The Sun. — London, England, 1844-11-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROH THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—As the Court of Aldermen has shown a disposition to listen to the remonstrances and recom mendations of Sir James Graham in the matter of the evening sittings of the Central Criminal Court, we venture to suggest to the Right Ilon. Baronet that he offer a hint to their worships as to the expediency of taking the state of the City prisons into their serious consideration. An intimation from him, that the Government may find it necessary to interfere, if the civic authorities do not undertake the obvious duty of rendering their prisons sufficiently capacious for the purposes of health, and to admit of something like classification of the prisoners, in difference of act as a spur upon the proverbial of the Court of Aldermen to such matters. Really, it is too bad that, while every other city and town of the empire has provided suitable buildings for the purpose of introducing the plans which are required for rendering prisons not merely places of confine ment, but of discipline, the criminal prisons of the City of London, provided and controlled by the Corpora tion authorities, should be, as they are, miserably de fective in everything that is required for the attain ment of this important object. Were it not notorious, and thus placed beyond all controversy, it would scarcely be credited that, 'in the very centre of the metropolis, stand ill-constructed buildings for the re ception of prisoners, placed therein for the punishment of offences against society—buildings which ought te be so constructed as to conduce to the reclaiming of those of the inmates who have not yet become har dened in crime. When surprise is expressed at the manifestly defective state of these City prisons, the answer which the inquirer in the cause receives is— " The Government has no control here : the Copora tion has absolute management of these prisons ; is extremely jealous of its privileges ; and, though the funds at its command and disposal are immensely large, it has not found either time or money for such purposes." Newgate—the principal criminal prison, situated in the heart of the metropolis, is notoriously in competent in point of size, and inconvenient in its construction, for the required purposes. We admit that there have been attempts to improve the system of management in this prison ; and that a marked change for the better has been effected. But the de fects of the building cannot be cured. These would prevent the best intentions of the most efficient prison disciplinarians from being carried into execution. The site of the prison is too contracted, and the formation of the wards and yards too confined, for the purposes of preserving the health of the prisoners ; classification, on which their reformation so much depends ; and stringent discipline, without which mere deprivation of personal liberty is no punishment to a London thief. But if Newgate be objectionable, as a pri son, for the reasons we have assigned, what shall be said of Giltspur-street Compter ? That prison was constructed according to the crude and im perfect notions of the prison architects of nearly a century ago ; when to thrust the largest number of prisoners within the narrowest pos sible space, and to surround them with immensely thick walls, was regarded as the perfection of prison building. With these now-exploded notions Giltspur-street Compter was constructed to accom modate about 150 prisoners. It is now by no means an unusual occurrence for 200 to be incarcerated therein :-210, and even 220, have been huddled to gether within its walls, exposed to the malaria arising from almost living putrescence ! We are not now describing things that were, and have passed away. Within the last few days, as we have reason to know, this was the case in Giltspur-street Compter ! What renders this state of things the more blameworthy is, that there is literally no excuse for their existence. So valuable is the site occupied by this ill-constructed and inefficient prison—especially to the Governors of Christ's Hospital, whose edifices it adjoins— that the latter have offered to build the Corporation of London a new prison, constructed after the best model, and on a convenient spot, in exchange for Giltspur-street Compter, and the site it occupies. Yet the prison stands—a monument of reproach to the City of London, and to the age and nation in which a Corporation is permitted to perpetuate a building which lacks every requisite, as a prison, suited to reclaim as well as punish its wretched in mates. STANDARD.—We insert to-day a great number of communications and letters upon the subject of some late proceedings in the diocese of Exeter, and of some further proceedings in the same diocese, which are expected with a nx i ous a l arm . Th ese communi cati▪ ons are not o ne -t wen ti e th par t o f th e communi cati▪ ons and letters upon the same subject received at our office within the last two days ; and we can state with perfect truth, that, in selecting them from the voluminous mass, we have been actuated chiefly by a desire to publish those only which appeared the most moderate in their views and the most temperate in style. Let us not, however, be understood as con demning the spirit of those correspondents whose fa vours we suppress. We hope that the channel of pub lication which they have preferred is warrant that they are good Protestants and zealous Churchmen; but the best men, when they are dissatisfied and in earnest, will, as was well remarked by the late excellent Michae Sedley, say bitter things ; and the case is one from the consideration of which we would, if possible, ex clude all bitterness. Every Protestant must feel a deep debt of gratitude to the Bishop of Exeter—all acknowledge his stupendous talents, so long and so indefatigably devoted to the service of our Protestant Church; and they who are acquainted with the kindness, the purity, and the sincerity of his private , life, must unite love of the man with their veneration of his public character. The errors of such a man are, it is true, the least to be overlooked, because they are by their example, the most dangerous ; but, surely they are to be treated with gentleness in the exposure of them. The feeling that the serious errors, into which we conscientiously believe the Bishop to have fallen in the recent proceeding, command such gentle treat ment, might have caused us to modify even those of the ar ti c l es re l a ti ng t o th e procee di ngs i n ques tion, which will be found in our columns, but that we dislike to meddle with the writing of our friends when we can help it, and also consider it necessary that the Bishop, and others who may be disposed to imitate him, shall be informed of the impression made upon the minds of some of the best Protestants and best Ckurchtnen of the country, by his Lordship's treatment of the Helston case. Fully apprised of that impression, the Bishop of Exeter would, we are convinced, be among the very first to labour in effacing it by the manly abandonment of a course which, though re commended to him by his fullest conviction leads, as he knows, to nothing essential in religion, to nothing at least both essential and good (for it may, in many ways, lead to essential evil), while it causes both offence and fear, not to say scandal. We have alrdady more than once lamented the prevailing propensity to make such questions as this before us the subject of newspaper discussion, but what can we do ? Views are presented and even acts are done that excite discontent and alarm from one extremity of England to the other, and the discontented and alarmed classes are compo.ed precisely of those whom we are most accustomed and most bound to respect. Are we to impose silence upon their remonstrances, even if we our selves could say that we stand indifferent in the matter, which certainly we cannot say P The able and truly learned correspondent, whose letter we annex to these observations, proves, we think, most satisfactorily, that even the letter of the law does not enjoin any rigour of rubrical con formity, like that suggested in the Helston case, upon either bishops or clergy ; but what if the letter of the law did enjoin such rigour ? The letter has been a dead letter for at the very least two centuries. Now this long desuetude would be treated as an absolute repeal of the law in every country of the world except England ; and upon these obvious grounds of reason, that in the lapse of many years changes of manners arise, new institutions have birth, new laws ate enacted, to which it is natural to suppose the dormant law would have been adapted had not the law slept in the practical disregard of the people.. Ia the secular code of England, and in this code only in all the world, desuetude, as we have admitted, does not work a repeal ; and why ? Because in England, the Legislature has for centuries been presumed to be always alive, and awake, and vigilant to relieve our code from mischievous or frivolous and useless laws ; an un merited compliment to the Legislature of the coun try, as was proved by all the cloud of disused and obsolete laws swept from the Statute-book in 1824 by the present Premier; but a complimen tary notion which sufficiently explains why in Eng land only desuetude does not work the rereil of a law. " Cessante ratione," however, " eessat et lex." Our ecclesiastical legislature is not constantly sit ting—on the contrary, it has not for more than a century sat for any effectual purpose ; and, therefore, by the analogy of all other codes in similar circumstances, •we are bound to con sider as repealed all ecclesiastical laws that have fallen into desuetude. Even supposing, therefore, in defia nce of the clear demonstration of our corres pondent, that the law relied upon by the Bishop of Exeter was ever of force, it is of force no l onger ; an d why in th e name of peace and com mon sense s h ou ld it be now revived' no other possible effect than to distract th e Chu ?eh? IMPORTA TION OF Du.r4:3-n"....,, L .,,. &c • — Wednesday afternoon, at four o'clock, the—Zl -picket Batavier, Captain David Dunlop, arrived at t a ll ' steam-packet wharf, from Rotterdam. SlimietbmriCenoultatrifinfteis six head of live oxen and cows, and an tity of live poultry, chiefly geese, turkeys, and quan tity The importation of all kinds of live poultry is now car ried on to a greater extent than usual, as the ice on the Dutch coast may be expected to put a stop to the navi gation in a few weeks, and dealers are bringing over large quantities at present to be fattened for Christmas, LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANGER Y.