The Sun. — London, England, 1834-04-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. In our first notice of the trial at Dorchester, and of the sentence passed on the six delinquent labourers, we intimated an opinion that the pu nishment to which those poor men were destined might be considered too severe. This feeling, appears to have gained much strength through out the country, and to have produced represen tations from more than one quarter to his Ma jesty's Government in favour of a mitigation of the sentence. It is always essential, in the ad ministration of justice, to make manifest the pre vise nature of the crime for which a penalty is to be inflicted ; and thus to clear away all sha dow of suspicion from the public mind, that ad vantage has been taken of the letter of the law, by prosecuting a man for one offence, ih itself a matter of little real moment ) as the only means of insuring his chastisement for another offence, morally and 11 1 bstantially of a graver character, which may be thought desirable to punish. In the case of the Dorset shire labovirers, the formal charge against them was that of administering arid being bound by secret, and therefore unlawful oaths ; whereas the real gravamen of their guilt was their form ing a dangerous union, to force up, by various modes of intimidation and restraint, the rate of labourers' wages. The nominal offence, how ever, was that of which they were found guilty, and for which they were sentenced to seven years' transportation ; while the proceedings— to wit, acts of coercion, violence, &c., for which they would be justly thought deserving of serious punishment —.wer e kept in the back ground, or at least were not brought so forward as to satisfy men's minds that an offence suffi ciently malignant and dangerous in itself, was legally proved against the prisoners; in short, that they were sentenced according to law for the only crime which was of any politi cal importance. All freemasons and all orange nur-n, as is rightly stalkki by an evening contem porary, might with equal justice be sentenced to transportation for the fact of having taken secret and unlawful oaths as these poor ignorant fel lows.- The dilemma in which the prosecution tands, then, is this—the crime which called for punishment was not proved—the crime brought home to the prisoners did not justify the sentence. There is yet another considera tion which might, we think, induce Ministers to deal mercifully with these delinquents. The conabinati(ms of country labourers never can be one-te.lith as pernicious to society as those by wliich the manufacturing towns are tormented. `The leaders and instigators of these latter unions are, for the most part, selfish, worthless, and designing men--desperate in circumstances and in temper--who never fail to impress the vicious features of their own minds upon the mea sures and characters of the collective bodies whit confide in their skill, and blindly submit to their man affement. These men care not a single straw for the welfare of the working classes, or the rate of wages. On the contrary, they regard the at tainment of their ostensible objects as a certain death-blow to their own power, which agitation prolongs, while victory would subvert it. Such are the criminals whom it would be justice to attack, and a public benefit to punish. In stead of receiving deputations such as have had the boldness to besiege the Home Secretary as dictators, in the guise of supplicants, to command the pardon of the six agricultural convicts, it would have been a more gratifying spectacle to the public to see some of, these pa trons of turbulence and mischief change places with their clients, and the real stimulators to outrage against the law become the exclusive victims of their own machinations. However, we do hope that mercy may yet be shown. The state of the law must now be a matter of uni versal notoriety, and the same practices, we ven ture to anticipate, will not be repeated.— Times. The Marylebone vestry meeting, of which we gave a brief sketch in our paper of yesterday, shows that the proposed alteration of the poor laws is not likely to be carried without some re sistance. We do not regret this, because from the collision of opinions we expect a more equi table and beneficial settlement of the question than if the public had been driven by their fears or their aversions into a slavish adoption of the government measure, without any exercise of their own judgment upon its provisions. It is now generally understood that the report of the poor law commissioners will form the ground work of the government plan. That report has been for some time in circulation, and the multi tude of pamphlets, and letters, and commentaries in all shapes, which have since issued from the press, are so many proofs of the anxiety with which the public mind has been directed to the subject. Happily, however, the alarm—for it is not too strong a Phrase to designate the sort of emotion with which the evils of the present poor laws are contemplated—happily, the alarm is not likely to produce a blind and headlong rush into the first project that offers without a clue investigation of the pretensions which are put forth in its behalf. At the vestry meeting of Saturday last, the one to which our observa tions refer, some indication was given of the ob jections most likely to be urged against the ex pected measure. We shall take them as they appear to us in the order of their relative hn portance. The first to which we would direct attention, because of its importance, is the ob- jection made by Lord Kenyon to the principle of entrusting the Government with the manage ment of parochial affairs. Our readers may re collect that on the first publication of the com missioners' report we objected to this very part of the plan. It is not an unreasoning jealousy which dictates caution and doubt as to the pro- priety of any change that