The Sun. — London, England, 1831-07-08 00:00:00

r.,PIRIT 01' l'IlL PUBLIC JOURNALS The trial of Mr. Cobbett came on yesterday, at Cluildhall. We have already observed that, in our Ministers would have done better not to have set on foot this prosecution, and we still remain of this opinion. Before entering further on the cots sideration of this trial, we may remark, that the law of this country with regard to the Press may be compared to a net, of which the draught is equal to the volume of the stream, while the meshes are sash that few fishes are retained in it. The libel law pro mises to do everything, but its performance fall, miserably short. It is hardly possible to write in e way which may not be pronounced libellous; and, therefore, in all eases but private libels, there is a snitch greater chance of acquittal than conviction— not from approbation of the matter prosecuted, but from dislike of the employment of a means, by which it is as easy to destroy the innocent as to punish the ill-disposed, A prosecution far a - is a mere lottery. It is not so much the cha racter of the article rrosecuted that deter mines the verdict. as the disposition of h i . dividual Jurors. One obstinate Juror will in one case compel the other eleven to convict, and in another case compel them to acquit, against their better judgment. A libel being merely that for which a verdict of guilty can be obtained, it merely means that the libel displeases those who prosecute; •and as they who prosecute are not necessarily either angels or infallible, in all times there have been cons victed libellers who have deserved we:l of their country, while their successful prosecutors have been its worst enemies, Many men, therefore, hate the employment of an instrument may be used for bed equally with rood ends, and against which innocence is as touch itt danger as guilt. The Italian who uses the 4nife may sometimes take off guilty persons, but in the hatred of the means all other considerations are merged. In the ease of libel prosecutions, the only security of the defendant is the dread which the prosecutors may have of another bar than that of the Court—the bar of public opinion. The evil is the mystical clime of libel. The law ought to know only crimes, no matter what the in strument—the knife, the brand, the pen, the tongue. But the English Criminal Law is altogether so irre concileable with common sense, that, as was well observed by Mr. Niacauley, it seems purposely con trived to puzzle and ensnare. Let its suppose, for instance, the libel law abolished, and the mater now prosecuted as libel to be prosecuted as crime— we are met with the technical absurdities of our cri -sninal code. I say to a man, for instance, run your knife into that man—the man is stabbed, and I am au accessary before the fact. The advice is disre garded from the good sense of the individual to whom it is given, and I am not an accessary to the crime, because no crime is committed. My guilt is the same whether the man acts on my advice or not; but the law deals with it in the one case, and in the other it does not. In the same manner I address a written discourse, recommending the mur dering certain persons, and setting fire to their premises. If the advice be not acted on, I can only be reached through the libel law. What ought to be done, to reconcile the law with common sense, is to make the advising a criminal act, whether by Inn or tongue, a crime per se, whether the advice be acted on or not ; and to put an end to all offences of the press, which consist merely in enforcing or com bating any set of opinions in political, moral, or re ligious matters. In a good criminal code, the re commending the crime ought to be a crime—inde pendent of the consequences of the recommenda tion. Thus much by way of preface to our obser vations on this trial :—To set fire to machinery, to farm-buildings and stack-yards, to assemble in mul titudes to compel employers to raise wages, tithe-- owners and landowners to lower tithes and rents, is to do that which no right-thinking man would jus tify ; for it destroys the security of property, pre vents the exercise of industry—to which security i, indispensible—and tends to throw society into anarchy and confusion. No degree of suffering justifies a recourse to means by which all society would be deeply injured. To recommend recourse to such means, participates of the character of the means themselves. But there is a material difference between recommending measures of vio lence and speculating with regard to them, in order that a proper lesson may be drawn from them by society. We remember well that the outrages led at the time to all sorts of discussions among our contemporaries. Some, for instance, said that the various classes contrived to shift the burthens, &c. of society from their own shoulders to those of others, and that the whole at length fell with an overwhelming weight on the poor labourers, who were pressed down to the earth ; and at length, when no longer able to sup port themselves under the burthen, they endeavoured to relieve themselves, and, in the attempt, society was shaken to its foundation. It was recommended that landlords should abate their rents, the tithe owners their tithes, and that the farmers should not endeavour to indemnify themselves for the undue exactions of the landlord at the expence of the poor labourer—that they should not grind the faces of the poor as they had done. It was generally sup posed by writers, that the labourers had succeeded in their object of obtaining higher wages by the means to which they bad had recourse, and that the landlords and tithe-owners would be obliged to make ahatements corresponding to the increased burthens thrown on the farmers. We exposed our selves to some odium at the time, by question ing the theory that the outrages had originated in a greater than usual degree of suffering of the labourers, and thought their dissatisfaction rather a proof of their having higher notions of what they ought to receive, without knowing how to effect their object. All writers, however, thought that the outrages, however reprehensible, would ulti mately be productive of good, as it would impress en the rich the impossibility of their separating themselves with impunity from the poor, and would thus lead to measures for instructing the poor as to the circumstances which really determined their well-being or misety, and rendering their obe dience to the laws a matter of conviction rather than of fear. The chief instigators to the outrages were the Magistrates of Kent, who, yielding to a handful of workmen, recommended to the farmers to raise the wages of the workmen, and thus taught the labourers of other places to follow the example of their brethren in Kent, in order to share in their good fortune. The Magistrates of Norfolk