—Noy. 21. The Lord Chancellor sat to-day at Westminster. Shortly after ten o'clock his Lordship heard motions. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX. The further arguments° in this part-he rd motion, which has already occupied the Court soul; time, were resumed, and occupied the Court the whole day. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 21. The Vice-Chancellor of England took motions to-day, none of which possessed any point of public interest. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 21. (Sittings in Banco.) At the sitting of the Court this morning Mr. Justice Erie appeared on the bench and took the usual oaths as one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas. His Lordship was received by the Bench and the Bar standing. Having taken the oaths the Learned Judge bowed to the Judges of this Court and to the Bar and re tired. As he left the Court Mr. Justice Williams shook him heartily by the hand. THE QUEEN V. BARNARD GREGORY. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on being called on to move, said that he appeared fur the prosecution in this case, but he understood that his Learned Friend, Mr. Platt, was about to make an application on the part of the defendant. Mr. PLATT had to make two applications—first, that the period fixed for the bringing up the defendant to receive the judgment of the Court on an indictment to which he had pleaded guilty should be enlarged ; and, secondly, that the trial of the defendant on a crimieal information, which at present stood fixed for the 29th of the present month, should be postponed. The defendant had pleaded guilty to two indictments in the Central Criminal Court, the one charging him with having pub lished a libel on the Duke of Brunswick, the other charging him with the publication of a libel on Mr. Valiance, the Duke's attorney. On these indictments he had been sentenced to tw o periods of imprisonment in Newgate—the one of eight months, the other of four month,. Lord DENMAN—When will the whole term of his im prisonment expire ? Mr. PLATT—On the 26th of this month, my Lord. The Learned Gentlemen then proceeded to state that in support of this application he had the affidavit of the defendant, which stated that he was suffering severely in his health in consequence of his imprisonment, that he had been visited by Sir Charles Scudamore, and Sir James Anderson, physicians, and Mr. Blood, Mr. Pelly, and Mr. M'Murdo, surgeons, who had certified to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that his health was in a dangerous state—that his health had been still further impaired recently by the rupture of a blood-vessel, and that he was incapable, from illness, of preparing to take his trial. The affidavit also stated that the regulations of the gaol did not allow the free use of writing materials, nor did they permit him to have free access to his private papers, which were necessary for the preparation of his defence. The application was made bona fide, and not for the purposes of delay, for if he were compelled to attend the Court his life would be endangered. Lord DENMAN—Do any of the medical men make an affidavit ? Mr. PLATT—No, my Lord. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—If there was an affidavii from any one medical man, I would not resist the apph. cation. Mr. PLATT—Do your Lordships think that the de fendant should be brought up at the risk of his life, for the purpose of giving his prosecutors an opportunity of indulging their vindictive feelings ? Their object is plain—they wish to destroy this man. Lord DENMAN—But, Mr. Platt, we want before we decide to ascertain if his life will really be in peril. At present we have little more than the statement of the party himself to that effect. Mr. PLATT—A habeas was obtained in the other Court for the purpose of bringing him up for judgment, and Mr. Justice Patteson on application enlarged the rule. The Court has already once consented to the post ponement of this case. Lord DENMAN—Perhaps the application was not op posed at that time ? Mr. PLATT—On, yes, my Lord, it was. There has not been a single step taken in this case in which we have not been opposed. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said, that if the present state ment had been supported by the affidavits of the medical men, it would not have been befitting in him to have opposed the application, so far as related to the judg ment of the Court. Mr. PLATT presumed that it would make no difference if he were now to add the affidavits of the medical men. Lord DENMAN thought that course might perhaps be adopted if Mr. Sergeant Talfourd would consent ; but it was not because the case had been postponed before that a further indulgence was now to be craved. If such affidavits were made as were satisfactory to Mr. Ser geant Talfourd, the better course, probably, would, be, that both the period for bringing the defendant up for judgment and the period fixed for his trial should be postponed. Mr. Sergeant TALPOURD only resisted the application because he mistrusted both the statements which had been made. It was ultimately arranged that the further consi deration of the application should be postponed until Saturday, and that in the meantime the affidavits of the medical men should be filed. BAIL COURT, Novi 21. (Sittings in Banco.) THE QUEEN V. JOEL SPINNER. Mr. POULSON moved for a rule to show cause why two inquisions taken on the bodies of two persons, who had died from accident on the river, should not be quashed. The proceedings had been already removed into Court by certiorari. There were several objections on the face of the inquisitions.—Rule granted. THE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOHN HAILSTONF.. Mr. GUNNING in this case moved for a mandamus directed to the Rev. John Hailstone, Vicar of Botisham, calling upon him to show cause why he should not re store Thomas Flack to the office of parish clerk. He was appointed to the office of clerk fifteen years ago, and performed the duties of his office till the 14th of July. He was told by the vicar that he was removed from his office, and no reason was assigned by the vicar for such a proceeding. The clerk attended in church on the fol lowing Sunday, from which he was removed by two con stables, by order of the vicar, who gave notice to all per sons who might be desirous of having the office to send in their claims. Upon this the solicitor for the clerk applied to the vicar to know who his attorney was, as it was his (the clerk's) intention to apply to the Court. Mr. Justice PATTESON thought the proceeding a very extraordinary one, and could not but think that the whole of the facts were not before the Court. He would, however, grant a rule.—Rule nisi granted. IMPARTE C. C. WILSON. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the other day an application had been made by Mr. Peacock for a habeas corpus to the Island of Jersey, on behalf of Mr. C. C. Wilson, and that application was made on the affidavit of Mr. Wilson himself. That affidavit did not state what was the peculiar law of the Island of Jersey, stating merely that he was in custody fee. an alleged con tempt of the Royal Court of that Island. He (the Soli citor-General) was now to apply to the Court for a rule to show cause why that writ should not be quashed quia improvide emanavit, or why a supersedeas should not issue. He thought it only respectful to his Lordship to bring the subject before him, because he believed if the circumstances of the case had been fully stated, his Lord ship would have hesitated before he granted the writ. The Court was quite aware, from the case of The King v. Hobhouse, that the granting of a writ of habeas dur ing term time was discretionary. lie (the Solicitor- General) made the present application on the affidavit of the Procurator-General of Jersey, who stated that he had held the office of Procurator-General since 1823. He always understood, and believed, that the Island of Jersey, and the other Channel Islands, were annexed to the Crown of England at the time of the Conquest by William Duke of Normandy, and that they were the only portions of that duchy which remained to England : that Jersey was governed by peculiar laws and customs, essentially different from