The Sun. — London, England, 1833-12-18 00:00:00

regeneration of Italy. It would he blasphemy to doubt the result.—Morning Chronicle. T . 2 , Paris Court of Assizes is again engaged in one of those interminable trials for an al leged plot against the Government, the variety of which has given so peculiar a character to the short reign of Louis Philip since the re volution of July, 1830. Tumult has, indeed, for the last 18 months ceased to excite alarm in the streets of the capital, and quiet people are not now called from their beds or their business " to see the revolution pass beneath their win dows ;'' but the party which arrogates to itself the merit of having changed the dynasty, and of havink established the new order of things on th'erainciple of " insurrection," are less satisfied 'than ever with their present position, and not more disposed to endure the existing system of government, though they have confined their operations to the advocacy of republican institu tions in the journals, or to the extension of the means of realizing their projects in the secret societies. The present prosecution seems rather to have been founded on an indict ment against one of these societies (that of " The Rights of Man and of the Citizen") than to be directed against the members of a treasonable conspiracy ; which, whatever were its criminal purposes, had not certainly com menced its active operations s' hen the conspira tors were arrested. It has brought to the bar of the accused 27 persons, one of whom was a woman, and the great majority of whom are young men, with no enjoyment of wealth or rank, and no pretensions to superior capacity or knowledge. The only individual amongst them in the least distinguished from the mass, is M. Raspail, who, having at first acquired a repu tation for chymical science, has latterly earned a better title to the confidence of his republican friends by two years of imprisonment for sedi tious libels. The rest consist of lads who had attained the cross of July, of disciples of the Polyteciu is school, of members of the school of law, and of needy Paris tradesmen. The charge against them is, that, belonging all to the republican society of " The Friends of the Rights of Man," they had entered into a plot to overthrow the Government on the 28th of July last, by taking advantage of the presumed hos tility of the Parisians to " the detached forts" ordered to be built around the capital. The 28th of July was the anniversary of one of " the glorious days" of the revolution of 1830. It was the day in which the National Guards and the troops of the line were called out to a grand review, and, as the former were presumed to be hostile to " the detached forts," it was supposed that, in permitting or joining in their demolition, this civic force would furnish an opportunity for overturning the throne which they were assembled to protect. The conspira tors are alleged to have arranged their plans for the insurrection—to have distributed their forces for the tumult—to have appointed their posts—to have prepared arms—to have made ball-cartridges, and to have drawn out treasonable proclamations. The arms, cartridges, and proclamations, were found on their persons, or in their houses, by the police, and a body of nearly 150 witnesses has been summoned to support the charge. The trial commenced on Wednesday last, and we have only seen the proceedings down to Friday, in serted in the Saturday's journals ; but it is evident from even the short specimen of the examination of the prisoners, anti from the depositions of the witnesses, which have reached this country, that the indictment cannot be sustained, and that the Government cannot expect a verdict. In citing some of the documents connected with the political society to which we have alluded, the public prosecutor has left out, by design or inadvertence, phrases or announcements, the omission of which en tirely perverts their meaning. This has excited great indignation among the members of the bar, and the contagious feeling is likely to ex tend to the jury box. Again, the witnesses are persons too well known in other political prosecutions to be trusted in this, and several of them are discredited beforehand by the infamous character of police spies. The President of the Court, too, has shown at first too evident a bias against the prisoners to allow the jury to repose any confidence in his future impar tiality, while the republican advocates for the de fence, strong in their popularity with the audience and the journals, are too powerful for the King's Advocate. At the same time the crowds which assemble round the tribunal are too decidedly for an acquittal to allow the jury, though so in clined, to return a verdict of guilty. It would seem, therefore, pretty evident that this prosecu tion must be as unsuccessful as some other recent attempts of the Government to suppress Republican associations, or to overawe adverse political opinions. The crime with which the 27 persons now on their trial are charged, is nothing short of high treason; but both the public prosecutor and the President of the Court have declared that capital punishment is not to be dreaded in the sentence founded on a verdict for the Crown. This restriction of penalty announced at the commencement of the pro ceedings, instead of being reserved for Royal clemency after conviction, affords another evi dence that the sympathy of the public is consi dered against the prosecution,—that they desire by anticipation to relieve the conscience of the jury from blood, in order to get their assent to a more limited punishment, or that they doubt of the extent of the guilt on which they wish to call down the justice of the country. The con tinuance of such prosecutions is extremely to be condemned if they can be avoided, and to be la mented if they are absolutely indispensable. They give the Government, both at home and