well know if a list of the murders committed by both par ties were drawn up, what a fearful preponderance would be found on the Catholic side. We have no intention of drawing up such a list, because we have no wish to excite any unfair prejudice against the question of Emancipation, and, be sides, believe that such scenes will never be re peated ; but it is only justice to the other side not to let an assertion pass unnoticed which all history disproves--Morning Herald. A great deal of unnecessary discussion has lately appeared in the columns of some of our cotempora poraries en a question which admits of no dispute— we mean the increase or decrease of the silk manufac ture in this country. There can be no doubt of the increase, for it is attested by parliamentary docu ments ;, and as little question of its extent, for we )(now it from the same source; but what it is the interest .of all parties to know distinctly and defi nitively is, Whether the wages of the weaver, and s h e profits of the manufacturer, have increased in preprtion. On thesepoints we have no certain data; but it may be fairly p resume d t h at i n one easethey h ave decreased, an d . t h at i n another they have s ustained a corr esponding addition.— The silk manufacture is no longer confined to Spital fields,: though Spitalfields' silk is still- the best which has been produced in this or in any other country.— it has migrated to Manchester and Macclesfield, where labour is cheaper, and a much larger quant i ty can be produced for a smaller sum of money. Th ere is not, as - tar as we can gather from the f most authen_ tie sources, the same quantity of silk manufactured in Spitalfields that there formerly was, but the de crease in this instance has been met by a corres ponding increase in other quarters; and the same observation may be made with respect to v, - ages. They have fallen in Spitalfields, where they were, previously to the repeal of the Spitalfields' Act, kept i sip to an artificial height by Act of Parliam ent ; they have risen in Manchester and Macclesfield, where they were depressed from the same cause. The question, therefore, is, not whether Spital fields, or Manchester, or any other part of the British Empire, has profited by the repeal of the Spitalfields Act, and the diminution of the duties on the import of the raw and manufactured article ; but whether the country generally has been benefited by it; and on this point we shall only waste one word. Pre viously to 1825 the smuggling of foreign silk was carried to an extent universally complained of;—now it is no t only not heard of, but in the French Papers we find numerous complaints aoninst the contraband introduction of English silk. ' Formerly we did not export silk manufactured goods to any quarter of the world—now we export them to every quarter, and those who were formerly our superiors in the manu faeture, would now be glad to be merely our rivals.— ;Horning Advertiser. Our contemporary of the Standard did us the honour last night to oppress us with an excess of its loyalty en a subject which, it will permit as to say, should be treated, at the prcaent moment, more tenderly. That an illustrious personage has for some considerable time laeen greatly indisposed i s beyond all question. Of the reports of his renewed health, of his improved health, of his vigour, and his mere local affection in his hand, we have heard enough, and rather more than is necessary under nli the circumstanceq. Our contemporary would evince =ore prudence it he woultilme us to our own ill formation on this subject, whi c h,. per h aps, h e w ill condescend to concede is in every :respect quite as accurate and official as his own. his Majesty had so • far recovered his strength and his spirits in the latter end of last week as to announce his intention of visiting town, and holding a council on Monday or yesterday. None rejoiced more at this communication than we did, because we know that his Majesty was extremely anxious to execute the imperative and ever painful duty which devolves upon him as the arbiter of the law. And we were, when we learnt that this reso lution was abandoned, quite convinced that it could be occasioned by nothing but an increase of that painful debility under which his Majesty has so long struggled. The King's getiPreus feelings are known to all his swbjects—he is desirous to perform his duty—to allay anxiety—to remove apprehensions--- and nothing but the commands of his medical at tendants would have restrained him from undertaking a very severe duty imposed upon him by his Royal prerogative. We stated this fresh access of indispo sition in the most delicate terms; but for all our forbearance, our kind friend could not refrain from reading its a severe lecture, which, out of respect, we beg leave to quote : " So far from any necessity existing for issuing bulletins, we have the great pleasure of stating that the King's health has not for a considerable time been so good as at the present moment, and that the only inconvenience his Ma jesty at present suffers front his late attack is a slight weak ness in the right hand, which prevents the King from using a pen long together. His Majesty, however, is able to sign all state documents that are indispensable for the prosecution of business. Whatever statements may be made to the contrary, we know this to be the case, and that the royal signature is written with a boldness and free door that in itself disproves tit once the reports to which we allude." Admitting all this to be true, merely from cour tesy, it appears rather strange that if his Majesty be only subject to a slight attack of rheumatism in his hand, which does nor, prevent him from writing the bold signature which our tontemporary has seen— (we hope it is affixed• to an appointment -of three thousand a-year)--he should he prevented from travelling twenty- miles to perform so urgent and important a duty, a duty that would only detain him,,in town two hours, and require his si g n m an u a l ato few papers. But we are pressing the case too far. These freaks on the part of our friend are rather affected. We sincerely desire that -he may be right, and we wrong; but, without meaning to give ' any offence, we only regret that he should choose to be entirely in the dark, in order that h:s reader may be as nruch so as himself. We could say more, but it is unnecessary.