The Sun. — London, England, 1827-07-20 00:00:00

error in one of the charges, we insert the follow- ing passage There is,one fact with regard to swearing, which is a curious one. In what way could the case have been treated by your Lordship's predecessor, Lord Thorlow, who was not enly more addicted to swearing than any other man almost that ever existed, but who lived in constant and no • torious adultery? He might have acted as your Lordship has ; but, at least; it would have been a curious circum stance to have heard him reprobate and punish a suitor, for the very vices of which he himself was guilty ! How ever, against this suspicious testimony of Bulkeley, South cote, and O'Meara, I have to produce the evidence of my own letters to my children and their tutor; not written with the least idea that such a process as the present would have been instituted, but written under the anxious feeling and desire that they should attend to their studies ; and not only to be good classical scholars, but that they should hold deceit and falsehood in the greatest abhorrence. "Every line of that correspondence proves my wish that they should be men of good-breeding and taste. I entreat my eldest son, in one of these team, to aim at being ' the card and calen dar of gentry.' I desire Mr. Pittman, to prevent them, by all means, from a fondness for low society. I encourage them in field sports, which, whilst they contribute to health and exercise, will give them a disgust to the resources for amusement to which so many young men have had recourse —a gaming-house or a brothel." The conclusion of the work is somewhat striking in the same way : " I feel perfectly satisfied that no person in the kingdom, nay, that no woman with the feelings of a mother, would ever lend her sanction to the doctrine laid down by your Lordship, that a father, in the event of his surviving his wife, is to be held incapable of being intrusted with the care and management of the offspring of their marriage, if it shall be discovered after her death, by any of her rela tions, who may have an interest in raising the question, that that father has, during her lifetime, been guilty of in.. fidelity to her. " Your Lordship knows that such a doctrine, if made a ground for disqualifying a father from having the custody of his own children, will, in several well-known cases, endanger the parental rights and privilegiS of some of the first men in the kingdom." The correspondence between Mr. Wellesley and the Duke of Wellington, respecting the guardianship of the children, we have given in nii , ,tiier part of the paper.— Times. Chief Justice Best adds, we see, to his other accompliJiments, that of a prophet. "He was (he said yesterday in the case of Robinson v. Stanbridge) ()lie of those old-fashioned politicians who were now called illiberal ; but he feared the day would come when those illiberal opinions would be proved to be founded in truth, and when; by the operation of those principles of trade that were now erroneously called liberal; we should be found to have descended from that splendid situation to which, by our old honest plan of commercial dealing, we had raised our selves."—We see the theory of this learned Theban is, that men can raise the price of com modities by gambling. Why did he withhold this great truth from the nation a year ago, when our manufacturers and their starving workmen buffered so severely from low prices ?—Morning Chronicle. THE WHlGs.—Whatever our history has hitherto presented of political meanness, of base IStifiling, and 'of unprincipled acquiescence, for the purpose of obtaining power—all is far in deed exceeded by the late conduct of the Whigs, in regard to the unprincipled and unnatural coali tion which Mr. Canning, for purposes the most unworthy, has thought proper to form with them. It not probable that the public will ever become fully acquainted with the whole system of trickery and concealment which led to the late changes ;—neither, indeed, is it desira ble that they should be known ; for men of another generation might in that case turn the precedent to account, and, disregarding the gui dance of honour and principle, be disposed to content themselves with the triumphs of knavery. NOw, however, that the thing is pretended to have been brought to a close, it is amusing to look back a little, and to observe the huckster irts dexterity with which Mr. Tierney, from xirpe to time, pressed his questions relative to Ole formation of a Government on the present Chaoallor of the Exchequer, and the " re luctant 3morous delay"-'with which the Right Honourable Gentleman avoided any thing like a satisfactory or positive answer. "We take cunning (says Lord Bacon) to be a sinister or crooked wisdom, and certainly there is a great difference between a cunning man, and a wise man. And because these cunning men are like haberdashers of small wares, it is not amiss to set forth their shop." He ac cordingly proceeds to a detail- of some of the petty wiles in which this class of persons deal. There is one which strongly called to our recol lection the little, facetious dexterity of Mr. Tierney in the House of Commons, when he said there was a report abroad, he knew not whether true or false, that seven of the Minis ters had ran away, and no person 'could tell whether they were to return or not. He well knew at the time all that could be known about it ; but he is a cunning man, and, according to sacon, the following must of course be an article- his shop of small wares—" In things that a dd not be seen in himself, it is a point man wo7 to borrow the name of the world; as of cunning or, there is speech to say, the I,voild says , abroad.' " Wh en ~01 call to mind the account given by the Premier of the celebrated interview in the chamber of his Sovereign, it is impossible not to be forcibly struck by an article in the cunning man's assortment o' ticks. " Some (says the great philosophers) procure themselves to be surprised at such times as it is likely the party that they work upon will suddenly come upon them, and be found with a letter in their hand, or doing somewhat which they are not ac customed, to the end they may be opposed of these