The Sun. — London, England, 1824-06-03 00:00:00

THE LONDON JOURNALS. DAILY Extracts from the Morning Papers, June 3. [MORNING POST.] French Papers to the Ist inst. and the Etoile Of Tuesday reached us last night by Express.— The Constilutionnel publishes extracts of a secret v.,te said to have been lately sent by the Russian Government to the other European Powers rela tively to the settlement of the affairs of Greece. In this note, the authenticity of which is by no means established, it is proposed that Turkey should be called upon to Form three Principalities on Terra Firma, on the same footing as those of Moldavia and Wallachia. The first to consist of Thessaly, Beotia, and Attica, or Eastern Greece. The second of the ancient Venitian Littorale (with the exception of what belongs to Austria) of Epirus, and of Acarnania, or Western Greece ; and the third, of the Morea, to which the Island of Candia might be joined, or Southern Greece. " Russia," says the Document in question, " thinks that the Greeks cannot reasonably carry their hopes far :titer. They would enjoy liberty and complete freedom of trade, and would have a flag of their own. The Greek Patriarch continuing to reside at Constantinople, would in some measure be come the Representative of the whole nation.— The Turks would preserve a few fortresses, with a certain extent of territory round them beyond which they should not proceed, and there would be neither Pacha nor Governor, but each Prin cipality would pay a tribute proportioned to its extent and its riches." By such a plan as this the consolidation of liberated Greece into one powerful State, equally able to maintain its in dependence against Russian as well as against Turkish masters, would certainly be prevented. But who would gain by the measure ? The Porte, for the present, and in future—Russia. [BRITISH PRESS.] We abstained from offering the observations which occurred to us on the case of the mis sionary Smith till the adjourned debate upon it had concluded. We trust we shall never be found to undervalue the rights of any British subject, whether resident here or abroad ; nor ever speak lightly of any sentence that may be unwarrantably passed in any British Court of Justice, however composed, whether civil or mi litary. We have already confessed that we thought the public discussion of this subject per .vicious, and we think so still. Not all the lustre which the eloquence of Mr. Brougham can throw over the case, can change our opinion of it. — Much may at all times be done by artifice 'to excite unnecessary clamour; and thus much we must be permitted to say, that we have known many an event, involving consequences of infinitely greater importance, which have failed in Parliament to call forth auy• thing like invective from Sir James Mackintosh, or of invective from Mr. Brougham. - On the present topic their language is lofty and their minds im placable ; but we cannot help wishing that both their anger and their eloquence were more pru dently as well as more profitably employed.— With respect to the heathen condition of the negroes in the West Indies, and the value of every exertion which can be made to enlighten and improve, there can be but one opinion.— How far their conversion is to be effected by missionary means is another question, and a question which, if we were called upon to an swer it, would take us some time to deliberate. The change from bad to good—from ignorance to intelligence—from coarse and savage feel ing to a kind and cultivated benevolence,—is a reform of no common kind, and to be attained by no common means. To attempt it by mere doctrinal exhortation of any kind is ploughtng the rocks.— Regeneration is no mystical process. Negroes, in the Colonies, must be educated, as vicious and stupid people every where else must be educated, not by being made to rehearse the formula of any Missionary creed as the articles of their belief ; for this will never sink much beneath the sur face, nor will ever much mend the conduct or change the heart. The task, moreover, is a thousand times more difficult when you have a grown-up West India population to contend with. You have here, as it were, the Ethiopian skin to change. You have a savage race to deal with, whose habits are in grained, and who cannot be made even to com prehend the metaphor of " putting off the old man," much less to exemplify it. Under a ci vilized Government a people are trained in the moral habits, feelings, and sentiments of their forefathers ; they are educated first by their pa rents, afterwards by their masters, and through out life by their intercourse with the world. But to catch up a negro to train him for another world, who has never been taught any thing worth learning in this, and whose enslaved con dition has tended from his birth to turn all the passions and powers of his mind out of their