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

,wever persevered, and went to Plymouth to examine into the condition of the property of the deceased; and 1 what was the answer of those directors to him? In allowing him to see the books after considerable trouble, said that they would not permit him to make any extracts from them. However the result of his in spection of their books was, that instead of the 32,0001. clear balance, they had only 2,500/. in the hands of their banker, and the remainder was represented by bills not worth a single farthing. The question then was, how did these over-due bills come to be placed to the credit of the company ? The solution of this question tended to throw new light on the mode in which these share mongers kept up the apparent value of the stock for their own private purposes. Of that deficit of 29,0001. the snm of 11,0001. was owing by the solicitor—he was sorry to say the bead of what he had always considered a respectable house in the city of London ; and he had paid these had bills, which were overdue and never paid, as his calls when they were demanded of him. This led to further inquiry, and his friend proceede d to ask about the payment of the other calls , and it turned out that the secretary of the Great Western Railway, Mr. Saunders, who enjoyed the sad sum of 3,0001. a-year for his services as secretary to the Great Western Company, had been allowed to run in arrear of his calls of 13,000/.; he had only paid 2,0001. out of the 15,000/. calls which had beer. made upon him.—(Hear, hear.) Good Gesell could anything be more disgraceful than the conduct of these directors, who were appointed to act as trustees for the body of shareholders ? Could anything be more disgraceful than such collusion, it not fraud, as that of allowing their own well-paid secretary to run in arrear for his calls, when they pounced upon the poor widow, or the guardian of the orphan, and ruined them by enforcing the paynt of their call.?—(Hear.) The other gentleman. the attorney to whom he referred, and whom he would not name, owed to the company 190,0001., he having received from the company, at va rious times, different large amounts, to pay for the land required for the purposes of the. railway. At different times he was allowed sums of 20,000/., 40,000/., 60,0001., arid so on, from the company, without having been called upon to show any vouchers for the money he had paid. It might be asked why the company did not sue the party fur the amount? The answer was clear. The attorney was not worth a halfpenny, and it would only have be en an additional expense to the company if they had done so, There must be an end to any further concealment of the mischievous macceuvres of such men, for his motion would put an end to such practices as he had detailed, now and for ever, for the concerns of railroads would be made plain to Parliament and to the country. He had one more statement to make which was not immaterial, and he meant in the case of two lines in the hands of the same directors, the mode they had of adding to one concern when the capital of it was insufficient, which system he considered to be fraught with fraud and deceit. These directors, after they had received the bills of the engineers, parliamentary agents, and others make appli cation to Parliament to obtain power to enable other persons to take shares, for the purpose of getting more money; and for the purpose of inducing persons to take shares they create new ones, which they call preference shares, a very great disadvantage to the old shareholders, for the preference shareholders were guaranteed 5 per cent., and in many cases were paid out of the capital.— (Hear.) Now these two agents, to whom he had before alluded, had preference shares; as long as they consi dered it to be a source of advantage to them—so long and no longer did Holdfast keep those shares, but the moment that they felt to a discount, when they were called on to pay for their preference shares, they turn round and say, we have been all of us fraudulent, and are not, therefore bound to pay. Such had been the act of the solicitor to whom he alluded. He should like one thing for mere curiosity—he should like that an other House of Parliament, not the one in this, but in another country, would take his hint, would institute an inquiry into the expenses of railroads in their country. He wished that the Canadian House of Commons, which he highly respected, would act thus. In 1837 he ob tained the concurrence of their Lordships to a standing order, which put railroads on a far different footing from what they had been previously; and he asked if that measure had been beneficial to England, why not in Canada? Why, he asked, should not the House of Commons of Canada, the faithful representatives of the good people of Canada, institute a similar inquiry. —(Hear, hear.) He had some time ago suggested to some of the representatives in the Canadian Commons, that if that course were adopted by them, that it would work well. But when they returned to their respective seats in that House they changed the tone of their opinions, and said it would not by any means work well. They admitted that it was good for England, but thought that it would not do for Canada. It was known that their elections were often very expensive, and that their constituents frequently required employment through their influence, and they considered that the best and cheapest mode to proeure such employment was to vote fur such and such railroad Bills, and thus save their own coffers, and up hold their influence. He had used every exertion for suppressing the mischievous system of those gambling speculations, and at length, after seven years, h a d succeeded in effecting his desire in some degree. He knew that the House of Commons in this country had done its duty, but what he wished for was, that the Canadian Parliament should make inquiry as to what took place before those Bills were passed by them, and that it also became the Parliament of this country to know what then occurred. He had seen some of their Bills, and fully believed that the money was not accounted for. He should at the Came time state that he believed that the solicitors engaged were honest, that is, that they did not pocket the money, but he felt assured that they placed right shares in the right plac. - s. When some six Members of that House had any interest in a Bill, they induced others to vote with them, and it was to prevent that system any longer that he pressed his recommendation. He said that if those proceedings were sifted, it would throw great light on the mode adopted in the Canadian Com mons of carrying Bills through their Parliament, and also their mode of voting. A friend of his (Lord Brougham), a second, and a third, had stated to him that they had been offered 5,0001. it they would tend their names to be railway directors, In tact, the Canadian House of Commons has a strong objection to such an in ehiry, or to allow any investigation into matters of bribery or corruption. It should be considered that if there was anything disgracelutdiscovered, that it would not attach itself to the House of Commons, but to the guilty individuals. The whole of the matter required the interposition of Parliament; for a remedy must be ape plied to check those unworthy members of society from falsely and fraudulently mauutacturine railway shares, and from their shameful system of gambling. He thought that giving absolute publicity to such proceedings would tend very Rauch to prevent them, and saw no other course that Parliament should take than that suggested by him. His Noble Friend (Lord Monteugle) had in troduced a measure, very useful both to England and Ireland, for obtaining certain audit of railroads. He hoped that the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) would not be discouraged in coming forward again with his motion. He mould therefcre lay his motion on the table, and would wish, as he understood that it would require many months to procure the necessary information, that they would begin the good work as soon as possible, for he was anxious that there should be no delay whatever, for it was moat essential that that giant evil of gambling should be suppressed as soon as possible. What he `.ad stated were facts, and if any Noble Lord doubted those facts, he felt prepared to furnish him with all the papers to prove the accuracy of his statements.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he hoped that their Lordships would agree with the proposition of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham). He should at the same time say that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to procure all the necessary information at once, but at the same time fully concurred with him, that as little delay as possible should be offered to so useful a proposition. The time has now come when re sistance must be offered to such proceedings as the Noble Lord (Lord Brougham) strongly and truthfully alluded to. He also hoped that the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) would again introduce his Bill, and assured him that Government would give it their best support; and that if he gave it up. the Government would fel it their duty to introduce a similar Bill, J et he hoped that the Noble Lard (Lord Monti agle) would introduce it, as he believed that it could not be brought on with more success by any Noble Lord than by his Noble Friend (Lord Monteagle). Lord MON I'EAGLE said he could not refrain from expressing the -atisf.ction he felt at finding this =object taken up so earnestly by the Noble Lord. When their Lordships came to consider the probable effect it would have upon commerce, he thought it would be deemed im possible to overrate its importance. It was beyond the reach of legislation to prevent the imprudence of man kind, but he believed that it' the recommendation of a Noble Friend of his, now absent, had been remembered there and elsewhere, the con.equences of imprudent speculat;on which they had recently witnessed, might, to a great extent, have been avoided. Lord Dalhousie recommended that a selection should lie made of those lines which the public had most confidence in, and which were most likely to prove tound speculations. That recommendation had been avoided, aed unfortu- nately most of the