The Sun. — London, England, 1834-10-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Standard of last night is perfectly frantic in his abuse of the Popish priests of Ireland, stimulated by Mr. O'Connell's fourth letter to Lord Duncannon, and the account of the triumphal entry of the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam into the town of Tuam. In calling names, we think Mr. O'Connell has fairly found his match in our contemporary_ The following is peculiarly racy. We are told that in the individual man, Daniel O'Connell, " are embodied all the mean falsehood—all the indifference to shame—all the in vulnerability to conviction and exposure—all the brutality—and all the anti-English and anti-Protestant feeling of all Popish priests of Ireland ; and if we want a name for the abstraction, we may borrow that of the symbolical hag, which has long oppressed and lacerated Ireland,, and call it Mother Popery. Whether moulding himself to the humour of the, priests, for the sake of gain, or chosen by the priests because of his capacity for falsehood, his shameless ness, indifference to exposure, brutality, and anti- English and anti-Protestant feeling, Mr. O'Connell is the chosen of the priests, and must, therefore, be ,ac cepted in all these respects as their representative." Let Mr. O'Connell outdo this in his next philippic against the Saxons, if he can I The Irish Catholics are now in an especial manner the objects of the fierce hatred of all real or pretended admirers of the sinecure Church of Ireland—called, drolly enough, a Protestant Reformed Church. Our contemporary views with in dignation the honours paid to Dr. M'Hale, the Catho lic Archbishop of Tuam. But the perusal of Dr. M'Hale's speech may not be without its use, throwing as it does a light on the means by which the Catholic clergy retain so powerful a hold over their flocks. Dr. \l'Hale tells us— " I have been deemed by some to have indulged too much warmth in the exposure of the people's grievances.— (Cheers.) If they had hearts to feel, they could not com plain of the ardour of my feelings, had they witnessed the same sufferings that required such exposure. The wrongs of other parts of Ireland had ready hearts to sympathize with them, and ready and eloquent tongues and pens to ex pose them. Those who had bad hearts—those of the west, and Tyrawley in particular, were too much occupied by the labours of the Ministry that required their whole attention. Mine, then, was the ungrateful task of laying before the public scenes of oppression which were entirely unknown, and of conveying to a quarter where they might excite compassion, the cries of the poor, which had hitherto died away in the wilderness."—(Tremendous cheering.) The Catholic Archbishop protests against all at tempts to draw on the Catholic Priests any share of the odium thrown, on the Establishment by its wealth, which has paralyzed- the inefficiency of its ministers. Alluding to the honours which had been paid him, he exclaims— " What is it, then, that has drawn around the ministers of religion that array of the affections which those who rule only by coercion cannot understand ? What is it that has rendered the religious ceremony that took place on the con fines of both dioceses, surpassing even the solemnity of the most sumptuous cathedral, assisted as it was by throngs which the area of St. Peter's could not contain, and deriv ing from the majesty of the place, with only the canopy of heaven for its covering, a certain grandeur which the roof of St. Peter's church could not rival ?—(Enthusiastic cheering.) What was it that made our procession a sort of ovation, as anticipated by the clergy of Killala, resembling . a flood, and swelling as it rolled by repeated tributary ac cessions ? What was it that drew out into such strong relief the hidden affections of the people of Tuam and Cas tlebar, and united together into an assemblage unexampled in its numbers, persons who, as is natural must have on va rious subjects a difference of opinion? It is because we are what our office supposes us to be—mediators between the Government and the people, unswayed by what might be called the passions of either. To both we are attached from principle, as equally necessary to each other as well as to the interests of religion ; and, standing aloof, the Ca tholic clergy have earned the affections of the people.— (Cheers.)" We do not wonder that these manifestations afford little satisfaction to the champions of the sinecure Church.—Morning Chronicle. In consequence of the not very .wise determination of our liberal rulers to carry on the investigation touch ing the cause of the destructive fire in Westminster, with closed doors, garbled, and, of course, incorrect statements of the evidence have gone forth to the public, instead of those accurate and•authentic reports which the London Newspapers would have given through their accredited reporters, and on their own responsibility. It is, indeed, a foolish practice to carry on such investigations with closed doors—because, if even complete secrecy were desirable, it is absurd to suppose that complete secrecy can be attained. The examiners may be all sworn to secrecy, as in this in stance, and all the 'members of the Court in attend ance, as well as the official note-taker, but there being no legal means of compelling witnesses to take an oath of secrecy, it is as impossible to retain within the closed doors all which may have transpired within them, as to carry water in a sieve without spilling. But even if secrecy could be obtained, where would be the advantage? The public curiosity, when strongly excited, if not supplied with true accounts, will rather take in the wildest fiction than have nothing to feed upon. There are always those persons who are ready to supply public curiosity disappointed of the truth with their own inventions—so that secrecy thus be comes the fertile source of imposture. What propor tion truth bears to fiction in the published reports of what is alleged to have transpired before the Privy Council, respecting the destruction of the Houses of Parliament by fire, we know not ; or, indeed, whether there is any truth in those reports at all. As, how ever, no official contradiction has been given, we may, perhaps, presume that something has taken place of the nature stated, though it is evident that the manner in which such accounts have been obtained, causes them, of necessity, to be garbled, imperfect, and, of course, very unsatisfactory. Let us, however, just glance at what is alleged to have been the substance of the evidence, anc. we think all reasoning minds will come to the conclusion, that if the statements are strictly true, instead of being exceedingly doubtful, yet the evidence, as far as it is yet gone, ,is not such as to dispel the mystery in which the origin of the fire is in volved. Now, let us see. The first extract which we will make from the supposed evidence is as follows : " The first witness called was Mr. Whibley, Clerk of the Works, to whose superintendence the repairs of the House were confined. This gentleman gave a full description of the directions he had given to the different workmen, and also stated that he authorised a man of the name of Cross to burn the wooden tallies of the Court of Exchequer in the stoves for heating the flues communicating with the House of Lords. He could not have apprehended