The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-28 00:00:00

ffnattri7Z::*ittott SUN OFFICE, &Veil o'Clock. LIPERIAL PARLIAMENT (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills w(re read a third time and passed Brierley Bill District Gas Light Company (lor ineor porating and giving all proper powers to the said corn pany). Bury Saint Edmund's Gas Company. Longton otherwise Lone End Market. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS. - -- The reports upon the following Bills were considered and agreed to: — Edinburgh and Northern Railway (additional capital and amendment of Acts), Rock Life Assurance Company. Warrington Wattrwarlis (amendment of Act and power to raise an additional capital). PETITIONS. Mr. HENRY presented a petition in favour of inter national arbitration. Sir. T. BlRCllprescnted a petition from Liverpool against any alt e r a ti on i n t h e nav i gat i on -k.ws. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from a Mr. Houldsworth, formerly a Member of the House, com plaining of the treatment he had received from the Board of Admiralty respecting an invention of his for screw steam-vessels. Mr. TOLLEMACIIE presented several petitions &J.. Cheshire in favour of a measure for the more effec • suppression of vagrancy. Mr. F. MAULE presented a petition, agreed to at a public meetinr , held at Exeter Hall, praying for the re lease of the Rev. Mr. Shore. Mr. M. GIBSON prtsented three petitions from Man chester, praying that international disputes might be settled by arbitration instead of by fighting. Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from North ampton to the same effect. sir. WADDINGTON presented a petition from Suf folk, praying for the repeal of the malt-tax; also, one from Ireland against the Rate in Aid Ei 1. Mr. LENNARD presented a petition from Ilalvarn praying fi4r the liberation of Mr. Shore. - EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE. C,olonel THOMPSON presented ten petitions from the metropolis and ite. vicinity, praying for tho extension of t!-.o suffrage. SECEDING CLERGYMEN. Mr. C. PEARSON presented v. titions in favonr of seceding clergymen being relieved from penalties, from Dissenting - congregations in Walsvortb, York. road, Ken nington, and other places in Lambeth. REDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE. _ _ Mr. PEARSON presented a petition ✓ from a public meeting held in Lauabeth, complaining of the present expenditure, and praying for its reduction. RATE IN AID BILL. Mr. CORRY presented petitions from Tyrone again& flis Mr. MONSELL presented similar petitions from the grand juries of Kilkenny and Westmeath, and from a meeting of 800 persons, held in Limerick ; but inti mating that they did not object to a general system of taxation, and recommending that the funds to be raised should be applied to the promotion of emigration. ARBITRATION. Mr. SANDARS presented a petition in favour o: arbitration. Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY presented a petition to the same cffcct. AFFIRMATION BILL. Mr. W. P. Wool) presented petitions in favour o the Affirmation Bill from various places. REDUCTION OF OFFICIAL SALARIES. Mr. HUME gave notice of his intention, after the Easter recess, to submit the following resolution for the approval of the IIouse:—" That as it appears that the prices of corn and articles of food generally is as low now as in 1797, it is the opinion of this ll , )use that, with a view to the lessening of the general expenditnre of the country, and affording relief from taxation, that in all appointments to offices from the date of its passing, whether at home or abroad, the salaries shall be fixed, so as nearly as possible to.approximate to those paid in 1797."—(Cheers.) CEYLON. Mr. lIUME said, as — Ft VaSll-n possible for the Com mittee up stairs to proceed with its deliberations with respect to the late proceedings in Ceylon, he wished to know from the Judge-Advocate General, or the Under- Secretary for the Colonies, whether the proceedings of tho courts-martial held in Ceylon, in the last year, during the proclamation of mar ti a l law in that island, have been received, and can be laid before this Muse. Sir GEORGE IIAYTER replied that no proceed ings of any court martial in the island of Ceylon had been received at the office of the Judge-Advocate, neither did he apprehend that any proceedings would be transmitted to that office, inasmuch as the persons to whom they would relate were not subject to the Mutiny Act or the articles of war. If they had been transmitted it would have been his duty to have transmitted them to the Colonial-office. Mr. HUME put a similar question to the Tindal*. Sccretary of State for the Colonies. Mr. lIAWES replied that he could confidently state that the whole of the papers Lad been already printed and laid bef;re the House. He had no others in his THE PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. Mr. SPOONER inquired if it was the intention of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to proceed with this Lill on the IGth of April. Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he did not expect to be able to bring on the Bill on the 16th. He purposed postponing it for a week or a fortnight. TUE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Ia reply to Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that the Bill for altering the constitution of this Commission would be in the bends of 11,:n Members before Easter. AFFIRMATION BILL. Mr. W. P. WOOD moved the Committee on this Bill. Ileving made a statement on the second reading, he 'ehould not do so on the present occasion, unless any ee. Memßer wished it. The House then went into Committee. Mr. WOOD moved the following clause, which was ;reed to without discussion : —And Le it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Governor of any of her Ma jesty's foreign dominions, plantations, or colonies, by ieriting under his hand, to appoint one or more compe ient officer or officers to receive and file such certificates as are by this Act directed to be Sled by the clerk of the peace or sheriff's clerk; and upon any such appointment being made, all the provisions of this Act shall be in force in that part of her Maj e sty's foreign dominions, plantations, or colonies, wherein such appointment shall be made, and shall extend therein to the case of every person who shall obtain such certificate as in this Act mentioned, from any justice or magistrate acting therein within his jurisdiction, and who shall cause the same to be filed with the proper officer appointed by the Governor as aforesaid in that behalf." The remainder of the clauses were agreed to without any opposition, the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be: brought up on Monday. INDICTABLE OFFENCES (IRELAND) BILL. The House resolved into Committee on this Bill. In answer to a question put by Sir L. O'BRIEN, Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the o bj ect of the Bill was to extend to Ireland the provisions of an. Act of Parliament which had been introduced with great suc cess in England by the Attorney-General. Mr. BERNAL said he understood there was no ob jection to any of the clauses of the Bill, until the House came to clause 17. The clauses down to clause 1; were then read and agreed to without opposition Oa clause 17 bein g Prop . Mr. M:Cf,',LLAGII said that clause gav e po wer t o a courtos. criminal judieature in Ireland t o rece i ve t h e depoeiteon on a trial of a witness who was unable to travel, which he (Mr. M'Cullagh) thought would press heevily against a prisoner, inasmuch as it would pre 'elude him from an opportunity of cros s - exam i n i ng the wilnees, on which his defence might materially depend. It was a new principle, and one likely to be most perilous to the innocence of an accused person. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this clause was one which had been copies', from the English Bill; and it was highly nccessnry that in that respect the laws of England and of Ireland should be assimilated.—(Hear.) The clause did not i n t ro d uce a new principle ; it only provided that ti man's deposition should be received who was so ill as do be unable to travel to the place of trial, and practically ou t o f th e j ur i s di ct i on o f t h e cour t. The principle in qu es ti on h a d wor k e d most b ene fi c i a lly in England, and it was desirable that the law of England and Ireland should be assimilated in that respect. nr. F. O'CONNOR did not think the Attorney-Ge n'eral had answered the objection of the Honourable Member (Mr. M`Cullagh). The defence of an accused person, especially in Ireland, depended almost entirely on the cross-examination of witnesses, who would not be in attendance on the trial if that principle were re cognised. Besides, there was no difficulty in Ireland of procuring the certificate of a doctor that a man was in capeble of travelling, though that man might be perfectly well. Sir L. O'BRIEN thought when the clause was con sidered in connexion with trials on charges of high trea son it would operate most prejudicially to the accused not h a r , ATTORNEY -GENERAL sa i d the clause would t all affect the examination of witn esses i n cases o f trials f or high treason. After a few words from Mr. NAPIER, F. PRENCII said he thought no case had been e mAe out to the House - the law. (.f England and Ire - le should not be nasituiLted 1.13 proposed by the prin a.4 in question. SIIARMAN CRAWFORD said that it was no t rious that the course of justice Lad been most shame ufly impeded by the conduct of witnesses and jurymen in many instances throughout the whole of Ireland, and that some measure was nrcessary to remedy the mis. chief. lie did not wish to press his objection to the clause, but he 3et thought that this objection was such that be ought to tlie notice of it. Mr. F. O'CONNOR was by no means disposed to ob ject anything to the insertion of such a clause, but ha yet thought that there ought to bo some reservation to protect those who, under the particular circumstances to which thi s Bill had reference, were unable to protect thwr:selves. Mr. 11. GRATTAN said, that whatever sense might be put upon such a clause, he thought that there should be some protection also for the officials of justice aua for the country. When he saw witnesses continually getting upon the table, or going into the box, and taking, or, as it was called, rather swallowis , ^ fifty oaths ts idain five minutes, he felt that there should be scmo additional caution . ageinat the violation of a judicial proceeding, for now it seemed to be perfectly impossible to discriminate the offender by whom the blow was indicted or the shot was fired through the instrumentality of which a murder was committed. His Hon. Friend, if he might venture to call him so (Mr. S. Crawford), had spoken somewhat indiscriminately of the Roman Catholic population. Against any sweeping imputation of that sort he begged most decidedly to protest. Yet, nevertheless, it was ap parent that some new regulation was required, and ho trusted the Attorney-General would carry the law into effect, and interpose that protection which would prevent all such scenes as that man who had recently disgraced his country by an exhibition in the witness-box of conduct which was calculated to destroy entirely any confidence in the verdict of a jury. He hoped that they would get for Ireland the best parts of the admi nistration of justice as it was tendered in this country, and not leave to them only the worst. