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

THE ALLEGED FORGERIES OF WILLS. The apprehension - of Mrs. Georgiana 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 following :—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,ivand 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 hill 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) " ELIZA BURCHARD (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." Extraetbd from the registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury ie 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 (lay 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 possessed 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, Surrogate." In the above affidavit the deceased i; described as having lived in Broad -street, Bristol, after her residence in New Bond-street, Bath, as stated in the will ; and this inculpation could have been given only by Mr. Baaber or the executrix by word of mouth to the Proctor at the time of proving the will, 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•strect." 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 ;" sinned J. Crook, J. llewson." The followinr , 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 maka 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, Doetor of Laws and Surrogate, by the oath of Thomas Hunt, the grand son, the sole executor, to whom administration was granted-, haing been first sworn only to administer. (Signed) " CHARLES DYNELEY, Deputy " JOHN IGGULDEN, " W. F. GOSTLING, Registrars. " 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 3,500/. stock in the Three per Cent. Consolidated Annuities, now standinr , in my name on the books of the Bank of England, and also all my money, and securities fur money, of what nature or kind soever, and wheresoever the same shall be at the tipae 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 boy hand and seal this 3d day of June, in the year of our Lord, 1842. " ANNE SLACK (L.S.) " 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 Augustus Frederick Ray ford, Doctor of Laws and u rogate, by the oath of Emma Slack, spinster, the niece, the sole executrix, to whom administration was granted, having been first SA orn duly to administer. (Signed) "CHARLES DYNELEY, puty "March, 1843. " JOHN IG G ULDEN, , "S. 11. "W. F. GOSTLING, hegistrars. 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 Bichards, 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 2,000/. Miss Lichards bud 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 to London,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, wo 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 Horsernonger-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, arid married a lady who was more abun dantly supplied with the gifts of fortune. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages to the amount of 2301., and the principal witnesses examined upon the occasion were Joshua Fletcher, the same person, we are told, who stands charged with Mr. Barber and herself, as confederate in the alleged frauds upon the Govern ment, and Mr. and Mrs. Sanders, her brother-in-law and sister, who have absented themselves. TITS MURDER OF EARL DERBY'S GAMEKEEPER. —We are enabled to state that her Majesty has been graciously pleased ;o remit the sentence of death on all the prisoners convicted of the murder of the Earl of Derby's gamekeeper, except John Roberts, the party who nred the fatal shot. Roberts is left for execution. The others will, it is expected, be transported for life. When the late John Kemble was one day passing along Cheapside, he was met by two chimney-sweeps, the pun; .• accosted the elder one thus—" I say, Bill, there .41:,W 11( r man." " Oh, don't insult him, Jack," said the .ne knows what anybody may come to." el T.—ln Dresden, a little ragged child from the window of a mean house, to her op -" Please Mrs. Muller, mother sends her gest if it's fine weather, would you go a begging !" i~ , 1 M~ SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. I FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY. GLOBE.—The reported omission of sixty-three names from the special jury panel, and the probable result upon the proceedings of this strange negli gence, or something worse, on the part of the func tionaries whose duty it was to preserve the list intact, was commented upon at some length in yesterday's Globe. The discovery was alluded to by the Dublin correspondents of every London journal of y es terday, without respect to its political character. From the universal credence given to the rumour, it was regarded as unquestionably true.. The Dublin Monitor of Wednesday (received yesterday) also gave the report ; accompanied by a circumstantiel explanation of the mode by which the missing sheets of names was accounted for. No contradiction is given of the report by this morning's ar rivals from Dublin, where the rumour still prevailed. An application was to be made yesterday by the prosecutors to the Court, that in the event of the trials not having terminated on the 31st inst., each succeeding day, up to the 15th of April, should be considered as a continuation of Hilary Term for the purposes of the said trials—a course determined on, it was generally supposed, on the discovery of the omission, and to meet the exigen cies of the case. The Times of this morning assumes the truth of the facts as they have appeared, but sug gests that the omission of the 63 names will not operate to vitiate the panel, or retard the trials. The Standard, more vigilant than discreet, employs its proverbial sophistry to raise doubts respecting