abroad, a character of timidity or despotism, which must be extremely injurious to the stability of the new dynasty and of the liberal institutions which spring from the revolution of the barri cades, Neither France itself nor the rest of Europe will believe that the Government of Louis Philip is strong, stable, and durable, till it can afford to despise petty political plots, and even to pardon great political offences—till " the glorious. days of July," 1830, have no memorial but in the enjoyment of the benefits which they have con f erre d, o r the insurrecti onar y days of June, 1832, but in the recollection of the evils which they averted,—in short, till the Castle of Ham is throw n open for the liberation of the guilty Ministers who attempted to over throw the existing constitution in favour of arbitrary power, and die lonely , f ortress o f S t. Michel, on the coast of Normandy, f or t h e escape of the republican insurgents who at tempted to restore the tyranny or anarchy of the Convention. Then, and not till then, can w e consider the Revolution of July, 1830, as con summated and consolidated in all its glory and security. It has hitherto shed no blood on the scaffold, and it has promised on the present occasion to shed none, Let it likewise cease to make victims of imprisonment, and dare to open its dungeons, and our opinion will be exalted at once of its security and of its clemency.—Tinges. The important announcement which we made yesterday, of the determination of our Govern ment not to permit the Autocrat of Russia to carry his encroachments any farther upon what may be justly termed the rights and liberties of Europe, has very naturally formed a special topic of discussion in the columns of most of our evening contemporaries ; and we are happy in being able to state, that with only one exception, all of them recommend, or at all events do not disapprove of, the course of policy which, for months past, we have recommended, and which the Government, at the eleventh hour, we regret to say it, has determined to pursue. The exception to which we refer is worthy of the journal in which it appears, and is as devoid of sound argument as it is of regard for the national honour. From a source, however, which has been• polluted by the defence of every Aministration which has reigned in this country during the last forty years, what could be expected hut a defence of a power which has rendered itself obnoxious to all civilized Europe by its oppression and its cruelties, and which would now, were it permitted, not only exclude its neighbours from a lucrative commerce which they have long enjoyed, but by appropriating to itself the possession of a mighty empire, seize also upon the trade of the East ? " The apparent, indeed almost avowed object of the Emperor of Russia," as is justly re marked in The Sun," is to obtain exclusive pos session of the Dardanelles ; without that his fleet in the Black Sea would be of little avail: but were he once permitted to possess the right of excluding the ships of other na• tions from the Dardanelles, there would be nothing to prevent his taking possession of the entire coast, and by an offensive and defensive treaty with the Pacha of Egypt, putting an end to British commerce with the Mediterranean ;" and it might have been added with a large portion of our Eastern dominions. The whole of this important national stake is, however, deemed by the contemporary to whom we have alluded to be subordinate, first, to the natural temptation afforded to Russia by her relative strength, and the comparative weakness of her neighbours—secondly, to the fact of her having been allowed, without any decided oppo sition from France and England, to extinguish the liberties and independence of Poland—and, thirdly, to the equally notorious fact, that this country is labouring under considerable difficul ties, and ought not to go to war with any Power, except for the most pressing reasons. To what extent these reasons will operate upon the minds of Englishmen remains to be seen ; but, to our mind, no stronger justification of the arma ment which is now fitting out can be urged than the reasons adduced by our contemporary. That Russia is aggrandising herself at the expense of her neighbours--that " the policy of all its successive rulers for a hill century has been constantly directed to extend their dominion on every side ; at one time coming down the Baltic, at another spreading to the Black Sea ; again reaching its arms out to the very capital of Persia, then fixing its standard in Finland, and finally taking to itself the frontier kingdom of Germany—that now it is about to follow out a long concocted scheme, and make Constantinople the capital of one of its kingdoms,—and, finally, that the Govern ment of Russia is undoubtedly systematically ambitious," is freely confessed by our contem- porary ; but yet, what is the conclusion at which he arrives? That the ambition of Russia should be curbed—that means should be taken to limit her aggressions—that the civilized powers of Europe should unite to check the progress of a barbarian rule, which threatens death to everything bearing the hallowed names of light, and right, and freedom ? By no means !