The Sun. — London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

however persevered, and went to Plymouth to examine into the condition of the property of the deceased; and what was the answer of those directors to him? I In allowing him to see the books after considerable trouble, said that they would no: permit him to make any extracts from them. However the result of his in spection of their books was, that instead of the 32,000/. , clear balance, they had only 2,500/. in the hands of their banker, and the remainder was represented by bills not worth a single farthing. The question then was, how did these over-due bills come to be placed to the credit of the company ? The solution of this question tended to throw new light on the mode in which these share mongers kept up the apparent value of the stock for their own private purposes. Of that deficit of 29,0001. • the sum of 11,0001. was owing by the solicitor—he was sorry to say the head of what he had always considered a respectable house in the city of London ; and he had paid these had bills, which were over due and never Reid, as his calls when they were demanded of him. This led to further inquiry, and his frie nd p roceeded to ask about the payment of the other calls, and it turned out that the secretary of the Great Western Railway, Mr. Saunders, who enjoyed the sad sum of 3,0001. a-year for his services as secretary to the Great Western Company, had been allowed to run in arrear of his calla of 13,0004 ; he had only paid 2,0001. out of the 13,000/. calls which had been made upon him.—(Hear, hear.) Good God! could anything be more disgraceful than the conduct of these directors, who were appointed to act as trustees for the body of shareholders ? Could anything be more disgraceful than such collusion, if not fraud, as that of allowing their own well-paid secretary to run in arrear for his calls, when they pounced upon the poor widow, or the guardian of the orphan, and ruined them by enforcing the peymillat of their calls?—(Hear.) The other gentleman, the attorney to whom he referred, and whom he would net name, owed to the company 190,000/., he having received from the company, at va rious times, different large amounts, to pay for the land required for the purposes of the railway. At different times he was allowed sums of 20,0001., 40,000/., 60,0004, end so on, from the company, without having been called upon to show any vouchers for the money he had paid. It might be asked why the company did not sue the party for the amount? The answer was clear. The attorney was not worth a halfpenny, and it would only have been an additional expense to the company if they had done so. There must be an end to any further concealment of the mischievous manoeuvres of such men, for his motion would put an end to such practices as he had detailed, now and for ever, for the concerns of railroads would be made plain to Parliament and to the country. He had one more statement to make which was not immaterial, and he meant in the case of two lines in the hands of the same directors, the mode they had of adding to one concern when the capital of it was insufficient, which system he considered to be fraught with fraud and deceit. These directors, after they had received the bills of the engineers, parliamentary agents, and others, make appli cation to Parliament to obtain power to enable other persons to take shares, for the purpose of getting more money; and for the purpose of inducing persons to take shares they create new ones, which they call preference shares, a very great disadvantage to the old shareholders, for the preference shareholders were guaranteed 5 per cent., and in many cases ware paid out of the capital.— (Hear.) Now these two agents, to whom he had before alluded, had preference shares; as long as they consi dered it to be a source of advantage to them—so long and no longer did Holdfast keep those shares, but the moment that they fell to a discount, when they were called on to pay for their preference shares, they turn round and say, we have been all of us fraudulent, and are not, therefore bound to pay. Such had been the act of the solicitor to whom he alluded. Ha should like one thing for mere curiosity—he ,hould like that an other House of Parliament, not the one in this, but in another country, would take his hint, would institute an inquiry into the expenses of railroads in their country. He wished that the Canadian House of Commons, which he highly respected, would :act thus. In 1837 he ob tained the concurs-nco of their L.rdships to a standing order, which put raltrosda on a far different footing from what they had bean previously; he asked if teat measure had been beneficial to England, why not in Canada? Why, he asked, should not the House of Commons of Canada, the faithful representatives of the good people of Canada, institute a similar inquiry. —(Elear, hear.) He had some time ago suggested to some of the representatives in the Canadian Commons, that if that course were adopted by them, that it would work well. But when they returned to their respective seats in that House they changed the tone of their opinions, and said it would not by any means work well. They admitted that it was good for England, but thought that it would not do for Canada. It was known that their elections were often very expensive, and that their constituents frequently required employment through their influence, and they considered that the best and cheapest mode to procure such employment was to vote for such and such railroad Bills, and thus save their own coffers, and up hold their influence. He had used every exertion fur suppressing the mischievous system of those gambling speculations, and at length, after seven years, had succeeded in effecting hie desire in some degree. He knew that the House of Commons in this country had done its duty, but what he wished for was, that the Canadian Parliament should make inquiry as to what took place before those Bills were passed by them, and that it also became the Parliament of this country to know what then occurred. He had seen some of their Bills, and fully believed that the money was not accounted for. He should at the same time state that he believed that the solicitors engaged were honest, that is, that they did not pocket the money, but he felt assured that they placed right shares in the right places. When some six Members of that House had any interest in a Bill, they induced others to vote with them, and it was to prevent that system any loner that he pressed his recommendation. He said that if those proceedings were sifted, it would throw great light on the mode adopted in the Canadian Com ,XOOLIS of carrying Bills through their Parliament, and :Alto their mode of voting. A friend of his (Lord ,araughans), a. second, and a third, .had stated to him that they had been offered 1,0001. if they would lend their names to be railway directors, In tact, the Canadian Rouse of Commons has a strong objection to such an in quiry, or to allow any investigation into matters of bribery or corruption. It should be considered that if there was anything disgraceful discovered, that it would nut attach itself to the House of Commons, but to the guilty individuals. The whole of the matter required the interposition of Parliament; for a remedy must be ap plied to check those unworthy members of society from falsely and fraudulently mautifecturing railway shares, and from their shameful system of gambling. He thought that giving absolute publicity to such proceedings would. tend very such to prevent them, and saw no other', course that Parliament shiuld take than that suggested; by him. His Noble Friend (Lord Montesgle) had in-' troduced a measure, very useful both to England and' Ireland, for obtaining certain audit of railroads. He hoped that the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) would not be discouraged in coming forward again with his motion. lie should therefore lay his motion oa the table, andl would wish, as he understood that it would requires many months to procure the necessary information, that! they would b, gin the good work as soon a s pos s ibl e , f or ! he was anxious that there should be no delay whatever,l for it was roost essential that that giant evil of gamblitg! should be suppressed as soon as possible. What he 17.e1 , stated were facts, and if any Noble Lord doubted those: facts, he felt prepared to furnish him with all the papers! to prove the accuracy of his statements.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he hoped! that their Lordships would agree with the proposition of! the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham). He( should at the same time say that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to procure all the necessary information! at once, but at the same time fully concurred with him,; that as little delay as possible should be offered to so useful a proposition. The time has now come when re sistance must be offered to such proceedings as the Noble Lord (Lord Brougham) strongly and truthfully alluded to. Ile also hoped that the Noble Lord (Lord Idonteagle) would again introduce his Bill, and assured him that Government would give it their best support; and that if he gave it up, the Government would feel it their duty to introduce a similar Bill, yet he hoped that the Noble L rd (Lord dlont , agle) would introduce it, as he believed that it could not be brought on with more success by any Noble Lord than by his Noble Friend (Lord Monteagle). Lord NIONTEAGLE said he could not rJrain from expressing the satisfaction he felt at finding this subject taken up so earnestly by the Noble Lord. When their Lordships came L., constier the probable effect it would rave upon commerce. he thought it would be deemed ha possible to overrate its importance. It was beyond tt:e r. ach of legislation to prevent the imprudence of man kiwi, but he believi.d that if the recommendation of a Noble Friend of his, now absent, had been remembered there and elsewhere, the consequences of imprudent speculation which they had recently witnessed, might, to a great extent, have been avoided. Lord Dalhousie recommended that a selection should be made of those lines which the public had most confidence in, n d which were most likely to prove sound speculations. That rtu.namendation had been avoided, and unfortu- _a— Aately most of the evils had occurred which his Noble Freud had foreseen. The powers which Parliament had given from time to time, for the indefinite perpe tuation or a fraud,Pay raising dividends to a suppositious Value, upon the faith of which purchasers bought, ought to render Parliament responsible for the results; at any rate, whilst that ground of complaint existed, there was DO occasion to complain of the ni acts ne of persons out of doors. In this way many the companies had contrived to clear 100, 150, and 2OO per cent. Upon the purchase of their shares, e which, had it not been for the private information th y w wero able to obtain p oise "i, al ot, would have found its way, it ought to have found its way, into the hands of a t was p d arties who become of were dealing with them. The gut+ the ereatest attention, because it had now Moll practice to allow powers to the trusteemanaennadce:rint: , rtats•4e seteement, for the investmenntoniofpanten, in rtaizwa . shares. he audit of railway court', as at preseet managed, we. a perfect farce.s"- 1, ,, rd OUGUANI observed that his chief o.) . b ‘ . 