any danger could result from such a procedure. " Mrs. Wright, the housekeeper of the Lords, was next called in. This lady underwent a very long examination, We understand she stated that, during the day, becoming somewhat alarmed at the unusual heat in the House and the apartments adjoining, she sent no less than three diffe rent messages to Cross to ascertain if there was any dan ger, and advised him to be cautious. He answered that there was no occasion to feel alarm, as he would take care all should be right. At one' time the thermometer in the House was more than five degrees higher than ever they had before been able to raise it by consuming an unlimited quantity of coals." When, previously to the examination before the Privy Council, it was_ stated by correspondents of our's, as well as other papers, that the burning the wooden tallies of the Court of Exchequer in the stoves which heated the flues of the House of Lords was the cause of the fire, we confess we could not believe it. It did appear to us to be impossible that any mode so stupid and dangerous of getting rid of those tallies could have been hit upon by any person who had a head upon his shoulders, and a ray of common sense or reflection within it. Was there, we ask, no other way of destroying wooden tallies than to make a bonfire of them in the. stoves of the House of Lords ? Stoves were never meant for such a purpose. A burning of wood like that described would be enough to put a baker's oven in danger. .The Mr. Whibley here mentioned is, we presume, Clerk of the Works to Sir Robert Smirke., Is, it possible that he could have given the orders described in the unauthenticated report of the evidence ? Why were not the tallies carried out of doors into some open space, and there burned ? why not chopped to pieces ? why not thrown among the faggots, in these days, distinguished by the saving of candle-ends and cheese-parings, and used in lighting the fires of public offices ? Those who have known the Houses of Parliament for any time past re- collect when Mr. Lee was the intelligent and indefa tigable Clerk of the Works, who had the care and charge of the premises before they were placed under the superintendence of Sir Robert Smirke. Nobody recollects any fire, or alarm of fire, during the period of that gentleman's superintendence, which termi nated a few years ago. During that time, how were the wooden tallies of the Exchequer destroyed ? They were taken at low water-mark to the water's edge, and there burned. From that mode of destroying them, no danger could possibly arise to the Houses of Par liament, or to any other house. With regard to the tallies which are alleged to have been burned in the stoves (but which we cannot believe to have been so destroyed until we see it stated in an authentic shape), we ask whether a person did not make an application for them, on hearing that they were to be destroyed, knowing that persons curious in such matters would like to purchase bundles of them for museums and collections, and whether his application was not re fused ? If so, and the fire has been occasioned by burning them in the stoves, the refusal to allow some person to dispose of them to some advantage will cost the nation a pretty round sum. Why the application was refused, and mere destruction preferred, we can not surmise, because, as tallies were no longer to be employed as account-books in the Court of Exchequer, they could not be used to any improper purpose. If we may be allowed to indulge in a bull on this occa sion, in all deference to Sir John Newport, who has been placed at the head of the new Court of Exche quer, to prove that the " antiquated machinery" has been got rid of, we will say that the wooden tallies had all become so much waste paper, except to anti quarians, whose application of them, we presume, would have been sufficiently innocent. We were aware that a very small portion of understanding and common sense was thought necessary for the manage ment of offices of public trust in these our days, albeit we live in the age of intellect ; but we were not aware that the destruction of wooden tallies could only be accomplished in such a manner as to prove that wooden heads in high places have survived the demolition of the machinery of St. Dunstan's clock. The report then goes on to say— " Cross was next examined. The substance of his evi dence, as far as we are able to collect it, was, that he merely obeyed the instructions he had received from the Clerk of the Works, and he had no apprehension of danger until the fire broke out. " This witness underwent a most rigid examination by the Lord Chancellor. He persisted in denying that he was at any moment apprehensive of the fire produced by the burning of the tallies doing mischief. " John Reynolds, the man whose duty it is to light the fires about the House, deposed that he went to the last wit ness three separate times, and told him that he was acting incautiously, as the flues would not bear the heat ; adding, You are goin g it too rapid ; they never will bear such a heat as this.' Cross replied he knew what he was about. He talked to him for some time on the subject, and recom mended him not to put so much in the stove at a time. After that he left the House, and on his return, in the even ing, he found it in flames. " The son of the preceding witness deposed that he was present when his father cautioned Cross not to load the fires so much ; and that he was sent by Mrs. Wright three different times to request of him to be careful, as she began to feel quite alarmed. " The witness Cross was re-called, but it was found that he had left the Council-office. Messengers were immediately despatched in search of him, and after a delay of about half an hour they succeeded in finding him. On his return he was again examined. " 'We understood that he, in the most positive manner, denied having received snore than one message as to the fire from Mrs. Wright, or that he was cautioned by Reynolds. He again repeated that he thought it impossible for the fire he kindled to be dangerous." In the above evidence, if evidence it be, the contra diction between Cross, the person who is said to have actually burnt the tallies, and Mrs. Wright, the house keeper, and John Reynolds, is striking enough ; but, unless there is more than meets the eye, we should consider the person who gave such an order more blameable than the servant who executed it. But where were the persons who were, or ought to be respon sible for the safety of the premises all the time while these extraordinary proceedings were going on ? Such is stated to have been the substance of the proceed ings the first day of the examination. On the second being Tuesday, it is said that Cross underwent another examination, in which he denied that he had been re peatedly cautioned to desist from burning the tallies in such a manner. Then Reynolds being again ques tioned, persisted in saying that he had carried him three admonitory messages from Mrs. Wright. Per sons about the House of Lords were examined as to the unusual heat. A Mr. Cooper had been examined on the first day, of the firm of Cooper, Hall, and Co., of Drury-lane, stove-manufacturers, who had the re pairing and superintendence of the flues in both Houses. That gentleman's evidence went to prove that the stoves were capable of bearing all reasonable heats, and that if the fire