—but, on the con trary, that there " is a feasible cause for the ambition of Russia, and a reason to doub whether the mere increase of power and domi nion, which is the result, is any justification for making war upon her !" With regard to the second point, we shall leave it, equally with the preceding, to the sober judgment of our readers, whether the barbarities permitted by the civilized powers of Europe to be committed upon " the gallant and chivalrous Poles," form a proper justification for the sacrifice of Turkey, or for the destruction of their own existence, in their turn, as independent States. "It was not thought right " and it was unwisely as well as most disgracefully done —" to take any part in the contest," while it was pending, between Poland and Russia; but our contemporary is egregiously mistaken if he ima gines for a moment that " the remembrance of Russian atrocities will not warm the hearts and nerve the arms of Frenchmen and Englishmen," in any contest that may be undertaken. There never was a war in which all England would join more heartily, than in a war upon Russia, whatever might be its cause, whatever its pre text. She is thoroughly hated, and deserves to be hated. Her ambition is boundless, her atrocities never to be forgotten. A war against her is felt to be a common cause by every liberal mind in Europe; and if the British Government, however reluctant, be compelled to unsheath the sword, it need not fear any lack of aid. Finally, with regard to the difficulties of the country. They arc of some magnitude unquestionably, and are a fit subject for consideration ; but will the aggressions of Russia remove them ? Will the curbing of her power, while it is still pos,i ble to curb it, not tend to diminish them ? Will she not be more at liberty to pursue a course of internal improvement and amelioration, when freed from the dread which at present she cannot but entertain of the consequences of the grow ing power of Russia, than when agitated and alarmed by the progress of its continued increase? But it is useless to bandy words and reasons with those who will not listen to reason. We give this passing notice of our Contemporary's thoughts o❑ Russian affairs for once and for all —in future we shall look to his columns for Russian edicts and decrees—in all which mat- tors he will, no doubt, enjoy a priority of in- Formation—but assuredly for nothing Morning Advertiser. The Prerogative Commissioners pursued their inquiries yesterday, at Guildhall, into the state of the Corporation of the city of London ; that is to say, they took down in writing the information afforded them by a Mr. Wood and Mr. Alderman Venables as to the mode in which the Aldermen of the City are elected—informa tion such as every apprentice boy in the City of London has at his fingers' e n d s . If t h e Com _ missioners intend to waste the time for which the public is to pay them very handsomely in collecting rubbish of this description they will acquire for themselves and confer upon those who appointed them a character worse than that of quacks and mountebanks, to which they have always been entitled, the character, namely, of plunderers of the community, not supplying even amusement in return for their pay.—Morning Post. ROLLS' COURT, DEC. 17. ATTORNEY -GENERAL V. THE CORDWAINERS' COMPANY. In this case a testator of the name of Fisher, by his will, which was made in 1547, bequeathed the Falcon Inn, and two other messuages, situate in Fleet-street, opposite St. Dunstan's Church, to the master, wardens, and fellowship of the craft or mystery of the Cordwainers, " for the only intent, use, and performation" of his last will and testament. The premises in question at the date of this bequest produced only the sum of 121. 6s. Bd.; and as to the application of it, the testator directed that the annuity of 6/. should be paid to his brother during his life; that 51. should be distributed per annum among poor householders of the neighbourhood; and 63. Bd. among what he called random poor, besides several other small payments to establish a dirge or mass to be said or sung for the good of his soul in the parish church, and to remunerate the master, wardens,&c., for superintending the services and the distribution of th e money f rom t i me t o time, the whole thus disposed of amounting to within a few shillings of the entire rents of the property be. queathed to the Company I , y the will. The value of the premises h a d now i ncrease d to a ver y consi derable amount, and produced annually no less a sum than 3581. The object of this information was to have it declared that the defendants were trustees of the rents and profi's of the premises in question, to be applied in augment a ti on o f t h e c h ar i ta bl e objects mentioned in the will of the testator, and to have the usual accounts taken, and a scheme settled by the master for the future administration of the pro perty. Mr. BICKERSTETII and Mr. ANDERDON appeared in support of the information. Mr. PEMBERTON (with whom was Mr. WAKE FIELD) appeared for the defendants, and reprobated such proceedings being instituted after the Com missioners for Charitable Purposes had on the fullest investigation declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the manner in which this charity had been administered for nearly 300 years. This was a case got up on the report of the Commissioners by some litigious individuals for the purpose of involving the Company in all the expenses of a Chancery suit, without the least shadow of a foundation in justice or equity for the declaration which was prayed. The Learned Counsel went on to contend that the devise here was not generally in trust for charitable purposes. In order to prove that the whole rents of the estate were subject to charity, it was neces sary to show that by the will it was wholly given to charitable purposes, specifically named, or, on the other hand, that the rents at the date of the will were completely absorbed by charitable uses. Neither of these positions, however, could be main tained in the present case ; in fact, the first decla ration in the will had no connexion whatever with charity, and referred to the payment of an annuity of 61. to the testator's brother, on whose death 40s. was to be paid to his widow, which sums afterwards were wholly undisposed of, and, there fore, went beneficially to the general purposes of the corporation. Mr. BICKERSTETH, in reply, insisted. that as the rents had greatly increased, there should at least be a proportionate augmentation to the extent in which they were originally