things which, of themselves, they are desirous to utter." One would suppose our slithor had foreseen more than two centuries baek the exact circumstances that were to take *lace in 1827. " But (he continues) these ,sill wares and petty points of cunning are in , nite, and it were a good deed to make a list of them ; for that nothing doth more hurt in a State than that cunning men pass for wise." It is perfectly clear that, five or six years before the late events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the com menced making sly approachesforms - Whigs. Contrary to the u sual of towards the House, it became customary with film, ,and some others who still retain their places, to address their pOlitical opponents as honourable friends. We are far from condemning a proper inter change of civilities in public or private ; neither do we think that political difference is a just ground for personal hostility, unless perhaps such a degree of difference as existed in the mind pf Burke between him and his party, when be con scientiously thought that the tendency of their measures was, to let loose upon society all the horrors of anarchy and murder. But this bandy ing of endearments from one side to the other, had not we believe been usual in the House of Commons. The first occasion on which it struck us as somewhat remarkable was not long after the death of her Majesty Queen Caroline. The part taken by Sir R. Wilson, in the cala mitous scenes which accompanied her funeral, is sufficiently notorious. He was in 'conse quence deprived of military rank, but John Bull, as usual, was gulled into a subscription, and Sir 111 t. Robert was indemnified by 10,0001. for his loss of honours. It was soon after this, we do not however recollect the precise time, that Mr. Can ning, in addressing Sir Robert Wilson, • used these words, " Whom no forms of this House shall prevent me from calling my Honourable and Gallant Friend." We do confess that, at the time there appeared to us something manly and generous in pouring this drop of balsam on the sores of the degraded soldier. That impres sion long remained ; but unfortunately late events have taught us to account for this superabundant civility upon a different principle, and for that principle we are indebted to the same great authority to which we have more than once re ferred. " The even carriage (says Lord Bacon, in his " Essay on Faction"), between two factions proceedeth not always of moderation, but of a trueness to man's self, with end to make use of both. Certainly, in Italy, they hold it a little suspect in Popes, when they have often in their mouth, Padre Commune, and take it to be a sign of one that meaneth to refer all to the greatness of his own house." We shall he dis posed in future to look with as much suspicion upon the undistinguishing use of the words " Honourable Friend," as the Italians did upon Padre Commune. The habit of employing them, without reference to political difference, soon became general, until at length the party who were endeavouring, by fawning and ac quiescence, to sneak into power, obtained the very appropriate title of his Majesty's Opposition. The Whigs tell us, that in accepting place they made no compromise, and gave up no opinions ; that on the subject of Reform, Catholic Eman cipation, Retrenchment, and Sinecures, they still continue unaltered. We entertain serious doubts, whether upon any one of these questidns, or in deed upon almost any question, the great body of the Whigs was ever sincere. They were very naturally selected by disappointed men as popu lar topics for excitement and declamation, but were, we feel confident, as often the subject of merriment in private, as they were of noisy, factious discussion in public. Mr. Moore, in his Life of Sheridan, gives a proof of this, so far as Parliamentary Reform is concerned ; for it would appear that, with Sheridan, and others of the leading Whigs, Reform had become mere matter of ridicule. The man who is sincerely devoted to some political object, though it may be wild, or even wicked, and who pursues that object with the zeal of deep conviction, however great the evils which may attend his career, ap pears to us far a higher character that► those paltry declaimers among the Whigs, and they are not few, who, while load in public in support of some point, can in private make a jest of their own hypocritical ardour. Such men are far more fit to do the business of a puppet show than of a nation. It is mere trifling to say they have given up no opinion. The point is this—have they not placed themselves in a situation in whicli they cannot, and dare not, boldly and manfully, bring forward these questions with which their political existence was supposed to be connected. Is it not clear that a great part of their time, instead of being devoted to the duties of the situations they now fill, must be employed in paltry tricks, and degrading negotiation for the purpose of postponing what they must appear anxious to bring forward, and of defeating what they had pledged themselves to support. We had a nota ble Instance of this towards the close of the Ses _ mon, when Mr. Hume brought forward his mo tion relative to what used to be called the " two penny trash." Sir H. Wilson, as an adherer to the new order of things, endeavoured to pre vail on the hard-headed Scotchman to put off his motion, but it would not do. The matter was argued in a thin house ; gut certainly never did we see human being, Whig or Tory, in a more pitiable and ludicrous situation, than was MS Majesty's Attorney-General upon that occa sion ; for he was so circumstanced that he,must support with all the weight of official authority, one of the very Six Acts which he had previ ously reprobated with more than the vehemence of an Advocate. The First Lord of the Tre stay endeavoured to prop up the Attorney-Ge neral, and his defence amounted to this—That, in office, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was perfectly justifiable in supporting opinions diametrically opposite to those for which he contended while out of office. People may disavow in theory the doctrine of the Jesuits, but it would appear that, practically, it is still in full force. Scenes of this kind must of neces sity, frequently occur when two parties form a coalition whose views of public good have for many years been as far asunder as the poles. How is Sir F. Burdett to demean himself in his new position I' It was but the other day that nothing short of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage would answer his purpose ; now, however, to use his own words, he is mo destly content to get all he can, if he cannot get all he , wishes. " The flaming Patriot who so lately scorched us in the meridian, shines tempe rately to the West, and is hardly felt as he goes down.