evils had occurred which his Noble Friend had f o r eseen . The powers which Parliament had given from time to time, for the indefinite perpe tuation of a fraud,lby raising dividends to a suppositious value, upon the faith of which purcha,ers bought, ought to render Parliament responsible for the results; at any rate, whilst that ground of complaint existed, there was no occasion to complain of the acts of persons out of doors. In this way many of the companies had contrived to clear 100, 150, and even 200 per cent. • upon the purchase of their shares, which, had it not been for the private information they were able to obtain possession ot, would have found its way, as it ought to have found its way, into the hands of the pqrties who were dealing with them. The subj• ct was deserving of the greatest attention, because it had now become a cum mon practice to allow powers to the trustees under a marriage settlement, for the investment of capital in railway shares. The audit of railway companies' ac counts, as at present managed, was a perfect farce. Lord BROUGHAM observed that his chief o*ct had been to point out how g reat faciltios f o r f raud and abuses had been afforded. At the same he would remark that the completion of 4,G00 miles of railway, eleven times the distance between London and Edm burah, was some evidence that many of the schemes were substantial, and intended to be pursued to completion. Lord GRANVILLE acknowledged that the present system of auditing railway accounts was extremely im perfect. The Government would give its assistance in . . remedying it. The motion was then agreed to. , The Pate-in-did (Poor-law, Ireland) Bill was read a first time. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 1 . The SPR O AYER took the Chair at Four o'clock. THIRD READING. The Newcastle and Carlisle Railway (Alterations of and Branch from Alston Branch) Bill. THE SUN, CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS. The reports on the follov.ing Bills were considered and agreed to, and the Bids ordered to be engrossed : Chester and Holyhead hallway (Increase of Capital, with Powers to the London and North-Western Railway Company to subscribe thereto) Bill. Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan Harbour Acts Amendment Bill. SURVEYING OFFICERS. Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER moved that the re port of the surveying officers made in the last session of Parliament, under the Preliminary Inquiries Act (9 and 10 Vic., c. 106), in the case of the Torquay Market Bill, be referred to the Committee to whom the Bill of the present session, under the same name or title, in Group 4 of Opposed Private Bills is referred. Agreed to. PETITIONS. Mr. 'WILCOX presented a petition from Southampton in favour of tha abolition of punishment of death. Mr. BLACKSTONE presented a petition, praying the House to take steps to relieve the existing agri cultural distress. Mr. PALMER presented a number of petitions against the Marriage Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions to the same effect. Sir JOHN DUCKWORTII presented petitions against the Oaths Bill. Several HON. MEMBERS presented petitions in favour of international arbitration. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented eleven petitions from individuals residing in the metropolis, in favour of uni versal sufferage, and petitions against State endowments for religious purposes. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saddleworth, in the West Riding, praying the House to pass a Bill to regulate the county rate expenditure. Sir JOSHUA WALIISLEY presented a petition from Leicester in favour of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition to the same effect, and several petitions in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill, and also petitions praying for the abolition of punish ment of death. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition praying for the revival of the suppressed Irish bishoprics. Several petitions were presented in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill, and praying for the liberation of Mr. Shore. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from a place in Lincolnshire against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. Mr. SMITH presented a petition from Birmingham praying the House to take steps to insure efficient rail way travelling on Sundays. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in favour of his Bill for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Mr. T. EGERTON presented a petition from a place in the county of Chester against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. General LYG ON presented a petition from a place in Worcestershire against the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. Mr. DEEDES presented petitions from Kent com plsining of agricultural distress. MARRIAGE BILL. Mr. EWART brought in the Marriage by License Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. H. BERKELEY postponed his motion with re spect to taking votes fur Members of Parliament by way of ballot until the 17th inst. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM'. Mr. T. D'E YNCOURT gave notice of his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments. Mr. S. CRAWFORp gave notice that, on the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose, to amend the national representation, he should move an amendment to extend the suffrage to all adult males, not disqualified by law, which had been registered and resident for a certain time within the electoral districts. CLERGY RELIEF BILL. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON gave notice that in the Com mittee on the Clergy Relief Bill, he should move that the following words be added as a proviso to the 6th clause:— " Provided always, that nothing in this Act now con tained shall authorise the refusal of the right of burial in the accustomed manner to any dissenting person." FETHARD FEVER HOSPITAL. Mr. SCULLY moved for copies of all the corre spondence between the Board of Health, the Poor-law Board, and the Board of Guardians of the Cashel Union, or the vice-guardi.ins and any other persons, with re spect to the Fethard Temporary Fever Hospital. Agreed to. MR. CREWE AND THE WORCESTERSHIRE SESSIONS. Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, whether the amount of the recognizances of the Rev. Mr. Crewe, which were es treated by order of the Court for non-attendance to give evidence on a trial at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for Worcestershire, had been returned to Mr. Crewe by order of the Treasury; and if so, upon what grounds, and whether the forms and practiee usual at the Trea sury and the Home-office on such occasions were ob served in this instance. Sir G. GREY stated that after an inquiry had been made into the facts of the case the recognizanees had been returned by the Treasury to Mr. Crewe. It ap peared that he attended the sessions on a day in October, but as the justices were not all present he returned home in the evening, a distance of 13 miles, and afterwards became so unwell that he was not able to return to Worcester on the following day. The Right Hon. Baronet, after detailing the universal course adopted in cases of this kind, stated that in consequence of an acci dental omission it had not been followed in the present instance. REPORTING THE DEBATES—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL begged to call the attention of the House to what he conceived was a breach of pri vilege. The sessional orders of the House laid down that strangers were not to be admitted into the House during its debates, and that its debates should not be reported without the permission of the House. He was not going to argue at all upon the good sense of retaining such a rule; at the same time, when strangers were per mitted to report their proceedings i 1 was but reasonable that the House should expect them to be fairly and impartially reported. In a newspaper called the Times—(Laughter)--a great violation of that rule took place in the debate which occurred on the third reading of the Rate in Aid Bill for Ireland. He believed the proper course would be to call the printer of that paper to the bar to answer for his conduct, and he (Mr. J. O'Connell) would conclude with a mo tion to that effect. He found the proceedings of last night were regularly set out and reported, but he found that not only a great part of what . Hon. Members said was reported, that much of what they did say was omitted, and that a deal of what they did not say was given.—(Laughter.) Me found a great deal of what he himself , said was omitted. Now, it might be a matter of no great importance to the editor of the T i mes what he (Mr. John O'Connell) said in that House, but to himself it was of some importance that he should be tolerably correctly reported, for he had a constituency to whom he was responsible for his conduct. He bad observed that the speeches of the Irish Members were not done the same justice to as those of English Members. He complained that that was unfair. He did not know whether the other Irish Members in the House would longer submit to that practice; but he (Mr. J. O'Connell) fur one would not do so. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by charging the proprietors, printers, and editors of the Timm, and all concerned, with a violation of the order of the House, and by moving that the printer of that paper be called to the bar of the House to answer for his conduct. Mr. SCULLY seconded the motion. The SPEAKER said he could not put the motion, in asmuch as the Hon. Member had not given the name of the printer.—(Laughter.) Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL here hurried out of the House, and returning in a few moments with a news paper in his hand, said the name of the printer was John Joseph Lawson.