4 1,„. n to ponit out huw great factlties for fraud j ar: ' r t l Abuses had be,- n afforded. At the same he would rtaiiiirk that the comoletion of 4,000 miles of railway, times the distance between London and Edin burgh, was borne evidence that many of the schemes were and intended to be pursued to completion. Loud GRANVILLE acknowledged that the present 133 swim of auditing railway accounts was extremely im perfect. The Government would give its assistance in remedying it. :Lae motion was then agreed to. Tt:e Rate-in Aid (Poor-law, Ice Lina) Bill was read a fir.: tune. Th , dr Lordb'nips then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1. The SPEAKita took the Chair at Four o'clock. THIRD READING. Tho Newcastle and Carlisle Railway (Alterations of and Bra Lch from Alston Branch) Bill. THE SUN, coveries of the remains of Nineveh, by any pecuniary grant, and if so, to what am elm? - -- The CHANCELLOR of she EXCHEQUER said he had written to Mr. Layerd, menteetting e suin Le prepuce to Parliament, but he had not yet received any reply from that gentleman. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. Mr. EWART having presented a large number of petitions against the punishment of death, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish it, remarking that if he were not convinced that the feeling of the country was against it, he should not have troubled the House with the motion. Every day, however, con vinced the people more and more of the impolicy of continuing this law upon the statute-book, and the feel ing in the country against it was stronger than some Honourable Members were disposed to admit. They were at a crisis on this subject—the time had come when the question must be settled. The number of murders had unfortunately increased; but unlike others, he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that their institutions had produced no effect. He held it to be true that death by the law did not deter from the com mission of murder. But suppose they had aoolished capital punishment, would not his Right Hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) have attributed the murders that had taken place to the repeal of the law? Now, he entertained a contrary opinion ; he attributed the murders that had taken place to the public executions that had preceded them, to the hardening of these who had witnessed such exhibitions, and the teaching of them to look upon human life with less respect than before. As on former occasions on which he had submitted this question to the House, he should on the present avoid any allusion to the theological part of the subject. He looked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of our religion. The question was one, he considered, of expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon that ground. Upon that ground Viccaria, an eminent writer, who first converted him to the opinions he held, urged the necessity of abolishing the punishment of death. Then the last report of the Commission on Criminal Law, stated it as its opinion that all punish ments rested alone upon social necessity. He held that social necessity justified the abrogation of the punishment of death. They had appealed in this matter to the fears and prejudices of the country. His Honourable Friend had said that attempts to murder had increased, for the five years ending with 1846, as compared with the five years ending in 1831, the number being in the f. atiler 1,099, and in the latter but 451. He also said that there had been an increase of rape, arson, and poisoning, and attributed this to the abolition of the punishment of death with respect to these cases—that the abolition of the punishment had caused an increase of crime. He denied that ho had taken a true test. In order to have rendered his argument logical he should have gone further and demanded the renewal of death punishments in respect of these cases. But he took a fallacious test—he took only four cases out of 20, which he should have taken, and which he (Mr. Ewart) was prepared to show had fallen in num ber though the death punishment had been abolished. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had stated that there was an increase in the number of cases since ca pital punishment was repealed for rape, but the fact was, that previous to the repeal, persons hesitated prosecuting for rape, and indicted for the minor offence of an as sault. The returns laid before the House showed a great diminution, instead of an increase, in those crimes which ware previously punishable by death. For five years previous to the abolition there were 259 execu tions, and for the first five years afterwards only 99 ; while the number of offences in the former pe• riod were 12,000, and in the latter 11,320. To show that they could safely do without capital punish ment he would simply mention that the returns before the House went to show that whenever they had miti gated the law, the experiment had proved most success ful. It would not do now for the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department to rise in his place and meet this motion by saying simply that the murderer deserved his punishment, the Right Hon. N B va a s ro j t l l l e s t li w ija a b s b leo ou n nd th, t . o gr p o r u o n v d e t o h t a . tlepunishment gi : ti‘,e of expediency, death and not as a system of terror. Ile, however, could urge many reasons why capital punishment should be done away with. In the first place, it was an uncertain punishment. The excellence of a punishment consisted in its certainty, and to make this punishment certain they must Ise prepared to execute every criminal, convicted of the crime of murder. He apprehended, however, that no advo cates for capital punishment were prepared to go that length. Considerable sensation had recently been excited upon this subject by the execution of two criminals, between the extent of whose crimes there was a very material difference. Ho alluded to the unfortu nate woman executed at Bristol and the notorious cri minal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there not to have been a distinctieu between these two criminals?—(Hear, hear.) Even the staunchest upholders of the necessity of capital punishment admitted the inequality of the punishment in eases like those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore, that, with a due regard for public feeling, the Right lion. Baronet could not execute in all cases of murder. Then he lost the advantage of certainty in the punish ment, while, on the other hand, if he adopted this measure the punishment would be made certain.— (Cries of "Hear, hear.") No one could deny that public executions had a demoralising tendency. So long as they continued capital punishments, not only would they have the demoralising spectable of the scat fold, but they would have the accounts, in all the pomp of circumstance, from the first beginning. of crime to its last ignominious expiation, re corded by their liberal press, which narrated all those demoralising circumstances, and thus produced the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the religion of the people; and so long would they throw around the assassin that morbid degree of interest which now always attached to him. Under the present system, instead of leaving the criminal to d well on those motives for repentance which his position was calculated to awaken, they diverted his mind from that wholesome exercise, by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignomi nious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital punishments to be objectionable in that they inflicted on the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had in• flitted on his victim. But there was another great ob jection, and it was that when once capital punishment was inflicted it could not be recalled; it was beyond compensation, and if once executed the criminal was placed beyond the pale of repentance. Capital pu nishment had been abolished in Belgium and in our own possessions in the West Indies, and during the best years of the Roman Republic capital punishment had never prevailed. He felt strongly that the principle which he was advocating was gaining hold on the people of this country.—(Hear.) A greater number of the clergy were daily coming over to his views ; he had the opinion of several Recorders of large towns, of three English Judges, and of two Irish Judges in favour of the repeal of punish ment by death; and he thought the day was not far dis tant when the efforts to repeal that ignominious and demoralizing punishment would be successful, and when the people of this country would call on that House to wipe from its statute book the spirit of revenge, and to leave unfettered the exercise of the merciful precepts of our holy religion. Lord NUGENT seconded the motion. Sir GEORGE GREY believed that the time was yet far distant when they could with safety dispense with the extreme penalty of the law in cases of the crime of murder.