—Moning Post. Whether any Court ought to 'possess the power of coming between a father and his child ren is a question which we think it unnecessary to discuss. The duty of children to their pa rents is the foundation, as it was the model, of 'all social government. But as, in the case of the State, the conduct of the government may be such as to justify its subjects not only to aban don its protection, but to resist its power, so, in the case of families, however valuable be the ge neral rule, that parents should not be disturbed in the management of their offspring, the con duct of the former may be such as to render it a duty of the latter to leave them. If children, when capable of acting for themselves, may, with propriety, quit their natural protectors, they may unquestionably be taken from them before that time arrive, if a case be made out to justify such a procedure. In a civilised country this interpo sition can only take place by the authority of some Court, and why the Court of Chancery is not as good for the purpose as any other, it would be difficult to show. All that can be asked in g4ch cases is, that the physical or moral incapacity of the natural guardian should be fully made out. It is, indeed, a difficult, if' riot impossible task, to make this appear to the guardian himself; and, therefore, we are not at all surprised that Mr. Wellesley, whose two let ter-a to Lord Eldon, just published, have led to these remarks, should be dissatisfied with the late decision of his Lordship, We should have won dered much more had the case been otherwise. We may succeed in convincing a man of an error of the head, but there is no human logic yet in vented, by which we shall convince him of an error of the heart. The old adage, " Quern deus vult perdere Arius dementat," holds peculiarly true in respect of those who have once entered on a career of vice. The confusion of all ideas of right and wrong, which persons in such a situation very speedily exhibit—the moral madness with which they are seized—renders them as much objects of pity as of censure. What can we say to a man, like Mr. Wellesley, who, having been lead by headstrong passions to .the commission of a gross vice, has not only succeeded in persuad ing himself, but would endeavoim to persuade others, that he should be acting " like a scoun drel" were he to abandon the practice of it ? Who can coolly talk of his connec'lion with another man's wife as an intercourse " of the most unobtrusive kind ?" We have our doubts whether such a person can be considered as a legitimate subject of moral discipline. The dis closure on the trial before the Lord Chancellor excited, we believe, but one feeling thrOughout the country. For his own sake, and more for the sake of his Noble Uncles, we most deeply regret that Mr. Wellesley should not have rested content with the scandalous notoriety which these disclosures bestowed on his unobtrusive inter- course with the lady of Capt. Bligh. Of all the plans to which a mischievous friend or a mistaken judgment could have prompted him, an attempt to wm over the public sympathy by panegyrics on his living mistress, and libels on his dead wife, was the most unlikely to succeed. Of the late Mrs. Wellesley we pretend to no knowledge ; but the concurring test►mony of all who knew her represent her as a most amiable woman, nor, till the publication of the correspon dence which we have_ elsewhere inserted, have we ever heard of her being an uneducated one. Yet of this lady, on whom he had inflicted such deep injuries, does Mr. Wellesley not scruple to say that one of the duties of a waiting-maid she kept was to correct the errors of her letters. We wonder, to speak of no higher considera tion, that good taste did not induce Mr. Wel lesley to suppress such an anecdote. If true, in what a pitiful light does it exhibit himself? We are ready to admit, that neither man nor woman, for one offence, nor, perhaps, even for a series of offences, unless they are thrust upon the pub lic attention, is a fair object of public ridicule or scorn. We would not justify the dragging from her obscurity, whether of vicious indul gence, or virtuous repentance, even Mrs. Bligh. But should Mr. Wellesley, of all men, com plain of attacks on her conduct and charac ter ? Who provoked them ? Who continues to proioke them ? Mr. Wellesley talks of his mis- tress as a lady " whose name -lias been indecently mentioned ;" as one " who has been much ca lumniated " who has been assailed with every species of insult which malice could invent." — She is, he says, in one place, " a woman of pe culiarly distinguished manners, whose accom plishments are of the first order ;" and in another " she is distinguished by the refinement of her manners, and the superiority of her mental ac complishments" ! But, however -unadvised we may think 'Mr. Wellesley's mention of the late Mrs. Wellesley, or of the present Mrs. Bligh, we consider his attack on the venerable Lord Eldon as far less excusable. No man ever laboured more intently nor more faithfully to judge just judgment than that upright and excellent No bleman, and to Mr. Wellesley's case especially, he gave the most earnest and painful attention.— His anxiety to hear every thing that ingenuity could bring forward on either side, and which sometimes verged upon weakness, was, in that case, peculiarly favourable to Mr. Wellesley.