includes an increase of the power of Government. We are aware that it is usual to answer such objections with a flourish upon the nature of responsibility and the security it affords against abuse. Such was the defence set up for that most unconsti tutional measure, the New Police Act. But it should never be forgotten that every ad dition to the power of Government is an ab straction from its responsibility, so that the ar gument may be said to shrink, and its virtue to diminish at each successive application. But,' in - Addition to the constitutional difficulties which we feel upon this subject, there are local advantages attending the administration of poor laws by the parishes themselves, not easy to be realised in any other regulation. Those who pay the rates have so great an interest in keep ing them down, and such obvious facilities in ascertaining the wants and detecting the impo sitions - of applicants, that we confess we should feel more . confidence in any modification of the system which retained that part of the present machinery than in a total change, in which a new machinery is to be adopted, liable to all the casualties and disadvantages of an untried expe riment. It is true that great abuses have arisen under the self-management of the _parishes. But those abuses are now known. The mere animal docility of the species would warrant us in relying upon their cordial co-operation with the government in any attempt to correct such abuses, rather than have recourse to the strong, we had Alniost said the desperate, alternative of trusting every thing to the government itself. The next objection we would notice is that suggested by Mr. Wilson to the plan for the abolition of out-door relief. We confess that we were inclined to think favourably of such an arrangement, in the first instance, as a check to imposture, and an impediment to the advance of pauperism and demoralisa tion. But we hesitate as to its practicability. Its effect must be, unless we calculate on the great majority of those who receive out-door relief being imposters, to fill the workhouses to overflowing, besides producing a mass of misery which it is frightful to contemplate, even in imagination. The great danger is lest, in our anxiety to amend the law, we should overlook the obligations of humanity. It is natural for the inhabitants of Marylebone to object, as Sir Samuel Whalley did, on their behalf, to the union of their parish, where the poor rates amount only to is. 10d. in the pound, with parishes that pay as much as 14s. or 15s. in the pound. But it is natural at the same time for those who pay the heavier rate to wish for the partnership, and to wish for it on the very ground that makes the other party object to it —the ground of their own interest. But the question is not how either of the two parishes may feel inclined to the union, but whether justice and policy do or do not require that the pressure of the poor rates should be equalised as far as possible throughout the kingdom, and whether the union of parishes be not an im portant and necessary step towards the accom plishment of that object. This last-mentioned objection appears to. us to be weaker than either of the preceding. But we shall keep our minds free from all improper bias, and will give due consideration to the reasoning of Sir Sa .muel Whalley when he comes to support his opinion by the considerations which have in duced him to adopt it. As we propose return ing to the subject soon again, we shall break off here for the present, recommending a carefu consideration of it to every class• of the emu munity, who are equally interested in the resu —Morning Herald. We collect from the expressions which Lord Melbourne is reported to have used to the de putation of the Trades' Unions on Saturday last, as well as from the altered language of the Ministerial press, that Government, as we anti cipated, are about to succumb to those dange rous and powerful confederacies in the matter of the Dorsetshire convicts. Feeling that the duty of urging the necessity of a severe administra• tion of the law in the case of individual offenders is a most painful one, we should willingly have abstained from any further allusion to this sub ject ; but upon a question which appears to us to touch the vital interests of society, we think ourselves bound to say that, notwithstanding the sudden and entire change which the policy of Government appears to have undergone, we ad here to the opinions we have already expressed. The Globe prepares the public for the submission of the King's Government to the dictate of the Trades' Unions after the following fashion : " The strongest ground on which the remission of the sentence passed on the Dorsetshire labourers can be sought for is this--that the circumstance of the members being bound by oaths can affect in a very trivial degree, for good or for evil, the character of combinations. The experience of combinations shows that the sanction of an oath is not necessary to bind the members together; the fear of the resentment of great numbers of their equals and associates is security enough that the engagements entered into by the mem bers will not be lightly disregarded. The real mis chief of such a combination as tEat in Dorsetshire— the evil which should be prosecuted, if at all—is the act of combination under such rules as the Labourers' Union submitted to. If, as the legislature seems to have said, such a combination, cemented by mutual promises and mutual fears, be perfectly innocent, the punishwent which has been awarded for the merea ci- dent—which, if the conspirators had been crafty, t ey might have avoided—of an oath seems certainly to be severe." Whatever truth there is in this is certainly not very recondite truth, and must already, we should imagine, have been fully considered by ministers before Sir James Graham expressed, in the House of Commons, their opinion that the case did not call