The Sun. — London, England, 1830-03-25 00:00:00

from that which has attended his actual undertaking. We may, indeed, characterise the motion of the Hon. Gentleman as being, for its hostile spirit to wards Ministers, repugnant to the sense of the House, and no less irrelevant to the national inte rests, from the childish selection of topics with which he introduced it. But though we know and feel the necessity of a reduction of taxes to a consider ably greater extent than that which Mr. Goulburn has announced, we are very remote from agreeing with those who triplet superciliously the proposition of his Majesty's Ministers, as if they involved no substantial relief to the community. It is said by one (rather long-winded) correspondent, that the country gentlemen will take care to keep all the benefit of the free trade in beer to themselves, by raising their rents in proportion. This we take to be a futile fear, in as much as the consent of another party, besides the landlord, is requisite towards an increase of rent ; and unless the farmers of England are young enough to join in a conspiracy for their own ruin, such a consequence can hardly be anticipated. The same correspondent is some what jealous in urging the imposition of a pro perty-tax, in lieu of others which press more upon the springs of industry. The reformer of tax ation is a little premature in this. Let us see one class of taxes really reduced before we talk of find ing substitutes. It appears from the statements of another correspondent, that certain tender con sciences have been disturbed by the approaching repeal of the beer tax. " The clergy, magistracy, and principal inhabitants of the city of Hereford" have begun to pray that beer, when released from duty shall not be consumed on the premises where it is purchased, for fear of its causing debazteliery among the poor I Is there no debauchery among the gin-drinking poor? By the way, there is s ens e ' as well as comfort in his notion, that we Londoners may have a wholesome luncheon of sandwiches and ale, whenever we choose to stop and take such re freshment, after the trade shall have been thrown open. Our worthy friend who would levy a " poll tax" on each of the 25,000,000 of people supposed to form the population of the United Kingdom, thereby creating what he calls a revenue of .50,000,000/. per annum, is doubtless an accurate arithmetician, whatever we may think of him as a financier. The single comment, therefore, which we shall make on his tax is to request that he will take a trip with us across the Channel, and, knoct ing at the door of the first Irish cabin we come to, just beg of the poor devil who " rents" it at 21. a year, to be ready the next morning for the tax-gatherer with the sum of 211. sterling, being the net amount of the " poll-tax" for himself, his wife, and ten half•naked children I Will that content our inge nious projector of Cannon -street ? There is an awful specimen of cant and mummery ill a letter signed a " Friend to Good Order," which, if we tied room, we would publish out of pure respect for the author of it, not doubting that he is the worthy keeper of a coffee or gin-shop in disguise. But these projects of our correspondents are scarcely more absurd than those of some of the nostrum mongers, who, during the prolonged and uninterest ing discussion now fortunately at an end, have fatigued night after night the House and the public. If we can conquer our sense of tedium, we may on a future occasion notice some of these specifics for the remedy of public distress.—Times. We are far from blaming any public man for re nouncing the opinions he may have avowed, if he discovers that he was in error. A pertinacity in maintaining what is known to be erroneous, from a dread of incurring the charge of inconsistency, is cowardice. Lord Grenville, for instance, was never blamed for expressing his regret that he was one of the authors of the Bank Restriction Act : for no man could, even for one moment, suppose any other motive for the expression of this regret than what was honourable to his Lordship. We are always, therefore, in canvassing the opinions of public men, much more disposed to inquire whether they be now in the right path, than to reproach them with having been formerly in a wrong one ; for no doc trine is more dangerous than that public men ought to be intimidated by accusations of inconsistency or apoetacy from allowing themselves to be open to conviction. We know of no sort of alter cation more disagreeable than that which occa sionally takes place in Parliament, when Members, instead of meeting the arguments urged in favour of or in opposition to, any measure, are reduced to the necessity of criminating each other on account of having done, or left undone, what forms the subject of discussion. These observations are drawn from us, in consequence of a seeming departure from an ordi nary practice, in noticing the former opinions of Sir Francis Burdett on the subject of currency; but it is not the altered opinion of the Honour able Baronet which moves us to draw on our recollection of Parliamentary proceedings, but the tone of triumph which he assumed on Tuesday night in commenting on the 'conduct of Mr. Peel. We have no objection to Sir Francis declaring, "that the measure of 1707 was one which, it; the then state of things, had saved the country," that " every thing had settled itself to that state," and that " the industry and enterprise of the country was so great that it produced more than sufficed for the expen diture of the war;" but when he mounts his high horse, and with the tone of infallibility tells us that ''the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had, in deed, eleven years ago set up the god of his idolatry —this golden idol—this calf in Horeb of the be sotted Israelites; and the effect, after varietie vacil lations, had been the present condition of the coun try ;" and that " The distress of 1810 was occa sioned by the Bank of England having first issued too much paper, and then being alarmed, having suddenly restricted its issues, and refused eccommo datiou. The effect was, to ruin many respectable and wealthy individuals. It