— , It left him not only. a locus but a tempus peni tentid. if ever a Judge might 'have expected gratitude from both sides Lord Eldon had a right to expect it. And how does Mr. Welles ley reply to his care ? By telling him that he is in his dotage, and that his decision on that oc casion is a proof of it. " The moles and bats in full assembly joined, Unite to find the keen-eyed eagle blind." There is one point on which we are willing to give Mr. Wellesley every credit. His pecuniary embarrassments he shews, and we believe, very truly, to have had their origin in no criminal conduct, and his personal honour we have never heard impeached. What we have said has been more in sorrow than in anger. Most sincerely do we wish, for the sake of the honourable name that he bears, that he had nursed his griefs in secret, and not given another laugh to his ene mies, and another sigh to his friends, by writing them in a book.—Nezv Times. The total defeat of justice in the case of Sheen, will have a very injurious effect on the vicious and ignorant classes of society. They will be led to think that criminal justice is only a lottery, in which the most desperate villain that ever out raged the laws of God and man has a chance of drawing a prize. This is the consequence of that barbarous attachment to technical points, in con tradistinction to the substance of justice, which is the great disgrace of our English law. It is right as well as merciful, that where evidence admits of any reasonable doubt, the advantage of that doubt should be given to the accused, but in cases where no no human mind can entertain even the shadow of a doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, it is a grievous thing to see the whole course of justice turned aside by an objection that with respect to the merits of the case, is not 'worth a straw. In the case to which we now allude, the technical objection was first started by one of the twelve Judges, it being . Justice Holroyd, who, on the former trial at the Old Bailey, pointed out the formal defect in the indictment, of which the prisoner's Counsel, of course, took advantage. Now a state of the law which enables a Judge to save from the grasp, of justice a criminal like Sheen, cries loudly for re formation. The Learned Judge, no doubt, felt it his duty to act as lie did under the existing state of the law—and, 'therefore, it is the more necessary that so painful a duty should not be placed upon Judges as, in this instance, one of the ablest and most conscientious lawyers on the Bench thought it imperative on him to exercise, lest a culprit,however atrocious his crime, should suffer by an illegal conviction. It is worth observing, that although this man was not tried under Mr. Peel's Act, yet the ve r y same result would have happened under his improved criminal legislation ; this shows how much is yet to be done before the criminal law of England can be considered worthy of a people who boast of their morality and common-sense.—Morning Herald. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS. COUNTRY DlARY.—TuEsnav, JULY 24. Bingley, G., New York (U. S.) --Royal hotel, Birmingham Blogg, W., Norwich—Norfolk hotel, Norwich Corbett, J. Austrey — Quecn'a Head, Ashby Farrner, W., Bath—Greyhound, Bath Fea and Co., Kingston-upon-Hull—Dog and Duck, King ston-upon-Hull Field, J. and Co., Skelmanthorpe—Court of Requests, Hud dersfield Green, D,, Upton-upon-Severn—Otlice of Mr. Bird, Upton Hhiling, S., Birmingham—Royal hotel, Birmingham Hinchcliff; J., Holmfirth—Court-house, Huddersfield Hudson, T. York—Burland's house, York Jennings, S., Birmingham—Royal hotel, Birmingham Jones, T., Shrewsbury—Red Lion, Chester Kilner, W. and Co., Huddersfield-01lice of Mr. Peace, Huddersfield Kinll, H., Cheltenham—Commercial rooms, Bristol Lee, Leicester—White Hart, Leicester Lomax, J., Stockport—Bulkeley Arms, Stockport Melling and Co., Liverpool—Mr. Wood's, Liverpool Phillips,H., Stepney-house, Yorksh.—Elephant and Castle, Scarborough Skyrme, W., Worcester—Rummer, Bristol Spencer, R., Liverpool—Mr. Prest, Liverpool Thompson, J,, Mappleton—King's tavern, Derby LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 19. PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY. Mr. LOVATT applied, at the rising of the Court, for per mission to make a motion under that part of the new Bank • ruptcy Act which directs the enrolment of proceedings under a commission, and declares that unless they are so en rolled, they shall not be received. as evidence in any Court of Law. • _ _ The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the motion to be made on Saturday morning, which would be in time for the Assizes. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. icnr.lis AND OTHERS V. CONGREVE AND MACLEAN. This was a case in which five persons named lichens, Moxon, Parker, Morgan, and Fryer, shareholders in the Arigna Mining Company, filed a bill against Sir William Congreve and General Maclean, Directors of the Company, in order to compel the refunding of 15,0001., alleged to have been fraudulently divided among certain persons of the Company. Mr. HEALD, for the defendants, applied for leave either to strike out certain parts of an answer which his clients had put in to a bill filed by the plaintiffs, or to take the whole of the said answer off the file. The grounds of his application were these :—Three of the plaintiffs originally filed a hill against the defendants to compel them to refund the sum of 15,0001. which had been fraudulently divided. To that bill the defendants had put in an answer, in which they admitted the obtainment and division of the sum of 15,0001. as charged in the bill, but denied that the plain tiffs had any equity, and for these reasons—the plaintiffs purchased the shares under which they made their claim from clerks and servants of the company, who had re ceived such notice of the transaction respecting the 15,0001. that they could not complain ; and the plaintiffs consequently were in the same situation, having purchased the interest of these persons. The plaintiffs finding this objection to be good, added to themselves two other plaintiffs, Morgan and Fryer, who were original shareholders, and who had no notice of the fraud. Having thus made good their claim in equity, they proceeded with the suit, and endeavoured to avail • themselves of the admis