the truth of the report. Having stated, from a careful examination, that the first name on the list is " John Alley," and the last " John Yeates," it then infers that their can be no lost sheets containing 63 names ; " for there could not be 63 names before John Alley or after John Yeates." As a specimen of our Contem porary's mode of settling, by assumption, a matter which is by this time placed beyond question by an official ad mission or repudiation of the statement, the following extract from the Standard's article may suffice :- —" In order to meet the possible case, that the numbers were not prefixed to the names in the first instance, and that they, in consequence, do not furnish complete proof of the integrity of the list, we have applied an other test. We have taken the last Dublin Directory list of the resident nobility, gentry, merchants, trus tees, &c., and having pretty accurately ascertained the number of names under each letter, have applied the ratio of names in the Directory to the ratio of the names in the list, and find them to correspond with wonderfut.precision. We are thus confirmed in our opinion that there is nothing in the story of the missing sheets." To this very ingenious mode of mystifying a matter of fact, we might oppose—first, the high probability that if the statement were not true, it would before this have met with an au thoritative contradiction; and, secondly, that—taking the Standard's own mode of disproving " the story of the missing sheets"—it is only to assume that the two missing sheets consist of the first and last of the series, and the whole fabric of the Standard's inferen tial argument in disproof of the story falls to the ground. The Court Circular of this morning con tains an announcement which seems to strengthen the rumour respecting this "untoward event." Another Cabinet Council (the third during this week) was held yesterday. The Council sat three hours. All the Ministers were present. Such frequent meetings of the Cabinet, and such long deliberations, imply the existence of a dilemma which calls for combined counsel, and the necessity of providing means for meet ing difficulties which have arisen suddenly, and the existence of which were not anticipated. The ex clusion of every Catholic from the panel is, however, felt by the Times to be the pinching difficulty. That extraordinary stretch of prerogative—involving at once the determination, on the part of the Go vernment, to pack a jury, in order, if possible, to obtain a verdict at any cost ; and this, though the in sult and injury inflicted upon the religion of seven eighths of the Irish population by the monstrous pro ceeding should inflame the public mind in Ireland to a pitch of irrepressible excitement. This reproach the Government—rail as its supporters may at those who denounce the ill-advised and indefensible act— cannot roll away. The blunderings which have oc curred in the course of the proceedings may be attributed to subordinates. The Times may deplore " the way in which Irish placemen dis charge their duties," and " the manner in which an English Government is likely to be served." The instructions to strike every Roman Catholic name from the panel was, manifestly, the orders of the Government. The idea was conceived in the spirit which would subjugate by intimidation a people it lacks the generosity to propitiate by treating, them as fellow-citizens ; and is a practical exemplifi cation of the never-to-be-forgotten culmination of the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst—" The Irish people are aliens." The Times endeavours to justify the pro ceeding ; but does so in a way which—if the writer of the argument be not deemed insane, and there fore not answerable for his own acts, and whose acts ought not to be allowed to damage others—must be taken as demonstrative of the insecure tenure on which Ireland is held by the British Crown under a Tory Ministry. STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle infers, from the impunity hitherto indulged to Mr. Cobden and the Leaguers, that the Repealers ought not to be prosecuted. To this we reply, " 'Wait a while." Mr. Cobden and the Leaguers, whatever sums of money they may exhibit upon paper, whatever con verts they may gain among the silliest of silly people —" foolish lords,"— and they have succeeded in catching three of the softest heads in the House of Lords—whatever the Leaguers may say or do, they are at present simply con temptible. Let the Leaguers remember that Mr. O'Connell and his associates had their "day of grace," a much longer day than the Leaguers have yet had ; that the Repealers had " three warnings," whereas the Leaguers have not yet had one. Let them, then, not be jealous if the O'Connellites are prosecuted and they are not ; all in good time. Let the Leaguers, if they are really candidates for martyrdom, speak out as plainly as Mr. O'Con nell spoke at Mallow, Clifden, Tara, and our own ever memorable " Mullaghmast of the Martyrs ;" above all, let them Organise military processions, and meetings of tens of thousands to threaten the public peace. But no ; the last they neither can nor will do ; cannot, because even hundreds will not assemble, unhired, at their call; and if they were to take part in any very public procession, according to late experience, it would be a procession in their favour to some shallow horse-pond. At present the League- is merely an object of disgust and contempt to the country, and it hourly be comes more loathsome and contemptible ; but the rule is " De minimis non curet lex," and they who are appointed to put the law in motion, only upon proper occasions, act wisely and constitutionally in winking at petty follies, and even at crimes that are only ridiculous. Perhaps the time may come when the League will be properly prosecuted as a swindling conspiracy—but we confidently predict that it will never be worthy of a State prosecution in any other aspect. " The Government unable to enter the lists against the repealer of the corn-laws ! " In what county of England could such a pro position be gravely maintained without provoking a burst of laughter ? Let the League dispose of Mr. Ferranti, who alone is more than a match for them, and even then they will have enough to do, before they can be in a condition to challenge the Government. IRELAND. (From the Times.) COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. DUBLIN, JAW. 1 I.