—(Hear, hear.) It should, he considered, be borne in mind, that since the year 1841 not a single per son had been executed, unless for the crime of murder. —(Hear.) In one observation which his Hon. Friend gave expression to he entirely concurred, namely, that this question did not rest upon theological grounds. He was convinced that there was nothing in the written word of God which precluded the State from inflicting this punishment, if deemed necessary for the preserva tion of human life; but it was said that there was nothing imposed on rulers, as a moral obliga tion, to deprive persons of life even in cases of murder. Now if that were right, as well might it be said that the State had no right to transport persons, nor to deprive them of their liberty, for the purpose of gratifying a vindictive feeling. The only justification of Government in inflicting the punishment of death was to be found in its object to protect life, and that protection was in a great measure afforded by the terror which the punishment of death inspired. If the State had no right to inflict severe punishment, where, he would ask, was the safeguard of society? He appealed to his Hon. Fri, nds whether he did not think it neces sary for the protection of human lite and of property. that there should be a power in the hands of the Go vernment to impress terror on the minds of persons who might otherwise have recourse to the commission of the most enormous crime. He believed that the punishment of death tended to inflict terror, and to keep down, to a gnat extent, the crime of murder. Ile was not prepared to say that men who committed the crime of murder ought to be put to death recklessly, but the punishment of death doubtless operated to diminish the crime. The Honourable Gentleman referred to Belgium for an example of the effect of the absence of capital punishment. He also stated that in the best times of the Roman Republic, there was not capital punish • ment, and murders were infrequent ; and further, from the relaxation of our own criminal law to the pre ! sent time, that crimes had diminished. Whatever result might appear from the returns of last year with regard to burglaries, the effect had been that there was an increase of the crime since the relaxation of the law with regard to its punishment. It was argued that, in consistency, the same regard ought to be extended to the protection of property as of life, if' the infliction of capital punishment was justifiable and productive of be neficial effects in repressing crime. The fact, however, was, that aggressions ou property were not regarded in the nowt light, and when capital punishment was in fl:cted, juries found the parties accused guilty of the minor offence, to avoid its infliction. In the case of steep-stealing, nut one in a hundred of those tried for the offence had been executed, and the uncertainty of the punishment operated in removing the check upon the commission of the offence, which the certainty of the punishment w onld d prevent.id attroach h Theto murder, c u e r r d t e a r, in ty although of de a I n tl as a punishment some cases, where there were mitigating circumstances, the sen t e nce was not carried into effect. The ordinary rule was, that the law was allowed to take its penalty course, and the criminal and the p th u a bli o c ffe h nd ad e a r hadnassutro ance that death was the incur. The lion. Gentleman offered a certain punish wpoayserthtye case of a poor woman who,_ punish ment, but did not state what it the t ly as pressure T he There e f case as that it was right to recommend the party for and distress, had deprived her child of lite. In such a mercy, not, however, that such an act could be justi fied, but it might be considered to be perpetrated with mitigating circumstances. The pamphlet upon which the lion. Gentleman relied to sustain his own statements, erect to impugn his, led his Hon. Friend into error. Ca pital punishments had beeu withdrawn from those of- CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS. The reports on the following Bills were considered and agreed to, and the Bills ord , red to be engrossed: — Chester and Holyhead Railway (Increase of Capital, with Powers to the London and North-Western Railway Company to subscribe thereto) Bill. Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Harbour Acts Amendment Bill. SURVEYING OFFICERS. Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER moved that the re port of the surveying officers made in the last session of Parliament, under the Preliminary Inquiries Act (9 and 10 Vic., c. 106), in the case of the Torquay Market Bill, be referred to the Committee to whom the Bill of the present session, under the same name or title, in Group 4 of Opposed Private Bills is referred. I Agreed to. PETITIONS. Mr. WILCOX presented a petition from Southampton in tavour of tha abolition of punishment of death. Mr. BLACKSTONE presented a petition, praying the House to take steps to relieve the existing agri cultural distress. Mr. PALMER presented a number of petitions against the Marriage Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions to the same effect. Sir JOHN DUCKWORTH presented petitions against the Oaths Bill. Several Hort. MEMBERS presented petitions in favour of international arbitration. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented eleven petitions from individuals residing in the metropolis, in favour of uni versal sufferage, and petitions against State endowmeats for religious purposes. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saddleworth, in the West Riding, praying the House to pass a Bill to regulate the county rate expenditure. Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY presented a petition from Leicester in favour of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition to the same effect, and several petitions in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill, and also petitions praying for the abolition of punish ment of death. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition praying for the revival of the suppressed Irish bishoprics. Several petitions were presented in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill, and praying for the liberation of Mr. Shore. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from a place in Lincolnshire against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. Mr. SMITH presented a petition from Birmingham praying the House to take steps to insure efficient rail way travelling on Sundays. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in favour of his Bill for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Mr. T. EGERTON presented a petition from a place in the county of Chester against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. General LYGON presented a petition from a place in Worcestershire against the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. Mr. DEEDES presented petitions from Kent com plaining of agricultural distress. MARRIAGE BILL. Mr. EWART brought in the Marriage by License 1111, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY postponed his motion with re spect to taking votes fur Members of Parliament by way of ballot until the 17th inst. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT gave notice of his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments. Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that, on the m',tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, to amend the national representation, he should move an amendment to extend the suffrage to all adult males, not disqualified by law, which had been registered and resident for a certain time within the electoral districts. CLERGY RELIEF BILL. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON gave notice that in the Com mittee on the Clergy Relief Bill, he should move that the following words be added as a proviso to the 6th clause:— Provided always, that nothing in this Act now con tained shall authorise the refusal of the right of burial in the accustomed manner to any dissenting person." FETHARD FEVER HOSPITAL. _ _ Mr. SCULLY moved for copies — of arlihe corre spondence between the Board of Health, the Poor-law Board, and the Board of Guardiacs of the Cailif..l Union, or the vice-guardians and any other persons, with re spect to the Fethard Temporary Fever Hospital. Agreed to. MR. CREWE AND THE WORCESTERSHIRE SESSIONS. Sir J. PAKlNGTONasiediiie Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the amount of the recognizances of the Rev. Mr. Crewe, which were es treated by order of the Court for non-attendance to give evidence on a trial at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for Worcestershire, bad been returned to Mr. Crewe by order of the Treasury; and if so, upon what grounds, and whether the forms and practise usual at the Trea sury and the Home-office on such eccasions were ob served in this instance. Sir G. GREY stated that after an inquiry had been made into the facts of the case the recognizanees had been returned by the Treasury to Mr. Crewe. It ap peared that he attended the sessions on a day in October, but as the justices were not all present he returned home in the evening, a distance of 13 miles, and afterwards became so unwell that he was not able to return to Worcester on the following day. The Right Hon. Baronet, after detailing the universal course adopted in cases of this kind, stated that in consequence of an acci dental omission it had not been followed i❑ the present instance. REPORTING THE DEBATES--BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL begged to call the attention of the House to what he conceived was a breach of pri vilege. The sessional orders of the House laid down that strangers were not to be admitted into the House during its debates, and that its debates should not be reported without the permission of the House. He was nut going to argue at all upon the good sense of retaining such a rule; at the same time, when strangers were per mitted to report their proceedings it was but reasonable that the House should expect them to be fairly and impartially reported. In a newspaper called the Times—(Laughter)—a great violation of that rule took place in the debate which occurred on the third reading of the Rate in Aid Bill for Ireland. He believed the proper course would be to call the printer of that paper to the bar to a nswer for his conduct, and he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would conclude with a mo tion to that effect. He found the proceedings of last night were regularly set out and reported, but he found that not only a !great part of what . Hon. Memirers said was report( •d, that much of what they did say was omitted, and that a deal of what they did not say was given.