and some other counties, who recommended the break ing of machinery, were, though in an inferior de gree, also instigators to outrage, as they gave a sanction to the outrages. With respect to the alleged libel of Mr. Cobbett, we hardly think that he has been fairly dealt with. The passage is worded very incau tiously, but it is not a direct recommendation to out rage, but an attempt to show the absurdity of the ground s on which a certain Parson had endeavoured to prevail on the labourers to desist from outrage. — The Kent Magistrates also told the labourers, no doubt, to desist from outrage, and that to burn ma chinery and stacks would do them RO good ; while they afforded a refutation of their own assertions, by recommending a rise of their wages. It seems to us, that the allusion to the thrashing machine— to the additional employment, and additional wages thereby obtained—refers rather to the practical re futation which these circumstances gave to the Parson, who did not endeavour to remove the cause of their erroneous notions with respect to the ultimate effects of machinery, and the circum stances which determine the wages of labour, but ergued with them in a way which laid him open to ouch a rejoinder. The terror unquestionably had the effect of raising (temporarily, of course) the wages; and, in what Mr. Cobbett says as to the forced reduction of tithes, he was stating lays we believe is a fact, tha t the yeomanry, genera y d e hailed this ; and muc h evidence was given (and much more would have been given, as most ac tive Magistrates know) to show that the labourers were the tools of the farmers in what they did against the Parsons. They might not say to the labourers in . many word, ,, , go and att ac k th e P ar so ns , but tho). 'said, we could give you higher wages, were it not for the exactions of the Parsons anti upon this hint the labourers acted. In s h or t, it appears to us that the alleged libel is rather at attempt to expose the insufficiency of tht.s; arguments of the parson, as nor go'ng below the surface of the question, than an tended exhortation to outrage. h) this inoral world, good often comes of and every statement of the manner ;Vmeh the evil produced the good, may ire construed to have a tendency to produce the evil. In describing the French Revolution, there are the excesses, the cont)equent feats, the emigrations, cordiscations ) the rate of the emigrant estates to the pe , asants and the consequent equality of property. daffy people admire the equality of property, and in tracing the connection between the equality of pro perty and the rirtuMstances above stated, it may he said te have a tendency to produce the horrors of the Punch Revolution. Humboldt, the traveller, lays it down, that the higher orders of a country may be highly civilized for ages, and the lower orders suffering under oppression all the while ; and he instances the north of Germany, Livonia, Courland, &c., adding, that the condition of the lower orders is seldom im proved, except through some terrible convulsion. This may he :,aid to have a tendency to drive the lower orders into insurrection. But it is dangerous to carry the argument of inferring the intention to produce a certain result from mere tendency, so far as the lawyers are inclined to Ca , ry it. Mr. Cobbett seemed to direct his efforts to make the Whigs appear black, rather than to defend himself in this particular case. He is evidently a man of strong passions, and his indignation seemed to know no bounds. His accu sations against them are ludicrously extravagant. — We wish they had not meddled with this prosecu tion, which opens a door which it is not always easy to shut. The best way is to let the Press alone, except when private character is attacked. A ‘Vhig Ministry are, however, under a strong temp.toion to prosecute, more than a Tory Ministry. In the first place, the populai ity of their measures is calculated to disarm Jurors, and to facilitate convictions. And, in the next place, they are under a cons , ant dread of being charged by the enemies of liberal measures with all the obnoxious opinions which they do not prosecute, and of being thus identified with them. The Unitarian is much more annoyed at the charge of infidelity than the Presbyterian or Catholic, the two most rigid divisions of orthodox Christians. The Tories know that they will not be charged with sympathy with radical or revolutionary writings; and their abstinence from prosecution will be imputed to generosity and not to sympathy. On the other hand, a Tory prosecution stipposcs a determination to put clown the liberty of the Press, and throws all the friends of liberty into alarm. Whigs, on the contrary, receiving credit for honesty and good in tentions, are supposed to encroach on liberty for the sake of ultimately promoting it.—Morning Chron. The majority of Wednesday bight will produce its impression in the House of Lords. We have great confidence in the wisdom of that House; defects in the personal character of a King, or sudden excite ment in a House of Commons, might break up the Constitution ; but such a catastrophe cannot be ex pec•ed from the House of Lords. A hereditary body preserving its relative position, as to property, towards the other classes of society, can never change its political character—that character is essentially conservative and conciliatrry. Let the House of Lords consider that in the last Parliament the second reading of the Reform Bill was only carried by a majority of one, arid that in the present House of Commons the majority has risen to one hundred and thirty-six. Who can say that this is a mob majority ? Will any one call the best gentlemen of England a mob ? Admitting that pledges stricter than usual were given at the late election, what is the fair infe rence ?—that, the interest taken by the people in the question at issue was so intense as to render them more scrupulous than usual in the exercise (whenever that exercise was not a mockery) of their electoral rights ;—hence the sacrifice of personal at tachments, and the abandonment of personal inte rests, displayed in so many instances, all tending to prove beyond the possibility of doubt, that Reform in Parliament is the fixed resolve of the people of England. Anti-Reformers contend that the "louse of Commons, as now elected, is, in truth, the Con stitution—the rest is leather and prunella. The borough of Windsor, according to them, is the King's; close boroughs are the Lords, and pot wallopping places are the people. Well, then, we take this description, and we submit to the Lords who are opposed to the Bill that the Constitution has, by the vote of Wednesday night, in full assembly, pronounced for Reform. now they can justify to themselves resistance to a decision promul gated by such competent authority we know not—in fact, we