—(Laughter.) The SPEAKER put the motion that John Joseph Lawson be called to the bar of the House to-morrow. Mr. F. O'CONNOR did hope the honourable Gen tleman weeld spare the time of the House. If any Member had a right to complain of his speeches nut being impartially reported, he himself had that right, but he did not think it worth his while to complain to the House on a matter of that kind. Sir GEORGE GREY said, considering the 'cir cumstances under which their debates were reported, that the gentlemen who were engaged in that business had a mere permissive right to report the proceedings, which was cl o gg e d with some di sa d vantages, he hopedla the Hon. Gentleman would not do any thing to cast censure on the rep')rts of the debates in the public journals. He (Sir G. Grey) himself was not in the habit of reading the debates; he generally contented himself with reading those admirable summ,ries of the proceedings of the House which of late years had been given in the public journals, and which contained a most fair and impartia resuW of the debate. Mr. BROTHERTON said, with regard to the real question before the House, he really thought the Times was a most accurate paper indeed ; he was sometimes quite surprised to see the accuracy with which it gave the debates. There was another paper, how ever, which he could not say so much for, and that other paper was the Daily News, which had represented him to have stated in the House that his last The Tact wasionc hostei hadm h wholly untrue. 4 ib°l4w electedhieh was wholly firea s times for Salford, and on no one of those occasions had his election cost him a penny piece.—(Hear, hear.) He made a practice of never paying anything for his elec tions, and he knew most of his friends disbelieved the report, and he did not care much about it.—(Laughter.) Mr. J. O'CONNELL said what he complained of was that the speeches of Irish Members were not given fully. The Right Hon. Baronet being an English Member bad nothing to complain of in that respect, but be com plained that much of what ho did say was entirely omitted, while a great deal of what he did not say had been put in. —(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the House wished to get rid of the rule to which he had directed attention, let them abrogate it at once ; but so long as it existed, let the House see that fair play was done to Irish as well as English Members. For the present, however, he should withdraw his motion; but if the off ence were repeated, he should not deal wth it so lightly.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. G. BERKELEY suggested that the Hon. and Learned Member had better send his speeches to the papers, instead of making them in the House.—(Hear.) The motion was then withdrawn. MR. LAYARD'S DISCOVERIES. Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to assist Mr. Layard in his dis- LONDON, WEDNESDAY coveries of the remains of Nineveh, by any pecuniary grant, and if so, to what amount? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had written to Mr. Layard, mentioning a sum to propose to Parliament, but he had not yet received any reply from that gentteman. I h S a I v l i Mn having presented T e s e O n r e d DEATH. Mr. . Mr. EWA F R U I N ' number of petitions against the punishment of death, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish it, remarking that if he were not convinced that the feeling of the country was against it, he should not have troubled the House with the motion. Every day, however, con vinced the people more and more of the =policy of continuing ing in the country against it was stronger than some Honourable Members were disposed to admit. They were at a crisis on this subject—the time had come when the question must be settled. The number of murders had unfortunately increased; but unlike others, he drew this inference from this melancholy fact, that their institutions had produced no effect. He bold it to be true that death by the law did not deter from the com mission of murder. But suppose they bad abolished capital punishment, would not his Right Hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) have attributed the murders that had taken place to the repeal of the law? Now, he entertained is contrary opinion ; he attributed the murders that had taken place to the public executions that had preceded them, to the hardening of these who had witnessed such exhibitions, and the teaching of them to look upon human life with less respect than before. As on former occasions on which he had submitted this question to the House, he should on the present avoid any allusion to the theological part of the subject. Ho leoked upon the punishment of death as a desecration of our religion. The question was one, he considered, of expediency, and he took his stand in opposing it upon that ground. Upon that ground Viccaria, an eminent writer, who first converted him to the opinions he held, urged the necessity of abolishing the punishment of death. Then the last report of the Commission on Criminal Law, stated it as its opinion that all punish ments rested alone upon social necessity. He held that social necessity justified the abrogation of the punishment of death. They had appealed in this matter to the fears and prejudices of the country. His Honourable Friend had said that attempts to murder had increased, for the five years ending with 1846, as compared with the five years ending in 1831, the number being in the former 1,099, and in the latter but 451. He also said that there had been an increase of rape, arson, and poisoning, and attributed this to the abolition of the punishment of death with respect to these cases—that the abolition of the punishment had caused an increase of crime. He denied that he had taken a true test. In order to have rendered his argument logical he should have gone further and demanded the renewal of death punishments in respect of these cases. But he took a fallacious test—he took only four cases out of 20, which he should have taken, and which he (Mr. Ewart) was prepared to show had fallen in num ber though the death punishment had been abolished. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Cr. Grey) had stated that there was an increase in the number of cases since ca pital punishment was repealed for rape, but the fact was, that previous to the repeal, persons hesitated prosecuting for rape, and indicted for the minor offence of an as sault. The returns laid before the House showed a great diminution, instead of an increase, in those crimes which were previously punishable by death. For five years previous to the abolition there were 259 execu tions, and for the first five y ears afterwards only 99 ; while the number of offences in the former pe riod were 12,000, and in the latter 11,320. To show that they could safely do without capital punish. ment he would simply mention that the returns before the House went to show that whenever they had mid gated the law, the experiment had proved most success• tul. It would not do now for the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department to rise in his place and meet this motion by saying simply that the murderer deserved his punishment, the Right Hon. Baronet was bound to prove that punishment of death was justifiable on the ground of legislative expediency, and not as a system of terror. He, however, could urge many reasons why capital punishment should be done away with. In the first place, it was an uncertain punishment. The excellence of a punishment consisted in its certainty, and to make this punishment certain they must be prepared to execute every criminal convicted of the crime of murder. He apprehended, however, that no advo cates for capital punishment were prepared to go that length. Considerable sensation had recently been excited upon this subject by the execution of two criminals, between the extent of whose crimes there was a very material difference. He alluded to the unfortu nate woman executed at Bristol and the notorious cri minal recently executed at Norwich. Ought there not to have been a distinction between these two criminals?—(Hear, hear.) Even the staunchest upholders of the necessity- of capital punishment admitted the inequality of the punishment in eases like those in relation to the crime, and he insisted, therefore, that, with a due regard for public feeling, the Right Hon. Baronet could not execute in all cases of murder. Then he lost the advantage of cei tainty in the punish ment, while, on the other hand, if he adopted this measure the punishment would be made certain.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.") No one could deny that public executions had a demoralising tendency. So long as they continued capital punishments, not only would they have the demoralising spectable of the scaf fold, but they would have the accounts, in all the pomp of circumstance, from the first beginning of crime to its last ignominious expiation, re corded by their liberal press, which narrated all those demoralising circumstances, and thus produced the worst possible effect on the tastes, the morals, and the religion of the people; and so long would they throw around the assassin that morbid degree of interest which now always attached to him. Under the present system, instead of leaving the criminal to dwell on those motives for repentance which his position was calculated to awaken, they diverted his mind from that wholesome exercise, by calling his attention to the sufferings of his ignomi nious death on the scaffold. Again, he held capital punishments to be objectionable in that they inflicted on the criminal the same dreadful crime that he had in flicted on his victim. But there was another great ob jection, and it was that when once capital punishment was inflicted it could not be recalled; it was beyond compensation, and if once executed the criminal was placed beyond the pale of repentance. Capital pu• nishment had been abolished in Belgium and in our own possessions in the West Indies, and during the best years of the Roman Republic capital punishment had never prevailed. Ile felt strongly that the principle which he was advocating was gaining hold on the people of this country.—(Hear.) A greater number of the clergy were daily corning over to his views ; he had the opinion of several Recorders of large towns, of three English Judges, and of two Irish Judges in favour of the repeal of punish ment by death; and he thought the day was not tar dis tant when the efforts to repeal that ignominious and demoralizing punishment would be successful, and when tho people of this country would call on that House to wipe from its statute book the spirit of revenge, and to leave unlettered the exercise of the merciful precepts of our holy religion. Lord NUGENT seconded the motion. Sir GEORGE GREY believed that the time was yet far distant when they could with safety dispense with the extreme penalty of the law in cases of the crime of murder.