The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, 'MONDAY In ENING, JANUARY 15: 1844. ebtrb Xbition to crush the man who gained Catholic emancipation. He went minutely into all the circumstances of the re vision and preparation of the list, which had been denounced as an " atrocious fraud." He trusted that the solicitor for the Crown would be made accountable for his conduct—as accountable as the Attorney-General, being a Minister of the Crown, was for his. Mr. SHEIL, M.P., was most warmly received, and, when the cheering had subsided, he said it was not his intention to say more than a very few words upon this occasion, because, ere long, he should have the oppor tunity of adverting, in the House of Commons, to the very conspicuous incidents that had taken place in re ference to the pending trials.—(Cheers.) As he should have that opportunity of meeting his antagonists face to face, he should prefer reserving for that occasion the expression of his feeling—of his indignant feeling — (Cheers)—which these incidents had produced. It was to him a source of very great pride —of nothing had he ever been prouder in all his lite—than that he had been the first person whe had signed his name to the requi sition that had called them together.—(Oheers.) Ile saw that the time had co me for making a great popular demonstration of their fe elin g , and a demonstration ot their feeling was also a demonstration of their powerhear.— (Cheers.) The nation was now roused—(Hear, ) and roused in a just cause ; the facts were with them ; and his advice was this—to present a memorial to the Queen, and a petition to both Houses of Parlia ment, setting forth these facts with clearness and with method, and without exaggeration.—(Cheers.) Exag geration might be resorted to in a weak and imperfect case ; but here the truths they would have to press on the attention of her Majesty and both Houses of Parlia ment were of such a character that he would venture to reiterate to them his strong advice, and he would add his strenuous entreaty to confine themselves to a statement of the facts of the case which had been so perspicuously stated by the Town Clerk of the city of Dublin. It had been aseertained that individual Roman Catholics, who were not members of the Repeal Association, nor sub scribed to its funds, were struck off the jury list. Let that go forth as an ascertained fact. The Times itself, which was strongly opposed to what was called the repeal agitation, had admitted that if a considerable portion of the jury list had been suppressed, it was a case that de served most serious consideration. That was one fact. There was another fact: it was this. Yesterday, in open Court, Mr. Justice Perrin, at the conclusion of the motion, whilst he declared that he concurred with the rest of his brethren in thinking that, upon legal grounds, the Recorder should not be called on to amend, by mandamus, the writ, added that circumstances had been disclosed which were calculated to awaken deep sus picion.—(Sensation.) He (Mr. Sheil) announced the fact, that it might get publicity. A judge of the land— unimpeached and unimpeachable—a man whose purity of mind corresponded with his talents and erudition — who combined great weight of character with the purity of judicial authority, from her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench announced—made proolamation—that there were grounds for suspicion in those transactions. Let them put that fact in their petition to the Throne. The Right Hon. Gentleman having read the resolution, which was to the effect that sixty-three names of jurors, including a large proportion of Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants having been struck out, offered grounds for more than suspicion that foul dealing had been practised, and that it called loud for Parlia mentary investigation, went on to address the meet ing; and adverting to the iiintement of Sir Robert Peel, that his chief difficulty was Ireland, said Ireland he will find to be his insuperable impossibility. Sir Robert Peel is embarrassed by seven millions—he is embarrassed by the energy, the fearlessness, and indomitable spirit of your leader, Daniel O'Connell.—(Tremendous cheers, amidst which a cry of " Richard's himself again I") Mr. MAHER (late M.P. for Wexford) seconded the resolution. The meeting was then addressed by Mr. STEELE, and the resolution moved by Mr. Sheil was then carried unanimously. Mr. REDINCTON moved the next resolution, in a brief address, in which he said that the Government had at tempted in Ireland what they would not have dared to attempt in Canada, and which they would find they could not attempt here with impunity. lie then moved " That a petition be presented to the Queen, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct her attention to the conduct of the Irish Government with respect to the State Prosecutions in the circumstances Inontioned in the preceding resolution." Mr. V. O'KELLY seconded it, and it was carried unani• rnously. Mr. MACGILL, one of the deputation from the Catholics of Belfast, then proposed a resolution for a petition to both Houses of Parliament, praying for an inquiry .into the same circumstances. It was seconded by Mr. JOYCE (of Galway), and carried. Mr. O'CoNNELL next rose to address the meeting. He said, that by some it had been said that this was no place for him to-day, and others had declared that if he did not attend it would be like the performance of Ham let with the chief part left out.—(Laughter.) Without, however, minding what either of these parties said, he felt himself that, as a Catholic, glorying in his religion, it was his duty to be present.—(Cheers.) He accused the British Government of the grossest perfidy towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Trial by jury was admitted to be one of the greatest and most important privileges of the British subject, but how could it be properly or fairly administered if the Roman Catholics were excluded from the jury-box ?—(Cheers.) Jba complained that the names of 63 Roman Catholics had been struck off the jury panel, and be proclaimed to the people of England and to the people of Ireland that there could be no satisfaction in a trial where these things which wero called accidents happened, and were said to be without remedy.—(Hear, hear.) The Catholics of Ireland were indignant at such conduct, and were they not bound then to congregate again and insist on their rights and the vindication of their honour 2—(Hear.)What was the mode of protecting life, liberty, and property but trial by jury, and could that be done if it were once pro claimed to be a legitimate cause for excluding a man from the jury-box that he was a Catholic ? (Hear, hear.) If such a course were pursued, the spirit of the Act of Emancipation, as well as the Queen's prerogative, would be violated ; and this they must not submit to without sit least remonstrance.—(llear, hear.) Sir J. Graham bad said in the House of Commons that the Roman Catholics had violated their oaths ; he had thus insulted /hem, and was he not the Secretary for the Home De partment ?—(Groans.) It was quite true that he had swallowed his words, but he only retracted them when he found the indignation of the Irish Members pouring down upon him. Mr. Smith had accused the Catholics of violating the sanctity of an oath ; there was no incon sistency about him—he had never retracted ;in act, as in speech, he was the same ; arid he, accordingly, struck every Catholic from the jury list.—(Cheers.) But did they suppose that by these proceedings they would put down the determination of the people to obtain radical redress for their grievances ?—(Cheers.) Would they make one anti-Repealer by them ? Would they redress uny injury or do the people any good ?—(Hear, hear.) Me was ready to abide the result, and he cared not -what it might be ; even though the verdict were death itself, what harm could it do to the cause of Ireland ?—(Loud cheers.) He was heartily glad of what had occurred. He did not know how they might tire a jury into a verdict, for he understood that, in conse quence of a motion made that day, the trial might last till the 15th of April—(Hear and laughter)—but this he knew, that 35 Catholics had dropped from the list. He put this fact abroad among the people of Ireland, and he was rejoiced that no Catholic was in the awkward predi cament of being on a jury with 10 or 11 persons who slid not attend to the evidence so closely as himself. He rejoiced, too, that the spirit had gone abroad. It was mere mockery to say that these individuals were to be put off because they were lypealers. From north to south, from east to west, indignant Ireland was uttering denunciations of the mode of proceeding adopted in this case. The very excuse which they offered for the act was the compliment which hypocrisy paid to virtue. A man was a hypocrite, not for hating or despising virtue, but out of compliment to it. He knew the value of vir tue, and therefore pretended to that which he had not. The virtue of giving a perfectly fair jury was expected at the bands of the Attorney-General, and was put forth in the hypocrisy of the excuse that the Ca tholics put off the list were Repealers—thus ad mitting, that if he had not that excuse the act would be derogatory to a public functionary.—(lfear, hear.) He came forward as one of the Catholics of Ireland. What was it to him that he was ono of the accused party -were they not all accused ?—(llear, hear.) They had indicted his son, though he thought they should be con tent with indicting the father, and he was bound to pro tect that son. Buthe came there to call on the Catholics of Ireland to protect themselves—(Cheers)—to forget what differences might have existed amongst them, and without involving any man in an opinion which he did not entertain. They had hoard that day gentlemen . who w e re anti-Repealers , but while they maintained their opinions as such, they were ready to join with the Ile peelers in that meeting i n insisting that the Government should really emancipate the Catholics by taking away that degrading inferiority which they could not endure. He called on the Catholics of Ireland, from north to south, and from east to west, who had listened /nor!) than once to his voice, to rally one and all, in in sisting that justice should be done to the people of Ireland, and that the Administration who had outrage ously dared to violate th e E manc ip a tion Act stand(' be burled with disgrace from the position which they held, or, if not, should continue to hold office with the exe cration of every rational man in the community. The Catholic party, since their accessi on t o p ower , had acted with perfect and complete liberality. I n th e corpora tion of Dublin they had returned an over proportion of Protestants, and wherever a liberal Protestant had pre sented himself he had been elected by the Liberals. With the Catholic party there were no bi go t e d restric tions, no paltry rivalship of religion.