The Sun. — London, England, 1844-03-22 00:00:00

...,-----........... SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE. —The Anti-Corn-law League held another of its " monster meetings" last night inTCov.e n t-garden • Theatre. It was marked by as muc h enthusiasm in the ass emblage, which filled every part of the immense , r building, as has been exhibited at any prev iou s meetine i s The unity of the object sought to be attained by tise confederation ; the frequency of the opportunities af forded to the public for becoming acquainted wit . ti the question ; and the necessary repetition of the same facts and arguments by the speakers, many of whom appear frequently in the same place, to re-state the sae facts .and iterate the same arguments, would, ere this, have palled upon the satiaSted ear of the mere cravers after novelty. The 'unabated interest manifested by the public in the struggle now going on between the advo cates of free trade and the supporters of monopoly, ) both in the metropolis and in ever y p art of the king dom, demonstrates the firm hold which the question, now fairly placed in :issue, has taken of the national wind and feeling. The trading and manufacturing parts,l of the community regard their means of supports . rag themselves and familiesas bound upwith the decision of this controversy. Their sympathies are, conseqisently, with the League ; and while thousands coogre . gate within the buildinres in which Pars meetings are periodi cally or occasionally held, ten's of thousands . devour the reports of the proceedings, wad thus become increasingly enlightend by the argumer its, and are more deeply im pressed by the facts of which the speeches were corn posed. The meeting of last evening was marked by two 'circumstances of • s omesnterest. Lord Radnor presided s .and two tenant-farmers—members of the class for -whose special advantage, if the advocates of the corn laws are to be believe& the restriction upon importation is maintained—denounced the existing system as un sound in principle, and as fraught with miseshiefs to the agriculturists ; 'while it subdues the energies of commerce and restricts the operations of manufacturing industry. In the course of his elaborate opening speech, Lord Radnor stated a. fact—for the correctness of which he referred to the classification affixed to the population returns, taken under the Census Act—that " there has been for a considerable number of years a gradually seliminishing proportion of the population employed in the pursuits of agricuicture." A collateral fact was also stated, and proved frears the same unquestionable source, sit., that "contemporaneously with the diminished num siser of the people s employed in agriculture, the number of persons employed in manufactures has increased." The Noble Lod then proceeded to demonstrate, from facts, the pi viable failure of the various experiments which had been tried to protect the farmers from variable and ruinously-depressed markets, by means of what has been falsely called " a protective system ;" and argued that the best security to the farmers and farm la bourers would be found in an abolition of the protective duties. The speech of Mr. Lattimore—who announced himself "a tenant-farmer, who would satisfy any one who doubted that he was one "—was replete with facts and statements strongly confirmatory of the impolicy of the existing corn-laws, which he described as having wrought ruin to many farmers within the sphere of his own immediate knowledge. Mr. Lattimore proceeded to describe the farming labourers' condition under the " protective system." Like slavery, it is neither good for the masters nor for the risen :—" But, forsooth, it was said the corn-laws were necessary to be con tinued for the sake of the labourers. If they could reduce that wretched class to a lower state than that in which they were now placed, it would be frightful indeed.—(Cheers.) It was a melancholy reflec tion that in this country the reward attainable by in 'dustry should be so small.—(Cheers.) He had heard of the price paid for making shirts and the toiling of poor females day and night on other work, by which they scarcely obtained a livelihood—(Hear, hear) — but he would tell them that the poor labourer in the agricultural districts was scarcely able to obtain a sufficiency of food.—(Hear, hear.) He had known instances where labourers, with a large family of children, had vegetated—he would not say lived on 9s, a week, two of which were paid for rent, and poor-rates were paid on the remaining 7s.—(Hear, bear, and cries of "Shame")—instances where these poor creatures had to subsist, with their families, on even 7s. per week, and but for the sympathy and kind ness of those who lived near them, they must all but perish for want.--(Hear, hear.) He should like to see the advocates of corn-laws go and take their tax in hind.—(Hear, hear.) If they could see the deplorable istate of the famishing families of the agricultural la bourers, they would no doubt think it a fit study for an artist as a frontispiece for a Protection Hall.—(Cheers.)" Thin, be it remembered, is no fancy sketch, but the tatentent of a tenant-farmer, whose name and place of :residence are given, and who comes forward to state that which, if not consistent with truth and fact, is 'easy of confutation. Will any one undertake to dis- Tate the facts, or to disprove the statements ? Mr. Hunt described himself as " tenant-farmer-- ers. tenant-farmer only--and, comparatively speaking, a csor-tenant-farmer." He verified the statements of its Lattimore ; and delivered a plain, unvarnished, but -very impressive description of the depressed and de pendent state of the class to which he belonged ; and which he ascribed to the system which the farmers were walled upon by the landlords to assist in uphoiding. Ins remarks on the state of vassa'agc under which the :tenant-farmers are held .by the ex:sting, system, sand by which they are made the mere tools of the 'landlords for their political purpost s, and selfish -.maintenance of their restrictive laws, well deserve at -tendon ; but our limited space forbids. Let those who bestow their sympathies upon the over-worked and ill -remunerated manufacturing labourers, and who would demonstrate their humanity bydimiuishing their hours of labour, and thus diminish their means of obtaining food — .let them turn their eyes to the victims of their own selfish 'adhesion to en insane and cruel policy, under the iron operations of which both the manufacturing and agricul stural labourers are pressed down to the confines of astarsation ! STANDAIII).—With touch reluctance and no small disgust we are dragged back to the odious case of Mr. „Mar -,11 and Mdlle. Niord, by a letter signed " George H. Marsh," in the Mom tarry Post of this day. We do :not know whether the paramour of the profligate in :mate of Madame Lodon'a establishment is cognisant sot the publication of this letter ; but if he is, the 'publication of such an apolegy is an enormous aggra -vation of his original crime. We feel that we .offend in giving insertion to such a letter, though %commanded by the rule " um& ulteram partem," 'but we shall not offend further by analysing it. The writer speaks in a style of flippant levity, which proves :thst he does not understand, probably is incapable Of un tderstanding, the question between his wretched name *sake and the public. He argues as if the only consi wleration were the punishment of Mademoiselle Niord's :paramostr—about which nobody cares one farthing— sand not the relieving of the Church from an un •worthy and disgraceful member, which interests - every 'Christian in the community. Whether the occasional--- only occasional visitor at Madame Lodon's," shall con ..tinue his visits to that establishment, as a munificent contributor to its support and the support of its in zsates, or die, as hundreds of better men die daily, in an union workhouse, is a matter which concerns him ; but whether such a man, reeking from such 'society, shall ascend a pulpit to address our wives arid slaughters and sons, is a matter that deeply interests tus all. But, says Mr. Geo. 11. Marsh, the man is a penitent, and has actually discontinued his visits to .Madame Lodon's, substituting forsooth " visits to fa :mites of the highest respectability of his acquaint lance." We do not envy the families, but this is 'not repentance. Let him resign the station that die has disgraced, and then he may be believed ;penitent, but not till then. " Oh,"' replies his lepologist, " to give up his living would throw inrn on the world. It should be borne in luind that a clergyman, deprived of his prefer anent, is debarred by his orders from every other bource of livelihood. This is a motive, certainly, for in creased circumspection in him, but also for some un willingness to proceed to extremity, except where the ettfence is heinous, or the character of the party is irre • laimable." An officer of the army or navy dismissed ter cowardice or drunkenness, offences venial compared with Mr. Marsh's, has no other resource, and yet nobody tpities him ; a man who from incompetency fails at !the bar or in the medical profession, is as little the ob .-ct of compassion—people say the man took a line sae which he was not qualified. We regret his suffer ings, but the public service must not be betrayed—the property o r lives of the Queen's subject p ut in leo ardY i en order to k ee p a man in a position ' P for which Ie• is unfit. And is not the consideration much Tore grave in the case of a scandalous clergyman ? *Ve will remark upon one other pa ssa ge u nit of Mr. Marsh's letter, though we cannot remar k tvithout deep indignation: here it is:--" BishopsArethe o row accustomed to deal with cases of equal or greater enormity when recent, and properly put before them, Nwith extreme severity? If not , Is it ri g ht t o yield to a -t'amour, partly, at least, grounded on erroneous impres ' :Pions?" This is an insinuation that cases like that of -the rector of Barnack, are of customary, that is, of fre quent occurrence, than which no insinuat i o n can be more vilely false. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT, Lewes, March 20. CROWN SlDE.