The Sun. — London, England, 1834-02-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Dissenters are, as usual, very active ; but they are also, we lament to say, somewhat aggressive upon the Church of England, whet, they pass beyond the limits of their own grievances, and talk of the union • between Church and State, or of the Church being " established," that is, " having property," which property, nor any fraction of it, never belonged to the Dissenters, being a wrong in flicted upon them. At a meeting of three denominations, held at Coventry this day week, the same course was pursued which has by us and other friends of a Church Establishment been ob jected to from the outset—namely, that of con founding the temporal or political Church with a spiritual assault upon the rights of conscience. Often enough, as it appears to us, and perhaps too often, have we—not admitted, but—insisted on the necessity of altering the manner in which the Church revenue has for many centuries been collected ; but then we have done so on grounds and considerations which are appli cable exclusively to the description of that revenue, not to the amount of it, and still less applicable as raising a question whether it would be right, or, morally speaking, pos sible, to take away the entire of that revenue from the Church, and divert it to purposes in which religion and education (a part of religion) would have no sensible concern. When the Church by its intolerance and tyranny did really interfere with the rights of conscience, the Gospel was on the side of those who dissented from it—they were aggrieved for conscience' sake, and were justified both in complaints and in resistance. Now it is clear to most reflecting men, that the Dissenters have been seriously aggrieved by the state of the law as to marriage, burial, and the registration of births. It is, to us at least, sufficiently manifest that Dissenters might, with great advantage to themselves and the community, be admitted to graduate in our national Universities. But how, or under what pretext, they should be entitled to any part of that revenue which has for whole centuries been appropriated to the Established Church, or which has been vested by the law of the land in certain learned ecclesiastical corporations, for the promotion of learning and religion, is to us utterly incomprehensible. Indeed, the Dissen ters affirm that they would not accept any share of the spoils of the Establishment that it would be unscriptural, and so forth. Let us ask, then, what is it they are driving at ? What is their complaint, but that a large body of religious ministers, of a persuasion dif ferent from theirs, are possessed of a property which never did belong to these complainers, and against Lie notion of using or enjoying any particle of which they revolt with even ostenta tious repugnance ? As for granting to Dis senters the right of holding fellowships in Uni versities, which fellowships are supported out of land, or other property, bequeathed or otherwise bestowed, upon conditions of which a commu nion with the Established Church was invariably one, we presume it will be allowed that no more palpable or flagrant outrage on the rights of private property could be perpetrated than by such an innovation. If in the actual state of the Universities, and distribution and application of their funds, the objects of the founders be lost sight of, and the funds be diverted from their proper uses, there are tribunals in the kingdom to apply a fitting remedy ; so with the revenues of the Church, there is a power in whose hands the redress of any wrong must be vested. But the wrong itself is one inflicted on the nation generally, and more especially on the members of the Church of England, who are imme diately interested in all Church reforms, which the Dissenters undoubtedly ar e not.—Times. We have time and space for but a line or two in reference to the corn law meeting at the Crown and Anchor last Friday, expressive of our concurrence with most of the opinions ex pressed by Mr. Cranford, and our satisfaction at the precise and ,s ell-authenticated tables then produced by him, to show the enormous amount of taxation imposed upon this country for the exclusive profit of the corn grower, and the sad and ruinous condition to which the poor la bourer was, through their influence, reduced. Mr. Crawford proved that the daily labourer is taxed twenty per cent. on his income for bread,whereas the upper and middle classes are not taxed above five per cent. He further showed a loss upon onr exports of manufactures to the north of Europe, amounting to not less than 30 per cent., from the year 1817 to 1830. He proved that the same quantity of corn which costs at Amsterdam 42,000,0001., cannot be had in London for less than 79,000,000/. ; and lastly, that the produce of the taxes on foreign produce actually paid by the people of this country, to bolster up the agricultural interest, exceeds 7,000,000/. sterling. One almost shudders at the iniquity of such legislation—a system which none but barbarians would adopt, and none but slaves would, with their eyes open ; submit to.