na tural course, we really su s p ect t hi s to b e a very hopeless project. It may d o - cre di t to t h e reli gious good intention of a missionary, but no man who knows any thing of the w or ld or of human nature, can hope any real good from it. Even in the younger branches of the negro population, the experiment is not more promising. [MORNING CHRONICLE.] A division, when a number of Members h a d gone out, if fame may be credited, to witness the balloon then suspended above St. Stephen's Chapel, produced yesterday an unexpected ad journment of the House, so that many who took their s ea t s b et i mes t o li sten to t h e con tinuation of the Debate on the question of the late Mr. Smith's Trial, were grievously disappointed. We are unwilling to offer any remarks on this case till we hear what can be said by those who represent the West Indians, in defence of what appears to us to be one .of the most atrocious outrages ever perpetrated under the forms of law.—Some of the circumstances detailed by Mr. Brougham e xhibit human natur e in so o di ous a p o i n t o f v i ew , that we dare hardly trust ourselves to .speak concerning them. We allude more parti cularly to the appalling statement made by him,' on the authority of a Gentleman, who referred him to the Rev. Mr. Austin. " (The Honourable and Learned Member here read a letter, in which it was stated that the Rev. Mr. Austin had received the last confession of Paris, who stated that Mr. Smith was innocent, and he, Paris, prayed that God would forgive him the lies that Mr. --- had prevailed upon him to tell.)"—I shall not mention the name of the person alluded to by Paris ; it is sufficient at present to state, that he took a most active part in getting up the prosecution against this poor Missionary. The letter goes on to state that similar confessions had been made by Jack and Sandy."—All that Mr. W. Horton could say against Mr. Smith was, that he was an enthusiast :—" He had said it was wrong to make the slaves work on a Sunday—this was ill-regulated enthusiasm."—A man must possess no small portion of enthusiasm, indeed, to expose himself for seven long years to a society such as that of Demerara.—A wise man, in the worldly acceptation, would prefer a good situation in the Colonial Office. But we will not allow ourselves to be tempted into any' farther observations on this question, till we have heard if any thing farther can be said i❑ favour of the persecutors of this poor Missionary. [TIIE TIMES.] Mr. Onslow's bill for the repeal of tho usury laws having failed in the House of Commons, a bill of a different form has since been prepared, though with the same tendency and final object,l viz., that . of releasing money from those bonds which are confessed to be inapplicable to commo dities in general, and extending the principles of free trade to a class of transactions, perhaps the most frequent, hut certainly the most important of all that take place throughout the busy world. It is curious, though not unprecedented, that the recent opposition by which Mr. Onslow's bill was thrown out, proceeded from the very indivi duals whose interests it was most fitted to secure and to strengthen. A bill to leave the money market free, is one which tends in the most direct manner to reduce money to its natural value—to adjust the relations of borrower and lender by that which is found to he the only unerring standard when applied to other dealers—namely, the excess of supply or demand of the article in question between them. Two propositions are so indisputable, that we are almost ashamed to state them ; and, if admitted, they jointly prove the uselessness or mischief of the usury laws. A fixed rate of interest being established, and no allowance made for unavoidable fluctuations in the market price of money, we say first, that if there be an overflow of money, so as to make its value in the market 3 per cent. only, instead of 5, a law forbidding the receipt of interest at a higher rate than 5 per cent. is an absurd and inoperative statute. : If, again, the same maximum be established when money is scarce, and not to be obtained so low as 5 per cent., what happens ? Why, the unfortunate man, to whom 1,0001. might, if procured at its intrinsic value,—for ex ample, 7 per cent. per annum,—be the means of rescuing him arid his family from ruin, must either go without any loan at all, or, instead of 5 per cent., pay not merely 7 per cent., the current value of the money ; but 12 perhaps, or 14 per cent., to cover both the natural inte rest, and the risk incurred by the lender, through a proceeding which violates the law. Know. ing, then, how the landed interest have been cir cumstanced, and how sharply many among them must have felt those consequences of the usury laws to which we have just adverted, it was, we repeat, a curious, though not an unexampled fact, that