—(Before the Loan CEUXT JUSTICE.) The business for the county of Sussex, owing to the 'Tinter Assize, has been remarkably light. There were only thirty-one prisoners for trial, and the only serious rase, except one of burglary, was the charge against the tun Lawrence for the murder of Mr. Solomon, the chief officer of Brighton. The Court eat on Monday, but none of the cases dis "posed of on either side possessed the least feature of pub lic interest. THE MURDER AT BRIGHTON. In the course of the day the prisoner Lawrence was tailed up to plead, and, on the indictment being read, ho said, in a firm tone, that he was guilty of striking th e blow with the poker, but that he had no intention to lull Mr, Solomon. Lord Chief Justice DENMAN said that this amounted to a plea of not guilty, and he therefore directed that ,lea to be recorded. John Lawrence was pl aced at the bar, charged, "for that he, on the 13th March, at Brighton, upon Henry F:O3 1o m on, feloniously, wilfully, and of malice afore- Mought, did make an assault, and with a certain poker In his right hand, did feloniously, wilfully, and mali ciously strike and produce a mortal fracture, rupture, fsnd wound on the said Henry Solomon , of which mortal Fracture, rupture, and wound the said Henry So lomon *died." The prisoner was also similarly indieted on the Coroner's inquest. The prisonerat this time betrayedconsiderable emotion. Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Cobbett conducted the prosecu tion ; Mr. Chadwick Jones appeared for the defence. Mr. CLARKSON rose and spoke as follows:—It is im to,sible to concegl from ousel( the importances of the me. THE SUN, LONDO must Commit robbery and everything that is contrary to your wish.—l am, "AN ENEMY." Lord AnrimEit, having ordered that the plea of the pri soner should be recorded, proceeded to pass sentence upon him. The prisoner, his Lordship observed, had pleaded guilty to the commission of a crime of the greatest magnitude and enormity, and ono of which the Legislature had most pro perly marked its sense by the severity of punishment it had annexed to it. Of what use was it that men should join to gether in the bonds of civil society, if there was no security for life and property, if men could not sleep in peace and a sense of security, but were to live in a state of constant ter ror and alarm? The conduct of the prisoner was calculated to hold the district in which he lived in continual terror, and it was not to be endured in a country in which law prevailed that men should endeavour to compel others to do that which might be against their interest or their duty by threats of suffering from loss of property, or of submitting to death by the most horrible torments. The offence was of a most atro cious character, and it might, indeed, almost be said, that the sending of letters threatening to burn the property of the parties to whom they were addressed was worse than the putting the threat itself into execution, for when a man lost his property by fire he at least knew the worst ; but he to whom such threats were made was made to live in a state of continual terror and alarm. Such a state of society was in. tolerable, and in order that the well disposed part of society might sleep not only in security, but in a sense of security under a well-founded trust in the laws, and others be deterred from a repetion of the offence of which the prisoner had ad mitted his guilt, he must receive the extreme measure of punishment which the law had annexed to his crime, which was, that he be transported beyond the seas for the remainder of his life. Allpress Catlin, aged 19, was indicted for stealing a sheep, the property of Robert Dent. Mr. Gunning was counsel for the prosecution ; the pri soner defended himself This was a case of some singularity. The prosecutor is steward to Lady Olivia Sparrow, and has an " off-hand" farm some miles distant from his residence. The prisoner is s labourer living in this neighbourhood. Early in the morn ing of the 26th of January the prisoner knocked at the door of one of the Isle of Ely police, and on the policeman going to his window the prisoner desired him to " get up and take him into custody.' The officer at first thought the man was drunk, or that ho had roused him from his slumbers for the purpose merely of annoyance ; but the prisoner pro dueed a handkerchief covered with fresh blood, and said he had been sheep-stealing ; " he was sure to be taken, and he might as well give himself up at once." Upon seeing and hearing this the policeman went down stairs and secured him. The prisoner then stated that "he had killed a sheep in Mr. Dent's forty acre piece at Ram say, and had cut off the hind-quarters, which he carried in his handkerchief for four or five miles, when he got tired and threw them into the river close by the Forty•foot-bridge." He alsogave the officer the knife with which he had killed the animal. Having left his prisoner in the custody of one of his men, the policeman hurried off to the farm of Mr. Dent, and in the field the name of which the prisoner had mentioned he found the head, skin, and fore-quarter of a newly-slaughtered sheep. He then got assistance and went to the place where the prisoner said he had thrown the hind-quarters, and after much dragging of the river he fished up one of the legs and and a loin. The prisoner also confessed his guilt when he was before the justices on the charge. The prisoner in Court to-day loudly protested he was inno cent ; denied having killed the sheep ; said the knife which was produced was not that with which the sheep had been slain, and conducted himself in the deck in such a manner as to induce the Learned Judge to inquire of the gaoler, if the man's intellects were impaired. 'I he gaoler, who had known him long and had him in his custody frequently, replied in the negative. Lord ABLNGER having in few words summed up the evi dence. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. Upon inquiry it appeared that he had been in Huntingdon gaol alone on six previous occasions, and he was, therefore, sentenced to be transported for 15 years. He stepped gaily from the dock and bade the spectators " good by," leaving them astonished at his uncommon impudence. When he was before the magistrates upon the above charge, he confeSsed that he was the person who had, a few nights before the robbery in question, wantonly cut down a large quantity of young trees of the prosecutor, and he had the assurance to insist upon being paid 10 guineas by that gen tleman, being the reward which he had offered to any one who would discover the offender; The grand jury found a true bill against him for this offence also, but it was not thought necessary for the ends of justice to try him upon it POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-RO USE. A person of gentlemanlike appearance and address, named John Powell, was charged before Sir John Key, who sat for the Lord Mayor, under the following odd circumstances: — Mr. James Walters, the proprietor of the Guildhall Hotel and Coffee-house, stated that on the 14th of February the prisoner came to the house, contracted a bill to the amount of fourteen shillings and fivepence, which he paid next day, and then he continued to con tract a bill until the 22d, when the amount reached 3/. 2s. 6d. The bill had been made up to the 28th, as the prisoner's luggage was lying in his room, and no notice had been given that the room might be otherwise appropriated. On Wednesday night the prisoner after an absence from the 22d of February, walked into the coffee-room, and witness sent him in the bill and de manded immediate payment, in answer to which a check for 31. 10s. was handed to him payable on the 23d instant, which he refused to take. The waiter had picked up a letter addressed to the prisoner, which pro -1 fessing to come from the prisoner's brother, was calcu lated to throw some light upon the subject. The letter contained some observations in reprobation of the prisoner's conduct. Mr. Walters said that the prisoner had obtained ac commodation under false pretences, inasmuch as he passed himself off at the Guildhall Coffee-house as Mr. Whiteside, the celebrated Irish Counsel, who defended lir. Duffy, one of the traversers in the Irish conspiracy affair. The character thus assumed had the effect of leading to a credit which would not have been given to a person who had applied without introduction. The discovery was made by a gentleman in the coffee-room, who stated to witness that he knew Mr. Whiteside, and that the prisoner certainly was not the distinguished person he represented himself to be. That gentleman had written to the Learned Counsel, and had received an answer contradicting the prisoner's assertion. 'The prisoner said he could easily show the necessity —the actual expediency—that he should assume the name of Mr. Whiteside, at the same time that he denied the correctness of the main features of the case, as repre sented by Mr. Walters. Ile had, he assured the Alder man, been a madman during the space of six years, in consequence of an injury he had sustained in the head by a fall from his horse. He had been Coroner for the county of Kent, and there were many respectable persons in London who could bear testimony to the truth of all he had said and should say. He had served his time under the gentleman to whom Mr. Whiteside had been a pupil, and as some of his family had thought proper to keep up, after his complete recovery, the report that he continued mad, in order to carry out their designs upon his property, he was, he considered, justified in personating Mr. Whste side, or any other individual, with the view of escaping the persecution either of mad doctors or Sheriff's officers. If, in pretending that he was Mr. Whiteside, he had offended against the law, it was more than he knew, for certainly lie had not taken upon himself the part with the intont of deriving any advantage from it beyond that a hich related to his personal security, which was in danger of being hazarded by the discovery of his real name to his enemies. Sir JOHN KEY told the prisoner that it appeared from Mr. Walters' statement, that if he had not repre sented himself as Mr. Whiteside, the bill would not have been allowed to run on, and asked whether the prisoner was able to discharge the amount ? The prisoner replied, that he could obtain it by send ing to a relation in town. He further stated, that he had three children, and that he had been called away from the Guildhall Coffee-house to the country on a subject connected with their welfare ; and he de clared that he was never so much surprised as when, upon re-entering the Coffee-house, he received a pe remptory order to pay the bill without delay, for he had greatly amused the customers by his description of what had taken place upon the trial of the Irish tra- Versers. Sir JOHN KEY said, he had no doubt that Mr. Walters would be satisfied to let the matter drop upon receiving the amount of the bill. The