—(llear, hear.) The example now set by the Government could not, therefore, be permitted to go down to posterity unscathed and uncondemned—(Hear, hear)—nor could they allow the spirit of the Emancipation Act to be frittered away by the illiberality of a Government prosecution. After a lesson of peace to the people of Ireland, Mr. O'Connell concluded by saying, that there might be injustice, there might be martyrdom, but there must be no shrinking. The petition to her Majesty was then adopted, and the meeting separated. DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING ONESELF IN LON DON.—In London, every man is so submerged in the multitude, that he who can hold his head high enough out of the living mass fo'bo known, must have something of remarkable buoyancy or peculiar villany about him. Even Parliament, except to a few of the leaders, is no distinction. The member for the shire is clipped of all his plumage at the moment of his entering that colossal poultry-yard, and must take his obscure pickings with other unnoticeable fowl.—Blackwood's Magazine. The trial of Mrs. Gilmour, for the murder of her %unhand, wa t a an to bu ta r k ab e , p o l n ac E e ri bifore the High Court of Justiciary, y. THE FUNDS—(CLOSING PRICES.) BRITISH FUNDS. B Ink Stock ............ 187 India Stock 3 per Cent. Red...... 974 Ditto Bonds .... 80 pm 3 Cent. CMIS. ... Ditto Old Annuities... Lei - 3i pJr Cent. Red ... 102 96/ / Ditto New Annuities... i.vew 31 per Cent. ... 1011 Ex. Bills, 1,000/. lid.. 67 p 67 p m m New 5 per Cent. ......... Ditto 500/... Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small Jan. 1860 ... ...... 12i Bank Stock for Acct. 1874 Oct. 1859 ........ India Stock for .... 274 Jan. 1860 ... ..... Consols for Act. FOREIGN FUNDS. Portuguese,_ 5 per cent. Ditto, New Ditto — Prussian, 5 per cent — Russian, 5 per cent — ,Ditto, Metallic ...... . Spanish, 5 per cent 22a I Ditto, 3 per cent... sefpeerrrecde.n.t... —f.. —l2ea. 31 D Fr i e t n to cl i.) , Exchange ...... .... —f. —c. French, 3 per cent. —f. —c. Dutch, 21 per cent. 54i !Ditto, 5 per cent.... 100 k RES. 4natrian, 5 per cent. Belgian, b per cent Bra-Lilian Bonds — B_lenos Ayres6 per cent. Chaim', 6 per cent. lOl Colombian, 6 per cent Ditto, 1824 Cuba Bonds, 6 per cent ll Danish, 3 per sent Greek, 1825, 5 per cent — Mexican, 5 per cent. Ditto, 6 per cent. 1837 Peruvian, 1825,6 per ct. = id) .. ...... . ... .. _ SHA OBristol and Exeter (70 pi Eastern Counties (23 paid) Ditto New Registered ( paid) Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid) Ditto Registered (12i paid) ..... Great Western (75 paid) ••• Ditto Fifths (12 paid) . Hull and Selby (50 paid) London and Birmingham (100 paid)........ Ditto New Quarter Shares ( 2 paid) ...... London and Croydon Railway (Trunk) Ditto Scrip ( 5 paid) it Midland Counties Railway (100 paid) Ditto Quarter Shares ( 15 paid) 2ll Norwich and Brandon (2 paid) Newcastle and Darlington Junetion(ls paid\ 271 North Midland (100 paid) Ditto Thirds (211. 13s. 4d. paid) 3Ol Paris and Orleans (20 paid) . Paris and Rouen (20 paid) . South Eastern and Dover (50 paid) ..... 361 Yarmouth and Norwiah (13 paid)....., l6l York and North Midland (50 paid) .... 120 EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.) (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) ACRAMAN V. COOPER. Sir T. WILDE moved for a ruld to show cause why the verdict found in this case for the plaintiff, for 8,400/, at the last sittings at Guildhall, should not be set aside, or a new trial had, or a nonsuit entered, on the ground that a question was left to the jury which ought not to have been left. The action was for the recovery of a paper purporting to be a scrip receipt for 10,000/. paid on account of shares in the Royal Mail and Steam Packet Company. Messrs. Acraman and Morgan had borrowed 20,000/. from Messrs. Cooper, Thompson, and Co., on the security of certain scrip receipts in the above-named Company.—Rule granted. TRIAL OF MRS. GILMOUR. This woman was tried on Friday and Saturday last, in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, for the murder of her husband , b y administerin g arsenic to him, which produced death. The circumstances of the case are no doubt in the recollection of the reader, full details of the charge against the prisoner, having been recently published. The Jury, after an absence of about an hour, re turned with the following verdict—The Jury, after a careful and mature consideration of the evidence brought before them in this case, are unanimously of opinion, that John Gilmour died from the effects of arsenic ; but find it Not Proved against the prisoner at the bar, as libelled. This announcement was followed by very decided expressions of approval by those in Court, which were rebuked by the Lord Justice Clerk. The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS FRO3I THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—The extraordinary omission of upwards of sixty names from the special jury panel, after its revision by the Recorder, is now placed beyond controversy. The proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, on Friday, have made that matter of record which previously rested only on public ru mour. Thefacts, as admitted by the Attorney-General, fully bore out the statements we had previously given. The panel from which the jury by whom the case, " The Queen against Daniel O'Connell and others," will be tried, is a mutilated panel. A blunder on the part of a deputy, to whom the duty of preparing the lists for verification by the Recorder of Dublin, was intrusted, is stated to have occasioned the omission. The account of the extraor dinary accident is given in a letter sent by the Clerk of the Peace to Mr. Mahony, one of the solicitors engaged for the traversers. The omission is ad mitted, and an explanation offered, which exem plifies the grossest carelessness, if the omission be regarded as purely accidental. We confess to an inability to adopt this construction. Mr. Justice Perrin, when expressing his opinion on the application to the Court, on the part of the traversers, to interpose to set aside the panel, under the circumstances, stated " there was matter of grave suspicion in the case—of gross neglect somewhere." The Judges, it will be seen, decided unanimously that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. The ground on which the Court seemed to rest its decision was, that the Crown, in the prosecution of O'Connell, stood in the same position as a private prosecutor; or, indeed, any other suitor. To set aside the panel, and to direct a new revision, would, therefore, be to post pone the business of the Court, to the great incon venience and injury of those who had causes ripe for trial. The soundness of the reasoning employed by the Bench will scarcely command universal con currence. The trials of causes between private in dividuals . might, we apprehend, have been had by consent of parties. To them it might be a matter of indifference . that nearly seventy names had been abstracted. But with respect to this great national trial—the proceeedings on which absorb the attention of the empire, and the result of which is anticipated with tremulous anxiety—it is of the highest imaginable consequence that the country should be satisfied that justice, pure and undefiled, is done between the Crown and the tra versers. If unfair advantage has been taken against the parties accused—if the law has not been admi nistered with scrupulous impartiality—the Crown may obtain a verdict ; but that verdict will be the emanation of injustice. The majesty and autho rity of law, instead of being vindicated by the con viction of the accused parties, will be dishonoured and weakened. The punishment of parties so convicted, would be regarded as the infliction of vengeance by a Ministry which has violated the obligations of justice for the attainment of a triumph over political oppo nents. Thus the foundations of order would be shaken, and the ties which bind the governed to the government would be loosened. We ask Sir Robert Peel, on whose decision the question hinges, does he expect to suppress the repeal agitation by the course he is pursuing, by the agency of his law officers in Ireland, against the repeal leaders—tainted as the prosecution is by the strik ing off from the jury list of every Roman Catholic who was drawn to serve upon it ; and now by the astounding discovery that upwards of sixty names were omitted by a blunder, or ab stracted by a fraud, from the lists as revised by the Recorder? Will a prosecution thus conducted strengthen the hands of Government ? Will the Irish people he convinced that " justice to Ireland" is the intention of the English Government, or the tendency of its policy ? Will not the effect of such a trial be the confirmation of every prejudice already existing in Ireland against the legislative union of the two countries ; and increase the number of Repealers, until every Catholic—not only in Ireland, but in the empire—is a member of the Association, or strongly sympathises with the objects they seek to obtain ? The aggregate meeting of Catholics in Dublin, on Saturday, is a proof of the indignant spirit that has been raised. The practical imputation cast by the Government upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by declaring them disqualified, because of their creed, for being trusted, under the solemn sanction of an oath, with the functions of jurymen, has called forth the indignant repudiation of the stigma thus sought to be branded upon the