—(Laughter.) Me found a great deal of what he himself said was omitted. Now, it might be a matter of no great importance to the editor of the Times what he (Mr. John O'Connell) said in that House, but to himself it was of some importance that he should be tolerably correctly reported, for he bad a constituency to vhom he was responsible for his; conduct. He had observed that the speeches of th.e Irish Members were not done the same justice to as those of English Members. He complained that the.t was unfair. Ile did not know whether the other Irish Members in the House would longer submit to that pract ice; but he (Mr. J. O'Connell) for one would not do so. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by charging the proprietors, printers, and editors of the Times, and all concerned, with a violation of the order of the House, and by moving that the printer of that paper be called to the bar of the House to answer for his conduct. Mr. SCULLY seconded the moti an. 'The SPEAKER said he could n otput the motion, in asmuch as the Hon. Member had n of given the name of the printer.— (Laugh ter.) Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL here 'hurried out of the House, and returning in a few m cements with a news paper in his hand, said the name of Lhe printer was John Joseph Lawson.—(Laughter.) The SPEAKER put the motion that John Joseph Lawson he called to the bar of the 15 ouse to-morrow. Mr. F. O'CONNOR did hope tint Honourable Gen tleman would spare the time of the House. If any Member had a right t o complain of his speeches nut being impartially report ad, he himself had that right, but he did nut think it. w orth his while to complain to the House on a matter of that kind. Sir GEORGE GREY said, cot isidering the cir cumstances under which their de bau were reported, that the gentlemen who were engage' I in that basiness had a mere permissive right to re pot t the proceedings, which was clogged with some distidvantages, he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not doanjtl ling to cast censure on the reports of the debates in the public journals. He (Sir G. Grey) himself was not in th , ) habit dreading the debates; he generally contented hi inself with reading those admirable summbries of the proceedings of the House which of late years had been, .given is the public journals, and which contained a mo st fair and impartial resume of the debate. _ Mr. BROTHERTON said, with regard to the real question before the House, he reall . r thought the Times was a most accurate paper indeed ; he was sometimes quite surprised to see the accur my with which it gave the debates. There was a a other paper, how. ever, which he could not say t. to much for, and that other paper was the Daily News, which had represented him to have stated in wasthe House that his last election cost hi m 4,0 0o , which wholly untrue. The tact was he bad been elected five times for Salford, and on no one at tituse occasions had his election cost him a penny piece. —o:fear, hear.) He made a practice of never paying cawthing for his elec tions, and he knew most of his friends disbelieved the rep',rt, and he did not care much a but it it.—(Laughter.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL said what he complained of was that the speeches of 1ri,.11 Members we re not given fully. The Right Hon. Baronet being an rEng.itth Member had nothiag to complain of in that .resi ect, but he corn ,p,tal.tiintteedd, twhahtileamuch of what he ,did say was entirely great deal of what he did not say had been put in. —(Hear, hoe:, and laughter.) If the Ilou:e wished to ~e t rid of the, rule to which he had direct e d attention, vet them ,b,r ,, gate it at once ; present,wb u a t i d o e l n o e n h g t 00 w 4s erviiets hr :;:// hs is ew te e d slh , loa lt ld s E th nw e g Ho use see that fair play English withdraw ? r m it b i s Qrs motion; Eor t but he if the offence were repeated, he silculd not deal with it so lightly.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. G. BERKELEY suggested that the Hon. and Learned Member had better send hit t speeches to the papers, instead of making them in the . House.—(Hear.) The motion was then withdrawn. MR. LAYARD'S DISCOVIIRIES. Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the i ntention of her Majesty's Government to assist Mr. La; lard in his dis- LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 2 1849. fences against the person which were n o t a tt en d e d w ith t vinlencre enrtengerireglife. Sue!) r tfenee hod ee for ! me( ly puniehed with drofh. 1,1!- 1 :.;. and the effect hair been oat sus . p ,L):; h a d i rxre , s ,d, Taking. the seven year sis his pr, (t. the abolition of capital punishments, as compete d with the same period which followed, offences had more than doubled. He (lid not mean to argue that this increase of crime had been occasioned by the mitigation which had taken place in penal punishments, and he only made the statement to show that statistical facts could not be relied upon as a criterion to form a judgment on the sub ject. The relaxation of punishment with regard to forging documents for the delivery of goods was attended with the same result, us forgery had increased. With rr gard to the statement which he had made last year, with reference to burglary, he hnd been charged with making a wilful mistake upon the statements he had on ' fered to the House, and yet it had been proved with re gard to burglary, that offences of that description, since the penalty of death was removed, had taken place be tween nine o'clock at night and six in the morning, He did not, how e ver, r e ly u m p o o r n e fi frequently u t t a ra z n k e b d e * t o h r e e. House to consider the sub ject upon principles of common sense, and to say whe ther the time had come when it would be safe to do away with capital punishment?—(Hear.) Next, with regard to treason—it was argued that it was not a crime to which capital punishment should be extended, and it was described as an act of cold cruelty to de prive the offender of life; but he would ask the House whether such a description could apply to the case of a party who entered upon a course which would in volve the country in bloodshed, and, in its consequences, lead to results that would deprive thousands of lice?— (Cheer:.) His llonourable Friend said he hoped they would not yield upon this question to the vindictive feel ings of the public. He, however, thought it was most desirable that the public should be impressed with a consciousness that the law was strong enough to protect them, and that they were not required to protect them selves. He was of opinion that if capital punishment was abolished, it would give rise to acts of private re venge which were at present kept down by the convie• tion of the power of the law to inflict adequate punish ment. The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the practice of public executions. With regard to them, he thought that nothing would be more injurious than the anxiety to witness these executions, and the facilities which were afforded, for the sake of gain, to witness them. He begged, however, it might be understood that public executions were not essential incidents to capital punishment, as might be inferred from the practice in foreign countries. It was alleged that ' certain judges were favourable to the abolition of capital punishment; but it should be taken into con• aideration with regard to this allegation, that the msjority of the judges examined before the Lords' Com mittee on this subjeet were In favour of retaining it, and that the Committee, after hearing the evidence of the judges, were unanimous against the abolition of capital punishment. He hoped the House would not allow the Honourable Member to place the Bill upon the table of the House, and not encourage any illusory expectation of the abolition of capital punishment. Mr. BRIGHT said that it was well known that the early Christians did not inflict death, and it was known that a Roman Emperor removed Christians from the office of Yrtetor, because they could not carry the punishment of death into execution ; this was the prin ciple of Christians for the first ages of the Christian re ligion. In Belgium, Tuscany, Austria, and Sweden, the punishment of death was but rarely inflicted, and mur thre were much more infrequent there than in Spain or Ireland, where capital punishments were not infrequent. Could they believe that any punishment would deter such a man as Rush from his grave offence? It was premeditated, and every precaution taken to escape detection, and was deliberately perpetrated. Take the case at Bristol; that was not premeditated; but the fear of death did not prevent the perpetration of the crime. With regard to public exe cutions, people were collected together to see these exe cutions fur example; but there were none of the persons wno went to witness these scenes who were not injured by the exhibition. Then, with regard to the execution at Bristol, what could have been more disgusting titan to see six or seven men dragging a girl of sixteen to the scaffold, and the clergyman coaxing her to go quietly to execution? Then there was an execution at Brecon, and when the sentence of death was t passed upon the man, a companion in the court cried out, " Now, Jern, die grime;" and he did die game, as they eoueidered it. The effect of this suggestion was that he was preparing his mind to brave the law, and was more intent upon that than in attending to the instructions of the clergyman. Why, he woull:ask, did the newspapers give such lengthened accounts of these executions but that there was a desire, on the part of the public, to read these accounts, from a morbid feeling of curiosity to know what was connected with the death of a criminal, arising from what was, in some respects, a sentiment of vindic tiveness against the convict? He had seen cases of that kind which were very striking. Some time ago a young man at Stockport shot a young woman with whom he had been living, and was hanged at Liverpool. Shortly after another stabbed a young woman also, and he suf fered death: but since that another murder of a similar description was committed at Leeds; two in different parts of the country, following each other in such rapid succession, that he believed the effect of the notoriety given them was to create the offences.