prisoner assented to this proposition. Mr. Walters said, it was not the insigaidcant amount of the bill that led him to such a course as that he had pursued on this occasion, but his apprehension that a similar scheme of humbugging might be played off at other houses. The remarkable thing that appeared to strike those who heard the case was, how on earth there could have been got together a set of such flats as could, for a mo ment, have mistaken the poor creature at the bar for the powerful and dignified advocate. WORSHIP-STREET. Wm. Brown, a well-dressed man, who formerly kept a beer-shop in Nelson-street, Hackney-road, was brought before Mr. Bingham for final examination, charged with having been concerned in the commission of several daring burglaries, that have been lately perpetrated in the counties of Essex and Cambridge. It appeared that a continued series of daring and sys tematic burglaries, which have occasioned considerable alarm and excitement in the above counties, had taken place at different times, extending over a period of seve ral months, and not the slightest clue to the discovery of the perpetrators was obtained until about six weeks since, when sSuperintendent Clarke, of the rural police, succeeded in apprehending two notorious characters, named Cuttress and Bennet, against whom a clear case was established, on which they were both convicted at the last Chelmsford Assizes, and were sentenced to transportation for life. In consequence of certain information that transpired on that occasion, the Superintendent proceeded, in company with Sergeant Brennan, on the 26th ult., to the house of the prisoner in Nelson-street ; on searching which they discovered an immense assortment of miscellaneous property, the produce of different depredations, of which they took immediate possession. Whilst they were prosecuting the search, the prisoner escaped from the house, but he sur renderedtong wtehn h adt i him s elf in n f b Et b on s :e br ought x the against hi m. to meet any char ges Miss Sarah Giblin, niece to Thomas Scott, Esq.,of stated that, on the 25th of Ja nuary last, her uncle's house was broken into and robbed of a large quantity of property. She identified the plated candlestick, table-cloth, and the carving -knife, now pro duced, as the property of her uncle. Sometime before the robbery, she saw the prisoner on the high road, 1 near her uncle's residence, in company with three other men, one of whom she believed was Cuttress, the convict. Algernon Herbert, Esq., of Ickleton, in Cambridge shire, identified a mahogany work-box, a writing desk, and carpet-bag, which were stolen, with other articles, from his house some time between December 23 and January 27, last. pb Singleton, vicar of o fo f re ß ib ab li rah ea am ter , e n d es on r an a consider able quantity of plate and, other p r opert y, C th a i rhm n b i eri : ed t g C O I: f j stated tesel4tthhaot his f ous December lasti of the value of nearly 50L, was carried o ff. e two volumes pro duced, entitled " The Life of Christ," and " The Wake --- , lancholy case to which your attention and that of the public by whom we are surrounded has been directed. 1 am instructed by the Commissioners of the town of :Brighton, with the assistance of my Learned Friend, 31r. Vobbett, to lay the short and melancholy facts be fore you. It appears that no longer ago than last Wed nelay, a week only from the present time, the deceased, Henry Solomons, in the discharge of his public duties , was f)und in the office which belonged to him in the Town I of the town of Brighton. Between seven and eight. o'clock on that evening, the young man at the b: tar had been apprehended for the commission of some fe Sony—shop-lifting, I believe—at no great distance from the . , spot. An officer of the name of Barnden had taken h;an into custody, and had brought him to the police office, as it is called, of the Town Hall of Brighton, where the chief constable Solomon was sitting in a chair ‘, and whilst he was there waiting for the arrival of the witness by whose information the charge was to be evoai, Solomon, the officer, put a few questions to him, 01>e of which was how long he had been in Brighton. I think he gave a reek which, from information given to 1 Solomon, he believed was untrue—namely, the prisoner i said 'he had been there two days, whereas there is I reason to believe he had been there many months ; and upon Solomon saying, " That is not true; we know you have been here a fortnight or more," the prisoner drew the stock from his neck, threw it down before him, and said, " I'm tired of my life ; give me a knife that I may make away with myself," and appeared in a state of considerable excitement. So lomon offering him no affront, making no suggestion of the smallest provocation, on the contrary endea vouring to soothe him, besought him to compose I himself, told him he was not to be tried there, but i that he nas merely waiting the arrival of a witness Ito enable the charge to be made. Ho then turned 1 from the spot where the prisoner stood ; he im mediately placed himself in a large chair, which was nearly opposite, on one side of the fire-place—l don't know which. There were some other gentlemen in the room, whom I shall call before you ; and Solomon was engaged in conversation for a few minutes with those gentlemen. I believe I have detailed to you everything that had passed up to this time. In the course of this conversation the son of Mr. Slight, known to all of you as the highly-respectable clerk to the Commissioners of the town of Brighton, who happened to be in the room, was leaning on the hatchdoor by which you enter. He was on one side—his back somewhat turned to the door. The prisoner rose from the chair, seized the poker that lay in the fireplace behind him, raised his hand with the poker in it, and struck a blow on the luncovered head of Solomon that felled him to the I ground. The poor fellow fell on his hands and knees; he was utterly incapable of helping himself; and he had at that moment received his death-blow. But he was raised by the gentlemen, supported in a chair, and he became insensible. The man at the bar made this observation—" I know I have done it; I hope I have killed him; I hope I shall be hung," or, "I hope I shall be hanged." I should have told you before, that which you would expect should immediately follow such an act, namely, the act of the use of the poker on the unfortunate Solomon; ho was seized by the young man Slight at the moment. Mr. Slight did not see the blow struck, for it was struck from behind him ; but he did see the poker descend on the head of Solomon, and he did at the moment turn round and seize the party who must have struck it, and saw the upraised poker, bent as you will find it was by the force of the blow, in the hands of the wan, and the moment it was taken from his hand he used the expres sions I have named. In these short observa tions are contained the whole transactions as respects the prisoner at the ban Desirous not to say anything to aggravate the facts, I shall simply lay the melancholy case before you ; and you will discharge, under the direction of his Lordship who presides, a duty serviceable alike to yourselves and the public. The witnesses examined before the magistrates and coroner were then called, and they repeated their former evidence, which fully corroborated the statement of facts made by the learned counsel for the prosecution. Mr. CHADWICK JONES then addressed the jury fur the defence, and contended that the expressions used by the prisoner in Solomon's office, together with the entire absence of any conceivable malice or motive, showed that the prisoner was acting under a sudden impulse or frenzy, which deprived him temporarily of reason, and made him an irresponsible agent. Lord DENMAN then proceeded to sum up, and con cluded his observations as follow :—" You will weigh the whole matter in your minds ; and unless it is clearly made out to you that the prisoner was actually deprived of reason at the time he struck the blow, he is clearly guilty of murder. If you think he was deprived of reason, he will not be guilty of murder, and you will acquit him of murder on the ground of insanity. Bat I need not say you must be fully convinced of that, before you say he is not guilty of the murder." Clerk of the Court—Consider your verdict. The jury turned round in their box fur about 12 mi nutes, when they resumed their seats. There was a breathless silence in the Court, as the Clerk of the Arraigns inquired, Do yeu find the prisoner, John Law . - rence, guilty of the murder of Henry Solomon, or not guilty? Foreman—Guilty. Clerk of Arraigns.—Prisoner at the bar, you have been convicted of the crime of wilful murder ; what have you to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon you. The prisoner, who had been greatly agitated during the time the judge was summing up, was now supported by the turnkeys ; and Lord Ds;sstax at once proceeded to pass sentence. He warned the prisoner to make use of the few days e hich reinnined to him in this world, in seeking that repentance which should prepare him for the next ; and told him that there was not the slight est chance that the extreme penalty of the law would not be inflicted. The sentence of the Court is —" That you be taken from hence to the gaol for this county, at Horsliatn, and thence to the place of exe non, and that there YOU be hanged by the neck till you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul ; and that your body be afterwards buried ix the precincts of the prison." The prisoner was they assisted out of the dock in a highly agitated state; and as he descended the stsirs he gave an earnest gaze on the crowd, as if looking for some one, but he made no sign of recognition. The trial lasted three hours. CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) Upon the special jury case of Putland v. Troup being called on, one of the jurors, on his taking the book to be sworn, said he wished to know, being, as a Roman Ca tholic, deprived of his civil rights in other respects, whether he was eligible to serve the office of a juror. Mr. Baron ALDERSON looked up at the gentleman and said, " How can you be so foolish ? I cannot think how a man can make such a goose of himself. Don't be such a g oose. 