the overthrow of Mr. Onslow's Bill was oc casioned by the hostility of these same Gentle. men in Parliament. he new Bill goes to a mitigation of the penalties—not to a repeal of the ancient law ; but if carried, will pave the way, we trust, for an entire abolition of the existing system. [MORNING HERALD.] The ridiculous importance attached to the sup posed conversion of an Irish Schoolmaster from the errors of Popery, is one of the most farcical affairs we ever remember having occasion to re cord ; and the dramatic effect attempted to be given to it, while it is not very reputable in itelf, has very much the appearance of being intended to serve more than one purpose, to which we need not allude. Avowed proselytism between rival sects in religion is never likely to answer its purpose. We know of no such .effectual means of producing converts, as is to be found in the exemplary lives and doc trines of the Clergy ; and we cannot but regret that the well-endowed Protestant Church of Ire land has effected so little in this way, that. it should be thought worth while to 'transport one solitary stray sheep all the way from Dublin to some place in Upper Thames-street, to read (or rather, as it would seem, to blunder) through a manufactured recantation of Popery. We repeat that all this appears to be done for mere effect, and that of the most questionable kind. It re flects no credit upon the actors, and is calculated neither to sooth angry feeling, nor to promote mild concilitary measures. We doubt whether any Clergyman has a right of his own mere mo tion to make such a use of his church. Our own sentiments upon the subject of Catholic Emanci pation have been so recently recorded that we need not repeat them to our readers; and we will, therefore, only add that such an exhibition as that to which we are alluding, ought not, and cannot have any effect upon liberal-minded pro fessors of either religion, but (to speak more dia -1 ritably of it than perhaps it deserves) must be classed among those acts of indiscretion, by which even the best intentions are continually bringing discredit upon the cause they would promote. [NEW TIMES.] The Eloile of Tuesday contains a long rea soned article on a subject which it has been so long at issue with most of the English Journals— the independence of the South American States. The Courier a few days ago intimated, though in somewhat mysterious terms, that Mr. Canning would present to Parliament a recognition of that independence before the close of the Session. The I 'Etoile labours hard to shew that Mr. Canning cannot possibly do any such thing. With all due deference to those high authorities, we appre hend they are both completely in the dark. Mr. Cpialne ; nig is he may notvery chaoce to apt to let his intentions trans pire view the subject in a very different light from that in which it is re garded by either the French or English Journalist. The former of these writers lays great stress on the supposed defeat of Bolivar. So far as we have been able to trace the history of that personage, we are inclined to think that he has a peculiar fa culty of surviving defeats; his mind is prolific of resources in such emergencies ; and we should not be disposed to augur that any defeat from which he escaped alive would be likely to put an end to his enterprises. The other writer builds much on the alleged fact, that a Gentleman attached to the Mexican Commission has returned with favourable advices from that country. Now we must really say that it is paying a poor compliment to the prudence of the Foreign Secretary to suppose that he would decide a question of so momentous importance on such very slight grounds. With a sagacious fore -1 sight has the Right lion. Gentleman dispatched to those almost unknown regions Commissioners, whose busines it will be to ascertain the real capabilities of the new States, to note the state of parties, the indications of stability or dis solutions ; in short, to furnish facts on which a wise judgment may be built for the guidance of our future policy. Nothing is sooner or easier fabricated than a political theory ; and we can conceive an imaginative Diplomatist going out with his essay half-written, and giving it a few finishing touches in the first month of his residence ; but plausible as such a document might seem to those readers who skim the sur face but know nothing of the depth, we appre hend it would not satisfy a mind like Mr. Can ning's, which with all it taste, and brilliancy, and refinement, has been formed in the school of laborious study and sound information. 