dedicated to charitable pur poses. His HONOUR said the first question was, whether it was intended that the Corporation should be mere trustees, or whether a beneficial interest was given to them; and the next consideration was, whether, if they were trustees, they were intended to be trustees for charitable purposes. It did not appear to him that the words of this devise constituted the corporation mere trustees. The estate was absolutely given to them, not on trust, but " for the use, intent, and performation of this my will." It was rather a gift upon condition than a gift upon trust. They were to take the estate so devised to them on condition of their performing the duties which in the terms of the %% ill were imposed on them. Those duties were not for mere charitable purposes; the half of the income disposed of by the testator was not for a charitable purpose, but by way of annuity to his brother of 61. for life and 40s. for his widow, which on their failure was altogether undisposed of. It was plain that a beneficial inte rest had been intended for the Corporation, because, if they failed in the duty of paying, the brother was to be entitled to enter into possession and defeat the estate so given to them. Had it been on trust, in respect of which there was no intended benefit, how could such a condition have been imposed ? The testator clearly intended that they should have a beneficial interest on the terms of complying with the directions in his will. There was no trust either expressed or implied with respect to charity, other than to the extent of the specifically imposed charges; and therefore, according to all the princi ples applicable to such cases, this information should be dismissed. It was to be regretted that the name of the Attorney-General had been used in such a case, because, if his attention had been sufficiently called to the nature of it, he never would have given his sanction to such a proceeding. The Court, however, must presume that he had not been made aware of all the circumstances, and, considering the real merits of the case, or rather its demerits, the information should be dismissed with costs. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 17. PERJURY.---THE KING V. CLENVER. Mr. J. WILLIAMS stated this to be an indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed by the de . fendant Dorothy Clewer. It arose out of an answer put in by her to a bill filed by the prosecutor in this case, who was the executor of a person named Jo. seph Eltham. The testator Eltham was related to the defendant. He was a man advanced in life, and in possession of 2001. stock in the 31 per Cents. A short time before his death the defendant and a person named Young invited him to live in their house, and he accordingly went to reside with them. Shortly after the 200/. in the funds was transferred to those parties, and, according to the case for the prosecution, the transfer was no sooner made than the conduct of the defendant was changed towards the poor old man. The prosecutor being apprised of the wretched condition of his father, and the state in which he was suffering in the house of Young, went to ascertain the real state of the case. He found him in a miserable plight, and with the assistance of four or five men re moved him by his own desire to his (prose cutor's) house. On the death of the old man, which happened soon after, a bill was filed by the prosecutor, acting as executor of his father, arid the object was to compel the defendant to transfer the stock to his use, and also that the Bank should be restrained by injunction from paying it to the defendants. To this the defendant and Young, who was prosecuted in another indictment, put in their answer, and it was in that answer the perjury was assigned. They said that the complainant (the prosecutor) and five others came to the house of Mary Young in her absence, and removed the said Joseph Eltham to the house of Matthew Eltham by force and violence, and contrary to the manner stared by the said Matthew Eltham. That was the perjury assigned. The statement of Counsel having been made out by the evidence. Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, called witnesses to prove that Clewer, in her answer, had spoken no more than truth. The Jury found the defendant Not Guilty. The other indictment against Mary Young was not tried. The cause continued until near nine o'clock. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 17 LEVOY V. PARKER. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain goods. Defendant is a wharfinger and carrier by water, and the plaintiff sent furniture to the amount of 3001. by the defendant's fly-boats to Gloucester, for the purpose of being sold by auction. After much delay in London they were forwarded : and, on their arrival, a sum of 601. was demanded, which the plaintiff having refused to pay, the goods were detained by the defendant. The present action was brought for the loss occasioned by such detainer. There were a great number of witnesses exa mined on both sides. The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, when the Jury found a verdict for plaintiff—Da mages 300/., to be reduced on re-delivery of the goods to such sum as Mr. Justice should allow for their depreciated value, 20/. being paid for freight. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. 16 17 AND (Before Lord LYNnnunsT and a Special Jury.) STEPHENS V. FOSTER. This was an action of trover to recover the value of five bills of exchange, drawn by Groucock, Cope stake, and Moore, on various persons at three months, amounting in the whole to 2461. 