was also a great crime in the Government of that day to allow such a state of things to arise, because it was its duty to take care that no such sudden changes should be made in the amount of the currency. With regard to the distress of 1816, it was true that that was bee fore the year when the favourite child of the adoption, and not of the creation, of the Right Iloaourable Gentleman, saw the light . ; but the tidings of it had gone forth—the Government was known to be pregnant of this portentous birth, and the country had a foretaste of the bitter conse quences of its appearance." When we hear this tone of exultation on the part of the Hon. Baronet, we cannot help calling to mind, that from the first of the bullion question, he was one of the loudest and most violent of those who arraigned the Go vernment for conduct the very reverse of that for which he now condemns Mr. Peel. On the 9th of July, 1811, Sir Francis complained of " the unjust attacks which had been made on a Noble Lord (Lord King) for doing no more than what tee was entitled to, and which justice to his own family ree quired him to do. How could it he pretended that a landlord was not entitled to demand his rent to be pa;d without depreciation, at the very rime when the tenant was selling the produce of his farm with reference to this very depreciation in the paper currency of the kingdom ? He recollected the language which, at the commencement of the French Revolutioen was held by Gentlemen on the other side of the House, with regard to the French assignats. Their tone, however, was now completely changed, :aid was to tie com pared to nothing but what they then attributed to Robespierre and his associates, from which the downfal of the credit of France was prognosticated. He trusted, however, that the present rneastess the very measure he, Sir Frames, new justifies) would have this good effect ; it would metes gentlemen at length feel in what situation they stood. He trusted at length they would be awakened, k.nd would not wait for the period when every man in England would find that, with his pockets full of paper, he mit without the means of support, This language, in such a situation, seemed to say that pp 4 :- .. , remedy could be applied, and reminded him ref . a teel,Aine in an Italian Poet, which was said to be in scribed over the gates of Hell-- ' Who enters here, ;:e: '' ( !wee hope behind: , , , The Noble Lord who had warned us of our danger was, in his opi nion, entitled to our best thanks, in the same way as lie must be esteemed our friend who prevented us from leaping over, while we had only a stop to take before we fell into, the gulf of perdition.— Without a speedy remedy, we must quickly expect to see a paper-price and a money-price, and the evil must continue to increase till bank notes became like the assignals in France but one possible remedy, and that was to diminish the paper circulation Did the Right Hon. Gentleman suppose that this evil would stop short of the fixing a maximum of price ? He was satisfied it would not. It might, indeed, seem to be equally dangerous to return as to go over ; but there could be no doubt that the path in which we now were must lead to ruin. It must end in destruction ; he did not say in the destruction of the people or the country, for a brave and free people were immortal ; but it must end in the ruin of the established system."—One should think that after this language the Hon. Baronet would be the very last man in the world to blame Government for endeavouring to return to a metallic circulation. The Hon. Baronet then appealed to Ministers on behalf of the landed gentlemen, as he now appeals in their behalf. They were then ruined, he said, by the paper—they are now ruined, lie says, by the gold. " Was it (he said in 1811) for the landlord of England to be made the scape-goat and the victim to this destructive system, which could only be propped up for a season, but could not be effectually supported ?" In 1830, he says " Prosperity to the landed interest was not compatible with low prices"— that is, with gold. During a period of depreciation, the landed interest must, as creditors, have the bene fit of gold. During a period of pure currency, the landed interest must, as debtors, have the benefit of a depreciated currency. The Scotch have a saying that "a man may be very fond of the Kirk without aye riding on its riggin' (ridge of the roof). We are great admirers of the landed interest, though our admiration stops a little on this side of idolatry ; but really Sir Francis would deliver us all up bound neck and heel to that class which constitutes, according to him, the glory of England. It is but justice, however, to Sir Francis to observe that he was a correct expounder of flume; and Mr. Frankland Lewis, in correcting him, was not. flume certainly meant depreciation ; for if the standard be altered by the fall in the value of metals, what is that but de preciation ? Hume was mistaken, no doubt ; but that is another affair.—Morning Chronicle. In the House of Lords on Tuesday night, the Marquis of Clanricarde brought forward his motion relative to the affair of" Terceira." His Lordship's argument was, that if the Portuguese troops had involved us in any breach of neutrality by their ap pearance in this country, or by their manner of leav ing our ports under false colours, that afforded us no justification for following them across the sea, and committing acts of oppression upon them on their approach to a place in the possession of the Queen. The Earl of Aberdeen opposed the motion, as casting an undeserved censure upon the Government. His Lordship world not discuss the question whether the principle of neutrality originally laid down was right or wrong ; but he claimed that, having been adopted, it should be attended to, and not trifled with for mere convenience or inclination. He ad mitted that an error—the only one—was his not having insisted upon the instant dispersion of the Portuguese troops on their arrival in this country. He said that in their wretched condition, and with the promise of a speedy departure, it was but art act of humanity to suffer them to remain in