'An eloquent writer says, " the bolder the ima gination, the more luxuriant the fancy has been ; the more has the memory been also the storehouse of facts, and the range of the under standing wider in investigation." With no disin clination therefore to the cause of South Ameri can independence, but with a great aversion to shallow schemers, and a determination not to commit the interests of his country rashly, Mr. Canning must needs require information of that de tailed and positive nature which only time and the careful eye of a judicious observer can furnish. FOR TILE SUN. OF COFFEE AND COFFEE-HOUSES. MR. EDITOR-Although Coffee is indigenous in Arabia, and has no doubt been used as a be verage in various parts of the East, at a very early period, still the precise time when it was first applied to this purpose is no where to be found ; and it is somewhat remarkable that no mention is made of it in the Arabian Nights.— It would seem, therefore, from this circumstance, that at the period when these tales were written, the use of coffee was not known in Persia, though it is generally supposed to have originated in that country. After gradually proceeding through various countries of the east, it was intro duced at Constantinople about the middle of the sixteenth century, and from thence it was dissi minated in the rest of Europe. Anthony Wood, in his Athenw Oxoniensis, is the first who makes any mention of coffee being used in this country ; he states that a native of Crete was in the habit of using it as a beverage; and that in 1650, Jacob, a Jew, first opened a coffee house at the Angel, in the parish of St. Peter, in the East Oxon. Four years after ano ther Jew, likewise sold- coffee ; and in 1655, Arthur Tillyard sold it publicly in his house ; and according to our author " this coffee house continued till his Majesty's return and after, and then became more frequent, and had an excise set upon coffee. It is mentioned in A new view of London, pub lished in 1708, that James Farr, a barber, who kept the coffee house, now the Rainbow, near the Inner Temple Gates, one of the oldest in Eng land, who, in 1657, presented by the inquest of St. Dunstan's in the West, for making and sell ing a sort of liquor called coffee, to the great nuisance and prejudice of the neighbourhood. Although coffee is not mentioned in the Statue Books prior to the year 1660, it seems to have rapidly been very generally used. The following is one out of many advertisements for the sale of this beverage, which appeared in the Kingdom's Intelligencer, published weekly in 1662 : " At the coffee-house in Exchange-alley is sold, by retail, the right coffee powder, from 4s. to 6s. Bd. per pound, as in goodness; that pounded in a mortar at 2s. 6d. per pound ; also that term ed the East India being at 18d. per pound ; and that termed the right Turkey being, well garb led, at 3s. per pound, the ungarbled for loss, with directions gratis, how to make and use the same ; likewise there you may have chocolatta, the ordinary pound boxes at 2s. 6d. per pound, the perfumed from 4s. to 10s. per pound ; also sherbet made in Turkey of lemons, roses, and violets perfumed ; and tea according to its good ness. For all of which, if any Gentleman shall write or send, they shall be sure of the best, as they shall order ; and to avoid deceit, warranted under the house seal, viz. Morat the Great, &c.' Further, all Gentlemen that are customers and acquaintances are (the next new year's clay) in serted at the sign of the Great Turk, at the N ew Coffee House, i n E xc h an ge-alley, whos e co ff ee will he on fr ee cost — an d s o maybe to the world' : end !" No mention is made of the price of tea, called chaa, in the advertisements alluded to ; but at a latter period it i s k nown there sold f or s i xty shil liugs per pound. Th ou gh probably i n t ro d u c e d at an early period, it was long before it was used as a beverage. Indeed it is on record that the herb has been serve d a t table as a vege t a bl e t o be eaten with melted butter ! The above quoted advertisement proves that tea was not first intro duced from Holland in 1666, by Lord Arling ton, though such is generally supposed to have been the case. A. P. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, JUNE 2. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, sat at Nisi Prius, and tricd Com- mon Jury Causes. JOHNSON V. BURGESS. This was an action to recover the value of a horse, which was killed by a stroke from the shafts of a cart belonging to the plaintiff, and which it was alleged his servant had improperly driven. It appeared, that in December last, as the plaintiff's horse was standing near the curb-stone in Mile-End-road, a cart be longing to the defendant was furiously driven against him by a boy, who proved to' be deaf and dumb. The horse was taken to a neighbouring farrier's, and there died in about half an hour after the accident. A person who was, passing at the time afterwards went, by the desire of the plaintiff's attorney, to the defendant's in order to identify the carriage, and to him the defendant admitted that he had trusted the boy with the