—Morning Journal. The following Address, in the form of a hand bill, has been pretty extensively distributed in West minster " TO THE CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS OF WESTMINSTER. " Efforts have long been made, and are now making, to stifle the expression of public opinion upon the question of Catholic Emancipation; and it would afinrd those v..ho are thus engaged no small gratification and matter for triumph, if they could prevail 'upon you to remain quiescent, and slider the barriers raised by our forefathers against Popery, and cemented by their blood, to be broken down and de stroyed. But shall it be, whilst your fellow Protestants are uniting in different parts of the country to - uphold the fabric of our happy Constitution, and strengthen the hands of Government in resisting the encroaching spirit of Popery, that you will remain dormant ? Recollect ! the Roman Catholic religion is not only unchanged, but from its first and acknowledged 'principle unchangeable; and the most distant risk of losing the privileges you at I present enjoy ought to put you on your guard, and rouse your energies to a mild, yet firm re s i s t a n ce . Th e time has arrived when England expects every man to do his duty. If you sleep now, you may awake when opposition will be useless. " The concessions that have been granted to the Roman Catholics, instead of producing, as they ought to have done, contentment and satisfaction, have only opened the way for fresh demands ; and considering, as they do, the revenues of the Church of England as having been wrested from their Church, they will be satisfied with nothing short of entire restitution. " If the Roman Catholics are eligible to seats in Parlia.. went, they are equally so to seats in the Cabinet Council. If eligible to sit in the Cabinet, they are likewise entitled to the Throne. The right ends here, or it has no begin ing. Look to this! Be content, fellow-Citizens, to bear the false charge of bigotry and intolerance, se liberally brought against ai; - who oppose what is called Catholic Emancipation. Bigotry t'as nothing to de with endeavouring- to maintain your just rights, when those rights are threatened with invasion. With the religious liberties of the Roman Catholics yo❑ are not called upon to interfere; but in assisting then► in the attainment of political power (and your silence would assist them), you endanger your own liberties, both religi ous and political." This document speaks for itself. The inhabitants of Westminster entertain better ideas of their reli gion, than to suppose that its preservation demands the placing one-third of their felloW-subjects out of the pale of the Constitution. They know that so long as the Catholics are excluded from the enjoy ment of their civil rights, so long must Ireland re main in a distracted condition-3o long must they themselves be heavily taxed to keep down their Irish brethren. They see in other countries Ca tholics and Protestants living together on the most friendly footing; they see a Catholic Establishment in Canada, the Catholic Clergy of which Colony, according to Protestant witnesses examined by Par- liament, so far from proselytising, seek only to live in peace, and to secure themselves from the en croachments of Church of England Clergymen ; and they do not see why a kind and equitable treatment should inflame the Catholics of this empire in parti cular with the desire of disturbing their fellow citizens in the enjoyment of their rights and privi legee. At all events, they have a better opinion both of the principles and energy of Protestants than to suppose that if the Catholics were to attempt any thing against their rights and liberties, they (the majority) would be unable successfully to defend these rights and liberties. They do not wish to in quire whether the principles of the Church of Rome are changed or unchanged ; they know that their own principles call on them to punish no men on account of their religion, so long as they who profess that religion remain peaceable subjects of the State, and the exercise of it does not interfere with the enjoyment of the civil and religious liberty of others. So much for this appeal to the citi zens of Westminster. But it is said efforts have long been made to stifle the expression of public opinion on the question of Catholic Emancipation. Indeed ! Not, surely, in Westmin ster. Th ere are spots in the kingdom yet covered by the thick darkness in which the Parsons so much delight, and where the passions and prejudices of an ignorant population may be appealed to with a chance of success; but Westminster is riot one of those spots. If, in Leeds, Brunswielers are ()Miffed to seek the shade, publicity in Westminster surely can little benefit them. We challenge them to the proof. What is the obstacle ? The writer or writers