The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Lord Chancellor not only exposed the absurdities of Lord Wynford's Sabbath Day Observance Bill in his speech against its second reading on Thursday, but has recorded his unanswerable objections to the measure in a protest to be placed on the journals of the House of Lords. In every one of his grounds of opposition we heartily concur, and nothing more seems necessary to give the public an idea of the absurdity of the bill, than that in the opinion of such an authority as the Lord Chan cellor, the objections against it should be more than twice the number of its original clauses. To the blunders which we pointed out on Saturday, his Lordship has added several others which we omitted to expose. When we read ' this bill of Lord Wynford, and five or six other proposed and (we trust) abortive enactments of the same kind, which have been introduced during the present session and the last into the other House of Parliament, we are also tempted to ask whether or not we, at pre sent, live in a Christian community,—how we could have so completely abandoned our religious habits in so short a space of time, as we must have done, if their representations are true—and by what authority the select few, who now take upon themselves the care of our spiritual welfare, presume to dictate our adop tion of their new system ? The most of these legislative projectors of Sunday regulations seem to think that there is one code of religious observance necessary for the rich, and another for the poor ; that the former may be indulged in the plenitude of their civil liberty, while the latter must be 'restrained in the extent of their social enjoyments, in order to be made pious and orderly ; and that this process of deteriora tion among the working classes, joined. with a corresponding improvement of the higher ranks, is still going on, and can only be checked by additional penalties attached to the breach of the fourth commandment. Do we then live in in fidel times, and is the religion of the nation re spected only by a small portion of the higher ranks, and a few members of Parliament, who can draw up in very incorrect phraseology op pressive regulations for diminishing the enjoy ments of their humbler fellow citizens ? We remember that under the restored Bourbons the courtiers about the Tuileries affected to consi der France as a heathen land, and called in the Jesuits to convert it to Christianity. We re member that these fathers, like Sir Andrew Agnew, preached home missions—that they pretended to plant the cross as in Paraguay, or among infidel savages—that they practised the most ridiculous mummeries as parts of their improved system—and that they attempted to domineer over the people in their civil concerns, in order to promote their religious conversion. Have we now a set of Jesuits in this country with as little sympathy for the general feelings of the people ? Are we threatened with home missions, under the authority of acts of Parlia ment ? Are the indifferent to be made religious by famine or compulsory abstinence from enjoy ments hitherto lawful ? Are constables or po lice officers to be made religious inspectors, and is the magistrate without thepiety to enforce the rigorous self-denial of the fanatic ? Let the higher ranks, whether lords or commoners, whe ther persons of fashion or pretenders to puritanism first reform themselves,—let them show as much regaid for the souls of their cooks or coachmen as they affect to feel for the other humbler classes of society whose services they do not require on a Sunday,—let them attend divine service with as much regularity as they display their equipages in the parks, or meet their friends at Sunday parties,—let them, in fact, show an example of a sober and religious observance of the Sabbath in their own persons and among their own dependants, and then they will either have less reason for complaining of the conduct of their inferiors, or better grounds for legislating to prevent its alleged excesses. But how can the tradesman, the mechanic, or artisan, released from weekly toil, believe that their legislators are sincere in their desire to preserve the Sabbath from profanation, while they see their wealthier neighbours in dulging with impunity in every enjoyment by which it can .be violated ? Probably some of the " Lord's Day legislators " may be members of the Zoological Society in Regent park. If they are so, we would ask them how they can justify those Sunday visits to the in teresting or non-descript inmates of the gar dens, which block up the Park with carriages and endanger the lives of his Majesty's pedes trians, while they would interrupt a harmless stage-coach, carrying a quiet party of citizens to get a mouthful of fresh air or dine at an or dinary in the neighbourhood of the metropolis ? Perhaps we may be allowed to express our con orript for that outcry about the levity of the Chancellor which has been echoed by so many of the public organs ; as if there were not some absurdities so glaring that reason would be wasted upon them,—as if a witticism, if pro perly applied, is not as suitable a weapon for destroying error as the most solid argument. We suppose these people consider " Gulliver's Tra vels" mere childish jokes, or Butler's " Hudi bras" mere nonsense verse ; just as some rea soners of another class, but of similar powers of understanding, exclaim against Thompson's " Seasons" or " Paradise Lost," as proving nothing.