those of Eng land : that the Royal Court of Jersey was composed of the baillie, twelve jurats, the Procurator-General, the Advocate-General, &c., who had jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal. The affidavit then went on to state the circumstances under which the Court ordered Mr. Wilson to be imprisoned. He (the Solicitor-General) would now draw the attention of the Court to the point whether this Court had power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to the Island of Jersey ; and in the next place he would submit that if the Court had that power, it was discretionary with it whether it would grant it or not, and that the circumstances of this case were such as would induce the Court not to exercise it on the present occasion. The Learned Gentleman then referred to Lord Coke's 4th Institute, p. 286, to show that a writ of habeas corpus would not run in Jersey, though the King's commission would. It was true there was a habeas corpus granted in the case of Overton, one of the regicides of King Charles, who took refuge in Jersey, where he was imprisoned several years. The note upon that case, however, was very imperfect. The 12th sec. of the 31st of Charles 11., which was the Habeas Corpus Act, merely referred to imprisonments where the parties had been sent abroad, and detained in prison in the places specified in that section of the Act. There was nothing in the Habeas Corpus Act applicable to the circumstances of this case, where the party was not sent out of England, but imprisoned for an offence committed in Jersey. It appeared, from a note in Mr. Justice Coleridge's edition of Blackstone, vol. L, p. 108, that " prerogative writs from the King's Bench, such as mandamus, prohibition may issue to every part of the dominions of the Crown of England. The distinction was between a foreign dominion, which belonged to a Prince succeeding to the throne of England, such as Hanover, and territories obtained by conquest, or in any other mode annexed to the Crown of England. Accord ing to this distinction prerogative writs would not run in those islands as a part of the Duchy of Normandy." He (the Solicitor. General) would not go the length of say ing that the Court had no jurisdiction at all with regard to this point, but he prayed in aid the doubt which existed. The usual course of proceeding in those cases was to apply to the Queen in Council, and it would be most in convenient if the Court, by granting a writ of habeas corpus, were to bring persons from Jersey or the Planta tions into this Court, where there was no person to ap pear for them. Under those circumstances, he thought that the Court, supposing it had the power to grant the writ, would hesitate, before it exercised the discretion with which it was vested, in a case like the present. The Court could, if it thought proper, order the de fendant to go at large upon bail. itrlesdl was i ea t o es : P e rt rule.Ta i T n E I y s r u — h ec l nk t tb i hy s e tquitemotion nov c e e t y a , r that you are Mr. e st fore en m t was a m nd ad a e sk b e e d - Mr. Peacock to show me whether I had th e power, an d gerund i mm attehelyacceiteodf it he Corpus Act which ELMO positivv, and rHE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MO R Il G N.OVEIVIBER 22, 1344. (nothing more was said. I think it would h av e b een bet ter if he had given me more information on the subject; but it might be also fairly said that I ought to have that information myself, and therefore it was a pity that the writ was issued without more consideration. With re gard to the bail, I do not think it becomes me to direct anything on that subject, as it would be ratber begging the question, and perhaps carrying our authority further than the sending of the writ. I have no doubt that the Court there will do what is right. The rule was granted, and the time enlarged for making a return to the writ. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 21. THE REGISTRATIONS. The Court this morning resumed the hearing of appeals from the decisions of the revising barristers, under the Act of the 6th Victoria. BAXTER V. THE OVERSEERS OF DONCASTER. This was an appeal against the decision of the revising barristers for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who had refused to expunge from the list of voters certain assessors and collectors of assessed taxes, appointed by the Commissioners of the Land- tax. Mr. Hildyard appeared for the appellants, and Sir Gregory Lewin for the respondents. The case was considered important, as it involved the votes of two persons in every parish in the kingdom. The question depends upon this, whether the 43d of Geo. 111. is to be taken as repealing the 22d of the same reign, which excluded from the franchise all salaried public officers and servants ; and whether the claimants came under the category cf those public servants who are still excluded by the 43d Geo. 111. from voting at the election of Members to serve in Parliament. The LORD CHIEF JutrrlcE said that those officers were not appointed by the Crown. They were com pelled, whether they liked it or not, to take upon them selves a troublesome and responsible office. There was another case set down for argument, in which a similar point was involved ; their Lordships, therefore, would hear that second case in its due course, and until then postpone the decision of the present case. BAXTER V. NEWMAN. This also was an appeal from the decision of the re vising barrister of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The argument, having been partly heard, was postponed, in consequence of the illness of Mr. Martin. DAVIS V. WADDINGTON. The appellants in this case are the brethren of Jesus Hospital, Rothwell (Northamptonshire, N. D.), who claimed to vote upon the qualification of their life in terest in the property of that charitable foundation. The revising barrister disallowed the claim. Mr. MANSELL, in support of the appeal, cited nume rous cases to show that the brethren have a share in the proceeds of the freehold estate, so long as they observed the rules and orders of the hospital. That was an in terest " viand° se bene gesserint," and therefore, accord. ing to all the cases referred to, was to be held as a life interest in the freehold. Mr. Sergeant BYLES, for the respondent, said that the brethren had not a life interest, for, according to the charter, the governors had not only the appointment of the " master and twenty-four poor and infirm men," but also the expulsion or removal of them, the master and brethren, " when and as often as" to them, the go vernors, or the majority of them, might seem fit. The charter laid down certain rules, for breach of which the master or any of the brethren should be expelled ; for instance, if he married, or was an " idler." But the governors were not limited by that specific law, for they had unlimited power to make bye-laws and regulations, and to expel for any reasonable cause. In fact, the free hold was vested in the governors alone, and the brethren had no property. But he felt so strong on the other part of the case, that he would not argue this latter point at present, especially as it would arise in the next appeal. The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE said that the Court was of opinion that the persons whose names were attempted to be put upon the registry had no freehold interest in the estate. The charter gave to the governors in the most unlimited manner the power of expelling them. The decision of the barrister is confirmed. MErNN V. DENTON. This was an appeal from the borough of Bury St. Edmund's. The claim to vote was made for a house, which was in reality but a cow-house, with one room occupied by the person in care of the cows. The COURT held that where there was a habitable room actually occupied as a dwelling, that constituted a house, and the claim was good. DOSS V. THE OVERSEERS OF ST. MICHAEL'S, LICHFIELD. The appellant occupied a house jointly with his father, who alone was rated, although the son paid the rent. The barrister refused the claim, and the Court now de cided against the appeal on the ground that the payment by the son was a voluntary act, and could not entitle him to vote, as he was not rated. MARSHALL V. BROWNE. This appeal was also from Lichfield. It appeared that the appellant, with five others, took a house jointly, for the purpose of procuring votes for the city of Lichfield. The barrister disallowed the claim on the ground that it came within the meaning of the Act the 7th and Bth Wm. 111., for the prevention of splitting votes. The COURT took time to consider their judgment. There being now but nine cases decided out of thirty three, and this being the last day set down for hearing registration appeals, Mr. COCKBURN begged to ask their Lordships whether they would name a day for resuming the hearing ? The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said they must appoint a day out of term, as Monday would be the last day of term, and it was impossible to take any of the remaining appeals in the meantime. The Court then rose. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 21. (Sittings in Bunco.) BOOSEY V. PURDAY. In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Cramp ton, on the first clay of the present term, calling on the plaintiff in the action to show cause why an entry made at Stationers' Hall should not be expunged or varied, or why the plaintiff should not be restrained from using the said entry as evidence in the trial of the cause. Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved this morning to set aside the rule. It appeared that a musical composer of great eminence at Milan, named Bellini, composed an opera called La Sunnambula, for the managers of the great theatre in that city, and that on the 19th of February, 1831, he sold the copyright to an Italian gentleman of the name of Ricardi, the managers of the Milan Theatre concurring in the sale. On the 9th of June, 1831, Mr. Ricardi sold the opera to Mr. Boosey, the plaintiff in the present action, by whom it was entered at Stationers' Hall. Iu 1841, Mr. Purday, the defendant, published a song, which was part of the opera in ques tion. The plaintiff remonstrated with him upon the subject, and Mr. Purday, or his brother, agreed to sup press the publication and destroy the plates. Notwith standing this agreement, Mr. Purday had, in the preient year, published other parts of this opera, and for that infringement of the copyright the a c ti on was b roug h t. On th 13th of May, 1844, before the trial of the action, Mr. Boosey made another entry at Stationers' Hall, which was the entry now sought to be expunged. The parties had proceeded hitherto as far as declaration. The Learned Counsel then referred to the sth and 6th of Vic toria, relating to copyright, and contended if the rule were made absolute, the plaintiff would be deprived of an ad vantage which the legislature intended that he should possess. The case of Chappell and Purday, which was yet pending, afforded no criterion for the present. The Court here suggested that it would be desirable to let the matter stand over until Chappell and Purday had been decided. Mr. Sergeant Byles adopted the suggestion on the con dition that the defendant should keep an account of al that he might sell in the interval. ARCHES' COURI; Noy. 21. (Before Sir HERBERT JENNER Busy.) THE BASINGBOURNK CASE —THE OFFICE OF TIIE JUDOS PROMOTED BY TITCHMARSII, AGAINST CHAPMAN, CLERK—THE JUDGMENT. The Learned JUDGE upon the sitting of the Court this day, proceeded to pronounce judgment, and in doing so read through all the voluminous affidavits. commenting upon each point in the evidence as he went along. After referring to the demand made for the first time in 1840, respecting the burial of Jane Rumbold by her father, when it was alleged that the Rev. Mr. Chapman refused to perform the burial service over it, on the ground that the child had not been baptised according to the rites of the Church of England, which circumstances the Learned Judge did not seem to consider as affecting the latter proceedings, he commenced with the demand made in 1841, against which it was alleged by the Learned Advocates on the part of the Rev. Mr. Chapman, that due and convenient notice had not been given previous to the corpse being brought to the churchyard. Upon this subject the Learned Judge said that after a careful perusal of the affidavits of John Rumbold, the child's father, of the Rev. Mr. Moorse, and of the de ponent Hopkins, he could not see that either of them had distinctly stated any facts which would lead to the conclusion the required " die and convenient" notice had been given to Mr. Chapman. It was true that it deposed in the affidavit of Hopkins that when the corpse was deposited in the church porch, and he and John Rumbold went up to the Rectory to request that the I funeral service might be read, the Rev. Mr. Chapman expressed a wish that he might have a wiiness present, thus leading to an inference (as he had a person present) that he had a previous intimation of the object of this visit, but he (th e L earne d Judge) could not decide that this fourth individual might not have been accidentally present. The Rev. M r . M oo rse, John Rumbold, and Hopkins had each b a d i nterv i ews with Mr.Cbapman, , and he (the Learned Judge) thought, that nothing could have been easier than to prove the fact, if either one of the three had given " due and convenient" notice to the Rev. Gentleman. In the affidavit of the Rev. Mr._ Moorse, the most materi a l p o i nts were those. with respect to the deceased havin - Mceived the sacrament of baptism, according to the observances and forms of Christianity ; and also with respect to the application to the Bishop, in 1840. In fact, throu g h t h e w h ole of this gentleman's affidavit, there was not the smallest evi dence of notice having been given to Mr. Chapman. f leAr t i h t e h r r o e f s p t e h c e t d t o n e t I s s e e d a , ffid eg e a t h o e f (theJoh ! L i elalrunmbld in e d o , tbe Judge) felt bound to say, that he thought no proof had been afforded of due notice being given. If thoseministra tions were to be taken before a Court of Common law instead of an Ecclesiastical Court, and tried under a statute instead of a canon, there must have been proof of a refusal to perform the lawful re. q o u r i m r e a m n c e e n t s o , f afterthes those ureigahntsd had convebneteennt given,notice of f e ft t j h r e e ptehre ftphaerte)t•estoutceh,aargnd ed L w er o d ul u d e b n e me s o hadubjectedto himselfthe hpeenldaltt Court, ss to be necessary. It was precisely the same in this for if it had been proved that sufficient notice had been given of the time of burial to the cle rg yman, and if after that he refused to " perform his office," he was clearly guilty of an offence against the canon. It was his (the Learned Judge's) opinion, that every person must feel convinced that decency, and the due, and respectful, and ' effective performance of the reillire4 Mißiatratiovi peratively demanded that " due and convenient" notice, should be given to every clergyman, when he was re quired to perform any office of his ministry, and believing that, in the present ease, there had been a neglect of such observance, he felt bound to pronounce in the Rev. Mr. Chapman's favour, as it had not been proved that he was guilty of an offence against the canon, as the pre sent suit was promoted, and that the promoters had failed to establish the grouuils of their suit. COURT OF REVIEW, Nov. 21. (Before Sir K. BitucE.) His HONOUR sat this morning in Bankruptcy as Chief Judge of the Court of Review, and disposed of bankrupt petitions. At an early part of the proceedings Mr. Alexander took his seat within the Bar as Queen's Council. IN RE DAYKIN. The petition in this case was an application to the Court to annul a fiat of bankrurcy as invalid en the ground of an alleged fraud in creating a debt. The peti tion was first presented in September last, and now came on again for rehearing. The fiat was issued in No vember, 1843, and under it the assignees were chosen in December in the same year. The bankrupt had been a farmer, and had dealt in horses, and there was much contradictory evidence as to whether he had bought and sold them beyond what was necessary in bis business, and to such an extent as to constitute him a trader. The question had been twice before juries, in actions at nisi prius, and in both cases the validity of the fiat had been affirmed. The evidence on the trial was given by an immense number of jockies, horse dealers, &c. On the point as to whether the trading was established by that evidence or not, his Honour would not give an opinion ; but he thought it would require a very strong case indeed to induce the Court to annul a fiat affirmed by two juries before whom the questions at issue must have been directly brought. He should, therefore, refuse the peti tion. The remaining argumonts!which occupied the greater part of the morning, were directed only to the question of costs, with respect to which his Honour reserved his decision. SHERIFFS' COURT. Nov. 21. RICHARDS V. POILE. This was an action for the r ecover y o f t h e sum 11/. 11s. 6d. due for lodging and boarding the son of de fendant. William Wamford deposed that he was a grocer and cheesemonger, near Peckham. Plaintiff is also a grocer. residing at Peckham. He, witness, knewitho defendant's son Thomas for some time, and remembers that he had been at Mr. Richard's for about four months, during last summer, it being intended to apprentice him to plaintiff. Plaintiff frequently requested defendant to complete the transaction, but several objections were raised, and delays made, and when the defendant decided on apprenticing his son, it was found that the lad would not consent to be bound. Upon his making this refusal, plaintiff said that if he would not be bound, he had better leave the place, as he was running up expenses all the time he remained there. George Richards (a lad about 16 years. of age), the brother of the plaintiff, corroborated the previous evi• dence, and stated that in a conversation, at which he was present, plaintiff said that if the lad was not apprenticed he (defendant) would have expenses to pay, to which defendant answered that he knew that, but that he would apprentice his son. _ . The third witness was John Harrison, who proved the drawing out of an indenture, for which one guinea was in the bill, upon which the action was founded. Mr. CHARNOCK, on the part of the defendant, said that he thought defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, be- cause during the time that the lad was at the plaintiff's house, he served in his shop, and he (Mr. Charnock) considered that that was quite sufficient remuneration for his board and lodging. If an action had been brought by defendant for the wages of the lad during that time, no doubt Mr. Richards would have said that the board and lodging was a remuneration for the work; and, in deed, it was always understood, unless an agreement was made to the contrary effect, that, when a lad was taken upon trial, his work was payment for his board and lodging. The jury found for the defendant ; but gave 11. for the drawing up of the ind.mtures. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 21. (Before Mr. Commissioner HoLncrrp.) IN RE J. N. COOKE. The insolvent, whose case, it will be remembered, excited a considerable degree of interest, in consequence of his having been involved in gaming and bill transac tions to a large amount, this day applied by Counsel for his final order, under the 28th section of the 7th and Bth of Victoria. Although the debts of a doubtful character exhibited against him amounted to several thousands, yet the bona fide claims were somewhat under 900 L Mr. BAGLEY, who appeared for some of the creditors, said that if the fraudulent debts were expunged there could be no question that the insolvent's estate and his own personal efforts would soon satisfy the claims which were really just, and the gentlemen he represented would therefore offer no opposition to the insolvent's appli cation. The final order was then granted. Lord Huntingtower was in Court in expectation of being examined in the case, but his Lordship was not called on to give evidence. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) CLERKEIV WELL. John Smith, a half•starved-looklng — poor fellow, was charged as follows : Police-constable 101 G, with an air of great solemnity and importance, deposed that being on duty in St. John street, on the previous night, in plain clothes he saw the prisoner pass close to a shop-window and take some thing ; witness pursued, overtook and captured him, and found under his dress concealed Mr. GREENWOOD—What ? Policeman—A potato (producing a blooming " Murphy"). Mr. GREENWOOD—Anything else ? Policeman (eagerly)—Yea, a brass button. The poor wretch was discharged. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. On Wednesday a person named Edward Roche was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with inter marrying with Elizabeth Flack, his former wife being still alive. It appeared that the prisoner was married in Cork 26 years ago, and that after living with his wife about seven years he deserted her, and left her destitute with three young children. About five years ago he met with Elizabeth:Flack, and having married her, he took the Sun public-house in Heddon-street. The first wife having obtained information of her hus band's proceedings, came over to England, and, find ing that she was renounced by her husband, threw herself upon the parish, in order to compel him to allow her a maintenance. The second wife having been put in possession of unquestionable evidence of the prisoner's infamous conduct towards her, immedi ately separated from him and took a coffee-shop in Sherrard • street. In proof of the double marriage, the first wife was put in the witness-box. She produced her certificate. Mr. HARDwica said that the evidence of this wit ness could not be received. The first marriage must be proved, not by the wife, but by witnesses. The wife said all the witnesses were dew' but one, and that one was living in Cork. Mr. HARDWICK said the question now appeared to be one of expense—who was to defray the expense of procuring the personal attendance of the witness ? A solicitor, who attended on behalf of the prisoner, said, even admitting that clear evidence could be brought forward of the validity of the first marriage, la point, however, in dispute, he had a complete answer to the charge. He would admit that the first and second marriages had taken place, and his answer was that the defendant could not be called upon to pay the penalty of bigamy, inasmuch as he had lived apart from his wife for more than seven years. The 9th of George IV., chapters 31 and 32, expressly stated that when either husband or wife continually remained absent from each other for the space of seven years then last past, and had not been known by the other to be living within that time, " that he should not be liable to the consequences of bigamy." He could prove that the alleged first wife and the defendant had no intercourse or communication with each other for ten or twelve years, and that therefore the husband had a perfect right to consider his first wife dead, she being really dead in law, and to marry again. - Mr. HARDWICK wished to know how proof could be given that the party charged with bigamy did not know of the existence of his wife ? The solicitor said he apprehended it was not necessary to furnish any proof. It was only necessary to show that the parties had been asunder for seven years, and that they had had no communication with one another for that period, to entitle a party to the benefit of that clause. Mr. HARDWICK said, such a construction of the Act involved a manifest absurdity. According to this view of the law, it was only necessary for either husband or wife to conceal him or herself for a space of seven years to entitle them to marry again without rendering themselves liable to an indictment for bigamy. In the present case, the husband deserted his wife and family. He knew where to find them, but they knew not where to find him. He chose voluntarily to conceal himself from them for more than the space of seven years; there was no want of evidence of the existence of his wife, and it brought him within the meaning of the Act. The solicitor said he would not attempt to argue the rationale of the Act. What he contended for was, that a penal Act ought to be literally and strictly construed. The Court must look to the e , h of f proposed a s he t was reserve s in a words, and must b e gu id e d b y t h e i r p l a i n meaning. The Act in que s ti on did not requ i re t h e husband to make himself a cqua i n t e d w i th t h e ex i stence of his situation a wife, any more th an i t required the wife to know that a the husband was odisprove alive. discussion o n t h H e owv the objection,er validity the first marriage. Mr. HARDWICK said, the first step would be to procure evidence of the first marriage, as the parties were not in a situation to defray the expense, and application must be made to a judge at the Central Criminal Court, to allow a sufficient sum to cover the necessary charges. Police-sergeant IVhall was then desired to make arrangements,for procuring the attendance of the sur viving witness of the first marriage. . The defendan, vam then renlandv4 for week, William Roberts, a decent looking and very aged man with grey hairs, was charged with drunken and dis orderly conduct. Police-constable, Thomas Webb, No. 180 of the C division, said he found the prisoner at the door of a public-house in Regent-street, creating a great disturbance and making use of extremely violent lang utzgo. Mr. TrAuDwicK—An old man like you ought to be. have himself better. Prisoner—l wai grossly insulted by a stripling and I could not bear it, for I have a daughter 43 and a son 42 years of age. I have been a stage coachman for 60 years and never had an accident in my life, although I've driven some very great men. Steam has been in my ruin (shedding tears and wiping his eyes with his cuff). I can't help it when I think on the glories I've seen. The " Whip, the Whip" used to be my song, but it's all passed now, and when I dies► I hope's they'll bury me out of the sound of the rail. Mr. TlAnnwica said the defendant must not disturb the public poste; under the circumstances he should die charge him. _ The defendant, with a genuine coachman's " Thank yer honor," left the Court. WORSHIP-STREET. Wednesday a miserable-looking man, named Carmen, stated to have formerly been a milkman in Heaton, waited upon Mr. Broughton, and asked his advice. The applicant said—l am a native of Ely, in Cam bridgeshire, but had a good business in Hoxton here, for many years, until I unfortunately went out of my mind. When I came out of the madhouse, in July last, I attended to my trade as usual, but an other man started in the same business in opposition to me, I was ruined by it. Finding myself in this state, I applied to Mr. Coste, the relieving officer of Shoreditch, and asked him to write a letter for me to the board of guardians to my native place, asking them for only V. or 4/. to set me up again, and, as lam very well known to several gentlemen down there, I was certain of receiving the money. But Mr. Coste told me he should not do any such thing, and I was obliged to go and get work as a common sewer labourer, and worked in that manner all through the last winter. Mr. BROUGUTON-Why do you not try to get work now ? Cannell—l can't ; there is no surgeon in the country would say that I am fit for work now, for while t was employed at the sewer-work a few weeks ago, and standing on the edge of a bank that was thrown up, a wretch of a boy came behind me, and pushed me down into the sewer, by which three of my ribs were dislocated. Mr. BROUGHTON-Why did you not give the boy into custody ? Cannell—l could not, for I was so stunned and injured that they carried me home imme diately, and before I had sense enough to think about it, the boy had gone away. The foreman of the works of course discharged me, and gave me 45., but that was of no use in my state, and I applied to the parish for assistance, but they refused to give me anything, and though I have applied a great number of times since, they still refuse me. Staines (the beadle of Shoreditch)—l don't know anything