— Times. In relation to the important public principles involved in the refusal of the Benchers of the Inner Temple to call Mr. D. W. Harvey to the Bar, we regret that our limits will not allow us to publish the letter addressed by Mr. Harvey to his Colchester constituents. Under the circum stances of injury and injustice, his indignant feelings may be excused, but the letter strongly represents the persecution of the Benchers' de cision. As we consider this question—the right of a self-elected and irresponsible body of pro fessional men to sit in secret conclave on the reputation of their fellow-citizens—to involve civil rights of the highest importance, we make no apology for the devotion of our columns to :he record of all the facts and documents con nected with the individual case. We extract, from a Sunday paper, the following temperate letter addressed by Mr. Harvey to the Temple Benchers, requesting from them a statement of those points of his personal defence, which, as unsatisfactory to the Benchers, may be supposed to be the ground of their rejection of his claim to be called : " Great George street, Jan. 29, 1934. " Sir—l have to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Benchers on my renewed applicat ion to be called to the Bar, by which it appears that Upon taking into consideration the renewed application of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey to be called to the Bar, and the evidence adduced in support of tie same, and the argu ments of the Learned Counsel thereon—lt is unanimously resolved, that the Bench do not see any sufficient reason to alter the resolution of the Bench communicated to Mr. Harvey by the Treasurer of the Society, on the 13th of November, 1921, ageing his application to be called to the Bar.' " In a decision so important in its consequences as it tespects myself, and, perhaps, not less important as it af fects the character of the tribunal by which it is pro nounced, the Bench, I fed assured, nil withhold no information uhich can contribute to place either me or themselves in that clear and distinct position in which we ought to stand before ,the public. Under this impression it is, that I complain most re spectfully to the Benchers that their present adverse resolution is couched in language so indefinite as to leave me utterly at a loss to ascertain ti e ground on which it rests. lam informed by it that they 'do not ste any sufficient reason to alter their resolution as corn municated to me in Novena} er, 1821.' Am I to infer from this that there is any deficiency in the evidence pro duced in respect of the charges alleged against me, as arising either out of the case of ' Harvey v. Andrew' or Frost v. Harvey?' If there is any such deficiency—of which I can most truly say I am not aware—on its beina Pointed out to me I pledge myself to supply it. I feel that I ought to remove from the mind of the Bench any doubt they may conscientiously entertain as to the validity of the charges which they have been pleased to raise against my admission to the Bar ; but, in order to do this, it is essen tial that I shout! be made aware of what point it is on which the evidence has failed to satisfy them. It is one among the many hardships to which any individual ac cused by you is subjected, that lie has no means of know ing, in the conduct of his case, what evidence is deemed to be satisfactory, or what is regarded as inadequate; and he is, consequently, not in a condition to perceive what progress he has made towards producing conviction in those by whom he is arraigned. This, it is manifest, must throw an insurmountable difficulty on his endeavour to obtain justice, if he is afterwards to be condemned, not upon a specific statement of wherein his defence has failed, hut upon an indefinite allegation on the part of his ac•. curers, that they do not see sufficient reason to alter their resolution to exclude him from the Bar. " It must always be painful to any class of persons to xercise their functions as accusers of an individual bold- :ng a respectable station in society, and their natural wish, as men of humane and honourable minds, will be, that the accused should he able to acquit himself of the chat Res alleged agsinst him. They will be pleased to see that he has effectually repelled them, and will withhold nothing which can assist his legitimate and fair exculpa. firm. Assuming, as lam most willing to assume, that this sentiment actuates the Benchers, as my accusers, I trust you will enable me to ascertain in what it is you consider my defence as incomplete, as, if any further evidence is required than what is already before you, I will moat promptly furnish it; but this, you will readily per- ceive, it must be impossible for me to do, while what you may still require remains known only to yourselves. " I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, "D. W. HARVEY. " To E. H. Lushington, Esq., Treasurer, &c." We originally stated that our argument, on this subject--against the Star Chamber powers of this extraordinary censorship of private character —is wholly independent of the particular in stance of rejection. We contend that if it be expedient for the public interest to con , ider integrity of character an essential to the call of a barrister—an admission we are not disposed thus broadly to allow—that there never was a tribunal less competent to test reputation, or one the mode of whose procedure is more odious and unjust. In what instances, in any of the Inns of Court, is the qualification really exacted ? What number of bad characters, in comparison with all other professions, have been thus excluded from the Bar ? and how many Attorneys and Solicitors of bad or du bious reputation are annually admitted on the roll, and turned loose on society to exercise their craft and calling ? If personal character is to constitute part of a legal qualification to practise the profession of the law, where are the just limits and securities of such an inquisition ? Dishonesty, it appears, may be an impediment to the " call" of an individual who has duly "eaten his terms ;" but when once in the circle of the Bar a man who with legal impunity violates every moral rule is not and cannot be ejected ! Such an absurd doctrine can never be upheld. We have never said that admission to the Bar should be free from all control, though we verily believe that as far as the personal character of a Bar rister is important, the