The Sun. — London, England, 1844-12-24 00:00:00

1 4. ° N S SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—The landlords—ever on the alert to serve themselves—are devising means to obtain a large slice of the surplus revenue which the income-. tax and the Chinese compensation money have placed at the disposal of the Minister. Not satisfied with even this sacrifice of the general interests at their shrine, they, by indirect attempts, would willingly , fasten the income-tax in perpetuity unpon the en tire nation, if, by so doing, they could obtain the removal of the malt-tax. The increased consump tion of barley would—so the landlords calculate— enable the farmers to cultivate the growth of that article at a profit commensurate with high rents. Thus the landowners' incomes would, they are led to hope, remain untouched by the tariff and the Cana. dian Corn Bill of the Government, which threaten to lower agricultural prices, and consequently to peril rents. The farmers have not, it is true, responded with their usual unquestioning alacrity to their land lords' call. They evidently begin to suspect that the reciprocity of interest on which the landowners expatiate at agricultural dinners, is a mere one -sided reciprocity : that, whatever changes take place, the advantages to be derived from them are engrossed by the landlords, who avail themselves of than as a pretext for raising rents; while the losses they occasion are left to be borne by the farmer, without compensation and with out consolation—except, indeed, effusions of wordy condolence, and exhortations to hope. But whether the farmers will second the movement against the malt-tax, or regard it as a landlords' question, there is little reason to doubt that the landed interests will employ all their influence with the Government, and use all their power in the Legislature, to obtain the object on which they have set their hearts. It becomes necessary, therefore, to guard the public generally against this contem plated movement of the landed interests. It should be met by a counter demonstration from the great body of the community. The whole scope and ten dency of legislation in former Parliaments bears evidence of the sleepless vigilance with which the landlords have employed their power in Parliament for their own exclusive advantage. Under one pre text or another, successive Parliaments have yielded themselves to this powerful interest ; and have so shaped their enactments as, on the one hand, to exempt the landed interests from bearing their fair share of taxation ; and on the other, to fetter the free operations of trade and commerce by restrictive duties, in order that the produce of the soil might be protected against that of foreign growth. Every attempt to diminish taxation by reducing duties on the importation of agricultural produce from foreign States, and even from our own Colonies, has been invariably resisted by the landowners. If, on the other hand, a new tax was to be levied, the force of the landed interest has been in voked to obtain either an entire exemption, or a partial relief, from its operation. The foundation of this claim set up by the landed interest to special fa vour in the distribution of taxation, is uniform ; it is, nevertheless, fallacious. Its success affords a striking illustration of what falsehood, if persevered in, will effect both on those who employ, and those who habi tually listen to it. " The peculiar burdens borne by land," is the statement put forth, and—in the face of facts which demonstrate its utter ground lessness—admitted to a considerable extent by those who, if they do not, ought to know better. This argument—false and selfish as it is—will be again used, as it has often been used within the walls of Parliament. In the appeal which will be made for the removal of the malt duty it will be put forth by the advocates of the landed interests as the basis of the claim. When pressed for proof of the assertion, that land is disproportionately burdened—that it has taxes exclusively or peculiarly its own—the answer is ready. " The land-tax is," say they, " a burden peculiar to land, as its very name imports." 'What, then, are the facts of the case ? If it can be shown that this, the strong-hold of the landed inte rests in their defence of claims to exemption on the one hand, and to protection on the other, is untenable, their case, as against the community, is overthrown. Let us then look on the land-tax question, with a view to ascertain whether it be capable of serving the landlords in the way in which they have employed it. Sir John Sinclair, in his work on the Revenue, esti mates that when the land-tax was first imposed in the reign of William the Third, and during the reign of that monarch, the amount contributed to the Exche quer was 34 per cent. upon the entire revenue—being more than one-third of the whole taxation of the country. Mr. M'lntyre, in his " Influence of Aristo cracies on the Destinies of Nations," gives the same estimate. Speaking of the state of England, in the reign of William of Orange, he says—" More than a fourth of the public revenue was derived from the land-tax. At that time the whole of the revenue was about 4,600,0001., of which the tax on land was about 1,300,000/." No fact is better capable of demonstra tion than that, since the close of the 17th century, land has increased, in the ratio of productiveness, to a greater extent than any other description of property. The incomes of the landlords have been doubled, trebled, quadrupled within the last half century. The sites of large towns, and the land in their neighbour hoods, have, in several instances, increased them twenty-fold, thirty-fold, sixty-fold. Reasoning by analogy, land-tax should have borne an increase pro portioned to the increased revenue required for the ser vices of the Government. How stands the fact ? In the year 1842, the total amount ofrevenup was 52,000,000/., to which the land-tax contributed 1,200,0001. The land-tax redeemed since 1798 ought to be added to this, seeing the annual payment was sold for a value equal to it. If this be done, the land-tax ought to be taken at about 2,000,0001. What, then, becomes of the landlords' stock argument, that the land-tax is a burden so heavy that it ought to procure for land an exemption from the fair proportion of the public taxation, and protection for the produce of the soil at the expense of the consumers ? A third at the very utmost, has been added to the land-tax ; while the common taxes have been increased nearly twelve times in amount within the same period ; and this, notwithstanding the vast increase in the produc tiveness of land would have justified a proportionate augmentation of the tax which is referred to as its peculiar burden, in consideration of which it has a cl ,im to exemption on the one hand, and to protection on the other ! STANDARD.—We publish to-day another letter from the Bishop of Exeter, the first composition of the Right Rev. Lord that we have ever printed with re gret. The letter, which is addressed to the Dean of Exeter, might, we think, as a whole, have been spared, without any injury to the Bishop, or to the peace of the Church. Even supposing Dr. Bull and Chan cellor Martin to have acted wrong in calling on the public to arbitrate in the division between them and their diocesan, surely it was not necessary for the Bishop to imitate the conduct which he condemns. When a party challenges an umpire as incom petent to Judge between him and his adversaries, a simple protest is his proper course ; and there is a manifest inconsistency in arguing before the offered arbitrator, to convince him that he is incapable of judg ing of an argument, if not unworthy to be addressed. Besides, the general objection to such a letter as we publish, there are particular objections which we cannot overlook, hut which we cannot notice without great pain. In the first place, in this new letter—as through the whole of the unhappy controversy in his diocese—the Bishop, certainly from no want of can dour—for a more candid or honourable man does not live—but, probably, because attending more than is fitting to details, leaves altogether on one side the real cause of discontent—the innovation in doctrine, with which the attempted innovations in practice are connected, and of which they are the symbol. 