sions which the defendants had made only to the first three plaintiffs. Leave Was therefore asked to strike out some points of the answer, or to take it off the file altogether. The Learned Counsel contended that his clients had been entrapped into admissions of charges which they knew could not be supported, and which came from persons whom they knew had no remedy in equity, even if the charges they made were true. It was with know ledge of the want of equity of the first three plaintiffs, that his clients had made admissions, and it was on account of this want of equity that they had made such admissions. — If they had been aware that other plaintiffs were to be added —that new plaintiffs, possessing a very different interest from the original plaintiffs, were to be introduced—they could have qualified their answers very materially, and could have added such explanations as would have altered the appearance of those answers altogether. His Honour was very well aware that many things were frequently ad mitted in an answer, not hecause they were true, but be cause they were not material, and, consequently, it would not be worth while to enter into lengthy explanations re specting them. This was the case in the present answer; and he therefore trusted that his Honour would allow that answer to be withdrawn, in order that another, more suit able to the case, as it had been altered, by the introduction of new plaintiffs, might be put in. Mr. HoitAcE Twist followed on the same side. Mr. HoRNE opposed the application. Mr. SUGDEN also opposed the application. Mr. HEA LD replied. • The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the de fendants must be bound by the admission of their solicitor, that the answer was to remain as against all the defendants, and by the proceedings which had been taken subsequent to that admission, In his judgment, the defendants would not be dealt at all hardly by if it was refused them to with draw their answer. If there were any circumstances of an explanatory or extenuating nature—if there were any circumstances that could mitigate the effects of such an answer as the defendants had put in, be should certainly take them into his consideration when the cause came be fore him for,hearing. He therefore felt himself bound to refuse the present motion with costs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 19. ROBINSON V. STANBRIDdE. This was an action of contract, in which the plaintiff sought to recover the value of a quantity of tallow, which the defendant had contracted to purchase from him. In his defence, the defendant insisted that the con tract was merely a time-bargain on the price of the tallow. The contract was not produced, but it appeared from the evidence of the witnesses called, that a time-bargain with respect to stock had been entered into between the parties just about the period of the alleged contract for tallow. The LORD CHIEF hinter summed up, leaving the case in the hands of the Jury on the facts they had heard stated, observing, however, that should they be of opinion that this contract was a time-bargain in tallow, he did not think the transaction sufficiently illegal to prevent the plaintiff from recovering. That he was compelled to hold such an opinion he certainly much regretted, because he was one of those old-fashioned politicians who were now denominated illiberal. He thought, kowever, that a day would come when those illiberal opinions would be proved to be founded on truth, and when, by the operation of those principles of trade which were now deemed liberal, it would be found that we had descended from 'the brilliant situation to which our old and honest principles of trade had raised us. • By the old system a real transfer of pro perty always took place; this was not the case with the present, which had communicated itself to ,every branch of trade, and had rendered this once mighty city one great gambling-house. This injurious practice created a fictitious value upon articles of necessary consumption, and the public were therefore compelled to pay the price of this abominable . spirit of speculation. With these remarks, he would leAre the case to the Jury. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. • The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then said he would give the defendant leave to move to set it aside on the ground of the illegality of the transaction. PLUCKWELL D. CARTER. Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom was Mr. PAY NE) stated that this was an action of slander brought by the plaintiff, the master of the Tottenham workhouse, to re cover compensation for the injury that his character might sustain from the aspersions Mrs. Carter had cast upon it. She had said that he had applied the provisions of the workhouse to his own purposes. The Jury would see that such an imputation was highly injurious, and he trusted they would give such a verdict as would convince the world that the aspersion was without foundation. The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET.—Yesterday, Mr. Francis Dhuory, wine and drug merchant, of •No. 12, Little Britain, ap peared at this Office, on a charge of bastardy, preferred against him by the officers of St. Martin's parish. Mr. Rawlings, the assistant-overseer, produced the de position of Elizabeth Worthy, which was sworn to in the presence of Mr. Mirisnum., and which stated, that the defendant, Francis Dhuory, was the father of the child of which she had been delivered, about three weeks before, in the workhouse of St. Martin's parish. Mr. Rawlings added, that the unfortunate young woman who had given birth to the child was now no more, and the parish 'was obliged to proceed against the defendant for its main tenance, and also for the expellees incurred at the time of its birth. Mr. MlNsifunt said, he recollected the young woman coming before him, and. asked if any person waswesent who could swear to the identity of the infant. A young woman, who held the child in her arms, said she could give the necessary proof. A respectable-looking woman, in mourning, who proved to be the mother of the deceased, observed there could be no doubt of the child's identity. Mr. Dhuory said something, rather indistinctly, about a want of proof. Mr. MiNsuutr. asked him if he were a married man ? Mr. Dhuory.