chaise. Two witnesses who knew the horse expressed an opinion that he was worth 40/. Mr. BaouaitArd, for the defendant, did not deny that the accident occurred in the manner described ; but, expressed his hope that lie should be a bl e t o thew that the deaf and dumb lad got into the chaise without the knowledge of his client, and while he was waiting in the house of his father. To prove this case, the Learned Counsel, called the father of the boy, named Cousins, who stated that Mr. Burgess came to call on him, and left his cart at the door ; but did not ;,rive it in charge to his son, nor did he ever authorize him to hold the horse. On cross-examination, the witness said his son, though deaf and dumb, was intelligent, and could write answers to written questions. A witness was called who thought the horse not worth more than 101. Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, argued that if the defendant's case were true, he would have called the lad to prove it, since, not withstanding his infirmity, he would. be a competent witness. The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE left the Jury to decide on the conflicting evidence, whether the lad was left in charge of the chaise. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 30/. BUGIN V. CHANDLER AND WIFE. This was an action for an assault and battery committed on the plaintiff by-the female defendant. To this there was a plea of not guilty, and also a plea that Mrs. Bugin committed the first assault on Mrs. Chandler. Mr. BROU GUAM stated the case for the plaintiff, whom he described as a poor widow who had seen better days, and who now was reduced to seek a livelihood for herself and only child by her needle. She lodged in the house of Mr. Chandler, who, as she omitted to pay her little rent exactlywhen it was due, distrained on her apparel; and in so doing Mrs. Chandler used some violence to Mrs. Bugin's child. The mother went to her assistance, when she was struck several times by Mrs. Chand. ler, •and fainted. For this injury she now sought a fair and moderate compensation in damages. This statement was proved by Triphena Bugin, the daughter, an intelligent child of 11 years of age. She was cross-examined as to some subsequent appearance of her mother at a police office, but the inquiry was stopped by the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. POLLOCK, for the defendants, called Mr. Hutchings, a lodger in the house, who stated, that after the affray, Mrs. Chandler accused Mrs- Bugin of striking her, which she did not deny ; but begged they would not execute their threat of sending for an officer. Mr. GURNEY replied for Mr. Brougham, who had been obliged to leave the Court. 'ile Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 2. PARKINS ✓. CORBETT. .This was an action brought by Joseph Wilfred Parkins against William Cobbett, to recover the value of a horse which it was alleged had been sold to the latLer. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the case for the plaintiff. The names of both the parties in this case were perhaps very well know to the Jury. The action brought by the plaintiff; who regretted that he must litigate any question with Mr. Cobbett, was brought to recover the value of a horse which he had sold to the latter. The horse in question was sold to the defendant for forty guineas, but as no person had been present at the bargain, the latter perhaps imagined that the plaintiff could not .prove his case, and from that supposition,_ which would however be disappointed, th e defendant had thought fit to appear in Court and se t up a defence to the action. There would be produced before them a man who accompanied the plaintiff in a call which he made upon the defendant, who was particularly struck with the appearance of the plaintiff's horse, and asked the latter if he would part with it. He consented to let the defendant have him, and ultimately 40 guineas was agreed upon as the price. The Jury would doubtless consider that 40 guineas was not too much to charge for a horse which was destined to carry a man of such high reputation and great knowledge as the defendant, who in fact, purchased to carry him on that " rural ride" which he had taken so much for the public benefit, and it was to be hoped, for the sake of the nation, so much for the advantage of his own health. Perhaps the horse was deemed by the defendant to be peculiarly valuable for another reason—he was going round the country, and he had probably chosen this horse on the prin ciple of a constitutional objection to turnpike bars. As the result of his journey was to be communicated to him, it would be doubtless very disagreeable to him, when some sublime thought suggested itself to him, to be interrupted by a fellow coming out and demanding vulgar toll.—(Laughter).