—(Hear; hear.) If the punishment, fur example, were perpetual imprison ment, they could relax it in the case of a deserving cri minal, and continue it to those who did not deserve such relaxation. Besides, the present system often in duced men to commit murders, because juries often seized on objections which were not valid, and fre quently acquitted the most notorious criminals.- He himself had seen a letter from a medical man, in which he stated that to his own knowledge four persons were acquitted, and then at large, who were notoriously guilty of murder, but escaped in consequence of the state of the law. The Right Hon. Baronet must recollect the case of the two men at Dur ham lust year, charged with the murder of the Duke or Cleveland's gamekeeper. One of those men was found guilty and hanged and the other acquitted, on the ground that he did not fire the shot which deprived the man of life, whereas at that moment it was believed that the man acquitted was really the person who fired the shot; and what was more, two persons were now in gaol for another murder arising from motives of revenge out of the murder of the gamekeeper. Indeed it was well known that so great was the terror inspired on the occa sion, that many witnesses examined for the prosecution he w ou ld as k t h e Ri g h t H on. might be murdered for redngttiloev giving e ga a n v e, e v t d% h nh e nyo c e. o u: a t s r y Now,i t le t s h t e t t he A y nnette Meyers was respited, and Harriett Thomas executed? Both were equally guilty of murder in it s most d rea df u l f orm. He (Mr. Bright) rejoiced that Annette Meyers was not executed, family indeed, expressing s i t a h g e time, a w wish received tha t h a e of -the s o ldi er , w hi c h did I t e h t e t nn er from m uoh h credit, ae n dfa, should state to the House their anxiety that ahe should not be executed. These things evinced how perfectly impossible it was to be impartial in these cases. He (Mr. Bright) really had commiseration for the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. Ile had a veto in all those cases given him by the law— the whole responsibility almost fell on him when he had to take each case into his consideration, after they were adjudicated on by judges and juries, and his difficulties were every day increasing. He h a d b een i n t h e h a bi t lately of referring cases of that description to the judges, and without venturing even to insinuate anything dero gatory to those eminent personages, differences of opi nion might arise from feelings entertained on the subject before the House. In one case a deputation waited on a judge, and stated as their reason for asking a commu tation of punishment, that they were opposed to capital punishments altogether, and his reply was that he could not listen to such a reason, but that he should be happy to hear any which he could cons id er, as he was most unxious the j execution should lot take place. Deputa tions of that description were of frequent occurrence, and it was hardly necessary to say that they - indicated the anxiety of the public mind on the question. Then there was a case at Monmouth, where a memorial was Sir G. GREY—Not on the merits. presented to the Right Hon. Baronet. ij. ;t Mr. — BIZIGIIT—Not on the merits, certainly, but pr Lying that it should not take place at Monmouth. Then, at Bristol, 3,500 Wome❑ sent IT a memorial in favour of Harriet' Thomas, and five different religious congregations for the same object. The Mayor and corporation of Gloucester did the same, showing that puolic opinion was miming hostile to the system now pursued.- An iutimato friend of his (Mr. Gilpin), whose name when the question was settled would be ever remembered with gratitude for his exertions in the cause, informed him, that at upwards of fifty meetings at which lie attended, in various parts of the country, he bad never witnessed before, no matter how exciting or interesting the subject might have been, any question which gathered together larger assemblies, or filled larger roomy than the present, not to condemn pas sionately or foolishly the abolition of punishment by death, but tc, consider and discuss it, calmly and dis passionately, and from these meetings all but unani mous declarations in favour of the principle of the pre sent motion were come to, which was a good test of what the public feeling was on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Baronet had, however, one difficulty in considering this question ; he was under the impression that the opinion of the House was against such a propo sition. Such may be the notion entertained in the House of Lords, where it was said by some one, on the presentation of a petition from Lancashire in its favour, that its prayer ought be granted as a punishment to the people of that district, fur their tenacity in seeking it. But such was not the case in that House. He believed five-sixths of lion. Members never considered the ques tion at all; and he was also convinced that, if the Right Hon. Baronet proposed a measure for the abolition of capital punishment, scarcely a Member in the House would be found to oppose it; or, if so, only to the length of limiting the duration of the measure for a few years. For the grounds stated he implored the Right lion. Gen tleman to give the question his best consideration ; and for his own part he shouid support the motion of his lion. Friend the Member for Dumfries. Ztlr. HOME DRUMMOND regretted to see on every side increased sympathy for murderers. Murders had increased in intensity, and ho believed it was so in con sequence of the debates in that House, and the syrn p.viny shown:for murderers el,evvhere, so that the people thought that murder, after all, was not so great a crime, and Si) it Was thought 113 little of as during the middle ages. The Honourable Gentleman said they cAild mitigate and modify the punishment ; that they could modify in some cases, and, in fact, in others let them out altogether. Mr. ITRIGIIT observed that the Hon. Gentleman mistook him altog-ther. What ho said was, that in oertain deserving cases the punishment might be miti gated, but in no case whatever would he consent to have a murderer return to society. Mr. DRUMMOND begged the Hon. Gentleman's pardon. He should, however, give the motion every opposition in his power, convinced, as be was, that— " Whoso mhccideth mar's by tu,u shnuld his Fe shed." n !I ihr interp.a tea trot. to pu:. do- Lx' , . a, its b: aring on the subj. et then indier wa4 nor, however, prepared to vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend, because it seemed to him that they had not at present arrived at that point in which they could say there was any uncertainty or difficulty in obtaining convictions when murder was committed. On the other hand, it appeared to him that there was an increasing dislike, growing up to convict in capital cases. He had seen it in the county which he had the honour to repre sent, in ,he instance of semi. most atrocious cases. About two years ago a woman was tried for poisoning her hus band, and, notwithstanding the evidence given, she was now at large. So convinced was the prosecutor of her guilt, that she was tried again. A second indictment was preferred against her, but she, was acquitted, one of the jurors subscquomtly stating that she would have been convicted but for the punishment of death. In the fol lowing year another ennui was tried and con icted, bet in the present a third was tried and let off: Be (Sir E. N. Buxton) certainly did think it was right they should watch the course taken by jurors, and if they found there was an increasing difficulty in getting a conviction in cases of murder, he certainly should be prepared to support the question. Although he could not then con vince himselt that he should be acting right in voting for the motion, yet, as to the expediency of putting an end to the present mode of public executions, he had no doubt whatever.—(Hear, hear.) A person was no doubt publicly tried in a court of justice, but it was in a room, and it was impossible that more than a limited number of persons could be present. Executions might take p!:ce within the precincts of a gaol, for example, so that, while they maintained the principle that the ends of justice should be satisfied, only a certain number of persons, as witnesses, should be present to see the law curried into effect. On these grounds he could not vote for the motion of his Honourable Friend ; but he con fessed he came to that conclusion after much difficulty and doubt. Mr. BROTHERTON should support the motion of the Hon. Member for .Durntries, and as to what had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet and others, that the time was not as yet come to make the proposed change, he wished to know what si g n th e y were to h ave w h en it should come? The great end of punishment was refor mation; but capital punishments did n o t p reven t crime, and demoralised rather than improved those who wit nessed them. Sir G. STRICKLAND said ho hoped to live to see the time when capital punishments should be abolished altogether. From the infirmity of human tribunals the innocent had often, he was convinced, suffered as guilty. Then he thought that they should not have recourse to a punishment which never could be recalled. Colonel THOMPSON said he did not think that transportation had all the effect attributed to it, but he thought that expatriation, under hopeless circumstances of ever returning, might, in many instances, he substi tuted for threepenny-worth of rope and the hangman. —(A laugh.) At present transports were buoyed up with the hope of returning home, or of obtaining a par don, or at least a material mitigation of the severity of their punishment; but if the murderer were deprived altogether of that hope and banished for ever to some tar distant country, that he believed would be a safe substitute for the degrading s . ) stem of public executions. Sir GEORGE GREY said he hoped that, from the tone of the debate respecting the punishment of trans portation, an erroneous impression would not be conveyed to the country. No Governor had the power of exer cising the prerogative of mercy, nor could any convict escape the severity of his sentence, xcept by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. Lord NUGENT said that capital punishments had a tendency to increase crime, and therefore the punish ment of death was unnecessary and unjustifiable. The majority of the Judges were in favour of the abolition of this punishment. Several eminent criminal lawyers were of the same opinion, and their reason was that within their knowledge several persons had suffered death who were innocent.