— Times. The " Sabbath-legislation" of all Christian atimis has remarkably established the principle that civil government has no legitimate pretence to meddle with religion ; and we must confess our surprise that any Protestant dissenters should be so inconsistent as to countenance pe titions calling on the British legislature to coerce other classes of their fellow-countrymen to a particular observance of the Christian Sunday. If we once admit the right of a civil govern ment to legislate arbitrarily . on this subject we concede the justice of ecclesiastical domination, and we surrender the great " voluntary prin piple" of Protestant dissent. But we not only FOtulemn the principle of this pseudo-legisla tion, tint we affirm that no human laws ever yet did op can secure the compulsory observance pf the Sunday on the particular tenets of any class of religionists. The English " Statutes at large"—the Journals of the two houses of Parliament—the recorded debates on Sabbath legislation—the history of the habits and cus toms of this. country, all demonstrate the abor tive result of statutory compulsion. We have had laws which placed the people in a strait waistcoat on a Sunday ; we have had " Books of Sports" and Ordinances for the purpose of desecrating" the Sabbath ; we possess heaps t, rgcobotoyersial publications, sermons , and pre -;'Tat,i6.l Chartres and what have been their reli g;ous effects and political consequences ?—that t the various sects and members of the Christian communities Of. the empire have severally ob -y 1(411 served this day as they thought proper, and with the unquestionable liberty of human action. And for whom is Parliament called upon to le gislate ? Tor Scotland, whose religious esta blishment is Calvinistic and Puritan—for Ire land, whose population is chiefly Roman Ca tholic, but partly Presbyterian and members of the Established Church—for England and Wales, whose inhabitants entertain as great a variety of religious opinions as the number of heresies recorded in the catalogues of Augustine and Epiphanius. Nor do our active modern Sabbath-legislators appear to know that penal statutes actually exist for securing a legal ob servance of the Sunday on many compulsory points sought to be further attained through the agency of new laws. The statute of Elizabeth .exists—a dead letter—which ordains that all persons not having " a lawful or reasonable excuse" shall attend some place of worship on a Sunday on pain of the censure of the Church and the forfeiture of one shilling to the poor. Various laws of Charles I. and Charles 11. are still " alive" in the statute-book, prohibiting every species of Sunday trading, with some ex ceptions in favour of bread, meat, and milk. A select number of watermen are allowed to ply on the Thames, and we have already a superfluity of laws for the observance of the Sunday unknown—unobeyed—obsolete. Surely then we may, without being suspected of irre ligion, or a propensity to Sabbath-breaking, again record our protest against this rage for abortive legislation. The body of Sir Andrew Agnew's bill has begotten the monstrous pro geny of four other bills, now pending in the House of Commons ; and what must be the necessities of Christianity when Lord Wynford hobbles into the " House of Lords" with a bill entitled " An act for the better observance of the Lord's Day, and for the more effectual pre vention of drunkenness ?" If this crippled project of legislation were allowed to pass, Sun day might truly be esteemed by our aristocracy as their " Lord's Day ;" for it would establish by law an enviable distinction between the rich and the poor, inasmuch as it allows a British peer with impunity to get drunk and swear most profanely on a Sunday as well as oat a week day, and allows him the further political license of breaking the Sabbath at Rich mond, in the Zoological Gardens, or at a cabi net dinner. If such a , partial piece of law-giving was to pass ' the legislature, would it not ulti mately disgust the whole nation ? The bill contains a clause imposing a penalty on publi tans who permit persons to get drunk in any public house on a Sunday, or who may serve them with " liquor" when in a state of ine briation. Thus, while the butler of a Peer of Parliament may assist his master and a party of noble guests to get beastly drunk on a Sunday in a palace, the poor publican must possess himself of a gauge or standard of each custo mer's power of resisting the barley-corn ; and by the wording of the bill the innkeeper may not even give his customer a bottle of soda water or a cup of camomile tea to get him sober —such restoratives in legal parlance being " liquor I" Stage coaches must not start from a town during the hours of Divine service, though the bill permits them to gallop through any intermediate stages at any time of the clay. Passengers by land or water are to be limited on a Sunday to " sixteen pounds in weight" of luggage, such an allowance being the maximum permitted to a travelling Christian I Constables and magistrates are armed with the most summary powers against the persons and property of Sab bath breakers and publicans and sinners, and all wages are to be paid, not on Saturdays, but on the day preceding the market day of the town or village nearest the place of payment—it being notorious that Monday is the market-day of some of the most populous boroughs, in England and Wales,—and which enactment would thus compel masters in many districts to pay their workmen on a Sunday ! But we will not risk a charge of levity against us by criticising this ludicrous and crooked-minded project ; it is evidently the concoction of some person who knows as little of the spirit and elevated objects of Christianity, as he does of technical legislation. With the aid of the Bishops, who seemed to support the bill for the value of the preamble, it may pass the House of Lords ; but we are confident that it will create a " collision" with the Commons, and make Sir Andrew Agnew deservedly jea lous of Lord Wynford. We should propose a conference between those two righteous indivi duals, when perhaps the bill might be " licked into shape" to suit their mutuarreligious views ; but we would advise them not to clog the mea sure with clauses for the prevention of drunken ness, but rather to turn their attention to the formation and encouragement of " Temperance Societies ;" and in lieu of the design against fermented liquor, to introduce a clause limit ing his Majesty's Christian subjects to the Jewish itinerary measure on a Sunday of 750 paces or about two-thirds of an English mile. But to be serious, what need is there of any puritanic or new fangled