The Sun. — London, England, 1834-06-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The second reading of the Church Rates 13i11 stands for this evening. The preamble recites the expediency of discontinuing the sys tem of church rates, and of making other pro vision for the " sufficient maintenance and re pair of parish churches and chapels, and for i the decent performance o f di vi ne wors hi p therein." Church rates, throughout England and Wales, are to be abolished next year, pro vision being made for the assessment and levy of rates for the current year. The sum of 250,0001, Is to be annually charged upon the land tax for the purposes of the act, and paid to the Commissioners 'for building Churches. The existing mortgages of church rates are to be first paid off as a prior charge on the fund. The annual estimates of the sums necessary for the repair of churches and chapels are to be allowed by the commissioners, subject to COIII - and advice with the bishops of Dioceses—a certain sum to be allowed for each diocese; and the money transmitted to the dio cesan treasurers. The clauses of the bill re gulate the appropriation of the funds, and also the law and usage respecting pews. Our ob jections to this proposed measure have been rePeattcily stated. It is, in point of fact, a Krpetuation by modern statute of the unjust And obnoxious principle which taxes Dissen ters for the support of the Church Establish rnent, in as much as in lieu of rates it defrays the expenditUre by a draft on the national revenues. The proposed appropriation of the Land Tax is an enormous sum, an increase of our " dead ,weight" to the amount of 250,0001. The permanent abstraetiou of such a sum from the public purse cannot be justified in the absence of any report from the Ecclesiastical Com mission. The non-appearance of thy result of this important inquiry has occasioned much speculation. It may be that the funds of the deans and chapters and preben4al sinecures would furnish an ample substitute for church rates ; but, at all events, should this appropria tion of land-tax be irrevocably made, until Parliament is informed of the real state of the revenues of the church ? As a temporary measure, we do not think that the Dissenters would object to it ; but, if persisted in as per manent, it is understood that a formidable op position will be given to it in the Hou;e of Commons, and the rein Sorcement of the govern ment by the Tor s will alone carry it in its present obno,kious shape. We admit that it is expedient to provide immediate means for the I .lecessary expenditure heretofore levied in church rates, and to terminate the disgraceful scenes recently acted in the churches of all the large towns on the occasion of refusal of rates. But we cannot approve of the perma nent addition of this enormous sum of 250,0001. i to the hierarchy—public money collected from all classes of religionists, and taken from the public treasury, being in fact as much a viola tion of the great principle of voluntary contri bution contended for by the Protestant Dis senters, as if the money were taken exclusively from them. Sir Robert Peel recently showed a great anxiety for the appearance of this bill ; was the motive a Sly perception of its revival of the differences between Minsters and the Dis senters ? If so, the artful baronet will be de ceived. The Dissenters, under no circum stances, will support Tories ; their conduct at the recent elections entitles them to the respect of the country, and we ardently hope that Ministers will modify the Church Rates Bill as a temporary, instead of a permanent mea sure.—Morning Chronicle. The great measure of relief to the agricul turists, and the " boon to the female popula tion," as Lord Althorp described the Malthusian Poor Law Bill, has passed through the com mittee of the House of Commons, and is to be read a third time to-morrow, when of course it must take precedence of all other business, it being the only measure of " reform," about which our Whig ministers seem to be in earnest, ;a.s it is also the only one which has not had even a solitary petition presented in its favour. It has the recommendable quality, however, which our Whig ministers know how to appre ciate, of swelling the already overgrown pa tronage of the Crown, and multiplying the ministerial loaves and fishes, for which the teeth of hungry dependents water. As to the people, they may well say, "If such be the fruits of the tree of reform it was not worth the planting." 'What, indeed, can the people think of the understanding or integrity of their rulers and their representatives, when they hear both the reform ministers and the reformed Parliament declare the exalted pauperism of the pension list to be inviolable, and enact al most in the same breath that the poverty of the lower classes shall be treated as a crime ! We ob serve that among the obsequious majority of Lord Althorp in the House of Commons there has been found one zealous supporter of his Poor La A Bill, who has ventured to try the experiment of intimidating the press for describ ing this bill as it ought to be described, in a country where moral principle, humanity, and Christian feeling are not altogether extinct. This hon. person declared the other night that if he were not a young member of the house, he would have moved that the printer and pub lisher of a Morning Paper should be called to the bar of the house, to answer for an article in -that day's paper, relative to this bill—this arbi trary—this unconstitutional bill—this precious specimen of heartless and immoral legislation— relieving profligate men from the consequences, in person and purse, of their licentious practices against female chastity—throwing on the fe male,victims of perjured vows and violated pro mises all the penalties of the crime of the sordid seducel , ---and investing i n irresponsible Divan 10 of Central