'We believe that there is not a single in stance, except, perhaps, his Lordship himself, in Which a clergyman, not more or less fa vourable to the Tractarian heresy, has taken an active part in promoting the innovations. In the second place, the Bishop, in his letter to the Dean of Exeter, seems to brand as schismatics all of the clergy and laity, that is nineteen-twentieths of the whole body of the Church, who offer a respectful, but firm resistance, to the changes introduced by the Tractarians. Now this, we humbly submit, is most unjust. Besidei the manifest impropriety in lan guage of calling the compact and immensely preponde rating majority of any body separatists from that b else more than mere separation is necessary to constitute schism. Schism must be active and aggres sive, if there be any meaning in language; here it is applied to what is passive and inert. This the Apos tle very clearly points out in his warning to the Roman converts, to mark and condemn the makers of schism. " Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." Now here we have described as clearly as words can describe schismatics—they who cause divi sions. We have here no less clearly described heretics —they who cause offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned. And if a man were required to describe the leaders of the Tractarian move ment, he could not describe them with more truth and precision. No less, too, than the de scription of the offenders is the solemn in junction " to avoid them ;" but if to avoid such "in the city and in the field," above all, in the places of public worship, constitutes a schism—then is St. Paul a teacher of schism. In the third place, we must, with sorrow, object to the time when, and the circumstances under which, the Right Rev. Lord advances the authority of the Church. This, we con fees, is what w e f eare d all along from the ' most un happyd controversy. The 'people h ave l ong earnestly invoked th e authority of th e Church and to relieve them from the pestilent here s y that has poisoned the minds of too many of the young and un informed ; but the Church has not answered to the call. The only authority that has as yet condemned the Tractarian heresy is the Uni- versity of Oxford. Highly to the honour of that ancient seat of learning and of sound religion, it has done its duty; but it has not been very zealously seconded by the Church, if, as has been said, we hope untruly, the person silenced at Oxford for heretical preaching was almost immediately after his merited disgrace invited by a Bishop to his diocese, and invited to preach there, doubtless, the very lama doctrines which had caused him to be punished in the University. Be this, however, as it may, the people have complained, if not loudly or dis respectfully, still universally, and earnestly com plained of the seeming connivance of the Bishops at the advances of the Tractarian heresy, because the law has not been put in force to reduce the false teachers to silence. The complaint has been, we believe, so far unjust that the bishops, whatever their nominal authority, have really no available power to repress the dissemination of false doctrines. This want of power in the bishops is then their real defence, we think their only imaginable defence, against the connivance too generally imputed to them. Is it then wise, is it courteous, to the Christian people to make a display of power in pampering and encouraging the Tractarian schismatics when the bishops are obliged to throw themselves for their defence upon their want of power to repress the Tractarian heresy ? What will the people—what can the people—think of the use (and this is a utilitarian age) of a power which is impotent for the protection of those Protestant Gospel truths which they cherish, and can be exercised only when the enemies of these precious and highly prized truths are to be gratified by its exercise. ?NOM TIIII MORNING ?Arun OF Trliti DAY. TIMES.—The unseemly exhibition of variance in the high places of Church dignity is consummated by the appearance of the letter of the Bishop of Exeter, to which we directed the attention of our readers yesterday. One merit, however, this letter certainly possesses, of which too many, especially when written for the public, are altogether (and often pointedly) destitute. It is plain and intelligible in its phrase ology and in its intention. No one can read it with out comprehending what the Bishop says and what he means to do; and this, in an epistle of such length, is no slight praise. But a letter, though written with great talent and perspicuity, may not absolutely in itself be either agreeable or acceptable ; and here is precisely a case in point. We do not think the Bishop has gained much by the 'measure. Setting aside his personal difference with the memo rialists and with Dr. Bull, which is, in fact, a pri vate matter among themselves, and in which the public are but slightly interested, we do not suppose that his cause will derive any fresh access of parti sanship, or that his own friends will be greatly strengthened by it. His manner of heating the op ponents of his proceedings is as harsh as ever, or even more so. He speaks of the hostility with which his measure has been received by those " who hate the Church." Now, in language as simple and plain as his Lordship's, let us be permitted to ask, to whom does he allude ? What class, or party, or portion of the " hostile" ones are included in this offensive inuendo ? We have heard of no angry movements, but of respectful remonstrances from ardent Church men ; and we hope, therefore, that the Bishop of Exeter will bear with us if we pronounce such lan guage to be both unnecessary and unjustifiable. That he himself does not upon the whole disregard the voice of public opinion is suffered casually to creep out. It is an important fact connected with the Chapter consultations, that after the reading of Dr. Bull's paper, the Bishop says, he "earnestly entreated those members of the Chapter who were parochial ministers, especially in towns and other populous districts, to tell us what their knowledge of the state of feeling and opinion among their people would induce them to anticipate ;" and he appeals to the Dean himself to remember the emphatic assur ances he received in reply, that no discontent of any consequence was likely to be manifested on the occa sion. This is, to some extent, no doubt, an apology for the issuing of the Bishop's pastoral letter. He had taken the pains to inquire how the proposed change would be received, from those most capable of giving him the best information on the subject. But while we allow so much, we must also claim a little more ; and surprised as we really are at the bold as sertions of these members of the Chapter, which have been so singularly and so strongly contradicted by events immediately subsequent, still we say, if Dr. Phillpotts had really tenderness enough to consider the feelings and sentiments of the laity before he com menced the work he had at that time in his mind, how much greater cause has he to consult them now, when such marked and reiterated evidences of the widest dissatisfaction have been shown on all sides ! To his Lordship's acute and profound discrimination we leave the solution of the problem. And we hope he will yet prove himself, in the truest sense, what he takes so much pains to declare himself to be—the diligent and watchful Bishop of a diocese that has, as he himself declares, " long been distinguished by the faithful and warm attachment of the people to the Church." But how deeply do these last words affect his own position ! Well may the friends whom he respects and venerates consider the experiment he is making " a rash and a dangerous one" among a people described in such high terms of approbation by himself. He is, however, we must think, needlessly alarmed for the Church. We express only our firm conviction when we assert that the Church of Eng land never had such worthy, consistent, intelligent adherents as now. Where, then, can the Bishop of Exeter " see" that " resolute determination to resist all Church authority ?" He says, in many parts of England. From what does he form his judgment ? IThat are his evidences of facts ? What his sources of information ? We venture to disagree with him in toto. We do not believe that the clergy of the Church of England were ever—where their conduct is such as to deserve it—more affectionately and reverentially esteemed, by rich and poor, high and low, than they are at this day; and we believe that they will so continue, if no compulsion to these en forced novelties is practised upon the laity. Look at the influence possessed by every well-conducted earnest clergyman in his parish, and how readily his solicitations for aid are seconded ; and then let us hear from Bishop Phillpotts, what no Dissenter has yet ventured to whisper, that there is " a resolute determination to resist Church authority." In one striking instance, in the late Chapter consulta tions, he has been wofully misled upon the subject of popular feeling, and upon that mistake has acted so as to offend and alienate large numbers of those who had as yet been constant Churchmen. Is it not possible that in the statement to which we now allude he may have been also deceived by reports or representations that would by no means be borne out by facts ? It is at least possible that it may be so—we believe and affirm that it is so. Let the Bishop satisfy himself upon this point. We are persuaded, if he will duly exert his own vigorous intellect, and institute unpre • judiced inquiries, he will " see" something very dif ferent indeed from " ssthism in its most mischievous form, under the guise of nominal churchmanship rampant, and of course intolerant wherever it is seen CHRONICLE.