175., which were deposited by the plaintiff, a bill-broker, in the hands of Messrs. Wood and Poole, bill-brokers, some days previous to the 19th of November, 1831, for the purpose of their procuring them to be dis counted. Wood and Poole were at the time consi derably indebted to the defendants, and to secure as well that debt as a further advance made on the 19th of November, 1831, they deposited these bills, with a large quantity of other bills, in the hands of the defendants. This deposit was not made until the affairs of Wood and Poole were desperate, and when they well knew that they must become bank rupt. It was not in the regular course of business, but a fraud upon the plaintiff. No less than four actions between the defendants and different parties had been tried upon the same transaction, and it was held in the last action, which was " Kaynes v. Foster," by the Court of Exchequer, that a bill broker receiving bills for the purpose of being dis counted has no authority to pledge them. This was done in the present case, and therefore the de fendants had no right to retain the bills. It would also appear in the course of the evidence, that the defendants, who had had many transactions with Wood and Poole, and who had advanced money to Wood and set him up in business, must have been well acquainted with the state of the affairs of those gentlemen, and well knew that the bills so deposited with them were not the property of Wood and Poole, but the property of their customers, who . . were not likely to receive anything for them. After Mr. Sergeant WILDE had addressed the Jury at some length, the following, among other witnesses were called:— Mr. Robarts, the banker—Had very considerable transactions with bill brokers. It was every day's practice for them to come and ask for advance of money, upon the deposit of bills. He would regu late his conduct from his opinion of the applicant. With good characters, he would deal without mi nutely inspecting the bills. He never inquired whether they were owners of the bills, nor in what light they came. He had advanced 100,0001. on a lot of bills_together. He never inquired how the money was to be applied. These transactions oc curred at all hours of the day; sometimes just be fore five o'clock. He believed that was the general practice of bankers. Cross-examined—He' should not make any diffe rence, if he had known the bill was left with the broker to be discounted. By the JUDGE—It was his custom to advance money, in one sum, upon several bills of different persons. Mr. G. C. Glyn—Was in the habit of advancing money to bill brokers. They lodged bills rather beyond the amount of the loan. Witness advanced upon a lot of bills. He never made any appropria tion. A bill broker must know that this was the usage. Ile never asked a question as to the title of the holder. Mr. W. G. Prescott—Makes advances to bill brokers. It is according to the course of business, to advance on a lot of bills. Made no inquiry of the broker•, when satisfied of their bills. This is the known course of the city of London. The plain tiff has had advances, in witness's presence, upon the security of bills. No inquiry was made of him. He is an extensive bill broker. Cross-examined—Knew nothing of bill-brokers' ransactions excepting as between them and himself as a banker. A bill•broker acting with bills is a dealer in money, and the person who give the bills are his creditors, unless he returns the bills. If bill-brokers pledge or discount, they do what is regular. They do not object to a trustworthy broker to take the bill again. Never gave bill brokers their securities to keep in an envelope. William Lawrence, chief clerk, Discount-office, Bank of England.—They took bills as collateral securities for brokers; knowing they had received them for discount, they would not object to lend upon them. They never made inquiries. Cross-examined—The Bank of England never allow securities to be out of their possession. Mr. Kensington, a broker, formerly a banker, used to make advances to bill•brokers upon large quantities of bills brought at the same time. If he knew them to he for the purpose of discount, he would still make advances. It was the general practice to trust the bills to the bill-brokers again to get discounted, and to be replaced by others, or to be returned. Should have trusted a broker with whom he had an account. George Frederick Butt, dealer in bullion—Would advance on a lot of bills, arid never made inquiries which were the broker's and which were left with him for discount. The Jury after evidence had been adduced gave a verdict for the defendant. PREROGATIVE COURT, DEc. 17. (Before Sir JOHN NICHOLL.) BOSANQUET V. GORING. This was a suit commenced to try the validity of a codicil to the last will of Susannah Curtis, de ceased, promoted by the Treasurer of the Asylum for the Indigent Blind, which Society had been largely benefitted by the last will of Mrs. Curtis. The deceased died worth personal property to the extent of between 14,000/. and 15,000/. ; and after the payment of a few legacies she directed the re sidue by the will to be paid over to the Treasurer on behalf of the Society. The codicil, dated the 27th of October, 1832, made a material alteration, as it revoked the appointment of a Mr. Morant as executor, appointed Mr. Goring, her solicitor, in his stead, and gave him and Mr. Green 3,000/. each, the residue going to the Asylum for the Blind. The deceased died at an advanced age, and the codicil was opposed by the Treasurer of the Asy -1 um, who is an executor under the will of the de ceased, on the ground that the deceased did not know what she had signed when she executed the paper, she being ill, and having died two days after wards. Dr. LUSIIINGTON, on behalf of Mr. Goring, con tended that as the deceased was of perfect capacity when the codicil was executed the Court must pro nounce for it. The KING'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of Mr. Bosan quet, the Treasurer of the School for the It digent Blind, said there had been a failure of proof to show that the deceased knew the contents of the codicil, and he should press the Court to pronounce against it, and to condemn the party propounding it in costs. Dr. ADDAMS will be heard o❑ the same side next Court day. THE LAW.