—Thiabeirrg the first day of the term, the Court of Queen's Bench was more than usually crowded from an early hour by persons anxious to witness the opening proceedings. A considerable number of ladies were present. Shortly before two o'clock Dlr. Justice Burton entered the Court, and the swearing in of the city and county grand juries was proceeded with. There was a very full attendance of the gentlemen on both panels. CITY GRAND JURY. Mr. Francis Blake Knox, Foreman ; Messrs. William R. Box, ('harles Carolin, Henry S. French, Vicars Boyle, Wm. Watson, Cuthbert Eccles, Lucius H. Deering, Robert Cham ley, Peter R. Clarke, John Campbell, William Deane, Joseph Henry, Thomas M'Enery, William Andrews, Thomas Fot trell, John Molloy, Richard Wilson, Joseph Cassin, William R. Foyle, William Curry, jun., Fergus Farrell, and P. D. Hardy. COUNTY GRAND JURY. Mr. James Hans Hamilton, 111. P., foreman ; Hon. A. F. Southwell, Sir Robert Shaw, Bart., Messrs. William Rath borne, Alexander Kirkpatrick, A. S. Hussey, Thomas R. Needham, Benedict Arthure, Richard Manders, C. Fitasimon, Francis Savage, Arthur B. Crofton. John Brennan, Robert Alexander, Edward H. Casey, William Caldbeck, David Henry Sherrard, Charles Davis, Emanuel Bailey, Arthur Neville, William Worthington, Henry M'Manus, and Charles Jones. The Foreman of the County Jury, addressing his Lordship, said that he took that opportunity of mentioning to the Court that there was a feeling among the gentlemen of the jury that they ought to have the right of sitting in their box during term. He believed, however, that the right of occupying it during the State trial had been ceded to the Sheriff of the city. The High Sheriff for the County said, that he believed the City High-Sheriff had arranged that the box should be occupied by the press during the trial, but, in his opinion, tktt applica tion of the county grand jurors was a very reasonable one. Mr. Justice BURTON said, that he had a strong opinion on the matter himself; but it would be necessary for him, before giving any reply, to confer with his brethren on the subject. The Foreman of the City Grand Jury said that he had been requested to make a similar application to his Lordship on be half of the gentlemen acting on that jury.—(Laughter. ) Mr. Justice BURTON replied, that in a few days a trial was to take place in that Court in which there was a special jury, to the accommodation of which the box in which the gentle men of the city grand jury sat was to be applied, and it would not therefore be possible that the grand jury could continue to occupy it. His Lordship then retired, and in a short time returned into Court, accompanied by Mr. Justice Crampton and Mr. Jus tice Perrin. Judge BURTON, addressing the gentlemen of the county grand jury, said that before he left the Court, the foreman had communicated to him the desire of the jury that there should be no interference with their right to come into their box when business made it necessary that they should appear in Court. He had been informed, that the High Sheriff for the city had allocated their box for the reporters of th3se journal! in which what took place in Court was to be published. He had con ferred with the Lord Chief Justice and the other members of the Court on the subject, and they were all of opinion that it was not only proper and expedient but indispensible, under the circumstances of the case, that there should be a place in that Court for the reporters of the public press, and they accord ingly felt what had been done for their accommodation by the High Sheriff was perfectly right. If the gentlemen of the grand jury, however, should have occasion, in the discharge of their business, to come into Court, every facility should be afforded them; and in such an event the reporters could leave a portion of the;box for their accommodation. With regard to the other grand jury -box, the application for it by the city grand jury was altogether out of the question, because that would be the place occupied by the special jury who were to try the case. The matter then dropped, and the gentlemen of the grand juries returned to their rooms. THE STATE TRIALS—THE WITNESSES. Although there appears to be no longer any further occasion for the observance of secrecy with respect to the actual name of at least one of the parties suspected of having broached to the Government some of the secret doings at the Corti...Exchange, and who, it is now openly stated by the Repealers, will be pro duced as a very material witness at the approaching state trials; still, until the fact, should it prove to be such, is announced through some more authentic medium that that of mere public conversation, it would be manifestly improper to make any more distinct allusion to the matter. It may, however, be mentioned as the very general belief that the Executive has been