religion of the great majority of the nation. This attempt to revive the penal disabilities, which were removed by the long-delayed measure of Catholic Emancipation, will combine and array the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom against the Government. In the words of the requisition by which the meeting of Saturday was con vened, the proceeding of the Crown is described as— " Both an insult and a wrong to the emancipated Catholics of Ireland, perpetrated by a government of which the leading members have repeatedly expressed their determination to administer justice without re ference to religious distinction.' The aggregate meet ing was convened to petition our beloved Sovereign, that she may be graciously pleased to direct her at tention to the conduct pursued towards her loyal and devoted Catholic subjects by her Majesty's Govern ment.' " The Catholics are also preparing to assem ble in the 'different districts for a similar purpose. The Government has thus proved itself a greater agitator than O'Connell, at any period since the Ctli T o A lic N EDmAaßro_T ncip . atio n n ihg ß eh i t ll dl became law ! irsipshosed of h Court t of Queen's Bench on Saturday artifice a delay—it wo u ld be rash to say e m t o h s e t recent last— for no one can guess what may be doing in Dublin this morning. The matter set at rest on Saturday was the motion of the traversers to quash the jury panel, on the ground of the omission of fourteen or fifteen named Roman Catholics, and of twelve persons not named, or as it would appear, known, but also Roman Catholic. The affair was argued at great length, and the motion unanimously refused by the Court. From the proceeding we have obtained at least an approximation to the actual state of the case. A paper containing sixty-three names, not of special jurors, but of special and common jurors, of whom we suppose there must be five or six thousand in Dublin, was, in fact, mislaid in the office of Mr. Recorder Shaw's register, before the list of special jurors was made out. The mislaid paper presented a local list (from a particular parish or particular parishes) and of course the names were given in it promiscuously, without attention to alphabetical arrangement, so as to render applicable the test which we applied on Friday. Mr. Justice Perrin intimated pretty broadly a suspicion that the paper was dishonestly abstracted. We are wholly at a loss to comprehend the ground of Mr. Perrin's suspicion, in which it is quite plain none of his brother judges participated. The paper, according to the Dublin Freeman's Journal, must have been mislaid so long ago as last Novem . ber. It was mis laid by a party unconnected with the Crown, and in a place to which the officers ofthe Crown had no ac cess. And what possible effect could be anticipated from the omission of sixty-three names (taken in mass from one parish), from a list, as we have said, of five or six thousand special and common jurors? The proportion of special jurors to common jurors in Dublin appears to be but one in eight; eight, therefore, would be the number of special jurors excluded by the omission. But the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics—special jurors— upon the list of all the other parishes taken together —is about three-and-a-half to one—so that the omission has merely caused the exclusion of two Roman Catholics, and it must surely be compen sated by the exclusion of six Protestants. Let us, however, indulge Mr. Justice Perrin, by supposing that all the 63 omitted were special jurors ; we have Mr. Pierce Mahoney's oath that 14 or 15 of them were Roman Catholics —somebody else, it is true, says that there were 12 other nameless Roman Ca tholics—but it is nearly certain that these 12 are 12 of the named made to appear again as anonymous. Take, however, the whole number of 27. Here we have 27 Roman Catholics and 36 Protestants excluded together. How would the addition of these two numbers have, in the slightest degree, disturbed the proportions existing upon the list of 717 ? What motive, then, can possibly have prompted the doing of that which Mr. Justice Perrin insinuates ought not to have been done without a motive ? It would be well if judges would remember that their position gives to what they say a weight which the sayings of some of them might not otherwise possess, and that they would, in consideration of this, guard their language a little. There has been a blunder in Mr. Shaw's office—nobody disputes that—nor do we defend it, further than by saying that in every office blunders now and then occur very innocently, and that this has on the face of it all the cha racteristics of a most innocent blunder. Officials at this side of the water may exult in their exemp tion from exposure like that to which the Dublin Recorder's register has been subjected, but they probably owe the immunity rather to their good for tune than to their extraordinary skill or vigilance —we doubt that ever a jury list has ever been made up for Middlesex, not subject to as many and as grave objections as have been alleged against the Dublin list; but here pettifogging objections are dis graceful, very few solicitors, no barristers of reputa tion, would lend, themselves to such objections, least of all would a judge condescend to help one of them out by an insinuation for which he could offer no sufficient ground. FROM THE MORNING P*PERS OF THIS DAY. TIMES.—The Greek . Kalends have arrived. The day which the most sanguine never hoped to see— the day the indefinite remoteness of which rendered it an almost impossible unit of time—has dawned upon the inhabitants of St. Stephen and St. Benet Sherehog. Alderman Gibbs has published his ac counts ; and when the world has recovered from its first surprise at this announcement, it will be prepared to hear the startling news that the vestry has audited them and passed them. There is—according to the most celebrated metaphysicians—a feeling of pleasure produced by astonishment. Whether it be that the excitement caused by an unexpected event acts upon the system by stimulating the languid circulation of the blood, and dispelling the heaviness which a monotony of occupation causes to weigh upon the human frame, we cannot undertake to say; but we believe it to be an admitted fact that the sensation of pleasure invariably results from the excitement of surprise. If so, what happy fellows the inha bitants of St. Stephen, Walbrook, and St. Benet Sherehog, must be ! For it has been their plea surable diversion to ascertain not only that Alderman Gibbs has given an account of his official receipts and expenditure, but also that the vestry has audited them ; and not only this, but that the Alderman makes out the parish to be his debtor to the tune of eighteen hundred and two pounds three shillings and sixpence; and, more than all else, that the auditors of the vestry have authorised the aforesaid balance to be paid over to their calumniated and dilatory creditor. One thing is clear—either that the Alderman is one man picked out of . ten thousand, of admirable self-denial, exalted contempt of gain, and un bounded generosity, or else—but we will not state the alternative. But there in another thing which is equally clear, viz., that to men of less self denial and less virtue than the Alderman, this system of giving 18 years' tick for parish disburse ments presents innumerable opportunities for some thing very like fraud. Only fancy a private gentle man authorising his steward to receive his rents and. pay away money without ever asking, or, if he did ask, without enforcing, an account of the respective receipts and expenditure ; and this indifferent manage ment to be continued, not for one, or two, or three, but for nearly twenty years. Or, imagine the trustees of a charity appointing a secretary to col lect subscriptions and to lay them out for certain definite objects, and yet never extracting information as to the mode of expending the money until twenty years had elapsed. Would not such a man be thought an idiot, and such trustees unfaithful to their trust ? Alderman Gibbs' accounts run over a period of eighteen years. As might be supposed, they include items of the most heterogeneous kind. Coals, can dles, organ-blowers, funerals, carpenters, plumbers, lecturers, vergers, sextonesses, and parish-clerks. Here are draughts for a costive Jones, there are pills for a dyspeptic Seroggins ; Mrs. Tibbs' midwife and Mrs. Brag's casual nurse ; shoes for small boys, and stuff gowns for charity girls, jostle Dr. Waters' yearly salary of 401, as parish lecturer, and Mr. Chappell's bill for the firecock in Bond-court. And whenever there has been the most incongruous assort ment of parochial necessities in ono page, the next page illuminates the inquiring mind with a long suc cession of ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, &c., &c., &c. All this may be quite right and correct. There may have been so many shoes bought in one week, so many petticoats in another, and so many midwives in a third, and black draughts in a fourth. The organ tuner, the organ-blower, the sextoness, and the glazier, may all have been punctually paid, and paid out of Alderman Gibbs' pocket too. Still we maintain that it would be a much more business-like proceed- - ing to audit the accounts every year, and spare both the purse and the feelings of the payer, as well as preserve the parish from the continued visitation of intestine disputes. Of course the auditors never dreamed of passing the Alderman's accounts, without having seen the vouchers for them. What a collec tion of precious autographs Alderman Gibbs must have possessed ! Now that he has no further use for them, we fear he will commit them to the flames. When we think of their number and their value, our memories recur to the fire which consumed the Alex andrian library. We dread a second fire of London, which shall avenge the Gibbsian wrongs, and. extin guish the river Thames. ADVERTISER.