—Nothing could be less sentimental or more annoying than a demand for money on such occasions ; and it became proper to have a horse that would leap hedge and ditch, and all those reprehensible re straints on freedom ; and, by a fondness for that species of riding called a steeple chase, enable its conscientious rider to avoid such vulgar obstructions. Such was the horse furnished by the plain. tiff. The defence to be set up was, that this horse had not been sold, but merely lent on trial; that it was true the horse had been ridden a very great distance ; that it had been reduced to a mere skeleton ; that both its knees had been broken, but that as it had been lent on trial, the defendant was at liberty at the end of more than six months to return it and set it loose in the stable yard from which it had been originally taken. There might have been some difficulty in proving the plaintiff's case ; but independently of the extravagance of the defence, it would be proved that the horse had been fairly bought, and that after it was returned it was so disabled and ruined that the stable keeper on selling it for the payment of its keep could only ob tain 101. for it. The first witness called was John Thorne, formerly a groom to the plaintiff.—On the 11th of September, 1822, one of the young Cobbetts came for the horse, and witness took it to the Red. Hart Livery Stables in Fetter-lane. Three months after saw it in 111 r. Cobbett's livery stables, Kensington, in a very bad condition, with both knees broken, and the near knee in a very had condition. Th e defendant's eldest son about three months after that came with the horse, and said he had brought it back. Witness said he could not receive it without the consent of his master. Young Cobbett then ordered the man who came with him and rode the horse, to take the saddle and bridle ofF, which was done accordingly, and turned loose in the yard. The ostler at the stables then took it in. It was sold about two months after. Witness thought the horse worth 40 or 50 guineas at the time. It had been a little strained by leaping on a flint stone, but was very safe, and never stumbled. William Clark, the ostler of the Red Hart, in Fetter-lane, received the horse from the last witness on account of the de fendant. Both he and his son came and rode it up and down the yard. Old Cobbett said it was a very good horse. Wit ness asked him to whom it was to be booked, on which Cobbett said to him, and mentioned that he had just purchased it. He asked witness what he thought it was worth ? Witness said 401. or 501. Cobbett said he had given 40 guineas for it, or 40/. He bad the horse out aliout 2 hours, and rode him away the next morning. When the horse was in its prime it was worth about 150/. Cobbett the elder and witness were alone when the former said he had purchased the horse for 40/. Another witness proved the quality of the horse, and that notice had been given to the defendant of its being left at the stables. Mr. Serjeant PELL, in behalf of the defendant, said that the only question was, whether the latter had bought the horse, or whether it had been merely lent to him; and it would have been as well for private justice as for public opinion if the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had confined himself to that issue. This it was his (Mr. Serjeant Pell's) intention to do; but he must state, that he could scarcely have supposed it pos sible that in such a case as this the desire which Mr. Cobbett had shown to reform the abuses of Turnpike Trusts would have been made a source of ridicule. It was neither necessary nor fair to make such allusions, nor to state that Mr. Cobbett was desirous of so obtaining a horse, with which he might travel from one end of the country to the other without paying toll, and avoid it by leaping hedges and ditches. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he must recommend his bro. ther Pell to adhere to his expressed intention of confining him self strictly to the question at issue. Mr. Serjeant PELL said, that as the topic had been intro duced by his brother Vaughan, he could not sit by while things were uttered which must be so painful to the feelings of his client. The CHIEF JUSTICE said he had heard nothinguttered that was calculated to give pain to the feelings of Mr. Cobbett. His brother Vaughan had, it was true, indulged in a little good humoured pleasantry that was not at all to the point, and in which the Court should perhaps have stopped him ; but cer tainly nothing had been said at which the defendant ought to be offended. Mr. Serjeant PELL expressed his satisfaction at hearing such an opinion from his Lordship, and trusted that every other per son would view them in the same light. He had not been in. strutted by his client to say any thing that might give pain to any one, nor would his client indeed condescend to give such instructions. With respect to