Bashaws with the repugnant powers of late-makers for all the parishes of England, and administrators of their own laws—giving those Bashaws also a vast control , over the application of the money of the ' ratepayers, and thus uniting - legislative, executive, and fiscal powers in, the . same hands, in a way ne ver heard of before in a -country understand ing anything of constitutional liberty; and the principles which constitute its, strength and pro tection. We can tell the hon. member that his threat shall not have the effect of intimidating ourselves from discharging our duty to the pub lic in this matter. We have exposed the vi cious character of this bill, and predicted its evil consequences as strongly as any of our contemporaries. If we have applied to it strong epithets, we have also given our reasons. If our arguments can be answered—well ; if not, threats against the press,-thrown out in the re formed ,Vouse of Commons, will not answer them. We " all still, in spite of all such " hos . tile demonstr*ons," whether from young or old members, cal.", a spade, a spade." We care not .4 who - it - is - that desires to throw around unconstitu ... -tional,- immoral, and unchristian doctrines the 'llt - 3 - dir -4 y, \'‘.. ft.:A/ fence of parliamentary privilege: We shall still descr;he this bill as one of the most mischievous pieces of quackery that was ever attempted to be ittposed upon an enlightened country tinder the name of improVentent& We wait to see what the House Af toi•ds will do with this bill, as it is quite certain the House of Commons have resolv ed to pass, by a sweeping majority, " this boon to the female population." Yes,.,_ this is the measure of relief proposed by Lord Althorp amid the acclamations of that reformed House Of Commons that, iArttla the influence of the same leader, refused to address the Crown for a revision of the pension list ; refused to abo lish the Whig Septennial Act, by which the people were robbed of their greatest constitu tional check upon the corruption cif Paflia ment ; refused VO 4leliver the light of heaven .from the grrasti of taxation in this .nearly the tWentieth year of peace ; refused to abolish mi litary torture and the white-slavery of the fac tories, against the former of which disgraces upon a civilised age and country Lord Althorp himself had voted before he and Sir John Hobhouse discovered the value of the British knout to the discipline of the army ; refused to abolish the malt -tax, to give a relief to the farmer, and to the labourer the means of pro curing a cheap and nutritious beverage without the intervention of the impoverishing and demoralising Beer Bill. Need we go on ? The Arts of the reformed House of Commons, are they not written in the violation of so lemn promises, the desertion of great prin ciples, the majorities of the no-principle Ad ministration, and the disappointment of the people of England ? The " young member," who talked of the necessity of suspending the terrors of privilege of Parliament, like the sword of Democles, over the neck of the free dom of the press, stated in the same breath that all that had been written against the Malthu sian bill had produced no effect, and that the people of'England had too much good sense to be led away by declamation. Why then pro pose to persecute this " declamation" if it were so innocent and harmless ? Men are not apt to be alarmed at that which they despise. When we attacked Sir Robert Peel's Forgery Bill in as strong terms as we have attacked the Cen tral Bashaw Bill, that Tory statesman did not threaten to clap the extinguisher of Parliamen tary privilege upon the liberty of the press. But the Whigs have ever distinguished them selves by being when out of office the greatest flatterers of the press, and when in power its worst persecutors. To all who wish to see the leading provisions of Lord Althorp's Poor Law Bill ably handled, and its vicious principles and practical consequences clearly and forcibly ex posed, weirecommend the perusal of the speech delivered by Mr. Walter, the member for Berk shire, on Friday night. If this be what Mr. Richards calls " declamation," we should like to see more of it in the House of COmmons, and then the interests of the unrepresented classes—the labouring poor of this country — would not be so neglected as they are ; nor would they be delWered up to the tender mercies of Malthusian Bashaws and the philosophers, male and female, of the " preventive check" school. Nor can we conclude these remarks without bearing testimony to the judicious and unanswered though unavailing arguments used the same evening by Messrs. Robinson, Benett, T. A ttwood, Jervis, and G. Young, in behalf of humanity, Christian morals, and the consti tution.—Morning Herald. Some poor-law commissioner who writes in an evening print, has already given indication that the persons with whom the Poor Law Bill originated are beginning to take fright. They flatter themselves that the bill will pass into law as it stands (which we believe to be a mis take) ; and this commissioner, either more pru dent or more timid than the rest of his co-con jurers, exclaims " What is now desirable is, that gentlemen of property throughout the country should apply themselves earnestly to prepare their parishes for the operation of the law.' Now we take this to be exceedingly unkind to Lord Althorp. His Lordship, who has delivered himself bound into the hands of these commissioners and become their willitg slave, told the House of Commons on Friday that he " was satisfied the bill was a popular measure," (poor Lord Althorp !) ; and these words of his LordshipJare hardly dry in type, when up starts this commissioner with an exhortation to gentlemen of property to pre pare their parishes for the operation of the law. Prepare men for the operation of a popular law ! Really these people should be careful to keep