'The gentleman was then sworn. The action was one of libel, arising out of a squabble with respect to some parish accounts at Hastings, and after two or three witnesses were examined, the record was withdrawn. LERREVX V. 13EIMELEY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff; a banker at Colne, to recover a sum of 65,000 f., and interest, from the defendant, F. H. Berkeley, Esq., M.P. for Bristol, under rather singular circumstances. Mr. Theiiger and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Platt with Mr. Peacock were for the defendant. It appeared from the statement of the Learned Coun sel and the evidence that was adduced, that in the year 1826 the defendant had an introduction to the plaintiff, through Messrs. Drummond, who were the bankers of his mother, the Countess Berkeley, and in consequence of that introduction numerous money transactions took place between them—cheques were drawn, bills dis counted, &c.—and at length there became a balance due to the plaintiff, of upwards of two thousand pounds. Some negotiations took place respecting the payment, and it appeared that at length the defendant signed a document, by which he admitted that he owed the plain tiff the sum of sixty-five thousand francs, and that he was entitled to receive interest at the rate of nine per cent, upon that amount. It did not appear that any pay ments were made, either on account of principal or in terest, and eventually the plaintiff received a letter dated "At sea," in which the defendant said be would not be hunted any longer by a par cel of blackguards, and he bad, therefore, re solved to " remove his body" to another place. The defendant concluded this letter by subscribing himself, " Yours, very sincerely;" and the reading of the docu• ment occasioned a good deal of laughter. It was upon the bond or deed referred to that the present action was brought to recover, not only the principal, but the inte rest, at nine per cent., for a period of eighteen years. Witnesses were called to prove these facts, and one Mr. Coup, in answer to a question from Mr. Baron Alderson, said that, if parties chose to make an agree ment to pay nine per cent., that the law of France did net consider such a transaction illegal. Mr. PLATT made a very able address to the jury on behalf of defendant, and commented upon the very ex traordinary character of the transaction, and the at tempt, aft er e i g h teen years, d ur i ng w hi c h time there did not appe a r t o have been any application or demand for the money, to enforce such a claim and he said the Statute of Liimitations would have barred the plain tiff answer horn enforcing th e c l a i m b ut f or hi s res idi ng i n a foreign si bif for any defendant country. i' to °observed a that claim it of wm this descrip tionimPs- after such a period of time had elapsed, and he called upon the jury, under those circumstances to give a verdict for the defendant. Mr. Baron ALDERSON having summed up the case, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 6,6401., that being the amount of the principal sum, and the interest for eighteen years, at nine per cent. Two other Common .Tury causes were then disposed of, and the the business of the Civil side concluded about eight o'clock. NORFOLK CIRCUI r. —Hunting— A n , (Before Lord AntleGEß.) knowin for unlawfully, March 20. Gifford White, aged 18, was indicted letter, threatening to burn him and the other farmers of the RV, and feloniously sending to one Isaac nett a pariah of Dluntisham in their beds, and also to burn their property. The prisoner pleaded Guilty. The prosecutor is a farmer living in the parish of Blun tisham, id this county, and the prisoner in December last was a labourer in husbandry in the same place. On the morning of the 28th of that month one of the female servants of the prosecutor found a sealed letter inside his farm-yard, . directed—" To the Farmers of Bluntisham, Aunts " She took it to her master, who opened and read it ; it was in these words " Bluntisham, Hunts. " TO TITE VARITSItS. " We are determined to set Are to the whole of this place if you don't set us to work, and burn you in your beds if there is not an alteration. What do you think the young men are to do if you don't set them to work? They must do eoraethiJag. The Each is, we cehaot go any Imager. We , FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1844. of Milton," together with the several articles of cutlery, were his property. John Partridge, a coachman in the service of the Rev. Isaac Hall, of Snailwell, in Cambridgeshire, identified a box coat and some harness, which were burglariously stolen from his master's stables, in March, 180. George Townshend, residing at Fordham, stated that the articles alluded to by the last witness were sold to him last year by the pnsener, whose sister lived with him in the capacity of housekeeper. Superintendent Clarke and Sergeant Brennan proved that the whole of the property identified by the other witnesses was found in the possession of the prisoner, who claimed it as his own. The prisoner (who declined saying anything) was fully committed on four distinct cases ; but to afford time for the identification of a quantity of unclaimed property which remains in the hands of the police, he will be brought up again next week. CLERICENWELL. George Commodore, dressed in a blue linen smock frock, and representing himself to be a butcher's boy, was charged with obtaining, on false pretences, numerous legs of mutton and sirloins of beef, the property of res pectable housekeepers. Richard Smith, footman to M. Warren, Esq., J.P., Montague-street, Russell-square, deposed that between one and two o'clock in the afternoon of the sth of March, the prisoner knocked at his master's door, and told wit ness, who opened it on his ringing, that he was sent by his employer, Mr. Kent, butcher, Southampton-row, for the leg of mutton which had been left there in a mistake a few minutes previously ; he wished to change the leg and would bring the right one in a few minutes. Wit ness called the cook, who gave him the leg of mutton, which had been left there by Mr. Kent's messenger. He never returned, and they were obliged to get another leg of mutton. Mr. Kent, the butcher, deposed that he had not autho rised the prisoner to take away the leg of mutton, and had never seen him before. Several of his customers had been defrauded of joints of meat in the same manner. Mary Ann King, servant to Mrs. Susanna Francis, a widow lady, residing at 50, Great Ormond-street, Bloomsbury, deposed that the prisoner obtained a sir loin of beef from her mistress on the 30th of February last, on a similar pretence as in the former case, alleging that he was in the employment of Mr. Watling, 21, Marchmont-street. Mr. Watling gave similar testimony to Mr. Kent. Mary Ann Farmer, servant to Mr—Bully, of Bernard street, Russell-square, deposed that the prisoner ob tained a leg of mutton from her by a like ruse about six weeks ago. Sergeant Dodd said the police had obtained informa tion of frauds like the present on housekeepers in no less than fourteen different cases. Mr. Whiskin, a county magistrate, residing in Upper Bedford-row, who, on Wednesday week, was defrauded of a leg of mutton, was on the bench, but could not identify the prisoner as the person who had committed the offence. The Court was crowded with housekeepers and ser vants who have been plundered by members of a gang to which, doubtless, the prisoner belongs. Mr. Ewart, the salesman, of Newgate-market, was likewise present, who, we understood, had been defrauded, but he could not identify the prisoner. Mr. GREENWOOD committed the prisoner for trial on the above-mentioned three cases. Two dustmen, named Eton and Brown, were charged with the following outrageous conduct: — Mr: Jenkins, residing at 29, Bedfordbury, and a re spectable tradesman residing in Holles-street, Clare market, were returning from the funeral of the mother of the latter, between five and six o'clock on Wednesday evening last, still dressed in funeral garments, and were passing in quiet procession through Judd street, St. Pancras, when the prisoners, and four or five other dustmen, not in custody, drove up in dust carts, and after breaking the line of procession, one of the ruffians struck an unoffending female mourner with his whip. Jenkins remonstrated with Brown, but the latter struck him in the eye with his clenched fist, and with such violence as to very much injure and inflame that.prgan. And, on similar remonstrance, Eton struck the other complainant in the mouth, so as to cause blood to flow from it. A'mob of 100 persons soon assembled, and police-constable, 107 E, with much difficulty se cured the prisoners. The prisoners, in default of the payment of fines, were committed to the House ofCorrection—Eton for ten days, and Brown for seven days. BOW-ST.REE7. Yesterday John Horne, a young man engaged - as money taker at Drury-lane Theatre, was placed at the bar before Mr. Jardine, charged with embezzling various mined money received by him for and on account of Mr. Alfred Bunn, the lessee, his employer. Samuel Spencer, who had been engaged for three months in the theatre as checktaker, stated that he knew the prisoner, who had been in the capacity of moneytaker for the last two months. On the 15tk inst., when he was passing the pri soner's box leading to the gallery;he addressed him and said, " We may as well make a shilling or two to get a glass of grog," which witness understood was to keep back a portion of the money taken at the doors, but he replied he would have nothing to do with it, and passed on to his check-gate. A few minutes before the house opened he came to the box in which witness was sitting, and said he would send him up four large round checks, which were used for half-price, and which he was :to keep in his pocket, but the witness refused again to have anything to do with them, and the prisoner went away, a third person having come up at the time. The next night, being stationed in the same gallery, the prisoner again invited him to take some checks, but he refused, saying, he could not think of committing a breach of confidence, and on the following Monday morning having communicated the circumstance to Mr. Parsons, the box book-keeper, he received directions how to act in future, and being again stationed at the gallery door, as the prisoner passed, he said he wished he could bring him to his senses, and upon witness asking "Do you think it's all right ?" the prisoner said, " I think it is," and then he assented to the proposal. The prisoner then told him he would send him up some round checks after the run of admission was over, at the same time directing him to put them into his pocket, as he received them from persons passing into the theatre, and give them to him. Before the half-price commenced on that night twenty checks were presented by persons who had paid the prisoner, and witness put them into his pocket instead of the check-box, which was kept locked, and at, the conclusion of the performance he gave them to the prisoner , wh o said it was all right , at the same time e m pri " ce . owfrtalpiepeedheucil in a piece of paper, which s. The next night the same pu rsued, witness receiving 10e. As hi s share—and, wasshcah e d mh i handing fwt h ah i s having gone to drink together, witness asked him if a similar plan could be adopted, and the prisoner replied " Yes, in the pit ;" but he did not thinkpursuing such a course. On the eing both in the same situation, any other p ersons em pl o yed in the of ce check s , w hi c h h e p u t i n t o his and, about $ o'clock, being pocket ,ig theatre ctnknctestsot w fro eetrcrheeetei return n re2ndo t h t2th e oo t h f uihn a el b sl habit rbiprisoner, asked. by a censtable for them, he gave them up; and di rectly the prisoner was taken into custody. Witness in formed Mr. Parsons every morning of what had taken place, and he delivered to him the mone y s in the same state he had received them. Mr 1 .21 offices to the prison er, shortly after 8 o'clock, and desired he would bring his mo ne y and che ck - box to Mr. Bunn's room. The receipts we re then found to h e 5/ . 