—Our Dublin correspondence of this day merits a most attentive perusal, and cannot fail to excite a deep interest. It contains not only an account of the aggregate meeting of the Roman Ca tholics, in reference to the recent exclusion of their members from the jury panel, but also an account of the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, on a motion on the part of the traversers to have the trial postponed till the jury list were corrected, as well as on another motion, on the part of the Crown, to have the trials continued—in case of their not being pre viously concluded—through the vacation after the close of the present term, of which it was moved that said vacation shall be regarded as part. The latter motion, made by the Attorney-General, was acceded to by the Court, Judge Perrin only being dissentient, as to the propriety of granting it at that stage of the proceedings, when there were no less than fifteen days of the term unexpired. The motion on the part of the traversers to postpone the trials till the extraordinary omission, to which we have already alluded, of certain names from the jury list were supplied, was refused on the grounds that there was no party directly charged with the omis sion, and that the Crown appeared before the Court in the light of an ordinary prosecutor. In concurring in the view of his brothers on the bench, however, Judge Perrin remarked, " I cannot but think that there was great negligence and gross want of care in the way in which authentic documents have been treated, and I ant not prepared to say that the whole was the result of accident." Mr. Moore, in applying for the postpone ment of the trials, stated that the names of twenty seven persons, of whom twenty-three were Roman Ca tholics, duly recognised by the Recorder himself as qualified to be on the jury -list, were omitted, either by " mistake or fraud," and subsequently, upwards of sixty individuals were excluded, in a manner of w hich no satisfactory explanation has yet been attempted. Such is the present phase of the State prosecutions in Ireland. What is to be expected from them ? Nothing, save to make " confusion worse confounded." The manner in which, from first to last, the prosecu tions have been conducted is sufficient in itself to give a triumph to the traversers, even in their conviction. It is the weight - of public opinion which gives solidity to law.—" Packed" juries, as is already but too well known in Ireland, may convict, and partisan judges may condemn ; but happily the time is past for general integrity to submit to such foul desecrations of common justice. The State prosecu tions in Ireland, after what has already taken place, can have no other effect than to sink their promoters deeper and deeper in public ignominy and execration. Had the traversers violated the law, they might, even in Ireland, be punished by the ordinary forms of the law's administration ; but when the legal officers of the Crown, who ought to be the foremost in setting an example of the most scrupulous impartiality, de scend to the petty and disgusting quirks, quibbles, and subterfuges which from the first have polluted the present prosecutions, the only effect of the trials, in whatever manner they may terminate, must be to make the people more and more disgusted and in censed against the Government under whose adminis tration such abhorrent irregularities can have place. NAVAL BENEVOLENT INSTITU TION.—(THIS DAY.) A quarterly meeting of the subscribers and friends of this Institution was held at the Thatched House Tavern, St. James's-street, this morning, at twelve o'clock, Captain head, R.N., in the chair. The Re port was read by the Secretary, from which it ap peared that, from the year 1826 to 1837, the funds of the Society had very much decreased, but since the latter year, up to 1842, they had progressively increased. Notwithstanding the great pecuniary depression which had been felt by similar institutions, the amount at present in the hands of the Treasurer was 787/., out of which the sum of .5001. had to be voted towards the relief of distressed persons connected with the navy. Since the last meeting of the Society the death of Sir Graham Moore, who was one of the Vice-Presidents of the Society, had taken place. The Directors had also the painful duty to perform of announcing the death of Admiral Sir Thomas Wil liams, of the Royal Naval Female School at Rich mond. This institution sprang out of the Naval Be nevolent Institution. The Report referred to a state ment which had appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that the funds of the Society were improperly applied. A letter had appeared in one of the newspapers, con taining statements which were altogether false and unfounded. On the motion of Mr. Rowland and Lieutenant Bedford the thanks of the meeting were unanimously given to Captain Dickson, the Secretary of the Institution. Notice of a motion was given by Capt tain Marshall, R.N., to the effect that the Society shall endeavour to get the law altered which obliges the widows of naval men to administer for all sums of prize-money or freight due to their deceased husbands, if the amount should be more than 321. Vice-Ad miral Sir Willoughby Lake was then appointed Vice-President of the Society, in the room of Sir Graham Moore. Thanks were voted to Earl Manvers for his liberal donation to the Society ; after which the meeting separated. SINGULAR CONTEST.—A few days since a woman, named Sharpies, the wife of a boatman, left her hus band at Selby, and eloped in a keel with another boatman, named James. Two days afterwards Shar pies came up with the runaways in the Humber, nearly opposite Barton, and boarded the pirate. A fight ensued, on the deck, but the wife finding her husband down, and in a fair way of being pum melled, took part against her husband's vessel. The parties met again at Hull on Tuesday evening, in a public-house at the Southend, and it was agreed that they should fight for the woman. A battle took place accordingly, on Dock-green, the same evening, when the husband was the victor, and bore away with him the worthless prize.—Hull Packet. A great deal of disßatisfaction has been created this week among the pensioners and women who have been receiving pensions and hall-pay at the dock-yard, in consequence of the clerks at the Navy Pay-office paying them in many instances with gold which is barely of the standard weight, and does not turn the scale. It seems to be an established axiom among tradespeople that gold issued in the reigns of George 3d and 4th is not now a legal tender, and 6d. discount is demanded on every 20s. It is certainly true that the clerks at the Navy Pay-office have refused to exchange the gold so issued, when returned in consequence of the above discount being demanded. This looks very like a fraud on the public, the money for paying these people being drawn from the branch Bank of England, which bank receives the light gold on payment of an established allowance. —Hampshire Independent. ST. IVES.—FORTUNATE D I SCOVERY.--During last week, a labourer employed on the farm of Mr. Wratten, farmer, of Needingworth, near St. Ives, discovered what he considered to be a piece of paper projecting from one of his master's stacks, when, on a nearer inspection, it was ascertained to be a sort of a large fusee attached to a ball of what is considered to contain combustible mat ter, which was placed about a foot in the stack. The paper or fusee had been lighted at the end exposed, but from some fortunate reason had smouldered a short time and gone out.— Chelmsford Chronicle. LAW INTELLIGENCE. ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 13. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. THE KING OF lIANOVER The Ma STER of the ROLLS gave judgment in this case, which was argued last term. The suit was instituted by the Duke of Brunswick, who was deprived of his duchy by a revolu tionary movement in 1830, while the Duke of Cambridge was Viceroy of Hanover. At a convention of the Germanic Diet, the plaintiff's brother (William) was invited to take unon himself the government provisionally, but the diet left it to the legitimate agnati of the family to provide for the future government of the duchy. In 1831 King William IV. and the Duke of C i a B mb , rid si g g e n c e l d aim b e y d h t i o s b: ia th je e st l y eg K iti i m ng ate wr a i g u n ia a m ti of the family. The p laintiff was then deposed, and his brother William was recognized as Duke of Brunswick. By a deed made in March, 33 IV. and the Duke of Cambridge, it was decreed that the Duke of Brunswick, having wasted the fortune which he possessed in enterprises alike impossible and dangerous both to himself and other persons in seeking to damage the just claims which certain persons interested might have upon his property, they considered that the only method of preserving his fortune from ruin was to appoint a guardian over him. This deed then appointed the Duke of Cambridge guardian, which office he accepted, and took possession of all his property. Upon the death of King William IV., the office of guardian was trans ferred by the Duke of Cambridge to the Duke of Cumberland, who had become King of Hanover, and the Duke of Cam bridge accounted to the King of Hanover for the receipt and application of the income of the estates. The King of Hanover then took possession of the estates and property of the plaintiff, and the bill stated that applications had been made to him to account for the income, which amounted to several hundred thousand pounds, but his Majesty had refused to render any account. The present suit was therefore instituted against the King of Hanover, praying that the instrument which had been executed by the agnati of the family, appointing the defendant curator of his estates and property, might be declared void, according to the laws of Brunswick, Hano ver, and Great Britain, and to obtain an account of the receipts and payments. Upon the late visit of the King of Ilanover to this country he was served with process in this suit, upon which he applied to the Lord Chancellor to stop the proceedings in limine ; but the application was refused, and his Majesty then filed a demurrer to the bill for want of equity, and denying that the court of equity had any jurisdiction. His Lordship, after stating the circumstances of the case, went at great length through the various arguments used on both sides. He said the plaintiff had contended, first, that as the defendant had appeared to the bill, that ought to be considered proof of his submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court ; secondly, that the Lord Chancellor having refused to stop the suit, that was a desision that the defendant might be sued. Upon this s ubject his Lordship had applied to the Lord Chancellor , who stated that he had no intention of giving any opinion as to jurisdiction. The defendant had con_ tended, first, that as a sovereign prince, he was net liable to be sued ; secondly, that such exemption was not confine d to his own country ; thirdly, that such exemption was not lost by his being temporarily resident in a foreign country ; fourthly, that, if liable to be sued for some things, he was not liable to be sued on such a case as this ; fifthly, if liable to be sued in such a case, that the matter was not subject to the jurisdic tion of the court of equity, but could only be tried by some particular court, expressly appointed for the purpose. The plain tiff bad contended that this suit ought to be allowed the same as between two natural-born subjects of this realm—that being a subject of Great Britain, he could not throw off his allegiance upon becoming Sovereign of a foreign country—that the law of England did not prevent foreign sovereigns from being sued here—that the law of nations and the interest of mankind showed that justice should be done all over the world—that the Queen of England was liable to lie sued in a proper form. His Lordship said, what had been established as to the right of a foreign prince living in this country was involved in some difficulty ; when a foreign prince prosecuted a bill here, he certainly might be made party to a cross suit in the same matter. There had been occasions in this Court where some funds were to be distributed, and, for the justice of the case, it had been found necessary to make foreign princes parties, but it had never been decided that a foreign prince could be compelled to come in and submit to a decree in this Court, but only to be allowed to make a claim ; failing to do so, after an opportunity Clad been given him, he would not perhaps afterwards be able to make another claim. In the present case the defendant insisted that under no circum stances could a foreign prince be compelled to submit to a decree, and that any such attempt would be an aggression against the ' state and people of which he was sovereign, and might lead to a war ; and that such risks ought to be avoided. The most influential argument in his Lordship's mind was, as to the im munity of ambassadors. It was said that the law having , granted immunity to ambassadors would not refuse it to So vereigns themselves ; on the other side it was said, ambassa ' dors who came upon business ought to have immunity in cer tain matters, but princes who came upon pleasure needed not such immunity. There was, however, no English law upon the subject, and the question could only be determined accord ing to the law of nations. It was said by some writers that the only guide we had in such cases was reason. It was very difficult here to come to a satisfactory conclusion ; the whole case was replete with difficulties. It was admitted that am bassadors should have immunity because they could be punished by their own sovereign, but a prince not being subject to any one in his own country could not be punished at all ; but, on the other hand, if the Court were to make a decree against a foreign prince it could have no power to enforce its orders. Jus tice could only be administered under a jurisdiction having power that interestforei to enforce its decisions. His Lordship sa id he had g iven the case his fullest consideration, and he thought it must be considered upon the whole, according to the law of nations, T eh a foreign o p wo r hu m enr c te e r ywians obediencewhich exempt eot hu from pnr prince ohoe bemay jurisdiction beresiding. of mankind required that justice should baneddjounsteiotoo wasai) butnot provided for by treaty or otherwise, and enforcing it by means of the state would be the cause of war, an exception must be made. Cases had occurred where an ambassador had been a subject of the sovereign to whom he was accredited, and it had been agreed that then he would not enjoy total immunity. It was said that an ambassador continued to be a subject where he was before a subject, but according to what was considered the law of nations it must be seen what acts of his were the subject of discussion. The most general rule was, that every person should be liable to the courts of justice, and amenable to the law of the country where he resided. It was clear that a Sovereign, having been formerly a subject of an other eouhtry, could not be release 4 from that legal subjection which he previously owed. His Lordship thought ment a person came up and was instantly assaulted by the sol it was not contrary to any of the opinions to consider dier. That person was the complainant. Witness went to the that the immunity of the King of Hanover was modified by station-house to state how she had been used. The complainant his duty to the Queen of England. He had always continued did not speak a word to the soldier before he was ill-used The his liability and subjection to the law of England, and since soldier might have been drinking, but he appeared to witness he had become King of Hanover he had been so far from to be more wicked than drunk. renouncing his claim as a subject owing allegiance to the A footman named Wise proved that he had left the corn- Queen of England, that he had actually come over here, and plainant not more than a minute before the assault took place, renewed his oath of allegiance, and had taken his seat again as and he perfectly well recollected the witness Thompson coming an English Peer. He came to this country. not as King of up and telling the police that the soldier had just been ill-treat- Hanover only, but as a subject of the Queen of England ; and ing her, and afterwards had run over and struck the complainant. he, therefore, ought not to be exempt from the power of the The complainant's solicitor said he had a host of most re- Queen of England. It could never be consistent with justice spectable witnesses in Court to speak to the character of his that exemption should be allowed to any person v ithout there client. being some power also in return. The Kinn: of Hanover Mr. HARDWICK said it was wholly unnecessary to call them, might come to England, mightbe guilty of acts contrary to the for the evidence clearly proved that the charge had been law—he might even sit in the Privy Council, and give impro- trumped up by the soldier, in order to cover the unjustifiable per advice to the- Queen—it could not be supposed that he assault he had committed when drunk. Nothing could be more should hold himself free from the Courts of this country and abominable than such an infamous defence, and if the soldier yet commit any illegal acts he thought fit ; he could not be al- I received a punishment of two years' hard labour for his con lowed to enforce contracts or make claims here without being t duct, he would get no more than ke richly deserved. He liable to submit to the law of the country. The defendant was should go as far as the law allowed, and inflict the inadequate a Sovereign Prince, and inviolate in his own dominions, as penalty of 5/., or two months' impriseement. The corn well as in the dominions of any other prince to whom he was plainant left the Court with an unblemished character. not also a subject, but in this country he still remained a sub-. ject, and as such he owed a duty to this country. His Lord ship said, in his opinion nothing would prevent the defendant from being compelled to do justice in his character of a subject, but still he thought the defendant was exempt from being sued here in respect of acts done by him as King of Hanover, al though liable for any acts done by him as a British subject. In such a suit as this against a Sovereign Prince, being also a British subject, it was imperative that the bill should show that the decree sought was against him as a subject, and it ought to appear on the bill that the case was one to which special immu nity ought not to be extended. There were strong reasons to believe that only as King of Hanover was the def:ndant ap pointed guardian to the Duke of Brunswick; and, connecting all the acts, his Lordship was disposed to think that the deed was connected with State affairs; but on this occasion it was not necessary for him to give an opinion upon that. The qnes tion he had to consider was whether, under the circumstances of this ease, the Court had jurisdiction, and his Lordship's opinion was that the acts of the defendant were not acts in re spect of which the defendant was liable to be sued in this Court. The demurrer must, therefore, be allowed. SURREY SESSIONS. DANIELS V. THE POOR-RATE OF WEST MOULSEY. This was an appeal from an additional sum of 300/. as a poor-rate for Moulsey Hurst-course. Mr. Willinger and Mr. Conner appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Chambers, who came specially, with Mr. Bevill, were retained for the respondents. From the evidence adduced to the bench, it appeared that the Hurst contained 79 acres, and that En December last a rate of 328/. was made for the race-ground; the ground of appeal was, non-occupancy at the time the rate was made, and also that the course was not rateable property, and that it only ought to have been rated as farming land. Mr. Daniels hold the race-course, together with other land, under Lord Ho tham and Sir George Berkeley, but there was a clause in the agreement, that for a period of twenty-one days at the summer races he should remove his cattle, and give up pos. session to his landlords, in order that booths, stands, tents, posts, rails, &c., might be placed in the ground for the i accom modation of the public at the races. Mr. Daniels himself received no profit from the races, but, on the contrary, t was deemed an injury and inconvenience to him ; and it was also proved in evidence that, until the year 1840, no attempt was ever made to levy a poor-rate on the ground, as profits de rivable from a race-course. On that occasion an appeal had been made against the rate, but the parish did not take it into Court. Mr. CHAMBERS, on behalf of the parish, now argued that the Hurst was clearly rateable, and that the tenant was liable who was in possession at the time the rate was made. The races had now become exceedingly popular and attractive, and the ground was let for 3001. for the two days. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to prove the revenue which was derived, and said that if Mr. Daniels gave up Fos session to Lord Hotham and Sir George Berkeley, no doubt there was a deduction in his rent in consequence. Mr. Bates proved that previous to the death of his father, who held the land before Mr. Daniels, he had made a calculation of the money received for the summer races, which he estimated as follows :—Twelve gambling booths, 450/. ; stable standing, 1001.,; thimble riggers, 75/. ; drinking booths, 2001. ; stand ing of carriages in the inclosure, 3501. The Spring Meeting was not so profitable, and he had that put down at 50/. There was also a cricket club, which produced 5/. per annum. There were private snatches, shooting, and other national sports, which produced a great deal of profit, but how much he was not enabled to state with accuracy. The Learned Counsel contended, therefore, that by the statute of Elizabeth, M r. Daniels was clearly liable to the rate ; the race-course had local advantages. Epsom Grand Stand, and the Lord's Grounds were rated to the poor, and there was no possible reason why Moulsey Hurst race-course was not liable. Several witnesses proved that Mousley races were improving every year, and that Queen's Platts were run for, and there was also the Surrey Stakes, which made them exceedingly attractive, and the races were attended by thousands of persons. The Court confirmed the rate. Appeal disallowed. Costs 40s. THE ALLEGED FORGERIES OF WILLS. The apprehension of Mrs. Georgians Dorey, the wife of Mr. Dorey, of Oxford-street, has greatly increased the interest created by the evidence against Messrs. Barber and Fletcher. We give copies of the wills, &c., a letter produced on the three charges, and some par ticulars respecting Mrs. Dorey. "In the name of God, Amen. I, Eliza Burchard, spinster, formerly of Cooper-street, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, and late of Rostock Mecklen burgh, in Germany, but now of New Bond-street, Bath, in the county of Somerset, being of sound mind, me mory, and understanding, do make this my last will and testament in manner and form followine . :—I give and bequeath unto my niece, Eliza Burchard,' who is now living with me, the sum of seven hundred pounds stock in the Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Re duced Annuities ; also three hundred pounds stock in the Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities, both stand ing in my name in the books of the Governor and Com pany of the Bank of England in London. I also give, devise,and bequeath unto her, my aforesaid niece, all my money, securities for money, goods, chattels, estate, and effects, of what nature soever and wheresover the same shall be situate at the time of my death. And Ido no minate, constitute, and appoint my said niece sole execu trix of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking and making void every other will or wills at any time heretofore by me made, and do declare this to be my last will and testament. In witness whereof, I, the said Eliza Burchard, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five. (Signed) " ELIZ A. BURCIIARD (L.S.) '" Signed and sealed by the above named Eliza Bur chard, the testatrix, in the presence of us present at the same time, who have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses, in the presence of the said Eliza Burchard and of each other. (Signed) " AMELIA RIESLIE. " W. SANDERS." Extracted from the registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. " In the goods of Eliza Burchard, spinster, deceased. " 9th June, 1841. " Appeared personally Eliza Burchard, of No. 9, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, in the county of Middlesex, spinster, the sole executrix named in the last will and testament of the said Eliza Burchard, formerly of Cooper-street, Westminster, in the county of Middle sex, then of Rostock Mecklenburgh in Germany, after, wards of New Bond-street, Bath, in the county of Somer set, but late of Broad-street, Bristol, in the same county, spinster, deceased, and made oath that the said deceased died on or about the 21st day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1841, and that the estate and effects of the said deceased which she in any way died possessei of, or entitled to, as a trustee for any other person or persons, and not beneficially and without deducting anything on account of the debts due and owing from the said de ceased, are under the value of 2,0001., to the best of this deponent's knowledge, information, and belief ; and she lastly made oath that the said deceased was not possessed or entitled to any leasehold estate or estates for years, either absolute or determinable, on a life or lives, to the best of the deponent's knowledge, information, and be lief. " E. BURCHARD. " Sworn before me, S.B. Barnaby,Surrognte In the above affidavit the deceased is described as having lived in Broad-street, Bristol, after her residence in New Bond-street, Bath, as stated in the will ; and this information could have been given only by Mr. Bather or the executrix by word of mouth to the Proctor at the time of proving the is ill, Mr. Cox having filled up the affidavit and read it over to the female in Mr. Barber's presence, and Mr. Barber then gave him a cheque for the duty. The female then signed the affidavit in Barber's presence, and was afterwards sworn. It will be noticed that the executrix is described in the above affidavit as of No. 9, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury. Now it appears that Mr. Barber, on the 10th of June, 1841, being only the day after the affidavit was read, addressed the following letter to the executrix " 28, New Bridge-street, Blackfriars—Thursday. " Mr. Barber's compliments to Miss Burchard, and will be glad to see her to-morrow morning (Friday) by eleven o'clock, for the purpose of signing the usual applications to the chief accountant to transfer the stock, and to ar range as to obtaining the evidence of Mr. Sanders. '" Miss Burchard, 9, Great Russell-street." This letter Was returned to Mr. Barber on the 11th of June, 1841, through the Post-office, with the following reason indorsed on the letter:—" Not known at 9, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, or in Little Russell-street ;" signed "J. Grook, J. Ilevvson." The following are exact copies of the documents purporting to be the will of Mary Hunt, and of Anne Slack, extracted from the registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury : " I, Mary Hunt, widow, formerly of Bristol, after wards of Bath, but now of Spring-street, London, being of sound mind, memory, and understanding, but in bad health, do make this my last will and testament as follows :--Whereas, I am possessed of about twelve hundred and ten pounds, in the Three per Cent. Con solidated Annuities in the Bank of England, this I give and bequeath unto my beloved grandson, Thomas Hunt, mariner. Also all my money , securities for money, goods, chattels, estate, and effects of every kind, where soever the same shall be found at the time of my death. And I also make and appoint my said grandson, Tho mas Hunt, sole executor of this my last will and testa ment, hereby revoking and making void all and every other will or wills at any time heretofore made by me; and do declare this to be my last will and testament. In witness whereof, I, the said Mary Hunt, have here set my hand and seal this 14th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine. (Signed) " MARY HUNT (L. S.) " Signed and sealed by the above-named Mary Hunt, as and for the last will and testament, in the presence of us, who at her request, and in her presence, have sub scribed our names as witnesses to the same. (Signed) " JANE ROSE. " MARY HOWARD. " Proved at London, 24th of May, 1842, before the Worshipful John Danbury, Doctor of Laws and Surrogate, by the oath of Thomas Hunt, the grand son, the sole executor, to whom a dministration was granted, having been first sworn only to administer. (Signed) "CHARLES DYNELEY, Deputy " JOHN IGGULDEN, Registrars. " W. F. GOSTLING, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (SATURDAY.) CITY POLICE COMMITTEE. A young man named John Eagle, driver of the En deavour omnibus, plying between Gracechurch-street and the New Cross Station, wearing badge No. 7,003, was summoned by the police before the sitting magis trate, Mr. Alderman Thomas Wood, for causing an ob- struction in Gracechurch-street, and for an aggravated assault on an old man, of the name of Cope, on Friday week. A solicitor appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the charge. City police-constable No. 532, stated that on Friday afternoon he was placed on duty at the top of Cornhill. At about half-past four o'clock he saw the Endeavour omnibus coming up the hill, the defendant and his con ductor sitting on the box. Just before them was a cart containing an old man, a butcher, of the name of Cope, who was driving steadily, and following the line of other conveyances. On their coming nearly to the top of Cornhill the defendant whipped the horses to turn the corner into Gracechurch-street ; there was not sufficient room, as the defendant could plainly see, but their in tention apparently was to annoy the old man, and to throw his cart out of the rank, for immediately the pole of the omnibus caught the back of the cart and threw it, horse and all, completely round in an oppo site direction to where it was going. The concussion was so great as to throw the horses of the omnibus upon the pavement, thereby rendering it impossible for any person to pass, as also any other vehicle passing along the street, the omnibus obstructing the whole of the carriage road. Witness, perceiving the danger that was likely to ensue by the pole going through the shop windows, caught hold of the horse's heads to keep them quiet, and told the defendant to keep them so. He, however, continued whipping them, forcing the omnibus against the cart, with the old man