for the intervention of the Royal prerogative of mercy. But upon exami . nation it will not, we think, appear to contain much of what is true. The administration of the oath taken by the Dorsetshire labourers is not a mere accident. It is in morals and in law a substantive offence. If the Legislature seems to have said that such a combination as theirs, cemented by mutual promises and mu tual fears, is perfectly innocent, it has distinctly said that an oath binding men to secrecy, to obey committees, &c., when introduced into such a combination, is highly criminal. Neither does it appear to us to be true that the circum stance of the members being bound by oaths can only affect in a very trivial degree, for good or for evil, the character of combinations. this circumstance separates more completely han is otherwise possible such combinations from the general body of society ; it renders their proceedings more unapproachable, mys terious, and alarming ; it strengthens the con fidence of the members in the fidelity of each other to the purposes of the confederacy, be they good or evil ; it facilitates the process by which such confederacies naturally swerve into crimes not in their original contemplation ; and it pollutes and discredits the only evidence by means of which they can eventually be made amenable to the laws of their country. With greater wisdom than that which the Legislature has displayed in tolerating combinations, it has pronounced that the distinctive circumstance of oath or no oath is any thing rather than trivial. —Morning Post. A WARNING WELL TAKEN.—When I began business I was a great politician. My master's shop had been a chosen place for political discussion ; and there, I suppose, I acquired my fondness for such debates. For the first year, I had too much to do and to think about, t o i n d u l ge my propensity for politics ; but, after getting a little a-head in the world, I began to dip into these matters again. Very soon I entered as deeply into newspaper argument as if my livelihood depended on it ; my shop was often filled with loungers, who came to canvass public measures ; and now and then I went into my neighbours' houses on a similar errand. This encroached on my time, and I found it necessary sometimes to work till midnight, to make up for the hours I lost. One night, after my shutters were closed, and I was busily employed, some little urchin who was passing the street put his mouth to the key-hole of the door, and, with a shrill pipe, called out, " Shoemaker, shoemaker ! work by night and run about by day !" " And did you, inquired the friend, " pursue the boy with your stirrup, to chastise him for his insolence ?" " No, no," replied Mr. Drew; " had a pistol been fired off at my ear, I could not have been more dismayed or confounded. I dropped my work, sayidg to myself, True, true ; but you shall never have that to say of me again.' " I have not yet forgotten it, and while I recollect anything I never shall.—Autobiography of Samuel Drew. APPEALS. HOUSE OF LORDS, 111.1r.cii 31. (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR, &C.) SCOT V. STEWART. This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Session in Scotland, and involved a question as to the liability of a surety. The facts appeared as fol lows :—The late James Stewart, Esq., of Burgh, died intestate in March, 1811, leaving the respondent, an only child and infant, without guardians, on which the Court appointed a Mr. Allcock to manage the property as factor in loco tzdoris, but whose factory was recalled in 1814, with the intention of applying to the Barons of Exchequer for a gift of tutory, which was obtained hi favour of Mrs. Maria Stewart, the mother of the respondent, the late Mr. Thomas Strong, his uncle, and Mr. Alexander Ste venson, and bore date the 2d of June, 1814. These parties being required to give a security for the due performace of their duties, granted, along with James Baikie, Esq., of Tanlzerness, as their cautioner and co-obligant, a bond, obliging themselves jointly and severally, and their heirs, executors, &c., " to make just compt, reckoning, and payment to the said pupil of all intromissions, omissions, commissions, and acts of management had by them by virtue of the said gift." The parties entered upon their duties, Mr. Alexander Stevenson taking the active management of the property, who was afterwards, in April, 1819, appointed their factor, by a deed of commis sion and factory, when he granted a bond in conjunction with Mr. Scot (the appellant) e as cautioner, and co-obligant to account for his intromissions. Under this commission he imme diately acted. In August, 1820, Mr. Strong died, when it was contended on the part of the ap pellant that a considerable balance was due from the estate of Mr. Stevenson. This, however, was in some measure denied by the respondent. Mr. Stevenson, however, continued to act till February, 1825, when the respondent became of age, when it was contended a debt of about 2,0001. was due from Mr. Stevenson, who soon after becoming em barrassed, his estate was sequestrated, when an action was brought against the principals and the securities to recover the amount, and obtain an account. Mr. Baikie, the cautioner under the original bond, having carried on proceedings in the Court of Session for the purpose of having it established that the tutory, as being a joint nomina tion, without power to a quorum or survivor, fell by the death of any of the nominees, and had therefore terminated by the death of Mr. Strong in August, 1820, in which opinion he was supported by the decision of Lord Cringletie, in June, 1822, who ordered the surviving tutors to lodge a full account of their intromissions, which was done accordingly. Other proceedings, however, afterwards took place upon this point, and the decision of Lord Cringletie was overruled by the Court. An action was also brought against Mr. Stevenson and