—(lleiir.) Ile would entreat Hun. Members, it' they had any doubt on this subject, to remember that if they thought there was an) thing in the argument in laveur of abolition, every year was a year of unjustifiable bloodshed.—(Hear.) Sir H. VERNEY could not yet make up his mind to abolish the punishment altogether. Public executions were abhorrent to the feelinca of humanity, and some other mode of executing criminals should be devised, if that punishment was to be continued. A gentleman who had seen Rush executed had informed him that he was convinced it a criminal was soon no more after sen tence of condemnation it would have a greater effect upon the public mind than the preeent system. The house then dividsd, when there uppeared— For tilt motion Against it ... Majority The motion was consequently lost. CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND. M s r e . I t i o E th O e G g H en p e r r a o l ce m ed an e d ag t e o m e e a n i t l o t f i c ie ro a w tt n ention of the prosecutions in Ireland at ass i zes and sessions, and to the expendi ture incurred i n t h ose prosecutions. The expense of those prosecutions to the country in 1847 amounted to 71,0001., while in 1830 it amounted only to 37,5001., showing an increase in the intermediate period of 34,000 k per annum. There was no effectual check upon this ex penditure, and the uncertainty attending the trials was so great that offenders speculated upon an acquittal. It was perfectly well known that extensive alterations had of late been made in the criminal laws; and, therefore, the counsel taking charge of criminal prosecutions should have a good knowledge of these alterations. He had moved last session for a return as to the conduct of criminal prosecutions in a certain county in Ireland, but that return had not yet been made. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it had been laid on the table. ... 75 ... -24 .Mr. KEOGII said he should have been glad to have seen it before it had been laid on the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had not been aware of the circumstance till now. Mr. KEOGII continued, atid said that a great portion of the duty of the Crown solicitors devolved upon the stipendiary magistrates, who were riot, from many cir cumstances, qualified to perform the duty.—(hear, hear.) The consequence was, that the people felt there was what was tantamount to a deniki of justice, for the people were astute enough to see that where the chances of escape were so numerous, justice was but im perfectly administered, and the matter, therefore, called for immediate investigation. He thought he had laid sufficient grounds to induce the Government to grant an inquiry, and he was of opinion if a Committee were granted, that a system might be devised which would give them a cheaper and certain system of admi nistering justice in Irelund. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that tho matter might be safely left in the hands of his Right Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney- General. His Right Hon. Friend came into office in '4B or in the latter end of '47. As the Crown Solicitors were paid by fees, it was not to be wondered at that they should be desirous of increas ing-ta to this t h in i s abuse,lB3s ( andM he r. Bl the number of counsel, and o f course t h e number of briefs. The Irish A t tt i o o r i n o e u y calledGrrier his attention the c o u nse l t o t h e num b er of :le s t o b e u i r i ne an ) order had hi l two, allowing that in certain cases an additional counsel should be called in. The Right Hon. Gentleman then went on to explain in detail the mode which the fees of the Crown solicitors in criminal cases in Ireland were under the old system so largely increased. When the present Attorney-General (Mr. Monahan) came into office, or soon after July, 1848, he issued an order that the practice should be uniform on all the circuits, and directing other arrangements as to the employment of counsel, namely, that in certain cases one counsel only should be employed. There were other minor arrange ments for reducing the expenses of Crown prosecutions, and he (the Attorney-General) thought that the arrange ments which had been made by his Right Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney-General were highly honourable to him. lie held in his hand a return which showed that in the season before the new arrangements came into operation, 37$ Crown prosecutions had been carried on, at an expense of 3,2231. 10s. Since the new arrangements had been acted upon, the return showed that 348 cases had been tried, at an expense of 8761. The House would, therefore, see the great re ductiou which had been effected already by the Irish Attorney-General, and when ho heard his Right lion. Friend blamed for the mode in which he had conducted the prosecutions, he was happy to be able to refer to the opinions of men who were well acquainted with his c:,nduct, and who gave that conduct their deeidt d ap proval. The Hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) had alleged that there was u failure of justice, because the Irish At torney-GeLeral would 11,t, prosecute for patty larcenies; but he thought his Right lion. Friend was quite right in acting upon that principle.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion he had sufficiently answered the statement of the lion, and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh), and ho trusted therefore he would withdraw the motion. Mr. KEOG II explained. Mr. O'FLAHERTY was glad to hear of the reduc tion of the expenditure which had been effected, and hoped it would be continued. Mr. HENLEY felt that the statement which had been made of the former practice in Ireland in Crown prose cutions was so startling, that there was great reason to rejoice that the reform had been carried so far, and he trusted it would be still cmied farther. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a few words, after which the motion was withdrawn. CORPORATION OF LONDON. On the motion of Mr. DIVETT a retnrn was ordered of all, moneys paid to the Chamberlain of the City of London by persons either nominated or elected to the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, with the date, cause, and amount of each payment, and the names and addresses of the respective payers, from the Ist of Ja nusry, 1800, to the present time; stating also the amount received in each year, the sum total, and the purposes to which the money was applied by the Corporation of London. IRISH RAILWAYS. Mr. KEOGH asked for leave to bring ;1 a Bill to fa cilitate the transfer of land to railway companies for railway purposes in Ireland,—Leave given. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL next obtained leave to bring in a Bill granting relief against defects in leases made under powers of leasing in cPrtain cases. The House then adji,urne-d at Nine ,)'Click. ESCAPE OF 'lwo CONVICTS.— W OOLVVICII, MAY 1. —About twelve o'clock last night two convicts escaped from the convict hulk Hebe, recently moored in the river near the west end of the Royal Arsenal. One of them is named Charles Lsnker, 28 years of aga, a Sheffield,i native of and cu tl er by trade. The other s named Thoma s B ra db ury, 19 years o f a ge. He was a native of Coventry, and followed the occupation of a hawker. Lord Carington, the High Sheriff of Bucks, and the Town Clerk, had an interview with Sir George Grey yesterday. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE CHANCERY COURT, May 1. :311 - .1 1 IC; UT B SoTER • ei motion for an injunction to fesii,.4.o. toe cis feriliant :rum preventing the plaintiff from having ac cess to the books of account in the partnership in the bill mentioned, and from exercising the rights of a part ner. The plaintiff alleged that early in 1848 he in vented a beverage called " Tortoni's Anana," and gene rally known as " Soyer's Nectar," and that he entered into partnership with the defendant, John Gibbs, for the purpose of making and selling said beverage, and that in consideration of said partnership, and also of the undertaking becoming the property in equal moieties of plaintiff and said de fendant, the latter brought 2001. into the concern, and prenni , es were taken for the business in Rupert-street, Haymarket. The capital not being sufficient, it was agreed that Gibes should bring in 200/. wore,which was to he con sidered as a debt due by the partnership. Subsequently, in the same year, it was agreed between them, that the derendant, Alexis Benoit Soyer, of the Reform Club, should be admitt e d a s a p artner , it b e i ng considered that his 'mule would be of great advantage, and it was agreed that be should bring in 100/. only, in consideration of his acquiring one-tbird interest in the concern, the two previous partners each retaining a similar share. In September, 1848, it was agreed, for the further extend ing the business, that the defendant, Richard Baker, of Bisson's-grove, St. John's-wood, stockbroker, should be admitted a partner into one-forth of the business. on consideration of his bringing 1,0001. into the con - cern. It was also agreed that the 2001. advanced originally by Gibbs should be charged to the plain tiff's share, that each partner's share should be one fourth, that " the manufacture and sale of Soyer's Nectar should be common to the four partners, that the agreement be for seven years, and that the firm be called Soyer and Co." The plaintiff alleged, that during the old partnership he had kept the secret of the manufac ture of the beverage to himself, but that the defendant Baker refused to enter into the partnership unless such secret was communicated, and that accordingly on the execution of the agreement it was communicated. Dif ferences soon arose, which ultimately led to the present proceedings, and to the arrest of the plaintiff by Mr. Groowridge, one of the creditors of the firm. His HONOUR directed the partnership to be dissolved, as from this day, without prejudice to any question, the defendants within 48 hours to discharge the judgment obtained by Groomridge, without prejudice to any ques tion, they to be entitled to credit in the account for what they shall pay to Groomridge. His Honour likewise directed a reference to ascertain and arrange, on equit able terms, the interests of the respective parties. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.) IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF SAMUEL BENNETT. This bankrupt who was a draper at Islington, Came up on the question of certificate. Mr. Linklater supported. The bankrupt was op posed on behalf of the Leicester- square Loan Society. The ground of opposition were misrepresentation to his creditors, and the vexatious defence of an action. Mr. LINKLATER contended that his client had acted with perfect sincerity and honesty, and that at the time those representatives were made the bankrupt's books showed that he had not in any way misstated his position, and that as soon as he found himself in difficulties, he placed his affairs in the hands of accountants, who were concerned for his principal trade creditors. As regarded the second charge, the plea was put in for the purpose of preventing the Loa❑ Society sweeping away the pro perty under an execution. The COMMISSIONER said, as the plea had been put in for the purpose of protecting the other creditors, much of the blame which would otherwise attach to such a proceeding was pardonable. Under all the circumstances he would grant the certificate. A bankrupt named Chappell, a wine merchant in Water-lane, Tower-street, came up on the question of certificate, which was suspended for two years, on the ground of reckless trading. The debts and liabilities were about 1,7001., and there was not a penny for the creditors. POLICE IN' ELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH-STREE'P. A well-dressed man, who gave the name of Henry Edwards, and who is supposed to be a clergyman of the Church of England, lodging at No. 8, South Molten street, was charged, before Mr. Bingham, with having indecently assaulted George Gough, a young country man, living at 42, James -street, Oxford-street. The prosecutor stated that about three o'clock on Sa turday afternoon he was proceeding along Oxford-street, when the prisoner, who is a perfect stranger to him, accosted him, and asked him to have some porter. Wit ness accepted the offer, and they went into a public house, where they had a pint of porter between them. When they came out of the house, witness thanked the prisoner and wished him good afternoon. Witness then walked away, and had got as far as Regent-street, when the prisoner came up to him again and asked him if he had been to tea. Witness replied that he had not, when the prisoner said if he would take him where be could have some tee, he (the prisoner) would pay for it. Witness then took him to a public house in Shepherd-street, but as they were entering the tap-room the prisoner observed some men there, and refused to go in. They had a pint of porter at the bar, and then left the house. The pri soner then took him to his lodgings in South Molton street, and desired him (witness) to wait at the door whilst he ran upstairs. The prisoner then left him, and after a few moments' absence he came down and asked witness to follow him up stairs. Witness did so, and went into a room at the top of the house. The prisoner then gave him half-a-crown, and, subse quently conducted himself in such a filthy man ner towards witness that ho ran out of the house. The prisoner followed him, and.•on witness meeting with a constable, he gave the prisoner in charge. The constable whp took the prisoner in charge said be found upon him several letters, addressed to the Rev. R. 8., 1, South Molton-street, where he had been lodging about a week. The prisoner, who denied there being a particle of truth in the statement made by the prosecutor, was fully committed for trial. CLERKENWELL. William Jackson, a portly- looking man, six feet high, was brought before Mr. Combe, charged at the instance of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, with having committed a burglary.in St. Pancras workhouse, and stealing twenty sovereigns and 155/, in silver. The prisoner, who has been a patient in Guy's Hos pital, with a broken leg ever since February last, was brought to the court in a cabriolet, and was supported into the presence of the bench by the officers with the aid of a pair of crutches, and his foot in a sling sus pended from his shoulders. He appeared to suffer great pain, looked very pale, and was allowed a seat in a chair near the space allotted for solicitors. Mr. Howarth, the barrister, attended on the part of the parish to conduct the prosecution, Mr. Cosfee asked the prisoner if his health was sufficiently strong and restored to have the case pro ceeded with ? The prisoner replied in the affirmative, but he would prefer a postponement, as he expected Mr. Huddiestone, the barrister, wham he had retained to attend for him. After some desultory conversation it was resolved to take the necessary evidence to warrant the remand of' the prisoner, when Mr. Howarth stated the case for the prosecution, which was a reiteration of circumstances which have already appeared before the public. It may be recollected that on the night of the Bth of February the strong-room in the workhouse where the property had been deposited was broken into, and, 20 sovereigns and 1551. in silver was stolen; and on the same night the prisoner was found within some area railings near the workhouse wall, where his cries for help brought assistance, and he was conveyed in a cabriolet to Guy's Hospital, Borough. On the following morning the robbery ,was discovered, some housebreaking imple • silents were found in the washhouse, and near the spot where the prisoner made the alarm were found some skeleton keys, a large pair of list shoes, such as are used by housebreakers, and a dark lantern, &c. There was little doubt that the prisoner was the perpetrator of the robbery, and having afterwards dropped from the work house wall tell within the railings and met with the acci dent to his leg, which was of a very severe description; but there was so much mystery about the case that for some time a few of the parish functionaries were sus pected, until a reward was offered for the discovery of the cabman who drove the prisoner on the night of the rob bery, and of the person who was attracted by the pri soner's cries and who assisted him over the railings into the cab. They were at length traced, and on the pri• soner being visited by the officers he was identified as a returned transport. Mr. Henry MiGahey was called, and deposed that he is son of the vestry-clerk of St. Pancras. On the night of the Bth of February last he deposited 155/. in silver and 20 sovereigns in a box in a drawer in the strong room. On the following morning the cashbox was found empty on the floor, having been forced open, and the property was missing. Mr. Joseph Lye, compositor, of the Metropolitan buildings, St. Pancras-road, deposed that at about 12 o'clock on the night of the Bth of February last he was passing near St. Pancras Workhouse when he heard cries for help, and discovered the prisoner within some iron railings, leaming_with his back against the wall. He begged of witness to help him over the railings. Wit ness asked him, " What was the matter?" and helped him over. He said that a man had thrown his hat over the railings, and on clambering over to get it again he fell, and had broken his leg. Witness said, "I had better ring the workhouse bell and obtain assistance." Ho objected to that, and begged of witness not to do so. He said he had no business at that end of the town; ho had been drinking with some friends, and wished to avoid exposure, and would thank witness if he would put him into a cab. With great diffieuky ho did so, and he was driven a way. Mr. Howarth—flow high were the railings? Wit ness—Four or five feet high. Mr. COMBE—Had the prisoner the appearance of be • ing drunk? Witness—He hsid the appearance of having been drinking a little, but he was not drunk. He was exceedingly agitated and excited. Mr. Benjamin Lamberd, of Gray's-inn-road, one of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, had accom panied the directors to the strong-room on the morn ing of the robbery, and found a crowbar and screw driver, &c. (now produced). The place had been broken into. James Hale, an inmate pauper of the workhouse, was called, but was too drunk to be examined, and was or dered to stand down. Jeremiah Lockerby, 180 S, being, called, said he had every reason to believe that he slsould be enabled to produce sufficient evidence to subst w tat ft ft: charge of tel9ny against the priscil,,,r it ho wa4 re Tn,t , :e-'• umBE aklted tlitt prisoiftc • • pled, at Shirk Mr. CONDE said he would retna.iiii tm, as he WO anxious to have his legal advocate present, who, it was said by Mr. Howarth, was unavoidably absent. He t hen remanded the prisoner, with i nstructions that a ll the De ct ssary evidence should be brought forward at the nex t and final examination. SOUTH WARK. William Leigh and Augustus Crossly, alias Cosa , were brought before Mr. Cottinghatu for re-examine' tion, charged with conspiring to obtain money by false pretences, as agents for collecting advertisements for the Watchman, Nonconformist, and British Bann er ' weekly newspapers. Three cases were select e d aga i ns t L e i g h , f rom which it appeared that he foll o w e d t h e avocat i on of news Pr e., advertisement agent, and in that capacity had s,oliciteu advertisements iron thre, traneinen fur insertion i n the above journals. He had received a commission each advertisement from the newspaper in which it or peered, and there, as far as he was concerned, the tYpri a ; action should have b e en a t an en d. H owever, i n stead () ; adhering to that course o f b us i ness, i t was prove d di!, he subsequently called upo n eac h o f t h e advert i sers sod received the amount of th e i nsert i ons , wh i ch he d e voted to his own purposes with ou t any aut h or i ty from the parties to whom the money was due, and the discover/ of this fraudulent mode of doing business was brought t° light when the bills w ere sent i n f rom the newspaper s ,„ question. The necessary evidence to establish the &Ogr e against the prisoner s h av i ng b een produced, and t he' : solicitor (Mr. Roberts) h av i ng contended that it not sufficiently strong to come within the meaning atm" Act, The