agriculture, whatever might be the object of the rural ride, Mr. Cobbett gave more information than any writer, and his knowledge as to the means of improv ing the condition of the peasantry was such as he (Mr. Serjeant Pell) wished he had the head to put forth in the manner which his client had done. As to his political opinions, he would saY nothing of them—perhaps he was no judge of them. The plain tiff and defendant were once intimate friends, but that friend ship ceased about the time that Mr. Cobbett gave particular evidence in the well known case of Byrne, and it was about that time that the present action commenced. With respect to the horse in question, it would be proved, that so far from be ing what was described, it was the veriest wretch that ever crossed a field, and.would break the neck of any man that cross-. ed it, except the plaintiff.—(Laughter.)—The Learned Coun sel, after stating that the country must deplore the loss of such a man if ever his neck was broken, and animadverting on the plaintiff's case at great length, proposed to disprove it by the evidence of Mr. 'William Cobbett, the defendant's son, whoin the Jury must consider perjured if they found a verdi c t for the plaintiff. Mr. Cobbett, so far from desiring to litigate this sub ject, had offered to refer it to any indifferent person. William Cobbett, the son of the defendant, was then called. —He detailed with great minuteness the circumstances under which the horse was purchased. The plaintiff called on his father respecting the case of Byrne, and his father, as a reason for not attending a certain meeting, mentioned that he was going to ride through the country. Believing that the plain tiff was a judge of horses, he asked him whether he kneat where a horse fit for the purpose could be got. The plain tiff mentioned that he had just got such a horse, which had been a hunter, but was lame in the fetlock ; which, how' ever, made no difference, as lie now was a good roadster.-- He would not mention the price, but wished witness's father to try him for any length of time. Nothing positive was said about the delivery. Witness and his father went to look A it at the stables in Fetter-lane. The plaintiff's witness Clark brought it out, and they having looked at it told Clark-to put it in again. 'Witness was present all the time with his father, and none of that conversation took place that was sworn to by Clark, neither did witness's father ride it for two hours.-- It was ridden by the witness ; his father declined riding upon it, as he considered it was not safe. On the 10th of January witness was riding out with it when it fell with him and cat its knees ; the horse was then returned. On the sth of February his father received a letter from the plaintiff, and it was given to the witness to answer • diligent search had been made for it, and witness believ e d it had been destroyed. By Mr. Serjeant VAITGIIAN—Witness gave it into the hando of his sister, who usually had all papers in her possession ; his father said it was not to be found; witness's opinion was that the letter had been destroyed. Mr. Serjeant VAuGuAresubmitted that no evidence of the contents could be given. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE held evidence of the letter to be inadmissible, as the defendant had not called the best evi dence, which was that of the sister, to shew that it had been . lost or destroyed. ___.... _ _ Mr. William Cobbett said perhaps he had been mistaken in saying that he gave the letter to his sister. The letter w a s de livered to him by his father, as he had the management of the horse affair, and he had intended to keep it. For this reason he was of opinion that he had been mistaken in saying he had delivered the letter to his sister. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he could not allow the witness to reason on this matter. The witness on his cross-examination admitted. that the horse was ridden by nearly all the family except the father. It was ridden also by the servant. It was only ridden for its;own good• It was on a journey when its knees were broken: Witness denied that the horse when returned was turned loose in the manner represented by the witness. Serjeant VAUGHAN, in his reply, said it was evident that young Cobbett had been guilty of gross perjury. He charac terised the attempt to alter his testimony when he found the effect of his statement respecting the delivery of the letter to his sister, a subject on which his memory must before have been sharpened, as such a circumstance as should deprive him of credit. The Jury had no alternative, and must declare whether this young man or the plaintiff's witnesses were perjured. The CHIEF JUSTICE in the course of his charge requested the Jury to consider whether the conduct of the defendant with respect to the horse was that of a person who had borrowed it and whether in suffering it to be ridden by all his family he had not acted as as owner over it; for though a man might lend his horse, he did not lend it to be ridden upon by a whole family The defendant's son had said the horse was only ridden for its own good ; but that it was not always ridden for its own good was evident, as it was on' a journey at the time it broke down• The Jury would say 41. - 1 which side the truth lay. The Jury without nesitation found a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages 401. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JUNE 2. PERJURY. Thomas Coles was indicted fOr wilful and corrupt perjury, as' signed to have been committed by him in the Court of Common Pleas, on the 13th day of November, 1822. Mr. A I.:DIM WS briefly opened the pleadings, and MT; CUkW 0 OD stated the case to th e J ury at great l ength. He sal . his client was a young man, named Gill, who entered into bili s ' ness on his own account, a s a woo ll en -d raper, on Snow-hill' in January 1821 ; shortly afterwards his c li ent marr i e d a yo unf lady, entitled to ,000/. when she came of age, or on her wed ding clay. This anticipation of fortune induced Mr. Gill t 0 remove from Snow-hill to Cloth-fair, for the purpose of creasing his business; but, unfQ:tunately for his client, the fortune of his wife became a matter of litigation in the Court of Chancery, and he had, in depending upon it, entered on a more extended scale of business than his then capital wattle , safely admit, and he got consequently involved in debt, 04 applied to the defendant Coles, who was a monied man, mar ried to a sister of James Gill's wife, and was at the same time Clerk of the works carrying on in the Regent's Park. • This application for 4001. or 500/. was made in Feb. 1822, to MP Coles, who offered bins 400/. for 12 months, at th e ra t e of 25 per cent. per ann. Gill refused to give so great a consideration, but his difficulties increasing, he at last agreed to this usurious nag' rest, and in March 1822, gave 400/. to Gill, and thelatter gave his warrant of attorney to the defendant for 4771., which, with the in' terest of 5 per cent. would, at the end of 12 months, amount to 500/. 17s. In September, 1822, Gill was arrested, and he dis; closed his affairs to Coles, who entered up judgment, and sold property of Gill's to the amount of 1,000/. The other creditors of Gill brought the subject before the Court of Common Pleas/ and the defendant Coles answered by an affidavit, swearini most positively that he paid Gill 4771. in Bank o f E n glan notes. This was the perjury assigned to the defendant. Mr. ArriastEws here put in the rule nisi obtained in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendant, and the r ll7° absolute obtained by the defendant against Gill. Upon w hich, a long discussion took place between the Learned Counsel on both sides, which was stopped by the Couit ; and Mr. Andrew. called James Gill, who corroborated very minutely the w hole of Mr. Curwood's address to the Jury. On his cross-examination by Mr. ALLEY, the w itnet* stated that the warrant of Attorney was drawn up for 4771. bt his own solicitor. He was the only person who made the Al' davit, which moved the Court of Common Pleas, although Robert Gill, his brother, and the witness's wife, were present when the 4001. was paid by the defendant to Gill, and when be gave the warrant of attorney executed to Coles for 4771. Several other witnesses were examined for the prosecution- Mr. ALLEY, in his usual warm tone, made a long defence for Coles; after which-- Alr. AnoLmus called several witnesses. Mr. CURWOOD replied ; and the case went to the Jury, 'lb ° returned a verdict of—Not Guilty. In the evening of yesterday sennight a soldier belonging to the 7th Royal nisileers, at Harwich, haying jus t undergone the operation of bleeding, fell back and expired.—^ The cause of his death appears to have been a morbid affection of the heart. COAL-MARKET, JUNE 2. Ships at Market. Ships sold Price. , 22,i Newcastle - -20 l; -33 s 9d to 41. Ef, 8/ Sunderland - 81 -34 s 6d to 42s IP MARRIED. On Wednesday, the 2d inst., at Lambeth, S. Toms, Esq., t° Mrs. Hopkinson, of Grosvenor-place. At Lewisham, on Wednesday last, James Steward, Esq., t° Eliza, eldest daughter of the Rev. Dr. Waite, of Leivi9hanl hill. DIED. On Monday, the 31st ult., at Coburg-place, Kennington, in her 73d year, Alice, wife of Mr. William Irish. Lately, in Paris, at a very advanced age, Sir Michael Cromic? Bart. Yesterday, in Piccadilly, John Blackburn, Esq. On Monday, the 31st ult., Anthony Healey, Esq.,. Judd' street, Brunswick-square, aged 63 years, many years Page t ° his late Majesty. On the 31st ult., at Bath, the lady of Sir Geolv Abercron 34 bie Robinson, Bart, Painted and Published for the PROPRIETON.S, a the SCI(' OrrroE, 112, Strand, by J. B. CARSTMIyi; 1.),E