the trustee on his sequestrated estate, and against the appellant as his cautioner, in which they concluded for compt and reckoning- of Mr. Stevenson's intromissions till the 23d of February, 1825 ; which was met by the appellant denying his liability after the death of Mr. Strong, in August, 1820, contending that not the factory only, but the tutory itself, expired at that date, and that Mr. Stevenson being one of the tutors, as well as factor, it could not be held to be so tutorial an act that it could have subsisted as long as the tutory ; for if Mrs. Stewart had died it could not have stood, the factor himself being sole tutor, which could not be, and the factory therefore must necessarily fall ; that if the factory fell, Mr. Scot could not be liable to the intromissions of Mr. Stevenson as tutor ; and if the factory did not fall, Mr. Scot's obligation as cautioner fell by Mr. Strong's death. The Lord Advocate and Mr. Knight appeared for the appellant, and Dr. Lushington for the re spondent. After the conclusion of the argument, The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was a case of very great importance with respect to the law and practice of tutory, and after going minutely through the arguments of counsel, and the cases cited, said, as at present advised he was disposed to recommend their Lordships to reverse the judgment of the Court below, but in order that a more satisfactory answer than had been given might be made with respect to the returns from the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, he would advise that judgment should at present be postponed.—Judgment postponed. WEIR V. GLENNY AND OTHERS. On this case being called, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he appeared for the appellant, in conjunction with the Lord Advo cate, and most earnestly solicited their Lordships to decide the question mooted on Saturday last— namely, whether the Lord Advocate of Scotland or the Attorney-General of England had priority at their Lordships' bar. He did not mean to urge his claim to lead as a personal matter, but solely on account of supporting the dignity of the office which he had the honour to hold. There was one con sideration of great importance which he felt himself bound to state to their Lordships, which he thought very material to support his view,—that the Attor ney-General had precedence at their bar—namely, that by the ancient law of Parliament there was a writ from the King directed to the King's Attorney- General, by virtue of which he was entitled to a seat on the woolsack. He thought this very mate rial, as it was a privilege which he believed the Lord Advocate would not deny did not belong even to the Scotch or Irish judges, who, if they appear in that house, must appear at their Lordships' bar. The LORD CHANCELLOR—What you say is very correct, that there was a writ from the King giving such privilege, but it went also to the King's Ser geant. Therefore it is not decisive. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It may not be de cisive, but I believe the King's Advocate never en joyed any such privilege. The LORD CHANCELLOR—And the King's At torney-General did, in the trial which was alluded to the other day, lead the King's Advocate. In ancient times the Attorney-General was in that house, as had been stated ; and the connexion was such that Sir F. Bacon was the first Attorney-Ge neral who was allowed a seat in the House of Com mons. • It was supposed his duties in the House of Lords were, incompatible with those in the House of Commons ; but now he is allowed a seat in that house.—(A laugh.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It will be for your lordships to determine which office of the two has priority, or, if the offices be equal, whether it will depend on priority of appointment ; but it is my duty to see that the office which I have the honour of holding loses none of its dignity or privileges whilst in my possession. The LORD CHANCELLOR---Will you allow me to mention, that I find by an order of the house, of the date of the 13th of June, 1685, " neither an Attorney-General nor any other person, after taking his seat on the woolsack, shall be allowed to a ppear as counsel at the bar of this house for any private per son whose case may be brought before the house ?" The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lords, I am fully aware of such order, because Mr. Sergeant Lens did appear at the bar of the house after having taken his seat on the woolsack, when Lord Eldon intimated to him that, having taken his seat on the woolsack, he could no longer appear at your lordships' bar ; but this is an ingredient worth con sideration when your lordships decide this very im portant question. The LORD ADVOCATE—I hope your Lordships will give me a little further time for consideration before I am called upon to argue the question, for I have only recently heard that the rank and dignity of the Lord Advocate of Scotland was once made the subject of a solemn argument, not before your Lordships, but before that eminent man Lord Mansfield. Before, therefore, deciding this ques tion, I should like to have time to prepare myself. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It iS quite impossible now that this question can be decided. The LORD ADVOCATE—Perhaps I may be al lowed to mention a parallel case to that referred to by my learned friend in connexion with the former right to a seat on the woolsack. The Lord Advo- cate had by ancient right a seat in the Scotch parlia ment with the Peers and Commons. ri „, n LORD CHANCELLOR—Why that would not do much for you, because that was a right which might have been claimed by a burger of Dunferm line.