legislation on this subject ? We contend that in no period of our history was there so much decorous or religious observance of the Sunday. The dissenters have laudably christianized the great bulk of our ma nufacturing and neglected population. The vo luntary systems of education during the last few years have produced a great moral influence among the people ; we are a better people in relatio — n to our grosser nature than in ihe - times of our ancestors. Lord Wynford would do far more good as an exemplar of sobriety and a discourse free from oaths than by attempting such stupid legislation. If simple moral considerations will not induce a due observance of Sunday no legal or penal enactments will secure the end. The Bible, not the Statute-book, is the religion of Protestants, and we are not believers in the doctrine of Plato—that the world can be go verned by geometry. We refer our readers for an able and scientific dissection of Lord Wyn ford's bill to the admirable protest of the Lord Chancellor. We think that the pious baron will abandon his new avocation of manufacturing laws on behalf of religion.—Morning Chron. We do not, we confess, partake of the alarm which some of our Contemporaries express as to the relative situation of the established church and the dissenters. Indeed, the very circumstance which weighs so strongly with the writers we allude to administer to us a very different feeling, and that one of confidence and security. We allude to the open and acknow ledged aim of a certain portion of the dissenters to bring about an actual separation between the church and state. Upon the principle that an open enemy is at all times more easy to cope with than a concealed one, we hail this candour as far more advantageous to the church in all respects, than the insidious show of half-friend, half-foe, which has hitherto characterised the proceedings of those sectarians, who, relying on a degree of countenance from a few persons in authority, which they vainly magnify far beyond its importance, have thrown off the mask, and openly call for a dissolution of one part of that social compact in which the liberties and wel fare of the people are indissolubly involved. Even were a complete remodelling of the con stitution to take place, a crisis which, happily, is not very likely to arrive, we do not believe that the majority of the people of this country would be prepared to abandon fiat connection between the Church and State, by means of which religion and civil liberty have grown up and flourished together. But such is not at present the question. This union is a settled and fixed principle of the Constitution as it at present exists ; and the Dissenters might just as well call for an abdication of Kingly Govern ment, or any other inroad upon the most vital of our institutions, as proclaim that because they choose to dissent from its doctrines, the character and utility of the Church, as part of the Constitution, should cease to exist. But the utter futility of this attempt resolves itself into a very narrow compass, and is grounded almost entirely upon a mistaken calculation of numbers. It is not till lately that the numerical strength of the Church over that of the Dissen ters has ever been made a question, and, when adverting to it lately, we showed, from indisputable documents, that there could not be a shadow of doubt on which side the majority, and that a vast majority, lay. We showed, too, which we again repeat, that much of the numerical strength of the dissenters arises not from any hostile feeling towards the established church, or its doctrines, but from its neglect of insuring within its pale the continuance of hundreds and thousands, who only betake themselves to other folds be cause those to which they would resort are in capable of containing them. If there be any truth in the expressive adage of " forewarned, forearmed," the friends of the church have now a warning which it willbe a grievous fault if they disregard. We say that churchroom for the great mass of the people (who in great parts of the metropolis, and in large towns do not pos sess it) is the one thing needful. Other defects there certainly are, which act as serious draw backs upon the diffusion of its doctrines and its general utility ; but the great object should be to keep down the numerical strength of the dis senters, and that can be best effected by denying to none who will resort to it the spiritual food and consolation which the established church affords.—Morning Herald. The Whig Ministers have once more re corded their apostacy from the principles which they were accustomed to maintain with such an outward show of patriotic ardour on the Oppo sition benches. On Thursday, they spoke and voted against Mr. Tennyson's motion for short ening the duration of Parliaments, with the most thorough contempt of everything like con sistency. Poor Lord Althorp, indeed, admitted hat he had voted, he could not tell how often, in favour of motions similar to that which he then opposed ; and the only reason he could adduce for his change of conduct was the fact, that now the people were really intrusted with the power of electing their representatives, whereas, before the Reform Bill passed, popular election was but a mockery. Surely the Re formers of England are under infinite obliga tions to his Lordship He was in favour of frequent elections when they could render no ['service to the mass of the community, and could merely serve the turn of his own aristo cratical party ; but now that the voice of the people has really something to do with the choice of Members of Parliament, he is deter mined not to repeal the Septennial Act. Mr. Stanley's speech contained a good deal of per sonality and little argument. He, it seems, has never been in favour of triennial Parliaments ; he has only been intimately connected, during the whole of his political life, with men who constantly advocated a return to them. But this is of little moment : the part of Mr. Stan ley's speech to which we wish to direct atten tion, is that wherein he ridiculed