public may be safely left to exercise their own tests and discretion. In ' some of the learned professions it is palpably im portant that a professor should be duly qualified to discharge the duties of his calling. A medical man, in his inexperience and ignorance, may kill a patient, and for that there is no cure ; but the mere personal character of a member of the College of Surgeons or Apothecaries' Hall, is wisely left to the discrimination of the public. If we are to have " a trial at Bar" of all students in the learned professions ; if all the clergy, bar risters, attorneys, and medical men of doubtful and ambiguous private character are to be weeded out of their calling in life, the learned professions would be by no means so overloaded with prac titioners as at present; and nothing but a general war would take off the surplus population. The I inquisition, which custom and the spirit of mo nopoly have established in the Inns of Court, cannot be justified by any liberal mind. We I are assured that many of the Benchers detest the nature of the powers reposed in them by their self-ordained laws, and we are confident that nothing but an esprit de corps could have induced some Benchers of the Inner Temple to exercise the inquisition in the present instance. The professional bias is remarkably displayed in a respectable legal periodical the Law Magazine, which devotes a long article to the case of Dir. Harvey, and confines itself to a simple issue on the facts of the report, instead of a grave discus sion on the principles involved in the tribunal and decision of the Benchers. The writer even insinuates that there are two other verdicts im pugning the character of Mr. Harvey, and thus perpetrates an additional injury on his profes sional character. Surely such a systematic op position of a single individual must have origi nally been founded on motives other than those which were put forth in the assumed jea lousy of the character of the Bar. If we are to tolerate such an odious case of individual oppres sion the consequences are obvious, the reputation of no man is safe in a court where no accuser stands forward,—where the doors are closed,—against whose decision there is no real appeal, and no possible redress. If hypocrisy is silently to wit ness groups of disreputable men, notoriously practising the law, and to rejoice over one man of accused ill character refused admission within the precincts of the profession, all public respect for such a profession must be speedily extin guished. The Bar, it is well known, have esta blished a variety of by-laws among its own members whieh " send to Coventry" many in telligent men of small pecuniary resources who cannot conform to them ; these are amply suffi cient to keep up the " caste,"without any morbid precautions against vice breaking into the society. We repeat that the constitution of this tribunal of the Benchers is utterly inconsis tent ,with the free institutions of this country, and that the government of the inns of courts calls loudly for inquiry and improvement. It will be said by their members that "it works well," but such has ever been the stale and weak defence of every bad system; and we trust that the attention of a reformed House of Commons will be directed to an examina tion into the constitution and revenues of the Inns of Court—public property for public objects—and that lectureships may be reformed, libraries increased and rendered more accessible and useful, and such real qualifications of . ad mission be thereby insured as the spirit of the times and the interest of the public loudly de mand. Different persons may view the parti cular circumstances of Mr. Harvey's case in different lights, and political parties may va riously estimate his political character as a public man ; but we should ill deserve the re• putation of liberal journalists if we did not protest against the principal and evil conse quences involved in the extraordinary inquisi torial powers claimed by the Inner Temple Benchers, and exercised by them, be it ob served, in a chary and Epicurean spirit. When such an obnoxious power is thus rarely exer cised, it will be considered as a mere blind to obtain credit to the Bar for more virtue than its members are justly entitled to, and to prevent the public from exercising that vigilance which they would otherwise adopt against characterless barristers.—Morning Chronicle. The retirement of Baron Bayley has deprived the Bench of one of its greatest ornaments. As a lawyer, he has scarcely left his equal behind him for extensive knowledge of the science of law, sound judgment, and legal acumen —as a Judge, his patience, serene temper, and spotless integrity rendered him a model of judicial dig nity and virtue. The kn o wn worth of his cha racter and the kindliness of his manner endeared him to the profession. His independence, humane disposition, and purity in the high station which he so long filled, have made his resi g nation of office a public loss, which will not be easily repaired. The sincere regret and esteem of the Bar and of society follow him into private life, and his name shall henceforth be enrolled among those of the righteous Judges who have held the balance with equal hand, and " seasoned justice with mercy." The writer of this never having had any intercourse with " the venerable personage to whom this tribute of respect is paid, except in the discharge of professional duties, cannot be accused of that personal bias which sometimes unconsciously gives to the portrait which the hand of friend Ship sketches the colours of the flatterer. It is of as great moral utility and national importance that incorruptible virtue in high places, and more espe cially on the judgment -seat, should be held up to public admiration, as that vice and