of this Address might have called a public meeting in Westminster : they may call one now, and propose whatever they please to the people. Meetings in Westminster are al ways called by a c com monly at. number of the inhabitan t householder electors, s their Own expence. A Requisition is usually sent to the Bailiff of the Dean and Chapter, morsly sailed tree nigh Bailiff of Westminster, appoints a day,. and takes the who generally This is courtesy, however, on at the Meeting. on the part of the Bailiff, and he may de c li ne, as he has sometimes done, to ell a public meetin g• It has been thought to be more respectable to h ave the Bailiff in the Chair, as he acts somewhat hi the manner of a Sheriff, and is the returning officer at elections of Members of Parliament for Westminster. The sanction of the Bailiff is not, however, necessary, and any number of the inhabitants may themselves convene a Public Meeting. Westminster is, and has been for some time, singularly circumstance( with respect to public meetings of the electors. — Formerly meetings were held in Westminster Hall, but at length the doors were locked against them and they were excluded. Their meetings were then always, as they had before been occasionally, held in Kilace-yard, in flout of Westminster-hall. But abOut the year 1810, Sir Francis Burdett and LQ44 Cochrane being - then illernbets for the City and Liberties, a Bill was brought in excluding . the electors from Palace-yard during the sitting of either House of Parliament, or the sitting of the Courts of Law, or any one of them, and proposing to enact that no Public Meeting should be held within one mile of Westminster Hall. It is somewhat remark able, that no effort was made to prevent this Bill passing into a law. No real inconvenience bad been psodueed by those Meetings; but a pretence was set up that on some occasion inconvenience might ensue, and the Bill would have passed as originally framed. Some Member, however, having ob. served, that if no meeting were to be held within a mile of Westminster Hall, the Electors would have no place to meet in, it was agreed to exempt Csvent•garden from the operation of the Bill, and when this became the law, the Meetings of the Electors were transferred to Covent-garden, and were there held on sufferance ; no obstruc tion was, however, offered to their assembling tilde, At length Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor's Police Bill was passed, Sir F. Burdett and Mr. Hobhottse be ing the Members for the City and Liberties; and as neither of them is a man of business, and as neither ever gives himself any trouble about any matters of detail which affects his constituents, they made no opposition to any part of that Act—the electors were by it totally excluded from holdin g a p u bli c meeting on any occasion, in any place Ivrnsoever, without committing a misdemeanour; and they are, therefore, differently circumstanced from every other body of electors. They have no To wn -h a ll, no Guildhall, as they formerly had —no place, no spot, on which they can legally assemble; and thus, by the negligence of their own representatives, have they been deprived of the power of assembling to state any grievance, or to perform any duty to them selves or their country. The legality of their meeting in Covent-garden was brought to issue in 18'27, when a requisition to call a meeting was sent to the Bailiff, who, for some reason not known, refused to comply, and the meeting was at tempted to be held without his sanction. The platform belonging to the electors was put up in the usual place in Covent-garden, when the Palish Au thorities interfered, pulled it down, seized the mate rials, and kept them until certain demands which they made were complied with, and even than the mate rials were restored as matter of courtesy. No hopes now are entertained that the present Representa tires will interfere in Parliament to correct this in convenience, or to restore to their constituents a practice, which, by long usage, had become a right, and WM never questioned. They are well acquaint ed with the facts above stated, and might have made if they had so chosen, an effort to enable their con stituents to hold public meetings without committing misdemeanours. It will no doubt be alleged, that they have not been publicly called upon to do so; and this is true—but then " what is every body's business is nobody's business;" and they are sent to Parliament especially to watch over the inte rests of their constituents, and it was and is their bounden duty first to prevent these Acts being passed, without clauses preserving the rights of their constituents; and afterwards, this having been neglected, to have consulted them on the best means of recovering the right of which they had been deprived. Not only are the electors of Westminster deprived of the power publicly to assemble, but the Bailiff, who is the returning officer, and bound to execute the King's writ, is by these Acts deprived of the power. He cannot erect hustings, or even by any arrangement obstruct the street to take the election, without in curring the penalty of the law. He may even be prevented commencing any arrange ment, and may, with all who assist him, be taken into custody, and dealt with according to law.— Such is the plain state of the case in respect to the largest body of Electors in the United King dom. If the framers of the address find in these circumstances any obstacle to their calling a public meeting,let them place it to the right account, and not to any unwillingness ofthe friends of civil and religious liberty to meet them in diseussion.