the Members who declared their several predilections for Parliaments quinquennial, quadrennial, &c. Now, how does it happen that all these new fangled notions have lately been thrown out ? During the whole of the reform struggle, there was no difference of opinion : from the hour when Lord John Russell's speech was uttered, the whole country expected triennial Parlia ments : it was deemed prudent not to press the question at that time, but every one expected that one of the very first measures of the re formed Parliament would have been the repeal of the Septennial Act. This the Whigs well knew : Lord John Russell had intimated, in his opening speech, that the settlement of the question was only deferred for a time, and the day was fast approaching when it was sure to be discussed and settled in the new House of Commons. Then it was that the Whigs—Mr. Jeffrey in Edinburgh, and Mr. Macaulay in Leeds—threw down the apple of discord, in the shape of a proposition for quinquennial Parliaments. The Whigs artfully s uggested, and afterwards encouraged that difference of opinion on this subject, which Mr. Stanley .ri diculed and exposed on Thursday night, with so much self-complacency. The folly of the Reform Members—of Sir Daniel Sandford, Sir Edward Codrington, and Mr. James—in thus giving a handle to their antagonists, is too pal pable to need remark. . Sir Daniel Sandford has mistaken his forte—he is not cut out for a debater or a statesman. His speech on Thurs day was a sad failure ; a fact of which Mr. Stanley's reply must, we should think, have made him sensible. Lord John Russell per formed his part in the miserable drama. He reiterated the old fallacy that triennial Parlia ments must necessarily be biennial, because, forsooth, it had been usual to dissolve septen nial Parliaments after the expiration of six years. Why, Lord John Russell, why should not a three-years Parliament last three years, neither a day more nor a day less ? Suppose the present House of Commons should be dis solved on the Ist of July, 1835, what is there to prevent the assembling of a new Parliament on the Ist of January, 1836, or sooner ? An argument against the motion was urged by Lord Ebrington, which the Globe quotes as one of the " true objections" : " When in the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill he was taunted by the opponents of the measure, that if it were carried, it would only prove a stepping-stone to a further measure of reform, he stated, that although he en tertained opinions in favour of a large measure of reform, yet if he could see the measure carried in the shape in which it was brought before the house, he was ready to give up his opinions in favour of ulterior measures, and take that as a final and conclusive measure." If Lord 'Ebrington's constituents are satis. fled, as he said they were, with his determina• tion to oppose " ulterior measures of reform,' there is an end of the matter as far as he am they are concerned. But as regards the fact o the Reform Bill being received as a final mea. sure by the nation, that is altogether a different affair. The Globe says— " A reform has been effected which was held out by those who introduced it, and accepted by those who sup ported it, as a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform. The Reform Act was never talked of by its authors or its friends as a stepping-stone to further de mands, but as a security that further demands would not be insisted upon." This is simply a falsehood. The hundreds who heard, and the millions who read the speech of Lord John Russell on introducing the Re form Bill, as the organ of Ministers, can testify that he expressly mentioned the duration of Parliaments and the mode of• voting as ques tions the settlement of which was matter for future discussion. Why, even Lord Althorp declared, that "he did not object to the discus sion of the measure," and that "he saw no thing in the present time to prevent its con sideration." Mr. Stanley also argued the ques tion, or- pretended to argue it, on its own merits, and did not affect to consider it as a settled point, which the house by a previous contract was prevented from dealing with. Moreover, 185 members—constituting, we have little doubt, the majority of the reformers present (though we cannot positively assert the fact, as no list of the majority has been published)— agreed on this point, though they differed on others, that the Septennial Act ought to be repealed. Under these circumstances, it is a piece of no common assurance in the Glabe to assert, that the Reform Act was "accepted by those who supported it" as a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform. One of the consequences of this decision of the House of Commons will be the exaction of strict pledges from the candidates for all ex tended constituencies, at the next election, to resign whenever called upon by a majority of their constituents. The electors will insist upon the Members they return being their actual representatives. All the trash which is talked in the House about " delegates" and " legislatorial attorneys" will make no impres sion upon those who are determined to have a real, not nominal representation. The vote of Thursday night will prove another stimulus to the democratic spirit of the age. The numbers upon this division were 235 to 185 ; majority, 50. Last year on the same question, the numbers were 213 to 164 ; majority, 49. So that the comparative strength of the opposing Iparties remains nearly the same.—Spectator. COURTMARTIAL ON CAPTAIN HUGH PIGOTT, R.N.