are sore that, reasoning twos the past, there can he no doubt as to the conduct of the House of Lords ; their situation in the last Parliament was to tally different. The Anti-Reformers had a perfect right to maintain that a maj,Tityof one on the second reading of the Bull, neutralised, if not annulled, by the majority on General Gascoyne's motion against the Bill, was not such a declaration of the sole con stitutional body as to require them to give up their opposition. If the Tory Lords should treat with disrespect the determination of an unreformed House of Commons, we shall begin to question the since rity of their attachment to that Constitution (or the preservation of which they are ready to sacrifice their lives, or their windows, as the case may be. We attach no importance to comparisons between England and other countries; we are altogether after the manner of John Bull, and we think that the Chamber of Peers in France has something the sort of proportion to the English House of Lords that the Emperor of Elba had to the Emperor of France. Yet we cannot think that the time would be fortu nately chosen for opposition to the representative body on a question affecting the mode of electing that body, when the maintenance of a hereditary Peerage was the great controversy in a neighbouring nation.—Morning Herald. The first division on the Reform Bill has taken place in the new Parliament, and the majority has proved a considerable one. It must be remarked, however, that many Members have voted for the second reading upon the princip!e of not being opposed to a modified Reform, who will nor give their support to the Bill in Committee ; and the Government know full well that their majorities will decrease upon every future stage of the Bill. It will in fact, if it ever shall pass through the Committee, go up to the House of Lords in a very different form from that in which it stands at present. The most amusing feature in the debate on Wed nesday night, and in the remarks of the Mini sterial Press upon that debate, is the ludicrous attempt to deceive the public mind as to the im pression produced by the speech of Sir Robert Peel. To those who heard it, it is unnecessary to say a word respecting its effect. In eloquence, argument, reasoning, and constitutional learning, it equalled the best orations which have ever been made within the walls of Parliament. It left no point in the de bate untouched or unanswered, anti it withered,even to annihilation, the prosaic verboseness of Lord John Russell, as well as the flimsy and unsubstan tial, although it must be confessed eloquent, sophis tries of Mr. Macauley. There never was a more complete refutation of an elaborate highly-wrought piece of rhetoric (for that is the true definition of the speech,) than Sir Robert Peel's reply to Mr. Macauley. We are induced to make these remarks from the ridiculous writhings of the Ministers and the Press under its chastisement. The Times, the illorningC'llioniele, and the evening advocates of the Ministry, all join in the same clamour, and their unanimity ought to convince the public of the mo tivesw e a are e f their distressed impotent ta s e d e e trrhe miserable ac ti As i t . E sl n tua li tl h o i n ne t r o l which our Minist e rs a re re d uce d in the . g Hou . se of Commons. There is not one amon g them, except Mr. Stanley, who can make even a decent speech upon a great and national subject ; they are men who have just that kind of loq uac i ty (for we cannot call it eloquence,) that by the aid of the Parliamentary debates and Parliamentary leper ts they ate cnahled to cull limn the fiats of others sufficient to occupy a certain portion of time; but it is in vain to look for tiny original idea, or even any decently' expressed argument, from such men as Lord J. Ru-se9, Lord Althorp, or Sri James Graham. If they had possessed any power, of speaking fit to qualify them for the high office of Ministers, why put forward Sir Francis Burdett, who has been for a long time in his dotage, and who is not a responsible Member, to answer such a speech as that delivered by Sir R. Peel ? It ha: been customary in the days of Castlereagh, of Can ning, and of Peel ) for Ministers always to have the last word in the debate, but these no tion s of main taining the dignity of the King's Adm i nistration it, the eyes of the public are gone by ; and since th e ap pointment of the piesent Government, the pre-erri pence of Ministerial intellect has suffered a woful de preciation in the opinion of the House of Commons and of the public. To be sure the want of intellect and the want of oratorical power on the Ministerial Bench are very well supplied by' the admirable drillin g of their tools and sycophants (as Lord Brougham would call them) on the back benches, and by the ingenuity of their reporters in the galle ries. We nevtr heard a more dull and wearisome speech than that of Sir Francis Burdett, who was put forward to answer Sir R. Peel, from the want of power on the part of Russell, Althorp, Graham, and Co. It was in the worst style , of the Hon. Baronet's effusions in Palace-yard or Covent-garden. It produced proofs of the mast manifest impatience from all parts of the House; and yet we see in the reports of the speech the an nouncement of cheers and applause, which existed only in the imagination of the writers. The drill ing of the dumb but zealous occupiers of the back benches, in interrupting the speakers on the other side, and even in cheering the inanities of such feeble speakrts as Lord J ohn' Russell, is quite disgraceful to the House of Commons, and ought to be exposed. We cannot on this occasion omit also mentioning the absurd practice of gentlemen, such as the two Mr. Bulwers, sending copies of what they intend to speak, but what they never utter, to the various newspapers, and concluding the report of their own lucubrations by assertions that the lion. Member sat down amidst continued applause. These tricks are unworthy the character of men of education, much more so of Members of Parliament, and they fail in their object, by convincing any attentive reader that the poverty of the matter renders the applause which is described to have been given quite impossible. We are induced to make these remarks from the attempts made by the 111inisterial papers to pervert the real and actual proceedings on the late important debate, and by the hope that our observations will not only be duly appreciated by the lovers of true genius, in aiving approbation where approbation is due, but that they will have the effect of checking the in ordinate vanity of eertain Members of the Legis lature, who have no other ambition than to make themselves conspicuous, and who do not scruple about the means of obtaining notoriety.