--Morning Chroh EAST INDIA. DIRECTION. .1 A very curious scene is said to have occurred lately at the India House during one of the se cret meetings of the Court of Directors. After the discussion of some business of a general nature, the Chairman rose to make a proposi tion to his brethren then present, which sprang, he observed, out of a pledge which had been given by his predecessor in that chair, the fulfil ment of which concerned not only that indivi dual, but the character of the whole body. He then went on to state, in substance, that during the recent proceedings in a Court of Law against a member of that Court, charged with employ ing his patronage for corrupt purposes, much difficulty existed in obtaining evidence calculated to establish that fact, and one very important witness was only prevailed on to give his testi mony, by the promise of an appointment for a near relation ; which the worthy Chairman, his predecessor, - considered himself the more strongly bound to make, inasmuch as the person requir ing such prowise, before he would consent to come forward, had, in fact, been deprived of such an appointment by the investigation then going on. What had been thus rendered neces sary to the ends of justice, and had fully an swered its purpose, would, the Chairman con ceived, be sanctioned by that Board. He therefore begged to propose, that a cadetship should be placed at his disposal for the fulfil ment of the promise given by his predecessor. The Directors said to have been present on this occasion were fourteen, exclusive of the Chair man. Out of deference to the chair, very few observations were made on the proposition sub mitted to them, but looks spoke very eloquently the prevalent feeling; and on putting it to the vote, the numbers were-10 against, and 4 for, the proposition of the Chairman. A laugh from the victorious party followed the declaration of the votes, and it is said that the exultation of some of them at the result has led them, in an unguarded moment, to whisper the secret to pro fane ears. Upon the above, the Times makes the follow ing observations : " There is, under the head of East India Direction,' an account of a transaction of so singular a nature, that we cannot wholly give credit to it, though there may probably be enough of truth in it to require the most ample explanation. The present Chairman is said to have called upon the Court to empower him to fulfil a pledge given by his predecessor, of be stowing a writership upon some person, who, without that bribe, would not have come forward to give his evidence upon a late trial ! The trial is no doubt that of NIL Prescott and others (some of which others, by the way, were con victed), for accepting of valuable considerations in the bestowal of patronage. Is it' possible that suborned evidence can have been brought for ward at that trial ; that any man can have been wicked enough to demand the price of his testi mony before he entered the witness-box ; and that, of two Chairmen of the East India Direc-' tier', one can have engaged to satisfy the de mand, and another proposed to fulfil that engage ment ? If so, what becomes of the trial and the conviction s ? and what will become of the man who thing c:u for the not be. Hone his testimony .r But surely the affair is of serious—w e to ad m i t o f f urt h er secrecy. It requires we had a l mos t sa id o f too dread ful--a the m os t open d clear ex pl ana ti on , or t os e r and the Piot absolute contradiction." POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET. Yesterday Samuel _Dutton, an ostler in the em ployment of Mr. Woodin, veterinary surgeon, George's-yard, Long-acre, was brought before Mi. HALLS, the sitting Magistrate, charged- under tho provisions of Mr. Martin's Act, with wantonly, cruelly, maliciously, and unlawfully beating a horse which he had in charge. The prisoner's master, Mr. Woodin, came for ward to prosecute, the information having been laid at his instance, as a warning to other men in his employ. John. Priest, a stable-keeper in Mr. Woodin's ser vice, deposed that yesterday afternoon, at a quarter past four o'clock, during the temporary absence of the foreman, the prisoner, in a fit of passion, took up a broomstick, and struck one of the horses under Mr. Woodin's care, a violent blow on the head, by which the poor animal was felled to the ground as if with the stroke of a hatchet. Not content with this, the prisoner, when the horse rose from the ground, attacked him a second time, and beat him with his fists about the head in a brutal arid barbarous manner. The prisoner denied that he had struck the horse a second time, and endeavoured to excuse the blow with the broomstick by stating that he was in a pas sion at the time. Mr. HALLS said that the defence only aggravated the crime, and finding that the Act of Parliament empowered him to levy a fine in any sum from 10s. to a he fined the prisoner 405., and in default of payment, sentenced him to a month's confinement in the House of Correction. The Magistrate told Mr. Woodin that his conduct was highly commendable. John Priam, a lighter and waterman, residing in Duke-street, Adelphi, was charged by the parish officers of St. Martin-in-the-fields, with ' , laving de serted his will , . The wife having been sworn, deposed that the de fendant had, about a fortnight ago, abaNdOned her and his daughter; that she was consequently desti tute of support, and that she had been relieved by the parish. Mr. HALLS said it was distressing to think that a man should ho the means of own ruin and that of his family. • The defendant's