—(A laugh.) Your claim, my Lord Advocate, is of this nature,—it is not confined to Scotch cases. There is no distinction at this bar between English, Irish, and Scotch cases,—it is an imperial court. You might argue at the present moment on a writ of error brought to this bar from one of the law courts. Sir J. Dalrymple, a Scotch barrister, whose historical knowledge was highly appreciated, argued a case at this bar with respect to literary property,—a ques tion of considerable importance. Your proposition, if admitted, would go to this—that you have a right to lead the Attorney-General in an ex officio or other information filed by himself in the Court of Exche quer. You must go en under prOtest. The Loan ADVOCATE, by arrangement, then opened the case, which was in part heard, and fur ther consideration adjourned. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Mrs. Morgan, the wife of an artificial hatcher of chickens, and egg-baker, was summoned before the Lord Mayor, charged with having beaten a very diminutive cr ippl e , w ho called herself Miss Smith. The complainant, whose height cannot ex ceed 32 or 33 inches, toddled into the Justice-room upon a pair of crutches, of which she appeared to have as great a command as if they were her own wholesome flesh and blood. When she came for ward to give evidence, the Lord Mayor begged that she would stand up ; and Mr. Brown, the Marshal, having moved a chair into the witness-box, took her up in his hand, and placed her upon it. The complainant stated that she occasionally worked for Mrs. Morgan, who lodged in the same house, No. 7, Bishopsgate-buildings. Upon going into Mrs. Morgan's room one day, however, offence was taken by that lady, who flew at her like wink ing, struck her a violent blow over the eye, which stretched her ; she then took her up, and planted her upon one of the upp er s h e l ves , w h ere s h e re mained bawling for assistance, until the neighbours entered, and took her down from her perilous situation. The LORD MAYOR—This is a most extraordi nary affair. Have you any witnesses ? Miss Smith —Yes, my Lord. There's Tom Hitchins ;he seed how it were. Mr. Hitchins, who had a particularly-dirty face, then stepped forward, and said, " I never seed a female woman so cruelly flummoxed in all my days, as this here little body were, please you my Lord, and there an't a civiller creatur on earth nor she. Blest if they didn't knock her about like a dead cat." The LORD MAYOR—Did any one strike her be sides the defendant? Mr. Hitchins—Lord bless you, all on 'em was upon her. The LORD MAYOR—How could that be, when she was upon the shelf when you went in Mr. Hitchins—But if you seed the sitivation she was in, please you, my Lord, you'd swear they was all a sarving her out. Vy, she was all of a smoke just as if they'd been a hatching of her in their oven.— (Laughter.) The defendant—Don't believe a word Tom Hit chins says, please you, my Lord ; he's her fancy man ; ax him where he lives. Mr. Hitchins—Go along with you. I only looks arter her to see she arn't murdered by such warmint as you.—{Laughter.) The Loßn MAYOR—Pray, Mr. Hitchins, if I may be so bold as to ask, where do you live ? Mr. Hitchins—Vy, my Lord, I lives in Bishopsgate buildings. The LORD MAYOR—In the same house with Miss Smith ? Mr. Hitchins—Vy, yes, please your Lordship, I does live in the same house. The LORD MAYOR—In the same room ? Mr. Hitchins—ln the same room ! Vy, it is in the same room.—(A laugh.) The LORD MAYOR—How many beds are there in the room ? Mr. Hitchins—Vy, you see, my Lord, I'm blest if there's room for more nor one.— (Great laughter.) Defendant—There. Can your Lordship believe a vord such a feller would say ? The LORD MAYOR—But their acquaintance to gether does not justify you in treating the poor little woman so harshly. What have you to say in your defence ? Defendant—Why, my Lord, she's as fierce as a tiger. She did no more when she corned in but she cotches my thumb in her mouth, and al most bites it in two. Complainant—Oh, Tom Hitchins, do you hear that ? Did I bite her, Tom ? Mr. Hitchins--Bite her ! Blowed if you could bite anything whatsom diver. Vy, please your Lordship, she an't got nivir a tooth in the vorld, and Tom took her by the head, pulled open her mouth, and exhibited her boneless gums. Look here. There's a mouth to bite with. Blest if I an't obliged to soften her wittles for her, or she'd starve.—(Laughter.) Mr. Hobler Why, Mrs. Morgan, don't you know the difference between a suck and a bite ? —(Laughter.) The LORD MAYOR—And do you work at no trade, Mr. Hitchins ? Defendant—No, my Lord, never since this little voman got hold on him ; and he is a good breeches-maker as ever drawed a needle. Mr. Hitchins—Bleeve you. I'm able and willing too. I'd make you so good a fit that I'm blest if you wouldn't look as though you pulled your breeches off instead of pulling them on, if they was a good brown flesh colour.—(Great laughter.) The LORD MAYOR—It is the more disgraceful in you to live upon the labour of this poor little object. Mr. Hitchins—Vy, my Lord, she can't live with out me. Ax her if I don't keep her traps together ; besides, I never throw's away a job. The husband of the defendant (a very big-headed and punch-bellied little man) said in a very hoarse voice, " It's well I warn't there, plase you my Lord; for this here tailor was the most obstropelousist wa gabond as ever crossed shins. He called my wife such a name, as I'm blest if I wouldn't ha crumbled him under my foot, or smashed him out o'windy like a chamber wessel. The LORD MAYOR—As you live in the same house, it is much better for you to make up this lifference. Mrs. Morgan—With all my heart, my Lord ; I bears the young woman no hannimosity, and I've got a bit of a job for her at home. Miss Smith—Much obliged to you, Mrs. Mor gan ; you always paid me like a lady. Mr. Hitchins—She's the best pay in the whole buildings, and Mr. Morgan is the most respectablest man as ever I seed. - _ Mr. Morgan—l don't say, plase your Lordship, as Mr. Hitchins or this here lady as goes upon crutches, was to blame. You see, my Lord, when people gets angry, I'm blest if they don't think every body's bad but themselves. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. A footman named Handyn, in the service of . Lady Mackenzie, No. 17, Clarges-street, and a female of loose character, were put to the bar, yesterday, be fore Mr.CHA MBERS, under the following charges : Policeman C 30, about three o'clock on Monday morning, saw the female prisoner come out of the house of her ladyship, and knowing what sort of a character she was, he made her go back, for the purpose of ascertaining what her business had been there. When he went down the area, he soon dis covered that the female had been admitted into the house by the footman, of courso without the know ledge of any part of the family, and as it was not unlikely that some of the plate might have been pur loined, the woman was searched, but nothing, ex cept some broken victuals and a wine-glass, was found upon her. The footman got into an altercation with witness, and drew a formidable Highland dirk, with which he made a stab at him ; but witness fortu nately stepped aside, and avoided th e thrust, which, if it had taken effect, must have been attended with fatal consequences ; witness then seized the male prisoner, and a desperate scuffle ensued, in which witness had his thumb nearly bitten through, and received a great many kicks and blows, but he succeeded, with assistance, in lodging him in the station-house. The footman, in defence, pleaded intoxication. Mr. CHAMBERS remarked, that such conduct as he had practised in bringing such a female into a respectable house, was the way that so many rob beries occurred. For the assault he should fine him 51., and direct that the female prisoner be discharged. A person employed in some works in the Vaux hall-road, was charged by his wife with having as saulted her, and turned her out of doors. The wife, a good looking young woman, had been married about eight years, the first four of which she passed in comparative comfort with her husband. About four years ago, her sister came up to town, from Yorkshire, to learn the straw-bonnet making, but she had not been in London but a very few months, before she formed a criminal connexion with her brother-in-law, which had continued up to the present time. Her sister, in fact, had usurped her place in her husband's affections, and had ultimately led to her being deprived of a home. The wife pro ceeded to state, that her husband had frequently turned her out of bed to make room for her sister, and that for some time past, she had been compelled to sleep in one room while her sister and her hus band slept in another. Mr. CHAMBERS, having been informed that the sister was outside, desired her to be sent for into the office. Having asked the defendant what he had to say to the charge, the man admitted that he had turned his wife out of doors, and alleged, as a reason, the repeated infidelities he had detected. When asked about his sister-in-law, he, in the most unblushing manner, confessed that he had taken to her, and he appeared quite unable to understand how such dis gusting conduct could be at all reprehensible. The sister, who was present, with the same scan dalous effrontery, neither admitted nor denied the fact, but attempted to extenuate such a proceeding by referrinc , ° to the unfaithful con d uc t o f h er s i s t er . The wife denied that she had acted otherwise than correctly towards her husband, and accused her sister of having frequently come into her husband's bed when she was sleeping with him. Mr. CHAMBERS stopped the disgusting dis closures by ordering the man to find bail. GUILDHALL. Yesterday the question whether a pawnbroker is bound to restore stolen property which has been pawned with him, where the thief has not been ap prehended, came before Sir C. MARSHALL. It appeared that a clock, value 61., was stolen from the house of Mary Bockett, a widow of Cock-lane. It having been ascertained that it had been pledged for 21. with Mr. Franklin, of Newgate-street, Mr. Franklin was summoned to produce it before the magistrate ; but, as he paid no attention to this, a search-warrant was issued. Mr. Franklin said, that after the clock was pledged, a woman came into the shop and wanted it to be delivered up, as she said it had been pawned by her drunken husband. He refused, and he was then told the clock had been stolen ; upon which he said it should be delivered up on the conviction of the thief. Sir C. MARSHALL said that Chief Justice Den man had decided that the pawnbroker was bound to restore the property whether the thief was appre hended or not. The robbery having been proved, Sir C. MAR SHALL ordered the restoration of the clock to the complainant. BO W-STREET. Yesterday being the adjourned licensing day, Mr. Thomas Jackson, the proprietor of the Globe dining rooms and hotel, in Bow-street, applied that a license for the sale of wine, beer, &c., should be granted to him as occupier of the above hotel. A number of signatures of respectable persons residing in the vicinity, including those of the rector, curate, and lecturer of the parish, were attached to the petition, in support of its prayer. A petition was put in, signed by Mrs. Douglas and Mrs. Harrison, occupiers of public-houses in Bow-street, praying that a license might not be granted to Mr. Jackson. This petition was also signed by many respectable persons, supporting the prayer of the petitioners. - The magistrates were of opinion that there were already sufficient public-houses in the parish, and the license was in consequence refused. Mr. Jackson has, on four different occasions, made application for a license to his house, but has each time been unsuccessful. QUEEN-SQUARE. Yesterday a fellow, who stated that he resided in George-street, Bloomsbury, was brought up in cus tody and placed at the bar before Mr. GREGORIE, charged with extorting one sovereign from Mr. George Glanville, the landlord of the Salutation public-house, in