—We printed yesterday an impor tant letter from the Most Rev. Archbishop Murray, upon the sublect of the Irish Charitable Bequests Act. We have hitherto abstained from taking any part in the discussion which has so violently agitated the sis ter kingdom upon the subject of this Act; and in referring to it now, we do so less with a view to mix ourselves up in the discussion, than to express a hope that the candid and temperate spirit of Archbishop Murray's letter may mitigate the rancour with which the Bill, and those who undertake to administer it. have been assailed in Ireland. The Act itself is a good Act. I t was framed in a spirit of justice and liberality, and confers upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland a less restricted power of receiving bequests for their Church, than is granted in those civilised states in which that Church'is predominant, or than our laws of mort main permit to the Established Church in England. We have read with care the speeches and writings which the discussion of the matter has elicited in Ireland, and our candid conviction, now confirmed by the admirable letter of Dr. Murray, is, that in all the objections hitherto brought against the Act there is no ground for agitating against the measure itself, or feeling otherwise than grateful for it, as a measure of " substantial value." Some just objections to details can, and we feel convinced, as Dr. Murray does, will be removed as soon as Parliaments meets, and the others seem to us to he emanations of a spirit of sus picion, which, though too well founded, in this case is carried beyond all reasonable bounds. But the Act itself is not so good as the spirit in which it has been carried into effect. It is not merely that, having undertaken, in passing the Act, to appoint a certain number of Catholic prelates, Sir Robert Peel has dune it fairly and effectually, but he has done it in such a way as really to alter the position of the R )man Catholic clergy and Church, and to denote a very obvious intention of going yet further in recognising thereligim of the Irish people. Mr. O'Connell unreasonably asks, " Why not call Archbishop Crolly the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh ?" Why, for this plain reason, that the doing so is illegal under the Eman.ipation Act. But is it nothing that now for the first time the ranks of the Catholic prelates are acknowledged, as giving them the same precedence as the corresponding ranks in the Established Church ? Is it no indication of a remarkable and wholesome change in policy, that the prelates whose existence was never noticed, except by penal enactments, till last July, and who up to that time were confounded with every other dissenting denomination, now take precedence of Peers, and sit side by side with their Pro testant rivals ? If Sir Bobert Peel were here to stop short in his concessions, he has done that for the National Church of Ireland which neither he nor any successors can ever undo. Men do not recognise offices as conferring rank, unless they be offices in some national institution. And no one henceforth can pretend to regard- the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland in any light save that of a national clergy, recognised by the Government of the country. But we cannot believe that this step is taken without the intention of going yet farther. This recognition of the ranks of the Catholic Church is just one of the measures by which Sir Robert Peel loves to sound his way in public opinion. Let it be recollected that the only ground which he took last year for not making a legal provision for the clergy of that Church was that they themselves would not ac cept it. No one who is at all cognizant of the state of feeling in the mere governmental and mode rate portion of the Tory party, can doubt that they entertain the strongest desire to link the Catholic clergy with the State. They believe that there would be little difficulty on financial grounds, provided the political objections to the endowment of the Church of Rome could be got over. This recognition of rank is a step towards placing that Church in the position of a national establishment; and it is an ex periment on public feeling which has thus far com pletely succeeded. Had the present Commission been issued by a Whig Ministry, we should have had a howl of bigotry and faction from Irish Orangemen and English ultras enough to deafen us. But Sir R. Peel, by a long course of judicious starvation and well-timed castigation, has so lowered the spirit of the ultras, that they dare not cry out. Dread of the next blow that may come prevents their resenting the one under which they smart. Indeed, it is odd enough to see the Dublin Evening Mail celebrating an event so favourable to the Catholics of Ire land as a triumph over Mr. O'Connell. His denouncing the Act has made the Orangemen overlook the immense stride which religious equality makes under its provisions. It is no doubt a triumph over him, but it is, as he says, the triumph of one portion of the Catholic population over the other; and Mr. O'Connell ought to see and to respect th 3 feeling that has led to this first open division in his ranks, as well as the agency by which it has been effected. Let him be quite sure that this revolt against his authority proceeds from no personal jealousy and no merely temporary difference of opinion. It is a protest from the higher and more reasonable of his fellow Catholics against his unwise course in refusing all save: impossible concessions. Archbishops Crolly and Murray, are, in fact, opposing him in the name or that wise principle of receiving every instalment, by adhering to which he won the memorable victories of his earlier days. If Mr. O'Connell means to persist in rejecting every con cession, with a view solely of keeping up the excitement of the most ignorant of his followers, he may depend upon it that the time is come when he will separate from him a large and influential portion of the Irish Catholics. He will place him self in open hostility not only to the hierarchy of his own country, but to a still higher authority of his Church. Por there is very little reason to doubt that Archbishops Crolly and Murray have been encou raged to take their present course by very earnest requests from the Pope himself. We cannot but think that Mr. O'Connell would not only avoid the serious mischief of such a schism, but that he would make what has happened tell to the advantage of his country, were he to take the view of the matter which we believe to be really in accordance with the fact. Instead of putting himself in so false a position as that of being obliged to confess the composition of the Commission to be a triumph of one por tion of the Catholic body over the other, he might with truth have represented it as a most impor tant concession to his country and his religion, won by himself. He might with truth say that this marked concession was entirely the result of the agitation of 1843 and the State trials of 1844. He had brought the English Government to be aware of the danger resulting to them from the spirit which he had excited in the masses, whose numbers he had displayed in the monster meetings. The pro secution and imprisonment of himself had imposed on that Government a necessity for some concessions to the people, as a sop for the persecution of their leader. "By my agitation and by my bonds," he might fairly say, " I have gained this triumph for you, my countrymen, and your religion. The pre lates, whom I recollect unacknowledged, contemned, and almost proscribed, I have raised into a position of legal authority and trust, and given them rightful precedence over the highest of the aristocracy. Let such a success show you the value of our exertions and our sufferings in our country's cause. Let it en courage you to fresh assaults on the bigotry and in solence that have so long depressed us. For after this there is nothing which we may not hope to gain from a Tory Ministry." THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 24. 