statement, however, gave another complexion to the case. He said he had always done his best to support his family, and make them. comfortable. The constant threat of his wife, how ever, was, that she would leave him with four bare walls, and then to go to the poor-house, and oblige him to maintain her. The first part of her promise she had already fulfilled by stripping him of almost every article of furniture he possessed, and the ob ject of the present application was intended to effect the rest. She had sold or otherwise disposed of household goods to the amount of nearly 401., and had them conveyed clandestinely away. The land lord hearing this, put in a distress for rent, and carried off the few things his wife had left, leaying him nothing in the world excepting the clothes in which he stood. The wife, in answer to the Magistrate, admitted that she had conveyed away the furniture, but said she considered that her daughter and herself had a better right to them than the defendant. The goods were quite safe at the house of a relation. Mr. HALLS—Pray did you leave your husband of your oxii free will ? Wife—l left him because of his ill-usage. Defendant—She left me, Sir, without my know ledge or consent, and took the property with her. Mr. HALLS—I shall discharge the warrant. The law exonerates a husband whose wife shall leave him without sufficient cause. The conduct of the wife in this instance is most reprehensible; and if, under such circumstances, the husband were com pelled to support her, the precedent would be ex tremely bad. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Yesterday at two o'clock was appointed for the re-examination of Andrew Bell and Sarah Bell, alias Cockrell, his wife, who are in custody upon a charge of being implicated is the robbery of Lord Hartland's house, of which the female prisoner was left in care during the absence of his Lordship's family in Ireland. Lord Hartland having arrived, the two prisoners were brought in and placed at the bar. There was no new evidence produced on the occasion in addi tion to what has already appeared in the limes, ex cept that of Mrs. Coxhead, the wife of Mr. Cox head, a bookseller in Holborn. It will be recollect- ed that on the last examination Mr. Coxhead pro duced some of the books that had been stolen from Lord Hartland's library, and which had been brought for sale to his shop in the month of September last, and he pointed out the male prisoner from amongst several persons in the office at the time as the man who had so brought the books to his shop. It seems however, that after Mr. Coxhead bad so' pointed out the prisoner, and expressed his strong impression that he was the man, he entertained some doubts that the prisoner was so tall as the man who brought the books, although in every other respect he exactly answered the description, and Mr. Coxhead added, that Mrs. Coxhead had at the etne s the books were brought to the shop as good an opportunity of see ing the man who brought them as he had. In consequence of this, Mrs. Coxhead was yes. :erdayin attendance, and she positively swore that the prisoner was not the man who brought the books, nor was he near so tall. The NIAGISTRATE asked Mrs. Coxhead if she had as good an opportunity of seeing the man who brought the books to the shop, as her husband had at the time. Mrs. COxhead replied, that she had just the sat►ae opportunity, for they were both standing together in the shop at the time, and she could positively declare that the prisoner was not the man. The MAGISTRATE asked Mr. Coxhead what he thought of ahe matter now Mr. Coxhead, eyeing the prisoner with great mi nuteness, said, that he still had an impression tha the man who brought the books was rather taller than the prisoner, but with that exception, all the rest of his general appearance and countenance bore a remarkable resemblance to the prisoner—so much so, that his (Mr. Coxhead's) mind was even now by no means sat►sfied upon the subject. The prisoners said nothing in their defence beyond a total denial of all connexion with the robbery, ex cept that the female prisoner admitted that in the absence of the family from Lord Hartland's house she found a bundle of keys about the place, N% ith one of which she contrived to open the door of the back parlour, to let out a cat that had been locked in there when the family went to Ireland. Lord Hartland said that it was from this very back parlour that a valuable silver tureen and other articles of plate had been stolen, and his Lordship said that he had taken the key of this room and of several others that had been plundered with him to Ireland. The prisoners were again remanded. Mr. Cross, the King's livery-stable keeper, in Whitcomb -street, attended at the examination, and assured the Magistrate that the statement made by the officers, that he had shown any indisposition to forward the ends of justice by a wish to conceal any circumstance connected with the man in custody, Bell, must be erroneous, for that he (Mr. Cross) never saw the officers at all, nor was he ever aware of their having called at his stables, until he saw the report in the newspaper. Clements, the officer, said, that he did not until now know the person of Mr. Cross, and Mr. Cross was certainly not the person who had answered him in the manner he had stated, nor did be see Mr. Cross at all; " but," said the officer, pointing to a young man who stood by the side of Mr. Cross, " this is the person who spoke to me, and who un doubtedly told m e t h at h e was M r . ross." " He told you the truth," said Mr. Cross, "for that is my son." " Then," said