occurred from the overheated state of the flues, it must have been occasioned by some gross neglect. On Tuesday, according to the garbled report, came the evidence which we now quote, and the announcement of which has excited no small sensation : " To-day, Mr. Hall, the partner of Mr. Cooper, was exa mined, and this gentleman's testimony was, it is stated, of the first importance. We understand that he was in Bir mingham on Thursday night, when the fire occurred, and he informed their Lordships that he heard it publicly stated in several companies in that town which he named, that the Houses of Lords and Commons were burnt to the ground. This was as early as ten o'clock at night. This astounding evidence appeared to astonish every one, as it will be re collected it was past six o'clock in the evening before the fire was discovered by those on the spot, and it is quite evident that even steam communication could not have transmitted the intelligence 110 miles in such an in credibly short space of time. The Lords of the Council put several questions to this witness, as to his being cer tain that Thursday was the day to which he alluded ; but upon this point Mr. Hall was positive, as it was a circum stance which he could not mistake, for he returned to town early on Saturday morning by the Shrewsbury Regulator coach, which left Birmingham on Friday at noon. The Lord Chancellor here su g gested the absolute necessity of having the guard of the Shrewsbury coach before them, and messengers were immediately despatched to procure his attendance ; but the result of their endeavours to carry their Lordships' directions into effect, was the discovery that there were several guards, and the one whose evidence was required was then on his journey, and would not be in town again till to-morrow." This, if correctly stated, is indeed a most extraordi nary circumstance. The report goes on to say— " Under these circumstances, and the Lord Chancellor's attendance being required at another place, their Lordships, at four o'clock, terminated the inquiry for the day. The Lord Chancellor, however, shortly afterwards returned, and we understand that both the Noble Lord and Lord Mel bourne gave particular instructions to the messengers, that no exertions should be omitted to procure the attendance of the guard who left Birmingham on the Friday. A vast deal of importance is attached to this information ; because, if Mr. Hall is not labouring under some mistake, it clearly proves that the late disastrous catastrophe was not so much the effect of accident, as, up to the present day's inquiry, was so generally believed." It has often been remarked, and some curious in stances in ancient and modern times are recorded, that a bruit, or report from some unknown source, of a re markable event has often anticipated the conveyance of the intelligence through the ordinary channels of com munication. The death of Domitian is one instance out of several in Roman history, and the battle of the Nile one of our own times. This, we mention, not because we believe such things have really happened, but to show that such impressions, however produced, are no novelty. If we are to believe popular tradition, events often travel faster by some unknown species of conveyance than news can go even by rail-roads or the flight of pigeons. Still we think that if Mr. Hall car rectly states that the burning of the Houses of Parlia ment, which did not break forth until about half-past six o'clock, was known in Birmingham at ten the same evening, the matter should not cease to be sifted until it be accounted for by some more satisfactory reason than that of supernatural agency. What took place yesterday before the Privy Council is briefly stated as follow s : " The Lords of the Privy Council assembled yesterday at eleven o'clock, and proceeded to inspect the ruins of the late Houses of Parliament. Their Lordships were attended by Sir Robert Smirke and other official gentlemen ; it was consequently near one o'clock before the examination of witnesses in the Council Chamber was resumed. " The guard of the Shrewsbury Regulator coach having arrived in London, was in attendance to give evidence. " A person of the name of Dukes was previously ex- amined, but we are informed his evidence was not very ma- terial. "In consequence of his Majesty's arrival in town for the purpose of receiving the Recorder's report, most of their Lordships were obliged to leave." Are we not, therefore, justified in saying that the mystery which involved this strange event is not yet dispelled, and that the secret proceedings of the King's Council have not been dictated by the wisdom of So lomon.—Morning Herald. - As the investigation before the Privy Council into the circumstances attending the late calamitous fire proceeds, the mystery with regard to its origin in creases, and the most weighty; if not painful, reflec tions necessarily force themselves upon our minds re specting it. Without in any way assuming that the facts already adduced in evidence warrant the presump tion of incendiarism, we may still, for the sake of in structive argument, and for the purpose of inducing greater watchfulness on the part of our rulers, assume the possibility of such a crime having been commited, and with this feeling or prejudice in our minds what a fearful train of inferences, and not altogether ground less alarms, immediately arise. Evidence has already been laid before the Privy Council of a most unques tionable character, that the fire was the subject of conversation at Bitiningham at ten o'clock of the night on which it took place, although it had not broken out much more than three hours be fore, and there was no possibility of, a communi cation being made from London to Birmingham within so short a space of time. Birmingham, it will be recollected, is the central seat of Unionism, and if the plan of destruction was laid in London with the. concurrence of the Delegates or Central Committee of the Unionists in Birmingham or vice versa, there would then be no difficulty in understanding why the fire should be spoken of before the fact of its having occurred could have been known. We had occasion a short time ago to direct public attention to the rules of the Union of operative builders, and we now recal the recollection of our readers to the revolutionary charac ter and tendency of their proceedings. The rules, amongst other things, declare that the Central Com mittee at the seat of government shall be the executive government for all the Union, and that the Central Committee of a district shall be empowered to cause the members of the Union to turn out, if requisite, in the proportion of two to every hundred members on the books of the district. - Now if any members of the Central Committee, either of a district or at the seat of Government," were wicked enough to intimate to some of their misguided and in fatuated dupes that the " good cause " would be served by the destruction of any of our most va luable national works, what assurance have we that these wretched men would not as readily obey their in famous commanders in fulfilling their fiendish purpose, as submit for weeks together to starve their wives and families upon a miserable pittance of twelve shillings a week, while they could obtain thirty shillings in their ordinary employment ? Their machinations, too, may all be concocted in secret, for each Lodge has its pass word, and officers called Tylers are stationed at the door to obtain the password previous to any person being admitted. We lepeat that we have no sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion of improper con duct on the part of any of the Unionists in the recent transaction ; but in such a state of things as is known to exist, and while the Government has not the power of informing itself respecting any Unionist proceedings which may be in agitation, it behoves the Board of Works, or those whose province it may be to superin tend any repairs or alterations at our public buildings, to ascertain, in the first place, whether the workmen are Unionists, and, if they are, and it is absolutely necessary to continue them at work, to appoint some trustworthy foreman who does not belong to any Union to superintend their operations, and thus, at all events, prevent the possibility of their committing mischief.