in it, who was crying out not to turn his cart over to kill him, and appeared greatly frightened. Witness asked the defendant what he meant by such conduct ? he replied, " He would cut the b-r's liver out ;" at the same time striking the old man over the head three severe blows with his whip. Another police-constable coining up at the moment pre vented any further outrage being 'committed. The old man was much injured by the blows, and to this day has marks of the defendant's violence on the head and hands ; throughout, his conduct was most disgraceful. Cope, who is upwards of seventy years of age, and almost bent double, was next examined, and his evidence confirmed that of the officer. His bald head and the backs of his hands were much cut from the lashes of the defendant's whip. Mr. Lamb, a respectable tradesman, residing at No. 96, Gracechurch-street, came forward, and stated he never saw a more aggravated outrage committed. He happened to be standing at his shop-door with a friend, and saw the whole occurrence. A great crowd was at tracted in the street, who cried out " Shame, shame !" at the defendant's conduct, and it was a matter of much surprise that the officers did not drag the defendant off the box, and take him to the station-house. On behalf of the defendant, his solicitor called two witnesses, who, instead of adducing evidence in pallia tion of the offence, corroborated every fact that had been stated on part of the prosecution. Mr. Alderman WOOD commented severely upon the defendant's conduct in horsewhipping the old man, "old enough to be his grandfather." Unfortunately, the case before him had nothing to do with the assault, as the charge laid in the information was for causing an ob struction in Gracechurch• street. This had been sub stantially proved, and he inflicted the highest penalty he was empowered by law. Respecting the assault, it was a matter for another Court, which he advised should be applied to. The defendant was then fined 205., and 3s. the cost of the summons, which was paid. GUILDHALL. The Rev. W. Jones was summoned before Aldermen J. Johnson and Humphery to show cause why he refused to pay the sum of 31. ss. for poor-rates due to the parish of St. Gre gory by St. Paul. Mr. Wilkins appeared 'on behalf of the parish, and Mr. C Pearson, the City Solicitor, was present to advise the Magis trates, as the case was a most important one, and the first which has been brought for decision under the new Act of Parliament. Mr. Jones is the Secretary of the Religious Tract Society in Paternoster-row, and handed in the Act of Parliament passed last session, which exempts all societies " of literature, science, and art," from the payment of poor-rates, provided " that no dividend, sift, division, or bonus, is, or may be made amongst the subscribers." The Act of Parliament also requires that the Society must be supported by voluntary contributions, and that a barrister must certify that it is within the meaning of the Act. This had been done by Mr. ,Tidd Pratt, whose cer tificate to that effect was handed in, and this, Mr. Jones con tended, was all that the law required to bring the Society within the exemption, and the rules themselves showed that the Society was entirely supported by voluntary contributions. Mr. Wilkins, on the other side, urged that it was not only necessary for the Society, which was only an underselling book shop, to show that they had not divided any profits, but " that they may nit do it." This was an association which could not be said to be for the advancement of science, but on the con trary, and nothing expressed in the Act took away the power which a magistrate had under other circumstances. Mr. C. Pearson said he should certainly advise the Bench to dismiss the summons, or else why should the barrister's certi ficate be given. The parties applying had still a right of appeal to the sessions. After a very long discussion the summons was dismissed, but a very general impression prevails that the decision will be set aside on the appeal. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Joseph Emmington, a private in the Coldstream Guards, was brought before Mr. Hardwick for final examination on a charge of having committed an unprovoked assault on George Stephen Bond, carpenter, of No. I I, Dorcas-terrace, Hammersmith. The complainant said he was passing through Hyde-park about seven o'clock on Thursday evening, having about a minute before left a person with whom he had been in corn • pany, when he was suddenly attacked and ill-used by the de denfant, who appeared to be drunk. He called for assistance, and a policeman and his friend, who had not got out of hear ing, came back and took the soldier into custody. In defence, the soldier said the complainant wanted to take infamous liberties with him, and thts was the reason why he had assaulted him. The complainant, who appeared horror-struck at this decla ration, asserted that it was utterly false , and, if allowed, he would bring forward proof to that effect. Mr. HARDWICK having consented to remand the case until Saturday, all parties were in attendance. Ann Thomson, a young woman, living at 18, Little Garner street, Paddington, said she was in the park about seven o'clock on Thursday evening, when a soldier came up to her, struck her, threw her down on the grass, and wanted to abuse her person, but she resisted successfully, and just at that mo " May, 1842." " I Anne Slack, spinster, formerly of Smith-street, Chelsea, but now of South-terrace, Pimlico, do make this my last will and testament, as follows :—That is to say, I give, devise, and bequeath unto my beloved niece, Emma Slack, the sum of 3,5001. stock in the Three per Cent. Consolidated Annuities, now standing in my name on the books of the Bank of England, and also all my money, and securities for money, of what nature or kind soever, and wheresoever the satne shall be at the time of my death. And Ido appoint and constitute my said niece sole executrix of this my last will and testa ment, hereby revoking and making void all and every other will or wills at any time heretofore made by me ; and do declare this to be my last will and testament. In witness whereof I, the said Anne Slack, have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3d day of June, in the year of our Lord, 1842. " ANNE SLACK (LS.) " Signed and sealed by the above-named Anne Slack, as and for her last will and testament, in the presence of us, who, at her request, and in her presence, have sub scribed our names as witnesses thereto. (Signed) "JANE PERKINS. " WILLIAM WILLIAMS. " Proved at London, March, 1843, before the Worship ful Akustus Frederick Rayford, Doctor of Laws and Surrogate, by the oath of Emma Slack, spinster, the niece, the sole executrix, to whom administration was granted, having been first sworn duly to administer. (Signed) " CHARLES DYNE , Deputy "March, 1843. " JOHN IG GULDEN, Registrars." "S. H. "W. F. GOSTLING, Mrs. Georgiana Dorey, who was on Friday examined before the Lord Mayor upon the charge of having formed part of the confederacy, with Mr.• Barber and Mr. Fletcher, to defraud the Government of the amount of stock in the hands'of the Commissioners for the Reduc tion of the National Debt in the name of Anne Slack, and with having also been concerned in a similar fraud in the case of the will of Eliza Burchard, was in the year 1834 before the public as plaintiff, in the Court of Exchequer, in an action of damages for breach of pro mise of marriage. At that period she was Miss Georgiana Richards, and the person against whom she brought the action was the Rev. Robert Taylor, the notorious lec turer on infidelity. The damages were, we understand, laid at 2,0001. Xvliss Richards had a political acquaint ance with Mr. Richard Carlile. She was then living with her mother and her married sister (Mrs. Sanders) at Bath, as a milliner, and was considered to be a person of very extraordinary abilities. Three or four years after wards she came toLondon,accompanied by her mother, and as the family had embarrassments to contend with, she determined to do all she could to diminish the difficulties under which they laboured, and accepted the situation of housekeeper at the Rotunda, on the Surrey side of Blackfriars-bridge, where the Rev. Robert Taylor was in the habit of lecturing at the time. Mr. Carlisle, who, we believe, rented the premises at the time, was the individual who engaged her at a salary. The Rev. Robert Taylor having had frequent opportunities of see ing Miss Richards, was regularly smitten with her in tellectual and personal charms, and paid her much attention. In the correspondence which passed between them there were the strongest evidences of attachment disclosed, and when the Rev. Gentleman was laid up in Horsemonger-lane gaol, the lady gave the most unquestionable proof of attachment to him. She was, however, but ill-requited fur her in numerable acts of kindness, for he suddenly broke off the acquaintance, and married a lady who was more abun dantly supplied with the gifts of fortune. Tile jury awarded the plaintiff damages to the amount of 2306, and the principal witnesses examined upon the occasion were Joshua Fletcher, the same person, we ar e told, who stands charged with Mr. Barber and herself, as confederate in the alleged frauds upon the G overn ment, and Mr. and Mrs. Sanders, her brother-in-law and sister, who have absented themselves. EXECUTION OF SARAH WESTWOOD. STAFFORD, SATURDAY. —The unhappy culprit, Sarah Westwood, convicted at the last Special As sizes for the county, before Mr. Baron Rolfe, for the murder of her husband, has been executed. It ar pears that the culprit was the daughter of a labouring man, living at Churley, a hamlet near Burntwood , where the murder occurred. At an early age she acquired a loose reputation and was discarded by her parents, and eighteen months prior to her marriage with her unfortunate victim, she gave birth to an illegitimate child. Twenty years since her union took place, the fruits of which are several children. At the same house in which they resided at Burnt wood also lived a man named Phillips, who, no doubt, was the principal cause of this diabolical occurrence taking place, from the fact that it was supposed that he had had a criminal intercourse