—Morning Post. The second reading of the Reform Bill has, then. passed the House of Commons with a magnificent majority. Can it be denied that this is the case, or that the majority is magnificent, when it is observed, that those who voted against the Bill are hardly more in number than the Members returned by rotten boroughs, now about to be wholly or in part disflanchi , ed ? \%e do not by this mean to say, that all the Members of nomination be roughs voted on one side ; no doubt there are many and honourable exceptions : but we recollect that Madame de Stael, speaking, in one of her writings, of the different advantages of the two sexes, say , , that the female cannot confer a favour without making a sacrifice, and therefore nature ha h formed that sex the more generous and devoted of the t‘,o. In the same manner of the borough patrons and nominees. The Reformists cannot confer a favour on the people, cannot advocate our just rights, with out making a sacrifice, or striving to make a sacrifice, of their interests ; while the other side are strug gling, under the powerful motive of selfishness and their own advantage ill-understood, to keep what they Have got. It is pretty obvious which have the strongest motive , . Undoubtedly, there are still many detaik to be gone thrcugh in the committee. But the second reading being carried, the attention of the public is at once turned with increased ear nestness to the House of Lords. Thither public anxiety conducts the Bill, and begins already in ima gina,ion to attend its progress, and look for its vic torious transmission to the Crown. We have heard a singular story upon this part of our subject —namely, that a great borough-huckster, who is also a Peer of high rank, and another Noble Lord of yet higher grade, have been laying their heads toge ther and determining that the people are becoming cold or indifferent to the Bill ! Let them, however, not lay that flattering unction to their soul,—we know what the people feel better than they do. If it were possible that the Bill should fail from some just cause—from some informality, which, according to the forms of the Constitution, could not be over looked,—we should consider even that as a very fearful accident. But if it wire to be a udaciously met and overthrown by the faction itself, whose unjust power it is meant to abrogate, that would, indeed, be ao alarming event for all who value the ancient institutions of the kingdom. But we hope better things of the House of Lords. Their own greatness is much more dependent on the general welfare and happin,ss of the people, than on any influence they may possess, and which the weaker and more sordid of them may be anxious to retain, in directing the councils of the Lower House of Parliament.—Times. It was evident to every person of the least re flection, that as soon as public attention had been called to the state of those rotten or nomination boroughs, which engross so large a porticn of the elective rights of the country, and contribute so little to its wealth or prosperity—which are so rich in Members of Parliament, and so poor In every thing else—which manufacture Legislators without possessing property or population,—it was evident, we say, that as soon as attention was directed to those absurdities and incongruities, they could not long be suffered to exist. The culprits in schedules A and B were condemned as soon as they were arraigned : their doom was sealed from the moment that the in princip le which protests prescriptive abuse . was a single instance abandoned. Though the Reform Bill had been defeated or postponed, they never could have recovered their influence or vita lity. In every division of the House, their repre sentatives would have been deducted from the list of voters. They would have found against their names the letters A or B, which would have ' neutralized their power, or destroyed the in fluence of their opinions as much as the initials branded on the flesh of a convict. They would, in fact, have been considered, to use a distinction of the French law, to have incurred civil and political death. Every proceeding of Parliament carried by their votes would have been vitiated in the eyes of the people, and not even their virtues or disinte restedness (though they had possessed such quali ties), could have saved them from suspicion or con tempt. By their appearance in the condemned list on the principle of possessing fewer than 2,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, it is easy to see how insignificant these hundred and odd boroughs are in point of pope' lation ; but their inferiority in property is still more striking. A paper printed by order of the House of Commons now lies before us, containing an account of the total amount of assessed taxes paid for the last three years by places sending Members to Parlia ment ; and in this paper schedules A and 13 cut a v,:ry sorry figure. Westminster, which sends only two Members to Parliament, pays in assessed taxes . 303,4201.; and He, :esbur) has the privilege of sending the same number, though it pays only 321. Bs. U.! Liverpool contributes to the State, in assessed taxes, 59,0861., and has the right of electing two Members; Bramber, with an equal represen tation, pays exactly 161. Bs. 9d. The State w ill . not be much enriched by the contribution ot lii: host's Castle, however much the House of Com mons was honoured by its late Member, the whip per-in. For the privilege of sending two Members to Parliament, it pays, in assessed taxes, 40/. 17s. I d., while Bristol, with the same representation, pays 33,640/. Why should we celebrate the glories of Gatton, Old Sarum, Cot fe Castle, Fowey, Calling , ton, and other places, whose wealth, and contribo tions to the Stare vie with the amount of their popu lxion ? The direct taxes of the borough of Beer alston, being exactly 31. 95., would scarcely pay a dinner for its Members at Bellamy's, even though they did not invite any of their constituents to join them. Manchester or Birmingham alone, neither of which has hitherto possessed a voice in the Legisla ture, pays more in direct taxes or imposts of al; kinds, than the whole 50 or 60 condemned bo roughs in Schedule A, which have hitherto re turned more than a sixth part of the House of Commons ! For East Looe and West Looe, as many representatives sit in St. Stephen's to levy taxes and to impose laws on the inhabitants of this country, as for London ; and the assessments of the two Loces amount only to 145/. I4s. 9d., while that of the capital amounts to about 200,0001. It would be needless to multiply instances of the ex cessive and absurd incongruity which meets us at every line of this document. We do not desire uni formity in such cases—we do not expect to find in any continued system of representation an adherence to theoretic perfection, even though it were origi nally established,—but we have the right to