Barton -street, near Westminster Abbey, under the following circumstances : Mr. Glanville stated that he had a house which he was having repaired, and the prisoner, who was an entire stranger, called upon him and told him that he intended to lay an information against him under the Sewers' Act, for some drains that were making at his house, if he did not give him some thing to suppress the information. He told him to go about his business, but, on after consideration, thinking that it was a mere attempt to extort money from him, he sent a person after the prisoner, who agreed to suppress the information on payment of one sovereign. He asked the prisoner if he would give him a written undertaking not to lay any infor mation against him if he gave him a sovereign, and he replied he would with pleasure. A written do cument was then drawn out to that effect, which the prisoner signed, and he gave him a sovereign, and then gave him into custody. Mr. Glanville here handed the document to the Bench, which was a receipt for the sovereign, and a promise not to lay any information against him. Mr. GREGORIE, after looking at it, said that he could not make anything of the case. He had acted very indiscreetly in giving the prisoner a sovereign. Mr. Glanville said that he did it for the best ; he saw at once that it was an attempt to extort money from him, and he wished to bring such a fellow to justice. The inspector on duty said that the sovereign given to the prisoner was in the hands of the police ; they had taken it from him when he was searched at the station-house. Mr. GREGORIE said that he was glad to hear it, and directed the inspector to give Mr. Glanville the sovereign, and the prisoner might take his under taking. The fellow was then discharged!!! ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Noitwicn, BlAtten 29. (Before the Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.) Two respectably-dressed young men, who gave their names Joseph and William Jones, were capi tally indicted for assaulting Francis Molton, an artist of Norwich, on the King's highway, and taking from his person a silver watch and some money. The prisoners were strangers in Norwich, and the names which they gave were supposed not to be their real names. Their appearance was far above that of the ordinary class of prisoneis charged at the present day with highway robbery, and reminded one of a former time when the busi ness of a highwayman was a more " genteel" occu pation than it has been of later years, when such characters as the " handsome Gilderoy" and the gallant Captain Macheath are considered but the creatures of poetic fiction, who never had any living representatives, except perhaps on the stage. The case against the prisoners was, that on the evening of the 6th of August last Mr. Molton was walking in the Mile-end-road, one of the suburbs of Norwich, with a lady, when suddenly two well dressed young men, one of whom wore a black mask, made an assault upon them. One of the robbers held the lady while the man in the mask mastered the prosecutor and rifled his pockets, and having taken what money he had about him and his watch, both ran off and escaped. On the 15th of the same month, the prosecutor met fw° Y a ! men in the mar k e t- p l ace o f N or wich, wb°l-" h , I once recognised as th e persons w ho had robben, The mask which th e e ld er o f the two wore had covered his mouth ; and so much as he had see L his face, along with the peculiarity of his figu re . . dress, enabled the prosecutor to identify him: o. i " gentlemen footpads," however, _on Per ecivi were recognised, took to their heels ; but the , and cry was raised, and they were soon tak en c' • prisoners defended themselves, and when the for the prosecution closed, the elder prisoner,a; was set down i n th e ca l en d ar as being 29 Y e . n age, made a sp eec h w hi c h s h ow ed - that he i', man of not only strong natural talents , but that education had been far superior to an ordinary (, He stated that he was in the hat-trade, c a l n a d nd h e i s s t b in r e o l ther left London in company isalfhtalll.'' intending b n e e h r, ind to travel and dispose of hats, a 411 tity of which they brought with them in ae . The partner, however, turned out to be a dishor those him. , 3 , 0 , f de c a whichmp h e d e t; 0 but ok p man, and, having made away with the pil ) ! lc/ articles was a jemmy or crow-bar, on vvh much stress had been laid. As to the two ma= nothing could be more innocent than the purpoe, which they had been lied. The fact was t William Jones had app . . was in a dog with which he A habit of amusing • ' himself by playing tricks, slu t one of his frolics had cut out a cloth mask an a put it on his face, to amuse himself by having s° companion,oTf htohuoguhitis;t whichwo ri sport with the dog en masque. He (the Prisl was reading some serious book at the time. , 0 forget whether he mentioned " young's ' 'IE iwhich a iat d r‘ g grown Tombs," but whatever the book was, and the of o h s e s e l s e s f i t o n s someand artseu : 1 ill-accorded with it, and having remonstrated ° him in vain, he at length snatched away the 1118 cowl and put it in Isis pocket, but his frolicsome pion immediately n a t t h h e e r dog-play boisterous' s °: t, ion immediately cut another to frighten the d°s before, and in this way it happened that each ba t black cloth mask in his possession. As to the Pis ic the constable who was to prove the finding 01. it 'b e not in the way, and so no legal evidence having given of that circumstance, he was not c alled t I P, to explain it. He concluded with a pathetic aiq to the Jury, but they returned a verdict of G!.. l u against both the prisoners. sentence of death to be recorded, stating . that ti only mitigation to be expected was transportations The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then ordered t ,' a penal settlement for the term of their natural 11% s w inspired, n r Meditations WESTERN CIRCUIT.