-(FOURTH DAY.) At nine o'clock, the officers composing the court martial to try Captain Hugh Pigott, R.N., on charges preferred against him by Lieutenant Henry Walker, Commander of the Alban steam-vessel, reassembled on board his Majesty's ship Hastings, at Sheerness. Lieutenant Walker opened the third charge—For that, when inspecting the Alban, between the 27th and 29th of March, 1832, upon giving a variety of vexatious and unnecessary orders, and, in consequence of my remonstrating thereon by letter, dated 30th March, 1832, threatening me with a courtmartial un less I withdrew the same ; and finally, forwarding a copy thereof to Vice-Admiral the Hon. Sir H. Ho tham, accompanied with such a palpably-unfounded or grossly-exaggerated statement respecting the Alban, as drew forth an unmerited reprimand from the Com mander-in-Chief. After the charge was read, Lieutenant Walker pro duced the correspondence between himself, Sir Henry Hotham, and Captain Pigott, relating to the inspec tion of the Alban by the latter, in March, 1832, when off the Sultan's Valley in the Bosphorus, and stated as follows :—Between the 27th and 29th March, 1832, the Alban arrived off the Sultan's Valley, and was in spected by Captain Pigott ; that officer found great fault with the vessel - for having bags - oreoalSTtallow, water breakers, and other stores on deck, and upon the painted part of the vessel. I was directed to clear off all the coal bags, &c. I represented that there was no other place for these stores. The COURT requested the witness to confine himself as to the orders which he considered unnecessary and vexatious. Lieutenant Walker—l could not send the coals ashore according to Captain Pigott's order, because I had not received orders where. The coal bags and five cwt. of tallow on the deck were ordered to be put Lelow in the fore cockpit. I represented that that would be objectionable, as from the weight of the machinery forward, there was a quantity of water in the hold. Captain Pigott expressed his disbelief of this, and said that it must have been from neglect in pumping her out. Captain Pigott then directed me to stow the empty coal bags in my own cabin. He afterwards went to the engine room, where the men were employed in cleaning the mud holes and flues, and asked me why I had not done this before. I stated that by the regulations 48 hours were allowed for that purpose, and not half that time had then elapsed. He ordered me to clean out the flues after every time of lighting the fires, and then suggested that the tallow on deck should be brought down to the engine room. By the CouaT- 7 Was this an order? Lieutenant Walker —lt was in the first instance, but afterwards waved in consequence of the engineer representing that the heat would melt the tallow. Sir RICHARD KING—Let it be put down in the minutes that Lieutenant Walker did not consider this a vexatious order. A discussion here took place upon Lieutenant Walker stating that the whole of his observations had not been taken down in the minutes. The COURT intimated that it had given every pos sible facility. Lieutenant Walker (in continuation)—Captain Pi gott inquired how my cabin was occupied. He saw it and found fault with it. He inquired as to the use of a screen which had been used to divide my cabin during the time Sir Stratford Canning was on board. He asked me what business I had to take down the screen. I told him in consequence of one of the Ambassadors suite sleeping there as well as myself. He then or dered all to be cleared away. These and other stores were subsequently removed to different parts of the vessel, were wh thrown erethe o they gotv ebar v o er rd. very dirty and damp, and some beds Sir JAMES Goßror;—ln Consequence, then, of these orders you remonstrated with Captain Pigott ? Lieutenant Walker—l did. Captain Pigott gave other orders about the paint work of the vessel, and actually asked a man in my cabin whether my asser tion as to cleaning the deck of the vessel was correct. I addressed a letter to Sir H. Hotham upon the sub ject, enclosing one that I had written to Captain Pigott as to these orders. The whole correspondence, which was very lengthy, was read by the Judge Advocate. It 'contained the aggrievances of Lieut. Walker, and Captain Pigott's remarks relative to them, the latter stating that while Lieut. Walker continued to command the Alban she would be a disgrace to the service, and that Sir Strat ford Canning had made a representation to Captain Pigott of the filthy state of the vessel ; and Lieut. Walker's explanation that, from the vessel being a steamer, and her boats having been built by contract, she was not in such a proper state as might be ex pected, and remonstrating upon the observations of Captain Pigott upon his animadversions, stating the fact that her deck had been scrubbed every day, and in fact more so than was healthy during the inclement weather ; and that all that would have been explained, had it not been for Captain Pigott's style. Lieut. Walker then prayed the Court to admit these letters as evidence. The JUDGE ADVOCATE—They are evidence, as far a s they go ; but we should have viva voce evidence. Lieutenant Walker-- After these letters, I was ordered by signal on board Capt a i n Pi gott ' s ship, the Barham, and his clerk was directed to take notes. Sir JAMES CORDON—How do you know that? Do you speak from your own knowledge ? Lieutenant Walker—l saw him at the time writing. Captain Pigott told me that I had written a very im proper letter, and wished me to retract it, otherwise he should apply for a courtmartial upon me. Captain W. Holland afterwards came to me on board the Alban, and requested me to withdraw the letter; and it was ultimately agreed that I should do so, although I would not agree to write to that effect. Captain Pigott ac ceded to this arrangement ; but on my again going on board the Barham, his first lieutenant told me that he expected I should write to say I had withdrawn the letter. This I declined. The correspondence was then forwarded to Sir H. Hotham, and drew forth the reprimand of which I complain. The JUDGE ADVOCATE stated that the Court had decided that Samuel Phillips and Mr. Achebone, two witnesses previously examined, might be recalled, and hoped that this unusual method of proceeding would be a warning that the evidence might be given clearly and distinctly, the Court stating that the erasures and alterations appearing in the minutes had been occa sioned by the extraneous matter introduced upon the first charge. Mr. Pettigrew was then re-examined at immense length by