— Morning Post. The Tories, to do them justice, die game. Having long since, through the selfish abuse of unbridled power, lost the affections of the people of England, and having, through the purification of our repre sentative system, lost the power itself which they had so abused, they still show fight, and hark and threaten as a caged lion will growl and grin after teeth and claws have been extracted. It is the present system of the Tories to parody the proceedings of the Libe rals and Reformers throughout Great Britain. The public dinners and other forms of association which have been resorted to within the last five or six weeks, as expressions of genuine and high-wrought feeling on the part of the popular interest, and which have placed on records never to be obliterated the genuine senti ments of independent Englishmen, have provoked the Tory party, and those whose obedience it has been and able to command, into measures of what t he y meant for resistance—a pasteboard scenery—a lead ochre mimicry of real and living action. Whether the more long-headed of the Scotch Conser vatives were consulted or not as to the most politic method of striving to counteract the moral influence of the late demonstration of national feeling in honour of Lord Grey, we have no means of determining. But assuredly, if all the fools of the party had laid their heads together, in the hope of illus trating the nothingness of themselves and their faction, as compared with the extent and magnificence of the reform power in Scotland, they could scarcely have hit upon a more apt expedient than that of a certain Perth shire meeting, of which the elements are everywhere well known and understood, and the composition and proceedings of which are reported in several news papers. This Perthshire meeting comprised the Tory constituency of Sir George Murray, M.P. for that county, who represents, we believe, the views of the Mansfield and one or two other overgrown ari stocratic houses. Lord Stormont accordingly, whose zeal as a member of Parliament has at all times distinguished him more than his discretion, took the chair at this (quasi) family dinner, and began with a bumper to " the son of Scotland, who was pledged to support the constitution in Church and State, the just prerogatives of the monar chy, the independence of the House of Lords, and the liberties of the people." Now, we really think that even Lord Stormont might have bethought , himself of the risk of connecting the word " pledges with Sir George Murray's health. Even if the Right Hon. Baronet had pledged himself pottle deep to the many obligations enumerated by Lord Stormont, did he bind himself more solemnly to any one of them than to the admission of Dissenters into the English Uni versities, against which measure he took the first occa sion to vote ? It matters little whether that measure was in itself a wise one ; we were ourselves disposed in favour of it, although we should at the same time have preferred our geau reilsDet questionable yisaeb t an he e Ipteipnl ge ndr brethren,g co i endowment tt o hl u fseparate le einu a t, refusal wbeeto regardef University wohapisecnh opening for : when the English Universities good or evil, it was °pro nounced by Sir George Murray to be an improvement of the law, and we must acknowledge that the concern which has always affeqed us when, considering the necessary influence of the conduct subsequently pur sued by the Right Hon. Baronet upon his own politi cal and hitherto unstained reputation, has been in no degree alleviated by such an attempt to excuse himself as he is reported to have made in returning thanks for Lord Stormont's toast. It never could have been understood or intended by any man promising to open the English Universities to Dissenters that the inte rests of Perthshire Dissenters were the only ones which he meant to consult. A dinner, though of some what an anomalous or undefined description, has also been given at Ramsgate to the Duke of Wellington. That politics had anything to do with it was disavowed by the gentleman who took the chair ; and certainly the speech of his Grace the Duke of Wellington was of as negative a nature as could well fall from the lips of any speaker. The convenience of the port of Ramsgate, and the shelter thereby afforded to an officer commanding a Dutch vessel bound to some distant country, seemed to be regarded by the Noble Duke as Godsends, being, in fact, the only topics of his speech. It is only from respect to the name of Wellington, and to the example set us by some of our contemporaries, that we have been induced to notice an entertainment of which the social complexion was by far the most prominent, if indeed it had any political colour at all. It was a just and honourable homage to the character of the greatest , soldier of the age, but we really do not see that it has the slightest importance in any general point of view. We see the Gloucestershire Conservatives are at work. If they be restless, so shall we be vigilant. But all the moves of such fragments of the community are vain. They are units against thousands. Mix them up with the nation, and they vanish from pure insig nificance ; oppose them to the nation, and they are swept away without an effort.— Times. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1834. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Yesterday Mr. Butterworth, one of the Common Coun cilmen of the ward of Farringdon Within, applied to Sir JOHN KEY for a summons against Richard Carlile, the book seller in Fleet-street, for having on the 21st instant, by placing effigies of a Bishop and a broker hanging at the windows of his house, caused a crowd to assemble, and so obstructed the public. Mr. Carlile, it appeared, had been visited with an exe cution for refusing to pay the church rates of St. Dun stan's, and immediately hoisted the above effigies, but at the desire of the Lord Mayor and Mr. Butterworth, he withdrew the figures, upon condition that before Wednes day evening he should be summoned before the sitting Magistrate at Guildhall, with a view to ascertain the lega lity of the exhibition, with a clear understanding that if he were not summoned by that time he should re-hoist the effigies. Some conversation arose as to whether the complaint was within the Magistrate's jurisdiction, as in the case of Tre gear, the caricature-vender in Cheapside, who was indicted for occasioning an obstruction of the footway by exhibitinc , his pictures, the Recorder had so strong a conviction of the illegality of the proceeding, that although the Jury convicted him he was not called up for judgment. It was remarked upon this occasion, that upon the same principle on which this conviction was founded, the beautiful daughter of the pastrycook at the west end of the town, who attracted a mob about her father's window, might have been indicted as a nuisance. Air. Carlile's effigies, it was stated, did not project beyond the front of his house. The Lord MAYOR ELECT, who was present, had no mis givings of the authority of a Magistrate to remove all nui sances and obstructions. Sir JOHN KEY wished to see what part of the statute about street nuisances applied to the case. The clerk thought there was nothing in the Act that would apply save the general words at the end of the clause that every person " occasioning any obstruction" should be fined no less than 51. But it has been held that if the Legislature had intended these concluding general words to be operative, they would have sufficed to meet all cases of obstruction, and about 100 sorts of obstruction would not have been laboriously enumerated. Mr. Butterworth explained that he did not seek to have Mr. Carlile punished ; but to set at rest all doubts of his liability to be fined, and Sir JOHN KEY agreed to grant the summons. BO W-ST REE T. Yesterday Catherine Hillier, the woman charged with forging the signature of Lord Stradbroke to a check upon Messrs. Drummonds, the bankers, for 4631. 145., was brought up for another examination. Mr. Bush, the solicitor to the Society of Bankers for Protection against Forgery, was in attendance for the pro secution, and Mr. Wontner (son of the late Governor of Newgate) for the prisoner. The only additional evidence now adduced in the case, which was fully detailed in The Sun of last Tuesday week, was that of Mr. Thomas, a stationer at Wey mouth, who stated that on the 20th of September she pur chased at his shop a draft stamp for 500/., and some writ ing and blotting paper. The forged check or draft now pro duced was exactly like that which she bought as to the amount (500/.) of the stamp, and the sheet of paper and blotting paper also prodUced were of the same size and quality as that which he sold to her ; but he could not, of course, swear that they were the same. The blotting paper was examined by the Magistrates, and the figures 4 and 3, with a faint outline of 6, were dis coverable. _ There was also a faint outline of the name Stradbroke." Mr. Bush said Lord Stradbroke was still out of town, and as his Lordship's evidence was necessary to prove the forgery of his signature, he requested that she might be again remanded.—Remanded till Tuesday. LAMBETH-STREET. Yesterday John illetcW, a youthful-looking muffin-baker, was charged before Mr. Hardwick with committing an act of bigamy. The first wife of the prisoner, a very diminutive female, said that she had given her husband into the custody of a policeman on the night before, on a charge of bigamy, and handed in the certificates of her own marriage with the prisoner and his marriage with another female, who was then present. The person alluded to, a fine young woman, was then desired to stand forward, and, on being sworn, she stated that she had no charge whatever to make against the man, but she had one for a violent assault to make against the last witness. She then proceeded to state that on the pre ceding evening, while out she met two children belonging to her and gave them a half-penny each. In a s hort time afterwards Mrs. Metcalf came to her house, and not only abused her in the most scurrilous manner, but tore her dress to pieces, scratched her face, and gave her ablack eye. Mrs. Metcalf did not deny the charge of striking her, and she was ordered to find bail, and her husband discharged. QUEEN-SQUARE. DISTURBANCE AT THE ADMIRALTY.--YeStCrday an elderly man, evidently suffering under a severe attack of paralysis, named Thomas Smith, was brought before Mr. WHITE, charged with creating a violent disturbance at the Admiralty, and refusing to leave the place when told to do so. Richard Leggett, a porter at the Admiralty, stated that the defendant came there about two o'clock in the after noon, and was very vociferous in his conduct ; he declared that he would not leave the place without a pension, and that they might hang him or cut his throat if they thought proper ; but stir from the place he would not. His conduct was so violent that the police were called in, and he was given into custody. It had since been ascertained that he was an out-pensioner of Chelsea Hospital, and in the receipt of Is. 3d. per day. The defendant, whose speech was evidently affected from paralysis, in reply stated that in early life he had entered the navy ; where he served several years. At the battle of Trafalgar he was severely hurt by a fall from the main deck into the fore-hold, which incapacitated him from ser vice, and a pension was granted to him from Greenwich Hospital of 141. per annum. A few years after that, when he had got perfectly cured, he entered the army as a private, and served sixteen years and four months in India. In Beng a l he w as afflicted with a paralytic stroke, by which he lost the use of his limbs, and he was sent home an invalid and allowed a pension of Is. 30. per day from Chelsea Col lege. During the time he was in India he had received his Greenwich pension, but now they had taken it away from him. He had frequently applied for his Greenwich pension, and had sent in petition after petition, but could get no an swer, until March last, when he received a letter informing him that his sea service had been added to his military ser vice, and Is. 3d. per day was all he was entitled to. Mr. WHITE said that he was sure there was plenty of gentlemen in this country who, if he had applied to them, would have assisted him, and seen that he was not deprived of his just rights.. He could give no opinion on that point, but it was never. the way to go to the Admiralty and create a disturbance. • The porter said that the defendant had arrived in town this day from Manchester to make application for the pension. The defendant said that owing to the Greenwich pension being withheld from him he was plunged into the deepest distress. He here handed a paper to the Magistrate. see by this paper that you are Mr. WHITE — Why , I indebted to your landlord upwards of two years' rent, amounting to 301. 10s., Defendant —It is very true, and I have come to town to obtain my just rights and pay him. Mr. WRIGHT' said that he must find sureties to be an swerable for his future conduct. The defendant was then locked up. THAMES OFFICE. REWARDS TO FIREMEN AND ENGINE-KEEPERS.