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD begged to say that he had not the a!ightest intention of imputirg to the whole population of Ireland that which was chargeable only on a portion— (" Hear, hear," from both sides of the House)—but he wished the evil to he remedied. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that this Bill had been for a long time before the House, and he had received very many letters from every part of Ireland approving of the principle of it, and suggesting in some cases valto able improvements. There was the most anxious de sire on the part of the Government to render the Bill fitted for the circumstances of Ireland, and he might say also on the part of the people of that country, to over come the mischief which had so long been an oppressive grievance. Mr. M'CULLAGH said that his only object was to prevent an anomaly and draw the attention of the Go vernment to an error which he deprecated, and he would therefore withdraw his amendment. After a few words from Sir LUCIUS O'BRIEN, complaining that the law respecting high treason was particularly obnoxious, on the double ground of corrup tion of both jurymen and witnesses, and the inappli cability of the law of high treason in this country to Ireland, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained. The amendment was then withdrawn. Sir H. W. BARRON said, by the Bill it appeared that if a witness was absent from illness, the trial might proceed without him. The trial should be postponed in justice to the accused, in order that he might be able to attend to be examined. Mr. F. O'CONNOR complained that the At torney-General had not answered the question of the Honourable Baronet (Sir L. O'Brien), if the Government intended to assimilate the law of treason in both countries. With respect to the powers of the Bill, surely the Government was aware that there was a cer tain class of bailiffs who would not hesitate to swear falsely. Sir J. PAKINGTON complimented the Hon. and Learned Attorney General for the Acts introduced some years ago with respect to indictable offences, and said that great good had been accomplished by them, and he doubted not that this Bill would prove equally advan tageous. Major BLACKALL considered that the Bill would remedy a great defect in the administration of the law. The clause was agreed to without amendment. Clauses to 28 were agreed to. On clause 29 being proposed, which provides that the offences specified in the Bill might be dealt with by one stipendiary magistrate, Sir L. O'BRIEN proposed the omission of the clause. Colonel DUNNE considered the clause most objec tionable. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the magistrates of the city of London were empowered to act alone, as also were stipendiary magistrates in the other parts of the country. Mr. F. O'CONNOR characterised this clause as ono that would introduce military law. Besides the magis trates in Ireland were differently appointed to those in England. Though the Bill had received the assent of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland he believed it had not received the assent of the Irish judges. Had their as sent been obtained? If the question was not answered he should repeat the question until he obtained an answer. Mr. F. FRENCH said the magistrates must ba bar risters, and men competent to act alone. Sir 11. W. BARRON asked the Attorney-General if there were any class of magistrates in England corre sponding with the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the stipendiary magistrates in England were invariably barristers. Colonel DUNNE thought, if that were so, the law of England and Ireland could not be assimilated, inasmuch as the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland were not bar risters. Sir 11. W. BARRON said that whilst the English stipendiary magistrates were barristers, the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland were men who literally knew no thing whatever of law, and were obliged to begin the study of the law after they had been appointed to the office of magistrate.—(Hear, hear.) Sir JOHN YOUNG thought it was highly desirable that the services of so valuable a body as the stipen diary magistrates in Ireland should be recognised. Mr. GROGAN said with reference to the remark of the Attorney- General that the stipendiary magis trates of England were barristers, the corresponding class i❑ Ireland were gentlemen, many of whom had at tained the rank of barrister by profession, but who had never practised the profession of the law, or had only done so for a short period in early life. He thought the objection would be got over if the Bill provided that the power in question should be invested in the stipendiary magistrates, " being bar rister:."—(Hear.) Mr. NAPIER said the only vacancy in the stipen diary magistracy of Ireland which had been filled up by a barrister, was that created by the retirement of a son of the late Professor M•Culloch. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in making those appointments, evinced the greatest anxiety that they should be held by men of respectable attainments and character. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that he himself had been superseded from the commission of the peace by the Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland's predecessor, because he loved his countrymen, and because he was a Repealer.—(Hear, and laughter.) Here, then, was the impartial justice of her Majesty's Ministers. Sir W. SOMERVILLE explained that this Bill was intended to give an increased .indapendence to the country justices of the peace. Mr. M'CULLAGLI said that in his opinion nothing , had contributed more to the improved administration of justice than:the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. Mr. SADLEIR complained of the invidious dis tinction which was made by the country gen tlemen who were magistrates between themselves and the stipendiary magistrates. A gentleman who was a stipendiary magistrate in his county, Mr. Jones, con tinually drove to Thurles in the morning simply that he might drive home in the evening, because he could not open a court in consequence of the non attendance of the neighbouring gentlemen who were in the commission of the peace. He protested against the capricious course which the Government had pursued with respect to this matter, and ho trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland would introduce some measure whereby the stipendiary magistrates might be enabled to act alone. Colonel DUNNE said that the Honourable Member who had just sat down had made a re mark.; respecting the local magistracy. The fact was that a single magistrate could only deal with a certain class of offences, and for another class two magistrates were required, so that if a power were given to the sti pendiary magistrates to act alone, the same power ought to be given to the local magistrates. After a few words from Mr. Fitzstephen French, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Sadleir, in explanation, the clause was passed, as were also all the other clauses, and the House resumed. SUMMARY CONVICTIONS (IRELAND) BILL. The House went into Committee on this Bill, and the various clauses having been agreed to, the House re sumed. To be reported, 18th April. LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL. On the motion that the House go into Committee on this Bill, Mr. HERBERT rose to move that it be an instruc tion to the Committee that it be extended to Ireland. Mr. PUSEY said that many Nish Members having expressed a wish that the Bill be extended to Ireland, he should not oppose the instruction. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the Bill was a step in the right direction; it would not interfere with any existing right in Ireland, and therefore he should support the motion. ocpominmiounntihcaattiothniswßitihil v‘te,onualadt-dfoarnmoegr ' Colonel SIBTII OR p said he had a good deal of pose it in every st age , b ut he s'ooda.ndlithees)h' H o use by dividing on th e p resent occasion. The motion was then ag ree d to . The House then went into Com m itt ee . o w u e ld re op o! should not tro u bl e th e Sir W. SOMERVILLE said there was no objection on the part of the Government to the extension of tbo 8.11 to Ireland. The word " Ireland " was accordingly inserted. Mr. SADLEIR wished to ask if the amendment were agreed to would it and Tenant Bill for Ireland? • supersede the Government L an dl or d Sir W. SOMERVILLE was understood to reply in the negative. Mr. H. HERBERT remarked that the Bill interfered with no other measure, and as it would confer great benefit upon Ireland, he wished to extend it to that part of the kingdom. Mr. J. O'CONNELL said if it were intended that the Bill should supersede the Government measure, the Irish Members could not support the amendment. Mr. DRUMMOND sugge,ted that the Bill had better be treated as it confined to England only, or it would never be got through. It the principle of the Bill would benefit Ireland, let it be extended to that country by a separate measure. Lord A. BROOKE said the Bill ought to be confined to England. Mr. AGLIONBY thought so too, for he was quite sure if it were made to apply to Ireland there would be no end of the matter.