—(Hear, hear.) It should, he considered, be borne in mind, that since the year 1841 not a single per son had been executed, unless for the crime of murder. —(Hear.) In one observation which his Hon. Friend gave expression to he entirely concurred, namely, that this question did not rest upon theological grounds. He was convinced that there was nothing in the written word of God which precluded the State from inflicting this punishment, if deemed necessary for the preserva tion of human life; but it was said that there was nothing imposed on rulers, as a moral obliga tion, to deprive persons of life even in cases of murder. Now if that were right, as well might it be said that the State had no right to transport persons, nor to deprive them of their liberty, for the purpose of gratifying a vindictive feeling. The only justification of Government in inflicting the punishment of death was to be found in its object to protect life, and that protection was in a great measure efforded by the terror which the punishment of death inspired. If the State had no right to inflict severe punishment, where, he would ask, was the safeguard of society? He appealed to his Hon. Friends whether he did not think it neces sary for the protection of human life and of property, -that there should be a power in the hands of the Go vernment to impress terror on the minds of persons who might otherwise have recourse to the commission of the most enormous crime. He believed that the punishment -of death tended to inflict terror, and to keep down, to a great extent, the crime of murder. He was not prepared to say that men who committed the crime of murder ought to be put to death recklessly, but the punishment of death doubtless operated to diminish the crime. The Honourable Gentleman referred to Belgium for an example of the effect of the absence of capital punishment. He also stated that in the best times of the Roman Republic, there was not capital punish• went, and murders were infrequent ; and further, from the relaxation of our own criminal law to the pre sent time, that crimes had diminished. Whatever result might appear from the returns of last year with regard to burglaries, the effect had been that there was an increase of the crime since the relaxation of the law with regard to its punishment. It was argued that, in consistency, the same regard ought to be extended to the protection of prcperty as of life, if the infliction of capital punishment was justifiable and productive of be neficial effects in repressing crime. The fact, however, was, that aggressions on property were not regarded in the same light, and when capital punishment was in flicted, juries found the parties accused guilty of the minor offence, to avoid its infliction. In the case of , sheep-stealing, not one in a hundred of those tried for the offence had been executed, and the uncertainty of the s punt • lment operated in removing the check upon the commission of the offence, which the certainty of the punishment would prevent. The certainty of death as a punishment did attach to murder, although in some cases-, where there were mitigating circumstances, the sentence was not carried into effect. The ordinary rule was, that the law was allowed to take its course, and the criminal and the public had an assur ance that death was the penalty the offender had to incur. The Hon. Gentleman offered a certain punish ment, but did not state what it was. There was the ease of a poor woman who, from the pressure of poverty and distress, bad deprived such her child of life. In a case as that it was right to recommend the party for mercy, not, however, that such an act could be justi fied, but it might be considered to be perpetrated with mitigating circumstances. The pamphlet upon which the lion. Gentleman relied to sustain his own statements, and to impugn his, led his Hon. Friend into error. Ca pital punishments land be withdrawn fro u those of; fences against the person which were not attended with violence endangering life. Such offences had been for merly punished with death, e hich had been since removed, and the effect had been that this description of offences had increased. Taking the seven years which preceded the abolition of capital punishments, as compared with the same period which followed, offences had more than doubled. He did not mean to argue that this increase of crime had been occasioned by the miiigation which had taken place in penal punishments, and he only made the statement to show that statistical facts could not be relied upon as a criterion to form a judgment on the sub ject. The relaxation of punishment with regard to forging documents for the delivery of goods was attended with the same result, as forgery had increased. With regard to the statement which he had made last year, with reference to burglary, he had been charged with making a wilful mistake upon the statements he had of fered to the House, and yet it had been proved with re gard to burglary, that offences of that description, since the penalty of death was removed, had taken place be tween nine o'clock at night and six in the morning, more frequently than before. He did not, however, rely upon figures, but asked the House to consider the sub ject upon principles of common sense, and to say whe ther the time had come when it would be safe to do away with capital punishment?—(Hear.) Next, with regard to treason—it was argued that it was not a crime to which capital punishment should be extended, and it was described as au act of cold cruelty to de prive the offender of life; but ho would ask the House whether such a description could apply to the case of a party who entered upon a course which would in volve the country in bloodshed, and, in its, consequences, lead to results that would deprive thousands of life?— (Cheers.) His Honourable Friend said he hoped they , would not yield upon this question to the vindictive feel ings of the public. He, however, thought it was most desirable that the public should be impressed with a consciousness that the law was strong enough to protect them, and that they were not required to protect them selves. He was of opinion that if capital punishment was abolished, it would give rise to acts of private re venge which were at present kept down by the convic tion of the power of the law to inflict adequate punish ment. The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the practice of public executions. With regard to them, he thought that nothing would be more injurious than the anxiety to witness these executions, and the facilities which were afforded, for the sake of gain, to witness t h aw . H e begged, however, it might be understood that public executions were not essential incidents to capital punishment, as might be inferred from the practice in foreign countries. It was alleged that certain judges were favourable to the abolition of capital punishment; but it should be taken into core sideration with regard to this allegation, that the majority of the judges examined before the Lords' Com mittee on this subjeet were In favour of retaining it, and that the Committee, after hearing the evidence of the judges, were unanimous against the abolition of capital punishment. He hoped the House would not allow the Honourable Member to place the Bill upon the table of the House, and not encourage any illusory expectation of the abolition of capital punishment. Mr. BRIGHT said that it was well known that the early Christians did not inflict death, and it was known that a Roman Emperor removed Christians from the office of Praetor, because they could not carry the punishment of death into execution ; this was the prin ciple of Christians for the first ages of the Christian re ligion. In Belgium, Tuscany, Austria, and Sweden, the punishment of death was but rarely inflicted, and mur ders were much more infrequent there thau in Spain or Ireland, where capital punishments were not infrequent. Could they believe that any punishment would deter such a man as Rush from his grave offence? It was premeditated, and every precaution taken to escape detection, and was deliberately perpetrated. Take the case at Bristol; that was not premeditated; but the fear of death did not prevent the perpetration of the crime. With regard to public exe• cuttons, people were collected together to see these exe cutions for example; but there were none of the persons who went to witness these scenes who were not injured by the exhibition. Then, with regard to the execution at Bristol, what could have been more disgusting than to see six or seven men dragging a girl of sixteen to the scaffold, and the clergyman coaxing her to go quietly to execution? Then there was an execution at Brecon, and when the sentence of death was ?passed upon the man, a companion in the court cried out, " Now, Jem, die game;" and he did die game, as they considered it. The effect of this suggestion was that he was preparing his mind to brave the law, and was more intent upon that than in attending to the instructions of the c l ergyman. Why, he would 'ask, did the newspapers give such lengthened accounts of these executions but that there accounts, from a morbid feeling of curio s ity to k now was a desire, on th e part of the publ i c, t o read these what was connected with the death of a criminal, arising from what was, in some respects, a sentiment of vindic tiveness against the convict? lie had seen cases of that kind which were very striking. Some time ago a young man at Stockport shot a young woman with whom he had been living, and was hanged at Liverpool. Shortly after another stabbed a young woman also, and he buf fered death; but since that another murder of a similar description was committed at Leeds; two in different parts of the country, following each other in such rapid succession, that he believed the effect of the notoriety given them was to create the offences.