the condi tion which was most convenient to them. Had they not repeatedly been required to depart or disband, Don Miguel, he said, would have had a right to com plain of a breach of neutrality. As to Terceira being a territory in possession of the Queen, that, he said, was a matter of doubt, as the parties there were very nicely balanced. The troops having sailed without arms did not alter the hostile character of the expe dition. He said that arms had, by a friend, been transmitted to Terceira for them. They were also warned, before they left our ports under false clear ances, that they would not be suffered to land at Terceira. He also attempted to justify the conduct of the Government on the precedent furnished by the measures of 1826. When the Portuguese refugees fled to Spain, that Government insisted on their dispersion, and they never went into the interior of the country. In the negociation now pending he denied that England was at all a secondary party. The Earl of Radnor complained that Lord Aber deen had said very little on the question before their Lordships. If the Government had broken through their neutrality, in suffering the troops to remain embodied at Plymouth, that did not justify them afterwards in pursuing them across the sea. If the Brazilian Government had committed any fraud, their troops ought not to be punished for it. The case of 1826 afforded no parallel to the present, for then the troops were deserters, had re turned in arms, and Spain was actually under a treaty riot to receive such rebels. Lord Holland contended that the attack on the expedition was a violation of the law of nations, and said that, if England neglected to espouse the cause of the young Queen against an usurper, France would no doubt take advantage of that circumstance, and obtain an ascendancy in Portugal. He would remind his Majesty's Government that there were now two great powers—Russia in the north and east, and public opinion in the west—which had been favourable to England a few years since, but were now adverse to us. The Duke of Wellington justified this Government in nearly the same strain of argument as Lord Aberdeen. Don Pedro, he said, possessed no portion of the territories of Portu gal since the separation of the two Crowns.—To this last observation of the Duke, Lord Goderich replied that he suspected that ire had other views than were neutrality in the conduct of Government in this affair when he spoke of the separation of the two crowns.—The Lord Chancellor spoke at some length in defence of the Government in this affair, but he did not offer a single argument in addition to those used by the other Ministers.—Lord Carnarvorr said that the Ministers, through the whole debate, blinked the real question, which was not whether we had a right to expel those Portuguese emigrants, but whether we had a right to pursue them to every Part Dr the globe, because they refused to submit to our monarcii, At the conclusion of the debate the numbers were-31 ff.3r the motion, and 126 against it. Ministers thus evade the question without having cleared it up to the satisfaction of the public. The debate en the state of the country was resumsd: in the Commons, anditerminated as might be expected, at half-past two o'clock, in favour of Ministers, the numbers being 87 for the motion, and 265 against it; but, from the lateness of the hour, we can only refer,—to Mr. O'Connell's speech, who complained of the distress of the middling claQses in Ireland, and was answered by Lord L. Gower, who adduced several returns to prove the increasing prosperity of that country,—to that of Mr. Beaumont, who hoped the ]louse would agree, because, if they did not, the people would conclude, " not that Parliament rduced inquiry, but that Parliament was the controul of Government ;"—to that of General Gas coyne, who tvo4' l not adopt the metaphor of the Doctors alluded to by a Honourable Member, but should rather look upon a Con - 4alttee as a Jury itn pagic4led to inquire " into the murder of the labour of this conntryl"—and to the long speech of Sir F. Btudett in favour of the motion, and the reply of Mr. D. NV. Harvey, who was rather severe on the aristocratic doctrines of the Honourable niggnel, Morning Herald. We agree with Lord Althorp in hoping, that whatever rt- 4 17 be the details which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it necessary to introduce ling) his beer bill, with a view cf equitably meeting and reconciling conflicting interests,'" he will not be tempted, undeF any circumstances, to alter his mind as to op en i ng t h e t ra d e ." N or , w e will add, as to Aking away from those who Jave hitherto excer ,cised it, t h e ar bi trary an d muc h- a b use d system of ale-house li cens i ng. Whether as a ma t ter of revenue as well as of police, the taking out an Excise lieenSe - by all persons dealing in intoxicating liquors, may or • may not be desirable, we do not take upon ourselves either to affirm or deny; but that the liberty to deal in any article, more especially one constituting a necessary of life, should depend upon the mere will and caprice of persons who happen to get their I names introduced into commissions of the peace, and who may be themselves dealers in the same article, is an anomaly which it is only wonderful that the country has so long tolerated, and the extinction of which will confer more credit on Mr. Goulburn than the amount of taxation which he has remitted. But that the right to manufacture the article should be under any restraint, is even more absurd than the con troul over the right to sell it; and cannot, we are con viticed,he any longer endured, now that the intention of throwing it open has been once announcedfrom au thority. At the same time we are not unaware how often it happens that measures which are opened to the public as great sources of relief, have their ad vantages frittered away by subsequent concessions ; and knowing how many and powerful interests there are alive upon this one subject, all pulling with united force against the general good, it be comes the more necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should himself be firm, as well a_ those to whose vigilance and integrity their con stituents have a right to look upon the occasion. We believe, moreover, that both the honest brewer and the respectable publican have taken much more alarm upon the occasion than there is any real grounds for. In fact, if one makes, and the other takes care to sell, a pure unadulterated commodity, there is no fear but that custom will continue, and rather increase in places where the excellence of the beverage is its recommendation. The truth is that the brewers' monopoly has been in no small degree injurious, both to the publican and to them selves, by leading to the deterioration, and consequent disrepute of an article which may be called the national beverage of Englishmen ; we care not whether that deterioration takes place in the brewer,' vats, or in the cellars of the publican with out the brewers' knowledge—the adulteration in either case arises out of the injurious monopoly which the licensing system has created and che rished. The competition which the proposed open ing of the trade must, we should think, of necessity produce, cannot but give the advantage to the larger and more experienced establishments, whose skill and superior machinery must enable them to enter upon, or rather to keep the field against, all rivals. This latter argument, too, is quite decisive in our minds as to the advantage which the taking off the beer tax will give the public over the private brewer. Every man who knows any thing of the manufacture of beer, must be aware that the skill of the brewer depends upon extracting the greatest quantity of saccharine matter from a given quantity of malt ; and that in this respect the brewer upon a large scale has by far the advantage—so much so, indeed, that we believe we should not overstate it in saying that, from 90 quarters of malt, in a well conducted public brewery, as much beer of equal quality would be produced as from 100 quarters con sumed in successive brewings of five quarters each in private hands. If this be so, besides the advantage of going to a better market, the great public brewer, with the tax taken off, cannot have much to foar from the brewer at home or the small competitor.— Morning Herald. There is a great deal of justice and good sense in what passed the other day at a meeting of the in habitants of St. Paul, Covent-garden, relative to an equalization of the land tax, The inequality exists all over the kingdom, and must of necessity not only be so, but be every year increasing, as the value of property fluctuates, especially when it is considered that the assessment in the first instance was not an equal one, and that it has now lasted considerably more than a century. In the London parishes, espe cially those which were till lately mere villages in the outskirts, this must be strikingly the case. In confirmation we need only adduce one of the many undeniable facts stated at the above meeting—viz. that while the parish of St. Paul, Covent-garden, on a rental of 40,0001., was paying 4,8401. 125., that of St. Marylebone, on a rental of 700,0001., was pay ing to the land-tax only 4921. It was a great error of Mr. Pitt that he did not take some steps to equalize this tax previous to bringing forward his measure for its redemption—a measure which has operated but in a very circumscribed way, and of which, by the bye, though it now scarcely operates at all, part of the machinery, and, of course, the ex pense, is still in existence. The subject is one surely well worthy of the attention of those who have the management of the finances of the country; and it is especially worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's consideration whether, in relievin g St. Paul, Covent-garden, and other parishes, from their unequal share of this impost, the increased value of property in other places would not justify an in crease I of the tax, by which an improvement n the revenue under this head might be obtained, to the relief of the burden of taxation under others.—ilforning Herald. It has been contended, we understand, by some of the great brewers, that the Act for the sale of intermediate beer has been productive of but little injury to the Licenced Victuallers—that the quantity manufactured and sold has been compar a ti ve l y trifling—that their property has sustained no dete rioration in point of value from this interfere nce ith their business—and finally, that there is j ust as little probability of its being injured by the in. tended measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for throwing the trade in beer open. The two cases are extremely dissimilar : and the conclusion, as ap. plicable to the new measure, is, in consequence, wholly unfounded. But supposing the cases to be in every respect similar, we happen to have it in our power to chew, from a document which will h e found in another part of our paper, that the premises are equally false—that great injury has been done to the business and property of the Licensed Victualler by the Intermediate Beer Act —and that that injury is so much on the increase, as to threaten the total annihilation of the trade in strong beer. The table to which we refer, shows that while there has been a decrease in the consumption of strong beer in the year ending sth January, 1830, as compared with the average of the three preceding years, of upwards of 606,000 barrels, and in table beer of upwards of 175,000, there has been an increase during the same period in the con sumption of intermediate beer, of no less than 26,000 !—in a word, that the consumption of in termediate beer, during the past year, is precisely eight times the amount of what it was in the year 1827 ! Yet it is said, that the Intermediate Beer Act has been productive of no injury, and that the intended free trade in beer will be equally harmless ! Now we know well where the whole scheme will be harmless, or rather beneficial, and where also it will be injurious, From the lowering of the duty it will be beneficial to the brewer, by enabling him to dis pose of a greater quantity of beer; and from the throwing open of the trade, it will also be bene ficial to him, in enabling him to dispose of beer which, if sent to any of the p resent b o d y o f Li censed Victuallers, would be rejected as unfit for use. These are brewers' benefits; but we really can see none which the licensed victualler pan pose sibly derive from it. To him it is certain and in evitable ruin—it releases him from none of his en gagements, and it takes away from him the only means of meeting them. It rivets c h a i ns a l r eady too galling, and leaves him without the slightest hope, by any exertion of care or industry, to rid hiinself of them.