in one story. There must be more frequent rehearsals, or the actors in the tragi-comedy will expose themselves and their devices even to the most purblind of their spec tators, who have not yet found out that Punch is made of wood. We are not at all surprised that Lord Althorp should say he was satisfied that the bill is a popular ,measure, though we know the fact to be otherwise ; for nothing could have been in better keeping with all his Lord ship had before said upon the subject. For in stance, he was satisfied that it would- be " a boon to the female population" to Make a de ceived and ill-treated woman keep her own ille gitimate child, and suffer the rascal who had seduced her to escape with impunity ; nay, he was satisfied even that if respectable and hard-working rate-payers should be called upon to keep the "bastards of the idle profligates, morality would be thereby ad vanced and the poor. rates diminished in amount. After these things, nothing that Lord Althorp may say or do ought to surprise any one. But we beg to give this Commissioner, who exhorts gentlemen of property to prepare their parishes for the bill, apiece of information that may be of service to him. • The parishes are prepared for the bill : they who need pre paration are the country gentlemen. They, not the parishioners generally, should be sent to preparatory school." Has the Com missioner forgotten what Mr. Hodges told the House respecting the county of Kent ?—" I hope," said the - hon: member, "that circum stances may not arise to render it necessary, to summon the House suddenly together. Such an unpleasant . emergency may arise. It is by no means impossible, or even im probable. One effect of this measure will be to wean the people of the country of that feeling which they at present entertain of looking up to their neighbours for protection. That is a circumstance, I apprehend, more worthy of the consideration of hon. members than they seem to be aware of. I can state it as a fact, that the flame has been already kindled in the minds of the people in my part of the country. The feeling is now working in their minds, that if they should be deprived of the assistance of their neighbours, as they will be by this bill, they are determined to unite for their mutual proteotioi think it my duty to state this fact to the house. I hope, though I do not ex pect, that means will be provided to insure the carrying of this ineasiire into effect. I must say, However, that the novel powers created by this bill will not be carried into execution, without, I fear, outraging all the feelings and sentiments of the English people." This feeling is not confined to the men of Kent. So far as our Means of information have allowed us to form an Opinion ttpou the subject, We have no hesitation in saying that throughout the country the same fearful forebodings have possessed men's minds. Let the Commissioner therefore prepare where preparation is needed, and take our word for it that the parishes have made tip their minds upon the matter: The same sapient scribbler is good enough to tell us what the House of Lords purpose doing with the bill, and what they purpose not doing with it. "It is not,' we believe, probable that the bill will meet with any formidable opposition in the House of Lords. The peers have generally too great a stake in the country to allow themselves to get up a factious opposition to a measure which must be beneficial to the interest of which they are the heads, as well as to the people at large. There can be no doubt of the bill passing into a law with very slight (if with any) altera tions." . A second piece of information which we are desirous of giving to this Commissioner is, that in all probability the House of Lords will choose to form their own opinion upon the merits of the bill, and not allow themselves to be dictated to by the Commissioner and his colleagues. 'We do not believe that pence squeezed out of the pauper's pit tance . will be thought desirable acquisitions by the Lords ; neither do we think that their Lordships, who undoubtedly have a great stake in the country, will take counsel from the Re publicans of the Westminster Rump as to the best means of preserving it. However, it is time enough yet to speculate upon the handling which the House of Lords may bestow upon the bill; but let it be recollected that they have not yet given the least indication of having con tracted the Malthus-Martineauish mania. We take this opportunity of correcting an error which occurs in the reports of the proceedings of the house on Friday. From them it would appear that the result of the discussion upon the amendment of Mr. Jervis in clause 0, which protects the commissioners from actions and gives them treble costs, was, that instead of agreeing to the proposition of Mr. Jervis, the clause was adopted by the house as it stood, with the mere alteration of substituting " full costs" for " treble costs." • We confess that we were a little surprised to see it stated that Mr. J;:rvis had not taken the sense of the house on this clause ; because he, much to his own personal credit, and to the honour of the profession to which he belongs made a manly stand against the clauses by which, with a degree of impudence unparalleled in the annals of British legislation and of British administra tions, it was proposed to place three irrespon sible persons above .the law and above the judges. All these clauses' have been abandoned except clause 0, and we are glad to find that the published reports of the debate do not con tain a full statement of what occurred. The fact is, that Mr. Jervis moved the omission of the entire clause. To this Lord Althorp ob jected. The Attorney-General, who appears to be heartily ashamed of these portions of the bill (and what constitutional lawyer is there who does not in his heart loathe and abhor them ?), though he,._not with