—(Hear hear.) If the punishment, for example, were perpetual imprison ment, they could relax it in the case of a deserving cri minal, and continue it to those who did not deserve such relaxation. Besides, the present system often in duced men to commit murders, because juries often seized on objections which were not valid, and fre quently acquitted the most notorious criminals. He himself had seen a letter from a medical man, in which he stated that to his own knowledge four persons were a cqu i tte d , an d then at large, notoriousl y state of of murder, but e s c a p e d i n c o lt the law. The Ri g ht H on . recollecte the c ase o f t h e two men at Dur hamconsequence of last year, charged with the murder of the Duke of Cleveland's gamekeeper. One of those men was found guilty and hanged and the other acquitted, on the ground that ho did not fire the shot which deprived the man of life, whereas at that moment it was believed that the man acquitted was really the person who fired the shot; and what was more, two persons were now in gaol for another murder arising from motives of revenge out of the murder of the gamekeeper. Indeed it was well known that so great was the terror inspired on the occa sion, that many witnesses examined for the prosecution lest they might b e mur d ere d he would ask the Right H on . that Anisette M e y ers was t mas executed? B o th were t o re bad foreclsupagi Gentleman,titi o levydin l , e gg a nu y ne: elvdtiytwdiheiheonnyferc eromur dercountry, in its most dreadful form. He (Mr. Bright) rejoiced that Annette Meyers was not executed, and, indeed, St the time, he received a the soldi er , w hi c h d i d lett er them fr m om uch the cre f d a i m t, tlyof expressing a wish that he should state to the house their anxiety that she should not be executed. These things evinced how perfectly impossible it was to be impartial in these cases. He (Mr. Bright) really had c omm i seration for the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Hom e D epartment. HQ had a veto in all those cases given him bthe law-- the whole responsibility almost fell on him when he had to take each case into his consideration, after they were adjudicated on by judges and juries, and his difficulties were every day increasin g . He had been in the habit lately of referring cases cf that description to the judges, and without venturing ev en to insinuate anything dero gatory to those eminent personag es , diff erences of opi nion might arise from feelings entertained on the subject before the House. In one case a deputation waited on a judge, and stated as thei r reason for asking a commu tation of punishment, that they were opposed to capital punishments altogether, and his reply was that he could lot listen to such a reason, but that he should be happy to hear any which he could consider, as he was most anxious the execution should lot take place. Deputa tions of that description were of frequent occurrence, and it WrAii hardly necessary to say that they indicated the anxiety of the public mind on the question. Then there was a case at Monmouth, where a memorial was presented to the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir G. GREY—Not on the merits. Mr. BRIGHT—Not on the merits, certainly, but praying that it should not take place at Monmouth. Then, at Bristol, 3,500 women sent up a memorial in favour of Harriet Thomas, and five different religious congregations for the same object. The Mayor and corporation of Gloucester did the same, showing that public opinion was running hostile to the system now pursued. An intimate friend of his (Mr. Gilpin), whose name when the question was settled would be ever remembered with gratitude far his exertions in the cause, informed him, that at upwards of fifty meetings at which he attended, in various parts of the country, he bad never witnessed before, no matter how exciting or interesting the sulject might have been, any question which gathered together larger assemblies, or filled larger rooms than the present, not to condemn pas sionately or foolishly the abolition of punishment by death, but to consider and discuss it, calmly and dis passionately, and from these meetings all but unani mous declarations in favour of the principle of the pre sent motion were come to, which was a good test of what the public feeling was on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Baronet had, however, one difficulty in considering this question ; he was under the impression that the opinion of the House was against such a propo sition. Such may be the notion entertained in the House of Lords, where it was said by some one, on the presentation of a petition from Lancashire in its favour, that its prayer ought be granted as a punishment to the people of that district, fur their tenacity in seeking it. But such was not the case in that House. He believed five-sixths of lion. Members never considered the ques tion at all; and he was also convinced that, if the Right lion. Baronet proposed a measure for the abolition of capital punishment, scarcely a Member in the House would be found to oppose it; or, if so, only to the length of limiting the duration of the measure for a few years. For the grounds stated he implored the Right Hon. Gen tleman to give the question his best consideration; and for his own part he should support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. Mr. HUME DRUMMOND regretted to see on every side increased sympathy for murderers. Murders had increased in intensity, and he believed it was so in con sequence of the debates in that House, and the sym pathy sho wn :f ur murderers elsewhere, so that the people thought that m ur d er, a f ter all, was not so great a crimp,and so it was th oug h t us l i ttle of as during the middle ages. The H onoura b le Gentleman Wei they could mitigate and modify fi l e puniehent ; that they oould modify in SCAIIQ eases, and, in fact, in others let them out altogether. Mr. BRIGHT observed that the Hon. Gentleman mistook him altogether. What he said was, th a t in certain deserving cases the punishment might be miti gated, but in no case whatever would he consent to have a murderer return to society. Mr. DRUAIMOND begged the Hon. Gentleman's pardon. lie should, however, give the motion every opposition in his puwer, convinced, as he Was, gig, " Whoso shtddeth man's blood, by men should his blood be shed." Sir E. N. BUXTON could not agree with the Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, in the interpretation he put on the text which he quoted, or its bearing, on the subject then under discussion. lie was not, however, prepared to vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend, because it seemed to him that they had not at present arrived at that point in which they could sav there was any uncertainty or difficulty in obtaining convictions when murder was committed. On the other hand, it appeared to him that there aas an increasing dislike, growing up to convict in capital cases. He had seen it in the county which he had the honour to repre sent, in the instance of some most atrocious cases. About two years ago a woman was tried for poisoning her hus band, and, notwithstanding the evidence given, she was now at large. So convinced was the prosecutor of her guilt, that she was tried again. A second indictment was preferred against her, but she was acquitted, one of the jurors subsequently stating that sh e wou ld h ave b een convicted but for the punishment of death. In the fol lowing year another woman was tried and convicted, bet in the present a third was tried and let off. He (Sir E. N. Buxton) certainly did think it was right they should watch the course taken by jurors, and if they iound there was an increasing difficulty in getting a conviction in cases of murder, he certainly should be prepared to support the question. Although he could not then con vince himself that he should be acting right in voting tor the motion, yet, as to the expediency of putting an end to the present mode of public executions, he had no doubt whatever.—(Hear, hear.) A person was no doubt publicly tried in a court of justice, but itte as in a room, and it was impossible that more than it limited number of persons could be present. Executions might take place within the precincts of a gaol, for example, so that, while they maintained the principle that the ends of justice should be satisfied, only a certain number of persons, as witnesses, should be present to see the law carried into effect. On these grounds he could not vote for the motion of his Honourable Friend ; but he con fessed he came to that conclusion after much difficulty and doubt. Mr. BROTHERTON should support the motion of the Hon. Member for Dumfries, and as to what had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet and others, that the time was not as yet come to make the proposed change, be wisbed to know what sign they were to have when it should come? The great end of punishment was refor mation; but capital punishments did not prevent crime, and demoralised rather than improved those who wit nessed them. Sir G. STRICKLAND said he hoped to live to see the time when capital punishments should be abolished altogether. From the infirmity of human tribunals the innocent had often, he was convinced, suffered as guilty. Then he thought that they should not have recourse to a punishment which never could be recalled. Colonel THOMPSON said he did not think that transportation had all the effect attributed to it, but he thought that expatriation, under hopeless circumstances of ever returning, might, in many instances, he substi tuted for threepenny -worth of rope and the hangman. —(A laugh.) At present transports were buoyed up with the hope of returning home, or of obtaining a par don, or at least a material mitigation of the severity of their punishment; but if the murderer were deprived altogether of that hope and banished for ever to some far distant country, that he believed would be a safe substitute for the degrading system of public executions. Sir GEORGE GREY said he hoped that, from the tone of the debate respecting the punishment of trans portation, an erroneous impression would not be conveyed to the country. No Governor had the power of exer cising the prerogative of mercy, nor could any convict escape the severity of his sentence, a xcept by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. Lord NUGENT said that capital punishments had a tendency to increase crime, and therefore the punish ment of death was unnecessary and unjustifiable. The majority of the Judges were in favour of the abolition of this punishment. Several eminent criminal lawyers were of the same opinion, and their reason was that within their knowledge several persons had suffered death who were innocent.