-- Yesterday Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. COMBE were occu pied for several hours in discussing a case of very great im portance to the parochial authorities and inhabitants of this great metropolis, connected with the subject of re wards to firemen and engine-keepers. The subject, which h a s undergone several discussions at this office during the last month, and has excited the greatest interest, was yes terday brought before the bench in the shape of an infor mation against Mr. Thomas Ratcliffe, the churchwarden of the hamlet of' Ratcliffe, preferred by a fireman named Thomas Loader for refusing to pay to Charles Dodd, en gine-keeper at the station-house of the London Fire Esta blishment in Princes-square, the sum of twenty shillings, in pursuance of an order, or in the words of the Act " an ap proval or consent," of Mr. Ballantine for bringing his en gine complete to a large fire which broke out on the night of the 11th of September, at Messrs. Archibald Watson, and Co.'s sugar-house in Ratcliffe, when property to the enor mous amount of 80,0001. was destroyed. Mr. Humphreys was retained by the firemen generally, who have made this case their own, to support the informa tion, and Mr. Ratcliff was attended by Mr. Leach of the Hamlet of Ratcliff, Mr. Wells, his solicitor, and other pro fessional gentlemen. It may be necessary to state, that after a long discus- sion (the case having been partially heard in the first in stance, and postponed by Mr. Broderip) that three claim ants appeared for the rewards—De\ erell, the headborough and engine-keeper of Shadwell ; Shirley, who fills the same situation in Ratcliffe ; and Dodd, the present com plainant. Shirley claimed the rewards for the first and second engines, which he alleged to have brought com plete, with all necessary apparatus, but was prevented working them by the malice of the firemen, who as fast as he screwed the hose unscrewed it, an assertion which was ' borne out by the churchwardens, an overseer, and other gentlemen. The firemen, on the other side, said that the Ratcliff en gines were not complete, that an attempt was made to work the larger one, but it failed, and that the hand-engine never went to work at all. It was clearly proved that the Globe engine brought to the spot by Deverell (whose activity and good conduct was admitted by all) first got to work. Dodd swore that his engine played second on the fire. Mr. BALLANTINE, believing the Ratcliff engines incom plete, put them out of Court, with directions to the Churchwardens to make further inquiries as to their effici ency, and ordered the reward for the second engine to be given to Dodd ; at the same time remarking that he could not give the first engine reward to Deverell, wh3 really deserved it ; because he was not the engine-keeper of the Hamlet. The churchwardens refused to pay the money to Dodd, who forthwith procured a summons against Mr. Ratcliff to show cause why he withheld the reward ; but on the hear ing Mr. Ballantine seemed to be of opinion that his powers ceased when he gave his " approbation and consent" for the payment of the reward, and that if the churchwardens would not do so he could not make them. Subsequently, Mr. Humphreys applied for the, informa• tion against the churchwardens for refusing to pay the re ward, and contended that they were liable to a penalty of 101. for refusing to do so, and that the Magistrates had power to enforce it. The information was granted, and now came on to be heard. The information having been read, Mr. Humphreys said he appeared for the prosecution, which was one of great public importance, and he could not foresee what objection could be urged against the payment of the reward which his client had been thought deserving of. The Learned Solicitor then related the facts as above detailed. Mr. Wells contended before the case was entered into that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction, and that in order ing the reward they had exceeded their powers ; conse quently, the information must fall. The Act under which it was laid was the 14th Geo. 111., cap. 78,commonly called the Buildinc , Act ; and the 76th section gave to the church wardens, and where there was no church the overseers of the hamlet, the power of granting a reward to the first engine brought to any fire in a sum not exceeding 20s. ; and to the third, 10s. ; but in order to prevent the poor rates being burdened with the payments of large sums the 76th section enacted that no such rewards should be paid to any turncock, fireman, or engine-keeper until the consent and application of one or more Justice of the Peace residing within such parish, precinct, or place, where such fire happens,' and if there be no Resident Magistrates, of the Justice or Justices next adjoining shall be obtained. According to the terms of the Act th Churchwarden alone had the power to order the reward, and the fireman, instead of applying to the Ma gistrate in the first instance, should have applied to Mr. Ratcliff, and afterwards have waited on Mr. Ballantine for his consent and approbation. He had done the very reverse in this case, and the Magistrate in his opinion had acted illegally. If the Churchwarden had granted the reward in the first instance, the firemen should have waited on the re sident Magistrates, and there was one in the Hamlet, not upon the police Justices. Mr. BALLANTINE said that certain Acts of Parliament gave the police Magistrates a concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. He found that the mode of levy was pointed out in the 76th clause, which imposed a penalty of 101. on Churchwardens in default of not doing certain things, such as providing and keeping two serviceable engines ; and on the termination of the 76th clause, he found that in default of making payments of rewards to engine-keepers, &c., such reward to be recovered by distress and sale of the goods and chattels in the same manner as the penalty and forfeiture of 101. Mr. Wells.—But our objection is that you have no power to order the reward. Mr. COMBE—DO you mean to say there is no remedy to enforce the payment ? Mr. Wells—No, not by informa tion. The solicitor then contended at great length that the act vested the authority in the churchwardens, and not in the magistrate. Mr. Humphreys replied, and said this was the first time since the passing of the act that the authority of the magistrate had been disputed. When a fire broke out it had always been the custom for the engine-keepers to pro ceed before the magistrate, who examined them upon oath, and gave them a certificate of his consent and approbation, which the party took to the churchwardens, and was paid the reward without further trouble. That he considered to be the:common-sense meaning of the Act. It never could have been the intention of the Legislature to consult the churchwardens, the very party who was liable to the payment. Mr. BALLANTINE agreed with the view taken by 11Ir. Humphreys. The Act said the party claiming the reward should make oath. The bench had the power of adminis tering the oath, but the churchwarden had not. The law declared firemen entitled to certain rewards when they used proper diligence. Was the churchwarden to turn round and say he would not pay it ? • Mr. Wells said that no person was so fit as the church warden who resided in the parish where a fire broke out to judge of the quantum of services rewarded when he could not examine on oath. The magistrate was as likely to be present at a fire as a churchwarden or overseer. The pa rochial a uthorities thought they could inquire in the neigh bourhood as to the expedition of the firemen. Mr. COMBE asked Mr. Wells how he meant to answer the assertion that it had been the invariable practice for the magistrates to give their consent before application was made to the Churchwardens and that the sum fixed by the Justices had been invariably paid? The Chief Clerk, who had been in the office twenty-five years, did not remember a single instance of the magistrate's power being doubted