his usual ,straight forwardness, holds his tongue about them, sug gested the substitution of the words " full costs" for " treble costs." Mr. Jervis said he would assent to this, provided Lord Althorp would allow the first part of the clause, whiCh protects the commissioners from actions, to be struck out, and thus permit parties aggrieved to bring actions against the commissioners. The effect of this arrangement would have been to give the commissioners full costs if such actions proved not to be maintainable, which is a large and generous protection, and one that must necessarily shield them against frivol ous or vexatious suits. To show, however, the animus in which this bill is concocted, the Attor ney-General was silent, but the feeling by which a large body of the members present was moved at so,fair a proposition not . being immediately and cordially acceded to, forced Lord Althorp upon his legs, and he asked for time "to con sider the proposal." Thus the matter rests now, and, to state the question shortly, it is this— " Will you give a poor man the chance which the theory of the constitution has conferred on the meanest and the lowest of the human creation — an appeal to the laws of his country ? If you will not, you will agree to the clause as it stands, if you will, you must vote for the amendment of Mr. Jervis. We do not exhort Mr. Jervis to take the sense of the house on this point, be cause we know that exhortation to him is un necessary. We are quite sure that lied-will di vide upon the question, if what is desired should not be, as it ought to be, yielded with the fullest and most ample apology for having for a mo ment hesitated to grant it. Mr. Jervis, we are sure, will do this, in order that the country may know what part of its representatives will, after solemn argument, declare that the courts of justice are to be closed and barricaded against all men who cannot afford to pay the costs that wait upon the successful prosecutor of an in dictment—that is to say, against every poor man in the united kingdom. Alas ! that such an appeal as this should have become necessary to a " Reform Administration" and 'a " Reformed Parliament."— Times. It will be seen by our Parliamentary report that Mr. Payne, the printer of this paper, was called before the House of Lords on Saturday to answer for the breach of privilege which we committed in arraigning ' the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in the case of " Solarte v. Palmer." It appeared that Mr. Payne exer -cised no control; over the insertion or rejection of articles in our paper. He stated the name o f th e gentleman by whom such control is exercised, and was then discharged. The editor of our paper is to appear at the bar of the House of Lords this day. We have already admitted that we have fallen into as mistake, and expressed our regret for the strong language which, under the influence of that mistake, we used. If we have any thing to urge in mitigation of our sentence, we thick it most respectful to our judges to reserve it until we appear at their bar. But we l may beg the attention of our readers for a few minutes while, with an excusable pride, we compare the course pursued by us in this 'affair with the course pursued by others in a similar one. On the 18th of April, 1831, Lord Limerick complained to the House of Lords of a breachof its priyileges committedby the Times. On the 27th of June, 1834, Lord Brougham complained to the House of Lords of a breach of its privileges committed by the Post. What is the nature of the offence in the two instances In the first instance an attack is made upon a noble lord, imputing, upon no reasonable grounds at all, that he had " treated the mere proposal of establishing a fund for the relief of the diseased or helpless Irish with brutal ridi cule, and almost impious scorn," —imputing, upon no reasonable grounds at all, that he was one of those who " declare their indiffe rence to popular odium, especially when they are at such a distance from Ireland as to ensure the safety of their persons." In the second instance, an attack is made upon a noble lord, imputing, upon the ground of certain facts, which confessedly are liable to much misunderstanding and mistake, that for the concealment or reversal of something done by him, " the Journals of the House of Lords must be garbled." The Times shows its consciousness of the impropriety of its tone by an attempt to shrink from investigation. We shall not name him," says the Times " because the House of Lords is armed with a thing called a bar, and other disagreeable ap pendages." The Post testifies its conviction that its strictures are just by the distinctness with which it states its facts, and the confidence with which it challenges scrutiny. "If what we tell is false," says the Post " then there never was committed a grosser breach of pri vilege than that of which we are to-day guilty." The breach of privilege committed by the Times was committed by a party whose general hosti lity - to the privileges of the House of Lords has never been concealed. The breach of privilege committed by the Post was com mitted by a party whose warm advocacy of the privileges of the House of Lords has always been conspicuous. What is the defence of the accused parties in the two instances ? Mr. Lawson, the printer of the Times, attended at the bar of the house on the 18th of April, 1831. • Mr. Payne, the printer of the Post, attended at the bar of the house on the 28th of June, 1834. Mr. Law son disclaimed all control over the insertion of articles in the Times. Mr. Payne disclaimed all control over the insertion of articles in the Post. But Mr. Lawson refused to say who had the supreme control of the paper of which he was the printer ; and Mr. Payne immediately made their Lordships acquainted with the name of the gentleman who, as the editor of this pa per, is