the officer, " it was Mr. Cross,jun. who told me, when I asked him a question about the prisoner, who I was told had gone into the stable, a short time before, that if I wanted Bell I might go look for him." Mr. Cross asked the officer if he told him that he had a charge of this nature against the prisoner; because, if he had, he might not have got such an answer. Clements said, that his getting such an answer in the first instance was enough to prevent his say ing another word, or placing any confidence, by tell ing his precise business, in any one . who could so answer him. Mr. Cross said, that if his son had .made such .an answer, he was sure he must have done so under sense mistake, or from net knowing th t he was speaking to an officer; but he (Mr. Cross) was par ticularly desirous that it should be known that he was not the person who had made such an answer, for he was not at home at all at the time. Mr. CONANT said, that Mr. Cross's explanation was quite satisfactory ; indeed, he -was surprised when he heard that so respectable a person had so acted, and he bad determined to issue a summons to compel Mr. Cross to attend pat the office, to state what he knew about the man Bell. The matter was now, however, explained satisfactorily. HATTON-GARDEN. A respectable looking individual of the name of William Appleby, who stated himself to be a solici tor's clerk, and a native of Westmorland, was yes terday brought up for re-examinatien before the sit ting magistrates, Mr. Sergeant SEL.LON and Mr. LAING, charged with falsely- representing , himself as one of the Masters in Chancery, and under that dis guise with fraudulently obtaining various sums of money from several persons, who were simply made the dupeS of his artifice. . The first case gone into was one of a charge pre_ . ferred against the prisoner by John Gibson, keeper of the Harp and Crown public-house in Glasshouse street, Regent-street, for having obtained.B/.195. 6d. from him, under the above false pretence. The prosecutor stated, that early in the month of June last, the prisoner was introduced to him by a person of the name of Clementson, whO said he was a pro fessional man, having considerable practice in the law courts, and was then employed by him in a suit for the recovery of 50,0001. , Upon this occasion Mrs. Gibson, entering into conversation with the prisoner, told him that an uncle of hers, a Mr. Myles Walker, had died in India, and had bequeath ed, she understood, a large sum of money to her mother and a person of the name of Garnet, the two next of kin, and which she supposed was lodged in the India House. The prisoner said he would make inquiry on the following day about it in the Court of Chancery, and would let him (the, prosecutor) know whether or not any such bequest was made, and if there was, to what amount. Accordingly, on the following day, he came and said, that having searched the books in Chancery, he found that there was lying there a sum of between 30,000/. and 40,000/. coming to the two next of kin of Myles Walker; but, in order to get this money, and to frustrate the expectations of Garnet, one of the lega tees, by impeding the proceedings he was then taking to recover it, he must have 71. 25., to be laid out in fees, &c. He (the prosecutor) at first had some he sitation in advancing this sum, but, after a little consideration upon the manlier in which the prisoner was recommended to him, and influenced by the pre sence of Clementson, his doubts were overborne, and he was at last induced to givelt to him, upon which he (the prisoner) wrote and delivered him a memo randum acknowledging the receipt of it. On the ensuing day, however, he received from him a note, through the hands of Clementson, to inform him that the legacy was considerably greater than be before mentioned or was aware of, and that, an ad ditional sum of 11. 17s. 6d. was necessary to be ad vanced for further expences, requesting at the same time that it might be transmitted to him by the bearer of the note. His request was immediately complied with, after which he sent another memo randum acknowledging the receipt of it. Continu ing to visit at the house for nearly a fortnight after wards, on one occasion the prosecutor took an op portunity of remarking to hitn that it was strange he should have such facility of access to books in the Court of Chancery, to which other professional men experienced so much difficulty when they were obliged to consult. them, when he replied, that he being a Master in Chancery, met with none of those ordinary obstructions which usually embarrass others in the legal profession. In a day or two after this he declined his visits, and absenting himself alto gether, was neiiher seen nor heard of till Thursday last, when he (the prosecutor) accidentally met him in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, and gave him in custody to a constable. Jane Gibson, the wife of the prosecutor, corro 7 borated the above statement, and added, that when she informed him of the legacy which she under stood had been left by her uncle to his two nearest relatives, he voluntarily offered to undertake the re covery of it for her mother ; and if he succeeded he n su o g t.!h e e st v e y d ot t il l d iat in h a e ke w n a o s e t h o al b g a e v e fo i r s. h i i u s t t i h m e e o l r l. t ; r o b u u b t l e i . f He said he would go on the following day to the Next-of-Kin office, to see if the name of Walker was registered there. At his return, he said he had been to the Chancellor's office, and had found that Chris topher Garnet had put in a plea for Myles