1844. not thinking it would be enough, I bought another pennyworth. I made three cakes, one for my father, one for my half sister and self, and one for the lodger. I put arsenic in the one for my father. I did not put any in the others. If any got mixed with the flour of which they were made, it was by accident. The cakes were for tea on the Friday night. My father did not eat his. It was put away in the cupboard. The lodger, my half sister, and self partook of the others, and were taken ill. I did not put any arsenic in them. I bought some more arsenic next day (Saturday) and mixed it with some arrowroot. I left my father to put the milk to it and make it him self. He was taken ill soon afterwards, and died next morning. MARY GALLOP." As a verystrong impression prevails that the young woman is insane, and was so at the time when she deprived her parent of life, a petition has been for warded to the Home-office, in order to obtain a com mutation of the sentence to confinement or trans portation for life. The petition was signed by the Lord Bishop, Chancellor Raikes, and a great body of the clergy and gentry. Other petitions are also in course of signature. A HORRIBLE AFFAIR. The following extract of a letter from Lahaina, Sandwich Islands, gives an account of a most horrible occurrence which recently happened at a neighbour ing island, dated March 22 :—" You will have heard from Captain Green, of the Ontario, that three men deserted from him last Friday night. To-day two of them returned; they were brought to the United States Consulate Agency, and made one of the most horrible statements I ever heard. They, as they say, hired a boat of three natives on Friday eve, and started for Hawaii. There were three in the boat—viz , Walter G. Pike, of New Windsor, Orange County, New York; Robert APCarty, New York City; and Jacob Von Chief, belonging to Middletown Point, New Jersey—the latter a coloured man. They pulled all Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, and their nights, and became exhausted, and were unable to pull any longer. On Tuesday they drifted on the rocks at Lanai, and, having been without food or fresh water the whole time, and having drank salt water, they were in a state of starvation. They were not able to get up the pali (precipice), and agreed to cast lots to see who should die for the benefit of the other two. The lot fell on Von Chief, who was killed by blows on his head with a stone ; they then cut his arm and throat and drank his blood ; after which they cut a piece from his right arm and ate it. After they became strengthened they got up the pali, and met with some natives, who gave them food, and brought them across the island, and to this place, in canoes. The natives have been examined, and confirm the statement made by the men. The dead body was found as they de scribed, and buried by them. the governor will send to Lanai to-morrow for the women they first saw after landing, and for the remains of the boat." We are informed by a letter, that these men were subsequently tried for murder, and acquitted ; and subsequently tried for stealing the boat, and fined eighty dollars and costs. Having no means of paying the fine, they were working it out on the public roads.—American Paper. COURT OF BANARUPTCY Dec. 23. (Before Mr. Commissioner Hoenone.) IN RE I. MYNDE COOEE. The case of this insolvent has been frequently re ported, he being an attorney, and deeply engaged in gambling transactions with well-known persons named Coglan, Stratford Stratford, Page, and others of the same clique. He now came up in custody from the Queen's Bench, his further examination having been adjourned to this day, upon applicaticn for his final order. Mr. Cooke appeared for the insolvent, and Mr, James for Mr. Flight, who had discounted accept ances of Stratford for the insolvent to the amount of 2,000/., but not knowing that they were given for gambling transactions. Mr. Encke, as agent for Mr. Flight, and Mr. Cox, his solicitor, were again examined as to the discount of these bills, and they positively swore that it was effected upon the representation made by the insol vent that Stratford was entitled to considerable re versionary property, and was about to marry a wife with a large fortune. The insolvent was also exa mined at great length, and from which it appeared ... - that his debts and liabilities were upwar d s o f THE PARRICIDE, MARY GALLOP. 40,0001., including, however, qui tam actions This unfortunate young woman, w h o w as recently for gambling penalties, for 24,0001., and no as convicted at Ch es t er of having poisoned h e r father, sets. He was in business about a twelve has made the following statement and confession to month, and had some law bills due to him. Mr. Penrey, the visiting magistrate of the prison, in lie kept horses at Cheltenham, which he sold, and also the presence of the chaplain : kept a Brougham in London, where he had had dif " I shall be 21 years of age on the 2d of next March. ferent lodgings, but only one at the same time. Ile I was born in Warrington, and am th e d aug ht er o f went, when very ill, oh a vi s it to C og l an, at Strath- Richard and Mary Gallop. My father was a joiner field Sturges, where he met Mr. Stratford, and Mr. by trade. Both my father and mother were Wes- John Evans, a wine -merchant, of Crown-court, leyan Methodists. My father was a very pious, good Broad-street, and considerable " play" took place, man ; but my mother had fallen off from her religious and he won about 5,000/., for which Mr. Stratford's profession. I recollect him taking inc to a Sunday- acceptance was afterwards taken. Many difficulties school, in Warrington, when I could just walk. He pressed upon him in consequence of his marriage, and also sent me to a day school in the sa me pl ace . I con- also the injunctions in Chancery. His profits from tinued to go to these schools till I was about nine his business were not more than 2001., if so much, years old. As my father could not get any work at while his debts and liabilities were about 8,0001. to this time in Warrington, we went to live in Runcorn, 10,000/., but chiefly upon Stratford's bills. where we remained two or three years. He sent me to By Mr. JAMES—Did not Stratford accuse you, of a Sunday and day school during the whole of playing with false dice ? that time. As his wages were very low, we went to Insolvent—l know he did so since, but not at the reside in Liverpool. We lived some ti me a t Rose hill. I went to the Sunday-school bel ong i ng t o the time. I brought the dice to play with from a gam- bling house in St. James's-street, where I won Brunswick Chapel. My father afterwards removed 2,554 e, where I h a d previously lost, with the very to Mansfield-street, and sent me to a Sunday and day same dice, all I had i n m y own pocket; but I was school in Springfi e ld- s tr e et. At thi s ti me h e o bt a i ne d tipsy at the time. work on the railroad, and we went to live at Windsor, By Mr. Coo KE —Th es e dice were afterwards left near Liverpool. 1 was then about 12 or 13 years of age. I think we remained there ab ou t seven years. in Stratford's lodgins, and were now, with an affida vit, in the Court o f Queen's Bench. During this time I was a teacher in Pleasant-street Mr. Jocely n C oo k e , the brother of the insolvent, Wesleyan Sunday-school, and regularly attended was (at his own request) examined by Mr. CooKE— chapel. My half sister lived with us, and I used to He lent his brother (the insolvent) 1,075/., includes assist her, in the week, with the mangle. When we in which was a c h eque f or 600/., and on the 28th o f lived i n M ans fi e ld- s t ree t, Li verpoo l , I f orme d an acquaintan ce w ith a y oung b oy , a ne i g hb our. He November, 1842, an I 0 U for 240/., together w ith another cheque for 801. Those sums he (the in was younger than myself. When we left Liverpool solvent) repaid me in 1843, when he (witness) dis for Windsor he used to come and see us. We formed counted Stratford's bills. He would swear that he an attachment. Both my father and mother were averse did not know that they originated out of gambling to him coining after me, bet particularly my father. transactions. The young man was then an apprentice, and is not yet Wm. Jordan, clerk to Mr. Jocelyn Cooke, and out of his time. We then went to live at Crewe. About formerly clerk to M r . My n d e C oo k e , re p ea t e d hi s three months afterw ar d s I went to L i verpool with m m Y former evidence a s t o hi s h av i ng h ear d a conversa - other for a few days. I saw t h e young man several times. When I returned we use d t o wr i te to each tion between Mr. M. Cooke and Mr. Encke, when 1 certain bills were sought to be discounted. Cooke other. I have shown some of his letters to my mother, said he had received 4,000/. from Coglan for gambling but not to my father. About ten months after we went transactions, and E nc k e was t o h ave h a d 5001. f or to live at Crew my mother destroyed herself i n a fit of his labour in ge tti ng t h e di scount. insanity. When my mother was buried I went with By Mr. Jeues— I did not say vans that I heard at the last exami my half sister to Liverpool for some time. I used to E nation befor e M r . C omm i ss i oner see the young man. I returned to Crewe in June last, I what occurred through a hole in a boarded partition, and that I swear. Cooke did not attend regularly at and asked my father's leave to go again to Liverpool at his office after the injunctions, and I believe notice ( i p e ri s s a t i m d as h . ee r should give not o t h , i a s n consent 21 have anything to do with the young man in Liverpool. li w e ou sa ld id n l ev He was served with the injunction at the latter end I then thought of going into a situation as servant in of May last. I saw Mr. Cooke pay Mr. Page 3,800/. Liverpool. If I had I should have been very happy Mr. James and Mr. Cooke having been severally now. I heard my half sister one day talking of a heard at considerable length for their respective woman who had poisoned her husband with arsenic, clients, which she had bought under the pretence of poi- The Learned COMMISSIONER said that this applica soning rats. The idea then first entered