corruption, when clothed in the robes of power should be exposed, scorned, and detested. The brand which impartial history has stamped on the memory of a Scroggs or a Jeffries is a warn ing to all who might be induced to pervert the administration of justice to the oppression of the people. It is the final and irreversible sentence of a tribunal, before which they who judge others must themselves be judged, and from which they can have no appeal on earth. As there is no infamy greater than the perversion of the laws to the gratification of the passions, or the insuring the personal advantage of those who administer them, so there is no praise too great for the conduct of those appointed guar dians of the laws who make their office reverenced by the purity and clemency with which they exercise it, who show in all their judicial actions that neither fear nor favour taint their decisions, and that they offer from their hearts a pure allegiance to time majesty of justice. After what we have stated, we need not say that Baron Bayley was of the latter class of Judges ; and though some have displayed more splendid talents, and others have been clothed with more of worldly honours, none have merited a purer fame for preserving from blemish the sanc tity of the great trust which he now returns un defiled to his sovereign. On the celebrated trial of Mr. Hunt and others, for the share which they had in the deplorable occurrences at. Man chester, in the year 1819, Mr. Justice Bayley, by his exemplary patience of investigation, his conscientious anxiety to afford the fullest means of defence to the accused, his dispassionate and impartial conduct, raised the judicial charaCter in the eyes of an observant public; but it has since been thought that the virtues of the Judge impeded the fortunes of the man. It has been said that had he acted as a partisan on the Bench— had he lent himself to the vindictive feelings of party —had he expounded the law in the voice of pas sion rather than serene justice, he would have risen to a higher station on the Bench. We would fain hope the assertion is groundless ; but, whether it be true or not, the fact is unde niable, that he remained from that day to this an example of unswerving but neglected integrity. It reflects no credit on either of the political parties who alternately govern the nation, that the abilities, learning, and virtues, of Judge Bayley found no favour in their eyes. He has now the proud consciousness, which can never be taken away from him, of having pre served the purity of the ermine from all political stain, and we can only hope that, whoever may be clothed with the judicial mantle which he has just put off will leave it as unsullied to his successor. He has been accused, in a contemporary journal, of severity to the Press. We imagine that in this instance the oppressive spirit of the law is imputed to the Judge whose duty it is to enforce it. In answer to this charge we will adopt the words of the Standard in preference to any which we could ourselves employ—" It has been well anti truly said that the business of a Judge is legein dicere non legeni dare, and it is one of the worst consequences of our execrable libel code that it leads unthinking men, who confound the mischief of the law with the disposition of the faithful Magistrate pronouncing it, to enter tain an ill disposition towards the ministers of ustice themselves—officers whom it is above all things important to preserve in the affections and veneration of the people." In our opinion the sanguinary spirit of the criminal laws might as well be attributed to the Judges whose pain ful duty it is to administer them,- as that -they should be made responsible for the anomalous character and oppressive rigour of the law of libel. The salutary and enlightened reforms introduced into our criminal code, of late years, have relieved our Judges of a considerable por tion of that unpleasant duty against which—we have it on the authority of Judge Blackstone — the judicial conscience was apt to struggle, and often evaded the edicts of blood by humane in genuity. We have seen Baron Bayley preside at important criminal trials, and on such occasions pure and passionless justice never had a better representative. The more atrocious the crime of which the prisoner stood accused, the greater was his anxiety to prevent the prejudice which such a charge would naturally excite from operating against the fullest and calmest investigation of the case before him. Never did an expression fall from him which showed that he was a man of first impressions, or was ambitious of being distinguished for that smartness of prejudgment which foreruns proof. He left that p a ltry am bition to men of shallow understanding and flippant expression, who mistake a lively dulness for sagacity, and heartless conduct for energy of mind. Baron Bayley was content to wait for the whole evidence before he formed his opinion . upon any case. He knew it t o b e t h e d uty o f a Judge to protect innocence as much as , to punish guilt ; and he invariably acted upon the wise and humane maxim of the English law — of never presuming against innocence until guilt was proved. In the science of pleading, if he did not excel all his contemporaries on the bench, he was certainly not surpassed by any. In the moral worth of his private character, and the unaffected energy of his religious feelings, he strongly resembles the great Sir Matthew Hale. We trust the day may be far distant when it will be necessary to write his epitaph ; but, when it is written, it may with truth inform posterity that no individual has graced the Bench of this country who left behind him a purer example of an English Judge and a Chris tian gentleman.—Morning Herald. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 1. SHORTREED V. CREEK. This was an action on a guarantee for 451. The plaintiff was a printer in Edinburgh, and had printed certain books for the son of the defendant, against whom he had a claim of 45/. The son gave a pto missory note, which became due on the Ist of May. This bill was not paid, and on the 11th of that month the defendant wrote to the plaintiff the fol lowing note :—" You will be so good as to withdraw the promissory note,and I will see you at Christmas, when you shall receive from me the amount of it, together with the memorandum of my son's, making in the whole 451." It was objected for the defend ant that this guarantee was void for uncertainty, as it did not state the consideration for which it was given. It did not appear on the face of the gua rantee whether the promissory note, therein referred to was due, so that there was nothing to show whether this guarantee was given on .a 'past or for a future consideration. Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion upon :he construction of the guarantee. EDWARDS V. GRAY. This was an action on an attorney's bill. The plaintiff charged for two attendances, and for the expenditure of one shilling. It was proved that the defendant had consulted the plaintiff in a case in which the defendant wished to bring an action against a third person. The plaintiff advised him hot to bring the action, and the defendant had ever since refused to make any compensation to the plaintiff for the trouble he had taken. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages one shilling. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 1. EYTON V. DES VEAUX, BART. In this case, which respected the amount of a policy of life insurance, and which was not concluded when we went to press on Saturday, the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount sought —3OOl. PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 1. (Before Sir Joint NwuoLL.) CAMPBELL V. NUGENT. This was a suit to try the validity of a paper pro pounded as the last will of Mrs. Maria Campbell' deceased. The will was propounded by the husband of the deceased, and opposed by children the issue of her first marriage with Captain Nugent. The deceased had considerable property left her, which was settled upon her on her marriage with Mr. Campbell, she having sole power of distribution. She made a will by which her children would have the property among them; but in November, 1832, she executed another paper giving the whole of it to her husband. It was alleged on behalf of the three children by the first husband that this paper was obtained by Mr. Campbell by force and compulsion. Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. ADDAMS (for Mr. Campbell) were heard in support of the paper. The lady had not attempted to revoke the paper, and the Court must pronounce for it. The KING'S ADVOCATE was about to address the Court against the paper, when Sir J. NumoLt. had enough before him to decide the case, and, after referring to the facts, said the result of the evidence showed that the deceased did not make the will of her free control. He must pro nounce upon the Tiaper and condemn•the party pro pounding it in costs. On the motion of the Proctor for the husband a minute was made that he had applied to rescind the conclusion of the case. An appeal, it is understood, will be promoted. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE O►t Saturday a young clumsy, red-cheeked York shireman, named Robert Davis, was brought before the LORD MAYOR, whom he eyed with evident astonishment, charged with having fancied Aldga'e High-street, in the filthiest spot among.t the butchers' shambles, for a bed on the preceding night. Inspector M'Clean stated that the defendant ap peared in the neighbourhood in a woful state of in toxication, and that, after having tried various parts of the street, he at last fixed upon the dirtiest place for taking his night's rest in. Several attempts were made to bring him to himself, but the spirit of rum had taken hold of him, and it was found ne cessary to carry him to the station-house, where the only account he could give of himself was that he was a traveller. The LORD MAYOR—How did it happen that you got into so beastly a state of drunkenness ? Defendant—Eh ! Why I duan't know just, but I bin at sea, you see. The Loip MAYOR—At sea ! You don't look like a seaman. Defendant—Noa, Ibe a clothworker, from Yorkshire; but just cum from sea. Feyther pied me a fort'n to go to Merikey, and I goes off to Portsmouth. Well, I goes into ship, and ship goes off four days ago. _ _ _ The LORD MAYOR—You haven't been in Ame rica since, have you ? Defendant—Eli! noa; I ari't bin there, and I an't agoing now, for I be going back agin into Yorkshire.—(A laugh.) The LORD MAYOR—What's that for? Defen dant—Eh! why you see the ship rowled, and be bonged if I could eat a bit; so the sailors, when they seed I couldn't eat nothing, offered me a piece of bacon with al the lean cut off, and I'am domned if that didn't make me worse.—(Great laughter.) The LORD MAYOR—And did you eat the bacon ? Defendant—Eat it! Noa. I tried a bit, for they toald me 'twould cure the rowling of the ship; but I'm domned if it didn't make the ship for to pitch more, and it made my inside for to pitch too. — (Laughter.) The LoRD MAYOR—And so because you lost your appetite you were determined to lose your passage? Defendant—Eh ! My passage! Why if I couldn't eat how could I live all the way to Merikey ? Well, I corned tip to Lunnun, and I sets up at the Swan-wi-two•Necks, and yesterday I took my passage to Nottingham, and by rights I ought to be there now, and not here, you see. The LORD MAYOR--It is all your own fault. Why did you get drunk ? I suppose it was be cause you had got back your appetite. Defendant (opening his mouth and giving a hearty laugh)— Yos, yos. I thowt the sea rowled it away ; but I'm domned if it arn't come back bigger nor ever.