—(lleTar, and laughter.) Sufficient for the day was the evil thereof: Let them confine this Bill to England, and consider hereafter whether it should be extended to Ireland. For his part he should on a future day propose its extension to Scotland.—(Hear.) Mr. A. STAFFORD said the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member who had just sat down was a most anti imperial one—(A laugh)—but what possible objection could thero be ,to considering whether or not the word should b 3 " Ireland" instead of " Wales," He should, however, be glad to hear what the question before the Committee was. The CUAIRUAN ;34itl the worcl " Wales" had al- ready been erased, and the word " Ireland" inserted in its stead. The question now before the Committee was the following lines in the clause relatini; to insolvent tenants and landlords. Mr. A. STAFFORD had been arra'cl that they were proceeding in a most Irish fashion, namely, discussing ty question after agreeing to it.—(A. laugh.) Sir G. STRICKLAND said this clause provided that it might be lawful for a landlord ar,d tenant to enter into an agreement. He would ask if it was not universally understood that every landlord and tenant had at the present moment that very power?—(Hear, bear.) So far as his knowledge went, they had that power at the present ttaae. If that were so, ho thought the clause would only have the effect of leading to litigation between landlord and tenant. Sir G. GREY said, that as it seemed generally agreed that the words proposed should be inserted, he had no objection to their being so. It was then proposed that the words " served on such tenant," might be added to the word " notice." Mr. AGLIONBY thought it would be better to strike out the nctice on the part of the landlord, and to leave it only as a notice on the part of the tenant. He thought they were only entering into an unnecessary discussion, inasmuch as he only wished to leave parties to do for themselves that which they could not do at present. Mr. HENLEY said the only question was, whether a party in possession should bind his successor altogether, or in a qualified manner.—(Dear.) As the expenditure of the money by the tenant on the farm was in some cases somewhat speculative, and as it was wished to give the man who wanted to enter into that speculation a security for the repayment of his money, if he was disturbed in the possession by the remainder-man, he (Mr. Henley) thought it was only fair that the tenant should have a security for the repay ment of the money so expended by him. Colonel SIBTHORP said there was no limitation as to what expenses or what charges might be levied on the remainder-man. Mr. EVELYN DENISON said, that if these words were to be introduced into the Bill, the clause would be the occasion of great hardship. Mr. P. SCROPE said, that he thought the House hardly knew what they were about. The introduction of these words would quite emasculate the Bill, and ren der it totally useless. It would, if these words were in troduced, entirely prevent any tenant at will from im proving his farm, for if the enactment was made it would enable the landlord to dispossess his tenant in the event of his wishing to quit his holding; all compensation would be denied to him. Mr. ANSTEY said that be was surprised to hear from the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), whose opinion was usually of value, that it was not likely to benefit the tenant. If it were to be rendered useless by the introduction of the words of the amendment, it would be no more than a landlord's encumbered es tates Bill. Mr. SOTHERON trusted that the House would not suffer themselves to be misled by any allusion to the En cumbered Estates or any other Bill. Mr. MULLINGS thought that the Bill might with advantage be extended to the property at the present time under their control, as for instance in glebe farms; but he thought that the Hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) had somewhat misrepresented the tenor and tendency of the amendment. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, if the proposed amendment was introduced it would render the hill almost alto gether inoperative.—(Hear, hear.) The provision sug gested was that, in the event of a tenant making perma nent improvements upon his farm, be should not be en titled to recover the appropriated value of those improve ments, provided he gave notice of his wish to terminate tenancy. They might suppose the case of a tenant who, reposing great confidence in his landlord, had laid out a considerable sum in permanent improvements; he com menced with a farm which stood in need of great im provements. If it was said to him, " I invite you to make these improvements which may endure for twelve years, and 1 calculate upon the probability of their benefiting the property for that period," would it not be extremely hard upon him if, in the event of his giving notice at the end of two years, that he should be deprived of the benefit of them? A respect. able tenant, with the very best intentions, might hare very good reasons fur giving such a notice ; he might, tor instance, be rendered wholly incapable of attending to his farm from ill health, and it might possibly be for his own benefit, as well as fur that of his landlord, that the lease should terminate.—(Hear, hear.) But if it was to be said that the benefit of the whole improvements should, on the tenant terminating the lease by his own act, belong ex elusively to the landlord, and that the tenant should not be entitled to recover compensation, he thought that the tenant would be unjustly dealt with, and that the Bill would not come into useful operation.—(llear.) Mr. HENLEY thought that unless some such amend ment was introduced the measure would press unjustly upon clergymen who depended entirely upon the revenue arising from their glebe lands. After a few words from Mr. B. Denison, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Pusey, and Mr. Newdegate, the amendment was withdrawn. Mr. PUSEY, on the recommendation of Mr. Henley, proposed to amend the clause by the insertion of the word " owner " in the place of the word " lessor." Sir ROBERT PEEL doubted whether the word "owner" would answer the purpose, since there were more intermediate parties between the tenant and the owner. Sir J. YARDE BULLER moved the omission of the words "food for cattle," be leving that p:lrties ought not to be compensated for such things. Sir JOHN TYRELL said, no doubt the great ob ject of this Bill was to enable the tenant to improve the land, but he was afraid there was great difficuhy in le gislating upon improvements by manure and drain ing. A great diversity of opinion prevailed upon the subject of draining ; but still he thought it was highly desirable that tenants should be compensated for all useful and efficient draining and manure improvements.—(Llear.) Sir R. PEEL said all his experience was that without drainage there was no possibility of improvement.— (Hear, hear.) It might be quite true that in Lincoln shire the arrangement referred to by the Honourable Baronet who last addressed the House might be perfectly satisfactory, but it did not follow that if it were introduced into Devonshire it would work quite as well. Artificial manures consisted of guano, oilcake, and the like; but how would they deal with the question of the right to claim compensation for the purchase of food for cattle. Suppose that he had turnips on 100 acres, did his Lion. Friend mean that, if he fed his cattle and sheep—and sheep especially— with the turnips that he, had grown on his farm that ho had no claim for compensation? but if he purchased turnips from his neighbours, with which to feed his cattle and sheep, he was to have a claim for compensation for the turnips which he so got from his neighbours?—(Laughter.) His Hon. Friend said, all that might be left to arrangement; but he (Sir R. Peel) feared that each specific case would not be met by leaving it to be so arranged. Mr. PUSSY was most anxious to remove that diffi culty, if possible; but if those words were struck out altogether, the greatest possible discouragement to the farmers would be the result. He proposed that the word " sheep" should be omitted.—(A laugh.) Then with regard to the purchase of food, they must state something. It would not do to specify oilcake only, be cause there might be some other artificial manure. It the House were to introduce the words "purchase of artificial food for cattle," and then define the words " artificial food" in the interpretation clause, the difficulty might be got over. About half a dozen Members on each side of the House stood up to speak, on Mr. Pusey resuming his seat, which caused great laughter, but they all gave way to Sir R. PEEL, who proposed the insertion of the words " food for cattle, as should bo specifically mentioned in the certificate." Sir JOHN TYRELL said that much of those arti• ficial manures were entirely useless, and it was of the utmost importance that draining should be carried on on a right system. He thought that Mr. Smith of Deanston was but a poor authority on draining, when ho told the farmers of Essex in a lecture which he delivered to them, that draining two•and-a half feet deep was the most advantageow. They asked him if he had had any experience in draining, eight, nine, and even ten feet deep, as they had had; he re plied that he had not, and they laughed at him. Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought they were mixing up two subjects. The question they were upon was ono of temporary improvements, and how they were to adapt those temporary improvements to every part of the country ? There would be the greatest difficulty in making a general application of the principle of temporary improvements. He held it to be impossible to make such agreements in many parts of the country, where tenants were paid for a great many more things than were contemplated in the present Bill. Mr. AGLIONBY congratulated the House that the observations which had been made early in the debate had brought on this discussion, but yet it might go on too far; and he must remind them that they had gone from the main question at issue to a regular farming inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that it they went on at this rate, they would only be impeding the important business of the House, and would never get through the Bill at all. He believed that this Bill, or at least one very similar to it, had gone through a Select Committee, and if they did not proceed faster, the Bill would go as far as that paint, but would proceed no farther. He quite agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, that the only considera tion to be taken care of was, that an agreement entered into between a tenant and his landlord should be binding upon a remainder•man, so that in the case of the sudden death of a landlord, or any other contingency, the suc cessor would be bound by the agreement of his prede cessor. How could they legislate for all parts of the country? Before the Select Committee many parties had been brought forward from the southern counties to give evidence, but not one from the north. The whole merits of the question had not, therefore, been brought before them. He would tell them what was the custom in Cumberland, and what in Surrey. In Cumberland it was the custom for the incoming tenant to pay to the outgoing t en ant for nothing but that which was already for the seedling crops, in hen be above the ground; whereas in Surrey the whole title o f the ract : growing which, uponin all probability, soil' would t out going tenant had to be regulated by a valuation, and upon a farm of 600 acres there was every probability that the incoming tenant would have to pay for property valued at 3,000/., atthe rate of 51. at least, if not more, per acre for the improve ments. It was of the greatest consequence that the re mainder-man should be bound by the agreement of his predecessor. He thought that the word " sheep" ought not to be introduced. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that there was not a clause to secure the tenant in the value of his ira• THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1t149., provenicnts in the event of the succession of a r, maindcr man. Mr. PUSEY begged to say that if the Hon. Members would look a little further through the ciaty,es ih,?y that there was 4n11,1c,‘ provision for such i], con tinge ncy. Mr. S. HERBERT was particularly anxious that sheep should be included in the claim, because in his part of the country they dealt more in sheep than in cattle. Mr. WODEHOUSE trusted the llon. Member for Devonshire would persist in his amendment, for if the clause passed as it at present stood, it would prove a continual source of discord between the landlord and tenant. Mr. 11. DRUMMOND said, if the tenant farmers looked to this Bill for any benefit, they would be griev ously mistaken, for in that respect there could be no doubt that the Bill was a gross delusion. Mr. HENLEY trusted the Committee would retain in the Bill the words proposed to be left one. Mr. R. PALMER did not think the words ought to be excluded, but the clause in its intention should be made more intelligible. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND said, the claim would greatly impede the letting of land, for it proposed to compensate the outgoing at the expense of the incoming tenant. Ile knew that the lion. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill was a most extensive pig dealer—(A laugh)—and had often seen him purchase pigs at a most extravagant price! Well, then, why were pigs omitted from this clause. But perhaps pigs were cattle —(A laugh)—if not, let the Committee decide so, and render the clause clear and intelligible. Colonel SIBTIIOItP said he had not heard of a single tenant who approved of the Bill, and several most extensive agents, who were well known to the lion. Member for Berkshire, had expressed to him their de. tided opposition to it. After a brief discussion, Mr. HENLEY said it would be advisable at that hour for the House to adjourn, by which the Hon. Member would be better enabled to make any desirable amend ments in the clause. He would move that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. PUSEY hoped that the House would decide upon the principle of the clause beforeit adjourned. He pledged himself, if it did so, that he would introduce the amend ments recommend( d by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. After some further discussion, Mr. PUSEY said he had no objection to the proposed adjournment if the general opinion of the House was in favour of it. The CHAIRMAN than rrported progress, and ob tained leave to sit again on Wednesday, the 18th of April THE RATE IN AID-BILL. In reply to Mr. STAFFORD, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he proposed to proceed with this Bill on Friday. INSOLVENT MEMBERS' BILL Mr. MOFFATT moved that this - 13111 be committed pro forma, in order that certain amendments might be introduced. Sir W. CLAY opposed proceeding with the Bill at that hour. Mr. OSBORNE called attention to the fact that the Bill had been altered, and was entitled " A Bill for the Recovery of Debts from Members of the House of Com mons and for the expulsion of insolvent Members."— (Hear.) Besides, there was a rumour floating through the town that this Bill was directed against a particular Member of the House.—(Hear.) Mr. MOFFATT repudiated, with indignation, that he had tlany interested object, as had been insinuated, in bringing forward this Bill. He brought it forward on broad public grounds, because he believed it was dero gatory to the character of the House that it should be a sanctuary for insolvent debtors.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HENLEY complained that the Bill had been so altered that it would be difficult for the House to decide upon it without having further time to consider it. Mr. VERNON SMITH said that in his opinion when a Bill was recommitted it was recommitted for fresh discussion. The evil which he had formerly pointed out had now arisen. He had fore• seen that the reference of a Bill to a Select Committee would be productive of great miechief. He had beeh told that there had been many, and many very near, divisions in the Select Committee on this Bill, and if they were to come to a decision upon any matter referred to a Select Committee the proceedings of that Committee ought to be before them. This was a most important Bill, and ore which ought to have the fullest discussion by Parliament, but it had had no discussion at all. It was one which was very likely to limit largely the rights of con stituencies, and he was for one exceedingly obliged to the Hon. Bart. for having called the attention of the House to the Bill. It had been brought out, in fact, as had just been stated by the lion. Member (Mr. Osborne), it was not the original Bill, and appeared not to be the same Bill at all. He thought it to be a mostd angerous Bill. But he did not know to whom the responsibility of its principles belonged, for it seemed to have changed hands, and whether it belonged to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Moffatt), or to his Right Hon. Friend the Solicitor General was a mystery, The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that he had sug gested several amendments in Committee, and he desired that the Bill should pass through Committee pro forma, and be recommitted with a view to a full consideration of those amendments. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said if that was the only object of committing the Bill, he had no objectio❑ to it; but he trusted that when in Committee it would be fully discussed, for he believed that it was a most mischievous and a mos t i n j u di c i ous Bill, and he would earnestly oppose it. Sir W. CLAY said that ,the Bill was one likely to proceed to such an extent in its consequences that it. discussion ought to be most ample, and he trusted that the House would not allow this motion to pass. Mr. R. PALMER exonerated the Hon. Member for Dartmouth from any imp utat i on o f pr i vate mot i ves. I t was, in fact, induced by petitions from Liverpool and other important places. Mr. ANSTEY said that this Bill had two parts—one for the recovery of debts from Members of Parliament, and the other to exclude insolventjMembers from the House. About the first there was not a single word said throughout all its clauses. Lord J. RUSSELL said that this might be a useful Bill, but it was one which required much consideration. Colonel THOMPSON said that this was two Bills rolled into one, and bad in both respects. For his own part he could add his testimony that the rumour was that the Bill was directed against an individual Member. _______ The SPEAKER suggested that as the Bill had been so much altered, acd there was so much opposition to it, that it had better be withdrawn and a fresh one iu • troduced. Mr. MOFFATT thee, amidst much laughter, with drew the Bill, and moved for leave to bring in another. Mr. ANSTEY endeavoured to oppose the motion, but on the suggestion of Sir G. Grey, deferred his opposi tion to a future opportunity, as they might then proceed to the order of the day. L eave was then g i ven to b r i ng in the Bill, Mr. Anstey stating that he should give it his most strenuous opposition on the motion being put for the first reading. SEQUESTRATORS REMEDIES BILL. This Bill was read a second time without opposition. SUPPLY AND RATE IN AID. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he meant to move for the Committee of Supply on Friday before the discussion on the Rate in Aid Bill. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. FRAN CE. M. Napoleon Bonaparte presided at the popular Electoral Committee held at the Hotel de Ville yes terday. A number of operatives were present, who loudly cheered the sentiments given expression to by the Emperor's nephew in a speech in which he declared his strong disapprobation of the reactionary tendencies of certain political celebrities. Napoleon Bonaparte has prepared an amendment to the budget of the Minister of the Interior, allocat ing a sum of 25,0001. towards the erection of a monu ment to the memory of the late Marshal Ney. A letter from Toulouse states that the votes for Municipal Councillors in that city, at the election which took place a few days since, were divided amongst the political parties in the following propor tions :—For the partisans of henry V. and of the Count de Paris, 16,202 votes; for the partisans of Ledru-Rollin, 8,306 ; and for the friends of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1,608. The friends of the Pre sident of the Republic assert that this result is to be ascribed to the exertions of M. Delmas, the Prefect of the Department, whose Legitimist tendencies are well known. FRANKFORT. The Frankfort papers state that M. Pfordten has declined the Regent's offer respecting the formation of a Cabinet, and it is stated that M. Korner, who was also s en t f or , h as taken the same line of action. The three persons whom the Oberpostamts Zeitung now mentions as likely to suit the Regent's views are the Count Lerchenteld, Baron Konneritz, and M. Ileckscher. The Austrian members have of late (since the division on M. Welcker's motion) thought proper to ask for the protection of the Speaker of the House. They complain of the contemptuous treat ment they receive a t the hands of the other members. This seems somewhat pusillanimous in a victorious party. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of this d:iy.) MANCHESTER, MARCH 27.—Although the mercantile letters from llamburgh do not manifest much appre hension of actual war, they have received a complexion from the military preparations in progress, which has led the German m erc h an t s to keep still more de cidedly aloof from busim ss to day than they had previously dune. Advices from Trieste have produced a similar effect to those from the northern entrspot of Germany. As might be expected, letters from Leghorn and other Italian markets continue to give such un favourable reports of trade, ef money matters, and of the difficulty of procuring hills upon England, as to prevent anything being done for those places. At the same time, the purchases of the Levant houses have been of very limited amount, and effected with extreme caution. As, under these circumstances, the offers for yarns fur the continent have been insignifi cant iu number, much uncertainty must necessarily attach to quotations: it is unquestionable, however, that sales have not been practicable except at some conces• sion from the rates of this day week. And the recent accounts of twist, by the Overland Mail, have operated so injuziously upon India qualities as to occasion a fur ther &cline in their value also. In spinnings, for h•:rile manufacture, ih--re is, too, an iiicreas,d dul ness, and prices are rgain lower. The goods mar ket has not been quite so flat as that foryarris. The sale, however, have been altogether on a very restricted scal , 7, and not accomplished without a giving ws y, in most things, from the rates of last ~ e elc. The trans actions are mostly for India, China, the Levant, and some of the American markets. The home-trade houses are buying exceedingly little. In all departments the market has been an unsatisfactory one, marked by a general tendency to lower prices. But touch irregula rity exists. Some producers (chiefly of cloth) are still pretty well situated as regards stocks and contracts, and they manifest considerable independence and firmness. RocuroiLE, MARCH 2G.—The flannel market to day has been extremely inactive, and one of the dullest we have had this year. Very few buyers have attended, and those showed no disposition to purchase. In the wool market there has been little or nothing do ing, but former prices are well maintained. HUDDERSFIELD, MAOCH 27.—Goods adapt: d for the spring trade were quickly sold at the opening of the market. The general complaint is that there is such a scarcity of goods fit for the spring trade. The orders from America are very extensive, and the foreign houses are all of them doing a considerabl! business. HALIFAX, MARCH 21.—There is no noticeable change since last week, either in worsted g , ods or in yarns, and our last report might be repeated this wt.ele without variation. Wool is also about the same, atel though it cannot be quoted lower, is, perlisps, the turn in favour of the buyer. LEEDS, MARCH 27.—Our market continues very much in the same satisfactory vs ay which we have had to report lately; as yet, however, the transactions for the home trade are only very limited, while the de mand for export seems to make up pretty well for the deficiency in the former. Prices remain without any material alteration. REPEAL OF TIIE MALT AND HOP DUTIES. A county meeting, convened by Mr. R. S. Streatfeild, High Sheriff of Sussex, in pursuance of a requisition from 286 persons, being respectfully owners and occu piers of laud, bankers, merchants, traders, and others, inhabitants of the county, was held yesterday at Lewes. The requisition emanated from a meeting held at Battle about a month since, when Mr. J. Villiers Shelley, the unsucessful free-trade candidate at the last election for East Sussex, presided, and resolutions were pass( d urging on the Government the necessity of repealing the malt and hop duties, and removing the fiscal and other burdens which new prey on British agriculture, and praying for the reduction of the national expenditure as the best means of carrying out those objects. The meeting assembled in the Corn Exchange, attached to the Star Hotel, a room capable of holding between 2,000 and 3,000 persons; but an adjournment took place to hustings erected in front of the County-hall. The High-Sheriff presided; and among the influential persons present were, the Earl of Chichester, the Earl of March, M.P., Lord A. Gordon Lennox, Sir H. Shiner, Mr. R. Prime, M.P., Mr. A. E. Fuller, M.P., Colonel Wynd ham, Mr. H. Wyndham, Mr. J. V. Shelley, Mr. John Ellman, Mr. Walter Wyndham Burrell, Mr. W. D. Lucas Sbadwell, Mr. W. Cuninghatn (late free-trade candidate for Brighton), Mr. W. Townley Mitford, Mr. John Borrer, Mr. E. Wyatt, Mr. W. Rigden, Mr. J. Ide, &c. The requisition calling the meeting having been read, cries of "Adjourn" were raised by the free trade party, and were met by shouts of " No, no," and " Go on," from the Protectionists, w h o had takenl earl% possession of the space surrounding the platform. These cries alternated for a considerable tie e, till at length an adjournment took place to the temporary hustings erected in front of the Couney-hall. Major CURTEIS said he was well acquainted with the Rapes of Hastings and Pevensey, and could bear wit ness to the extreme distress of the farmers, unexampled in the county, unequalled in the kingdom. The farmers could not meet their engagements—their tradesmen's bills and their taxes were unpaid; wages were being re duced, and their labourers turned off; not because the labour was not wanted, but because the farmers had not the money to pay for it. Rents were unpaid, or, if paid, they had been paid out of capital ; and good, useful farms had been thrown on the hands of the landlords, who were, in many cases, not in a position to occupy them. He had also been informed by the stewards of various properties in his neighbourhood, as well as by the farmers, that unless some relief was given them immediately they believed that one-third—he hed also been told one-half—of them must fail at Michaelmas next. This state of things was caused by the bad crops of last season—(Cries of "Free-trade!")—and in his neighbourhood by the heavy duty on malt limiting the consumption of hops. There was no time, then, fur delay. Whatever was to be done must be done at once, or the ruin of the farmers would be completed.— (Lower the rents.) He agreed that everything ought to he con ceded, and that forthwith, or the reliet would come when ono half of them were done up. He and his family were owners of considerable estates. As for himself, he was also a large practical farmer. If the farmers failed, he failed; if they went, he went. It would be madness, therefore, in him to advocate anything which he con sidered to be injurious to the lauded or farming inter ests. Farmers bad no right to abuse Sir R. Peel and his party.—(Cries of " Oh, oh!") Who forced Sir R. Peel and his party on the country ? Who gave Peel and his party a character?—(Bear.) Their present leaders had counselled them not to depend on leaders, but on them selves. In what great question of agricultural politics had their leaders ever led them on to victory. They might, perhaps, have won a battle or two, but they had always lost the campaign, and had bent obliged to submit to terms ten times worse than those originally offered to them. Their leadere would again deceive them. The resolution of Mr. Disraeli, the other night, was merely a tub thrown to the whale to put the farmers on a wrong scent.—(Hear, hear; no, no.) Look not (said the Major) to the hollow cries about protection and free-trade, but stick to the malt and hop duties— and they are gone; but, gentlemen, if you allow your-- selves, now that the malt and hop duties are more than half repealed, to be hallooed a way—to be whipped off the scent—in order to recover what you possessed fur years, and were obliged to give up, you deserve, and richly deserve, the ruin that stares you in the face. The farmers had to seek one of three things—they must re gain protection, obtain a revision of local taxation, or procure the repeal of the malt and hop duties. If it took as as many years to get back such a protection as would prove a relief to the farmers as it took to get free-trade, the farmers would be done for; and his firm conviction was that protection was gone for ever.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " No," and "We will have free-trade.") He bad heard the same stout speeches when free-trade in wool was first established. Their leaders told them they would compel the Government to go back to pro tection to wool. Did they?