my mind ti on was made under the 28th section of the Act, to of poisoning my father, and I thought I should be ' grant the insolvent his protection. The opposition to at liberty to go where I pleased and do as I the insolvent he considered to be perfectly legitimate, pleased. If I could have opened my mind although no trade creditors as such now opposed him. to anybody, and had received a little good There were three charges made against the insolvent; advice, I am sure I should not have committed first, his obtaining money f rom Mr. Fli g ht upon bills the crime. I did not think that I should be detected. :b y means of false representations ; second, his retain- I considered his death would be attributed to the ' ing 1,200/. out of 3,800/, fr om Mr. Stratford's father's bowel complaint, with which he had been afflicted for . estates, and third, reckless expenditure. Now, as to several Weeks. I bought a pennyworth of arsenic, and, ! t h e di scount o f t h e b ills by Flight, he (the Learned. Commissioner) believed the statement of Drake and Cox, who both said that the money was to be raised for Stratford, who had considerable expectations, and was then about to marry the daughter of a Baronet. Besides, the insolvent was all that time acting in the character of Stratford's solicitor, and no doubt it was only from the expectation of large gains that Flight discounted the bills. The transactions with Page are certainly left in doubt, for Evans (the wine -merchant) had not been called ; but yet, taking the whole of the evidence upon that point, it was decidedly against the insolvent. As to the transactions between him and his brother, they appeared to be a complete juggle; and, under all the circurnstences of this case, which was full of fraud and culpable neglect, he had no hesitation in at once dismissing the application alto gether. The complainant, however, having expressed that he had no vindictive feelings against the defendant, and that he would be satisfied with the above sureties, the defendant said that he was aware he should have some trouble in finding the witness he alluded to, and that, therefore, he was contented the matter should rest as it was, upon his finding the required hail. The defendant's solicitor, and another gentleman, entered into sureties, and he was discharged. Edward Edwards was brought up for re-examina tion, being found in Mr. Bright's house, at NGrth Brixton, for an unlawful purpose; and Margaret Sheen, the nurse in the family, was charged with stealing a satin waistcoat, belonging to her master, and also with harbouring the other prisoner in the house. Mr. COOKE—By the Act the insolvent must be pro tected after twelve months. The circumstances attending the discovery of the prisoners at four o'clock on Saturday morning, lying together before a blazing fire in the complainant's kitchen, and of the femal' dropping her master's satin waistcoat on the way to the station-house, have already appeared in our police report of the preced ing day. Mr. James, the prisoner's solicitor, put some ques tions to the complainant, with a view to show that both their characters were good up to the period of the above transaction ; that Edward's father, who was in attendance, was a highly respectable man ; and that he, together with other frien is, were in Court, pre pared to tender bail in his behalf, if it was found necessary. The complainant, in answer to certain questions, admitted that he had never missed any property but the satin waistcoat, which must have been taken out The Learned COMMISSIONER—That must be for another tribunal. The Court rose at seven o'clock. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) BOW-STREET. Yesterday Ebezier Paron Hingston, a young man, employed as prosector to the professor of physiology in King's College, Somerset-house, was brought up for re-examination, before Mr. Jardine, charged with stealing a coat, a pocket-book, a cigar-case, several letters, an inkstand, and a key, value 41. and upwards, the property of Mr. John Farmer, a medical student. Several coffee-shop keepers, who had known the prisoner for a considerable time, were in attendance in the early part of the day to identify a number of books that had been stolen from their premises, and which were found by the officer, with other property, on searching the prisoner's lodgings. Mr. \Vontner appeared for the prisoner. The prosecutor having repeated the statement he made on Friday last, said, in answer to Mr. Wontner, that the porter's room was much frequented by the students, and when his c oa t was f oun d i n t h e cup board, he articles were found in the pockets per fectly safe. I of his drawer; that Sheen had access to the pantry where the plate was kept, but he had not missed any ; that she was in the habit of bringing up the key of the kitchen to her mistress every night be fore she went to bed; and that on the night in question she brought up the key as usual; and that she must have left Edwards in the kitchen, and after wards gone down stairs to him when all was quiet; that the discovery would not have taken place but for the crying of the infant, which might have met its death owing to the neglect of the nurse while with her paramour in the kitchen. Mr. TRAILL said he should send the nurse for trial for stealing the waistcoat if the prosecutor wished to press the charge; but it appeared the garment was very much worn, and of little value, and he there fore doubted very much whether a bill would be found against her, as he (the magistrate) had very recently noticed that a strong representation was made by a grand jury on the subject of committing persons for trial for stealing articles of a trifling nature, deeming it the most proper course to have such cases summa rily dealt with. He (the magistrate), however, in this instance, would consult the feelings of the com plainant on the subject, and would either commit for trial or dispose of the case himself. The complainant having expressed a wish that the latter course might be adopted, the nurse (Sheen) was therefore committed for two months to hard labour for unlawful possession of the article, and Edwards was adjudged to enter into his own recogni sance of 401., and find two sureties of 201. each, to be of good behaviour for twelve months. Dr. Robert Bentley Todd being sworn, said reside at 24, Parliament -street, and am professor o, physiology at the King's College. On Friday last the prosecutor stated to me the suspicions he had of the prisoner, in consequence of which I thought it right to examine several cupboards and boxes in my private room, which were solely in the charge of the prisoner, but when he is out of the way the key of the room is in the possession of the porter, the pri soner being responsible for the safety of the property deposited in the several boxes. I examined the open boxes first, and not finding anything in them to ex cite my suspicions, I asked the prisoner for the keys for such as were locked, and he proceeded to look in a drawer in which I understood he was in the habit of keeping them, but not finding them after con siderable search being made by the prisoner, I asked for a chisel, with which I broke open a cupboard, from which a coat immediately fell, and on taking it up I called for the prosecutor, who identified the coat, and took several articles from the pocket. By Mr. JARDINE—No person had the key of the cupboard but the prisoner, in whose exclusive charge it was, there being several preparations in it of which he had the care. Cross-examined--I lectured on the day in ques tion, and concluded about half-past one o'clock, and I do not recollect ever having seen the prisoner take the keys from the drawers I locked in. The prisoner was in the King's College about four years, and he came there with a recommendation from Dr. Sharpy, of the University College. Eliza Gannon, wife of the porter, proved that on Saturday morning she found the keys in the theatre (a constable being present), between a patent stove and a skeleton, on the floor, while she was dusting the room. HOUSE BREAKING.