before. Mr. BALLANTINE—In my experience of fourteen years there has been no instance of the reward being refused on the approbation of the magistrates. Mr. Wells said the parochial authorities had more than :once used their discretion in paying less than the magistrate had certified for, and it was not because the Justices had ;been usurping a power which did not belong to them for five years that they were to continue so to do. The 'Churchwarden would not have raised the point now if he :had not very great doubts that the man was entitled to claim the second engine reward. The Act was clear enough. It said the Magistrate was to restrain the Church warden from giving too much, but not to make the order upon Mr. COMBE—For what purpose does the Act empower ,the Magistrates to interfere if he has not the power of ,making the reward and enforcing the payment ? Mr. Wells—To prevent the Churchwardens giving the 'larger sum in every case. Mr. Humphreys said a fire might break out in the Churchwarden's house, and how could an application be then made to him ? The power contended for on the other side would reduce the Magistrates to mere cyphers. Mr. BALLANTINE—It must be under a controlling power, and that power is given to us. Mr. Wells—Suppose, for instance, the Churchwarden was to say the fireman should have fifteen shillings, and the Magistrate was to say he should only have five shillings, the Churchwarden could give the larger sum. The Magis trate can reduce but not refuse. Mr. BALLANTINE—Why that illustration will tell against you—not for you. Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. COMBE then gave their opi nions at length, and believing, notwithstanding the wording of the two clauses, that the obvious intention of the Legis lature was to give them the power, and not the Church wardens, over-ruled the objections made by Mr. Wells, and said they would go into the case. Mr. Ratcliff then pleaded Not Guilty. After hearing witnesses on both sides, the MAGISTRATE adjudged Mr. Ratcliff to pay the sum of 20s. as a reward, and the costs to Dodd, he having failed to comply with the consent and approbation of the Magistrates, and in default for a distress warrant to be levied on his goods and chat tels. The Magistrates at the same time observed, that the question ought to be settled as soon as possible. As a pe riod of 65 years had elapsed without calling th e au thority of the Magistrates in to question, it was too late to begin now. Mr. Ratcliff said he was not the only parochial officer determined to try the question, for it was well known that firemen often galloped their engines through the streets after a slight fire was extinguished, for the purpose of ob taining the reward. Mr. BALLANTINE said the galloping complained of was often the means of saving much valuable property. The fire in question was only second in importance to the late national' calamity at the Houses of Lords and Commons, and there had been all this cavilling about the payment of a few shillings. The firemen were a meritorious and in trepid body of men. He had never known an instance of their filching anything at fires, when a good deal of pro perty was placed in their charge. If ever there was an un generous opposition to the reward of a meritorious act, this was one. Mr. Humphreys—For their rank in life, there is not a more respectable body of men in the empire than the firemen. Mr. COMBE bore testimony to the general good conduct of the firemen, and said they had often been entrusted with the most valuable property, while their intrepidity was ex He considered this opposition celled by no set of men most uncalled for. Mr. Wells said the trustees of the hamlet opposed the claim on principle only, and were determined to carry the case to the sessions, where he should be enabled to show that the magistrates had no authority to enforce payment of fire rewards in the way they had done. He then lodged an appeal against the decision, and the required sureties having been entered into, the discussion dropped. DEVON MICHAELMAS SESSIONS. (Abridged from Woolmer's Exeter Gazette) These Sessions commenced on Tuesday last, at the Cm' tle of Exeter, before W. Courtenay, Esq., Chairman, and a Bench of Justices. The Grand Jury having been sworn, the Chairman deli vered his charge, and same routine of business was gone through. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAr. (Before W. Courtenay, Esq., Chairman, and a full Ben ch 01 Justices.) IMPORTANT APPLICATION UNDER THE POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.-BICKLEIGH V. SPARK. Mr. Crowder addressed the Court as follows :—I have a motion to make to the Court, and I hope it will be en• abled to see some means by which Mr. Robert Spark, of Exeter, may be reimbursed for the expenses lie has incurred in consequence of being brought here by the Churchward ens and overseers of the parish of Bickleigh, to answer to a charge of being the father of a bastard child, the mother of which is chargeable to that parish. The application is entirely new, as it is made under the Poor law Amendment Act, by which the old law as to orders of affiliation is repealed, and eer• tain new regulations are substituted, which are to be found in the 72d and 73d sections of the Act, and to which I b e g particularly to call the attention of the Court. The Le arned Gentleman having read the clause in question proceedew The object of these provisions is clearly to prevent any Pe r ' son from being maliciously and wrongfully brought befer e t the Court to answer such a charge, and that a man ina.Y ll° be left as before at the mercy of the oath of the woos°' without any corroborative evidence. The latter c lause P also a wholesome and just provision, in order to make over" seers cautious in making such applications against persl without sufficient grounds, as they are liable, in cas e " failure in establishing their case, to the costs. In this Os?' Mr. Spark, a most respectable tradesman, well-known I n Exeter, has been charged with being the father of a ba star b child by a woman of Bickleigh. He has been served with the regular notice to appear in Court, and has in con quence come fully prepared to rebut the charge, for vvbic. there is not the slightest foundation. In order to do tlust he has been put to considerable expense, having b rough up nine witnesses, and made other necessary ar rane " ments ; but only yesterday afternoon the solicitor f(,)_`, Mr. Spark was informed by the solicitors for Bick leiP that they had abandoned the case, and did not intend t°, make the application. The Court must see that this ba° been done solely to avoid the costs, the Overseers of flick; lcigh having found that Mr. Spark had a complete aus°le i to the charge ; but it has left the accused party in the 111°5 vexatious and unjust situation, the costs falling upon bens which it was clearly intended should fall upon the Ove rseers' I confess I see great difficulty in the way of obtaining remedy for this injustice, as looking at the words of the clause. The Learned Gentleman, after further c omni° l l . , on the hardship of the case, concluded his address thus ' is Should the Court be of opinion, as I apprehend they Isl e that they have no power under the Act t o compel in Overseers to reimburse Mr. Spark, I will put the cas e another way, and submit to the Court whether theY allow the Overseers of Bickleigh to withdraw the case having given us regular notice to appear to answer tPa, charge. I apprehend the Court, in their discretio n, ba t' refuse to permit such withdrawal, as, notwithstanding w!eh took place last night between the solicitors for both p ar the Overseers of Bickleigh might have proceeded ag a tej Mr. Spark, in case he had not been in Court ; ana ¢o an order been made against him, he would have had. remedy. The Chairman said be considered this a very bard ca ses it but the Court had no power, by the Act, to interfere. , e was, however, quite obvious that such a defect in the A ct would not be permitted to remain longer than the nex t a y n tr sion of Parliament, as it was most oppressive, and to the humane intention of the framers of the Bill. 