of the case myself, Sir, but I will give him an order for the house immediately, if he likes to go in. Cannell—The order's of no use to me, for they won't take me in—l know they won't—they've told me so several times—unless my wife and children go in too. My wife has the strongest dislike possible to go in, and is determined not, and as she can contrive to keep herself out of the house, though she can't support me too, I am willing to separate myself from her and go into the house by myself ; but they will not take me in alone, and here am I wandering about almost starving, for I have not had a bit or sup in my mouth all this day. Mr. BRoucirrox—But, as that is the case, why don't you try to persuade your wife to go into the house with you? Cannell—She is determined not, and I can't force her to do it. I have pawned and sold everything I had that would fetch any money, till now I have not got anything more to sell. It's very hard to be refused relief, after paying rates for many years. - Mr. Baotrearrox—Perhaps you have not properly explained yourself to the parish authorities ; for if you had I should think they would take you in at once, and pass you in the regular way as soon as possible to your native place. Cannell—Oh, yes, I have, Sir ; I have explained it a great many times, but it's all of no use, for they won't listen to it, and tell me as positively as possible that they don't intend to take me in unless my wife goes in too, and that she won't. Mr. BROUGHTON—WeII, I'll give you ls. from the poor-box, to provide you with food and lodging for to-night, and one of the officers shall call upon Mr. Coste, and explain to him the nature of your applica tion and the distress you are in. I dare say the officer's intercession on your behalf will induce Mr. Coste to take you into the house without your family, and pass you in the regular way to your own parish. SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S MEDICAL REFORM BILL and the DOCTORS. There cannot be a stronger proof of the fallacy of the system pursued by doctors, viz., the Organic Theory, and that they know it, than their present op position to the Bill introduced by the worthy Ne therby Baronet. Let us for one moment consider the nature of the opposition. It is this, that Sir James has not put a stop to the sale of patent medicines, which doctors are pleased to style the sanctioning of quackery. By the Bill, doctors have got, we main tain, all the protection they are entitled to, and which would be quite sufficient for them were they not fol lowing a false theory. It is made a misdemeanor by Sir James Graham's Bill to pretend to be a doctor or on the register, which is just and fair enough, for no man should represent himself to be that which he is not, and if he does he should, as provided by the Bill, be subject to criminal punishment. But are doctors satisfied with this ? No, no ; they know that any man who can be such an impostor as to represent himself falsely stands but little chance of success. However, they are protected on this point by the Bill; but they say that it is of no use to them! What they wish is, to put down those who differ from them in theory! ! who prove their theory (the Organic) to be false by a successful practice ; who boldly stand forward in their 'rue colours ; who clearly draw a barrier, so that there can be no mistake in the parti cular class ; those we say are the persons which doc tors wish to put down, and which Sir James Graham has very justly omitted to provide for by his Bill. Sir James has very naturally said to the doctors— " What more can you require, if you are right, than that I should prevent men, who have not diplomas, from representing:themselves as doctors to the world?" Why, the thing speaks for itself, and Sir James Graham must see through the whole concern with half an eye. Now let U 3 for one moment apply the foregoing observations to the now numerous body of Hygeists, who for the last twenty years have been showing the errors and fallacy of the Organic Theory of the doctors. Do they represent themselves as doctors ? Can there be any mistake made by the public ? In the first place, all the statements of Hygeists expressly deny the truth of doctors' treatment, from beginning to end, in the most clear and unmistaken terms ; and in the next, the Hygeian Medicine is not sold at the poison shops of the chemists and druggists, but at greengrocers, shoemakers, stationers, &c., &c. Yes ! and we take a pride in acknowledging the fact. Mo rison's Pills are not, we say, to be had at the poison shops of the doctors, where numberless rank poisons are kept, in order to make a regular trade of the mi series of the human race. The honest and unassum ing persons who deal in Morison's Pills have but a simple story to tell; they know that they themselves have been reinstated in their health, and also that so and so was at death's door under doctors' treatment, and that he was, as it were, brought to life by the Hygeian Medicines. But how is it with your chemist and druggist and his different coloured bottles in his window, which well accord with the mist and con fusion into which doctors have, for profit, clouded the true science of health ? Why, all is contradiction, confusion, and mystery. The people are, in short, according to doctors, to be kept in the most profound ignorance as to what is to keep their bodies in health ; that is the long and short of the business ; and such being our opinion, we fervently hope that Sir James Graham will proceed with his Bill, and at once, and for ever, establish that which every free-born Eng lishman is entitled to, viz., the Medical Liberty of the Subject; and if he does, his name will be handed down to posterity as a great benefactor to mankind. In short, his fame would be imperishable, considering the bonds of mystery, confusion, and death, which he would have broken asunder. Issued by Morison and Co., of the British College of Health, New-road, London, for and on behalf of the body of Hygeists. CARRIAGE ROBBERY.—Wedneaday information was circulated to all the station-houses of the metropolitan police of another of those daring carriage robberies which have of late become so frequent, having occurred at the west-end. It appears that while the carriage of the Hon. E. Phipps, of 64,. Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, was proceeding through Hanover-square or Brook street, some thieves contrived to detach a large wicker basket that had been fastened to the hind part of the car riage by straps, which were afterwards found to have been cut. The basket, which was covered with oil skin, contained a great quantity of very valuable property, in cluding Cashmere shawls, velvet scarfs, barege shawls, lace collars, and robes of lace, two capes trimmed with point lace, a lace bonnet, silk bonnets, blonde caps, ostrich feathers, flowers, parasols, and many other ex pensive articles of ladies' apparel. ACCIDENT.—About twelve o'clock on Wednesday a serious accident happened in Piccadilly, to a breaks man in the employ of Messrs. l)ickensons, of Curz,n street, Mayfair It appears that he was breaking in a young horse previously to putting it in harness, and on its attempting to run away with him, he pulled it up rather sharply, and consequently it fell over, break ing the unfortunate man's leg off short a little above his ankle, by reason of his being thrown under the horse. He was immediately carried to St. George's Hospital, wh e n 40 now lies it} sat vsn7 procsrious stye, INFANTICIDE AT WOLVER HAMPTON. WOLVERHAMPTON, TUESDAY. In The Sun of Monday appeared an account of a serious charge of infanticide, in which three persons who have hitherto moved in a respectable sphere of society were implicated. In consequence of the re quest of the coroner, it was not intended to publish the evidence (the inquest being adjourned) until the close of the proceedings on Thursday next; but as the pri soners were brought before the magistrates at the police-office on Monday last, and publicly examined, further secresy is no longer necessary. Mr. Hill and Mr. Dehane were the presiding magistrates ; and as will be seen from the subjoiried report, in addition to Miss Railton, Mrs Hildreth (her sister), and Mr. Sheriff (the surgeon's assistant), Mr. Hildreth, the printer, has, since the adjourn Merit of the coroner's inquest, been taken into custody. Miss Railron, when brought bet Ore the mae,istrate=, appeared to feel deeply her unhappy situation. Both prisoners were accommodated with chairs. The of fice was crowded to excess. Colonel Hogg deposed as follows am deputy constable of Staffordshire. On the 29th of October last I attended an inquest at the Greyhound public house, on the body of a female child. On Saturday, the 9th of November, in consequence of information which I received I went to the house of Mr. Quinton, the surgeon. I asked him if he knew Miss Railton, the sister of Mr. Darby, the postmaster ? He said he did not; he never saw her. I asked him if he had ever attended her professionally ? He said he had not. I asked him if he knew Mr. Hildreth, the printer, and if that gentleman had not applied to him to attend professionally his sister-in-law, ton ? He said he had not ; that he hat lee •,. le) -: Mr. Hildreth's application supplied Miss Raitrou wait medicine. He admitted that he had given Mr. Hil dreth medicine for a woman at his house, who he supposed from what was stated to him must be in the family-way. I told him I put those questions to him in consequence of