— Joseph Astelford, a man dressed as a mechanic, was charged with breaking into the dwelling house of Mr. Court, at Meeting House-lane, Peckham, and stealing three suits of clothes and other apparel. A brother of the prosecutor stated.that at eight on Saturday morning he left the property safe in the bed-room of a small house attached to his father's residence in Meeting House-lane, where he and his brother slept. The front door was left on the latch, and could be opened with a common latch key. At the rear of the premises, which had connexion with his father's house, a large dog was kept which would not only make a noise but attack a stranger. At eight in the evening he entered by the back door, and proceeded into the bedroom, when he found that the drawers had been broken open and robbed of their contents. He also found the front door ajar, and he had every reason to think that the entrance was effected by that door, as it was seldom opened by any one. Constable, 47 M, stated that about ten minutes past eight o'clock he was on duty in the Kent road, when he saw the prisoner with a bundle under each arm. He asked where he got them ? He replied that he was employed to carry them by a man he never saw before. He afterwards contradicted himself by saying he had found them. After he had said so he dropped the bun dles, and ran away, but he pursued and took him into custody. In answer to Mr. W T ontner, the prosecutor said he was a student about fifteen months, and about two months back the key of Dr. Todd's room was lost, in consequence of the students locking the door and running away, having locked several persons inside, who were ultimately obliged to get out by the win dow as well as they could. Mr. '\Vontner submitted that no case had been made out against the prisoner, for, instead of acting like a person who had committed a felony, he had made every exertion with the porter to recover the pro perty ; and as to the keys, they might have been re moved by some of the students in the pranks they were constantly in the habit of playing. Mr. JARDINE said he would express no opinion upon the subject until he could hear some account of other charges, several of which, he was given to un derstand, were about to be brought against the pri soner. Constable West, F division, said that on Saturday last, while searching the prisoner's lodgings, 25, Har wood-street, Hampstead-road, he found in a front room occupied by the prisoner the three diagrams produced, which were used in anatomical lectures, "Jones's Animal Kingdom," " Olden's Odentogra phy," a pocket compass, a small vice, a spirit measure, and part of a dog's skull. John Forrest, curator at the museum, King's Col lege, identified the eiagrams as belonging to the cor oration of the College. The " Animal Kingdom " was stolen from the library, and the other book, which belonged to Professor Thomas Rymer Jones, was taken from a drawer, the name of the author being partially erased, and that of the prisoner being sub stituted. The compass and spirit measure were also stolen from the college. They were missed at various times, the measure being stolen about three years back, and the pocket compass, which formed part of the Queen's collection, about a year and a half past. The vice was the property of witness. In answer to Mr. Wontner, witness said the pri soner sometimes drew diagrams on boards with chalk, but he never knew him to take home such as these produced, nor could he obtain them without first pro ducing a professor's order. Superintendent Pearce said there were several other charges against the prisoner, and as the witness to prove the next was in attendance, the Court would allow him to give evidence. Mr. Edward Sanford, a medical student, identified a volume of " Bell's Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Body," as having been stolen from his box in the college. He left town in the month of April, and on his return in the beginning of October two volumes were stolen. The proprietor of the Star Coffee-house, in Long acre, said ten books were found in the lodgings of the prisoner that had been stolen from his rooms, which the prisoner was in the habit of frequenting, and as he had been a loser to a serious extent, he was anxious to have the case investigated. Mr. JARDINE told him he might attend at the Old Bailey, and prefer a bill of indictment, but he thought there was no use in taking depositions in more cases than three, upon which the witnesses should be bound over, and the prisoner remanded for a fortnight. UNION -HALL. The prosecutor identified the whole of the pro perty. The drawers and desk had been forced with some brass compasses and a pair of snuffers, which were lying about, and were broken to pieces. In answer to the charge, the prisoner said he picked up the bundles. A 3 for the robbery, he was quite in. nocent of it, and did not even know where the house was situated. He wished to be remanded, as some clue might be obtained of the real offenders. Mr. _FRAIL', said he intended to do so until Thursday. THE LATE FATAL STEAM-BOAT COLLISION CLOSE OF 'THE INQUEST. The inquiry into the circumstances attending the late fatal collision off Greenwich between the Orwell and Sylph steam-boats was resumed yesterday be fore Mr. J. C. Carttar, coroner for Kent. Mr. Wilkinson (of the firm of Cobbold and Wilkin son), and Mr. Cattarns (of the firm of Cattarns and Fry), attended, as on the previous occasion, to watch the case. The inquest room again was densely crowded. The first witness called was Dr. Mitchell, of Greenwich, who proved, from a post mortem examination, that Sullivan died from suffocation in the water, and Shepherd from the severe injuries he had sustained about the head and body. Commander Henry Smith, of her Majesty's steam frigate Rattler, being sworn, said I was a passenger on board the Sylph, on the afternoon of Tuesday week, and was standing abaft the engine-room when that vessel left the Greenwich pier on her way towards Black wall. The weather was so thick at that time that I was induced to remain on deck. There was a man in the bows looking out forward After proceed • ing a short distance I heard the noise of a steamer ap proaching us. I looked out forward, but saw nothink. Immediately afterwards the man on the look out said something to the captain, when he called out " Stop her, go astern." I then saw a large steamer bearing down upon us, at about twenty-five yards distance. At that time a collision was inevitable, and when the captain saw the large vessel so close to him, he folded his arms and said, " By God, it is all over with us!" I could not see the shore on either side at that time. When the collision took place the motion of the Sylph was quite stopped, and if a boat had been under her bows we should not have injured her. I am of opinion that the speed was on the Orwell whsn the collision occurred. She must have been going at a good speed, because she cut quite through the deck of the Sylph, and from the position in which the latter was, it was impossible that she could have contributed much force to the collision. Yesterday Mr. George Walter, of No. 42, Lom bard-street, was charged before Mr. Traill with com mitting a violent assault on Mr. John Young Aker man, Secretary of the Greenwich Railway Company. From the complainant's statement it appeared that on the 19th instant, he entered one of the first-class carriages of the above company, and had scarcely taken his seat when the defendant walked up to the door, and, aldressing him, used some irritating lan guage, and at the same time got into the same car riage. With the view of preventing any unpleasant consequences, which might arise if they both pro ceeded in the same carriage, the complainant alighted, and, on getting out on the platform, he was followed by the defendant, who was armed with a stick, and who having applied the epithets rascal and scoundrel to complainant, then made a blow at him with the stick, which he warded off, when he again repeated the attempt. Complainant, on finding him so deter mined on committing violence, struck him in his own defence, when some of the servants of the Company interfering, they were separated; and, for his own preservation, he considered it necessary to adopt the present proceedings against the individual by whom he had been assaulted without provocation. The defendant produced the stick with which it was alleged he committed the assault, said that it was a light bamboo cane, and that if a person were struck even with great violence with it, it would not produce much damage. Mr. TRAiLL said that the indignity of even being struck slightly with such a stick, or cane, was exas perating to the feelings of any man. The Magistrate then asked the defendant what explanation he wished to give, or whether he was desirous of calling any witnesses ? The defendant said he wished to call a gentleman who witnessed the whole of the transac tion, and who would be enabled to give a very diffe rent version of the affair., That gentleman, however, was not present, but if the magistrate would post pone the case he (defendant) would have an adver tisement inserted in the newspapers, as he did not know his address, calling upon him to attend to give evidence. Mr. Cattarns here produced two models of the boats, that of the Sylph showing the extent of the injury she had sustained by the collision. Examination continued—l am decidedly of opinion that the Sylph was motionless when the collision took place. Had the Orwell put her helm astarboard as the Sylph did, no accident would have occurred. I think the Sylph was going down the river much quicker than a prudent captain would have brought her, considering the fog which prevailed ; and I am of the same opinion as to the speed at which the Or well was coming up. In such a state of the weather there should be soma regulation to prevent vessels from proceeding at more than half speed. My im pression was, that we were travelling much quicker than we ought to have been and I kept on deck in consequence, fearing the possibility of an accident. After the collision I remained on the quarter deck of the Sylph