Lieutenant Walker. His evidence was ge nerally in contradiction of the statement of Captain Pigott as to the state of the vessel. Captain Senhouse, of the St. Vincent, was then called, but, after being sworn, was not allowed to be examined by Lieutenant Walker, in consequence (as we understood) of his knowledge of the Alban ex tending only as to her state six months previous to the date of this charge. Mr. Pettigrew's examination was then continued till late, when the Court adjourned. EXCHEQUER EQUITY SITTINGS, MAY 17. (Before Lord LYNDHURST.) The following, we understand, is the arrangement for carrying on the business of this court. The Lord Chief Baron will sit in equity during the whole of the sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, after term, and will take all equity business, except tithe causes, which will be heard by Mr. Baron Alderson. Mr. Baron Parke will sit at Nisi Prius, in London, after term. SMYTH AND OTHERS V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS. This case occupied the Court nearly the whole of yesterday and the greater part of to-day. It was a suit instituted by the assignees of a bankrupt who had never surrendered under the commission, for the pur pose of setting aside a deed of settlement executed by him only a few weeks prior to his commiting the act of bankruptcy, by absconding, and the issuing of the commission. The defendants were the trustees under the deed, and a Mrs. Sarah Owen, the party bene ficially interested under it, who, it appeared, having been left a widow very young, became acquainted with the bankrupt, Mr. John Turner Watts, who was re presented as being a man of gentlemanly appearance and address, the elder of three chapels, a stock broker, the father of the Stock-Exchange, and of supposed large property, to whom in 1823 she was married. Nb settlement was made prior to the mar riage, although it was stated that the subject had been discussed, and 5,000/. named as the sum to be settled. After the marriage, they lived together as man and wife till 1824. when Mrs. Owen having discovered that a connexion subsisted between Mr. Watts and a lady resid ing at Battersea or Hammersmith, by whom he had a family, a separation was the consequence, and it was stated that a deed was executed, whereby he bound himself to pay to Mrs. Owen 1501. a-year, appointing trustees to carry its provisions into effect. Thus mat ters remained till the summer of 1825, when, for the first time, Mrs. Owen learned that in addition to the connexion above referred to, her supposed husband, Mr. Watts, had another wife living, to whom he had been married twenty years. She, of course, was much shocked, and he r f r i en d s i mme di ate l y too k the matter up seriously with Mr. Watts, which was finally settled by his consenting to transfer 4,0001. Three per Cent. Consols to certain trustees, the interest of which was to be paid during her life to Mrs. Owen, with re mainder to himself. The transfer accordingly took place in July, 1825, and the deed of settlement was executed in the following August ; the former deed, it was stated, having been given up, and other arrange ments entered into between the parties. On the 20th of September following, Mr. Watts was declared a defaulter on the Stock Exchange, and in October, he having absconded, a commission of bankrupt was issued against him, to which he had never appeared. The debts proved under the commission amounted to about eighty-five thousand pounds. The assignees under the commission immediately filed a bill in this court against the defendants, for the purpose of setting aside the deed, and having the principal sum and in terest transferred to them for the benefit of the cre ditors, on the ground that it had been fraudulently executed by Watts when in a state of insolvency, and without any valid consideration : and a motion was soon after made before the then Lord Chief Baron ( Alexander) for an injunction to restrain the trustees from transferring the principal or paying over the in terest until the determination of the suit, when his lordship was pleased to accede to the former part of the motion, but made no order as to the dividends ; and the trustees having given to Mrs. Owen a power of attorney to receive them, she has continued to do so to the present time. Mr. SIMPKINSON, for the defendant Mrs. Owen, contended that there had been no proof, except by the affidavit of one witness, to show that at the period of the execution of the deeds Mr. Watts was not in sol vent circumstances. On the part of the plaintiffs it was contended that they were justified in what they had done by the prac tice of the courts, although in this there was some variation ; that on the merits they could not deny that it was a case of great hardship against Mrs. Owen, who, like themselves, had become the victim of a pro fligate and abandoned man ; that the creditors were sufferers to the amount of 85,0001., and the question was whether they were not, in a pecuniary point of view, to suffer together. - A variety of cases were cited on both sides in sup port of the arguments of counsel, after which Lord LYNDHURST said Watts had done this lady a grievous injury, and no doubt this settlement was made with a view of compensating her for that in jury, but it was a case which involved a variety of considerations ; he would therefore look into the authorities, and see what could be done, and let them know when they next met. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, MAY 17. Sarah Hay, a very interesting young woman, ap parently about 18 years of age, was indicted on the alleged ground of having stolen some sheeting, table linen, and a variety of other articles, the property of Mrs. Ann Hart, of Whitehall -street, Stepney. The prisoner lodged in Mrs. Hart's house a short time back, during which time a young man named Marshall, now supposed to be in Hobart-town, also lodged there. It appeared that there was an attach ment between them, and it was insinuated by Mr. Phillips, counsel for the prisoner, that it was supposed by Mrs. Hart's family that he (Marshall) was als o , attached to Miss Maria Hart, the prosecutrix 's daughter. The prisoner complained of having missed some articles, including a comb. card-case, &c., which she accused Miss Maria Hart with having stolen ; and the prosecutrix, on the other hand, accused, and had the prisoner taken 'up for stealing the sheets, &c., laid in the indictment. The prisoner was acquitted of the charge, and liberated by Mr. Hardwick, the magi strate. The articles in question appeared to have been pledged at a pawnbroker's in the name of Ann Hart (that of the prosecutrix), in almost every case. They were marked, she stated, with the letters s le is t t t e e d rs , , in sh h e e s r ai e d r , o h ss ad ex b ain ee i n aa G. A. P.," but had no o th er mar k on t h em. The ripped ti oni a o s u a t y ; i a but t h s e h r e e pe was r - no other mark on them. Mr. Phillips, on this, held up the sheets, which ex hibited the figure No. " 3," and the table-linen marked with the letter " S," being the initial of the prisoner's Christian name. Mrs. Hart was greatly confused on these points. Her son was then examined, and he also wavered in his testimony. The young woman, Maria Hart, it was considered, would be a most essential witness in the case, but she was not to be found. _ The prisoner, in her defence, declared her innocence Of the charge, and affirmed most solemnly that the sheets and table-linen were her own, and that the former had been stolen from her at the prosecutrix's house. The trial lasted several hours ; and the jury, the foreman of which said that there was much preva rication in the case, without hesitation Acquitted the prisoner, who suddenly, on the announcement of the verdict, fainted in the dock. A burst of applause marked her acquittal. The prisoner was then indicted for stealing a time piece, the property of Mrs. Carter, of Spring Garden place, Stepney. The time-piece was found in her lodgings, but she stated in her defence that it must have been put there during her absence. She was acquitted. A respectable-looking female, about 35 years of age, was put to the bar to plead to three separate indict ments for forgery, to all of which she pleaded " Not guilty." The prisoner appeared at the bar witb'a beautiful child on each arm, which induced the CodivioN-SER GRANT to inquire why she was so enc umbered Mr. Cope, the Governor of Newgate, explained that about 16 months back the prisoner was deliiitre4 of three children at one birth, one of which had lately died. The remaining two were so very much attached to their mother, that they refused to be separated frDO her. The Court appeared to feel a great interest in the fate of their unfortunate parent. COUN Per Quarter. Carlisle Hexham Nforpeth Penrith Sheffield --.—..... Winchester Per Bushel. Carmarthen...—. Cowbridge—.. Newcastle (Staff.) Northallerton Swansea Warwick Per 8011. Barnardcastle —,.. Durham .....----...... Richmond ............. Stockton ........-- TRY CORN MARKETS DURING LAST WEEK. W heat. I Barley. I Oats. s. to s. —1 24 52 I 22 27 s. to B. 51 40 36 47 i 24 26 53 25 48 ,39 42 54 26 29 s.d. s.d. s.'. c.d. 50 56 24 26 P,6 70 29 36 80 8 9 4 6 50 70 9 3 3 6 46 80 86 40 48 66 69 26 29 90 9 6 3 0 46 120 140 90 120 11 0 16 6 10 0 12 0 80 86 70 80 S 6 90 86 90 s. to s n 19 15 17 18 22 s.d. d 1 4 1 24 26 30 34 33 40 30 34 20 24 20 33 50 60 49 59 50 64 40 48 ileansi 1. S. 0 40 • 32- 34 ' - 38. - 40, 42 44 cd. 0 0 5 0 6 ° ‘ 5 5 6 6 i n 0 0 5 6 6 ° 8 6 1 0 q 7 3 9 ( 6 86 2 0 - WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.—May 9. 50 , Wheat, Red, Norfolk and Suffhlk —s. 445. to 48> fi ne 4 90 _ Lin. and Cam. —5. 424 ,to 47 s fine .„,. Yorkshire —s. 4es, to 4Rs fine 4:, Willey, Norfolk an d —.— White —s. 47s to 52s fine s ' 4 ' --- Foreign, Red 275. to 30s fine • , --.----, Lincolnshire 2ss. to 28s fine S , Yorkshire Wold 2ss. to 2•zs fine 39 ' 'iV s h u it fr e . . ll . , .... ...... .. 1 -4 5. . 385 405. " to to 505 47 s fin;lee 555:23:: —..... Foreign Beans, Old New Oats, Potato -- Poland —s. 17s. to 19s fine ~. Friesland and Small —s. 16- to ISs fine , Dealing 9,1 to 10%d. per StOn, __ -- Od. • ' 1) ' " 355. to I to : 3 : 1 2 :, ; sss fine finefii , :6;441 Shelling Ms. to 26. , ~ per Malt 355 . Rapeseed On. 261. Os. 271. Os. per IL" SCOTCH MARKETS it tmesl. Wheat. Barley Oats. I Beans ... t .. ..,... -- --1---- -- 24 Aberdeen .... 40 46 2l 21 14 18 -- nag 9 13 1rwick.......—.. 31 35 17 19 12 15 18 21 '' .... C .Idstream 35 42 18 19 13 14 20 22 '"". .... Cupar —.......... 48 56 26 31 18 22 22 26 "*". .... Dundee......... 50 60 30 33 20 25 30 3 1 Elgin ---. 40 50 24 26 16 20 23 3 ,,r2 --.,,,, .... Inverness.... 38 41 25 26 15 17 23 Yo '- ... Kelso 97 34 16 19 12 14 23 -- 44 Kirkaldy....... 48 61 23 29 16 21 1 45 48 4 3 I Perth ... 50 56 23 26 20 22 22 25"- ..... ..., v. 1,...... Phia 4.0., nI • 11, . ••• w,.. , ,, ••ari.. thr ~,bn". tkp..:1•.:........0 ci.INBUROH CORN MARKET.. —May 14. ~„4 We had a small supply of all kinds of Grain to-dais '— the sales were rather heavy. Wheat. Barley. Oats. I Pease. First s7s Od 34s Od 22s Od Pd Second s2s Od Od 2Os , 32s Od Third 44s Od 27s Od lls Od 30s Od PRICES OF PROVISIONS, &C. Os. 3d. to Os. 6d. Fresh Rutter, lb. s. 10d. to ~ .1 14 Eggs, per dos. 0 6 0 0 OatStrawikp .) 6 6 8 6 SlillittWD,iperttocur.7Bo 7 0 0 8 0 Wheat Ditto... 5 0 8 0 Barley Ditto «. 6 0 7 0 9 Hay, pent.... 0 0 8 0 87 Beef, per lb. utton Veal 03 0 5 Lamb, per qr. 3 0 5 0 cwt.... 32 6 35 6 Quartern loaf 0 0 0 7 .rnarnes.l7lll l 0 6 0 0 EDINBURGH Ml' AI . _ There was a ,•mall supply of and the sales were dull, at last BOO' 340 O i 920 Od 300 Od ..rk of ygillh (mit First Oatmeal £l 10 0 gerund ditto 1 8 0 B trleymeal 1 5 6 Peasemeal 1 6 0 Pot Barley—No. 1, per cwt. 12. :0:a l e Oatmeal ps e l : p a: C :l ise l tc : at o l a . n : this o rs i a l d y 4 7 l :: 8 1 1 r in a r l i p. et : First Oatmeal ..........£ 0 1 6 Second ditto ............ ... 6 8ar1eymea1........ ...... , i 6 Peasemeal . ..... ... ... . 2. .‘ 10 . k.-2d, 148.-36. 168.--....... G LASGOW CORN NI A liKET.