—(Hear, hear.) Protec. tionist newspapers deceived the farmers when they said there was a reaction in favour of protection. Why did not the Protectionists oppose the return of M. Peel, son of their dearly beloved friend Sir Hubert, for LeominAer ? Why did Lord Lewisham say in Staffordshire that, al though if he had been in Parliament he would have voted against free-trade, ho would now give it a fair trial?—(" It has had a very ruinous trial.") He said that free-trade would not have had a fair trial till six months after the next harvest, and not then, unless there should be no cause either in England or on the Con tinent to disturb the price of wheat. How many farmers would be able to stand that trial? Judging from his oan neighbourhood, he should say, net many. The average price of wheat in the Channel Islands was about 465.; this would be about the price of wheat in England, anti any agreements by which the tenant was to give a rent, based on higher prices, ought to be cancelled. Protec don at all events could not be regained in a short time— in time to prevent the ruin now impending over the far mer. As for a revision of local taxation, after the deci sion which the House of Commons had just come to, that could not be obtained in the next year. The malt arid hop duties would afford relief, and there was no reason why the commencement of that relief should not be as early as even a month. Major Curteis expressed an opinion that, beset as the question was with difficul ties, the time was not distant when funded property would be made to share the burdens of the country; but at present he looked for a relief of the distress of the far mer to a repeal of the malt and hop duties. He then moved—" That the malt-tax is unjust in principle and oppressive in operation; that it possesses all the ele ments of a bad tax; that it is levied on the middling and industrious classes, who are taxed highly in most other articles of daily consumption; that, in addition to this tax being chiefly raised from the industrious classes, the malt-tax is most injurious to the farmer the demand for whose produce is greatly limited, not only by the dimi nished consumption of beer, but by the restriction im posed on the application of malt to the feeding and fist tening of cattle." Mr. IL SELBIES, the great breeder at Romney Marsh, seconded the resolution in a free-trade speech. Mr. J. Eeeefeer, after a lengthened speech in favour of a return to protection, moved, by way of rider to the resolution—" But that this meeting is of opinion that if foreign barley be allowed to be imported, as at pre sent, at a merely nominal duty of is. a quarter, the bene fit which the British farmer would otherwise receive from a repeal of the malt-tax would be principally enjoyed by the foreign grower." Mr. E. W YATT, of Chidham, seconded and Sir H. SHIFFNER supported the amendment ; as did likewise the Earl of March, Mr. Prime, and Mr. Fuller. Mr. SHELLEY opposed the amendment, and desig nated protection as a " humbug." The Earl of CHICHESTER spoke against both motion and amendment. The rider and motion were then put to a show of hands, amidst great confusion; but The SHERIFF declared the result to be the adoption of the amendment. Major CIIRTEIS and Mr. SHELLEY loudly protested against the unfairness of this decision; and the uproar became so great the Sheriff dissolved the meeting shortly after four o'clock. TEMPERATURE.—Yesterday morning, at an early how, the temperature was down es low as 3 I degrees Fahrenheit; on Sunday morning it was even still lower; falling to 28 degrees. Since Monday, the barometer has 11 - en lulling rapidly—yesterday morning it stood tt 29 40; at four in the afternoon, it was 29.30 ; and by seven P.BI. it had fallen still further ; being then 29.26. This would seem to indicate a sudden change of weather —probably a storm.—Manchester Guardian of this day. LERWICK, MARCH 24.—S1d. Hamilton Ross, Green land; William Wald, ditto; Revolution, ditto; Flamingo, ditto; Mary, ditto; Dublin, ditto; Swallow, ditto; Tra veller, ditto; Turk, ditto. OFF FALMOUTH, MARCH 24.--London, Gunton, Mau ritius. 25th; Admiral, New Orleans, for Hamburgh. 26th, Rapide, Bockelman, Batavia, for Hamburgh ; John Patchett, Capon, Rio Janeiro; Nornpolen, Soder berg, Dabi4 for S69Ckla9ka. STANFIELD-HALL MURDERS. NORFOLK Att.ilZES—Nonwicß, TULSDAY. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) To-day Lir. Baron Rolfe opened the Criminal Court for these assizes, as the Shire-hall, Caste-hill. The atrocious murderi at Stanfield hall, the alleged perpe trator of which is to be tried at these assizes, has given them an interest far exceeding an ordinary ass.ze visi• tution, and the city of Norwich is fast filling wilh visi tors from all parts of the surrounding district, anxious to be present at the trial, although, from the size of the court, comparatively few can be accommodated, beyond those who are officially required to be present. To-day the attendance was not numerous, as it was known that the proceedings would be merely preliminsry; but there was a large attendance of magistrates, including the Earl of Leicester (lord-lieutenant of the county), and other gentlemen on the roll of the grand jury. About eleven o'clock Mr. Baron Rolfe entered the c•itirt, and the grand jury having been sworn, with the lion. Edward Keppel Wentworth Coke, M.P., as their foreman, and the usual proclamation against vice and im morality made, The "Leareeil JUDGE proceeded to charge the grand fury. Ile said—Gentlemen of the granu jury, I am happy to be able say, c-n this, the first occasion that I have had the honour to address you, that the present calendar is not a very r.umerous one, nor, with one re markable exception, Goes it present any cases of vary great atrocity. But there are two or three to which I think it necessary to call your attention, w ith a view to guide you iu the due discharge of your duty. (His Lordship then commented upon the c!rcemstauces con nected with some of the other cases in the calendar, and then proceeded.) I have now addre:sed to you all the observations which I think it necessary to make of this character with the single excep tion of that atrocious case which I hinted at in opening my address ; and you may possibly expect that upon this case I shall make many observations. But having read over the depositions in the case, on the most mature reflection I think I shall best discharge my duty by saying little or nothing ; and for this reason—the party is charged, as you know—for I need not pretend to doubt that—with the commission of one and even of two murders, and of two other acts which are very analogous to murder. Now, it is tine that cases of a charge of murder often present questions of great nicety and difficulty. It is often difficult to ascertain whether death was cccasioned by the particular act charged, as in a charge of poisoning ; and we are often obliged to grope in the dark to ascertain whether death was occasioned by the wicked act charged against the party, or by the visitation of God. There are other cases in which it is matter of great difficulty and nicety to distinguish between acts of murder and those of manslaughter ; and no doubt other difficulties will easily suggest themselves to your minds. And when cases of this kind occur, it is the duty of the judge to point out to the jury what the lines of demarcation and distinction are, with a view to help them to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. But in this case there is no sort of difficulty. Here it is clear to demonstration that a barbarous murder has been committed by somebody. There is no question here as to what caused death—there is no question as to the character of the offence—the single question is, whose was the hand that did it? I have, therefore, no observations to make on this case which are not common to all cases that come under the cogoizance of the courts of law. You will have the depositions before you, first of the parties who were more or less present at the commission of the crime, and who will speak, or who are represented as speaking with more or less certainty of the prisoner as the party by whom the act was per petrated. That is a sort of evidence which the human mind eagerly grasps at; and yet it is necessary to look upon ev.dence of that kind with more suspi cion than upon other evidence, which, at the first blush, may not appear to be so direct to the point; and for this reason, which all experience goes to confirm, that no one is so apt to be mistaken as when speaking of a person who has been concerned in a sun den outrage when they have had little time to observe his appearance. That is a general observation, but un doubtedly its effect may be weakened; where more than one speak to the identity of the party, or where the parties have been known before the doubts which attach LO this kind of evidence may be removed. You will have before you some evidence'of that sort. You will also have other evidence tending to fix;the guilt upon the prisoner in consequence of his conduct about the time. It will be for you to consider that conduct, and to judge whether it is consistent with guilt or with in nocence. Farther, you will have evidence tending to show that there were great and important motives in ducing him to commit the act charged against him. Now, the absence of motives in any case proves nothing, if the act itself be otherwise cleat' established; for who can dive into the human heatrio say what a man's motives are? But when the question is who committed the crime, it is a satisfaction to the mind to know that attaching to a particular party there are circumstances which might have induced the party to set about the commission of this particular offence. You have, therefore, what may be called evidence ti priori— evidence at the time, and evidence of his conduct after wards. It is for you to view this evidence, carefully divesting your minds, as lam sure you will, of all that you may have heard beforehand, and. to consider, does the evidence satisfy you - that the prisoner is the guilty party. If so, you will find the bill against the prisoner; if not, your duty to the prisoner, and I may add, your duty to the country, will induce you to throw out the bill. Gentlemen, I have no other observations to ad dress to you, and I now request that you will proceed in your duty. The grand jury then retired, and several bills were laid before them, which they returned, and the trials proceeded. We understand that the bills in the case of Rush will not be laid before them till to-morrow. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HoME CIRCUI F.—Kingston, March 27. CIVIL SIDE.—(BeI ore Mr. Baron PARKE and a Com mon Jury.) LOUT/ V. DRUMMOND, ESQ., M.P. This was an action to recover a sum of money upon a contract alleged to have bsen entered into by the de fendant to engage the plaintiff as bailiff for a year, and to give him 1004 salary and other emoluments. The defendant pleaded that he had never made such a contract, and paid 14/. into court as satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Brown were for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Peacock for the de fendant. It appeared that the plaintiff in this action had for merly been a farmer, and extensively engaged in agri cultural pursuits, and for four years he had been farm bailiff and steward to Sir William Geary upon his estate at Oxenheath, near Tunbridge.. In September, 1847, Sir William having declined farming, the services of the plaintiff were no longer required, and ho then put an advertisement in a daily paper offering himself in a similar capacity to any other gentleman who might bo in want of a bailiff. The defendant, who is the Member fur West Surrey, and who has an estate at Albury, near Guildford, answered the advertise ment, and in due course the parties met, and it would appear that Mr. Drummond was referred to Sir W. Geary with regard to the plaintiff's ability, and that he was satisfied with the answer; and on the 20th of Octo ber the plaintiff was engaged by him for a year as a principal bailiff or steward, at a salary of 1001. a year; and he was, in addition, to be allowed a house to live is, and vegetables, and milk and butter for his family, and also keep for his horse. In pursuance of this agreement the plaintiff removed from Sir W. Geary's with his wife and all his furniture, and took up his residence in the house provided for him upon the estate of the de fendant, and entered upon his duties; and it did not appear that the defendant made any complaint respect ing him. After he had been a few days at Albury he was desirous of returning to Oxenheath, tie attend the sale of some stock for Lady Geary, and he applied to Mr. Drummond for permission to do so, which he granted; and the plaintiff, accordingly, had only been away a very few days, when, to his surprise, he received a le&r from Mr. Drummond informing him that he must have perceived before that time that the place did not suit him; that he (Mr. Drummond) did not want a bailiff merely to give orders, which he could do himself; but that he wanted some one to see that they were attended to, which, as he (plaintiff) was al ways in the house, he could not do, and it concluded by advising him to vet Lady Geary to recomm.-nd him to some other situation. The plaintiff at this time had not been more than a fortnight in Mr. Drummond's service, and there bad never been any complaint made against him, and he was, therefore, quite astonished at receiving such an instruction. He immediately returned to Albary, and at his request a gentleman named Ramsay called upon the defendant in order to endeavour to elf, ct some arrangement; but it appeared that, al though Mr. Drummond did not allege any ground of complaint against the plaintiff, he insisted upon his leaving the premises, and asserted his right to dis charge him at a month's notice, as though he had been an ordinary menial servant. It would appear that a few days after this the plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Drummond, informing him that he had instructed his attorney to take the necessary steps to turn him out of the house which he occupied it he did not remove, as he wanted the house himself, and on the 27th of De cember the plaintiff was forcibly expelled, and all his furniture Was removed from the house by several men acting under the authority of the defendant. The pre sent action was brought to recover the sum of 1951., 1004 being for the year's salary, and the remainder for the house rent and additional allowances that were agreed upon to be given by the defendant. A number of witnesses, farmers and others, were exa mined for the purpose of showing the competency of the plaintiff to fulfil the duties of tho situation be bad un dertaken, and it appeared from their testimony that he had manage d a farm of 1,700 acres for Sir W. Geary, and that he had materially improved the estate. It was also stated that he %las a capital judge of stock, and that his stock was very much admired, and it appeared that while in Sir William's service he had given entire satis faction. Mr. Ramsay, the gentleman referrtd to in the above statement, proved that he had known the l plaintiff for twenty years, and at his request he ca? led upon Mr. Drummond to see if any arrangement could bo made, and he handed him over the park keys, and al,o a balance that was due, and then gave him a statement of the accounts. After this had been done he gave Mr. Drummond a statement of the plaintiff's demand upon him, which was 1951. 155.; and lie lookud at it, and said he did not think ic was so touch. Witness then told him that he had understood the plaintiff was hired as steward for a year, and in that case he was entitled to six months' warning, the same as for a farm. The defendant ad mitted he had hired him for a year, but seemed to think he had the power of dischargin g him by a month's notice. Witness then inquired if he had anything to complain of respecting the plaintiff that he wished to get rid of him so quickly; and he replied that he had no com plaint to make, but it did not suit hi m t o k ee p him, Witness then said that he could not go away inazi3o - and reminded the defendant that he bad incurred a considerable expense in bringing his things to Albury; to which the defendant replied, " .1 can't help that." Be fore he left, the defendant slid he had received a g ood character of the plaintiff from Lady Geary, and he should give him he same. - Evidence w;+s then givca to show the forcible removal of the plaintiff from his cuttl., , ,e by persons acting under the authority of the defendant. The horse was turned loose out of the stable ' • his goods w ere put i nto t he street, and he was obliged to take up his abode for the night in ti:e village public-house. Mr. CHAMBERS, for the defendant, relied upon three points—first, that the contract had not been established; secondly, that the plaintiff, by giving up the keys, and rendering up his account, had himself cancelled the con tract, if one really existed; and, thirdly, that supposing no contract existed, all that was required was a month's notice, and that there was no difference between the po sition of the plaintiff, as bailiff, in this respect, an d that of any other farm servant. Mr. Baron PALKE, in summing up, left it to the jury to say whether the contract rt-lied upon by the plaintiff had been proved, and said, if they thought it had the plaintiff was mid& dto a verdict. He also left to them the question whether it was their opinion that, according to the custom of farming, a person in the position of bailiff' or a steward might be discharged, under ordinary circumstances, by merely receiving a month's notice. Tie jury alruoi t immediately returntd a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, less the sum paid iot.coort. His LORDSHIP then askid thorn their opinion with regard to the power to discharge a bailiff by giving $ month's warning; and The jury repli , , d that such was not the custom. HASPER V. REECE. In this case, is hich was said to be one of breach of promise of marriage, Mr. Sergeant Shee informed the Court that the defendant had consented to a verdict pas sing against him, with 1001. damages. OXFORD CIRC 111 I:—Monmouth, March 26. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN Frederick Williams, 22, pleaded Guilty to an indict ment charging him with stealing a pig's cheek, value 25-• at Langstone, the property 01 James Bowen. He was then tried on another indictment, which charged him with cutting and wounding John Morgan, constable, in the execution of his duty, with intent to kill and murder him. To this indictment he pleaded not guilty. The prisoner was committed by the magistrate on the charge of stealing the cheek, and given into the custody of the prosecutor, a constable, to take him to the Uslc gaol. He was handcuffed to Morgan, and went quietly until they came to the turnpike-gate leading into the town of Usk, when he observed that it was a hilly and /noun' tainous country, and immediately struck the officer violent blow on the head. A scuffle ensued, when both fell; but the prisoner being the strongest man, mastered the prosecutor, who, it would seem, was nut deficient in courage, but the odds were much against him; he vale thrown to the ground, the prisoner knelt on him, took a knife, and tried to cut Morgan's throat, after which he put his finger in his right eye, and endeavoured to forte it from the socket; the poor fellow managed to turn over on his face to protect himself, when Williams cut him with the knife severely on the throat, forehead, and ear- He tried to get the key of the handcuffs from Morgan pockets, but did not succeed. A Mr. Churchill passed by on horseback, and gave an alarm, on which the prisoner attempted to cut his own throat, but Morgan prevented him, and in doing so had two of hi s fi ngers an d the b ac k o his hand badly cut. The prisoner was eventually secured and lodged in gaol, the unfortunate constable was a lmost smothered in blood, and in such a state that his r elit' tivcs could not recognise him. On surgical examination of the prosecutor, Mr. Greatwood found a wound on the right side of the face which partially divided the ear; it was five inches in length, and divided the integumEnt g completely, extending to the c h ee k b one . O n the 000 were two wounds, one over the carotid