—The Cheltenham Journal re ports a police case, in which Vincent Snooks was corn• witted for one month for selling " inflammatory matches.' INSOLVENT DEBTORS ) COURT, DEC. 17, The Rev. E. Martin, late Master of Durham House Academy, Chelsea, was opposed by Miss Zouch, whose name has been frequently before the public, and by Mr. Strange, a baker. Mr. Strange said he had trusted the insolvent with bread to the amount of 221., in consequence of his representation that he had 6004 a year from Lord Lonsdale. The insolvent said, he had only stated that his Lordship Vc ould probably lend him 500/. or 600/. Miss Zouch, on stepping into the box, was told by Mr. WOODROFFE that her claim was " all ima• gination ;" but she haughtily denied this. She then stated that the insolvent was married to a sister of hers, who, as well as herself, had a fortune of 7201. at the death of their father, Richard Zouch, Esq., of Dublin. Another sister, who also had 720/., died, and bequeathed her money in equal shares to the insolvent's wife and a younger sister, Augusta. She now wished to know what had be come of the younger sister's portion ; and she also claimed for her father's picture and other valuable articles, with which she had intrusted the insolvent. The insolvent said the 360/. had been expended on the child, who had been more than ten years under the care of his wife. Lord Lonsdale had, however, settled 50/. a year on the child. With respect to the papers, they had, he feared, been de stroyed by fire at Bristol, during the riots. He added, that he had been reduced to poverty in con sequence of giving his acceptance for 400/. to a person named Richardson, and being obliged to take up two bills for WU each, which Minter Hart got from him, without giving him any conside ration for them. The COURT ruled that Miss Zouch was no credi tor, and as to the papers, they, if they were found, must be given up to her assignees, who had been appointed when she took the benefit of the Act. Miss 'Louth—That is precisely my object. It further appeared that the insolvent had made a defence to an action brought by Mr. Lambrooke, a coal merchant, for .5/., whereby costs to the amount of 281. were incurred. The COURT adjudged him to three months im prisonment for a vexatious defence. The insolvent said that he was on a sick bed at he time, and incapable of giving directions to his attorney. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT—LEWES, DEC. 17. (Before Mr. Justice GASELEE.) Both Courts were opened this morning at nine o'clock. ATTEMPT TO MURDER— PhiIip Dean, an Irish labourer, forty-four years of age, was charged with having attempted to drown Sarah Dean, with intent to murder her. Another count charged the prisoner with an attempt to suffocate the said Sarah Dean in the sea at East Blatchington. On the 30th of August last the prisoner was ob served by one of the coast guard to walk some dis tance along the beach with a child in his arms, and having beat it several times, he proceeded to the water's edge, and stripped the child of its clothes, except the bonnet and one shoe. The prisoner then walked into the sea as high as his breast, and with both arms cast the child into the sea, and turned to‘‘ ards the shore. The coast guard man and one or two others approached the water, and the prisoner observing them turned back. and endeavoured to get the child out again, but a heavy wave threw him down—the sea was rough at the time—and when the witness and others arrived at the water's edge the child was washed ashore. Its bonnet was fastened with a piece of ropeyarn, tied round the neck not very tight. The child, who was nearly suf focated, was removed to a public-house. The witnesses stated that he was under the influ ence of liquor, but sensible enough to know what h e was doing. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but re commended the prisoner to mercy. His LORDSHIP asked on what ground ? The Jury said, although his Lordship had said in toxication was no palliation, still the prisoner was under excited feeling., His LORDSHIP paused for a motnent, put on the black cap, and proceeded to pass sentence of death. The Jury had very humanely recommended the prisoner to mercy, in consequence of being under the influence of liquor; but his Lordship should not do his duty if he were to hold out any hope of miti gation of the sentence. The prisoner, during the awful ceremony, ap peared in a state of great agitation, and the child being in Court was handed over to him, and he em braced it with tears in his eyes, but did not utter any exclamation. The child was too young to be conscious of what was passing, and smiled when the prisoner embraced it. The prisoner left the Court with a firm step. CORPORATION COMMISSION. SECOND DAY.—TUESDAY. (Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.) The COMMISSIONERS proceeded to inquire into the mode of electing Aldermen. Mr. Deputy Wood said, that their election was regulated by the 11th of George the First, chapter the 18th. When a vacancy occurred in the Court of Aldermen, the Lord Mayor issued a precept for holding a Wardmote, to elect a person to supply the vacancy. Persons who voted at the election of Aldermen should be for the last twelvemonths pre vious freemen, and householders in the ward. Until the passing of this Act, the Wardmote was not con fined to freemen, and the consequence of this Act, which was protested against by the Lords, was that a number of respectable men, resident in the ward, had no vote in the election of Aldermen. When an election took place, the Lord Mayor reported the return to the Court of Aldermen, and the person so returned was introduced and sworn in, if no objection was made against his return. If an objection was raised or a petition presented, the parties connected