— (Great laughter.) The LORD MAYOR—What will your father say to all this ? He'll be glad to see you back, I dare say. Defendant (reflecting, probably for the first time)— Feyther glad, damned if I know. The LORD MAYOR—Have you got a wife ? De fendant—Yos, yos. The LoRD MAYOR—She will probably receive you with open arms ? Defendant—She caunt open her arms. Why mon, she's dead. The inspector said that the defendant had in his pocket 18/. 17s. 6d. when taken to the station house. It appeared also that upon leaving the ship at Portsmouth he sold his provisions for the sum of ten shillings, and, so thoroughly disgusted was he with the sea, that immediately upon landing lie got upon a coach which was setting off for London. The LORD MAYOR—WeII, my good fellow, I shall discharge you, and I advise you to get down to Yorkshire as quickly as possible. Defendant— Yos, yos, I'll go fast enough, but not before I tucks in a diur;er.—(Laughter.) The defendant, whose performances throughout would have thrown lus!re upon the brightest days of the immortal Jack Emery, then left the Justice room amidst laughter, in which he loudly . joined. T. Godfrey, W. llfugford, and J. Keyes, were charged with having robbed Mr. Child, of Thames street, seedsman, of a quantity of seeds and other articles. The LORD MAYOR committed all the prisoners for trial. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Mr. Westwood, a silversmith, living in Princes street, was charged by Mr. Thompson with having presented a pistol at him, with a threat that he would blow his brains out. The complainant said about nine months ago he purchased a watch of the defendant for .51. Finding the watch did not go well he took it to the shop of the defendant, and stated what was the matter with it. The defendant promised that he would put it in repair for nothing; and relying upon that promise, he left it with him. When he called for it a few days ago he saw the defendant's shop man, who handed the watch over to him, and de manded 10s. for the repairs. Complainant told him what Mr. Westwood had agreed to ; upon -which the shopman requested the watch to be handed back to him for a moment, and when he got possession of it he refused to give it up without his employer's sanction. Witness called again, and, on seeing Mr. Westwood, he demanded his watch. Mr. Westwood said he must have 10s. first ; and witness then declared his determination not to quit the shop without his watch. Mr. West wood upon this snatched up a pistol and presented it at him; telling him' he would blow out his brains if he did not leave the shop. Complainant was much alarmed at the threat, and as it was re peated he thought it best to pay the fine of 10s. and get his watch back. Mr. Westwood, in reply, had made no agreement to repair the watch, which had been very badly used, for nothing. The complainant insisted upon having it, and was preparing to force it from the glass case, where there were about fifty watches, when he took up the pistol, which was not loaded, in order to intimidate him. Mr. DYER said it was clear no real violence was intended by the defendant, though the taking up of the pistol was an imprudent act. The defendant consented to pay the expenses, and the matter ended. RATTON-GARDEN. BURGLARY.—WiIIiam Edwards, a middle-aged man, dressed as a countryman, was charged with having broken into the premises of Messrs. Ash well and Paul, dyers, of Paradise-place, Islington, and stolen therein a quantity of silk and other property of great value. The Magistrate, after hearing evidence, remanded the prisoner. _ THAMES POLICE. THE IRISH PAUPER RECEIVING SHIP.—Soon after the sitting Magistrates, Mr. BRODERIP and Mr. CONDE, had taken their seats, the former gen tleman sent for Mr. Evans, the principal surveyor of Thames Police, and said he understood all was not right on board the pauper receiving ship, which is moored opposite the office of this establishment, and that he had been given to understand that men, women, and children were promiscuously inter mingled. If such were the case it was highly im proper, and he requested Mr. Evans to go on board and ascertain the state of the vessel. Mr. Evans immediately proceeded on board and inspected the vessel, where his presence created no little astonishment. On his return, late in the af ternoon, he said it was quite true that there was no separation of the sexes. There were about forty paupers, men, women, and children, on beard, who all slept in the hold, and Mr. Evans said a great many had been there for three weeks. They were prohibited from leaving the ship. Mr. BRODERIP said it was really too bad. It was removing the only distance between the pauper and criminal, and punishing poverty as a crime. He hitd a strong objection to the new plan of removing the Scotch and Irish paupers in all its bearings, and what he had just heard confirmed his objections. He then inquired what was the cause of the paupers being kept so long on board ? . _ . Mr. Evans said that he understood the contractor intended to keep them until a certain number had accumulated, when they would be all sent away together. Mr. BRODERIP asked if there was any discontent among the paupers at being kept on board so long ? Mr. Evans said that one man was somewhat excited on the subject, and was violent at being kept on board for three weeks. The man also complained that the allowance of food was not sufficient. Mr. BRODERIP—What is the allowance? Mr. Evans—One pound of bread and four ounces of cheese per day. The man said his children could eat their allowance for breakfast, and were obliged to abstain from food during the rest of the day. _ Mr. BRODERIP said a pound of bread and four ounces of cheese per diem was not sufficient; some thing else ought to be allowed. He inquired about the sleeping accommodations ? Mr. Evans said the paupers had nothing to sleep upon but straw. Mr. BRODERIP—And have they no covering ? Mr. Evans said they had not. Mr. BRODERIP—Then the fact is they all lie huddled together in the hold of a ship with no cover ing, and nothing but straw to rest upon. Really an alteration ought to take place. Mr. Evans said the thing most wanted on board was ventilation. Besides, the vessel appeared to be too cold, and he had suggested to the persons in charge of the ship that a stove ought to be placed in the hold. Mr. BRODERIP said the paupers in this ship ap peared to be treated much worse than the prisoners in the House of Correction. No regard seemed to be paid to the classification, cleanliness, or comfort of the poor creatures. If an alteration did not take place the worst of diseases or fever might be engen dered by the indiscriminate huddling together of so many persons in the hold of a ship, with such meagre sustenance. It was well known that the swarms of Irish who emigrated to England were generally in a very filthy condition, and that many were in a state of disease when they applied to a Magistrate to be passed. Before they were allowed to sleep in one common place some purifying process should be adopted. Was anything of that kind done? Mr. Evans said he believed not. r. M Symon s, ul thatst the te s evil dno doubt _ • chiefbe remedied r clerk,ie dif the iN ag suggested i ra would bring the subject before the notice of th e o the Justices in Quarter Sessions, who had the power of making regulations for the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers. Mr. BRODERIP said he was so much occupied with his public duties that he had no time to attend the Sessions. He threw out these hints publicly as a police magistrate, and those who had the power of remedying the evil ought to attend to the sub ject. He asked Mr. Evans who was the contractor for shipping and exporting the paupers ? Mr. Evans said that Mr. Baker, a barrister, of Barnard's Inn, was the contractor. Mr. BRODERIP (surprised)—Who, a barrister? Does a barrister contract for the removal of paupers? Mr. Evans---Ye, Sir. Mr. COMAE agreed with his colleague that the male and f e m a l e p au p ers s h ou ld b e s e parated, except in cases of man and wife; that a classification ought to be adopted, and that the paupers ought to be provided with some clothing. Mr. BRODERIP again deprecated the new system of passing the paupers, and gave directions to Mr. Evans, which terminated the conversation. A short time since a man who had been at tending a dissenting place of worship near this town fell asleep whilst the sermon was preaching, and in a few mi nutes vociferated, with a voice which completely drowned that of the preacher's,—" Come, landlord, bring us another 'quart !" The shame he felt on being aroused may Le easily imagined.—,Mvizes Paper . KING OF GREECE. Otho I. is a young man not very r e markable, gifts of body or m i n d. H e does not merit b balled Otho the Ugly, as the Age has it, but n° can say he is the Handsome. He has a good . and an intelligent expression, but his mouth ", markably wide, and his nose, being Ile Grecian nor Roman, is quite out of the I°, beauty. He has further t h e di sa d vantag e s' slight deafness, and a hesitation in speech; ,' then his person is well turned and active--he fl on horseback and dances gracefully, a nd at weekly balls of the Countess d'Aremsberg like a hero, to the great delight of the Greek 10 , who are fast l earn i ng f as hi ona bl e a i rs . H e is r dious, and spends certain hours every day in reading of public laws, under the guidance of Mauro, one of the Regency, a highly-instro and able man. He is well disposed, amiableW about • him, and parti cu l ar l y di screet ; ca nt" avoiding giving an opinion on th e measure s of government, carefully retaining for his co ming, age the popularity which the Regency can mal, to attain, escapi n g th e o di um w hi c h t h e i r consi may produce, and holding out to the discnntels: that period as the day-star of Greece. It is a ' l l7 l tion if the choice of so young a person, the son 0 j third-rate monarch in Europe, without moral et political power, was a sound one for this coun t l before which an unclouded prospect of 01 opening through the clouded horizon of the Leve n but the thing being done, i t must b e a d m itted tl ji Otho is acting his part with propriety ; and thl the good is slow in coming, n o ev il f o ll ow s in train. COON CRY CORN MA DURING LAST WEE] iRKET K. Wheat. 1 Barley. Oats s. to s. s to s 47 48 52 24 28 36 48 .25 27 49 26 50 30 40 53 25 28 s. d. s. d. s. tl. S. d. 50 56 25 28 66 70 29 30 80 89 46 50 70 93 36 46 80 86 40 48 69 70 29 36 90 103 30 46 4. to s. J. 16 4v 18 20 ...,..-- 14 18 uv 19 —• 18 22 42 s. d. s. d. e. 14 19 0 0 20 23 56 30 34 5 33 40 5 30 34 6 0 2 n 1 9 0 0 20 33 5 0u 0 14 6 80 86 9 136 70 76 n 166 86 90 3 136 86 90 46 60 8 6 46 64 7 9 ; 50 64 8 " 40 48 8- ELD CORN MARKET.-Jan. 31. 5 0,. Drfclk and Suffolk -s. 445. to 48s. fin e os, n. and Cam. nkshire -s. 4'2s. to Vs. fine -a. 475. to 525. fin e s 5 04 I, Red -s. 38s. to 475. fin' 5 ,51. - White -s. 40s. to 50s. tine fine', Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk - Lincolnshire 2ss. to 28s. fine ' ' - Yorkshire Wold 2ss. to 295. fine . ..4 - Foreign -1, tO-- 5 . il,r i ! 410 Beans, Old --- New 355. to 38s. tine Oats, Potato l9s. to 225. fine 0. --Poland -s. 178. to 19s. On e .4. - Friezland and Small -s. 16 4 t o 18 s . fine I - Stealing Shelling M. to 265. Od. per ^T a il. M al t 358.395. fine 425. per ~ Vds, Rapeseed =. Os. 26/. Os. 271. Os. per '''" WAKEFI Wheat, Red, Nc Lii White Foreigi SCO' 'CH MARKET Wheat. Barley Beans It Aberdeen ........ Berwick-. Coldstream ..... Cu par ......,.......... Dundee............ Elgin .........,.......... 21 23 14 18 15 19 12 14 18 19 13 14 26 31 18 22 30 33 20 25 24 211 16 20 25 26 l5 17 10 20 14 16 23 29 16 20 23 26 20 22 asure varies-throuj 71 2 2; 2 6 21 65 30 31 23 30 " 23 26 i l9 / 23 45 48 •P' 1 22 25 I 'Z' o fff, rhout Inverness«.—. Kelso ........—. Kirkaldy,—... Perth ...--... -'-• The size EDINBUF We had a large the sales were brisk Wheat. First 585 Od Second szs Od Third 43s Od GH COW supply of N MARK all kinds 29. sf of Grain to-daY , 1 Pease. V; 303 ed pi 283 Od r"„ ef 243 Od "• I Barley. Oats. 31s Od 20s Od 28s Od 18a Od 22s Od 15s Od PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &C. 0 Reef, per lb. -10 s. 3d. to Os. 7d. Freshßutter, lb. s.lod. to 010. Niutton...—.— 0 4 0 7 Salt 0 8 0 0 „ Veal 0 4 0 9 Ditto, per cut. 70 0 0 P 0 4 0 6 Eggs, per dos. 010 7 0 Lamb, per qr. I 6 3 0 OatStraw(kpl.) 6 6 7 0 Callow, cwt.... 35 0 37 0 Wheat Ditto.. 6 0 6 0 Quartern Loaf 0 0 0 7 Barley Ditto 5 6 0 11, potatoes, 1711 b. 0 5 0 0 Hay,perst....... 0 7 EDINBURGH MEA There was a moderate supply and the sales were dull, at a shat Per Sack of 2801 b. Imp. First Oatmeal £l 7 0 Second ditto 1 6 0 Barleymeal 1 3 tr Peasemeal 1 3 6 Pot Barley—No. 1, pet cwt. 12: L MA RKET......Tan. of Oatmeal at this (10' 0 de above last week's priecs . Per Stone of 141 b. First Oatmeal ........... o ; Second ditto fi I Barlerneal ...... I Peasemeal Digo GLASGOW CORN The trade is rather heavy, w Wheat, per 2401 b. s. d. s. d, British, old 260t0280 MARKET.—Jan. 29. .0 . ith little alteration In pric o i Oats, per 2641 b. 5. d' 0 Irish l4 0 tool British l4 0 I Beans, per 2601 b. .i i English Scotti s h Pease, Scottish „ l6 0 it Oatmeal, per 1401 b l3 0 0 Flour, per 2801 b 4O 0 220 350 280 290 20 0 26 0 -- new Canada, free Irish Barley, per 3201 b, English — 0 C Scottish 2O 0 22 0 Irish CORNWALL MARKETS. r 70. TRURO—Wheat (average) 196 6d.—Barley, Or 31 ..-Oskt 4 0 . ...01 ST. AusTELL—Wheat, —s. to 20s.—Barley, Os. to 1 08 . 7s. to 7s. 3d. ...U r i PENZANCE—Wheat, 19s. to 20s.—Barley, 9s. to 10 9 . 5,1 Os. to 7s. 6cl.—Beef and Mutton, sd. to 50.—Pork, oil. ~ 0 . Butter, 121 d. per lb. OF LAUNC ES rom—Wheat (average)l9s.6.l.—Barley, 0L1N!..." 6s. 3d.—Beef, W.—Mutton, 6tl. I 1.13m/tan—Wheat, —a. to 20s. 011.—. Barley, 9s. Od.-o. olti , , to 6s. 6d. P 6i. BODMIN—Wheat (average) 19s.—Barley, HEtsToN—Wheat, 2.05. Od.—Barley, 9s 9d. .0 10 ` . Sr. COLUMB—WheatZ 18s. to 20 s . —B a rley, 9s. to 108. and Mutton, 5-14. to 6d.—Veal, 01—Lamb, OcL 'MINING INTELLIGENCE. Tons' 6 1 Quantity of Copper Ore sold at Redruth last Thurday .2,67 3 e Average Pr0duce ....,... _ 0 Quantity of fine Copper 1 8 6 40.‘ Amount of Sale, 12.,97'31. 3s. Od.—Average Standard lOW. . , MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT, BASINGHALL•STRES" (From the London Gazelle.) TOMORROW, FEL 4. 9 .0 C. S. Ashford, scrivener, Tottenham 9 S. Reed, draper, Eastbourne 2 W. T. Gooding, phimber, Hammersmith ...................•• J. Wansell, dealer in musical instruments, Howland- 1 street A. Adams, linen-draper, Hackney B. Lamb, corn-dealer, Stone's-end, Newington G. Elliman, grocer, Vatford, Hertfordshire DIVIDENDS. .1 F. S. Wheeler, plumber, Isleworth ................................... W. Clarke and 3. 'Moore, woollen-drapers, Leadenhall-stre e R. Topham, linen-draper, Dockhead, Bermondsey ......... ••• The Leipsic Gazette announces that - 0 mining and blowing up of the rocks in the Danube 0 `....„ i/ the territory of Turkey, which would impede the jectcd navigation of the liver by steam-boats as fsr Constantinople, is commenced. BIRTHS. ( On the 14th ult., at Paris, the lady of It Cutlar Fe r g oo Esq., M.P., of a son, still born. On the Ist inst., at the Grove, Camberwell, the sal Sidney Smith Dipnall, Esq., of a son. so* On the Ist inst., the lady of Henry Down, Esq., of a MARRIED. ge On the Ist inst., at St. Margaret's, Westminster, the Charles Woodcock, student of Christ Church, and Yi 4s o l ( Chardstock, Dorsetshire, to Honora Sarah, second datllo A. It. Sutherland, M.D., of Parliament street. On the 30th ult., John Clerveaux, second son of Sir N l V iv Chaytor, Bart., M.P., of Wilton Castle, Durham, to to y Frances, eldest daughter of Thomas Brown, Esq., Nese On the Ist inst., Henry Sharpe, Esq., of New 0 street, to Eliza, third daughter of Robert Kinder, Esq. vz l. On the Ist inst., at St, George's, Bloomsbury, Wei' 11 , mere, Esq., of Southampton.street, Bloomsbury, to olje youngest daughter of Benjamin Oakley, Esq., of Eden - Beckenham. DIED. t , At her house on Engletield-green, on the 27th of Mrs. Wells, widow 01 the late Vice. Admiral Wells. _ i fs On the 31st of December last, at Malta, Mary, the `' Richard James Bourchier, Esq. not" At Honfleur , on the 27th ult., at the residence of ; 0 0 1 Cassells, Esq., the British Consul, thellight Hon. Lord Ari Glammis. f 4 On the Ist., at Tunbridge Wells, uisncitrheele39.tfhfryieenards,?: aiium Metcalfe, Esq., of Russell-50V a A g n e sincerely the w ife lamented oof William At Hampstead-heath, on the 25th ult., Lydia 14f4f youngest daughter of M. D. Hill, Esq., M.P. On Friday, the 31st ult., at his mother's house, ikCitY square, Brownlow Bertie Mathew, aged 13 years, youpg,o, of the late Brownlow Bertie Mathew, Esq., and gran g' General and Lady Jane Mathew. . PaIITBDAND PUBLIIMED BY MU RDO YOU-1.10.4.1 :Sux . Opricg, 112, STRAND.: Per Quarter. Carlisle 7 — Hexham Nforpqh Peniith Sheffield Winchester Per Bushel. Carmarthen ........ Cowbridge_.._ Newcastle (Staff.) Nortliallerton Swansea Warwick -- Per 8011. Barnardeastle.—.. Durham Richmond ..--« Stockton 40 46 30 34 35 42 48 56 50 60 40 58 38 44 30 34 48 61 50 56 of the mi Oats. Ap Ie Bre chit the