—(Hear.) He would entreat Hon. Members, if they had any doubt on this subject, to remember that if they thought there was anything in the argument in favour of abolition, every year was a year of unjustifiable bloodshed.—(Hear.) Sir H. VERNEY could not yet make up his mind to abolish the punishment altogether. Public executions were abhorrent to the feelings of humanity, and some other mode of executing criminals should be devised, if that punishment was to be continued. A gentleman who had seen Rush executed had informed him that he was convinced if a criminal was seen no more after sen tence of condemnation it would have a greater effect upon the public mind than the present system. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ••• ... 51 Against it ... ..• 75 Majority .. ••• ..„ —24 The motion was consequently lost. CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND. Mr. KEOGH proceeded to call the attention of the House to the general management of Crown prosecutions in Ireland at assizes and sessions, and to the expendi ture incurred in those prosecutions. The expense of those prosecutions to the country in 1847 amounted to 71,0001, while in 1830 it amounted only to 37,5001., showing an increase in the intermediate period of 34,0001. per annum. There was no effeceual check upon this ex penditure, and the uncertainty attending the trials was so great that offenders specu'atted upon an acquittal. It was perfectly well known that extensive alterations had of late been made in the criminal laws; and, therefore, the counsel taking charge of criminal prosecutions should have a good knowledge of these alterations. He had moved last session for a return as to the conduct of criminal prosecutions in a certain county in Ireland, but that return had not yet been made. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it had been laid on the table. Mr. KEOGH said he should have been glad to have seen it before it had been laid on the table. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had not been aware of the circumstance till now. Mr. KEOGH continued, and said that a great portion of the duty of the Crown solicitors devolved upon the stipendiary magistrates, who were not, from many cir cumstances, qualified to perform the duty.--(Hear, hear.) The consequence was, that the people telt there was what was tantamount to a denial of justice, for the people were astute enough to see that where the chances of escape were so numerous, justice was but im perfectly administered, and the matter, therefore, called for immediate investigation. He thought he had laid sufficient grounds to induce the Government to grant an inquiry, and he was of opinion if a Committee were granted, that a system might be devised which would give them a cheaper and certain system of admi nistering justice in Ireland. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the matter might be safely left in the hands of his Right Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney-General. His Right Hon. Fiend came into office in '4B or in the latter end ot '47. As the Crown Solicitors were paid by fees, it was not to be wondered at that they should be desirous of increas ing the number of counsel, and of course the number of briefs. The Irish Attorney-General, in 1835 (Mr. Blackburne) bad his attention called to this abuse, and he issued an order limiting the counsel to the number of two, allowing that in certain cases an additional counsel should be called in. The Right Hon. Gentleman then went on to explain in detail the mode which the fees of the Crown solicitors in criminal cases in Ireland were under the old system so largely increased. When the present Attorney-General (Mr. Monahan) came into office, or soon after July, 1848, he issued an order that the practice should be uniform on all the circuits, and directing other arrangements as to the employment of counsel, namely, that in certain cases one counsel only should be employed. There were other minor arrange ments for reducing the expenses of Crown prosecutions, and he (the Attorney-General) thought that the arrange meats which had been made by his Right Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney-General were highly honourable to him. He held in his hand a return which showed that in the season before the new arrangements came into operation, 37i Crown prosecutions had been carried cn, at an expense of 3,2231. 10s. Since the new arrangements had been acted upon, the return showed that 348 cases had been tried, at an expense of 9761. The House would, therefore, see the great re duction which had been effected already by the Irish Attorney-General, and when he heard his Right lion. Friend blamed for the mode in which he had conducted the prosecutions, ho was happy to be able to refer to the opinions of men who were well acquainted with his conduct, and who gave that conduct their decided up. proval. The lion. Member (Mr. Keogh) had alleged that there was a failure of justice, because the Irish At torney-General would not prosecute for petty larcenies; but he thought his Right Hon. Friend was quite right in acting upon that principle.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion he had sufficiently answered the statement of the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh), and he trusted therefore he would withdraw the motion. Mr. KEOGH explained. Mr. O'FLAHERTY was glad to hear of the reduc tion of the expenditure which had been effected, and hoped it would be continued. Mr. HENLEY felt that the statement which had been made of the former practice in Ireland in Crown prose cutions was so startling, that there was great reason to rejoice that the reform bad been carried so far, and he trusted it would be still carried farther. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a few words, after which the motion was withdrawn. CORPORATION OF LONDON. On the motion of Mr. DIVETT a return was ordered of all moneys paid to the Chamberlain of the City of London by persons either nominated or elected to the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, with the date, cause, and amount of each payment, and the names and addresses of the respective payers, from the let of Ja nuary, 1800, to the present time; stating also the amount received in each year, the sum total, and the purposes to which the money was applied by the Corporation of London, RAILWYS. Mr. KEOGH ask IRISH ed for leave to A bring in a Bill to fa cilitate the transfer of land to railway companies for railway purposes in Ireland.—Leav e given. The SOLICITOR -GENERAL next obtained leave to bring in a Bill granting relief against defects in leases made under powers of leasing in certain cases. The House then adjourned at Nine o'clock. ESCAPE OF Two CONVICTS. WOOLWICH, MAY 1. —About twelve o'clock last night two convicts escaped from the convict hulk Hebe, recently moored in the river near the west end of the Royal Arsenal. One of them is named Charles Lanker, 28 years of age, a native of Shall, ld, and cutler by trade. The other is named Thomas Bradbury, 19 years of age. He was a native of Coventry, and followed the occupation of e hawker. Lord Carington, the High Sheriff of Bucks, and the Town Clerk, had au interview with Sir George Grey Yo*terday. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE • CHANCERY CU 1.1.R.7', May 1. (Beture Sir J. KNIGUT BRUCE.) PIPER V. SOYER. This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from having ac eCee to the books of account in the partner ship in the bill mentioned, and from exercising the rights of a part ner. The plaintiff alleged that eerly in 1848 he vented a beverage called " Tortoni's Anana," and gene, rally known as " Soyer's Nectar," and that he entered into partnership with the defendant, John Gibbs, for the purpose of making and selling said beverage, and that in consideration of said partnership, and also of the undertaking becoming the property in equal moieties of plaintiff and said de fendant, the latter brought 200/. into the concern, and premies were taken for the business in Rupert-street, Haymarket. The capital not being sufficient, it was agreed that Gibbs should bring in 200/. Inurtevehich was to be con sidered as a debt due by the partnership. Subsequently', in the same year. it was agreed between them, that the defendant, Alexis Benoit Soyer, of the Reform Club, should be admitted as a partner, it being considered that his name would be of great advantage, and it was agreed that he should bring in 100/. only, in consideration of his acquiring one-third interest in the concern, the two previous partners each retaining a similar share. In September, 1848, it was agreed, for the further extend ing the business, that the defendant, Richard Baker, of Bisson's-grove, St. John's-wood, stockbroker, should be admitted a partner into one-forth of the business. on consideration of his bringing 1,1)00/. into the con cern. It was also agreed that the 2001. advanced originally by Gibbs should be charged to the plain tiff's share, that each partner's share should be one fourth, that " the manufacture and sale of Soyer's Nectar should be common to the four partners, that the agreement be for seven years, and that the firm be called Soyer and Co." The plaintiff alleged, that during the old partnership he had kept the secret of the manufac ture of the beverage to himself, but that the defendant Baker refused to enter into the partnership unless such secret was communicated, and that accordingly on the execution of the agreement it was communicated. Dif ferences soon arose, which ultimately led to the present proceedings, and to the arrest of the plaintiff by Mr. Groomridge, one of the creditors of the firm. His HONOUR directed the partnership to be dissolved, as from this day, without prejudice to any question, the defendants within 48 hours to discharge the judgment obtained by Groomridge, without prejudice to any ques tion, they to be entitled to credit in the account for what they shall pay to Groomridge. His Honour likewise directed a reference to ascertain and arrange, on equi' able terms, the interests of the respective parties. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.) IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF SAMUEL BENNETT. This bankrupt who was a draper at Islington, came up on the question of certificate. Mr. Linklater supported. The bankrupt was op posed on behalf of the Leicester. square Loan Society. '1 he ground of opposition were misrepresentation to his creditors, and the vexatious defence of an action. Mr. LINKLATER contended that his client had acted with perfect sincerity and honesty, and that at the time those representatives were made the bankrupt's books showed that he had not in any way misstated his position, and that as soon as he found himself in difficulties, he placed his affairs in the hands of accountants, who were concerned for his principal trade creditors. As regarded the second charge, the plea was put in for the purpose of preventing the Loan Society sweeping away the pro perty under an execution. The COMMISSIONER said, as the plea had been put in for the purpose of protecting the other creditors, much of the blame which would otherwise attach to such a proceeding was pardonable. Under all the circumstances he would grant the certificate. A bankrupt named Chappell, a wine merchant in Water-lane, Tower- street, came up on the question of certificate, which was suspended for two years, on the ground of reckless trading. The debts and liabilities were about 1,7001., and there was not a penny for the creditors. - POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH -STREET. A well-dressed man, who gave the name of Henry Edwards, and who is supposed to be a clergyman of the Church of England, lodging at No. 8, South ➢iolton street, was charged, before Mr. Bingham, with having indecently assaulted George Gough, a young country man, living at 42, James•street, Oxford-street. The prosecutor stated that about three o'clock on Sa turday afternoon he was proceeding along Oxford -street, when the prisoner, who is a perfect stranger to him, accosted him, and asked him to have some porter. Wit ness accepted the offer, and they went into a public house, where they had a pint of porter between them. When they came out of the house, witness thanked the prisoner and wished him good afternoon. Witness the❑ walked away, and had got as far as Regent-street, when the prisoner came up to him again and asked him if ho had been to tea. Witness replied that he had not, when the prisoner said if he would take him where be could have some tea, he (the prisoner) would pay fur it. Witness then took him to a public•house in Shepherd•street, but as they were entering the tap-room the prisoner observed some men there, and refused to go in. They had a pint of porter at the bar, and then left the house. The pri soner then took him to his lodgings in South Molten street, and desired him (witness) to wait at the door whilst he ran upstairs. The prisoner then lett him, and after a few moments' absence he came down and asked witness to follow him up stairs. Witness did so, and went into a room at the top of the house. The prisoner then gave him half-a crown, and, subse quently conducted himself in such a filthy man ner towards witness that he ran out of the house. The prisoner followed him, and on witness meeting with a constable, he gave the prisoner in charge. The constable who took the prisoner in charge said he found upon him several letters, addressed to the Rev. R. 8., 3, South Melton -street, where ho had been lodging about a week. The prisoner, who denied there being a particle of truth in the statement made by the prosecutor, was fully committed for trial. CL ERKEN WELL. William Jackson, a portly. looking man, six feet high, was brought before Mr. Combo, charged at the instance of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, with having committed a burglary in St. Pancras workhouse, and stealing twenty sovereigns and 155/, in silver. The prisoner, who has been a patient in Guy's Hos pital, with a broken leg ever since February last, was brought to the court in a cabriolet, and was supported into the presence of the bench by the officers with the aid of a pair of crutches, and his foot in a sling sus pended trom his shoulders. He appeared to suffer great pain, looked very pale, and was allowed a seat in a chair near the space allotted for solicitors. Mr. Howarth, the barrister, attended on the part of the parish to conduct the prosecution, Mr. COMM asked the prisoner if his health was sufficiently strong end restored to have the case pro ceeded with ? The prisoner replied in the affirmative, but he would prefer a postponement, as he expected Mr. Huddiestone, the barrister, whom he had retained to attend for him. After some desultory conversation it was resolved to take the necessary evidence to warrant the remand of the prisoner, when Mr. Howarth stated the case for the prosecution, which was a reiteration of circumstances which have already appeared before the public. It may be recollected that on the night of the Bth of February the strong-room in the workhouse where the property had been deposited was broken into, and, 20 sovereigns and 155/. in silver was stolen; and on the same night the prisoner was found within some area railings near the workhouse wall s ,where his cries for help brought assistance, and be was conveyed in a cabriolet to Guy's Hospital, Borough. On the following morning the robbery was discovered, some housebreaking imple ments were found in the wasbhouse, and near the spot where the prisoner made the alarm were found some skeleton keys, a large pair of list shoes, such as are used by housebreakers, and a dark lantern, &c. There was little doubt that the prisoner was the perpetrator of the robbery, and having afterwards dropped from the work house wall fell within the railings and met with the acci dent to his leg, which was of a very severe description; but there was so much mystery about the case that for some time a few of the parish functionaries were sus pected, until a reward was offered fur the discovery of the cabman who drove the prisoner on the night of the rob bery, and of the person who was attracted by the pri soner's cries and who assisted him over the railings into the cab. They were at length traced, and on the pri. Boner being visited by the officers he was identified as a returned transport. Mr. Henry M`Gahey was called, and deposed that he is son of the vestry-clerk of St. Pancras. On the night of the Bth of February last he deposited 155/. in silver and 20 sovereigns iu a box in a drawer in the strong room. On the following morning the cashbox was found empty on the floor, having been forced open, and the property was missing. Mr. Joseph Lye, compositor, of the Metropolitan buildings, St. Pancras-road, deposed that at about 12 o'clock on the night of the Bth of February last he was passing near St. Pancras Workhouse when he heard cries for help, and discovered the prisoner within some iron railings, leaning with his back against the wall. He begged of witness to help him over the railings. Wit ness asked him, " What was the matter?" and helped him over. He said that a man had thrown his hat over the railings, and on clambering over to get it again he fell, and had broken his leg. Witness said, " I had better ring the workhouse bell and obtain assistance." He objected to that, and begged of witness not to do so. He said he had no business at that end of the town; he had been drinking with some friends, and wished to avoid exposure, and would thank wi;ness it he would put him into a cab. With great difficulty he did so, and he was driven away. Mr. Howarth—How high were the railings? Wit ness—Four or five feet high. Mr. Co:nuts—Had the prisoner the appearance of be • ing drunk? Witness—He had the appearance of having been drinking a little, but he was not drunk. He was exceedingly agitated and excited. Mr. Benjamin Lawberd, of Gray's-inn, road, one of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, bad accom panied the directors to the strong-room ou the morn ing of the robbery, and found a crow bar and screw ilriver, &c. (now produced). The place had been broken I into. James Hale, an inmate pauper of the workhouse, was called, but was to druik to be e:camined, end was or dered to stand down. Jeremiah Lockerby, 180 S, being called, said he had every reason to Where that he should be enabled to EVENING, MAX 2, 1849. produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge o f felony against the prisoner it he was remanded. Mr. CONBE asked the prisoner where he lived? Pri soner replied, at Shi r l ey , en the il uaisey - iva d, ouch ampton._ Mr. Co DE said he would remand him, as ire wss anxious to have his legal advocate present, who, it 'L n a _ said by Mr. H o wa rt h, was unavoidably absent. He t " — a . remanded the prison er , w i t h instructions that all the ne : cessary evidehce should be brought forward at the Del" and final examination. SOUTH WARK. William Leigh and Augustus CrosAly, a lias Cood 4 were brought before Mr. Cottingham for re-exainin ll: Lion, charged with co ns pi r i ng to o b tain money by fal s e pretences, as agents for collecting advertisements ro the Watchman, N o n c onlarmi,st, and British Ban ner ' weekly newspapers. Three cases were select e d aga i nst L e i gh, from whiehi, it appeared th a t h e f o ll owe d the avocation of newspoPed advertisement agent, and in that capacity had solien h % advertisements trom three t ra d esmen f ur insert i on in 4 , above journals. lie bad r e c e i ve d a comm i ss i o n uP°- each advertisement from the newspaper in which it a i r peered, and there, as far as he was concerned, t h e trail e action should hav o b een at an en d . However, instead(); adhering to that course of business, it was proved tlis he subsequently called upon each of the advertisers an received the amount of the insertions, which he deffe t to his own purp oses wi t h ou t any authority from t" , parties to whom the money was due, and the discovery of this fraudul e nt mo d e o f d o i ng b usiness was broug ht !o light when the bill s were sent i n from the newspaper° is question. The necessary evidence to establish the oha r g e : against the pris oners h av i ng b een produced, and the"i solicitor (Mr. R o b erts ) h av i ng contended that it W°- not , not sufficiently strong to come within the meaning of th e Act, The MAGISTRATE expressed his intention to send