information I had received, to the effect that he had attended Miss Railton during her confinement. He said he might have seen her, but he did not know her, and never attended her. I , went to Mr. Hildr e th' s th e same even i ng, and asked ' him if his sister-in-law, Miss Railton, was staying in his house, or if she had been staying there ? He said she had left there since the races (in August), and was now at the post-office. I said I had reason to suppose that she had been delivered of a child at his house, to which Mr. Hildreth replied, it was false, and that the person who made the assertion ought to be punished for injuring the character of a respectable woman. I then asked him if he ever had been to Mr. Quinton's surgery, to see Mr. Sheriff for medicine or advice ? He said he had been there, but not for medicine or advice. I went to Mr. Hildreth's house again on Friday last, the 15th of' November, when I took his wife into custody. Mr. Hildreth said to me, " You are going too far with this business ; you had better drop it, it will not end well." On Monday week I saw again the prisoner Mr. Sheriff, and told him I had still grounds to suspect that he had attended Miss Railton in childbed, and that I understood he had some time ago applied to Mr. Doubler, another surgeon in the town, to procure abortion. He said he had done so, and the person was cook at Mr. Dehane's, the surgeon, in Queen-street. He again denied all knowledge of Miss Railton. I was at the adjourned inquest on Tuesday, the 12th of November, and, from the evidence I heard there, I considered it my duty to arrest him. I went with the surgeon and Inspector Casey to the post-office. I saw Mr. Darby, the postmaster, and told him what I came for, awl asked was the charge against his sister-in law, Miss Railton, true ? He said it was false. I afterwards saw Miss Railton in his (Darby's) pre sence, and told her I had received information that she had been confined, and that the child had been destroyed. She said, "It is not the case ; it is quite a mistake." I then requested Mr. Fowke to go upstairs and examine her. Mr. Fowke went up stairs, and after he came down, he and I had soma conversation. I afterwards saw Miss Railton, and told her Mr. Fowke had informed me that she had recently been delivered of a child, and I was sorry she had told me a falsehood. She told me that she had been confined at her sister-in-law's, Mrs. Hil dreth, within three or four weeks ; that her sister took the child away ; that she knew nothing more about the child than that it was represented as being dead. Mr. Darby, the post-master, was present, and said, " The child the inquest is being held over is not our child ; you will get the body of our child." I then took Miss Railton into custody, between ten and eleven o'clock. On Friday morning, the 15th of November, the Coroner came to me, and I told him I had got Miss Railton and Mr. Sheriff in custody. He said I was quite right. While I was at the inquest on Friday, in consequence of a communication I re ceived through Inspector Casey, I went to Miss Railton. She was crying bitterly, and in great agi tation. She said, "I am sorry I did not tell you all the truth. I will tell you all about it ; but what will become of my sister and her seven children (I under stood her to mean Mrs. Hildreth), and the poor young man (I understood her to mean Mr. Sheriff), and me ?" She then said, " I was confined at the house of Mr. Hildreth last Sunday three weeks. At twelve o'clock at noon that day Mr. Sheriff came to me, and performed an operation. I was in dreadful agony and excruciating pain from the time he had done this until a late hour that night, when my sister (meaning Mrs. Hildreth) delivered me of a child, which she killed." I then asked her how she knew the child was killed. She replied, "I heard the child cry; it was born alive." She then said Mr. Sheriff had performed the same operation three or four times within two months, but never with effect until that day. I asked her if he had used instruments before? She said, " Yes, he did." I asked her what had be come of the child ? She said, "In three or four nights afterwards, Mr. Sheriff came, and took the child away. That is the whole truth, and I hope you will do what you can for me." I then arrested Mrs. Hildreth. She said she was quite ready to go. Last Saturday night I had a message from Miss Railton. When I saw her she said, "I have been most unhappy since I saw you last, lest in the state of mind I was then in I may have said anything that was wrong or untrue." I re peated to her what she had said; and when I came to that part where she charged her sister with killing the child, she said, " Oh, did I say so ? If I did, I must be mad, and did not know at the time what I was saying. My poor sister, she took the child, rolled it up, and took it to the fire, and gave it some nourishment. Ido not know what it was, and it died. lam sure she felt very much for it." She was more agitated on this occasion than before. I forgot to say, that after she made the first communication to me on Friday, she asked me if I thought her poor sister would be hanged, and what would become of her. Mr. T. 11. Fowke, surgeon, deposed that he exa mined, by desire of the Coroner, the body of a female infant at the Greyhound public-house. It was that of a child nearly at its full time. There were disco loured marks on the legs and arms, as if violence had been used. The head was very much swollen and puffed. It might have been born three or four days. I opened the body, and examined the lungs by the hydrostatic test, and I was satisfied the child was born alive. I also examined the heart, which satisfied me the child was born alive. I afterwards examined Miss Railton by her consent, and I ascertained that she had lately been delivered of a child. Henry Doubler—l am a chemist in Wolverhamp - ton. Between two and three months ago the prisoner Sheriff came to me, and said that a respectable person had got into trouble—that money was no object—anal that secresy would be observed, I said, "Do you wish me to procure a miscarriage ?" He replied either, " Yes,' or " I do," but Ido not remember which. I said, "I would not for any inducement on the face of the globe." 'When he left me I informed Inspector Casey of the conversation which had oc curred. Last Monday I called at Mr. Quinton's gery to see Mr. Sheriff. Ihai b, e q , attend the inquest. I said, 4 ' This business is Hie' . to turn out serious; I should lik e t o k now who the parties were you came to me about." He said it was the cook that lived at Mr. Dehane's he came about. I said, "It could not be the cook, as you stated the party was respectable, and money was no object." He made no reply. Mr. W. Quinton—l am a surgeon in this town. The prisoner Sheriff is my assistant. About two or three months - ago I observed that Mr. Hildreth's visits to my surgery were very frequent, and that there were no entries in the day-book for medicines or anything else. I asked Mr. Sheriff the object of Mr. Hildreth's visits, and he told me that Mr. Hil dreth wished him to procure abortion for a highly respectable person if I could take the case in hand. I asked him who the party was. He repli&d Miss Ralton, and that she would be in a room privately at Mr. Hildreth's, the printer, in Cock street ; the greatest secresy would be observed, and money was no object. I declined having anything to do with it. I had given directions on the Wednesday before the child was found for a team to come up and take the manure from our stable. The team came on the Saturday- and took our horse manure. I saw the men emptying the place, and about half-past one o'clock on that day Mr. Sheriff came to me, and said a child had been found in the privy. I said it was impossible. I went down the yard with him, and saw the body of a female child lying in the yard. Two policemen were there. The body was taken away by the police. No one had access to the water closet in my yard but Mr. Sheriff, my man-servant, maid-servant, and myself. In consequence of a question put to me by the Coroner at the inquest, I was, with her consent, induced to examine my maid servant, and I can say that she has not been brought to bel lately. Witness further deposed, that the pri soner Hildreth called upon him last Wednesday night, when the inquest was sitting, and he ordered him out of the house. Ir s?ector Casey deposed to beini , present when tha body of a female infant was fund in Mr. Quinton's privy. He afterwards saw Mr. Sheriff, and asked him if he had heard of that matter in the yard ? Tne prisoner replied, " No; what is it ?" He told him the body of a child had been hiund Sheriff replied, " Has there ?" He then went into the yard with the prisoner, and took up a dung fork, and pressing it on the belly of the child, said, " Don't break it, it is fresh, and has not been /here long." The prisoner made no reply. Mr. George Davenport, schoolmaster, deposed, that on Wednesday last the prisoner called 'at his house, and admitted that Miss Railton had been confiaed at his house, and that it was a month the previous Sun day. He said thlit Mr. Darby, the post-master, had been at his house that day, and tha' an altercation had ensued between them (meaning Mr. Darby, Miss Railt , m, Hild:etn). After Mr. Darby left, Miss ttailton became very ill, till 3 o'clock the next morning, when she miscarried, and when no person was present but Mrs. Hildreth. The fo3tus was thro in into the Birmingham Canal. Mr. HILL (the migistrate) inquired of each pri soner if they had any statement to make ?