10 s. , which a ccount st Parsons, witness on Monday, proved that ke went with an having explained the di rec ti ens h e h a d g iven the tallied with the remainder of the first-price checks; but i n examining the half-price checks which should not have been used, there appeared a deficiency of 31, the last witness hav ing 20, and the prisoner 8, on his person, with three which were found in the box, the money for them not being ac counted for. The prisoner said he would reserve his defence; and the witnesses being bound over, he was fully committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. DISPUTE BETWEEN FRENCH and ENGLISH SAILORS AT MARSEILLES. MARSEILLES, ?saner( 14.—This - case came on yester day before the C ourt of Police Correctionelle. The chief witnesses in support of the prosecution were Capt. Mottet, master of the Laurentine French coasting ves sel, his mate, hie only seaman, his apprentice, and his cabin boy. The prisoners were the first mate of the Romulus English vessel, second mate, and two seamen of the same. The Counsel for the complainants addressed the Court. The Procureur du Roi next addressed the Court. He exaggerated the pretended wrong on the part of the English; the injury sustained by the French in their persons, their ship, and their trading intereetss With this address the proceedings of the day close 4 aid were resumed this afternoon. M. Rey de Forests being called on for the defence, proceeded to expose the perilous position of the Romulus during the gale, Hid the necessity the captain was under of seeking a refuge for his ship. He proved, from his having succeeded in occupying it, that the position he had attempted -to take up was practicable ; and he inferred that so injury had re sulted to the complainant's vessel from the fact of none having been proved. He inferred that Captain Esson had not infringed any of the regulations of the port, from the fact that, if he had, it would have been the duty of the captain of the port to prosecute him, which he would have done, but which he did not; and he logically concluded, that the manoeuvre which Captain Esson had executed was agreeable to the usages of the port, and the position he had assumed lawfully acquired, from the captain of the port's confirmation of the same, in spite of the appeal, complaints, and remonstrances of the plaintiff But, independently of the above, the counsel for the de fence was enabled to lay before the Court the captain of the port's own opinion of the case in question, as far as his jurisdiction extended, and which completely exonerated Captain Esson of all blame in the course he had pursued. The judgment and sentence of the Court were as fol lows :—" Considering that there was evidently an infrac tion of the regulations of the port, added to the aggra vating eirsumstances of a violation of domicile ; considering that a struggle ensued, in which blows were dealt on both sides, and wounds inflicted on the Captain and his cabin-boy ; and considering that these acts con• stitute a misdemeanour, punishable under the 311th article of the Code Penale, the Court decrees and sen tences the two mates of the Romulus to a fine of 16f. each to the Etat Civil, and one months' imprisonment ; and the two men of the same ship to ten days . ' imprison ment, besides 500 f. fine for the benefit of the captain of the Laurentine, and all the costs of the prosecution, to the charge of the ship Romulus." LONDON Issmurtox.—On Wednesday last a con versazione was held in the library of the Institution, when a good collection of objects of interest was exhibited. Mr. Bell lectured in the theatre, and illustrated the admirable economy of means, exhibited in the animal kingdom, in those cases where the peculiar wants of certain species are sup plied, not by the existence of new and special organs, but by the adaptation of those which are common to the entire group ; as when the member, which in one case constitutes the hand of a monkey, under other devalopementa becomes the wing of the bat or the fin of the fish. There was a very fall attendance of proprietors. The neat and last meeting of the kind is on Wednesday, April 17. CHANGE or THE IRISH MAIL PacKETs•—The day is officially announced as the 12th of April for the long-ton t/11101*i Change in Vas lioara of 010 snail packets fading. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS, March 21. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. CORN-LAWS. The EARL of STRADBROKE presented a petition from certain landowners in the county of Suffolk, against any alteration in the corn-laws. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from Mor peth, and some other places in the county of Northum berland, with a similar prayer. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL. Lord KENYON presented a petition from a cer tain corporate body in Shropshire, which was threatened with the loss of certain privileges which it had enjoyed from the time of Queen Elizabeth, by the Ecclesiastical:Courts Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House against that Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that ho should at a future time move that the petitioners be heard by Counsel against the Bill. REDUCTION OF THE THREE-AND-A-HALF PER CENTS. Lord CAMPBELL considered it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to what he considered an unjusti fiable delay in giving the Royal Assent to a Bill which had passed their Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament. On Tuesday their Lordships had read the Bill for the reduction of the Three. and-a-Half per Cents., a third time. The amount of the stock to be reducd was 250,000,0001., and by that Bill certain terms were offered to the stockholders, and a right was reserved to them to express their dis sent, and to be paid off at par. By a clause in that Bill the dissentients were required to express their dissent on or before the 23d of this month. He had expected that the Royal Assent would have been given to that Bill on Wednesday, which would have given Thursday, Friday, and Satur day to the dissentients to express their dissent ; but there had been no Commission on Wednesday—there had been no .Commission to-day. The Bill could not possibly become law before four o'clock to-morrow, which would only give a few hours to the 100,000 stock holders, many of whom resided a great distance off, to express their dissent. The terms the Government offered were liberal, and possibly there might be no dissentients, but it might become a precedent for a future Minister who might wish to reduce the National Debt, and who might offer terms which the stockholders might not be disposed to accept, to force them into acquiescence. It might also expose us to misrepresentation among foreign nations. We had always prided ourselves in preserving our faith with the 'national creditor, and if we wished to maintain that character, a proper opportunity ought to be afforded to dissentients to express their dissent. This had happened very unfortunately and very unne cessarily. There might have been a Commission yester day, or to-day. He wished for an explanation of the delay, as it rendered the dowers of dissent quite futile. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he intended to have had a Commision yesterday, but he received an intimation from the other House that it would be more convenient to have the Commission to-morrow. There had already been given three notices of dissent, and he did not think there would be any more. Al though in point of law there could be no dissent until after the Bill had received the Royal Assent, yet practi cally the dissent in these cases had been given, and on all other occasions had been given before the Bill be came law. Lord MONTEAGLE said that this was a subject of great importance, and he was glad that his Noble ' and Learned Friend had called the attention of the House to it. He did not think that on this occasion the delay would produce any practical inconvenience, • and he was surprised that there had been even one dis ' sentient, as the measure was so advantageous. lie • hoped, however, that care would be taken to F given longer time, and to act more regularly in future dealings with the National Debt. .igs with the riationaL CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND). Lord NORMANBY had a petition to present for a iady named Woolridge, complaining of neglect of duty on the part of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ire land. The petition stated, that in 1819 Thomas Wool ridge died, leaving the rent of houses in Har court-street, Dublin, for the relief of the poor in that city. In two years afterwards a Chan cery suit was instituted by the relatives of the deceased against the Board of Bequests. In 1828 there was a final decree, but since that period the Board had taken no steps to apply the funds according to the will of the testator ; and in 1840 the Master reported that only I,OOOL had been paid into Court for the use of the charity, although the rents re ceived amounted to 24,0001. —23,000/, having been squandered. In the case which he (Lord Normanby) brought under their Lordship? attention on a former occasion, when the Board of Guardians refused to allow a bequest to be applied to the education of children under the care of a rector of the Es tablished Church, the sum in dispute was only 71. 