look for the correction of a state of things where mote than a fourth part of the miscalled representatives of the people represent only themselves and their own purses,—where upwards of a hundred boroughs sending Members to Parliament do not much ex ceed in population or wealth two of the unre presented towns, and where the assessed taxes of some of t ho,e fortunate places would not pay the election dinner of their Members ! And yet it is in the face of such absurdities and anomalies that the Anti-Reformers ask—" What is • the use of the Bill ? What will the people gain by the Bill ?" The question has been answered a hundred times, but it is as constantly repeated with all the indefatigable monotony of a mere cuckoo. The following answer to this precious query was ' given on Wednesdaynight by Mr. William Brougham ; it is tersely and vigorously expressed :—" It is asked, What did the people gain by the Bill ?' He would reply, all that the boroughmongers had lost all that had been drawn from the resources of jobbing, favour, influence, abuse, corruption, the people had gained,—all the power of misrule, which a faction had lost, the country and the King had won. The King, emancipated from that pernicious faction, had gained a true British throne in the hearts of his people. The people, no longer beat under a load of abuse, at length breathed the free air of a pure and . good Government."—Timcs. We present our readers, in another part of this day's Paper, with lists of the glorious majority of 367 in favour of the Bill, and of the equally to be remembered minority of 232, who declared, by their votes, that there was no need for a Reform in the representation of the people, and they should have no Reform. On that document we cannot at pre sent enlarge to the extent that we could desire; but there is one fact most prominent on the face of the lists, and which proves the majority to be even more overwhelming, more irresistible, than we had anti &pated ; and it is this—that while the list of the minority is swollen with discarded officials, rotten and nominee borough Membars, that of the majority is composed not only of the Members for all the great cities and towns which have the benefit of a free:election, but :of all the representatives of the largest counties, commercial, agricultural, and ma nufacturing,—in a word, of the wealth, talent,' and intelligence of the kingdom ! Never, in fact, was such a " ragged regiment," as the corps of the Anti• Reformers, compared with the Re fmm forces, exhibited in battle array. Falstaff, liberal as he was in matters of conscience, would not have marched through Coventry with them for " worlds "of sherry and sack. Of English Mem bers the majority was overwhelming, as we have already observed, both in numbers and property, — the same observation applies to those front Ireland; and even of the Scottish Members, misrepresented as the people of Seltlitnd are, there was a majority of four in favour of the Bill ! A decision,—and all but a final decision,—having been thus given upon the Bill, the next question is what will the Lords do with it ? Will they follow the example of the Commons and pass the Bill, or will they reject it, and place themselves in opposition to the King, the people, and their representatives ? Prudence says, no,—passion says, yes ; and between the two, who shall decide ? At present there is a ma jority in the Lords against the Bill of some ten or fifteen ; and that majority might, no doubt, be reduced in a very constitutional manner by a new creation of Peers favourable to the Bill; but we are anxious that the Bill should pass without recourse being had to such an expedient, and our question applies, in consequence, to the House of Peers as it now is. What then will be its decision ? We cannot say; but as in every assembly there are some who prefer joining with the many rather than be left in the minority, we are in hopes, that these sonic will turn the scales in favour of the Bill, and prevent that national concussion with Me few which might otherwise result from the rejection of the Bill by the second estate in the realm. There will, no doubt, however, he a great, though vain effort, to arrest the progress of Reform, and to prevent the people from enjoying those rights which nature, justice, and policy alike declare to be theirs. — Morning Advertiser. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILD HALL. Two genteel-looking young women, named Mary Rand and Patience Barker, were brought before Mr. Alder man ANSLEY yesterday, charged with shop-lifting. They were so much affected at their situation that they could hardly stand up at the bar. draGper°sr,gLe I Nl i a g r 3 t t i e n 2h i a l l , sho sta pt te ß d an w that ith tbe Me p s t s i r s s o . n l! r a s k c e a r linen- leienr tio his shop on the previous afternoon, and inquired the price of a printed muslin in the window. After looking at a great many prints, Mary Rand seemed bent on one, which however she raid she could not afford to buy, but she offered to leave a deposit if witness would cut off and re serve a length for a gown. This be could not agree to, and she then purchased a yard and a quarter of calico. While he was serving Mary Rand, he observed the other prisoner fiddling about with her bawls under the heap of prints on the counter, and suspecting she had tht ust something into her reticule, he followed them into the street, and requested them to return to the shop. Upon asking Patience Barker what she had in her reticule, she said she had a piece of print which she had purchased elsewhere, but on producing it the witness identified it by a private mark. On re-entering the shop, one of them threw away two duplicates, which were found to relate to a new silk shawl and two pairs of new silk stockings which had been pledged that day for 18s. Four new small crape handkerchiefs were also found in a parcel they brought into the shop, and suspecting, from these circum stances, that they were common shoplifters, Mr. Baker, notwithstanding their entreaties, gave them into custody'. In answer to a question from Mr. Alderman Ansley, the wittiests said he could not fix Mary Rand with having a guilty knowledge of and participation in the robbery. Mary Rand claimed the stockings as having been her property twelve months. She had purchased the shawl from Mr. Venables, a linen-draper, in Whitechapel, and she was carrying the crape handkerchiefs as a prevent to her sister. The other prisoner alleged that the piece of print rolled off the counter and got into her reticule by mistake. The shopman said it was very unlikely that a whole p i ece of print, lying breadthwise across the counter, should assume a rolling form, and more so, that it should get un perceived into a bag which it could scarcely be squeezed into. Mr. Corkin, of Walworth, said he