'filere do t; were other parts of the Act which required amen°,be but, however inconvenient or oppressive it might be, the Court had no alternative but to abide by the provisions the Act. In justice to Mr. Spark, we have been requested to . i j, /Y sert a copy of the letter written to his solicitor, Mr . 1.451 00 man, by Messrs. Jones and Carew, the solicitors fo r i , to parish, the day before the above application was ma ' the Court : " Parish of Bickleigh against Spark. ts " Messrs. Jones and Carew present their complimene ir Mr. Laidman, and beg to inform him that they do 0;0e tend making any application to the Court on theL" r k; given by the parish of Bickleigh to his client, Mr. m" - ti 0 0 havingand their reason is, that examined the per °- ar whose testimony the order sought for would be mainly 6,01 ported, they find her unworthy of credit, and of so Mm e to a character as renders her unfit to be placed as a wit, 11 ,, 4 tlo a Court of Justice. Under these circumstances , 9 `;' o re not think that the name of any individual should be Ad o publicly associated with her's than has been alreadY,"toi and they request Mr. Laidman to accept this note as notice of the abandonment of the application. " Exeter, Oct. 14, 1834." THE MARKETS. COAL MAR Per Ton. s. d Adair's K ET.— Oct. 22. Per Ton P ! Walls End Northumberla nd. ' Walls End P , aret h ............... Walls End Riddell's ..... ..... Bell's Primrose .................... P Lambton's Primrose .......... Walls End Braddyll's rlett° W 3 1 ,11 End Hetton ............ ......... q 9 Walls End Lambton .. Walls End Lyons ..... ........ 0 Walls End Stewart s ....... . Walls End Adelaide ............ Walls End Butterknowl..'',. P Walls End Gordon . .......... 01 Walls End South Durtnan"..ol alls End Tees ................ Walls End West Hetton •••".. 1 Howard's Netherton M aio' ... .9 . Llaneetmech Coal ............. I Walls End Elgin... .......... .. .. Heaton 'Trader ............•••• lienaham Main l7 0 ... _ Bishop's Main l6 61 Holywell lB 61 Ord s ltedhugh l7 0 Picton l6 W Pontap Windsor lB 3 hipcote l6 0 South Hartley l7 9 'l'anfield l9 6 West Hartley Walls End Bell, liobson & Cu. 19 9 Walls End Bewicke and Co 21 6 NValls End Clark and Co lB 6 Walls End Gosforth 2l 3 Walls End Hilda l9 6 Walls End Hotspur Walls End Jesmond l7 3 Walls End Killingworth Walls End Medoinsley, Stan hope and Tyne Company Ships arrived since 1 it market-day, 102 Ship& arrived since last market day, 102. / :> SSI COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING TH E ro , Wheat. Barley. Oats. Beans. 1„,„ 0 -. ---- _____.,........0 , t o / Per Quarter. s. to s. is.to s. s. to s. s. to s• ..... / Abingdon* 54 60 i3O 34 22 30 38 "'"' - / And0ver............... 48 55 la 6 31 23 33 7 - , ..- / Birmingham.......... 56 581 30 40 16 22 -- 7.1 ..." / Bridport --,...... 56 74 !32 36 26 3d —•. 7 7 ...• / Cirencester..,..... 38 50 24 37 23 27 l i / Faringdon-- 54 80 36 40 26 34 -- * " 4:3 ."' Guildford ............ 48 74 23 32 26 35 -- 40 ''' ; 11en1ey—................ 54 83 35 33 '2O 30 --. 4 4 ' , Hereford .........—.... 53 62 25 32 26 32 -- s:i -" ' Highworth ~........ 62 80 32 42 28 34 -- v ''' / Maidenhead —. 56 68 84 44 22 30 36 4 5 -"" Monmouth.....--.. 62 64 30 32 30 32 4 5 '''' ; Reading ... 40 66 22 36 14 26 -- 40 '' .... Salisbury*. 44 51 28 33 23 28 36 4 2 --' ~ Southampton ..... 54 58 33 40 28 32 .-- 5.5 ..,"*. # Strond - 42 Tewkesbury ........ 43 34 30 38 46 , , ..0 Uxbridge ......—. 48 74 26 34 20 26 -- 4g , ..... Wantage 5B SO 27 32 17 23 3 4 40 „.... ..., Warminster .. . 46 54 27 31 23 26 3 4 55 , ........ „7„. „--- --. Windsor ... 59 21 22 Worcester— 48 52 32 36 24 26 --- cl. to 9 : n 6 LEWES 1%1 A RKE T.—Oct. 21 •- `,:v 0 Per Quar er. s. d. to s. d. Per Quarter. ,si i 0„ 42 d. Wheat, White ... 42 0 50 0 Oats .................. ' ?.. ko ussn ---- Red 40 0 45 0 Pease .................. "i;c.r.4" Barley 19 0 37 0 Oil Cake... 12 . $ A. tol Per Quar er. Wheat, White . -- lied Barley ti. t° l . CHELTENHAM MARKETS. 61 0 Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d . Pet lb. . 0 .. , ~ Wheat Barley 4 2 6 6 5 3 3 0 Pork Veal ............................................ 7 . .•.... S Oats Beans Pease Hay 3l. 15s to 4l. lOs. „ Tv 0 0°' MEETING OF CREDITORS AT ;THROW BASINGHALL-STREET, TO-MOR” AS o s . 41 0 —it (From the London Gazette.) ...... "*. F. C. Westley, bookseller, Strand ........ • ....... ........ J. Nicholls, ap. thecary, Wells,Somersetsh~re ••• C. Walker, Tichborne,treet, Golden-square ........................ J 13,riovv and It W. Vizer, merchants, Bristol ..... .••••••• S D. Evans, upholsterer, High Holborn ..................... - W. Fuller, jun., carpenter, Beckenham, Kent ...•. . .......... : BIRTHS. --1 f a s °2l . l. ddr On the 21st inst., at Brixton, Mrs. R. A. Cowarut ° o f Sav On the 21st inst., the lady of W. L. Lawrence, Es c l'' je4l 0 , well-park, Gloucestershire, of a s on and heir. Rev. " • On the 16th inst., at Bruss els, the lady of the sO ll of a son. and On e t i h n e 21st inst., in Upper Brook-street, Lady C Croon' °fll O h n the 19th inst., at the Royal Hospice,Du the , Captain Blunt, of a son. blin, DIED. On the 21st inst., side h 71st year, Mrs. Rebecca 110 14 ' - Wood-street, Cheapside. On the 19th inst., at Redstone Rectory, Salop, in his 26 t N i ii i JO ' Thomas, eldest son of the late Mr. Richard Urwick, of Radnorhire. fit On the 22d inst., in his 39th year, W. Frederic Stirl49 ~ of Lincoln's Inn, son J• the 'Osborne,il Stirling. fif On the 22d inst., J. W. surgeon, Dean-streets bury square. 0 44 London ; Printed and Published Nob 112, yo at The San Office, No. 112, Strand• SVC] TR, lIAJEsT 14 bepot day re ce i v delivered l- rnall' to th e B oa tlevbeTl AT ' t !Ude on °,a.; 14 words at b 14 4 1 ,' signed hou nd wit} i ti for MTv 1 . 4 1ritsb l • Rill leave 41 c 1 retur n R Paw] COS: riE eel th e conva Mr. , don Mr. y Mr. y Me s sy stre I Pan -nd t ' for .., 0 raraitk, EsTA I Oy s( 10 Ep ett It a d ;nom T_ Age s i k% it 0 IN k "h: A. koi An c i'l ‘...rn Ink, ~,,, ~.„., Captain Blunt, of a son.: - .i 11.4 .8 RIE D. ii Mr. Willi anll On the 9th inst., at St. Peter's, Col 4 of J erm yn-street, St. James's, third daughter 0' es's, to Rebecca, late Fisher Unwin, Esq., of Black Notley, Essex. y o , On the 21st inst., a t I-1 1 , d Church, Southampton, Mr. '. 0 4 ,, o 3 roo Lobb, to Mary Ann, oral (laughter of the late Wm. StrattOns '- of Chisseldon, Wiltshire! ~„lee On the 21st inst., at Dorking-, Surrey, the Rev. Robert 0,-vel son Ellis, M.A. of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, to Car° eachem, vital of D third daughter of the Rev. Georgel::,/ ----------- n IE ---, D. Ci Ts ,riel 0 I