10s., but here, where the bequest was 1,0001. a year, to he de voted to the relief of the poor, they entirely neglected their duty. The Duke of WELLINGTON—Let me have a copy of the petition. Lord NORMANBY then presented a petition from the next of kin of two orphan children—one from Dur ham and one from Rochester—complaining that the children had been enlisted without their consent, and that one of the boys was under fourteen years of age. The same Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Waterford, praying that the corporations of Ireland might have the same rights as those in England ; and also a petition from St. John's, Newfoundland, signed chiefly by Irishmen, praying for a redress of the grievances of Ireland. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice, that to-morrow week he should present a petition from Ire land, on the state of that country, and upon that occa sion he should draw the attention of their Lordships to the state of the sister island. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that, upon the same occasion, he should call the attention of the House to the instructions given to the officers of the Crown, relative to the composition of juries ; and he should move that their Lordships be summoned for that day. Lord WHARNCLIFFE wished to know if the Noble Lord's notice had reference to the composition of the jury on a late occasion. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said his object was a general one, and was intended to apply to the instruc tions given now and to be given to the officers of the Crown in the composition of jury lists. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several returns re specting quarantine regulations. The Bishop of BANGOR presented a petition against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had to call the attention of their Lordships to the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the second reading of which was fixed fur that evening. This was a question which had at several times been submitted to their Lordships' con sideration. There was little novelty in the Bill, and therefore, he should occupy but little of their time in explaining its scope and object, It was, however, de sirable, that he should principally call their Lordship? attention to the history of the proceeding. It would be in their recollection that in the year 1830 a Commission was appointed to take into their consideration the constitution of the ecclesiastical courts and the administration of justice by those tribunals. It made its Report in the following year. The Commission he should state con tained among its members several of the most revered prelates, many eminent persons, and certain of the heads of the law, equity, and ecclesiastical tribunals of the country. They considered the subject very fully, and made a report, but nothing was immediately done. In 1833 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed for the purpose of again investigating the subject, and to this Committee the report of the Commission was re ferred. That Committee carefully considered the sub ject, and having examined the late Lord Tenterden, the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and other eminent characters, presented a report agree ing in substance with that published by the Commission. Upon these proceedings a Bill was founded, and was brought into their Lordships' House by his Noble and Learned Friend who then sat upon the Woolsack (Lord Brougham). He did not know precisely from what cause, but that Bill proceeded only to a certain stage, and was not prosecuted further. In 1835, after his Noble and Learned Friend had left office, the same Bill—or the same Bill with some alterations and modifications—was presented by another Noble Friend to that Houma. Nothing took place upon that Bill, and he apprehended for this reason that, almost contemporaneous with it, Sir Frederick Pollock, who was then Attorney-General, obtained leave to bring in a similar Bill in the House of Commons. Almost immediately afterwards he resigned office, and then his Noble and Learned Friend who was sitting at the table (Lord Campbell) introduced a mea sure corresponding with those that had been introduced by his predecessors. That measure had been brought in by his predecessor in the month of June. It was founded not entirely upon the Report of the Commis sioners, but that of a Committee of the House of Com mons ; and although that Bill was introdced in June, 1835, and the Parliament sat till August, no further proceedings took place upon it. What was the reason of that he could not explain. In the following 3-ear, his Noble Friend who preceded him in the office of Lord Chancellor introduced a similar Bill. That Bill was read a first and second time, was referred to a Committee, and a report was made upon it ; but owing to some cause the Bill pro ceeded no further and the measure was abandoned, - he presumed, in consequence, of tome difficulties his Noble and Learned Friend had anticipated in another place. Thus the matter rested. and his Noble and Learned Friend, up to 1840, never resumed that measure. Hav ing inade these statements, he came now to the last at tempt made in the way of legislation on this subject, he meant the proceedings in the House of Commons last year, when a Bill, similar to the others that had been intro duced, was brought in by a Member of the Govern ment. The second reading of that Bill was carried, but it was considered impossible to carry it on in its then shape. Alterations were made in it—it was referred pro firma to a Committee, but the session bad then arrived at that period when it was considered impossible to carry it through, and the measure was net further proceeded with. tinder these circumstances, he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it important to Introduce the measure this session in its modified shape. He was anxious to go as far as he could upon the present occasion to reform the ecclesiastical courts; by carrying into effect the report of the Commissioners. The great object of the Bill was to consolidate the Arches' and the Prerogative Courts. Those courts were presided over by the same judge, they were attended by the same bar, they were held in the same hall, and they were, for all practical purposes, one and the sam e co urt. Could i t there fore be doubted that the consolidation of those —............----- two courts would be beneficial to the public ? I injurious to real property. There was hardly an es,_t s ! ts e As separate courts they had two sets of minist erial offi- ; but what was affected by settlements ; many Of te e , cers, and by the proposed measure one of those sets I were for terms of years, and, in order to make ° e ms, would be dispensed with, which would be a great title to an estate, it was necessary that all these our relief to the public. He proposed. to do the sam e should be g ot in. The conve y ancer, in making t thing with regard to the courts of the Arch- 1 title might find that one of those persons had died in. ll ' s deacon of York. He next came to consider 1 peculiar jurisdiction, and it would be necesssary to tait: the diocesan courts. In every diocese there was a court I out administration ; but he could not venture to ta,, tt in which probate of wills could be granted, and which 1 out administration in the peculiar, or in the dioce s ', o possessed contentious jurisdiction in all ecclesi- court, because, if it could be proved that the Pers,`,/,,, astical matters. Those courts were coeval with the had died worth 5/. in any other urisdiction,,„nt Constitution. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had administration would be void, and the , title bad. 1 -" tt recommendedthe abolition of those courts. It was one strong argument for the abolition of the dice led was said that they imperfectly performed the courts. The report of this Commission recom rt , duties that devolved on them, and that they were pre - the abolition of the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical e°.'l a sided over by incompetent persons. He , however , pro - in matters which the y s p ecified —in matters of leteficr, w ncr s. posed to continue those courts. He saw no reason for and burials in church- y ards, in matters of defain 0 abolishing these ancient courts on account of t he insult, adulter y , and church-rates. But his Noble existence of abuses which could be remedied; and by the Learned Friend p ro p osed to extend the power of the!e Bill he proposed to provide that these courts shcaild be c ourts in matters of le g ac y . NOw, wh y should they Q l ,? ' presided over by competent and efficient persons , eithe r so? Was there an y com p laint of the courts of W_ by advocates, or by persons who had been used to t he The ecclesiastical courts could not exercise the j fur A practice of other courts of justice; and having diction conferred on them in legacies, unless they thus remedied the abuses complained of , he full control over the estate of the testator. Sitel„ could not consent to abolish these ancient local courts. po wer would be p erfectl y inconsistent with the con °l, He now came to a class of courts of another des cri p tion of the ecclesiastical courts. It should be ree`le tion—he meant the Courts of Peculiars. There were lected that the judges of the ecclesiastical courts ' o. ' 4 three or four hundred of these courts scattered about a pp ointed b y individuals, and not b y the authority ,Y'„ the country, some of them possessing such li- t he C rown or of Parhament— j ud g es appointed pts mited jurisdiction, that it was impossible to secur e the individuals in a court where the g reatest interriie services of an efficient Judge, or of efficient ministerial might be at stake !