—May 4. AO The arrivals of Grain are good, and we note no alter in IZ: . per 2401 h. a. d. s. d 1 Oats, per 2341 b. 11. d * jit British, old 260r0 26 0 Irish ....... ........... 14 ot° 116 --- new 22 0 25 0 British Canada, free .... 280 29 0 Beans, per 280 1 b. n .... 0 Irish 9 0 Barley, per 3201 b. Scottish ............. ;...' ~, 0 0 English — 0 —Il Pease, Scottish • i° " 14 6 Scottish; 13 6 20 0 22 0 Oatmeal. per 14" 40 0 42 ° Irish CO RNW A i 1 A 11 ETS. gA fauao--Wheaqaverage) Od s —Barl K Oats. Bar ley, 9s• 10,-.0 311 ST A tisrELL—Wheat, —s. to 20:.—BarleYs 03 . 74. to Si. Od. 9s. to 106.--sijest PENZANCE—Wheat, 19s to 209.—Barley, , nd. to Os. 6d.—Beef and Mutton, s d. to bid --Por k , '- Butter, 12d. per lb. 1.-.• °sts I,AuBl I.:army—Wheat (average) 10s. 6.1 —Barley, 9s.* 6a 6d.—Beef, 51,1—Mutton, 6d. Ltaggazo—Wheat, --a. to 19s. od.—Barley, 9s- - ~pata, to 7a. 6d. Boneum—Wheat (average) 21 s — Barle y, 10s. 9 1.--Oats, 94 64. Hatsrort—Wheat, 21s. Od.-13arley. Os ad Sr. COLLIMB—Wheat, 203 to 21s.—Barley, 93. to 10,-- 33 and Mutton. sld. to 6d.—Veal.(l,l.—lamb. Od. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT, BASINGHALL-STREET. J. Briggs, silk- ( w F a r r o e m ho Al. h se " man, La‘v London G TO-MORROW, MAY '2O IP ren a ce. ze l t a t n e. e. ) .. ............ - a at 1.1I .1 I W. Boys, wine-merchant, Eastbourne, Sussex ....... .....••• 1 G. W. Rohrs and F. W. Jacob, corn-factors, Mark-lane - i g D. Morphew, chemist, Dover ................................ - ..... 0 R. •ooch, grocer, Birmingham .................................. 1 io J. A. Richardson, bill-broker, Cannon.row .... . ............ ',". i g R. Moffitt, mealman, Horselydown.lane, Shad-Thames... ii J. Smart, fish nonger, Brydges-street, Covent-garden .... .2 ! g 1 F. Webb, robe-maker, F leet-street ................. . ............ J. H. Poppiewell, coal-mer chant, Milbank-street ......... ! i i W. Mawbey, corn-dealer, Ed g ware, Middlesex ............ I 0, DIVIDENDS t 1 1 . a J Udall, carpet-warehouseman, blington .......... .. ........... B. Bone, cabinet-maker, Green wich ................ 1 R. Widowfield, jun., chymist, Park -place, Kenningtc -:., -_--r- -- -- BI RTH'S. Mrs Smyth Windha m, On the 16th inst., at Brighton, • of a son. lady of Al ex. On the 13th inst., at Albury , Surrey, the Monro, Esq., of a daughter. vuirorlt On the 13th inst., at Ashley-house, Tiverton, •••••• the lady of Henry Foskett, Esq., of a son. . . - - MARRIED. _ JamesOn t ß he idg ls e t , h E i s n q s . t. , , su at rg S e t o . n .l , aomf Lambeth, child of Mr. Bedward, of Vigo-street. • migh ° ' On the 15th inst., at Edgeba,ston, near Bt „. G a le, Mr. James Barnard, of the Old Bailey, to Sara" d e o. relict of the late Mr. Q.. Gale of Giltspur-street, Lncoh, On the 15th inst., at Windlesham, the Rev. J. 13 ', e v, ham, to Frederica, eldest daughter of the Rev. T . °I2 be W th e of Lambourne, Bagshot.Sewe 11, • g f On the 15th inst., at Broadwater, Sussex, , stni to in A s i t ar er; 7, J o o o l ; Esq., third son of T. Sewell, Esq., Neor r o ' f m a jor Wight, to Lucinda Marrianne, only daug ht r e f Jamaie* General Nedham, of Worthing and of the islan .h, the Be l " On the 17th inst., at St. Alphage, Gree nwl • e and in' Samuel Davies Rector of Bringwyn, Radnorshir , ,4 Miss Mary l'''' cumbent of dystermouth, Swansea, to Masters, of Greenwich, Kent. Willia ° On the 13th inst., at Black Rock, nearby rk, t _ i o . I Cary Dobbs, Esq., of the city ofubn, ster-a, ea r e 5 to Elinor Jones, eldest daughter tithe late Henry So 0 1 Westropp, Esq., of Richmond-villa, in the causal Limerick. , na eo, On the 15th inst., Mr. Walter, of the Poultry, ",".. el t * Isle 0 to Rebecca, third daughter of the late Mr. Canin n o' Whitefield, Wilts. so' On the 13th inst., at St. Giles's, Cripplegate, Mr. / te r Bright, of Chelmsford, to Emma Mary, youngest clang of the late William Green, Esq. Willi° On the 7th inst., at Rushmere, Suffolk, Captain , , e g Milner Neville Sturt, of the Bengal Army, to gar l o3, the second daughter of Capt. Robert Ramsay, 1;. N, On the Ist of January last, at Bombay, at Bombay , er of church, Harry W. Brett, Esq., of the 13.7 1 ,ty. q hog . Artillery, to Elizabeth, second daughter of the '''' Eaton, Esq., Royal Navy. Q . an t, 0 On the 13th inst., Josen i'll,V,,ar;eof the late John Garraf Maria Wilhelmina, 014 " a i r Suffolk. Esq. of Chelmondiston-ha , L__—, _ DIED. f Camberwell, aged 65, and late of NewmarV'' shire, Stephen piper at liolinffbroke-row, WalworthylVlrs' On the 12th in,t' 63d .. Jane Wallis, in her year. • h OveY' at Henley-on-Thames, Ric • Lately, at the ltlanoEr-shou, se, Little Shelford, Cambridge: On the 15th inst., Esq. Ade homes Gib bons, who for nearly 30 Ye arg eh.' road, Mr. T . a fjeo ~ On the 15th inst., in Bedford-place, Southwark-bripe4 the of fi ce of principal tipstaff of the Court of King e te eny On the 15th inst., William, eldest son of to P Earl of Burlington, aged two years and a half.,t. saviour' O n the 1 5 th inst. , at her mother's house inf la te Rear' gate, York, Hannah, third daughter of th' Admiral Hugh Robinson. :ii wn itiCha rd i On the 17th inst., at Ashford, Kent, W'''' --- of son, Esq., aged 60. i; beth, vlails On the 18th inst., at Stamford-hill, Eliza the John Treacher, Esq., in her 75th year, and i n , On the 24th ult., in L erwick, ~09, year of their marriage. Zetland Robert vs Esq., of Leog, aged 78 . Sited b On the 17th inst. , in his 76th year, Philip Esq., of Stisted (la te of Halsted), Essex, being t" , I ;4' 26th Mr . Thoolasehant' On the 15th inst.,-in hisyear, of Mr. Thomas Kinghorn, slate-roe' horn, jun., son Essex, and Bow-road. eiw of Stratford, of the family within the last six weeks. : her On the 16th inst., at Herne-hill, Surrey, ' n year, Mrs. Day!. . VA ' On the 16th inst., in Hans-place, Henry Rollestat of the Foreign-office, in his 48th year. , Mr. Matthew Smith, of the G rail , roa iln B th e e rm l o 4 n th ds i e n y s . t. M , 0 i i On the 16th inst., at Cloudesley-terrace , 's'3latoll' his 85th year, William Dawson, Esq . roVS ° London: Printed and Published by MUR DO at the Sun Office, No. 112, Strand. ~; •. ~~.