answerable for the sins of its contents. In the one case, therefore, the individual mo rally responsible remains in contumacious con cealment. In the other, the individual mo rally responsible comes forward to confess and to endure. We are desirous to be judged upon the merits of our own cause. But let it be remembered that in our case there were circumstances by which we might well be misled into error,—that in our case the error was acknowledged as soon as it was known, that in our case the individual on whom the blame lies is ready to abide the pu nishment. That individual may claim leave to say something in his own name. He will not be betrayed either by the consciousness of an error or by the fear of its penalty into the adoption of a tone unworthy of an honourable and conscientious man. He has stated no facts which he did not believe to be true,—he has drawn no inference which he did not con ceive to be correct,—he has expressed no opi nion which he did not think to be just. These reflections w on h will console onse to-day. He willhim,,whateversubmitsentencemaypassed cheerfully to that sentence, in the ;lope that it may tend to secure from violation by less friendly assailants those privileges in defence of which we would readily bear a greater punish ment than any which will be now inflicted.— Morning Post. ' COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 28. THE AT TORNEY-GENERAI. V. SHORE. Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. Roam.lA were to-day heard on behalf of the relators to the present information. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared for the first class of trustees, who were, in conjunction with the sub trustees, appellants. The present information was not filed officially by the Attorney-General. That learned person had nothing to do with it further than this :—A contest had arisen between two classes of Dissenters as to which of them were entitled to enjoy a particular fund, and the Attorney-General had only permitted the use of his name for the purpose of as certaining to which class the fund ought to be applied. One party claimed a right to have the other excluded from participating in this fund, but the party for whom he (the Solicitor-General) appeared, only contended' that, by the terms of the gift. no sect was excluded from entertaining any particular doctrines. The grounds on which his honour the Vice-Chancellor's judgment below had proceeded were well known, but the learned counsel on the other side had not ventured to touch upon those grounds. They had asked their lordships to come to the same conclusion as his Honour, not by the same chain of reasoning, but by those ar guments which his Honour had overruled below, and which had not received his sanction. The learned counsel on the other side had not brought his Honour's inclement before their lordships, but it was now his (the Solicitor-General's) duty to call their lordships' most serious attention to it. His learned friend, Mr. Knight, had incidentally made some reference to a book that was not in evidence, viz., a supposed version of the New Testament recommended by a certain establishment called the Unitarian Society. An attempt had been made below to introduce evidence on that subject, but nothing had been produced to affix the defendants with having taken any part in the trans actions of that society. He (the Solicitor General) had then tendered a book, the last published by the society in question, but it had been objected to, and he had yielded to the objection. The other side then tendered a copy of this version of the New Testament, which they said contained certain passages which were inconsistent with the original text, and which had been altered so as to give effect to Unitarian doctrines. Had the other side proved that allegation ? Why, if they had, it certainly would be now in 1834, the date of,,the publication of the book, the oddest way to affect a trust created in 1704, and the oddest way of coming to the construction of a deed 130 years old. That book had been. withdrawn by the counsel who had tendered it, and it now stood as a document which had no existence in the present cause, and with which their lordships could new have nothing to de. H e (the Solicitor-General) stated, because he had materigls to prove what he stated, that his Honour's decision i Tes n t aa proceeded solely upon this version of the New a. ment. This was not an inference which he drew, for his Honou r ' s j u d g ment had avowedly proceeded upon the biblical criticism of a document not in the cause. He held in his hand a copy of his Honour's judgment. " . een l r tstherefore eorns: andand t deny ene think y th e that doctrine a o doctrine t noer he i go n t r oa u ul s rs t i e ns e : t s vin w io l uu rs o s a r t bd e ei v d ri is npe moved ; and, though there' iS no objection personally. to Mr. Palmer, yet, as it appears that he is a member of the Church of England, he ought not to be continued' a trustee." The effect of this decree was to declare that ministers, and persons professing the Unitarian form of belief and doctrines, could not participate in Lady Hevvley's charity. The relators, by their cowl-, sel, had made an offer to let the defendant, Mr. John Pemberton Heywood, continue a trustee ; but that gentleman not having accepted such offer, the Court ordered and decreed that he should be removed. How could his Honour's decree be right, when there was no case made out against Mr. Heywood? And yet he 'was not Flermitted to continue a trustee, only because he would'not accept that office at the hands of the re: lators.._ His Honour's judgment had proceeded solely on the version of the New Testament to which he had already alluded, andlvihich; .. waslnot in the cause: Under these circumstances he felt very confident that their lordships would not conic to the same conclusio as his Honour, by supporting the decree of the Cou below. His LORDSHIP said that he would let the learned counsel know, on Monday next, whether or no he should be able to take this case on Wednesday. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 28. MAGNAY AND OTHERS V. HOLLAND. - - Plaintiff and others were. assignees of Baylis, a printer ; the defendant was editor of the Monthly Ma gazine. The action was brought to recover the sum of 122/. 13s. 6d. for work and labour done and per formed in printing that magazine. There was no defence ; the jury then found for the plaintiff for 1221. I3s. 6d. BIRMINGHAM V. RYDER. This was an action for assault and imprisonment. Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was a poor man, and was acquainted with the defendant, a livery-stable keeper in Queen -street, Cheapside. Being anxious to better his condition the plaintiff was desirous of purchasing a horse. The de fendent let him have one at 101., the price to be worked out. In a few days the horse died. The de fendant then said he should have another horse. This he had, and shortly afterwards the defendant caused him to be apprehended on a charge of stealing the horse. He was taken before a magistrate, who imme diately dismissed the charge. The plaintiff, therefore, had.brought his action to recover damages for the in jury he had sustained. Lord DENMAN having summed up, the jury fried for defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 28. HAYMAN V. CIIINNER. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for criminal con versation with the plaintiff's wife. The damages were laid at 1,0001. Mr. Sergeant WILDE observed that the plaintiff was managing clerk to an attorney in the City, and the defendant held a situation in the War-office. The marriage between the plaintiff arid his wife took place a few years ago. Their marriage was one of affection, and the parties were not of an unsuitable age. They had four children, and they continued to live in a state of happiness and comfort until it was destroyed by the defendant. Mrs. Hayman was first introduced to the defendant's wife when she was suffering under the effects of a dangerous confinement, and of which she afterwards died. The parties resided near each other, and he believed it was the dying request of Mrs. Chinner that Mrs. Hayman should give her atten tion to Mrs. Chinner's children, which furnished an excuse for Mrs. Hayman going to the defen dant's house. After the -acquaintance had con tinued some time the plaintiff found an altera tion in his wife's conduct. She had been a most affec tionate wife, and had contributed in every way to his happiness and to the comfort of his children ; but sud denly he founean entire change in her behaviour, and for which he was entirely at a loss to account. After these visits by the plaintiff's wife to the defendant's house had during some time been carried on, Mrs. Hayman remaining longer on one occasion than cir cumstances required, the plaintiff, whose mind had been disturbed by the alienation of his wife's affections, complained of her conduct, which terminated in an al tercation between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff then sent his wife into the country. She had been there only a short time when a note was found in Mrs. Hayman's apartment which astounded the plaintiff, and increased those feelings of uneasiness under which he had previously laboured. The note was not in existence, but the learned gentleman said he thought he' should be able to prove its contents. The note was addressed by the defendant to the plain tiff's wife, and in terms showing that an intimacy of a warm nature had taken place between them. The plaintiff put the note into a friend's hands, by whom it was shown to the defendant. He did not deny that it was in his hand-writing, but he pledged himself that nothing of an improper nature had taken place between him and Mrs. Hayman. The plaintiff then removed his wife to another distant residence ; but coming home one evening earlier than usual he found a person near his house, and drawing nearer he discovered that that individual was the defendant. Inquiries were then made, and the result led to the present action. Orr other occasions they were observed holding corres pondence by signs and motions across the road ; and at other times the defendant was observed paying very frequent visits to the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff and defenda.&t were, at this time, not on friendly terms, and therefore there was no pretence for the defendant calling at the plaintiff's house ; he was observed con stantly visiting at the plaintiff's house almost from the time when the plaintiff left his house in the morning till he returned in the evening. The neighbours ob served the door placed ajar for him ; and when he ar rived the servant was sent out with the children ; the blinds were then observed to be drawn down. No thing but one motive could have induced the defendant to pay such frequent visits to the plaintiff's house. Several witnesses were then called in confirmation of the above statements. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant, after which The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up the evidence, the jury consulted together a few moments, and then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001. COURT 0 F EXCHEQUER, JUNE 28. (Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) PARR V. JOLLY. This was an action of slander. Plaintiff was a Dis senting minister of the sect of Independents, and was about to get the office of minister to a chapel at Bromley, in Sussex, when reports were spread of his being more spirituously than spiritually inclined. During the time the negociations were going on, these reports prejudicial to his character were circulated in the neighbourhood, and he, in consequence, applied to the defendant to know if he had heard any of them. He replied that he had, and he had been told that on one occasion he vent into the house of a widow lady and asked for a glass of brandy and water; that the glass was given; but that, instead of contenting himself with so mode rate a potation, he remained until he had consumed the whole bottle. The defendant mentioned the .names_of certain parties who were his informants. In 'consequence of these extraordinary potatory powers, the office of minister of the chapel was withhela from 'the plaintiff, and he was otherwise damnified in purse and character. The defendant afterwards refused to give up the names of the parties, and this action was therefore brought against him as being the o riginator. The Jury found for the defendant. _ - POLICE INTELLIGENCE• Barnard, a Al dermanrd , GUILDHALL. Thomas Roston, On Saturday a young was 'with the abduction of a Inli fith her mother in 'Good artugceti.on took place on Monday. young Jewish ladh es ?f diag : f h t Amelia before a a n ge u d sh fi e ft r e a e t n, so a m n is er ch.o , I, Good man's-fields . 's statement was thatas he was walking in the h name VENABLES, abduction 14°resteinnpark, reading a book, he obsereved her walking with a ge ntleman. They soon separate d , and she t h e n walked up and down so as to meet him, which induced him to speak to her. Sh e as k e d hi m w h at b o ok he was realing; and familiarly took his arm. She presently told him she was in great distress of mind, because her friends were going - to send her to Chelmsford, and she would rather stay with hi could take her home, and to this proposal he agr Mr. Alderm an V ENABLES sa id t h e - young m doubtless liabl e t o pun i s h men t, b u t sugges t e d . o the friends of the girl that, instead of pursuing that course, it would be b e tt er t o sen d her to her relatives at Am sterdam, as she had expressed her willingness to go there. She might in another country outlive her shame.—The friends acquiesced iu the propriety of the advice, and both parties were then discharged. MARYLEBONE. William Fletcher, driver of one of Bolton's Padding-, ton omnibuses, was charged with attempting the life of Mr. William John. Bishop, landlord of the Pine Apple Tavern, Portman-market. The prisoner said in his defence that he had got drunk at the prosecutor's house, and was quite uncon scious of what he had done. • Mr. HoskiNs—This is a very savage outrage, and it is aggravated rather than palliated by your plea of drunkenness. You must find good security to answer it at the sessions. . _ The prisoner was committed in default. HATTON-GARDEN. John Robert Amos, a boy about twelve years of age, was brought before the Magistrate, charged with jtaving on the 10th instant driven a cabriolet against a phaeton belonging to Mr. Blake; an attorney re:- siding in the King's-road, by which the phaeton wal upset, and Mrs. Blake and two children, the one only eighteen months, and the other three , years old s ,were dashed with great violence against the pavement. Mr. Blake's coachman, who drove his i g hid e , a t t h e time, having stat e d the f ac t s o f th e case , and men tioned that the repairs of the phaeton, made necessar , by the concussion, amounted •to 51. Is., and it being also proved that the accident occurred through-tb - I reckless driving of the boy, the magistrate sentence the defendant, the boy's father being proprietor of th 4 cab, to pay the U. Is. damage, and also a fine of 40s. In default of payment the defendant was committed to hard labour fist a month. W 0 RSI-I IMSTREET. A fellow, who gave h:s name H enr y Fi e ld, wa s brought before Mr. BROL'eHT ON , charr=ed with wilfully attempting to knock down a house in Cooper's-gardens, Hackney, belonging to the Rev. Edward Smith, of Ely Hall, Essex. The prisoner was sentenced to pay a fine of 51., and in default of payment was committed to the House of Correction and to hard labour for three months. MARLBOROUGH-ATREET. Francis Adolphus Walker, a girlish-looking lad, with his hair nicely parted and curled on bath sides. wearing his shirt collar a la Byron, and an imitation gold watch-guard, a la Cocaigne, brought John Ccil lins before Mr. CONANT and Mr. DYER, for having on Wednesday last slapped the dexter side of his delicate countenance. rj The complainant, whose air and style of dress was ordered according to the most approved aristocratic model c used s el . tle surprise whell he announced " On Wednesday last," began Mr. Walker, brushing up his curls with a consequential air, " being excessive en gaged on some important work"-__ Mr. CoITANT.— Pray, what is your occupation? Complainant—l'm a journeyman tailor, and the defen dant works on the same board. Mr. CONANT—A tailor I Well, go on. Complainant—As I was observing, being excessive busy stitching some button-holes, I suddenly missed my principal bodkin, and accordingly I charged the de fendant instanter with its abduction. His answer was a violent shove on my right bussom, which knock'd me backwards on the shopboard. When I recovered my presence of mind I said I was not so regenerated as to mix myself up with sitch low conduct, as I should have address in a more proper way, and he then hit me a tremendous spank in my face, telling me I might take my address out of that. Mr. CONANT—Oh, then, you supposed the defen dant had taken away your bodkin ? Complainant—l'd good reason for knowing as he'd taken it, and wouldn't give it up. Mr. DYER—Ah, the defendant refused to " make his quietus with a bare bodkin." In reply to the charge, the defendant declared there was not a more 'quarrelsome, priegish, ninth part of a tai for than the complainant. He had taxed him first with stealing his - bodkin, and when he resented the insinuation, the com plainant caught up the goose, which had just been served up hot to the board, and challenged him to single combat. Defendant had hold of the sleeve board, and swore he would give him wooden sauce . to his iron goc;e, if he persevered in his martial manifes tations. 