—l am. Mr. Read,' the proprietor of Slaughter's Coffee-house, St. Martin's-lane, and who is also overseer of the poor for Spur-alley-yard ward, in the same parish, addressing the defendant, said, that his conduct towards the unfortunate deceased was both unmanly and unfeeling; "for," said Mr. Read, "after seducing her from her home in Spa fields, and keeping her for three years, when, at the end of that time, she proved pregnant by you, you turned her out into the streets, and told her she might go and be d—d." Mr. Dhuory (to Mr. Read).—You know nothing about the business, Sir ; you shoal mind what you say. Mr. Read—But I do know about the business, and I re peat that your treatment of the unfortunate young woman, whom I often saw in the workhouse, was most unkind and unfeeling. Mr. Dhuory—You have no right to interfere, Sir. Mr. Read—l have a right to interfere ;itis my duty to do so ; you never contributed a penny to purchase her one necessary in her trouble, and I repeat— Mr. have nothing to do with what may have occurred between the parties previous to the birth of the child. The mother has distinctly swore that you are the father, and the only question for me to decide is, the weekly sum you must pay for its support. What are your circumstances? Mr. Rawlings.—Oh ! he is well able to pay, Sir. He is a merchant, and a man of property. I think I Os. a week, your Worship, is little enough. Mr. Dhuory—Ten shillings a week ! 'tis too much. 1 was ordered to pay only half a crown a week on another occasion, and why should I pay 10s. now ? I can't afford it. Mr. Mirtsmn.r.—You can balance accounts, you know ; by which you will find you have provided for two children for 12s. 6d. a week. Mr. WILLIAMS, a county magistrate on the Bench, said, the admission of the defendant that he was paying for another illegitimate child, after acknowledging he was a married man, tended considerably to aggravate the case. Mr. MrusituLL—l think so too; and I shall make the order for 10s. Mr. Dhuory repeated his inability to pay that sum. Mr. Mixsuum.—What ! a merchant in the city unable to pay 10s. a week ? Mr. Dhuory—Merchants are as often behindhand as other people. Mr. MiNsuntr.—You should have thought of your means, Sir, before you incurred the responsibility of bring ing children into the world. You cannot expect that others are to pay for your offspring. Let the order be made out for 10s. The order was made out accordingly, and a bill for five guineas, including the expences incurred by the parish dur ing the confinement of the deceased, being handed to the defendant, he wrote a cheque on his bankers for the amount, and the parties withdrew. . • MARYLEBONE.— George Neeshain, a young ma❑ whose clothes appeared to have been long in his service, was charged by Mary Sturt, a smart young woman, with being drunk and disorderly in Vere-street, Oxford-street, at half past twelve yesterday morning. Mrs. Sturt, after giving her address, No. 4, Angel court, in the Strand, proceeded to state, that as she was walking along the streets at the time before-mentioned, the defendant behaved with rudeness towards her, and on at tempting to take bold of her, fell upon the steps of a door, and dropped a quantity of money. Seeing he was intoxi cated, she assisted him in picking it up, after which he ac cused her of stealing a sovereign, and sent her to the watch house, where it became evident, from his own statement, that he had not lost one, and she was liberated. Mrs. Stint further stated, that after she left the watchhouse, he followed her and grossly insulted her in Vere-street, so that she was compelled to give him in charge. The defendant (who described himself " a Member of College," living at 322, Oxford-street) having no excuse to offer, was fined ss. by Mr. Hoskins for being drunk, and placed under the gaoler's care, until he gave bail for his appearance in answer to the charge of assault. Richard Shadwell, driver of the hackney-coach, No. 247, was fined 20s. and costs, for using abusive language on Saturday night towards Mr. Henry Nassau, of No. 41, Baker-street, his fare. A footman belonging to Mr. Nassau bore testimony to the language used by the driver, which is unfit to be re peated, and Mr. Nassau stated that he had given no provocation, for he put 58. 6d. into his hand, which is beyond what he could demand for bringing him from Vauxhall. LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS. THE PARISH OP ST. ANDREW, HOLBORN, V. THE REV, MR. TYSON. This was an appeal from the decision of the Lord Mayor, who some time ago made an order of affiliation against the Rev. defendant. Mr. Anor.Pnus expressed a wish that there might be some error in the notices, by which it would become un necessary to proceed further in this business ; but there was no irregularity of any kind. He stated that the only question the Court had to try was, whether the reverend appellant was or was not the father of the child. They would, in all probability, be supplied with a specimen of the bad feeling already exhibited upon this subject against the poor girl. He would not, however, attempt to aggra vate the case by any observations, but would be content with proving that the appellant was the father of-tire child by the only testimony possible in cases of the kindthat of the mother; who would also swear that she hadMeen seduced by the person who now so resolutely denied that his 'acquaintance with her was other than ordinary. To her credit, the injury done to her innocence had ilot degraded her into habits of prostitution. The reverend defendant alone was conscious of her weakness, whatever attempts might that day be made to traduce her. Mary Ann Franklyn stated that she was the mother of the female child she held in her arms. It was born on the 13th of April, in St. Andrew's poor-house. The father is the Rev. Mr. Tyson. Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—CouId not say the exact month she entered Mr. Tyson's service, but it was after the death of Mr. M'Masters. Could not swear . to the month in which she was seduced by Mr. Tyson, who had made repeated attempts before this upon her virtue. When she found out positively that she was in the family way, she was five months gone. Never applied to him for relief until convinced that she was pregnant, and that was her only reason for going to him. She had stated as a reason, before that she knew it was of no use. She did not wish to expose him. She had endeavoured ti/ see him, but she had not written to him. She discovered her condition in the middle of January. She saw Mr. Tyson afterwards, but he did not speak to her. They had no conversation at all upon the subject.. She never went to any person in that month, and said that she would swear the child to that person. Never said to any person "As you are the last, I must swear that you are the father." Mr. Pnitrurs here informed the Court that a very ma- terial witness was not arrived. Ann Franklyn continued—She hail never said to any woman that the father of the child was a clerk at Bloxam's. Knew a woman named Wilmot. Never had any intercourse with any man within the last year in the world. A Mr. L. had made an attempt, but without success. She never knew any man intimately in her life except the Rev. Ap pellant. Never said to any woman that she should be obliged to swear the child, and that the father was so poor as not to be able to pay more than ?.s. 6d. a week. Knew Bolton and Crick; but they never took liberties with her. Never went out at night in men's clothes; but 'knew a young woman who did. Knew Mr. Walker and Mr. Begg ; but never was seen - by them in men's clothes. Re-exaLiained—Some sisters of Mr. Tyson came from Yorkshire, and then she gave notice that she would leave the house. Susan Davis took her place. In July she called to see Susan Davis, and then she saw the Rev. Gen tleman. It was to that visit she attributed the condition to which she was brought. Susan Davis, Mrs. Wilmot, and Mr. Lee were examined before the Lord Mayor. Aldred, Lyon, Bolton, and Crick were not called. She was in deed a good and virtuous girl until the Rev. Gentleman seduced bell.. Mr. Cnas. PHILLIPS then addreised the Court.—He meant to show that the young woman had perjured herself over and over again ; and surely, if that appeared to be the case, it would not be justifiable in the Bench to pronounce for the conviction. The Learned Counsel then alluded to the denials which the girl had made in the course of her cross-examination, and said that if he could show that in any one instance she had sworn falsely, no credit could be given to her in a transaction of so serious a nature. Mr. ADOLPH us believed it was an axiom of the Court to affiliate if the mother swore to the father. If the charge was false,_ the mother could, of course, be prosecuted for the perjury. Mr. PHILLIPS would prove that she was a most aban doned woman ; that she dressed herself in men's clothes, and was guilty of the greatest indecencies. William Walker, a watchmaker, knew Ann Franklyn when she lived at Mr. M'Masters'. Saw her there dressed in men's clothes ; was in the kitchen with her at the time. Cross-examined—When lie saw this curious exhibition he lived with Mr. M'Masters. The first intimation he had that this case was coming on was from Mr. Tyson, who called upon him, and asked him whether he knew Ann Franklyn ; never mentioned the conduct of the girl to Mr. M'Masters, ner to Mr. Tyson until the latter called upon him. Mr. Tyson asked him whether he knew any thing improper of her, and he (witness) then told him What he had just stated. The girl called on him twice after Mr. M'Masters' death. _ _ . Hamilton Begg also swore that he saw the girl dressed in men's clothes about four years ago. Daniel Crick swore that he saw the girl in Mr. McMas tars' clothes. Here Mr. PHILLIPS put a question to the witness, which, if answered in the affirmative, would have subjected him to ecclesiastiCal censure. The Recorder intimated this to the witness, who said, in reply, that he had certainly been very intimate with the young woman. The witness added, that he might have kissed her, and he was sure that she tried to make herself look like a man. Sarah Bransdon deposed that the girl told her that she must swear the child, as the father could not afford to pay more than 2s. 6d. a week. Cross-examined—Mr. Tyson sent for her upon this sub ject. Witness (lid not ask her who was the father of her child. She said th4t she had been to her father, but he would-do nothing for her, and she was obliged to swear the child. Mrs. Wilmot deposed that the girl told her that the father of the child was a clerk (a laugh) ; hut she did not say that he was clerk in any house. John Lyons said that he was intimate with the girl.— Mr. Tyson called upon him at his house. Mr. ADOLPHUS said, that if evidence had not been sup pressed, he should not have thought it necessary to address a word to the Court ; for the making up of the case was indeed palpable. The fact was, the woman who had clothed herself in men's clothes was the paramour of one of the witnesses, and not the mother of Mr. Tyson's child.— The offence, in the first instance, was had enough, but the Rev. Gentleman had contrived to make blackness still more black. The Learned Gentleman then commented with much severity upon the evidence, and submitted to the Court that the paternity of the Rev. Appellant was undeniable. The Court then, without hesitation; confirmed the order, with costs. RELIGIOUS FANATICISM IN FRANCE. The Correctional Tribunal of Alencon has just been occupied with the trial of three men, named Quinet, Ruel, and Bernard, for the offence of not taking off their hats when the Host passed them.