with her, and which excited the unhappy differences that constantly hal' pceed between her and her husband. On the 9th of November, when the family were seated at the dinner-tab:e, the father entered and complained of a pain in his head, and requested his wife to make him some gruel, thinking that the dinner would not agree with him. She did as de sired, and he partook of it, but inquired what was the " white stuff" that was floating about on the top of it. To this question she gave an evasive answer, and im mediately afterwards the unfortunate man was taken with a severe fit of vomiting, and pains in the stomach, and was instantly sent to bed, and expired the same night. The wife appeared but very 1 0 ". differently concerned, and expressed a wish to have the body as quickly interred as possible. A" inquiry, however, took place, and on a post mortent examination being made, it was clearly ascertained that the deceased had died from the effects of arsenic. The above was the substance of the children's evi dence, and by the exertions of the constabulary force, abundant proof was adduced that she had purchtsed the arsenic but a few days before, together with other. poisonous matter, at a chemist's shop, at a village called Worsall. These facts, with other circumstances , so clearly brought the case home to the wife, that the jury, on the trial, without hesitation, returned a ver dict of guilty. Sentence of death was accordingly passed upon her, and she was removed. Since her condemnation she has been daily attended by the Rev. G. Norman, chaplain of the gaol, who has used every spiritual means to bring her to a just sense of her condition, and in answer to the entreaties made by the worthy pastor to induce her to acknowledg e her guilt, she has on all occasions firmly declared her innocence. Her two youngest children visited her On Thursday for the last time. The interview is stated to have lasted about an hour, and on their parting scene presented itself of a most affecting character, such a one as not to be wished for again to occur within the walls of this prison. On the same day she expressed a wish to see her. sister and her husband, who were instantly sent for. On their arrival, however, from circumstances which, had been mad e k nown t o th e G overnor , it was found that, instead of the man being the husband of the wretched woman's sister, it was Philipps, her g uilty paramour; consequently the meeting was refused in the most positive terms. At this disappointment she manifested deep regret. This morning the condemned sermon was preached in the chapel, the worthy minister taking for his text the 2d Peter, chap. 1, verse 14, " Knowing that shortly I must put of my tabernacle." After the service the unhappy creature 'partook of the sacra ment, and she evidently felt the deepest anguish at the awful position in which she was placed ; in facto she fainted twice or thrice during its performance' Notwithstanding all this, she still avowed her cony' plete innocence of the murder of her husband Her conviction appears to have given satisfaction throughout this part of the country, as no petition bag - been forwarded to the Secretary of State for a cony mutation of her sentence. Her age is stated to be 42. She appeared deeply distressed as she approached the scaffold, and when placed under the fatal beam trem' bled violently. The preliminaries having been quicklY arranged, and the rope placed round her neck, the bo lt was drawn, and the sufferings of the murderess ceased in this world. DREADFUL EXPLOSION IN A COAL-PIT ELEVEN LIVES LOST.—We stop the press to nounce a dreadful explosion of fire-damp, which too* place in Duke Pit, Whitehaven, on Thursday afternoo n between three and four o'clock. The whole of the we : in the pit at the time, eleven in number, were killen There were also eleven horses killed.—Carlale Jour's of Saturday. (ANOTHER ACCOUNT.) Intelligence has been received in town from White"' haven announcing a terrible coal-pit explosion, a ncol" ponied by fearful loss of human life, which occurred the vicinity of that town, between the hours of five 0 1 ,, six on Thursday evening last. The dreadful event to? * place at a colliery called Duke's Pit, at the time it was i¢ full operation, and arose, it was supposed, from the damp becoming ignited and exploding in the lowermo st gallery in the pit, where no fewer than sixteen m iner s " were at work, and eleven horses, all of whom were irr stantly hurled into eternity. Most of the unfortur.l oB sufferers, we regret to say, are married men, and. bar, left large families, totally unprovided f or , t o lament dreadful fate. Up to ten o'clock on Friday morning 0 " eight out of the sixteen bodies had been recovered. THE KE- KO -KA-K I, A NEW DOMESTIC ANI - Afi: —M. Audubon, in a letter o f th e 20th o f J une las t, written 110 miles above P or t U n i on , i n l at i t a d o 4. " degrees ten minutes N., communicates the " dise e ; very of an animal which bids fair to lrecome no only a valuable but a domestic one." He had t a ken r e ; fuge in a wood during a storm, and saw two eno ralo e beasts at play, somewhat resembling kangaro- 05 . A C 013 1,,; panion shot one of them; the other fled. " buffalo mountain elk," says M. Audubon, "is nothing in 0- „ r ; parison to this animal in the scale of we'rth. It site b ut its hind legs, its front legs or arms are s h or t, 1 5 armed with sharp claws, and it bound s or j um ps w s its hind legs. It has a tail, somewh a t lik e t h a t 0',, 0 sheep, about 10 inches long ; and rou n d th e m iddl e of ty lv body it has a ring of flesh, about 12 inches wide and , ei g r e thick in the middle or centre, whi c h produces lec, t " quantity of oil. On their heads th e y h a ve " n e horns very similar to the horns of the deer, bet? more than eighteen inches long; the h ea d i s also sb. very like that of the deer, and h as th e same, lan e a c' e teeth ; but what is most remarkabl e , th e i r coat i s of r, most beautiful fur I ever beheld, of a d ar k b row cow „ j The one we killed weighed, to th e b es t o f our c eleu , tions, upwards of 600 lbs., and it measur e d f rom the tc," of the head to the end of the tail, nine feet four inr: o 6 We had no sooner killed this one, than some Inc",:j o r joined us ; they said that in these woodlands sir e : : je animals were in great abundance. Th e y ca ll 0d A '" 0 0 their tongue the Re-ho-ka-ki, or j u mp er ; th ey fee" elf grass, herbs, and foliage. Upon observing us take e of the skin, the Indians expressed a d es ir e t o haves so.,„'-„ea the flesh, which we gave them. We cooked. s - ted found it delicious ; it was w hit e an d t en d er, at t d tas very similar to veal ; but the ring on the b oaf e nearly all oil, and the whole upper part will pi-odu e or great quantity. The Indians took us to their bet e ' village, which consisted of s i x f am ili es ; there w(' 0 41., , 0 0 less than six of these animals domesticated. Tw or e ;,/ ones, male and female, I bought for some beads' Mirror. O P ST. ANDREW'S.— SIR DAVID BREWSTEE I." 00 Wed mesday week, the Committee appointed by avid Presbytery for arranging the case of Sir ao vie Brewster, met in the session-house of the ') - „ e etl Church, to order the serving of the libel eg,`, l l , to, against Sir David, at last meeting of Pre s lit the On the officers arriving at the mansion 01 , i or Principal, it appeared that the gentleman : btl - Aeg dered his domestics not to receive any papers eg - ijlef from the quarter from which the officers snag et`,.,, d o had proceeded. The officers accordingly threw 0 , - 0 0 cuments into the mansion of the Hanoverian Knig 41 ,"„,e1fr took witnesses that they had duly served it at his ' I " ing-house.—Fife Journal. t of THE R - or id dE ,OSS-SHIRE RIOTS.—In the High Co o p Justiciary, held at Edinburgh on Wednesda4se Thursday, se vera l o f t h e part i es i mpl i cated i n the ore shire Church riots were tried. Some of them 0 0 convicted on evidence, and others pleaded guilty s jOe principal offender, Urquhart, was sentenced to • months' imprisonment, and the others to six mon'it!, BIRTHS, On the 7th inst., at the Rectory, Meppershall, Beelfg a the lady of the Rev. Henry Howarth, of a still-born son . On the 12th inst., at Harwich, the lady of Lieutenant; t - R.N., of a son. A l' On the 12th inst., at Clapton-square, Hackneys . fred William Smith, of a daughter. e On the 13th inst., the lady of George Franks, E.sq., or Blackfriars-road, of a daughter. MARRIED. bord t On the 13th inst., at Trinity Church, Marylebone, Ri- o eldest son of Richards Jennings, Esq., of Portlancl - Preof F Agnes Catherine Annabelle, only daughter of Vice"' rr a, Sir Edward Hamilton, Bart., K. C. 8., of Cumberland' te cos oe , On the 13th inst., at St. John's, Hampstead, Jame , ' Melvill, Esq., Secretary to the Hon. East India ColOg a gi.," ° Eliza Jane, eldest daughter of the late A. flardcastle , Hatcham House, Surrey. DIED. , 00k ft On the 9th inst., at Bedford-terrace, High Wycomt e , Eleanor Phillipps King, widow of the late B. King , L' e r ffkr On the 9th inst., at Howe-street, Edinburgh, Ro y ' t o bairn, Esq., aged 72. colts On the 9th inst., Mary Harman, relict of the late 5, , Harman, of Hammersmith. On the 9th inst., Anne, eldest daughter of James` piv 0 , Esq., of Epping, Essex. d Ilia On the llth inst., at Cl a yt on -pl ace , K enn ington-N s, Elizabeth, relict of the l a t e M r . W. Ed war ds, aged 7t ho rd On the 12th inst., at H orn t on - v ill as , K e nsington , J ford, Esq., of Doctors' Commons. cciet ,to On the 12th in.t„ Robert Sparling, Esq., 0f • ev street, Pimlico. Vpillt a On the 12th inst., at Grove House, Ham, Beebe, Esq. 10 11 On the lath inst., at Felix-terrace, Islington, Ann a the wife of Mr. Samuel Dawes Surreys .k, London : Printed and PublishecTb;llllJllD 0 Yll v tra n!,:lf No. 112, Strand, at The Sufi Office, No. 1 12 4 A 4, the County of Middlesex, Monday, JAMMU I°, .ead cial sari, ts.hip and sinij loon wort T 1 be n 4 offe r , Boar exi®t trade and SIN . k Ol th e . t•tt ; Abe ' 4 l ach Atic /*I t~ 2 vt ,r4b :4 ; APC 0 i Fa - 1 and J a an • tell flia;; CI of C Insti !may on( - from the -,_ plOl,~ debt to pi an4l they tea Pit Life. Gen] are man tece boil 'Peri rely !ft f aei 111 bete .!tev tee, tip 1114 ' Ye' t b.l Pli (11, ita