'I hi; cooled the complainant, .and he took his revenge by obtaining the present warrant. The Magistrates thought that justice would be at tained by the payment of costs, and disposed of the charge accordingly. A HOPELESS CASE.—A pale-faced elderly man, with a woebegone countenance, approached Mr. Chambers, and begged, in a tone of dismal despondency, that he would grant him his protection. Mr. CHAMBERS—Against whom ? Applicant-7- Against my wife. She's always beating me , your Worship. Mr. CHAMBERS—Beats you I Then bind her over to keep the peace. Applicaht—l have do - ae so, but it's of no use ; she kicked me behind three times this morning. because I had not finished a pair of wettings when the gentle man called for them. She gets drunk, and then' I catches it worse than ever. Mr. CHAMBERS—Don't let her have any money, and then she can't get drunk. Applicant—She will keep the cash herself. M ar r a . te CH Applicant—She won't let me. Mr. CHAMBERS-Then run away to America ; I maintenance.. asinEas—P sep art from her, and allow her a. don't see how . l can help you. The applicant sighed, looked up at the ceiling, shook his head dolefully, and walked out of the Office. BIRTHS. On the 26th inst., Mrs. Benjamin Willoughby, of Upper Bedford-place, of a son. On the 22d inst., at Howe-street, Edinburgh, the lady of Dr. Ransford, of a daughter. On the 27th inst., in Euston-square, Mrs. James Keith Forbes, of a son. On the 26th inst., at Highgate, the lady of Peter Pod land, Esq., of a daughter. On the 24th inst., Mrs. Chadd Randall, of Well-street , Hackney, of a son. On the 27th inst., Mrs. Joseph Fenwick, Fowkes buildings, of a son. On the 27th inst., Mrs. Sowton, Great James-street, Bedford-row, of a daughter. On the 24th inst., at Lawn Cottage, near Dawlisfry Devonshire, the lady of G. A. Ferreira, _Esq., of a daugh tW On the 25th inst., in Upper Harley-street, the lady of William Butterworth Bayley, Esq. of a son• On the 24th inst., at Kenwith Lodge, Bideford, Devon. Mrs. J. M. Holl, jun., (lately of Highbury-place), of a son. On the 25th inst., at Broom Farm, Teddington, the lady of Charles Green, Esq., of a son. On the 23d inst., at Stonefield, N. 8., the lady of Geo. Dickson, Esq., of Belchester, of a son. __ MARRIED. :A.f o coo n ricann t :t h hh e teeo 26th inst., at , Wimborne Minster, Jas. Forsyth. Esq., of Dunach, Argyllshire, to Maria Magdalena, second daughter of the late Emanuel Muller, Esq., of Clifton. On the 27th inst., at St. Ethelburga Church, ilishoPs gate-within, John Warren, Edward Ben_ '• On the 25th inst., at St. Clement Dane's , Benton; Holborn 'ton, of the Strand, youngest son of Mr. _ _. .... , i ns t., Mr. Thomas Payne, of West Brom wich,Tower-hill, to Miss Burgoyne, _ of Pahner-terrace• an d Be n. , to Mary Ann, youngest d ham-court-road. ' On the 26th inst., at St. Mary's , Cburch, Islington, t h e 24 24 th th i nst . , at Wappenham Church, WesleY daughter oßow den, nsh ir etoEslegiz M a ria,. Eliza Rev. W i I Y JI: merch ant, o n h n n O g a r e H M Usot e gf e n h , t y ' Hull. neEros .Missi o nary oql f d r .i M i youngest d r , . of A d daughter . o i 3 n twi 1 g :e h , fro mn te iv e i rri, late n .l i of Trini t y -squ ar e, 38ot* t e V .st o h- - . f G a co u n - co t t h t e , B 24 u t c h k sin, inst., , E u a t p h Burton,m ia , e l d n e e s a t rencser daughter te . . r, ' Rector of app R oT e rhm v o . me W : , o l\r f ° t t h r h i e h e: am ßo lie v P v . l E. S sg e ß. o : tt o , B A jyerse l: John B. Bingham, Rector of Great Gaddesden, Hertai•to Frances, second (laughter of the late Rev. Croston John son, Rector of Wimslow; Cheshire. On the 24th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, the Rev. - W. D. Johnson M. A., Curate of Tunbridge-wells, and Chaplain 11 0 1r ai . Jam es es to the Dowager Countess of Scarborough, to Elizabeth Harvey, second daughter of Lieut.-Colonel Boys, and granddaughter of the late Sir Henry Harvey, S. 8.. On the 25th insti, at St. John's, Haekney,4ehn Soysr. Esq., of Warren Lodge, Edmonton, _to Miss. : Chartotte Thompson, of Hackney. On the 24th inst., at Great Oakley, oWll . :: : G S : B l eaa l tdwin, Esq., Nelthorpe, of Blackfriars- road,, to Sally; third daugh te r Of Ha o ze n l t S h a e lm w o h n, in E st s . q , ., a o t f H n u o l i b e r n idg e : . jolin. Fraser, Esq., to oSfelsireadeClihairltotKtee,...............phird daughter This morning. Monday, 30th June, Thomas. Walter. youngest son of. Mr. Murclo Young, 112, Strand. ' On the 26th - inst.; Elizabeth, wife of Samuel ArbOuine , Esq., of Guildford -street, Russell-square. . • • Kew, Elizabeth Townsessd Aiton. On the 2 5 th inst., at On the' 27th:inst., in Park -street, 'Grosvenor-square , the infant son of Dowdeswell, Esq. On the 23d inst., Phcebe i the eldest daughter of the lat° Thomas Downes, Esq., of North 11Iimms, Ilerts. On the 23d inst., at South Weald, Essex, Geo. gokes, E sq ., in his 76th year; On the 24th inst., Mr, henry Whitmore, jar" surgeon, aged 24, late of Coldbath-square. 2 1 Alexander On- he 19th inst., a t Edinburgh, aged Colvin Fraser Tytler, e ld es t son - of t late .Alexande r , Fraser Tytler, of the Bengal Civil Service. On the 22d inst., at Ludlow, in her 87th year, grs. Rogers, relict of the late Charles Rogers , Esq,, of Ludl°' - ' and of Stanage-park. i, r tford, On the 26th init., at the 'Hide Coat-school, • 0' George Mackenzie Macaul a y Evans, aged 7, younge st 5 S u rr of the late Mr. John E vans, sur g eo n , of Brixton, q; On the 26th inst. , in his 34th year, Richard. the el r df . son of 'the late Mr. Jose p h Ni chols on, of Foot's C ay, Kent. O n the 27th inst., at Lo am Pit Hill, Sophia , wife oi Captain Christoph(r Kyiner, London: Printed aid Published by NICILDO YOUNG/ at the Sun Office, No. 112, Straf'