artery, which was greatly protected by the neckerchief Morgan wore. The prisoner was found Guilty on the fourth count , charging him with assaulting an officer, with intent t ° escape from legal custody. Mr. Justice CoLT3IAN sentenced him to betransporte d for 15 years, and ordered three guineas to be given W the prosecutor. N o less than eight prisoners were transported in th e course of the day for sheep stealing and horse stealing• THE REV. JAMES SHORE. " We have received (says a morning contemporarP t the following letter from Mr. Bouverie, accounting to the discrepancy between our statements and his 0", with reference to th e case o f M r. Shore. The esl3l; nation afforded, whilst it ad m i ts th e statement whic, Mr. Bouverie impugned t o b e substantially coffee" amply exonerates him from the blame of wilful or Pr e. alp; tate misrepresentation":— Sir,—l am very unwilling to obtrude on you, or, tc : occupy your valuabl e s p ace w i t h a personal matter; but I owe it justly t o y ou , st ill more than to myself,' T." refer to your article o f t hi s morn i ng, i n wh i ch mea n , is made of my name in connexion with the proceedieF against Mr. Shore in the Arches' Court. In it you reiterate, and confirm, by reference r proper sources of authority, the statement of an article which appeared in your columns some d a y s ago, an,„ the accuracy of which I thought it right to question, the House of Commons, on Wednesday last. The state: merit was this—that the Bishop of Exeter had proceede d against Mr. Shore to depose him; and I owe it to you to acknowledge that I find, by reference to " Robertson' Reports" (vol. i., p. 390), th at , t h oug h the art i cles a ga inst Mr. Shore certainly did not p ray hi s d epos i t i on, yet °cll.. ieunsel against him did, in the course of the procee d ings in the case, submit th a t h o oug h t to b e d e pose' from the ministry. I find too, in the report of Sir 11. J. Fust's judgme nt, the following passage, as correctly extracted by you' he " When the case came origi na lly b e f ore t h e court, the prayer at the conclusion o f t h e art i c l es was, that should be admonished to a b s t a i n f rom performing ev'" siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel i n que stio4 be canonically punished accor di ng to the ex i gency o f T o law, and be condemn e d i n th e costs. As I understan d, 1 1 ; prayer now made to th e cour t i s not to the same effe! ch Id I confess I am not pr e p are d t o go b eyond t h a t Whi is a canonical punishment." I am bound to admit that I think this sufficiently If rants the statement which I contradicted. I owe it to myself, while apologising to you falai o given the contradiction, t o sa ti s f y you t h at I b a d Or grounds to justify my doing so. I enclose to you a copy of the printed es C a se 00 half of the respondent," in Sh ore v. B arnes. l a id, on 1 0 , part of the Bishop, before the Privy Council, fr which (with the o t h e r d ocuments l a id b efore that et). embracing the proceeding s i n th e A rc h es ' C our t belo w ) ' I drew my knowledge of the case in the ecclesiast le Courts. A copy of Sir H. J. F ust ' s j u d gmen t i n the Ar Ole° Court, authenticated by Mr. Robertson, is given ifi r t r i v i the Bishop's ca.e, sub m itt e d on hi s b e h a lf to th° „ 0 ., 4 Council, from which I ex t racte d t h e f o ll ow ing pa ns " e d which, after referring to th e art i c l es o f t h e c harge, I re without comment in the House, as the ground for DV contradiction of your statement. " When the case cam e or i g i na lly b e f ore the COu r4 , the prayer at the concl us i on o f th e a rticles was, that h should be admonished to abstain from performing ear' • siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel in question; be canonically punished according to the exigency of O l d law, and be condemned in the costs. As I understa the prayer now made to the court is to th e same , and I confess I am not prepared to go beyond that whi t ' is a canonical punishment." You will observe that there was a "not" absent here; which is to be found iu th e ot h er report, quoted by 311,111; self, and th a t " and in this report appears as "but ve the other; conEequently the fair inf e r enc e from the ° is exac4 the reverse of that from the other. The contest inclines me to the opinion, that the J- 4 , 0 ment as given in the " Reports" is correct, and that g iv i ; in Mr. Barnes's " case f or t h e respondent, " is voir°l3,o. but I had every reason t o i n d uce me to rely on the oc-de racy of the latter, or I should certainly n o t have '1 ) 1 0 the statemeht I did, nor have th us given you the tr ou to read or insert this.—j am, your most obedient servan t, March 26, 1849. EDWARD P. Bout/-VIO• A FLESHLY GHOST.—After several drovers 13114 finished their labours at the market here, on the evening of Tuesday la s t, and b a d parta k en o f supper, one of thei" —an old tar who had seen service in foreign lan ds-' determim d to play a practical joke upon one of his Co lli c i rades. accordingly slipped out, and having d0.",, e ., 4 a white sheet, h e waited at a part o f t h e roa d w hich ',— companion, a sturdy son of the mountain, had to Pat s. The Llighlandman, when he approached the spot , ° Li ' served the app ar iti on , w hi c h came lorward muttering strange unearthly sounds. The Highlandman, nothing daunted, exclaimed, "Be ye deevil or be ye dragon, I'll try what ye're made o'!" and suiting the action to the v, ords, he dealt the "ghost" the face with a stout oaken staff. a m e m T e h n e d o g uL t blowme measured its its length on the road and roared out, "It's me, John." " Shust be Join' , w hat ye've gotten would-be ghost now repents h im of the manghleedn.' The tis - ron piece which his fully was th e means of procuring him! Arbroath Guide. f' BIRTHS, On the at Averham R ec t ory, N otts, the w ife o f the Rev. l 2t . - of a daughter. On the na 24th inst., at Low er S eymour -street, Portnitt square, Mrs. Llewellyn Mostyn, o f a d aughter. On t h e 25th inst., at. Compton C ast l e, S omerset, the 101 l 4t h Sutton,inst ~ of J. M. H. Tourin, Esq., of a son. On the 25th inst., Mrs. Charles Rivington, Queen - sq uare ' (,f a son. On the 25th inst., in Mecklenbur g h- square , th e l a dy of G. Abbott, Esq., of a daughter. On the 25th inst., at L ausanne -house, Margate, the ladY of Lieutenant- Colon e l S tott, of a son. On the 26th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, the wife of the g el'. B. F. Smith, of a daughter. _......- heoba la. T On the 21 s t inst., at MARRIED St. Mary's, Cheltenham, - - mar Theobald, E sq ., o f Drayton-lodge, Aunts, to Elizabeth of garet, second daughter of the late John 'l'. Justice, lA' Parliament -street, L ndon. I DIED. , On the 21st inst., the Rev. W. S. Chalk, rec t o r of Wilde r' Beds, aged 56. lf 11 1 1 At Ryhall, Rutl an d s bi re, on t h e 22d i nst., the Rev- --- -e Chaplin, aged 59. pcl• On the 23d inst.,.at L ou th, Li nco l ns hi re, J. Jackson, io ! Esq., On the 23d inst., age d 76, W . J autardi l a t e of 1 Audit-office. At Brighton, on the 23d i ns t , Mi ss Edith Musgrave', t h ir a+ , daughter of the late Si r Ch r i stopher Musgrave, B a r' Eden-hall, Cumberland, aged 18. On the Atli inst., at Eaton-t errace, E aton -square, - Elio beth, the wife of Reading Littler, Esq., aged 70. ___a. - - 7,6 of London: Printed and P u bli s h e d b y MURDO YOI:Th No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N 0 a Strand, in the Precinct o f t h e S avoy, in th e COIW , ' AlidalViaN7 wednesaah.march 28,1899. c Up di'FIC Want* B Charles r Charles C Anthony T. Colley N. Valent 'BsNrai SoLicrroi The Ui Deed of 1 In Ilopkin 95 deg. 9E It Is pr after reset 1,910 lots, With a to consist pasture-la and one-t 1 and head which floc Each pt fourth of deposited The allc equal valu Thulium lug mlnne ' The Tr: *umbers. The Soc divided ini Ment in in arrival on understam the absolui hereafter 1 •the sailing .The name: of the lots numbers o before men his purchal [lt is tl mode of a whom will town site.] A Certiii le delivere to give bin' Ths th t. e — s A nm f settlemel ney, iron ,Beeondly.— Yourthly. 7 L gears, a h two augi pitchfork Fifthly.—A the erect A detaile provided by vered to hi sum specifil Thus the estimate, NI Yidual or fa subsistence, eighty acre and obtaine at the cost I. A man • St. Amaaa 3. A man, 1 4. A man, 1 3. A men, I 6. A man, I 7. A man, I To suit t► number of ( of prices foi En Ea • Rath mal hished with hoe, a grubt N.B. The lug, utensil quarts of w pounds of Emigrant Tr stores may 1 Cabin and her in each 121. for cabi: Ships will Month with early appliC Applicatic according tA calve !mined addressed to 2, Kildare-si Liverf 00l ; ( " 24_, 27, RD INC Rpenoer H.' rienry Peter Samu Henn John Capt. Edwa Edwa Samn E. Va Sir T 1 -Willit Willis Thom The LIF braces : Assurance the surviTor Endowme Immediate The paym to their re,:r4 Premiums the half-pre Loans All penoi Erltain and Whilst so tl One single p ExAmPLi. his family et losing his lit) QUAI xO. it, Lo: JOI nenry Inds( Francis liar Sir 'Walter Thomson IL John Harve: John G. Hut George John John Labour Joint Loch,. A. W. Robal In the LI low Rates w With partici{ each of the't the Bonuses assured, or s and the who Daily exceed LOANS ',Wed such attained in F In the Fli on the ith 'which had b is non in col between the also by the) Notice is 1 day must•be Sams, No. I Company's ) rrHE Friendly Soc Thomas Bat Thomson IL Every des Division o Participate 1 of Pre►nium.. sent year w . take place amount of a expense. The Eirghl ♦ery peculi: on applicati 42, Moorg BRI' This Insti Viet., cap. Assurance: : greater facil public. The amp tinually of 7,000 Poi magnitude' to offer unit Terence to Which have the use of tl Illustra ON PHYS] New Editio by post, d the 1 cessive ind With remar qualitleatta L. PERRY ford-street, 21, Paterno Starle, 23, hall-street. PART I. t Organi, and PAST 11. gence, and and bodily Illustrated 1 PART 111 the rriman their treatn Engravings FAST Iv by • simp TI reader's net PIET Y. dutlas. Tb the whole s fax Coal tAg norvOLls bottle. Ti remedy, for toms, erupt Perry': Par 113rtain rem ton of the retail of the SZ. Packeti hleh the dan.e daily Yea till Tv -~