with the petition were heard, and the Court accepted or rejected the return. The qualification for being an Alderman was that he should be a freeman, but it was riot necessary that he should be resident in the city or Ward. Not many of the Aldermen were resident in the City; only 18 had premises in the City, of whom 11 only held establishments in their respective Wards. There were four Alder men who never resided or held establishments in the City or in any Ward. He thought the Court of Aldermen, on being moved, bad the power of calling back Aldermen to a residence in the City. Mr. Alderman Venables said, that if an Alder man was to separate himself from the City, and to remove so far from it as to be unable to attend to the duties of his office, the Court might decide upon the matter. It appeared by other answers that bankruptcy could not deprive an Alderman of his gown. It was held by the Courts of law that for that cause the Court of Aldermen could not strip an Alder man of his gown. Mr. C. Pearson alluded to an instance of an Al derman who was confined for many years in the King's Bench, but who still continued a member of the Court of Aldermen. During the time of his imprisonment, the only function he exercised was attending the Lord Mayor's dinner, to do which he came out under a day-rule.—(Laughter.) It appeared from other answers, that there was a general disinclination among rich merchants to take upon them what was termed " city honours." Some were deterred by the heavy nature of the duties, and others had no relish for the expense. To go through the offices of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor, an expense of 8,000/. or 10,0001. would be incurred. Mr. Deputy Wood stated that many opulent citi zens refused the honour of an Alderman's gown, through fear of being exposed to public attacks. At present it was a fact that the Court of Aldermen were very unpopular. Their acts of re, public, but their conservative acts were pri Mr. Dillon—lt is not unlikely that thi vative acts have tended to make them un Mr. Wood--I did not use the word " rive" in the sense you take it. He added, office of Alderman was compulsory, bui elected might swear off by proving that ht worth 10,0001. Such persons could resign Court had not the power of refusing his u Mr. PARKES put a question as to the Court had pursued respecting the electi, Scales. Mr. Deputy Wood considered that the Aldermen had decided upon one or the o► ' two points. They had either declared son as duly elected since notice had been g ell votes for Mr. Scales would be null an, that person was not judged a fit and prof date, or they had decided that Mr. Johns, majority of votes. They had, probably, 7 according to ancient custom, and object, return of an improper person. At any Court of Aldermen took the appointmt themselves; he could not state to the Comm, the precise point upon which the Court proceet. as they had not, to his knowledge, assigned 0 specific reason for their decision in the affair of Scales. At four o'clock the Court rose, and was lab journed to eleven o'clock to-morrow (this day). KIN M GENTLI In ht titr am din tied icin e, by way of Period. not one of Flavin! agent, M that cons convictiol Probal Ilpon yo Mating t chronic At tl rieighbc tedicin ver, crave that I ;3 be the Ltter, liaviug Cures, f h ir . d re oe riec , c Bn vi: j o raP gt r n t hon duce s af ° a l : 3 E t r 41: 10i ° lO 0 : 11 P .g o tetl,7 l : leatoEsre commence neesNr toTti id N tti price ya:ah.Aosxg C yßee ß ;Tftik E Tr. r o tseEoreEAT E ( i de r u hedn t e: vu a aworns p iaded e s l atri:ol,, returning 4 i hv lp i I d ek 1 : i s da e ' i: l3 d oy a i A l i e Court, Ither of 01 r. I g)sePp e odi rr n revna: t etctnehcoe' u llei r dtt:k:uerj; tAMSGI missioref f mid A E pp x i c ie u a r 3roceeded' Agent, 1, geed r inf ormat i o 'air of 0 1 nal fingei "negate was od' gen eral S day). *here B er Powerft table meet' (General DEVON TITHE MEETING. EXEPER, DEC. 12.—A large and most respectable mee t ' ing of gentlemen and yeomanry was held yesterday $ 1 Seale's, George Inn, Exeter, C. P. Hamlyn, Esq., in the chair, for the purpose of considering the best course to 10 adopted relative to petitioning the Legislature upon th e present state of the tith e laws. J. PARROTT, Eqq., M.P., addressed the meeting a t considerable length, and asserted the strong feeling wilicbt according to his belief, existed in the House of Commoner and still more so in the House of Lords, to preserve the ascendancy of the High Church party, and also, with the exception of Lord Althorp, Lord J. Russell, Sir J. Grabao and Mr. Ellice, who entertained more liberal sentimeolg on this subject, a feeling of something of the same nature , though probab'y not in all to the same extent, existed with the ministers also. It the❑ became the more necessari that the people should express themselves, if they tealli desired to remove the evils of the tithe laws, decidedly u poo them. Mr. Parrott added that Cornwall was looking to this county in this matter, being ready to move herself, 0 he believed was also the county of Somerset. Mr. NORTII)tORE followed, and in a strain of stront irony commented o❑ the subject, for the purpose of endea vouring to ease themselves of the grievance for which they had met. Sir H. P. Davie, Baronet, Colonel Seale, M. P. , Mr. Gill, of Tavistock, Mr. W. Wreford, and °there , addressed the meeting, and it having been resolved, w ith one dissentient only, to request the High Sheriff to con" vene a county meeting, a requisition to that effect wet adopted, and immediately received many signatures. Mr. PA RROTT also brought forward a series of rem)* lutions, which were each moved and seconded by different gentlemen and adopted—in effect, that the present tithe laws are exceedingly vexatious and oppressive to the oc' cupiers of lands, highly detrimental to the owners of lands, and injurious to the interests of the people. It was also understood that the Secretary should cots' municate to the county members a copy of the resolutions , together with a copy of the requisition to the Sheriff, and also the day on which such meeting would take place, when such had been determined on by the Sheriff. A PLEASANT INVITATION.