MAGISTRATE expressed his intention to send tl ig cases for further investigation before another tribulum; and in doing so, remarked that under the circumstanc e !' as it was a bailable offence, he should adjudge the soners to enter into their own recognizances in 401. al", and two sureties of 201., to answer t h e c h arges at the next sessions. LAMBETH. The Rev. John Georg e ll ouns fi e ld, c h ap l a i n to t h e E arl of Airlie, and who stands fully committed to take trial at the ensuing sessions at the Central Crino l Court., on a charge of obtaining 2001 from Mr. hia o3t l a meat salesman, by false representations, was brook, from Horsemonger-lane Gaol for the purpose of putt: l4 in the required sureties to appear and take his trial. . Mr. Newton, the bar r i s t er , appeared on behalf of "t u a prisoner, and tendered as bail for his reverend Sir Robert Price, of 11, Stratt on s t reet, Piccadilly, Or of Foxley, Herefordshire (one of the magistrates that county. and M.P. for Hereford city), and Mr. H0! . ., 11 Dick Woodfall, of 14, Great Dean's-yard, Westmingol' printer. A clerk to the solicitor f o r th e prosecut i on sa id I h - S 1 the names of the parti es t en d er i ng t h emselves as bail ',.n° the prisoner had not b e e n g i ven i n unt il a late hour "- Saturday evening, and the time for inquiry was the e : fore se short, that the understanding was that the gel! tlemen should not present themselves before his Woo l* before four o'clock. ' - e Mr. NORTON said, he was p er f ect l y sat i sf i ed w i t h 4 h - A solvency and respectability of the gentlemen who offi,,_ themselves as bail, and th e i r suret i es h av i ag been 0.00 in 1001. each, and the prisoner's in 2001., the latter "vi discharged from custody. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. HULL, MAY 1. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's circular statel The past week thas certainly been the most inactive, f garde the gener a l b us i ness o f t hi s port, of any previous oae this year. Exports of manufactured goods are swim% afected through th e bl oc k a d e o f t h e d i fferent German Parts and from the same cause our imports of foreign grain are oe. most limited scale, and wi ll now f a ll o ff much more, as up to tir e 30th ult neutral ve s sel s were a ll owe d to l eave the ports cabe r , they might be at the commencement of the blockade, our inq t• mation lead us to b e li eve t h at t h ere i s only amoderate quitotii• on passage to this port. It may be going beyond the pro" to of a trade circular, but we cannot refrain from expressing e ot unfeigned regret that the Government of the country does" .• at once, and actively interfere to prevent the sad consequen o o which must accrue to every branch of our commercial inter e w from the present state of affairs; such interference would_., effectual, and we doubt not as to its practicability. This tur 4 l, ing's letters look less like peace than ever. During the we d the grain trade has been most inactive ; notwithstanding st ee fe • in warehouse and f res h arr i va l s b e i ng very small, they are of the present beyond the necessities of millers, and the 9 4, course avail themselv es o f thi s ; not many factors, are, bum, ever, disposed to give way in foreign grain, and such ( e lk cially wheat of first qua li ty ) i s f or t h e most part held it of prices of a fortnight ago. We had to day a small supply, f wheat from our farmers, and a very quiet market, without s t : b ", notable alteration upon last week's prices. In foreign transactions were very limited, holders being equally disincbero with buyers to alter their ideas, but there was cer t a inly ttj inquiry on the part o f millers. Spring corn of all kinds a deal neglected during the week as well as to-day. Linses° in fully as dear, but c a k es are eas i er to b uy. Nothing neirn„,,rt rapeseed, while rape cake s are t h e turn d earer. Bones snlir late prices. The following are the press. 0 , S. 3. 5. 30 Wheat, English, red 42 to 46 P eas , w hi te and yel. 25 a 6 Do. white 44 —4B Do. grey Dantzic and Ko- Linseed, Black Sea. 3 9 nigsberg 4B —5O Do. Petersburgh 3 4 Pomeranian and Do. Riga &Archngl. 35 56 Hamburgh . 43 —46 Do. Konigsberg .... 3 2 ".toil. Danish, Holstei n , & Far 66 Friesland 3B 44 Li nseed cakes, Hun if 1 0- o. 50 Russian and Odessa 36 44 Do. fine foreign „ Oats, English Do. ...... , 14 16 Rapeseed 261 o v ) 3 Oa Do.Friesland l6 18 R ape cakes ............ ...9(oo• Do. Russ. & Odessa 14 —l6 T ares, E ngl i s h ••••••Ms _ 260 Barley, malting 24 —26 D o . f ore i gn ............ 20s . Do. grinding... 20 22 Guano 6l to 9d ' Beans, 2B —32 B ones, d o 9 5 s Od to 97 , 0 6 Do. foreign ...... ..... 26 31 Rye meal .............. IPSWICH, MAY 1. t . . The wheat trade is ag a i n very h eavy, and sales could Pe made without a reducti on o f i s to 2s per quarter. filewg corn no alteration in prices. Malt very dull. Flour loot downwards in price. * e . PER *DARTER.' PER C • 4 IA 0 Wheat 4os to 49s1Beans Barley .... 22s to 31sPeas Oats l 7s to 21 siMalt Rye 21s to 23s Flour, per sack ... 385 to . AVER AGES FOR TH E WEEK ENDING APRIL 28, 1849- Wheat Barley - . Oats ....... Beans... 65 „ 27p. Od- Peas LIVERPOOL, MAY I.—This morn i ng ' s mar k et was to ) 9jf well attended by buyers from a distance as of late, still a l ot sale was experienc e d f or w h eat, at a decline of Id per 1),1,1411 on all qualities fr om l as t T ues d ay. American lour was 6d per barrel low er with a slow sal e . G oo d mealing °le being scarce, w ere id per bushel dearer, but inferior a.. ip were neglected. Oatmeal fully supported late rates. 132 beans, and peas were unaltered in value. The principal ' t ire ness of the day was in I n di an corn, f or w hi ch there wail .o f t competition, and the d ec li ne o f F r id ay, noted above, was the recovered ; 33s 6d per 4801bs was the closing figure foe • best American yellow, and 31s 6d for best white. o r DALKEITH MEAL MARKET, APRIL 30.—At this e d. market there were 144 b ags oatmea l , , and 10 of barley !not There were also 5 bags of pot barley in market, which qv; " t he sold ; oatmeal same on the top, but down 6d per bag t he second and third qualities; barleymeal up 3d per bag C second price. 'rd Oatmeal, per sack, of 280 lb s. Fi rst Second I '-- h 164 imperial .. 27s Od 26s 6d V' s firl Barleymeal, per ditto ... 20s Od 19s 9d 10 0 ca Peasemeal —s Od —s Od •-••-s Od Flour ... —s Od —a Od Od Pot barley CORK, APRIL 30. —Flour —Firsts 14s to 14s 6d; extra 153 joa seconds, 13s Od to 135 6d; households 10s to 12s ; thirds 8 5 ig„ per cwt. Oatmeal 12 s t o 12 s 6d ; Indian meal 8s 6d togs ; AD O, meal, lOs 6d toll s pe r cwt. I nd i an corn 8/ 2s 6dto 8/ 101; Il e ; o• ; Bran 41 to 4/ 5s per ton. Hay—Farmers 28s 6d to 41s; .ver dealers 42s to 48 s ; average 453 Od per ton. Straw a --I , lar ed; 16, Od to 29s Od ; average 235; dealers 00s Od to o'o4o average 00s Od p er ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 6d: 'to Zi to household loaf 5d to sid per 41b. Fresh butter, ls; 9d per lb. Co a l s —N ewport 16s; Lydney 17s ; Lan dare 441 Best Neath Culm 145 per ton. Tallow 43s 6d tO per cwt. Whisky, 25 o. p., 6s Od per imp( trial ; 101. Meat—B ee f el l 4d to 7d; Mutton 5d to 6 VI, p er bid to 7d ; pork 4d t o sid ; b acon 7d to 8d ; sausagesi n et lb. Hops 61 10s per c w t. B angor s l ates 312 s 6d to• , 315 s ob ton. Bark--Barbary 8/ to 8110 s; Valonia 01 to 01 1 1- V o pe• 7 / 1 0x; English 0/ p er t on . Fl eece W ool 10s to 12s per 9 „' .i Der Per Hemp 34/ to 36/ p er t on . Fi s h— S cotc h herrings 18s to 196 ditto 26s to 28s per b arre l ; N ew f oun dl and 10/ 10s tr) ;31 ton. Timber—New Memel 4110 s; old scarce; red P_T coo d 15s • yellow pine 31 per t on ; d ea l s , fi rst qua li ty, 201: 7„to quality 171 per 120. Hid es —M ar k et 10 s to 16 s; sa l t e° r 16s per cwt • calf skins 2d to 2id ; market 2d to 21,d p! Potatoes, white 10d to 12d; Minions 18d to 20d; Gu e° ol, Peruvian, 11/ to 1 1 / 1 0s; Ichaboe 9/ per ton ; Tar--strebe D ° lbs per barrel. Eggs, 4s to 4s 2d per hundred. It prices of grain : We learn that the Tallowchandlers' COlO ll/3 ,11 have presented a d ona ti on o f 101. 10 s . to the Ltunb i tr y Flag Ragged Schools, th roug h th e i r Ch ap l a i n, t he `" Doctor Hughes. -- BIRTHS. _ -- ISL II On the 26th ult., at Atkins-road, Cl a ph am-par k, the of J. Micholson, Esq., of a daughter. ~, t il On the 27th ult., at Woodhouse, L e i cestersh i re, the lau. , T. Cradock, Esq., of a daughter. A i Wif ° On the 27th ult., at Butleigh-vi carage, S omerse t, of t Rev. W. F.Neville, ot a daughter. e --e OnCop t~ the 27th ult., at Teignmouth, Devon, the wife o f H. Lugard, Royal _Lng ineers, of a son. 10 oa On the 28th ult., at Rutland-gate, Hyde-park, the WI F. P. Barlow, Esq.,jun , 01 a daughter. _......—.---.. MARRD. At Witton Le W ear, in the county of Durham, on rbe3,Citiler ult., by the R ev . L awrence Browne, the Rev. HenrY i non Baumgartner, son of John Thomas Baumgartner' of Milton-h ouse , near Cambridge, to Frances Octaviat , daughter of George Hutton Wilkinson, of Harper l l: l : l l atf Recorder of Newcarle-upon-Tyne, a n d J u d ge o f th• ` A) Court of Northumberland. j 01 0 On the 25th ult. at Walcot Church, B a th, the Rev' 30' Evans, 8.A., Minister of Portland Chapel, Bath, top or stance, eldest daughter of the late Rev. Arthur Hug h son, rector of Foxearth, Essex. arks On the 28th u l t., at St. Pancras, E uston - sq uare, . 410 16 Pittar, Esq., to R osa li e, eldest daughter of Joshua Mikr Esq., of Fitzroy -square. On the 26th ult., at Hampstead Church, Thom as 1 010 r Eq., of Le e d s , t o R e b ecca, eldest daughter of t h e late " Russell, Esq., of Maidenhead, Berks. DiED. the -7th ult., Thomas Elaiklock, Esq., of ell' On 9 Stock fir villas, Stockwell, lt., Mr. aged 84. ase' On the 27th u W. Flanagan, of Mansi on-be ss . street, City, aged 78 ; also, on the 28th ult., Mrs. Sarah nagan, wife of the above, aged 68. ivarve, On the 27th ult., age d 2 1 , at O x f or d, William T . ir • 1 of Artie , scholar of St. John's C o ll ege , e ld est son of Mr. W. w Prospect-place, Old orompton. ~,,. f r o rber On the 2tqh ult., at Ly m i ng t on , H an t s , Charles ° I " - -; Esq., F.A.S., 8 c. London: Printed and Published by MURDO 112! No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, of strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cc"— Iltddlose.x, Wednesday, May 2, 1849,