— ( Hear, hear.) The Ini do , officers. He proposed to abolish them altogether. In ought, in such cases, to have protection in , ho s many instances they possessed the power of granting appointment of judges. They ought at least to gain' ns probates, and owing to the ignorance of those who pre- guarantee which the responsibility of Government cort, sided over them, injustice to an incalculable extent fers. It was provided that, in case the diocesan 01,1.5 a might be done. ' He therefore proposed to abolish them. were to be continu ed, barristers of a certain stanol'r7, The system would then present this appearance :—ln were to be appointed to preside over them. That e e ' re ever diocese there would be a tribtmal for the granting tainly was an improvement. Then these judges pod of probates, and possessing contentious jurisdiction, to hold office during good behaviour ; b u t if this gu t to and in York and Canterbury there would be ap - behaviour did not exist , and if it was found expedie„nths pellate tribunals ; and if these courts were pre- remove one of these judges for misconduct, still; , t o sided over by able judges he could not see Noble and Learned Lord p ro p osed that they were oniitbo how any superior system could be established. be removed in the same manner as the Judges nsso, He knew that in what ho was proposing he was acting s up erior courts. How was that 1 B y an address lio adversely to the opinions of the Commissioners, and to both Houses of Parliament to the Crown. But those 11 ,." r "n, f the authority of the Committee of the House of Corn • were appointed by individuals—by the Right Rev. 13isd mom, and therefore he spoke with hesitation ; but it then hew absurd was it to propose that both House_ s ,, , was his opinion that even if it were in their power to Parliament should address the Sovereign to reuso," eor abolish the diocesan courts, it would not be expedient functionary appointed by an irresponsible individurotL4 to do so. He knew that some Noble Friends of his he presumed the Noble and Learned Lord' could o f would support him in the view which he took of this mean that the Houses of Parliament should a ddress L fo , subject. He knew that his Noble and Learned Friend Bishop.—( Hear, hear.) If the Crown were to retn ° ;„ at the table was one ; and no man was more con- judges, the Crown should appoint them. These ma tt stant, stant, firm, and unwearied than that Noble and Learned had been made subjects of inquiry by the Comps arty, Lord, in an opinion which he had deliberately 1832, and also b y the Commission of real proPe,,,,, expressed. When Sir F. Pollock, in the House of wh i ch c onsisted of individuals connected with the 10, Commons, brought in a Bill to abolish ecele - and who were eminentl y q ualified to discharge iitsrio4 siastical courts, he was opposed by his Noble ties. His Noble and Learned Friend near him k . 0 4 and Learned Friend with great elequence and Campbell), was at the head of it, and it comer ii ii learning. His Noble and Learned Friend said that many eminent first-rate conveyancers. Th e y be centralisation might be carried too far—that those courts agreed in recommending that there s hould . 00 5, were of great advantage to persons in the provinces, only one court for probates and administrati o, and that it would be most unwise and inconvenient to A Select Committee of the House of Commons svas,6r,t bring them to London. lie repeated that he knew the pointed in 1833 to inquire into the Admiralty Couriyeej, decision of his Noble and Learned Friend, and that he the head of which was Sir James Graham, Sir 11 ' gr. should have his support. He could refer to another Sir Frederick Pollock, Dr. Nicholl, Dr. Lushingtell: p.• authority, that of the late Lord Stowell, than Abercrombie , and the pr e s e n t C hancellor of th i.her ,iii rts , whom there could be no greater authority. chequer w ere Me mbers of it. The Committee nat ti e on ecclesiastical law. He (the Lord Chancellor) was extende d i ts in q uiries into the jurisdiction a '' re . in the House of Commons when that great lawyer courts , and a f ter a v ery p atient investigation theYt,a brought in a Bill for the reform of those courts commended the a bolition of all the diocesan cow , t p on the same principles on which the Bill was the appointment of probate and administration °oats founded, that was to abolish the peculiar courts, They recommended the abolition of those min or C a the, and to maintain the diocesan courts. There in which strictly legal matters were dealt with, an b ola was something whimsical in the conduct of those who recommended that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction shoals ti that called for the abolition of ecclesiastical courts, and at the be concentrated in the Court of Canterbury, an 110 same time cried for local courts to bring justice home to the judge of this court should be appointed 11 ); is til every man's door. Here were local courts established, Crown.. In 1836 a Select Committee of that 11° 5 00) and he thought that instead of trying new systems which appointed, and in the same year he (Lord Cot te ss u sea' generally disappointed the expectations of their authors, brought in a Bill for carrying into effect the recoaisciest they should endeavour to apply remedies to the sys- datious of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The; ;oaten terns which existed, which could be done with Committee was appointed, he believed, at the i ll e isse) , less expense, less trouble, and less risk of fail- of his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord Cha_r o tioa• ure. As to the jurisdiction of those courts, he had and the Bill was referred to them for consm e b osell, already stated that it was not open to his own mind to This Committee consisted of the present Lord,9l ya rn determine which was the best system, but he was satis- for, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Lang rd fled that the one recommended in the Bill was the only Denman, Lord Abinger, Lord Brougham. J-Vr ;shop e practical one, and they ought not like froward children ket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the P 10 , •.t" to reject the offered boon, because they could not London, the Earl of Devon, the Bishops of Lirl"trfirte6 get all that they desired. The Bill proposed to Asaph, and Bangor. The Committee, after a Pr e t, f i ll place the donative livings, over which at present the and pains-taking investigation, made a ReP r i stil Bishop had no jurisdiction, under the same ecclesiastical which he would read some extracts. In cases e 51 0 1 authority as the presentive. The ecclesiastical courts property, it was said to be an advantage that ther b s ea t had now some Jurisdiction in respect to tithes. be local courts, so that parties in the country M i g e, A fte r This, at the recommendation of the Ecclesi- be put to trouble and expense. The Cornini tte . o .teet, astical Commissioners, it was intended to take referring to the Reports of the Committees ab ° `,tirev from them; which was of the less importance, as the tioned, came to this conclusion—that they were e ie , fs' 'Tithe Commutation duties had greatly diminished their of opinion that all courts in England and '„ f 4 1 business in regard to tithes. He had now stated all ercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over probates that on e that was necessary in this stage of the proceeding. The and administration should be abolished, and t o ot 11 ' r main question for their Lordships' consideration would, court sitting in London should be the only, coact of course, relite to the diocesan courts. The extent of probates of wills and granting letters of adral nl b e pe r ,: the existing evil in regard to probates, might be gathered They were of opinion, however (and it would ow ell' s from the fact, that there were no less than 350 courts of fectly consistent with the plan), that a rranF a , st ' peculiars—no less than 350 tribunals to which a great should be made so as to secure to parties resi dl ; theft and serious difficulty applied. These would be swept distance from the metropolis all the convenie!g e port:, away and confined to 26 courts, each of which would now enjoyed from the diocesan courts. The ic hs oft", have jurisdiction over certainly a large extent. Nice the Ecclesiastical Commission stated that four-flit ~,,ocial questions of law, it had been hinted, would be intro- contentious business was transacted in Doctors' Ce`-teriao; duced into the discussions on this question. He did not as well as a much greater portion of what was o ,10er A know where those questions were to come from, as, for the common form business—that signified svb e r stiv", his own part, he believed they had all been pretty well sonal affidavit was made, the probate was, s Sis 0 "; settled by a variety of decisions. He (the Lord Chan- without any further formality or expen se, an hos t ~‘ 0 tl l , cellor) admitted that the only mode of getting rid en- what occurred in 99 cases out of 100 . Throuac'oelen• tirely of certain inconveniences connected with the dio- country there would be surrogates , officers of the e h, all cesan courts was a holly to get rid of them. The ques- astical court, authorised to administer t he Ostbro4, tien was, whether such a sacrifice was not paying too would transmit the will to the court in London, t o f sil o/ high for the benefit. However, let that be as it might, the intervention of the proctors, and those letter:oP it occurred to him, that means, by the agency ministration would be sent down to the in erel l e of this Bill, might be obtained to lessen the evils which making the application. But it was urged thstf og Is, now existed. He was sure the measure be now submit- in the country were often desir ous of see seeir ted to their Lordships was a most important one, that it will of the testator , for t h e purpose e seoll i 5 i i would tend greatly to the advantage of the country, and the handwriting , &c., and that theY t he ti s become an; excellent instrument in judicious and able wish to have an opportunity of consulting _4,eava hands for the faithful administration of the ecclesiastical from time to time. Now, to meet both these re:s'i ev ; ins teo law of this country. demands, it was recommended that the ong urs og so f Lord ;COTTENHAM said he had certainly enter- should be left in the hands of one of those % fo e 1 . tamed some curiosity to know upon what grounds the nearest to the place of the legatee, or aPP" n d Po Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack proposed to fourteen days after the death of the testator, and re st r . give his assent to a Bill, the principal portion of which correct copy of the wills itself should s e e OP5iO W ent to secure the maintenance of all the diocesan courts. with this officer, so that prties might have a _d ei . When the Noble and Learned Lord, however, stated it tunity of inspecting it. It was further reeom,T,t th j t was impossible to carry any other Bill he was still more the Report of their Lordships' Committee, ' l o o o., t a surprised, for they all knew that the present Government should be a registry of all wills kept in Li ° ,,centli was a very powerful one. He (Lord Cottenham) was difficulty arose in the abolition of the diee e r s pa d, ° t i l e at a loss to find out where the difficulty in carrying the for some of the Right Reverend Bishop o surged, o n' measure would be ;it certainly would not be for want great force, that they were necessarY this ph ial of Parliamentary power, either in that or in the other proper discipline of the clergy. To mee t Bill sr 0 1 House. There might be inconveniences which he vet - Hence he (Lord Cottenharn) brought in L a i , 00 05 ' 3 ; 0 (Lord Cottenham) would not further inquire into, Rassed through this, but was lost in the oti'e 5 brO ti It which might induce the Government not to press Parliament. In 1843 her Majesty's iNlin i k ster derg g itb e the Bill for the abolition of the diocesan courts. Those in a Bill providing for the discipline of ta e 01 , tiesi x ili' courts, it should be remembered, had been condemned was endorsed by Dr. Nicholl, Sir James Greg a d io , for the last twelve years—condemned by the Ecclesias- Attorney-General. This Bill recommend ed edg e an te d tion of the diocesan courts. toll veg' etranta d DO 0 ;5 tical Commissioners—by the Real Property Commis sioners—by the Select Committee of the House of Com. consistent did it seem, then, ee his oble aye e' t° mons, and by the Select Committee of their Lordships' iriend on that night panegyrising those ' r ight tt be House. All these authorities had unanimously advised which his colleagues had thought it ded to 's' the abolition of the diocesan courts. The Noble and destroy ?