—Norning Advertiser. There are two consequences which will inevitably result from the proposed measuie of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of its being passed into a law, winch no one who has any regard for the public morals, or who possesses household pro- FeTty, ca n possibly regard with i n diff erence. Th e first is the Increase of habits of intoxication, and of riots antl ad disorders tie kinds,iOsfeeaollnd,lthe .i'o';tio li7 it would value of household property wherever situated by di', establishment of inevitably public-hous es , w hi c h, i t i s, an in the lii needless to add, would not be conducted with the same good order and propriety under the new, as under the present, system. As the law now stands it is well known that the licensed victualler is not only compelled by the dread of the infliction of heavy penalties, neither to allow his house to be open at improper hours, nor to permit drunkenness or riot in it; but that he is even bound down still more effectually by the interest which he has in procuring the renewal of his licence, and preserving the great amount of property—generally his all— which he has invested in the trade. Let these salu tary checks, however, be withdrawn—let every one who claims obtain a licence, and the good order, and decency, and regularity, which now prevail, will be no where to be met with—the trade will be engrossed, to a considerable extent, by persons who have neither property or character to lose —every barber's shop will become a tippling house—and every public house a resort for the most abandoned characters; while smuggling, and adulteration, will be carried to an extent which will bid defiance to every police and excise regulation which can be devised. We trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take these matters into his con sideration before he proceeds to overturn the present system, which, if it be faulty in any respect, has, at all events, the merit of pro perty and character against its abuse; and, on the other hand, that those who are now crying out for a free trade in beer will reflect that the granting of their prayer would inflict upon them one of the greatest nuisances that can well be imagined—we mean the establishment of public houses in every principal street and square in the metropolis, to the great deterioration in value of the whole of the adjoining property. At present no such consequence happens, because the licences are granted by the Magistrates, arid care taken that the granting of a new licence shall have the double merit of being necessary for the accommodation of the neighbourhood, and of being so situated as not to be injurious to private property ; but let the system be altered as proposed, and there will be no check either upon the number, or upon the situation of public-houses and places of public entertainment. We bid landlords, and the owners of household property generally, look well to this inevitable con sequence of the measure before they lend it their sanction, by joining in the sen , eless cry for a free trade in beer.—Morning Advertiser. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF MA CERY, MARCH 24. EX-PARTE COOK AND OTHERS, IN RE AIMISH&LLS, BANKRUPTS. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. MONTAGU ap plied that the petitioners, who were partners in trade, and three in number, might be at liberty to attend the summons of the Commissioners severally, or by two at a time, to be examined, on the ground of the inconvenience they must sustain by all leav ing London at the same time, the commission being in operation at Manehe,ter. They had no wish to avoid the examination, and it was now proposed either that au auxiliary commission should be issued in London under which they might all be examined, or that two of them should go down, leaving the third to be examined in London. Sir C. WETHERELL opposed the application. After some discussion, it was agreed that the books of the petitioners might be inspected in Lon don, which might in effect reHder it unnecessary to require their attendance at Manchester at all. If ne cessary, they should go singly. PECK V. RUSSELL AND OTHERS. Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. RUSSELL applied for an or der that the Master might review the allowance he had made to the parties engaged in conducting a commission which had been granted in this cause for the examination of witnesses in Flanders and France. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the application. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that upon referring to the scale of allowances for Commissioners recom mended by the Chancery report, it did not appear that the sum which the Master had approved of (five guineas per day) was excessive. Under all the circumstances of the case as they appeared be fore the Court, he felt obliged to dismiss the peti tion with costs. SECONDARIES' OFFICE. LE PRINCE V. THUILERIE. This was a writ of inquiry for the assessment of damages, in a case in which the plaintiff sought the auto of 5001. for the tuition of the defendant's chil dren. The defendant had been discharged under the Insolvent Act, and this action was brought in order to make a good claim upon his pension, as one of the masters of Sandhurst College. Mr. WALLINGTON was for the plaintiff. The ac count had been running for a long time, and could be proved to be a most reasonable one, being at the rate of about a franc and a half an hour for instruc- tion in Latin, Greek, and mathematics. There was no written contract in evidence, but there were several letters from the defendant, expressing his great satisfaction at the