Walker's money, and that he (the prisoner) must have a cer tain sum to put in a plea against it ; adding, that he was a Master in Chancery. She saw the money paid to him by her husband under this pretence. John Clementson, a rope-maker, residing in East street, Mile-end, the person above alluded to, came forward and deposed, that in January last, he first be came acquainted with the prisoner, at Manchester, and, together with a brother of his, employed him about business of their own. He called himself a. Master in Chancery. Understanding that Mrs. Gib son had expectations of money from India, he (the witness) introduced the prisoner to her husband as a professional man, perfectly competent to obtain it for her in case of any legal process being necessary. Witness was present when he said he would make inquiries about the property at the Six-clerks'-office, and subsequently heard him say that there was about 40,000/. coming to Mrs. Gibson's mother. lie saw him receive the 71. 25., and write the memorandums now produced. On the following day the prisoner wrote a note by him to the prosecutor, requesting a further sum of 11. 17s. 6d., which witness received and, delivered to him at the Blue Posts publie-house, where he usually met him on business. Mr. Serjeant SELLoNWhy was it you recom mended the prisoner to do business for Mrs. Gibson ? Witness—Because he called himself a Master in Chancery, and for that reason I thought him qualified. Mr. Serjeant SELLos--And did you consider him really to be a Master in Chancery ? Witness--.I did, A person, who attended as solicitor for the pri soner, asked the witness what he actually took him, to be,—whether an attorney or a Master in Chan eery : to which the witness replied, a Master in Chan cery, what he represented himself to be, and showed him what he called his qualification upon a 1201. stamp. The prisoner was fully committed upon this charge; and several persons, among whom was the last witness, Clementson, being in attendance to prefer other charges of a similar nature against him, Mr. Sergeant SELLON said, that in consequence of the lateness of the hour he could not then go into them, but would remand the prisoner till Thurs day next. THAMES POLICE. Yesterday James Screen, a mariner, was brought to this office, eharged by his wife with a series of the most cruel usage towards her. Sarah Screen, a decent -looking woman, said ge nerally that thQ prisoner bad used her very brutally. Mr. BRODERIP requested her to state particularly the latest instances. _ _ Mrs. Screen said some of them were such she could not relate them. The prisoner returned from sea five weeks since, and had used her in the most brutal manner. She was unconscious of giving him any offence, but his mind appeared dreadfully poi soned against her. On Thursday last he called her by a mat .opprobrious term, and blackened both her • mass of bruise s . Up on th e nex t day he str ut u ey n e ti s i , i a t n t d um af b te le r d wa t r o d p s i b ec ea ee t , h an er d witha r h facedriperesed 14 : : a heavy blow on the mouth, which loosauel:a front teeth. On Sunday fait he said to b e . you will but acknowledge yourself to have to Hasell, I will forgive you ?" • innocence of any such criminality, refused t° • ledge it. [Here the unfortunate : woman DO tears; and, falling on her knees, in the • Ille et ," and affecting manner said, " I hope - f enter the kingdom of Heaven, if what never injured my hnsband, true. I innocent of what he accuses tne."} peated several times with much 'eartiestar-:' further stated that the prisoner- dragged room, and tied her to •the bed-post's, and S - 0 her two dozen lashes with a ropes-end 7" • naked body. When she was extricated; sh e ( A almost in a state of nudity to the house ° O IOI Y tive, who the next day' brought her to the make her complaint. ' • itr ,a 1 4 Mr. BRoDHRIP asked her if she - the prisoner any, or the slightest prove 'r' the assaults he had committed ? Mrs. Scre lemnly declared that she Lad not, and heil d s to,enter into some partiettlars which she sto: applying for the warrant, she 'stated the'o_,,e,Vt l ' She, refused of a very shameful Outrage which the pri s " - • tempted. t pa his a Th b e se p n r c is e o a n t er ie s a. aid_ , his wife had been k 7 : e P i esoo ftel with a man nam e d H as ell f or hours.togethef ' - Mr. BRODERIP asked the woman if that ate!j o ie was true or not 7 Mrs. Screen again knelri t te and in the most earnest manner declared false. She had never given Hasell any eet - Sej ment, she had only see n hi m once d u ring l i •cir band's absence, and that •wits in the pd'•• other people. '0 Mrs. Mary Griner, a respectable widow, e g t , r called. She depos e d th at -M rs . Se ree n crane, for protection from the 'prisoner's" violence' " had examined her person, which was voitel, l4l , 4 i' ° bruise: a lump had 'formed upon' her s ick l e 'blow which she told witn e ss th e p r i son er 1 0 :,;,-# 1 her. The witness said she could state' felt a delicacy in so doing. • Mr Baonirsztn. said, however painful to 0 7 0 eit ins of the witness, it' was her duty to • s tsti!. - particular she kne w .- '• • • " ' 0 ( 0 Mrs. (killer then stated an act of the rei to his wife of a very aggravated- and cotiu character. The prisoner very londly.denied it; but h i s confirmed the statement - of the 'Witness. le Mr. #Bi BRODERIP and Captain Ric:H.l3Ra " they never heard of such monstrous harbaritr/ practised by a h us b an d towar d s hi s w if e as scribed in this case. The prisoner entered into a long and solv e / unconnected story 'about his wife and a mall!. ' Hasell, who, he said, w as cont i nua ll y w i t h I. l ' . ing his absence at sea. i; 01'1 - Mr. BRODERIP asked him how he had alt out ?