—( Hear, hear.) That Bill recornine n ,be C PY r ils' Learned Lord had himself been of that opinion last judges of the courts should be appointed by. the - of Pa rf et ei session, as he (Lord Cottenham) would prove. What He disapproved of any measure in one sess i° dist t li f tb e went which would have a tendency to cou tri!_ tio , o hic li had changed his opinion it was not for him to divine. The subject of the ecclesiastical courts was one of the a former one, upon which the decided conv o l c us e i °4o o highest importance to the country. Their Lordships House was strongly declared. It was a M e . ser ste° l oil s were aware that the ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction required to be weighed well and duly de"' s e th t °,tare over matters of the utmost importance to the people of before they pronounced any opinion upon it ' ii a th e li tr°,i this country. They had to , decide questions between that it .vas fraught with much mischief , a.' t 0 1 1 ,0 he hoped that the Noble Lord by wh° ll3 o r s o a ite i esb, l : husband and wife—they had to decide on the validity of marriages—they had to decide whether wills should b e duced would consent to its withdrawal , s2- obje ct. i ° oo `• admitted to probate, and whether they were valid modify it as to deprive it of the tisanY, o ,el o9 ol_,' features by which it was marked. In ''' s i s s 1 0° Coy . or not. The whole of these important matters came under their especial jurisdiction. Now in what should move that the Bill be read that day " o ftb e e f ; way were these important questions to be The Bishop of LONDON said that as O le o for ,55, 1 ,, decided? Why by, as his Noble and Learned Friend missioners who originally signed the lier fos io 9 ,'issg e had truly stated, no less than three hundred and forty siastical Reform, he felt called on to say a e; „oo 6 ,, o 'rtis different courts. His Noble Friend had stated good order to defend himself from the charge ~,. sag p r i ats ° _s reasons why these minor courts should exist no longer. which might be preferred against him in do t on` to v i a But he had not kept in mind that his panegyric ap- the present reading of the Bill. He din ss ,r l- s isse . vo a. plied to these peculiar courts as well as to the diocesan his Noble and Learned Friend on the r'' °- ba te 3e' rfec t a b , re courts. Now, he (Lord Cottenham) would show that that the present measure was the most pe t : , 00 1 ee s,a,, the same reasons which his Noble and Learned be devised, but that it was the best whim' - Ifs 13 f . i ce liii!. Friend bad given for putting an end to the peculiar vised so as to ensure its passing.—(Del r ', / y ill° ~bslt°t: jurisdiction, applied equally to the diocesan courts. of ecclesiastical reform was passed age" so ent e i r sts e l t These courts had jurisdiction, not only on matrimonial of a large portion of the public, it mign' .. .„, - tad o iti h e e s questions, but on all testamentary questions. They had the good which otherwise might be e%r os t lsi it e o ge t ,vis to decide upon the validity of a will affecting land, and There were certain improvements sugg,„ do t s o ,, e ` es, a also affecting money, on which tke law, as it now men on the subject, with which, if he &S s jueses o er , stood, was most absurd, because, as far as the will agree, he thought he ought to submit 131 , 001 e tg etb t ,s affected money, it was subject of probate, but, as far them on them. He thought there wer t e La si t e s!, 00 as it related to land, the ecclesiastical court had no tical courts which ought to be a borsm r ` o fera . ',..) „0 , jurisdiction, and there was no means of establishing but there were others which, if,......(149 op that will with respect to freehold property, unless it thought might be rendered usefllS .00 0 ,0 t , of contained a trust, and, if it did so, then the Court of thought the Noble and Learned Lor ue n be ths" se Chancery interfered. Well, then a question of law ken last had not fairly stated the case, Is' f ." „ot als o° t° o , arose, what was the ultimate tribunal to decide any ques- the Bill created 34 new courts. The Wh ich 1 ree d t, tion that was involved in that will ? Why, that House 384 courts, it abolished 350, leaving 34 ci to lb` o co" 01 was the tribunal ; but if any question arose with remodelled and improved. With ran gy diocO t t l i rego he must say that his own experience ° ably en o ,ot a to respect to personalty, then the Privy Council was the was such as not to impress him fave u „ r , to a ce o pes i e s see court of the last resort ; and these proceedings, their Lordships must remember, related to one and the same to them ; but there were many sea. t hey P r e si‘ i lie paper. This subject bad often been matter of observa- their falling into the state from which sass the tors tri , rescue them by the present Bill. ' rep ortinf ie li c 1 ,,,d vation, and must soon, he would venture to predict, be matter of legislation. He was therefore opposed to that which justified the Commissioner s i n . t ' ho ut ° de be ) l- ,rof part of the Bill which proposed the establishment of c ourts' `'ry c° oe ° ' functions of those courts might be without several new courts, or the remodelling of those old este, rnent transferred to the provincial e _,,ettt o ie 4, t° blished jurisdictions, because he was satisfied that sooner or later it would be necessary to abolish these courts, and to subject all wills to one jurisdiction. The Bill this to be true with regard to the t _ s ,r t i e if" o loo, e 0 but he did not profess to have raaste.trs ws , ti e ce si t i ation °I. the 0° (ir tP c was good, inasmuch as it went to abolish peculiars, but P he objected to the continuance of these diocesan tion of testamentary jurisdiction. Ile provide for a more efficient administr ___ d to 5 ~ e d ~ r o by the Commission which made its Report in courts. The matter had been fully investigated to abolish diocesan courts, for ,e b , tho7 ll6 o o o e astical law, but he was not now prePr be lte.„ v 74 1832. When they considered the hi some of the functions now performe n T l ovin c e ers .4 a!' could not be so well performed by the_F ro f e r, l 7 o a lel i e investigation of the subject, the vast body of evidence had been devoted by those Commissioners to the Petitions were presented against th , e ,h tr e l' o i e egY t o a s e t a y se which had been collected, and the authority of the Com missioners, he thought their Lordships would be inclined i 1 feelings stronger than he believ o w __ he eA te e , r ,, ing the feelings of a larger body (I,i to e eis tbe s 3 I signed the report. The question af bie b _,fr: V 4 44 to pay great attention to their recommendations. The ,courts 'ht t reform the abuses ' ... ,(1-10 -1 s bild mig ne Report was • signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, the' Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the Bish which existed in this respect, 00 il i j 0 erf° Vi le them, retaining all that was valua_tlaer•o o f i t li` 1:0; e lf who P Ile s a Sie of Bangor, Lord. Tenterden, Lord Wynford, the present roes- pe 1' e Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Sir John : functions with satisfaction to cases there were judges all Pa s to ss 0, ill Nicholl, Sir Christopher Robinson, Sir Herbert Jenner,of the Pe`i :soris f i e st # 4 and Dr. Lushington. Their Lordships would see that i courts of justice. This was the recoone , ! i ota e. e ~0 ; pared to say that clergenenoeuiht 11° ` • sei i'd" 0 1 ; 0 the Commissioners consisted of the highest ecclesiasticaland not c arrie d ! Pii , t and legal authorities in the realm, and that their recom- Commissioners were right, . did not think ort ig 0 e Bill. Even if the entire of the Bill now before the House, he , u pp col ic, t tl mendetions were, therefore, entitled to the greatest at- the • tention. Now, all these authorities were agreed in re- ver y g l a d that th e po stS ect, tx , commending the abolition of the diocesan courts. The 1 far as it went. He 1 liable to the charge of inconsistency n 1 ' Lit lie Report proposed to maintain the Prerogative Court of , were to De - ha 0 0 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, , a ll b e the -s York, but it stated that it had been recommended to , peen i and exempt"s7oneof the tv,nr s „ t b o lisba se e supported the mea . , sure because fro m g iro 0 s s. ~ abolish the court. The Commissioners merely threw i he was able to el ,. t joi e and all the consideration was most li .l b eel. i so s i out the suggestion, but offered no opinion on the . that though he Pooeldijese; subject. Now, with regard to the diocesan courts ieet, it was the measure which arid to the peculiars. If a man died possessed of i Lord BROUGHAM said ~c o o p j property in the jurisdiction of any one of these courts, port the second reading of the fur tl!ei , Oc t, vi probate might be taken out in that court : but, if the wished it had gone a great deal.. „ ar a ineazOr deceased had property , to the value of 51. in any other . The subject was first brought r1r"..,, you% V' jurisdiction, the probate was void--prob.acs could nut be which he, \Own in office, prop_os e v' o v ble o rs ' sued out in either of these courts. Now, this was most i which ha gave up in 1835. lii