—In the year 1762, a Lieutenant Campbell was convicted of forgery► and condemned to death. On the evening before his eX' ecution he wrote a species of circular to all such of bis friends as were at the time in his neighbourhood, which ran thus " Lieutenant Campbell presents his compli' ments to -, and requests the pleasure of his company to-morrow morning to take a cup of chocolate, and t o do him the honour to accompany him to Tyburn, to be present at his execution." Who shall pride himself on the paltry arrangement of " pistols and coffee for three" after this? BIRTHS. On the 14th inst., at Barnes, Surrey, the lady of Fleming St. John, Esq., of a son. On the 15th inst., at Weymouth, the lady of Captain H. Fitz- Roy, Grenadier Guards, of a daughter. On the 15th inst., in Montague square, the lady of John E• W. Rolls, Esq., of the Hendrec, Monmouthshire, of a daughter. The lady of Robert Kearney, Esq., of Belville, county Mayo, of a son. On the 6th inst., at Lappiatt House, near Corsham, the lady of William 'Waldron, Esq., of a daughter. Last week, the lady of Major Louis, Picton-terrace, Carmar then, of a son. On the 10th inst., in Newcastle, the wife of the Rev. M. A. Shute, of a son. On the Bth inst., at the Rectory, Haughton-le-skerne, Mrs. Austin, of a son. At Belfast, the lady of George Joy, of a son. MARRIED. On the tnd of October, at St. Helena, Captain Francis Harding. R.N., to Davidona Eleanor, second daughter of Ge neral Dallas, Governor of St. Helena, and niece to Lieut.- General Sir Thomas Dallas, G.C.B. In Coolock Church, Arthur,Stanley, Esq., eldest son of sir Edward Stanley, to Emily, eldest daughter of the late Captain Atkinson, of the Oth Light Dragoons, and of Pozzo, Artane, county Dublin. On the 12th inst., at Thruxtan, Mr. Williams, of Plough field, to Mrs. Barnett, of the former place. On the 14th ult., at Great Chesterford, Mr. Thomas Reeve, aged 19, to Miss Ann Nelson, a blooming damsel of 60. The youthful bride, in order to secure her swain, had previously deposited, in the hands of a mutual friend, 400 sovereigns, to be handed over on completing the contract! At Ballintemple Church, the Rev. Alfred Armstrong, Rec tor of Kilevetue, to Fanny, second daughter of William Cooper, Esq., of Killenure Castle, Tipperary. In Dublin, Henry Mastley, Esq., barrister, to Marianne, daughter of Robert M`Naghten, Esq., of Mountjoy.square. On the 16th inst., at Bromham Church, Cuthbert Johnson, Esq., of Wallington, Berks, to Jane, second daughter of the Rev. Dr. Starky, of Spye Park, Wilts. On the 11th inst., at Coyty, the Rev. Thomas Lloyd, M.A., of c.4ilfachwen, Cardiganshire, rector of Llanfair-orllwyn, to Maria Alicia, youngest daughter of Richard Lewellin, Esq., of Tremains, in this county. On the 10th inst., at St. Andrew's Church, J. Beer, Esq., of George place, to Miss Sherlock, of Princess square, Devonport. On the 9th inst., at Charles' Church, Devonport, Mr. Florence, of London, to Mary Ann, eldest daughter of the late Mr. Joseph Murch, of the Globe Hotel, Plymouth. On the 10th inst., at St. Andrew's Church, Devonport, Geo. Henry Godden, Lieutenant, KN., to Eliza, only daughter of Captain Burgess, late of the 83d Regiment of Foot. On the 3d inst., at Chesterfield, Mr. J. W. Waterhouse, only son of the late Wm. Waterhouse, Esq., of Sheffield, to Emma Melissa, second daughter of Mr. J. Beardmore, lace-manufac turer, Nottingham-place, Chesterfield. On the 12th inst., at Basingstoke Church, Mr. Richard Att. wood, attorney-at-law, to Maria, youngest daughter of Charles May, Esq. On the 9th inst., at Salter's Croft, Govan, Mr. Hamilton M'Laren, accountant, Glasgow, to Jessie, youngest daughter of Houston Maxwell, Esq. On the 10th inst., by the Rev. William Routledge, of the Episcopal Chapel, Green.street, Mr. Samuel Hart, merchant, Belfast, to Montgomerie, eldest daughter of Allan Clark, Esq. On the 9th inst., at Carlton-place, Glasgow, John Allen, Esq., Broughton, to Juliana, only daughter of the Rev. Thos. Colston, of Filkins, Oxfordshire. DIED. On the 13th inst , at Hall.place, Beaconsfield, aged eight years, Clerke, eldest son of John Brown, Esq., of Kingston . Blount, Esq. On the IGth inst., Anna Maria, the eldest daughter of G. N. Emmett, Esq., of Henrietta-street, Brunswick square, aged two years and a halt'. On the 14th inst., in Upper Berkeley-street, Portman-square, Mary, widow, of the late Lieut.-General Douglas, of the Royal Artillery. On the 14th inst., at Clapham, Surrey, Matthew Jegoil Turner, formerly of Clonmell, in Ireland, in his 46th year. On the 13th inst., in her 79th year, Susannah, the wife Of John Harvey, Esq., of Teddington, Middlesex. On the 10th inst., in Rodney-street, Liverpool, Mary, wife of David Lamb, Esq. On the 11th inst., in his 78th year, Mr. Thomas Staples, formerly of Queen-street, Salisbury. In Cork, Mr. Edmond Nash, aged 77. • On the 11th inst., Charles, eldest son of Mr. Maul, surseo❑ Southampton, and scholar of Wadham College, Oxford, aged '2l. On the 9th inst., at Ichen Ferry, Mary, the wife of Mr. W. Burroughs, builder, &c. of that place, aged 67. On the 9th inst., Ann, wife of Samuel Elliott, Esq , of Eling Grove, near Southampton. • On the 12th inst., in Devonport, Commander Mason, R.N., aged 73. On the 7th inst., Captain Joh n Peach, of the 98th Regiment of Foot. Last twee of J. Airs. k 'u l lt t ee lit l, ecl'wife of J . B ulteel, Esq., of Fleet, • and mother Esq., Member for the southern divi of Devonshire. On the 15th inst., at Woodbury, Stoke Newington, Mrs. Thomas Powell, of a daughter. PRINTED AND PUBLIMIED BvMURDO YOUNG, AT Tifil SUN (41 , 1(3E, 112, SIAAND.