—The pri soners each replied, " No." Mr. HILL—You will all take your trials •at Stafford. Sheriff—Upon what charge am I committed ? Mr. HILL—We will tell you presently. The Magistrates consulted for a short time to• gether, when Mr. HILL (addressing Colonel Hogg) said—D° you think a remand until the coroner's inquiry is concluded will be conducive to the ends of justice? Colonel Hogg-- I most decidedly think it will. Cne priso:o were then remanded until Friday, the day after the coroner'c inquest. An application made for the admission of friends to the prisoners was refused. They are confined separately. The inquiry is the engrossing topic of conversation in the neighbourhood. Miss Railton is the sister-in-law of Mr. Darby, post-master, and resided with him. MARKET NEWS.—(YESTERDAY) EMT AZ.A.RHETS. SMITIIFIELD.—Coarse Meadow Ha T, 31 12s to 41125; Useful ditto, 4114 s to 513 s ; fi ne Up and ditto, 5/ 5s to 51 lOs ; Clover Hay, 4/ lO s t o 61; Oat Straw, 1/ 10s to 11 12s ; Wheat Straw, 11 13s to 11 15s p e r l oa d. Both Hay and Straw moved off freely, at full prices. CumnEaLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 31 Iss to 4116 5 ; Useful ditto 41 17s to 5135; fine Upland ditto, 5/ 55 to 51 12s ; Clover Hay, 416 s to 5118 s ; Oat Straw, 11 123 to 1/ 14s ; Wheat Straw, 11 13s to II 16s per load. I fair average supply, and an active demand. WMITECHAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ 123 to 4112 5 ; Useful ditto, 41 15s to 513 s ; fine Upland ditto, Si 55 t° 51 lOs ; Clover Hay, 41 lO s t o 6 / 6 3; O at Straw, 1/ 11 5 to 1/ 13s ; Wheat Straw, 11 13s to 11 15 s per loao• Supply tolerably go o d, and trade firm. MEAT lICARZETS. SOUTHALL, Nov. 20.—For each kind of prime sto ok the demand was tolerably steady, at full prices. Other wise, the trade was in a very sluggish state, at barely last week's quotations. Beef, from 2s 6d to 4s; Mutto% 2a 8d to 4s ; Veal, 3s t o 3 s 10d ; and Pork, 2 s !, to 3s 8d per 81bs . Supply :—Beasts, 40; Sheep, 1,3 60 ' Calves, 46; Pigs, 54. ROMFORD, Nov. 20.—Although the supply of steel; on offer to-day was only moderate, the general dera so ' ruled heavy, at lat e rates. Beef, from 2s 6d to 45 4 Mutton, 2s 8d to 4s ; V ea l, 3 s to 4s ; and Por k, to 3s 6d per Sibs. Suckling Calves, 18s to 303 ; ter-old Store Pigs, 16s to 20s; and Milch Cows, W 1 their Small Calf, 161 to 19/ each. LEWES, Nov. 19.—Beef, from 2s 6d to 4s ; Mutton' 3s to 4s ; Veal, 3s to 3s 8d; and Pork, 2s 8d to 3 5 8 per 81bs. Supply moderate, and trade steady. CORN AVERAGES. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORNOI For the Week ended Nov 16, 1844, made up from th e R e t ur ns ot, o , In pcetor in the different Cities and Towns in Englane and W' per Imperial Quarter. I I a , 4 11 Wheat ..... 46s 4d Oats 21. Shl Beans ...... Barley AVERAGES OF THE LAST SIX WEEKS. Weeks ending: weaar. BARLEY.' Oars, I RM. BEAN& . - 20 6 20 8 20 11 21 2 21 8 ,21 9 TOO' , I------(1 Oct. 12 46 333 6 3 7 10 36 11 . „ 10; 19 46 3 34 O 38 co 66 9 3 5 . g 26 46 0 34 9 39 3 1 Nov. 2 46 1 35 7 37 3136 9 3 ' / 9 ..... „ 46 3 36 1 34 6 37 11 n I 16 ..... IMPERIAL AGGIZZOATZ AIIiRAGIS Or nix XIX ws r ld Wheat........ 46s Id. Oats ...... ... 21s 1(1.1 8eane.........3 1 ' , tarle, 34s 11d. 1 Rye «....... 36.3 10 6 .1 Pea5e.........34 1 L DUTIES OW roesims coal!. . 61 1 Wheat .........203. Od. Oats ..... .... 6s. 0d.18ean5......... v.; od Barley .......... 41 Od. I Aye ........ 63. 6d.1 Pease .......„ V TERMINATION of the TURN-OUT' STOCKPORT.-At the be g i nn i ng o f thi s wee k the nil - in full work were those of Messrs. Orrell,Gee, Fernlef : Wilkinson (Heaton-lane), A xon , Littl ewoo d, Pen dlebury, Little, Hollins, Andrew Stuart, and Bend Hunt. Partially—Messrs. W. and C. Howard, Jo h° Let., Robinson, Jessie Howard, Marshal, player' Spin:,ers all .)ut—Messrs. Wilkinson (Portwood), Leigh, Whitelegg, Barlow, Holt, Lingard and Cru r i . tenden, Reid, Eskrigge, I. Hunt, an OX ien. consequence of the turn-out of the spinners, gre y numbers of hands employed in the other departments were reduced to a state of compulsory idlenes B ; the effect, however, was ev id en t at th e en d of I ss a week ; their resources were b ecom i ng ex h aus ted, en in order to attain their o bj ec t th ey werenecessitated v ' s resort to practices of a n un l aw f u l c h arac t er . O n Fo▪ lk' and Saturday, " picketting" the mills became yell general, and some inconve n i ence was experienced to consequence. Mr. Howard's, Mr. Robinson's, 1, Messrs. Marshall's ha n d s were , i n some i nstanc es, ° , strutted. The police had information of the circilin stance, and, by f ou r o ' c l oc k on M on d ay mora▪ l were on the watch, going round to the mills at 014 to afford protection t o th e h an d s as soon as the o l d , started. Nothing material, however, o ccurre d Several private meeting s o f th e sp i nners wer e 119 .1,1 and, on Mond a y a ft ernoon , a pu bli c of the power-loom weavers was held on Waterl ° 2„ road, at which spe ec h es were ma d e and solutions passed, exp ress i ve o f sympathy rof the spinners under present circumstances, en u „ii. a determination on th e i r own part topersev ereintl-, demand for a second r i se o f fi ve per cen t. C o mittees of each party were a l so recommendent, efficient means to attain th a t o bj ec t. Y ester d a y s 110 r it e ever, Was notified to the masters that the hands w e o disposed to retur n t o th e i r emp l oyment at the ° A , rate, and that the whole o f th em w e re prepared.,!°,7s, sume work this (Wednesd a y) morning. 2413830, Eskrigge's hand s r e t urne d t o wor k yesterday UT' ing, and Messrs. Hole, Lingard, and Crutterw4 e hands signified their willingness to do the same. 1 . ., turn-out may therefore b e cons id ere d a t an en"' Manchester Guardian. GAmr.--TlAlsovnit.—At Rostelberg, in five, (l l,4 5,087 hares, 2,393 p ar t r id ges , 316 p h easants , and rabbits were killed. Th ere were on l y twenty sport The Gazelle issued of W e d nes d ay is, as usual a` season of the year, extremely voluminous; and of ° yip nearly filled with notices respecting railway Bills. .., 0 0 notices of Bills for improving, paving, and li g hting Wi na l are comparatively f ew; amongst the rill„cto'a notices of this class ar e th ose re l at i ng to Hull, 1°1'" and Sheffield. " I 0 ADVERTISEMEN T . A NOTHER E XTR AORD.- t 1 .4 CURE OF AS THMA BY H OLLOWAY ' S P rix s Casey, residing at No. 1, Compton-place, Bruns ;h a p square, had suffered from a chronic asthma for mor e bet three years. Thi s p oor man was so great a su fferer Z ia he did not dare go to bed for fear of the phlegm oh ° ,l him ; indeed, he could not even lay his bead up - fe - d ; table for half an h our l es t b e s h ou ld h e suffon s n g nevertheless, this person is n ow l a b our i ng from moral in ° to night, sleeps as we ll as ever h e did i n hi s life, P ere fact, is completely c ure d by t h e use o f H o 'l o waY'l here Sold (also Holloway's Ointment) at 244, Strand ("' b je advice may be had gratis), and by almost all resi eta vendors of medicine throughout the civilised worfLoo BIRTHS. On the Ist inst., at Forde Hou se , D evo nshire, the lady Henry Cartwright, Esq., High Sheriff of the county , daughter. boA 111 / 1 rith in3t., at Malta, the lady of Robert —r n. Wif e On the lith inst., a t th e Vi carage , G u il s borought the of the Rev. J. D. Watson, of a daughter. On the 18th inst., the lady of John Jocelyn of Eriviatt, near Denbigh, of a daughter. the iv". On the 19th inst.; at Regency-square, Brighton , t of Captain William Preston, R.N., of a son. On the 19th inst., Mrs. Gambier Parry, of a son- the Wif e On the 18th inst., at Norwood-green, Middlesex, of Lewis Berger, Esq., of a daughter. of E dward On the 19th inst., in Wilton-street, the lady Jenner, Esq., of a daughter. ICee nv On the 19th inst , at Camberwell, Mrs. lien"' Smithers, jun., ()fa son. Ffoulkes• MARRIED. On the Bth of October, at the Escopal CltP" ZIP Cairo, Duncan M'Pherson, Esq., M.D.Dof the Madras ga g, attached to his Highness the Nizam's service, to_ l ‘ l3r burg,b' daughter of Archibald Iver, Esq Carlton-street, vizeit. On the 19th inst., at Levton " Church, Essex, the t Kemble, M.A., of Wadham 'College, Oxford, IncuinbenutsOf Michael's Ch urc h, L am b et h , to C har l otte , second d au g u Stephen Wildman Cattley, Esq., of DIED. n eelliv icbt On the 23d u lt., at the Royal Naval Asylum, -r Lieutenant Vosper, R.N. ~ G r een., On the 11th inst., at Hull, Miss Priscilla Sophia di, / ," On the 13th inst., at Reading, Henry Gattie, - s ll o g iv e itr•- On the 14th inst., at Arlington-street, Camden - Symonds, Esq. i aged 61 On the 14th i n t . , the . Rev. Edward H. Greene, °f L awfor Hall, Essex. gr° inst., at Howland-street, On the 16th • Sarah Eyre, aged 74. . , ~,,, Cardi n ' s!, Ott the 15th inst., Rebecca,wife of lIr • I.°• - •••• _,i , the ~, c a pta..• St. Helen's-place. On the 16th inst., in Oxford-terrace, Hyde-Pa,r7antrY• Oliver St. John, late of the 31st Madras Native In rn wife • On the 16th inst., Mrs. Elizabeth Enims Ch a p a- ' Mr. John Chaplin, High-street. Putney. , cav ior• t On the 20th inst., at Pond ' end, Aft. Thotna 9 '` Itobe r Ponder 's , Ir eciailly, On the 2oth • ' FitzrOrscluaret Lambert, Esq., aged 22 London: Printed and Publishe.d by 'UMW ° So. 1 1 nffice, No. 112, Strand, Printer, ' at The Sws COO Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in . A 1 41104(14, Friday, ov*mbwr 22,1844.