until all the deck passengers were got off, when I went on board the Orwell. I then called out to the man in charge to back astern and get the two vessels clear, as I saw that the people were prevented from getting out of the cabin of the Sylph while the vessels hung together. By Mr. WILKINSON—The engines of the Sylph were eased before I saw the Orwell. It was the fact of her being eased that attracted my attention, and I then looked out forward, and saw the Orwell's bows close upon us. I judge of the speed of the Orwell by the nature of the injuries inflicted on the Sylph. I think she must have been going eight miles an hour at least. The complainant said he had no objection to an adjournment of the case, but in the meantime he called on the magistrate to make the defendant find bail, as he really went in personal danger. The defendant said he would give his honour that he would have no communication with the com plainant until the day the inquiry was resumed. The complainant said that even with that promise he would not be satisfied, unless the defendant pro mised to " take the pledge" (the reporter understood it), or the magistrate required him to find sureties. Mr. TRAIL'. said that he felt it his duty to adjudge the defendant to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of 501., and find two sureties of 251. each, to keep the peace for twelve months, as a protection, against any injury to the complainant, and that the further investigation pf the assault might stand over until a future day, Capt. Smith was re-examined by the coroner, and again questioned by Mr. Wilkinson, but nothing im portant was elicited beyond that which is above given. He declined to give an opinion that the commander of the Orwell was to blame, and at the same time said that he thought the captain of the Sylph had done all he could to prevent accident. Mr. George Edwards, of Sutton, Suffolk, being sworn, said, I am a mariner, and was on board the Orwell when the accident occurred. I was standing near the paddle-box, on the starboard side, when saw a steam-boat ahead about one hundred yards. The vessel appeared to be across the river, with her bow a little downwards. I heard Capt. Wrackham give the order to stop her and back her astern. The collision took place directly after. I do not know what speed either vessel had upon her when the acci dent occurred, but the Sylph, when I first saw her, seemed to have headway. Capt. Wrackham was for ward at the time. By Mr. Wilkinson—l was nearer to the engine room than Captain Wrackham was. I heard no one give any order to the engineer. I could-have done so had any one spoken to the call-boy. Robert Fuller, mariner, of Ipswich' s Kw I am I seaman on board the Orwell, and was upon the leek" ' out in the larboard bow on the afternoon of Thursclel week. I first saw th e S y l p h w h en s h e was a itbts fifty yards of the Orwell. I called on., " Stop her s ~ go astern ;" but in less th an a m i nu t e s h e s truekl I think wen I first saw her s h e was go i n g et L .' speed. The paddles were go i ng a h ea d j us t boo , she struck. Th e O rwe ll h a d very li tt l e spee d o n IA and as soon as those on the look-out called out, 5, • master in charge (Wi gg i ns ) s t oppe d t h e eng i n es. called out, " Stop her—go astern." The Orwell been eased previously, and was going "quite easily at the time. She h a d b een ease d a ll t h e wa y fr° Woolwich, and had come that distance about - five °, six miles an h ou r. W e were a b out twenty 311`"j he from the north s h ore , an d cou ld see t h e e d ge of t bank very pl a i n ly. Id o not t hi n k i t was possible too have avoided the co lli s i on , ow i ng to t h e spee d a t %ch ic the Sylph was proceeding. William Pullifer, another of the crew of the ° f# well, gave similar evidence. William Linney, of Ipswich, another seaman °, li s board the Orwell, said—l think that if the SylP i helm had be en p or t e d, i ns t ea d o f being put a starbo ard ' t i the collision might ha ve b een avoided. 'Very l ie seconds elapsed between ou r fi rs t see i ng h e r end I collision taking place. By Mr. Wilkinson—lt is a general rule laid d°, a lcil by the Trinity-house, that when there is any ds"e of a collision between two vessels, both should po their helms. Mr. William Wallace, shipb u ild er , of Greeese ad, a passenger on bo a rd th e S y l p h, confirmed the er t dence or the other passengers. My i m p r ession/ I ' h said, at the time was th a t th e cap t a i n o f the SY Pis exercised great presence of mind in the position which he was placed. By the CORONER—Had th e Syl p h b een going P r y viously at half-speed, I think the accident mighte it been avoided. The fog came on very thick so once, just after we left the south shore. .11) Henry Rogers (the ca ll-b oy on b oar d th e Orvi` o proved having giv en th e eng i neer or d ers to " t easy," after leaving Bl ac k wa ll, an d t o " St o p," P i before the collision took place. Joseph Sutcliffe, the engineer in charge, deP" ic i that on the passage up f rom Bl ac k wa ll t h e en gine 1 ;_ .0 so made about seven r evo l u ti ons per m i nu t e , her ° speed being from 28 t o 30. H e was stan di ng bil ec usual in foggy we a th er , b e t ween t h e engines, I v o oe he heard the order given to " Stop her;' and j e astern." He did so, and after the engines had Ml e two revolutions astern th e co lli s i on t oo k p l ace , and s, then shut the steam o ff an d came on deck. it ' s ke pied about 15 seconds to stop the engine.. and 1 the two revolutions astern. James Wiggins, a brother of the master in chei and supercargo on ,b oar d th e O rwe ll , was next er amined. He was at the wheel when the co llision t L L place, and his evidenc e diff ere d i n no respect n that of the other parties on board the Orwell. ho l The CORONER remarked that he thought they now got out all the circumstances of the case. &be . t The foreman, on th e p ar t o f hi mse lf an d bre' jurors, said he thou g ht th e y h a d a l rea d y h ea rd V A ,. enough to enable them t o come t o a conc l us i o n on subject. The CORONER then commenced summing up, 8 1 „i4 through the evidence in his usually clear and pel / f r ac t cuous manner. lie r e mark e d particularly on th e j j o g that the Sylph was s h own t o h ave been procnbe at full speed until w ithi n a very f ew momen ts 01 0 , 0 collision taking place ; while on the other hand it not attempted to be set up that the Orwell bad P r o ceeded at anything beyond a very slow rate $ passing Black wall. ors' The jury after an absenc e o f h a lf an hour „ d tion, returned the following unanimous ve rdict-- - _,j, consider that the deceased persons met their death 7 0 ( dentally ; but we are o f op i n i on th at the caPtiabiell the Sylph was highly t o bl ame f or th e spee d et W o , e ll he had previously been going; we believe the Of, the to have been the m ov i ng p ower t o th e d ea th deceased persons, but cons id er th e par ti es on board st r° yo itl, vessel u-ed due cauti on , an d did a ll th ey co uld to ! the accident, and th e j u ry are unan i mous ly efOl pioti d i. that Captain Sweisland should be severely r e .r manded by the Coroner." The verdict appeared to give general satin hi, and Captain Sweisl an d was _suitably admonis h. Mr. Carttar. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 23. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.) HOLMAN V. BRIGHTMAN. This was an action to recover damages for an in jury alleged to have been done to the plaintiff's character by the publication of a pamphlet containing malicious and libellous paragraphs against him. Mr. Jervis and Mr. Greenwood were counsel for the plaintiff; Sir T. Wilde and Mr. Smith for the defendant. In the declaration, it was stated that the plaintiff, having retired from the sea, had commenced the busi ness of a sail- maker, being at the same time a sur veyor to Lloyd's Register of British and foreign shipping, and a valuer of losses occasioned by the sea. The defendant is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Maritime Assurance Com pany. The pamphlet which formed the ground of the action was addressed to the insurance com panies, underwriters, and others, interested in the mercantile marine. The seventh page of the pamphlet contained the following statement :—" The Directors of the General Navigation Company, having taken into their serious consideration the charges made by their underwriter against Mr. James Bowen and Mr. John Holman, two of the surveyors of Lloyd' s R eg i s t er of British and foreign shipping, for having, in their official capacity, signed certain documents and com mitted acts calculated to facilitate the establishment of unjust claims against the Company, in respect of the ships Hannibal and Brutus, are decidedly of opinion that these officers have been guilty of acts of indiscre tion, negligence, and misrepresentation, which called for the most marked and unequivocal disapprobation of their employers, and they are a r bprehensive that the course pursued by the Committee of Lloyd's Register in confining the expression of their