had known the pri soners some years, and he was never surprised more than when he was informed they were in custody for shoplifting. They belonged to a respectable family. Mr. Alderman ANSLEY, after conversing some minutes' with the prosecutor, discharged Mary Rand, and remanded the other prisoner till the following morning, that she might bring forward evidence as to her character, and that the articles which bad been pledged might be claimed if they ha l bccii ,to len from any rison. Ahici mao warn I her never to carry so large a reticule again. MARY LEB ONE. Yesterday Mr. Thomas Pike, a hackney-coach master, who resides at Little Grove-street, Lisson-grov.e. together with Rebecca East, was mummoned by his wife, Mit v Pike, for deserting her and her child, a very pretty girl, o f a b G nt eleven year: of age, and turning the child out et doors, after he had taken her nude r his protection. It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Rke, that si e had lr_.cn married to the defendant Pike about four year. .igo, hut they had separated, she living at Stockhrhhze terrace, Pimlico, and her husband at Lisson-grove, coha biting with Rebecca East. Wednesday last she went t,, see her little girl, when she was struck upon her neck by Ea , t, and pushed do,':n staire by her husband. She tui derstood from the neighbours that her daughter was after wards put into the streets, and obliged to take refuge ;it a ft hou,e in Grosvenor...square. Mr. GRIFIATHS-Well, Sir, yutt hear what ynur wilt has got to say, and now c; hat have you to say to it ? Thomas Pike said that his wife had absconded from him four years ago, and he produced a new•paper in which he had advertised her, cautioning the public not to trust her thereafter. GRIFFITHS—WeII, ma'am, you have heard why your bus!,and says. What have you to say ?—Mts. in ans.ver to the Magistrate's tiuestion, sail she had f eco ii , ed most krutally bv her hushand, who wished her to I), come an instrument of sensuality to other men ; that he had frequently left ber whole nights on the stair case, and b,at her terribly, when she accidentally met with a friend, who, pitying her condition, had maintained both herself and child. The latter had been sent to Margat , fir the benefit of her health, hut her father would not let her re -111141 tittle, though it never co,t him a far! hing expense. He had taken her home to his apartments, where the wo man East repeatedly heat her, and she wished to have her under her own care. Pike—l want her too. Mr. GRIFFITII—I dare say you do, Sir, but I not allow the child to live under the same roof with your con cubine. You must provide a prorr place for her ; in the mean time, I expect you to find bail to keep th, peace towards your wife, who, I nul,t sat', did wrong (hut I suppose she could not help it) :n going to your lodging at all. Burridge, the officer, who had been intrusted with the warrant, fund that the girl would not consent to accmn ploy her father, and, under these circumstances, h e di rected that she should remain with her mother, to whom sh e piteously clung, till such time ps her father could pro vide her with a home, or else a boat ding-school, where she might live unpolluted by the cx.imple of prostitution. UNION-HALL. Yesterday George Jordan, a young man, was brought before Mr. CHAMBERS and Mr. MußnAr, charges', on his own confession, with the inhuman murder of Mary Ann Whynett, residing in Princes-street, Lambeth, in the month of August last. On Wednesday morning the chief constable of this office received a note, the purport of which was as follows : " Sia,—Having some time back seen a reward for the appre hension of the person concerned in the murder of a woman in Princes-street, Lambeth, I should like to know if that reward is still to be paid. If it is, by applying at S'2, Great Saffron-hill, you may hear of means of bringing the criminal to justico. (Signed) " GEORGE JORDAN." Upon receipt of this letter, the chief constable sent Skillern, the officer, to m:ikr inquiries at Sdfron-hill, and he ascertained that the writer of the note lived there, and that he was then employed in cleaning the windows of Mr. Bartelot's bous,, in Hatton-garden. Thither the officer went, and the moment Jordan saw hint he ex claimed, " I know your business ; you are come to take me for the murder at Lambeth." Skillern told him that he was going to do no such thing, but he had c Wed on him merely in consequence of the note he had mitten, to know whether he knew any thing respecting the subject of it. Jordan, bursting into tears, said, "I am the murderer cf the poor creature, and I alone; since the job, I have be, n the most miserable of men,—could not rest day or night, but now I am happy at having surrendered self into the hands of justice, as some atonement for the clime." During the statement Jordan appeared sensibly affected, and when the officer inquired whether he had taken any property front the house of the deceased, he re plied, that he had not, and that it was owing to a loud knocking at the door while he was struggling with his victim, which alarmed him, and defeated his plan of get ting at her property. After hearing such a confession, which was voluntarily related on the part of Jordan, the officer took him into custody, and locked him up until the art ival of the Magistrates. During the period that intervened h,tween the time of his apprehension and the at rival of Mr. Chambers, the prisoner evinced great agitation, he shed tears abundantly, wrung his hands as if in despair, and in fact exhibited all the tortures of conscience which a man who had committed some desperate crime was likely to labour under. In this condition he remained, his knife having been taken from him, until the night charges were disposed of. When brought into the presence of the Magistrates, and after Skillern had detailed what had transpired be tween him and the prisoner on the subject of the murder, the latter was asked by Mr. Chambers whether he hul anything to communicate on the subject of his note. The prisoner, whose eyes instantly filled with tears, said, " I have a wife and three children at home in great distress, and can't obtain employment to support them." Mr. CHAMBERS—You have made a confession to the officer that you are a murderer : is that true? Jordan— I certainly did make such a confession. The Mauistr.ite here directed the former depositions, taken at the time of the murder, to be read, and it was then discovered that the accused was an inmate of Clerken well workhouse at the period it was committed. When questioned as to which aide of Princes-street the deceased lived, Jordan admitted that he did not know, and alter wards declared that he knew no more about the murder than the information afforded by the newspapers. Mr. CHAMBERS—What Could have been your m.tive, then, to write the note which has been read, and after wards confess to the officer you were a murderer?