progress cf his children, and proving clearly the claim of the tutor to liberal re muneration for service rendered by him to the de fendant's children for a period of time, extending from 1820 to 1826. Monsieur Pierre Francois Merlet, Professor of French in the University of London, proved that the charges of the plaintiff were moderate. Mr. COOKE was for the defence. The demand of one farthing would appear to the Jury a most extra ordinary one, when they should hear the account he had to give of the facts. The plaintiff had under taken, from motives of affection to the children of the defendant, in the first instance, to educate them, and afterwards he had accepted a seat at the dining. table, as a recompence for the service he rendered. Ladislaus Thuilerie, son of the defendant, deposed that the plaintiff instructed him and his brother, in 1820 and 1821, at Versailles, where they lived with their mother, who was in very delicate health and embarrassed circumstances. The plaintiff said to him at one time, when reproaching him with inat. tention, " How ungrateful you are not to mind what I say, when you know I am sacrificing my time without remuneration to you." Witness's mother died in April, 1827, and in May his father arrived at Versailles. The plaintiff was writing down a list of his father's creditors, and the defendant desired the plaintiff to pay himself some money which had been borrowed from him, and if any thing was due for instruction to witness and his brother, he (plaintiff) should be paid by instalments with the rest of the creditors. At hearing this, the plaintiff appeared quite shocked, and declared that all he had done had been done from a motive of serving them, and was quite disinterested. The defendant then put a gold watch and chain into the plaintiff's hand, and said, "Dear Le Prince, allow me to offer you the only article of value that remains of her we have lost," upon which the plaintiff sprang up, embraced him and his brother, and said he would sot accept of any thing except a few trifles of their mother's. (Here a letter was read, which witness said was in the plaintiff's hand-writing. It stated that all he had done was done without the remotest desire of a re turn.) Plaintiff dined with the family constantly. Mr. POTTER, the Under Secretary, having summed up, The Jury assessed the damages at one farthing. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, MARC}[ 21, Miles Powell, a dairyman, late of Kennington, was opposed by Mr. Cooxn, on behalf of a creditor named Biggs. It appeared that the insolvent, while labouring under embarrassments, in October last, gave his sister-in-law, Mrs. Fisher, a warrant of attorney for money which he had long previously borrowed of her. Under that warrant of attorney Mrs. Fisher took possessio n of all the insolvent's cows, house hold furniture, &c.; but for the purpose of enabling the insolvent's wife and children to support them selves (the insolvent himself being in prison), she allowed the cows, furniture, &c. to remain on the premises, and to permit the baiinees to be carried on. However, during the insolvent's imprison ment, all the property was gradually disposed of, and nothing now remainedifor any of the other cre ditors, some of those cows, so disposed of, having been supplied to the insolvent by the present oppos• ing creditor. Mr. Commissioner LAW had no doubt that Mrs. Fisher thought she was only doing that in which she was justified, for the purpose of securing her own debt; at the same time it was a clear case of an undue preference, and therefore the judgment of the Court was, that the insolvent be remanded for a period of seven calendar mouths from the date of filing his petition. William Read, a tally-man in the linen-drapery line, was opposed by Mr. INIcHoLLs, on behalf of Mr. Simpson, and Messrs. Butterworth and Brooks. The case was ordered to stand adjourned. SPRING ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. THETFORD, MARCH 23. MACPHERSON V. DANIELS. Mr. Serjeant STORKS stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff. The action was brought to re cover damages for slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff in his character of a coach-proprietor. He was a native of Scotland, and, with the character istic thrift of persons born on the other side of the Tweed, added to his coach-proprietary the business of cattle-salesman and innkeeper ; and in his various trades he had returns to the amount of 100,0004 a year. The object of the plaintiff's coach was to facilitate the communication between Scotland and Norfolk, and the defendant was also the owner of a coach running over the same ground that the plain tiff's ran. 'Whether in the spirit of rivalry, he knew net, but certain it was, that the defendant, in January 1828, thought proper to make a serious attack on the credit of his coach -opponent, not once merely, but repeatedly. The words were," He has had his horses seized, he has been arrested, and the bailiffs are in his bouse." This was the slander for which the Jury were to award the damages which they would expect to receive had the calumny been spoken of themselves. This case was made out in evidence; and the Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 101. Thomas Davis was indicted for breaking and entering a building within the curtilage of Thomas Ayres, at the parish of Wereham, and stealing two dozen silver forks, 30 silver spoons, and a variety of other articles of plate, the preperty of John Mot teux, Esq. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. The Learned BARON sentenced him to be tran sported for life. Thomas Risborne pleaded " guilty" to an indict ment charging him with stealing 15 sheep. Mr. Baron VAUGHAN (after admonishing the prisoner, who persisted in his plea) said that he must be remanded, and brought up again before the close of the assizes. SHREWSBURY, Mancit 23. Martha James, a woman with a child at the breast, was put to the bar, charged with having fe loniously administered a noxious drug to Charlotte Smith, being with child, but not quick with child, in order to procure her miscarriage, on the 15th De cember last; the prosecutrix (Charlotte Smith), then about 19, was about three months gone with child by the brother of the prisoner. About eleven on that day, in consequence of a message from the pri soner, she went to a shop in Ludlow, kept by the mother of the prisoner. There, without other con versation, the prosecutrix said she had a bad cough. The prisoner said she bad some stuff which would do her good; it was white stuff, which fell to the bottom of a cup of water. After the prosecutrix had taken it, she asked what it was, to which the other replied, that it would do her no harm, but only make her miscarry. The prosecutrix swore that in two hours after, the disorder incident to women appeared with considerable violence, accom panied by fruitless attempt to vomit and painful griping. That she remained ill and in doors all that day and the next, attended by surgeons. She told her landlady that she was with child, and who was the father. On the 15th of February, as she was returning to Ludlow, from the place of her set tlement, four miles off, she was taken violently ill with similar symptoms, arid miscarried in a field. A surgeon saw the prosecutrix on Wednesday, the 6th of December, and found her very ill in bed, suffering severe pain and griping in the stomach, with a sense of suffocation. lle did not, till told, suspect she had taken any thing wrong; but the symptoms might have been occasioned by a noxious drug. The next day he saw her again, and was of opinion that she was pregnant, but would not swear that she was, as it cannot be demonstrated that a woman is with child till she is near five months gone. For the prisoner Mr. GODSON called witnesses to show that the prosecutrix expressed to a witness her sorrow for having accused the prisoner, saying that mercury had caused the swelling of her person, and that she had deceived the doctors, whom she had caused to think her with child; and on the Thurs day before the Assizes went on her knees to her sister (a witness for the prisoner), and said, " Oh, my dear sister, I never should have done this against poor Martha James, if it had not been for that wicked woman," naming the woman with whom she had lodged at Ludlow, and who was of notoriously bad character. The Jury acquitted the prisoner. HORSHAM, Maactr 23. John Hobden, a schoolmaster, stood charged under the Post•office Act with secreting a letter containing a 101. Bank of England note, the property of Samuel John Williams. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was recorded. Richard _Alec:sop was capitally indicted for steal ing 30 gold, silver, and metal watches, seven gold seals, and other property to the value of 1301., from the shop of his master, a Mr. Lashmar, of Brighton. The prisoner was found guilty, and the Jndge ordered sentence of death to be recorded. YORK, MARCH 22. Martin Routh was charged with having, on the 21st July last, robbed William Butterfield, on the King's highway, of two sovereigns. The prisoner was found guilty, and judgment of death was recorded. EXETER, MARCH 23. The Court sat at eight o'clock this morning, long before which time not a vacant place in it was left. Anne Smith, an interesting-looking woman, only 24 years of age, a cook in the service of Lord Rolle, was indicted for the wilful murder of her new-born illegitimate male child. The prisoner also stood charged, upon the coroner's inquest, with the same offence. She had Leen in the hospital of the gaol ever since her committal, and during her trial was allowed a chair on account of her weak state. _ _ Anna Plimsole—l lived in the family of Lord Rolle in September last. The prisoner at the bar was also in his Lordship's service at that time. On the 19th of September the prisoner slept in the same room with me. I was disturbed between two and three o'clock on the morning of the 20th Sep tember by the prisoner, who was sick. I first ob served the noise she made, and asked her what was the matter with her. She said, " Nothing." She was then out of bed. I saw her go to the clothes bag. She took some things out, which she threw on the floor. She took the candle, which was burn ing in the room, and went out of the room, and re mained absent for an hour. On her return to the room she went to bed. I noticed that she put something under the pillow. She moaned for some time, and seemed very weak. I asked her what was the matter, to which she replied that she was dreaming. I got up soon after six o'clock. I said to her that she had been sick. She s;tid she had, and requested me to tell one of the servants to bring some hot water. The water was not taken to het/ but a surgeon was sent for. Mrs. Denslowe—l am housekeeper in Lord Rolle's family, and knew the prisoner. On the morning of the 20th Anna Plimsole came to met and in consequence of what she said I went to the prisoner's room. Mr. Caddy, the surgeon, was seat for. Mr. Caddy said to her that she had had child in the night. She said she had, or words to that effect. He asked her what she had done with it. She said it was in the water-closet. Mr. Caddy told her she had had a child before ; she said she had about two years since; she said she was only gone five or six months with her last child. I weld with Mr. Caddy to the water-closet, and saw e child placed in a stone trough; it was wrapped in s gown which I had seen the prisoner wear. Mr. Caddy saw the body of the child. There ( was a wound on the l e ft sid e o f t h e l ower part 0' the neck, which appeared to have been Inflicted bf some sharp-pointed instrument. The child was sl its full growth. From what he observed, the con' elusion he came to was, that the child had breathed; but he could not undertake to say that it was bar' alive. The Jury immediately acquitted the prisoner of murder, but returned a verdict of guilty as to the' concealment. The Learned JUDGE then sentenced her to tiN° years' imprisonment. George Cudmore and Sarah Dunn were pat to the bar upon'an indictment charging them with OW wilful murder of Grace Cudmore, the wife of the male prisoner, by administering to her a quantity of arsenic. Jane Trigger—l live at Roborough, and know the prisoners. The deceased was an intimate ae quaintance of mine. She was