— They are the followers of a man named Fleuriel, a zealous propagator of a schism which was formed in _ _ the Catholic Church on the occasion of the Con cordat of the year 9, and which is commonly known by the name of the Little Church. Four witnesses were heard in support of the charge, which their evidence strongly supported. The President then proceeded to the examination of the culprits, beginning with Quinet. Where were you going when you met the pro cession ? I was with my cousin, and was taking hiM to Fresnay. Why did you not take off your hat ? Becausei our religion forbids us to do it. When I was re-. quired to take off my hat I answeled that I was of the religion of JesuS Christ, and not that of Satan. You think, then, that the mode of worship prac tised in France is that of Satan ? Yes, Sir. Why do you look so upon the religion of France ? Because it is Satan-Napoleon who is the chief of it. Who taught you that doctrine P—lt is my father who taught it to me in bringing me up in the reli gion of Jesus Christ. What proofs were given you that the public reli gion is not the true one?—The works of iniquity it has accomplished. What are those works of iniquity ?—They are the sins committed in taking away fePst days, in killing Louis XVI. and his Queen, in selling the goods of the nobles, in slaying the priests, and persecuting the Church of Christ. You have been led into error, for in the time that priests were slaughtered, that religion was forbidden, and does it not now actually exist ? How exist ? It is at the expense of the oaths sworn to Satan. Napoleon, whom the priests acknowledged as their God. It was, however, Napoleon who re-established re• ligion 7—Napoleon re-established religion, to make himself worshipped, and lead souls to bell; he is the Anti-Christ. It is needless to add, that this examination excited - great laughter. With respect to Ruel and Bernard, they made the same profession of faith ; but the latter, whose fea tures indicated a high degree of excitation, called to Quinet for the Acts of the Apostles. He read several of the Epistles of St. Paul, who, however, does not seem to have had much concern in the matter, and concluded his lecture by saying—" You see, then, Gentlemen, according to this, that it • impossible for us to do what you require. % When I left my wife and child I at first grieved, but When I reflected that it was in the service of God, I re- joiced. Let the scaffold, in that service, come before us, and we shall all be ready to mount it rather than, change our. faith." The PRESIDENT.—Have yin any Counsel ? Prisoners.—Our Counsel is on high—it is God ! After this exclamation Bernard proceeded - to - reed a paper, the more curious, as it is the work of the. Precursor of Jesus Christ" himself--Louis de Fleuriel, surnamed Elias. The paper was a long one. The following are the reasons which it gives for not paying homage to the established religion :--- " We cannot render homage, or respect, or honour, to the Anti-christian religion of France, which, since the Revolution, approving every thing, sanctioning every thing, blessing every thing, and protecting every thing, has seduced, degraded, dishonoured, and exterminated mankind by schisms, heresies, profli gacy and wars—being visibly the enemy of the throne of God, of the throne of the Church, and of the happiness, present and to come, of the Kings and people of the earth. Far from blessing that revolii tionary worship we, with all the holy Priests of God, with all the just of heaven and earth, say to it, Anathema! execration These are the w ords which ought continually to come from our mouths, in order to awake from their long sleep of impenitence the Constitutional Concordatist Priests, unhappy apostles of the revolutionary worship. We are just, we are charitable towards them, in carefully avoiding to scandalize them by a salute—that is, by any act of respect which neither they nor their worship deserves, and which the holy Apostle himself forbids us, that we may not participate in that iniquity. " Far different from the Priests of the Revolution, and all that belongs to them, are Apostles to us.-- Catholic Priests, and our religion, our altars, o ur ceremonies, our processions, our prayers, are exempt from having touched the dakk, bloody, decayed, and perishable edifice of the Empire of Napoleon, the prophesied Anti-Christ." The paper concluded by professing " Eternal hatred to the Communion Cup and the Sacrament of the Daemons, with whom we neither can nor ought to participate. Honour, glory, adoration, and protection, to the Cup of all Holiness and Sacra mentAs soon as Bernard had finished reading this mo st singular document, he placed it in the P res id ent 's o n f i a g l h l 2, Salvation, of J esus Ch r i st , son o f the Most hands, saying, "There's for you." The PRESIDENT--Who wrote this ? Bernard.—lt was the Holy Ghost which hath sent it to us. The PRESIDENT.--Is it not rather Fleuriel Bernard.—l repeat to you that it was the Holy Ghost. After a short deliberation the Tribunal decided that Quinet, Ruel, and Bernard, by refusing to take off their hats before the procession, had outraged the Religion of the State, and, for that offence, clon. , ' demned them, by the 13th article of the law of the 20th April, 1825, to six days' imprisonment, to pay a fine of 16 francs, and for them collectively to pay the costs of the procedure. The unhappy fanatics immediately called out, stamping their feet—" You have our bodies, but you have nothing. Dawn with schism and heregy You are all agents of Satan."—Constitutionnel of Sunday. MARRIED. On the 18th inst., at Melksham; Joseph John Gurney, of Earlham, near Norwich, to Mary, daughter of the late Robert Fowler, of Elmgrove, in Wiltshire. DIED. On the 18th inst., on his way to Preston Races, Mr. James Scholfield, of Manchester, a gentleman well kopwa in the sporting circles, and much respected for probity and punctuality in all his engagements. . On the 19th inst., at Sunbury, Middlesex, Lady Bayn tun, widow of Sir Andrew Bayntun, Bart. On the 16th inst., at the Mount, Newcastle, Stafford shire, Josiah Spode, Esq., aged 73. On the 13th instant, at Islington, Mr. Thomas *lu sted, of the firm of Bumsted Brothers, Eastcheap, it the 27th year of his age. . On the 3d inst., at Llwynrhydowen ' in.the 84th yor of his age, the Rev. D. Davis, formerly of Castle-Howell, Cardiganshire, for more than half a century the highly respected and endeared pastor of the P;sseiting Congrega tions at Llwynrhydowen, Penrhiw, Cilian, and Alltyplaeca- PRINTED and PUBLISHED by M. YOUNG, at the Sux-Orrica, Dip. 112, Strand. T< tin pla yoi PP L pla fon con De, for, the twe Col otho CA To Nia aCC any unl tin Ch Sai bill OH Sei 'MU nee Toi ant