—Jordan —l'll tell you the truth, Sir ; I am in the tin trade, and can't get work ; my wife and three children are starving, and to assi,t them I made up my mind to declare myself the murderer of Mrs. Whynett, in order that my family might become entitled to the 501. reward which has been offered for the apprehension of the person who committed the offence. The Magistrates ordered him to be discharged. THE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF MR. MATHEWS. Yesterday, after the business of Queen-square Police office was concluded, William Davis, tl.e waterman at Whitehall-stairs;,was brought before Mr. GREGORIE, tl.e sitting Magistrate, fur final examination. Tile friends of Mr. Mathews were in attendance the greater part of the day, and Mr. Flower, a solicitor in Lincoln's-Inn-fields, voluntarily came forward in behalf of Davis. It appeared that since the list examination, Davis has made some further disclosures respecting the disappearance of Mr. Mathews, which have been communicated to Mr. Giegorie. It will be recollected that a frock coat be'ong- ing to Mr. Mathews was found pledged at the shop of Mr. Dobree, pawnbroker, at Chilling •cross, in the name of William Davis; and he afterwards admitted that he had also pledged a shirt and pair of trousers for 7s. at the shop of Mr. Rochford, pawnbroker, in Jermyn.street, which also had belonged to Mr. Mathews, and which he said were given to him to do wh a t h e lik e d w i t h. I n a ddi t i on to his previous statements, he said that on the evening of Friday, the 14th of June, he rowed Mr. Mathews as far London-bridge,as when h e went on s h ore , an d purc h ase d some shirts in Tooley.st ree t ; h e t h en came on b oar d aga i n , changed his clothes, an I told him that he was going into the country for a short time and would write to him in a few days ; at the same time bound him by an oath not to divulge what he had told him, as he wished his friends to suppose that he was drowned. It was then agreed that Davis should put him on shore at Blackfriars-bridge , which he did, and then row the boat up to Battersea arid leave her. For some days past several men have been employed in dragging the river, as it was strongly suspected that the unfortunate youth had been drowned, but no body was found. No pains or expense has been spared, and at the different outports a description of his person has been sent down to the proper authorities to detain him, should he be on board any American ship or other vessel. Previous to Davis being brought into the office, a water man, named Lewis, was called in, who deposed that about three weeks ago he saw Davis land a gentleman at Black friars-bridge-stairs, ars could-la i n i goet. swears t a i rs, to the person. pin t e e r n asroe o n 'c .t l , o ) ck thy i in divulge h e er respecting pe evening, ting On Davis being placed at the bar, Mr.. GREGORIE asked him if be had any disappearance of Mr. Mathews.... —Davis replied that be had told every thing he knew about it. Mr. GREGORIE said that he scarcely knew whether he was . acting T tm right, suspicions it that w hadas his ar intention against to hi In dischargever were all but tlie owing to his own conduct, every thi ng h a d come out by p i ec to theexertions piece-meal, Ia and what of h information ten c os constables. T a l b e en gathere d befriends o 'Rs owing t Mr, Mathews now believed that he had gone abroad, he iiopoi it, wo, so, still 11 , : had vcry strew; thspiciolie that he (Davis) knew where lie was. Davis assured the Alagistrates that he knew nothing more than what he had stated. Mr. GREGottlft—You are now discharged, and if you oz.c grain of charity about you, I hope you will give wh:t infornatical you can ta Mr. Mitliews's friends to ro their BnNiety. Y u can do it in any indirect way yen pi , .ase. . _ . Davis still persisted that he knew nothing more. Mr. GREGOR tr. observed, that by his own admission, he 'lad been i❑ the boat with Mr. Mathews for nearly two hours before he put hint on shore, and that he had imyted him not only confidentidly, but with familiarity, and he thought it extremely strange he had not toll him .vliere he was going when it was evident they were on such terms. D:vii said that he d:d not presume to ask him. Mr. Garc;ontE rcminded him that he tvas discharged, and that t!;ere was nn reason whatever to contradict him self ; he felt satisfied that he knew more about Mr. Mathews if he chose to divulge it. Davis main declared that he had dis,dos,d all, and was diFcharged. Mr. Mathews has only hem about two years in the Comptroller's office, at Whitehal!, and had a salary of 100!. p,r annum. According to D start/lent, when he put him on shore he had on a black cot and white trowsers, and also wore a black hat, which he brought to the boat in the eveninv. It his since been ascertained die. Mr. Mathews did purchase the shirts, as stated by Davis, in Tooley-street, the shop of Mr. Tagg, a slop .lealer, and that on the evening he went away he had only about 2/. to 31. in hi , posse,sion. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. LIVERPOOL RACES. TUESDAY.-The Crox'eth States of 15 sots. each, and 30 addctli :%Ir. Turner's Recovery, 4 yrs 1 Mr. Chaprnan's Persoverence, :1 yrs t...! Sir J. Gerard's Rex, 4 yrs 3 Seven others started. \Von by half a length. Sweepstakes 01'50 sovs. each, for three yrs olds. Two Miles. I,ord (irosvenor's Caractacu • • 1 Lord Derby's c. by Tramp, Armida 2 The Tradesmen's Cup and Sweepstakes, value 1,293/ Mr. Beards(vorth's Halston 1 Lord 1(.01)111 - Ws Worn' colt Mr. Powlett's Lady Emmeline 3 Won by a length. . . The following wero not placed :—.Sarah, Birmingham, Vanish, Tamboff; The Earl, Apo!lonia, Eliza, Rouudwaist, Dolly, and Welbeck colt. The Maiden Plate of PM. was won by Ballast 3fyle, beating several others. WEDNESDAY.—The St. Leger Stakes of 25 sovs. each, p. p i ; 100 added One Mile and Three Quarters. Me. Bower's br. c. Sir John 1 Mr. Houldsworth's b. E Frederica Lord Derby's c. by Lottery Hopkinsan's b. c. Paul Clifford 4 Three others started—ten paid. Won cleverly. A Sweepstakes of 30 sous. each, 15 It. 50 added. T.Y.C. Mr. llouldsworth's br. f. Corset Lord Grosvenor's E by Champion A Sweepstakes of 5 60 , ,5, each. 30 added. Mr. Ilaulls‘vorth's ch. h. Vanish, ti yrs Sir T. Stanley's b. h. Joceline, aged The Sefton Stakes of 30 sovs. each, h. ft. 20 added. One Mile. Sir B. Bulkeley's b. 1. Miss Maria 1 Mr. Houldsworth's b. f. Frederica Mr. Webster's c. E Tippet Free Handicap Sweepstakes of 30 sows. each, 10 ft. Sir J. Jerard's b. c. Rex 1 Mr. Turner's b. f. Nabb Sir T. Stanley's b. f. Augustina 3 THE MARKETS. C• >tl NTR Y CORN M A [(KEA'S DURING THE WEEK AN heat. Barley. Oats. t Beans. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. s. s. to s. s. to s. Blandford 62 35 9 46 rigg 56 61 20 24 34 38 Carol ridge 68 34 22 38 Chard 51 68 30 34 22 24 38 42 un t i ngdon —...... 58 74 • 39 22 30 35 39 Long Su t t on„— 56 68 20 25 37 :19 Lout!' 55 03 23 32 18 23 34 38 Lynn, 56 68 30 34 24 3) 36 40 Newark 61 69 30 38 24 30 40 43 'Nottingham 76 81 33 48 24 31 42 44 Peterborough 58 67 33 34 22 30 36 38 Plymouth 62 70 32 36 24 29 38 50 Pontefract 67 43 27 43 Slca fora (15 70 8(1 38 212 28 41 43 upiti ngharn 60 66 3t 42 24 32 34 40 Wisbet: 11 58 68 t '25 24 26 36 38 I'.—July 5. tins. to 725.1 43 1 . 500. to EsSi. es ..... 323. to 345. I , is to 38, ‘a . ' 0 •2. i. to 255. ' `1 is. to 445. et> f2Si to 305. ." ,Eng. 14d. to 15d. per st. . 343. to 355. per load. Ign, —l. to —l. per last. LEEDS CORN MARKET Wheat, Norfolk and Sutfiilk, York. and Lincoln. 601 b. Barley, Norfolk and Stiftblk Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Grinding Bean. 63lb. Oats, Potatoe --dealing, For. 1.1,1..t014X,tt Shelling Rape:iced, English, IN. to 'A/ Foreil LIVERPOOL_CORN_,EXCHANGE.-Julv 5. WiirAT, English, White, per 7010. t. tolbs. 01 Red Scotch, Welch, and Manx Irish, White 7 3 7 9 ------- Red 7 6 710 Foreign 9 6 10 0 OATS, English, Welsh, and Scotch, I:er 4510. 3 9 4 0 I rish - Foreign B ItLl:v, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 4O 0 46 0 Scotch and Irish, per 601lis. --- Feeding 3 10 4 3 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter 43 0 47 0 - Irish, &c. --. Foreign l'Essr, English, per Imperial quarter 42 0 44 0 ---- Foreign F1,01 , R, English, per 2601 b. 46 0 48 0 Irish 0 VrtICAL, English and Irish, per 24011 is INDIAN CORN, per 440th. MI:, per Imperial quarter MALT, per Imperial quarter IMPORT or GRAIN for the Week ending July 4. Wheat. Oats. i Barley Flour. Oatmeal. Ors. Qrs. Qrs. Foreign, erls.llrish,&c. Scks. 1..0ad5.. 2fi,5312 8,832 , 672 24,2 0 6 1 1,073 I 1,011 CHELTENHAM Per Bushel s. d. to s. d.'. Wheat Batley 4 0 5 6 Oats Beans l'ease 5 0 7 0 Has' 3/. lOs. M A HKET.—JuIy 5. Pet lb. d. to d. Beef 5 6 Mutton Veal Pork I.lllth 0 0 to Si. 13s. Cd. per ton ,KETS.—JuIy 1. Wheat (bushel) —Bs. 61. Os. Cd. Barley 6 5 0 Oats 2II 3 0 Beans --. 5 6 6 0 Butter (Ib) 8 010 Eggs (18) 0 1 0 Potatoes (peck) —0 5 0 6 EXETER M A Beef (score) —Ss. 6d. 93. 6d. Mutton (11.4.)---0 6 Cl 61 Veal and amb—.....0 5 0 7 Pork ----.0 4 0 6 Gee,e (each) —4 0 6 Ducks (coup!e)—.,2 0 3 6 Fowls 6 t; 6 DUMFRIES MA ‘,Nt'oliteira, n Wheat ) . m b p. Bush 5 7 . (i B . toVt; 6 Barley 4 5 0 Oats '3 5 4 0 1 2 4 3 Oatmeal Potatoes. cwt. RKEI S—June 30. s. d. s. d. Butter, 16oz 0 0 to 0 0 Eggs, dozen 0 0 0 0 Beef, per lb. 'Mutton Veal O4 06 Quartern Loaf 0 7 0 9 The weather, for some days past, has been highly fivourable to corn of a►l descriptions, especially the wheats, which always kernel best under the influence of a broiling sun. A SL ARK.—A few clays ago a shark was caught in a net by some fishermen off Portobello. It was about five feet long, arid on being opened at Newhaven, 32 young ones were taken out of it. Its appearance was very formidable, and would have proved a dangerous customer if encountered by a bather in its native element. Scotsman. Samos has lately been visited by an earth quake of an extraordinary nature, fi r it produced a large opening in line of the highest mountains of the island, from which suddenly issued an enormous torrent of water, overflowing the country, and making its way to the sea. By degrees the inundation sub , ided, and terminated in forming a river, which has its source at the opening formed in the mountain. If this river should continue to flow with the same abundance, it will be a great benefit to the country.— French Paper. Ne t l h so e n l - a square, J. B M I4 . c s k i fria ord r e s t: f e a t s i o t n li . e 6th in ' t. M rs . R. B ATINTi Ij n, S. On the 6th in s t. i n S t. Helen's-Woc , ' Esq., of a son. to Sophia Marian, third daughter of MARRIED. Gambier, to Amabel Frances, second Esq., of Haines hill, in the co O m n m t o h i e i tlitilLisnes,t.HaataSit,.cyl.:aul's, Covent-garden, John Alexan. der Harper, Esq. only son of Alexander Harper, Esq., of th e James Pasmore, Esq. of Bedford-row. On the sth inst. at St. Marylebone church, W. Gambier, Esq., eldest i.on of Sir J. On the .sth iiist. at cunt me•'s church, the Rev. W. C. Ro. hens, of Glasnevin, county of Kildare, to Martha Hewitt, ' of the late D. Mitchell, E N. daughter -- --- ,'loaulligah3teort.,,‘fvtihltes.late C. G. Colleton, at Kidderminste r , age d 86, Mr. Richard West, formerly DIED. On ti , 3d )f , Friday-street, Lond on. i in I On the 7th inst. mu' Brook-street, at the residence of Sir C. Dom villef ,Frede Bart .rick M.P. at a very a d vance d age , Mrs. Trench, t h e lady Trench, Esq. of Heywood, in the Queen's cou nty, Ireland. On the sth inst. in Hunter -street, Brunswick-square, Mrs. Moxo n, widow of the l a t e G. Moxon, Esq. of Vauxhall. At Calcutta, in M a y l ast, Lieut. T. Marriott, and Mrs. Mar. riott, his wife. On the 4th inst. a t B rompton, Elizabeth, widow of the Rev. J. Gunning, late R ector of Spexhall, and Vicar of Sutton, in Suffolk. On the 6th inst. aged 26, Richard Frances Talbot Williamson, eldeit son of M r. H. Williamson, Moore-p l ace, Walcot.plaee, Lambeth. PRINTED AND PUBLI3II ED UV MURDO YOUNG, AT /114 SUN Orrxv, 112, SlitAtlP. LONDON, NEAR ' Son in-L tu 1 0 , Garr A'ra . Land- tax „,(!ituate it ; ~.and Penal 6,F9unty of A j recently r accommof quisite ofi cellent g stocked . carriage ( ing ever; plantatior resting vi . toresque • Cornwall With Far! buildings, Upwards ONE. T 1 of tneadot supplied through t The ati stone on iqßs, and , bridge, fr Sev,noalc Lnndon, bridge to Nizells applying at the Cr Tharapi,o.; - Tonbridg, 7 Library, - ' Fresh fiel d Coffee-ho No.:1 70, leen, and ..TIETWE. - .• Valuable TAX RI Pleasul and La Son-in-L At Garral THUASD By directi A v, Redeemed of Moolse eellent an adapted fc reception suites of Comm uni4 leading to six bed-re domestic BATH The whol beet mate hard and Three coa rooms any, tage, war! jags, prod with choir out with Com, dr) cOttage w and outbu ONE Of rich _surroundi To be the Mans Griffin, IS ,castle, S solicitors, Reid, No. may be se Elegant tensive Lawn detach( buildin Buildir Pastun Hundn Son-in-Li At Garrit THE 1- ii field, in t Lot 1. called NI ,lOfty apa Family of George 1 Newent ; clothed w coach-hot sloping t 4 extembiye and capk wards of belted by tinter t! home and nines of ( from Mal neighbour packs of 1 Lot 2. in the pa Farm-hot labourers' TWO of Mead° , joining th ter; all 1) Ford, a h term. Lot 3. Newent, containing of Mead o, oecupatio sn agreen Lot 4. Parish of house and ONE of rich Pe pital dain miles disc, a•mile` of joins the tion of 1%1 on lease, From i tal marke roads and nure, an( eitates ar or capital The M Mr. John the tenan George, Ledbury ; Surveyor' Hop Pol Angel an Holder, Abbott, S god of MI