disapproval to the circumstances of Mr. Bowen having affixed his signa ture to the abstract of the bills fOr repairs to the schooner Hannibal, not noticing other parts of his conduct equally reprehensible, and in the case of the survey of the Brutus, passing over the conduct of Mr. John Holman, not only without censure, but with implied commendation, will have the effect of aggravating the evil com plained of, instead of redressing and correcting it. Moreover, the Directors cannot give to the surveys and reports of men guilty of such practices that faith and credence which the statements of the officers of a society that exercises so important an influence on the commercial marine of the United Kingdom ought in all cases to command." Then,. again, in the twenty-first page:—" And they consider that they might, with a greater show of equity, seek to be re imbursed, and have the expenses they have been sub ject to in procuring the evidence necessary to resist the unjust claims brought against them, founded on the gross misrepresentations and misstatements both of James Bowen and of John Holman, and to prefer this demand against the Committee of Lloyd's Register, who appointed them to, and still retain them in, the responsible office of their surveyors, and for which services in that capacity they are deriving remuneration." The pamphlet was published in September last, by W. James Gray, the underwriter of the Assurance Company, under the authority of the Directors, the avowed object being to secure the co operation of insurance companies in introducing more efficient men into the surveying department. It was sent to the Shipping Gazette, and appeared in the columns of that journal. The defendant had two pleas on his record—first, that of Not Guilty; and, secondly, that the libel was true. The substantial facts of the case were these :—The Brutus having sailed from Ballina, in Ireland, bound for London, with a cargo of oats, ran upon a bar during the passage. She was insured for the sum of 500/. A dispute having arisen between the owners and the Insurance Company, the defendant, a sur veyor in the employ of the Directors of Lloyd's Re gister, was sent down to examine her, and by his re port he confirmed a previous condemnation of the vessel. It was to his conduct in so doing that the alleged libel referred. Several witnesses were called on the part of the defendant, for the purpose of impugning the accuracy of the plaintiff's report as to the stat e o f th e vesse l . The trial did not terminate until half-past ten at night, when the jury returned a verdict for the plain tiff—Damages, 501. COLLIERY EXPLOSION NZ44lg MORRIsTON. (Abridged from the Cambrian) P Orel Soon after the workme n en t ere d Mel. cash felin Colliery, the property of the Sboyonda.rt Company, situated near Aforriston, Hof foul nt! they were alarmed by a n ex pl os i o n °' name one of the he a di ngs , i gn it e d b y a collier, - The Thomas James, wh o was mos t severe ly burn' o f the workmen immediat e ly p rocee d e d f rom all part s ..,b e re pit to the scene of th e l amen t a bl e occu rrence, ^ they found the three lif e l ess b o di es o f J o hn /W h o n f aged 20, Matth ew Fi s h er , age d 2 0 , b o th of W" to were unmarried, and Thomas Morgan, a boys Ai l• years of age, who h a d b een most s h oek i ng lf . figured, his head having been det ac h e d f rom th e DlT h ' e by the violent concussion of air consequent upon explosion. explosion. th° An inquest was held on Monday and from .. left e n evidence it appeared that the pit had bee° t h a t the worked during Saturday and Sunday, 8 : 0 1007 61 to deceased boy Th omas M organ , w h o was I air, 'ell turn the fan whi c h c l eare d th e m i ne 01 Mffectualli, too young and t oo wea k t o wor k th e fan e o wed o l and that the wor ki ng th e f an h a d on ly CO few minutes before the men entered the pit• diet of The jury, having deliberated, re t ur ned a ve r ha d the " Accidental D ea th," w ith an op i n i on , "that " 1 ,„ an fan been worked d ur i ng S un d ay n i g ht, or ef; oc - Monday mornin g , th e exp l os i on wou ld not hat e curred ; that there is blame attached to the oier re d, for not h av i ng seen th a t th e p i t was properly cl o af and for not havin g em pl o y e d a - person suffi°' ; strang to work at the fan." ANOTHER ATTEMPTED. ROBBERY AT O S KATHERINE DOCKS.—We stated, in The Su!' n tioto days a go , th a t ro bb er i es h a d been very freque_ l ll " 6o at the great dock es t a bli s h ments , an d instanceu._ s rott than five c ases a hi c h h a d occurre d i n the n ai o t space of a f or t n i g h t . It appears, that notwitbA e the amount of suspicion caused by the cases en urner, and the great additional precautions which 113° ,0 e taken by th e D oc k C ompan i es to prevent oectlrr el3 o lee t a similar kind, another daring attempt has been %oe the bt. K a th er i ne D oc k to stea l a quan tity of 'OO3 from a ship loading there at the present time' one' happily has not been attended with any degree 0 ' foe cess, the same having been discovered in suffie l e u t ot o to prevent the thieves from carrying their telotneseye tention into effect, in a rather singular manner . c. hptle ° , ral casks of b ran dy h a d b een remove d f ro m the - I. 7. e get" Docks by craft, and shipped on board a vessel at PDX loading in the St. Katherine Docks. On Sunday the noon, the whole of the ship's crew beinc , absent e o ilf time, the Customs officer in charge, who wagt be s ol e person on board, heard the whine of a dog fie fore place adjacent, and wa s in the ac t o f wa lking jet„, m 001 s"" part of th e vesse l, f or th e purpose o f g i v ing 1 """ o ble, bones, the r e mai ns o f hi s di nner . w h en . he f oe over something which, o n f ur th er exam ination , heap to be several bladders containing brandy, that he t i e pillaged from one of the casks recently shipped., 0 $0 mediately called assistance, and caused infornas" ° ette l4 ., given to the dock awhorities, and by this simPl? bee t ` no doubt, another extensive robbery of spirits n e _at prevented. No clue has been obtained with resl;ter the parties concerned in the affair. It is a matl e fi 6 0 1 tr, me surprise, considering the strict watch st e .„ e s 1 "" supposed to be kept at the docks, how those th i , Rl7 . be accomplished, or even attempted. V si # th e VICTORIA PARIC..—SALE OF BONNER'S a t- -- „ terday a sale by auction took pl ace , by Ore e ' o jeiel' h Commissioners of Woods and Forests, of the_iiwb of residence of Bishop Bon ner , ca ll e d B onn er's II t V ii e is situated on a part of the site now is the be Po e formation of Victoria Park, at the Eastlsid• •.".- of tb tion remaining, which is stated to have been S e e d wings of th e or i g i na l P a l ace, i s a b out one hunb, tb n , twenty feet long, and abo u t t we nty f e et in w- e reel:j external walls being the same that were fir st ;ors', The building has for se ve r a l y ears p as t been trbollf e into five h ouses , ore o f w hi c h was a puh",„` t to These hav e b een i n t erna lly cons t ruc t e d a ccordingt o modern style of archit ec t u r e , an d th ere is verY t ot o denote its former state, but it is expected th a ill course of the demolition of the premises, there Wb the found s ome memor i a l s t o connect t h e l o cality f t ' possession of it by its celebrated owner. BIRTHS. On the 13th inst., at Bryntirion, near IVresu• - Wales, the lady of Captain E. Jones, of a son. On the 19th inst., at Eaton-place, the wife of Ge orge Etwes, Esq., of a son. uar e ' On the 21st inst., a t O rc h ar d- s t ree t, Portman*-r-. Nathaniel William Kindersley-, of a son. treet" On the 21 s t i ns t., i n St rat f or d- p l ace , o%ferd -5 i f f wife of J. Radcliffe larrett, Esq., of a daughter. t he 11 On the 21st inst., a t Will ow - wa lk, K en tish-tow n, 0 of Henry Wood, Esq., of a daughter. Jan's rfh° On the 22d inst., at Upper Clapton, Mrs. of $‘ Hawes, of a son. Istdi On the 22d inst., at Golder's-bill, Hendon, the ,‘• Bradford, Esq , of a daughter. if J. 3157' On the 22d inst., the lady of Commander -- „go R.N., of her Majesty's ship Daring, of a daughter. ofi r On the 22d inst., the lady of Charles Ring , Egg " tors'-commons, of a son e t MARRIED. IN et On the 19th inst., in the Cathedral, SalisburP,6ol36 Joseph Phillimore, Es q , D.C.L., " to Charlotte An ne, sister of Evelyn Denison, Es 11.1. P ,of Ossingt°l4 county of Notti ng h am. q - - of WEL. P On the 21st i ns t., Willi a th Tyler, the second son e ~ i • >0 Smith, Bolt on - s t ree t, Piccadilly. of the i On the 21 s t inst., Mrs. Elizabeth Hubbar d, 0. North -road, Hoxton, aged 80. 9 44 On the 22d inst.., Charles Molyneux Keay Lock, 13/1' , OnUpper Cheyne- row, helsea. On the 22d inst. i C n Park-street, Grosvenor -fg e A Sophia, eldest daughter of Sir Charles W. Blunt, P'^- , f reir . VOu' London: Printed and Published by MUR DO - Se. 111 0 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Ofi l . ,_ et4 c o oo7 to Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in Middlesex, Theaday, December 24,1844• koi tab it 11 4 Ili liC ob._ A bo%