—Th e d e f en d ant answered, i t was t h e the neighbourhood, and hibelieved it. fie 0 1 .4 0 . 1/ more confirm e d i n i t b y H ase ll not having 110 appearance but once since his return. be l Mr. BRODERIP said, it was his duty t 0 sought out Haseli, and asked him about it; of have made proper inquiries. If he believe,' miserable represectation to be true, and ..fe lt i e , posed to break the peace, surely it would W e i, mere manly (althou g h no t l ega ll y j us tifi a bl e ) to attacked Hasell, instead of so cowardly and bf ll taking vengeance on his wife. Is l The defendant said he had no opportunitPot cause the moment Hasell saw him he ran 14 0 4 He firmly believed bis wife and that man had ro hint. Mrs. Screen here renewed her protestati7 innocence, and hoped th e M ag i strates wo uld fr . , her, because she w a s conv i nce d t h e p r i son er 1 11 ' ed to murder her. to The of which he was absentbeen marr i ed wanted two years from her. Captain RW1113411. said, the d e f en d ant acte d? with defendant her. said d be d othr ee ridiculously in supposing for a moment that li) 3 0 0 must not speak to anybody but him. His CO had been altog e th er unman l y, b rutal, an d U l' l British seaman. Mr. BitoDERIP told the defendant he had no r 1 I of doing away with the marriage: There were• b -modes of obtaining redieSs for the injury veldt imagined he had Sustained, without partitive harsh, deliberate, and heart-sickening cruelty. Mrs. Griner said, when the complainant 0 '; ri and.eame to he r h ouse , s h e was rea ll y i n a 4' l o r nudity, having only a petticoat and one of the e ll soner's shirts to COVer her. had tal'.en her clothes. 6111 1 The Magistrates cons u lt e d, an d M r. Bac% lo ordered bin), under th e l ate A ct, to pay a t il- 0) • the King of 51., or to b e committed to prisori bt two months (th e h eav i est penalty allowed b}' to Act), and further directed him to find sureo o f keep th e peace f or 12 months, himself in 60141,1011 two sureties in 401. each. He was in the el e . • committed to prison. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. LIVERPOOL. Ltvznpoor., Nov. 10.—Wind • E.N.E.—High' I'7 minutes past twelve.—Arrived the Wm. lluskipt Lindsay, from Gl asgow ; E nterpr i se, C raw f or d, ditto ; Queensbury, Ewart, from Dumfries ; Anne, Maryport. CLEARED OUTWA RD& —TIld 14011/0.1, Puuteoy A r Newfoundland ; Gl en i ff en , S tevenson, f or S avanna h ; '.(01 val, Cobro, for New Orleans ; Anne, Waterson' on ft Derbybaven ; Garland, Wright, for Baltimore; Mann, for Maranham. . BIRTHS. oil On the 10th i ns t. L a d y H arr i et B ar i ng, o f a SA heir. On the 11 th inst. at H arrow , th e lady of the nef Henry Drury, of a son, being her thirteenth child. „f Hill, The wife of R. J. Shaft°, E sq . o f D av in g t on son and heir. f In Edinburgh, th e l a dy o f C o l. H enry F a ithf u l), Royal Artillery, of a daughter. rr On the 9th inst. in Cliffo r d- s t ree t, th e w if e o f 4 • Stone, Esq. of a still-born child. MARRIED. • Dye On the 25th ult. a t Fl orence, b y t h e Right Hon'o 4 l Rev. Viscount Barrington, the Earl of Dartmouth, W o ol non. Frances Barrington, sTond daughter of Vi gga Barrington, a l r On' the 9th inst. at All Souls' Church, MarylebP?% t ol , the Rev. Henry John Ridley, A.M. P re b en d ar y of 13r; IV &tr., Charl e s A ugus t us , L or d H owar d d e Walden, t c . the Lady Lucy C a ve n di s h B en ti nc k, t hi r d d aug ht er ' 4 " Duke of Portland. rge On the 11th inst. at All Souls' ; Langhatn-placeivs c o', Simpson, 14. q. surgeon, of Charle s - s t ree t, Middl es ex „ pital, to Emma, second daught er o f J o h n Heron, f". Carlisle -street, Soho. In Loudon, on the sth inst. Mr. Stratton, of Blu* - Worcestershire, to Elizabeth, only daughter of 3• 11. ' Smith, Great Surrey -street, London. 1.04 1 At Pontefract, the Rev. Edward Walter, Vicar of ton, to Miss Anne Pyetnont, of Pontefract. DIED. ;rth In September lest, at Malta, 17 days after the a daughter, Emma Maria, the wife of David Grant, ,' - ` o t j . o . On the 29th ult., at P aragon -b u ildi ngs , B a th, Basnett, Esq. late of Oakinghazn, Barks, in his 84 41) Y e . l 4, On the 9th inst. at Lis s ea t, Rawcliffe Hall, Lanc3'll'- Thonias Wilson France, Esq. On the 4th inst. at Wand tb, .th, Elizabe lewortn, Thomas Ives, Esq. et Chertsey, Surrey. 0 6 On the 7th imit. at Grove-terrace, Ilford, Louisa wife of Alr, s ,John Baylis, jun. in the 22d year of her agt" ir On the 9th inst. aged 74, William Christopher IP cock, Esq. of Pentonville. P t( At his house at Paddington, M r . Ri c h ar d Martin , , of New Nerfolk-street, Park-l ane , a t an a dvanced $ 4 0 6 ,1 universally regretted by a numerous. circle of friend s $ relatives. f' ; On the 9th inst. at bishouse in George-street, Hanti o ' square, George P earson , E sq ., M.D. F. 11.5., S ea Pnysician of St. George's Hospital. PEINTE-D and PUBLISHED by ISIURDO YOUNkt f 0. 10 ; 112 ) 14111114141)) LOODInie oc_c . Aki o Bar • L la 47114141 i ittipt 4 Ighara rl 14 Maje 4 a a , 1.. rya !s. , * I I l i a uale , 441 , tt i aad 1 : 4 at lei tth e of ii . ct t wil ik44111:ti,e,U.14 R.( -l i z ta h j i ° l l , ln jo rni n For un) iti„ 21 Market h Till 'tinted PrL !AM at y the Z I Y rea, Cal 8, EC , Ttkui, wre nc , Pri: V of the 1/4 ~ fir, i 4 41. 44 t3t. , 4.. B.:ra e i t , e Luy dia doit a i Vag rily. 1' lead Pin g it remit ;11 cri ktionai gUR u __ Ptir 5 an 4 ekn( 11 1 Ite or ti t !innat „ I .`,gb col Viist 1 % a c lT Ygei I, i Y he h , t ! Prim s ht,