the wife of George Cudmore. Sarah Dunn had four children. Sarah , Cudmore came to my house on the I Ith of October last, and complained of having a bad cold. On the 15th I saw her again. She said she was very I.l ` well, and had pains in her shoulder and head. called at her house the next day. She was in bed, , and compl a i ne d o f b e i ng very ill , an d sa id she 110 been vomiting very much, and felt a burning pain ill her stomach, and great thirst, and an unpleasant taste in her mouth ; that all her teeth were loose , and that she thought she should never live to g ° down stairs again. I saw her again on Rids,' morning; she appeared to be getting worse, and died on the following Monday. Mr. Ridley, the surgeon, proved having °inflec t the body, and analyzed the contents of the stomach , and found eight or ten grains of arsenic in it, and considerably more in the intestines. Grace Thomas, the wife of the constable, at whos e house the prisoners were after taken in custody, 50 . 1 d that Cudmore told her, " W e ll, I'll t e ll you, 1101' tress : I did do it. My wife was unwell, and 0 ° requested me to boil her some herb tea, and I Pt! t some arsenic into it. I took it to my wife. I drank of it twice, and it made me ill. My wife soon be came sick. Some powders were left by the surgeo%. My wife said she would p r ef er pill s . I as k e d her 1f she wished me to make them, and on her desiring me to do 90, I mixed some arsenic with the powders; and made them into pills, which I gave to my wife. She beard Dunn ask Cudmore if he forgave her? He said it was her who caused him to do the deed. Dunn replied, they were both equally guilty, and she hoped they would be both equally punished. - Cudmore, in his d e f ence , protested lie was in-1 nocent. Dunn put in a written statement, admitted living in a criminal intercourse with Cudmore, but that she always dissuaded him from the attempt to injure hi 6 wife. The Jury found Cudmore guilty, but acquitted Dunn. His LORDSHIP then passed sentence of d e ath or Cudmore, and ordered him to be executed os Thursday next, and his body to be dissected. THE MARKETS. COAL MARK, Adair's . 31s. 3d. Beaumont. .27 6 Dean's Prirnrose—........, 28 0 East Percy 26 6 Heblourn Main 30 9 Holywell - 30 3 Killingworth 32 6 Liddell's 27 6 Ord's Redhugh 27 6 Pontop Windsor 2B 0 fantield Townley .29 0 Willington Wylam Walls End 801 l and Co. 33 6 Ditto Bell Robson & Co. 33 3 Ditto Bewicke and Co.— 33 6 Ditto Clarke and Co. 30 6 Ditto Cramlington......., 27 6 Ditto Brown's unser.—.... 31 0 Ships at market, 111A—Shi :ET.—Pdareli 24. Walls End Brown's SI s. g' Ditto Gosforth 35 0 Ditto 33 6 Ditto Hilda 31 Ditto Hotspur..,----, 32 S Ditto Northumberland 31 Ditto Perkins and C 0.... 31 6 I)itto Riddell's Ditto Russell's , 33 , 6 Walls End Heaton 35 J Walls End Larubton—... 35 0 Walls End Stewart's 35 Russell's Hetton's W.E. 34 I" Russell's 33 ° Hartley 3l f, Pemberton Llan gehn ech 33 !, Warde's Llanelly 31 Y Walls End Rockley.—.. 23 0 Old Etherley small 23 0 lips sold, 47-Unsold, 70%. WEE COUNTRY COW N MARKETS DURING TH . Wheat. I Barley. Oats. -Beans., Per Quarter. a. to a. S. to a. a. to 11. N. 0 ; Abingdon 55 62 32 38 21 32 , Andover 55 65 22 94 20 23 Birmingham 56 66 22 36 28 30 5 9 Bridport 56 74 32 39 26 30 Cirencester Faringdom 54 86 36 40 26 38 ' 443 Guildford Henley 54 83 30 35 28 SO —. Hereford 64 84 38 45 36 40 60,4 Highworth 62 80 32 42 28 34 — 5„ Maidenhead 65 84 23 38 22 30 Oakingliam Reading 41 86 IS 41 16 31 4 4 Salisbury 56 76 23 36 20 28 Southampton 64 54 7748 3437 32 40 28 22 3 3 2 2 St Tewkesbury Uxbridge 48 71 21 32 19 32 Wantage .. 46 73 20 36 16 28 4 4 Warminster 42 68 23 40 20 39 4 6 Windsor 148 81 26 31 15 28 ,_ 40 Worcester.- 6O 63 32 36 24 26 51 CHELTENHAM MA RKET.—Mareh 23. Per Bushel. a. d. to a. d. Pet lb. d. to 6. I Wheat . _ _ CHELTENHAM . Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d. Wheat Barley Oats Beans 4 9 5 6 Lamb.... Pease 5 0 8 0 Pork ..... Hay 3l. 10s. to 31. 1! 6 5 6 5 6 , 0 0 5 6 tss. per tom. LEWES MARKET.—March 23. White Wheat (per quarter) £3 2 0 to. ,k 3 4 0 Red ditto Barley Oats, New 1 1 0 • 1 3 0 Beans 1 10 0 2 2 0 Oil Cake, New l2 10 Oiler thousand. BIRTHS. At Rotherfield-psrk, Hants, the lady of J. W. Scott , Esq., of a (laughter. On the 24th inst. the lady of A. Dobie,, Esq., of I I daughter. On the 24th inst. in Cecil-street, Mrs. J. F. Taylor, ° f a daughter. On the 21st inst. in Bloomsbury-square, the lady 01. Richard Willan, of the Hill, Sedberg, Yorkshire, Eel' of a daughter. On the 24th inst. in Hill-street, Berkeley-square, the lady of J. H. Tremayne, Esq., of a son. On the 21st inst. th e l a dy of J. W. Whit e , Esq. ° f Melbury-terrace, Dorset-square, of a daughter. On the 20th inst. at Kirkcudbright, the lady of Bre Johnstone, Esq., of a son. MARRIED. On the 24th inst. at St. Pancras, T. P. Chaine Esq. of Jersey, to Ann, eldest daughter of J. Routh, FA' of 'avist 2 °ck it s r inst. are.. On r the at St. Mary-at-Hill, Alexander Gr 3 Y:, Esq., of Montreal, to Caroline, only daughter of ThoiP 3 Cresswell, Esq. On the 22d inst. at Hackney, Mr. J. Mitchell, of Do i ' v ton, to Miss J. Middleton, of Montrose. On the 16th inst. at Edinkugh, W. Forbes Mackenzie' Esq., the younger, of Portinore, to Helen Anne, the eldest daughter of Sir James Montgomery, of Stanhope , 13art. M.P. On the 23d inst. at Poplar, Capt. C. F. Davies ( 13 , ; te , of the Anna Robertson, o f C a l cutta ) to Mi ss M ar y Stockman, daughter of Mr. S. St oc k man , of Kingsvt, Devonshire. DIED. On the 15th inst., at Westmoreland-place, Walwor tb t; in the 37th year of h e r age , Ch r i st i ana, re li ct o f t h e Lieutenant Williams, of the Royal Marines, leaving 10 young child ren an d a numerous circle of f r i en d s, by v.4l°'.„ she was idolized, to deplore her loss. On the 17th inst. Marshal Gouvion St. Cyr, at Ilia ° aged 67. At Kenton Lodge, Devon, Lieut.-General C. N. Coo l ‘' son, Royal Artillery. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY DIURDO YOUNG, TXX SUN OUWB, 112, STAAND, LONDON• 1 Tai TO - TO I Ca❑ 27 gag' curl litic - ucrit you' mitt tny You that tire] triy: for vott fl whi nea fide my Stu -1 4 t Rh o I a: vot IS Ana in i I