tr cases for further i nvest i gat i on b efore another tribun g' and in doing so, remarked that under the circumstanc e !" as it was a bailable offence, he should adjudge the P b soners to enter into their own recognizances in 40/. eg and two sureties of 201., to answer the charges at the next sessions. LAMBETH. The Rev. John Geo, ge Hounsfekl, chaplain to the of Airl.e, and who stands fully committed to take ".1 trial at the en su i ng sess i ons at the Central Criteill" Court, on a charge of obtaining 2001 from Mr. Mast er '' a meat salesm an , by f a l se representations, was breg from llorsemo nger -l ane G aol for the purpose of pO/1"„' in the required sureties to appear and take his trial. Mr. Newton, the b arr i ster, appeared on behalf of tb C prisoner, and tendered as bail for his reverend elle fj j Sir Robert Price, of 11, S tratton street, Piccadilly, 131/f of Foxley, Hereford s hi re ( one o f the magistrates f°' that county, and M.P. for Hereford city), an d M r . Henri ,Dick Woodfall, of 14, Great Dean's yard, Westminst eh printer. A clerk to the soli c it or f or t h e prosecution said hOt the names of the parties tendering themselves as bail P . ; the prisoner h a d no t b een g i ven i n until a late hour ° Saturday eveni ng , an d t h e t i me fur inquiry was tiler:,, fore so short, that the understanding was that the g e j f ,' tlemen should not p resent t h emselves before his Wow' before four o'clock. Mr. NORTON said, h e was perfectly satisfied wit h t h 6 solvency and respectability of the gentlemen who offer ed themselves as bail, an d t h e i r sureties baviag been tel c : o 0 in 1001. each, and th e pr i soner ' s in 2001., the latter discharged from custody. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. HULL, MAY 1. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's circular state/ The past week has certainly been the most inactive, as re d gards the general business of this port, of any previous onei this year. E x p or t s o f manufactured goods are serions , : affected through th e bl oc k a d e o f the different German P r t, and from the same cause our imports of foreign grain are on to most limited scale, a n d wi ll now f al l off much more, as up to, of 30th ult neutral vesse l s were a ll owed to leave the ports they might be a t th e commencement of the blockade, our in 'i t y mation lead us to b e li eve t h at t h ere i s only amuderate on passage to this port. It may be going beyond the proving of a trade circular, but we cannot refrain from expressing v - oo s unfeigned re gre t th at t h e G overnment of the country does Le i at once, and acti ve l y i nter f ere to prevent the sad consequen c o which must accrue to every branch of our commercial inter re from the pri.sent state of affairs ; such interference w ould v , effectual, and we d ou bt not as to its practicability, This EtW ing's. letters look less l i k e peace t h an ever. During the ler et o o s the grain trad e h as b een most i nactive ; notwithstanding sr for in warehouse and fresh arrivals being very small, they ar e o f the present beyond the necessities of millers, a n d thel oo ,, course avail themsel ves o f t hi s ; not many factors, are, Poo.. ever, disposed to gi ve way i n foreign grain, and such (e the cially wheat of first quality) is for the most part held a t i o f prices of a f or t n i g h t ago. We had to day a small suPP / o f wheat from our f armers, an d a very quiet market, without notable alteratio n upon l ast week ' s prices. In foreign ths r transactions were ve r y li m i te d , h olders being equally disineii og ore with buyers to alter their ideas, but there was cer t a inly n l oo d inquiry on the p ar t o f millers. Spring corn o f a ll ki n ds a g d is deal neglected d ur i ng t h e week as well as to-day, Linsg e . ,, jo fully as dear, but c a k es are eas i er to buy. Nothing n 8 or rapeseed, while rape ca k es are t h e turn dearer. Bones sup Pv late prices. The following are the preset s. s. Wheat, English, red 42 to 46 Do. white Dant zie and Ko nigsberg 4B 50 Pomeranian and Hamburgh Danish, Holstein, & Friesland ........ 33 41 Russian and Odessa 36 44 Oats, English Do. Danish—. Do. Friesland l6 18 Do. Russ. & Odessa 14 16 Barley, malting 24 26 Do. grinding.. Beans -32 Do. foreign ...... 26 30 it prices of grain : S. 25 24 -4 `, 1 39 34 -- 57 51 oa 5 ; 32 ! o p, po i 6d, Linseed ca —es, 71 1`2 5 Do. fine foreign . 61 Do. inferi or foreig . n .". ..... 51 51 , Rapeseed 26i to 308 Rape cak es ............ 03 Tares, English 00 0 Do. foreign 203 261 Guano 6l to 91 " Bones, do 96s Od to 97s Bt l Eve meal .. 61 ..................... ! Peas, white and yel. Do. grey ...... . ••• Linseed, Black Sea. Do. Petersburgh ..• Do. Riga & Arehngl. Do. Konigsberg .... • IPSWICH, MAY 1. The wheat trade is again very heavy, and sales could not b : made without a re d uct i on o f is to 2s per quarter. 811.1; corn no alteration i n p r i ces . M a l t very dull. Flour 101'1 downwards in price. PER QUA RTER ., rEa.-" Ig 3 11 1; Wheat 4 os to 49 s 43 eans Barley ... Oats 2 17 1: t t o o 2 2 3 1 :iF sI‘i l a ou lt r, P; ... 3 4 5 7 : t t ° o 41 Rye AVERAGES FOR TILE WEEK ENDING APRIL 28, 18 49 • Wheat Barley Oats ... ••.• Peas Beans 46 28s. 1d• LivEaroor, MAY I.—Thi s morning's market was s° l ' o ~if well attended by b uyers from a distance as of late, still Sal I)° , sale was expe r i ence d f or w h eat, at a decline of Id per to on all qualiti es f rom l ast T uesday. American lour was 3' 6d per barrel lower, with a slow sal e . Good rnealing oath being scarce, w ere d per bushel dearer, but inferior satriP were neglected. Oatmeal fully supported late rates. Mi lle t beans, and peas were unaltered in value. The principal bur„, nesa of the day was i n I n di an corn, for which there was seti competition, and th e d ec li ne of F r i day, noted above, was f°lif ; recovered ; 33s 6d pe r 48o1b s was t h e closing figure for t' , best American yellow, and 31, 6d for best white. DALKEITII MEAL MARKET, APRIL 30.—At this °O i l, market there were 144 bags oatmeal, and 10 of barleyloe There were also 5 b ags o f pot barley in market, which was t :b - e sold ; oatmeal sam e on the top, b ut down 6d per bag on 'l4 second and third qua li t i es ; barleymeal up 3d per bag on ta* second price. Oatmeal, per sack, of 280 lbs. First Second Third imperial .. ... 27s Od 26s 6d 255 ed 6d Barley meal, p er ditt o ... 20s Od 19 1 9d 195 m y Peasemeal —s Od — s Od —1 oc n . Flour .. ••• —s Od —s Od Pot barley ••• ••• •.• —s Od O a CORK, APRIL 30.—Flour—Firsts I4s O to 14s 6d; extra d„ seconds, 13s Od to I3s 6d; households 10s to 12s ; thirds 85 to 1t t per cwt. Oatmeal 12s to 12s 64; Indian meal 8s 6d to 9s; ire„7: meal, lOs 6d to 1I s per cwt. Indian corn 8/ 28 6dto 8/10s pet' t t; Bran 41 to 415 s per ton. Hay—Farmers 28s 6d to 41s; average v ' t .i dealers 42s to 48s ; average 45s Od per ton. Straw—Fitl o ,, A e— , 16s Od to 29s Od; average 235; dealers 00s 04 to 001 vu„' average 00s Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 6d to 811 1 :', household loaf 5d to 51d per 41b. Fresh butter, B t - . 9d per lb. Coals —Newport 16s; Lydney 175 ; Landore 16 ,„" Best Neath Culm 14s per ton. Tallow 43s 6d to per cwt. Whisky, 25 o. p., 6s Od per imperial lon. Meat—Beef 4d to 7d; Mutton 5d to 6/d; /6 OO to 7d ; pork 4d t o 51d ; b acon 7d to 8d ; sausages 6d P er lb. Hop s 61 10s per cwt. B angor s l ates 312 s 6d to 3155 Y er ton. Bark—Barbary 81 to 8/ 105; Valonia 01 t o ol ; Fren°'" k 7 / 1 0a; English 01 per ton. Fleece Wool 105 to 12s per stoli Hemp 34/ t o 361 p er t on. Fi s h — Scotch herrings 181 to 19s; ditto 26, to 28s per barrel ; Newfoundland 10/ 10s to 121 ril r ton. Timber—New Memel 4110 s; o ld scarce; re d pine •5 153 ; yellow pine 31 p er t on ; d ea l s, f i rst quality, 201; secon d quality 171 per 120. Hides—Market 10s to 161; salted 11s w 16s per cwt ; calf skins 2d t o 20 ; mar k et 2d to 2id per lb' Potatoes, white 10d to 12d; Mi n i ons 18d to 20d; Guano_, l Peruvian, 111 t o 11110 s ; I c h a b oe 91 per ton ; Tar—Archang► 18s per barrel. Eggs, 4s to 45 2d per hundred. We learn that the Tallowchandlers' Compaq have presented a donation of 101. 10s. to the Lamb 213 Flag Ragged Schools, through their Chaplain, the 10/9. Doctor llughes. METHS. On the 26th ult., at Atkins-road, Clapham -park, the of J. blieholson. Esq., of a daughter. On the 27th ult., at Woodhouse, Leicestershire, the lady of T. Cradock, Esq., of a daughter. it. On the zith ult., at Butlei g h- v i carage, Somerset, the • w of the Rev. W. I+'. Neville, of a daug rtots hter. On the 27th ult., at Teignmouth, Devon, the wife of %,--= 11. Lugard, Royal Lngineers, of a son. On the 28th ult., at Rutland-gate, Hy - de-park, the w-- - ;r8 of F. P. Barlow, Esq., jun of a daughter. MARRIED. At Wilton L e W ear, in the county of Durham, on the .2nfla ''", ult., by the R ev. L awrence Browne, the Rev. Henry Mgr, non Baumgartner, son of John Thomas Baumgartner, of Milton-house, near Cambridge, to Frances Octavia, fourt h daughter of George Hut on Wilkinson, of thirperly-P° r Recorder of Newcas le-upon-Tyne, and Judge of the Coa Court of Northumberland. On the 25th u l t., at Walcot Church, Bath, the Rev. C o Evans, 8.A., Mi n i s t er of Portland Chapel, Bath, to e stance, eldest d aug h ter of t h e late Rev. Arthur Hugh z-eta, son, rector of Foxearth, Essex. On the 2 . 3 th ult., at St. Pancras, Euston-square, Parka Pittar, Esq., to Rosalie, eldest daughter of Joshua MaYlle A r Esq., of Fitzroy-square. On the 26th u l t., at Hampstead Church, Thomas Hick' A i o Eq., of Leed s , t o R e b ecca, eldest daughter of the late .T" Russell, Esq., of Maidenhead, Berks. DIED. On the 27th ult., Thomas Blaiklock, Esq., of Stockwell villas, Stockwell, aged 81. On the 27th ult., Mr. W. Flanagan, of Mansion- I) W e ' street, City, aged 78; also, on the 28th ult., Mrs. Sarah Fir nagan, wite of the above, aged 68. w ar oe, On the 27th u lt . , age d 2i, at Oxford, Will i am T. T , o f scholar of St. J, College, eldest son of Mr. W. Warne' Prospect -place, Old :irompton. n r bet On the 28th ult., a t L ym i ngton, H ants, Ch ar l es St. Esq. ; F.A.S., a c. London; Printed an d P u bli s h e d b y MURDO YOULN ol Nu. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, Na , strand, in Il4e Precinct of the savoy, in the cOVIIIV taiddlevai, Wednesday, /gay 2, 149,