—LAuNCESToN, MARcri The Com m i ss i on was opened here on Thursd nine o'clock. M r . J us ti ce B osANV ET yesterday being Good Friday, w as a dies n on. The Judges sa t i n both Courts this morning, the Crown Court ; M r . B aron WILLIAMS pres in idesti Nisi P er r e ju a s re e rine t.of whit causes entered for trial , three are special jury causes . Sir James Scarl! has come down as Cou nse l in one of them, 01114 involves a right of toll. it The e ; ale o n n d e ar wciotnhtaibnisgatmwyen;ty-five names ; considered by no means heavy, either in respect ' slaughter ; and the remainder with number or crime. Four are charged with unnatial offences minor nature. Charles Blight, aged 21, was indicted for havi2l feloniously and maliciously maimed and wouncteei one ewe sheep, the property of J. Penhallow Verdict—Guilty. To be transported for 0 1 ' years. hthreeoffweliltches mor. ..-- .....--- NORTH WALES cincurr—virßElßAm• not in his lifetime (Before Mr. Baron BOLLAPIP.) 0 1)1 dtahneefdn T enc h ivildio e saa r unv ‘ e rrty,ta : w hot e oifa. r sn e E.twr o xiyis n ielh ly ,ecip th ulai r e e rn e tbifi c e a tw us ean e e s nd a E t Dd l i v s ai i rdd P w r vv iza r : i scrambled for by a pretty full Bar. WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS. le 0 , did • 3001. and one for 400/ to the plaintiff, Ede 4 6 , Williamsams, as the marriage-portion of Mary his 13 j the daughter of the said William Davies by a se°S, u fveh e tei di inth r ee e r c d t: evsl d :ivl fr leir om twn t o h a e hvie e en g s : s : t ,e y o : s nie ni i ase i; marriage. The defendant, David Williams , is r r „, son T of the deceased William Davies by his first i ;;, , To render this intelligible to the mere Saxon r i e 7 o r and to protect the defendant from the possibif, 0 0 picion of illegitimacy, seeing that his sirname 1 ', 1 , 0 t the same as his father's, it is necessary to state Est in Wales the Christian name of the father bl ) , 1 0 wil t ßi t h aooo e dubb s eeadt i rri(.t)nts be Williams, Dhenmeae namednv ie o o ne f t d t j h oa of: , . hba,t s nhiu o nnet n bo , chapter. , Davies eat Robertvli i i.tde u , as : , , hs b i o f eun o t n n e r , would Daviesj D oe a nd b y David d „ i c na 10:: ; inii : l i fa I on b i u t i o and if this John Roberts, again, had a ° II 1 3 0 b ß u i tTh ch “ a e r ß d pi , claih h a e nrt w difr o js u oi l .: d zets b h; e :: caaallcntdieodnsonwoeotrneßftrichhnae rodavire.l:ooagtlietsis changes ac upon Jones, Roberts, Richards, ... ; and the result of the issue was $ verbr a° in equityfor the plaintiffs. V.''' . THE Six CONDEMNED TINIOSIt aio , bi wWheichhawveejluesatrnretcheaivteadlaargleetniteeretfirnogm, eTre::::,to,.tlif TeeeC"'"V..ni 0 0 thousand in numbers, is to be. held in t",,, Trsir. 4 Monday (this day). A procession of t" - t he wl,, i in es ef e. amci L nuar o ye d nca g htpl e yp s trot w eoh i t l ebh l nees take place, being formed, place, of the trades from their several hau s a 9 abse'„ peace," is the and lodges, at ten o'clock in the morning, a ll .lo i o s, t`i 11 to ente rtal A know the men of Birmingham too vi t _'_, f rom it. will depart , i Tha schil evening, at a few hours' notice, held oi res t meeting of six hundred persons was which the g are m imopn ar olat s tet h oeh al as l teo e lf d etmeth i e n eey t de o tifn o o n gr e .th g is r an vocu d coans prec ion i an er d a at Ther e meeting of Monday was resolved upon. , aces fro now in Birmingham up wa rds of seven t y dele „do rjj t 0 Trades' Unions in all parts of the three srefoese Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, &e., , , a nd tit, delegates will attend the meeting on Monaay wn , R .. ,"' utmost excitement prevails throughout the of- the correspondent, who knows the feelings of t ,,,,v thO;s classes of Birmingham and its vicinity, S ta ';', r e6 : ll Dorchester affair will double the number of tiforP"' members of the Trades' Unions there. Paper. Ve A O I n n t o w n t , h o o e o f i a: 1 0 4 BIBTHS. ll°P. ii , pie tin's-place, Trafalgar ' Philip Clayton, of a son. de 00' On the 30th ult the lady of Mr. James L an- 16 ~ wx . o f e s sy t o..oh i n .a s il t: at 25, Wilton-crescent, th e to Berkshire, the surgeon,the l a d o y f o a f ci the a u g dn g .:"" 04 0. On the 29th ult., Mrs. Barnett, Charterhonsy—u gib daughter. row' On the 30th ult., at Winterslow-place , North /VA il°4 James Field, of a son. On the 23d ult., at Brixton, the wife 1 g d o Esq., of a son, i• lack b ` ..idlo On the 30th ult., Mrs. Robert Aylwin, °- 1 fil l daughter. e 'A d/ P ' th On the 27th ult., at Ingestre, Staffordshir , v oi- Ingestre, of a son. , Tboll l3l ' . . At Berechurch Hall, Essex, the lady c'' - ' ' Esq., of a son and heir. , I 1181 MARRIED. z ., oft 1 ' - L i e, ' On the 31st ult., William Henry Walton, ... , '",?ci0r1..7. " Temple, to Louisa Hoskins, eldest daughter ',Gist Hoskins Master, Esq., of Barrow.gie nj° se, ---"'"°' a John On the 26th ult., in WiltDonl-Epplae. e, age Forbes, son of James Malcolmson, Escl•of Ch UrChlsP.' On the 29th ult., Mr. George liumphrYs, I a , ' court, Temple. i n ot0 01 :14 9 ' On the 27th ult., at Caroline -cottage`, 1 ' 4.- 1,,n - e, , W - 11t(l' Lucy, wife of Mr. George Doggett, of St. Martin't, — WI; '- On the 28th ult., Thomas Jenkins Gee, of Div": , r is pou' - ' dlesex, and Aldenham, Hertfordshire. V alle On the 30th ult., in Upper Gower-street, - r El., F.R. A.S., in his 77th year. ,i, gtol ), On the 30th ult., in the Addison-road, Ne n " --1- ' ol , l ie Jenkins Silver, the wife of Mr. James Silver. Car 14th year' 001 • On the 28th ult , near Croydon, in his 80th iel l ,, r a ' r ,; in ' Dax, Esq., many years senior sworn clerk and Seo"' Exchequer.Lm O ndt n e doliie: youngest 29t I ' n! . d , a u a at hter Brighton, o fth e Printed and Publishe i d nn b ev : yOl/ 14 at the Sun Office, O. 11% Str and ' Torr. Ito the eilocilhvinahrvec 0 00t.hs' Clio,' °',