put in possession by the suspected individual of some re markable documents, which, says report, may hereafter be pro duced in evidence against the traversers. There seems to be an impression here that after all Government are by no means as anxious as their opponents suppose about the result of these State trials ; for, let the verdict be what it may, it will, it is be lieved, in nowise,influence Ministers with regard to what ulterior course they may adopt for the total suppression of the Repeal agitation ; and that some stringent measures with that object will be submitted to Parliament early in the ensuing session ap pears to be the opinion of all classes of politicians. THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, JANUARY 15, 1844. THE PRESS. The following appears in the papers of this morning :—A special meeting of all the reporters of the Dublin newspaper press, and the correspondents of the London journals, was held on Wednesday evening, at No. 4, College green, to take into consideration a subject of deep importance to them is their professional capacity. The cause of the meeting and the pro ceedings, are embodied in the following resolution : " At a special meeting of all the reporters of the Dublin press, and the correspondents connected with the London journals, held on the 10th inst., at No. 4, College-green, the following resolution was unanimously adopted and signed by the respective individuals present : " Resolved, that we, the reporters connected with the public press in Dublin, and the correspondents of the London journals, having been informed that several members of our body have been summoned to give evidence on the approaching State trials, touching certain proceedings of which they are supposed to have become cognizant in their professional capacity, we feel it incumbent on us to protest firmly against the principle involved in this proceeding ; and do declare our conviction that to compel reporters and correspondents of the public press to give evidence in the course of judicial proceed ings respecting matters which come under their observation exclusively in that capacity, would be attended with great public inconvenience, would embarrass us in the discharge of our onerous duties, and, by compromising our neutrality, would materially impair, if not destroy, that confidence we have here tofore been favoured with by all classes of the public. " Signed, on behalf of the meeting, " ' CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, Chairman. " ' STEPHEN N. ELRINGTON, Secretary. " ' January 10.' " When the above resolution was adopted, the meeting adjourned." REPRESENTATION OF TIPPERARY. There is a letter in town to-day which states that the Re peelers are completely nonplussed for a candidate, Mr. Maher having declined the honour which was cut out for him. The Hon. Mr. O'Callaghan, son of Lord Lismore, is now spoken of ; but it is far more probable that Mr. Daniel O'Connell, jun., will be the opponent of Mr. Ponsonby Barker. "NATIONAL" POETRY. The following specimen of Irish manufacture, being a com panion-piece to the exquisite lyric," Papa, who is the Saxon?" and from the same hand, makes its timely appearance in the Freeman of this day. It is headed— •' MILLIONS, TO THE RESCUE 1" " Up, up, to the rescue—the war-whoop resounds, And your bravest are game for the Sassenach hounds ; Up, to the rescue, and rally to save, Or ye boast not one drop of the blood of the brave. " Old tyranny oft played the game with our sires, And they perished, alas ! in rebellion's dread fires; But your tactics are now to await the attack, And you scatter, for ever, the Sassenach pack. " Each moment of life is a moment of pain To the bondman who tamely submits to the chain, And remember, posterity honours his grave Who fights like the valiant, or falls like the brave. " Be true to your chief—hold the hell-hounds at bay— Shun treason and traitors, but shun not tke fray ; Let the onset be theirs, and each forest and glen Shall rock at the rush of our warrior men. " Together, together, stand firm as yet, And fling fierce defiance at tyranny's threat— Up, up, to the rescue, and rally to save, Or ye boast not one drop of the blood of the brave." IRELAND. From th 3 communications of our Irish correspondent in the Times of yesterday, there may be ground—whether conclusive or otherwise, as yet we know not—for suspecting, that the old Irish demon of " bad luck" has been busy, and somehow or other managed to "bewitch the milk." In short, it is not merely that Mr. Pierce Mahony has sworn another folio affidavit, in the hope once more to postpone the evil hour of the trial, but that an oversight, and a grave one, is said to have been committed by some subordinate functionary or other in his treatment of the special panel on its passage from the Sheriff to the Clerk of the Crown. The tale imports, that upwards of 60 names among those returned by the Recorder on revision had been emitted from the list before its delivery to Mr. Kemmis. We hear it further stated, that of the names thus left out, the majority were Conservatives led Protestants. Now, it is not for us to say how far an act of this description, should it prove true, may serve to vitiate the panel, or to retard the trial, if at all. Any possible motive of cor ' ruption or bad faith, in the subaltern officer at least, for the benefit of the Crown, seems to be completely negatived by the fact that the greater portion of the missing names were Conservative. Moreover, an air of something even beyond ridicule is flung over the entire history by a repeal newspaper, which stammers away about re corder Shaw and Sir Robert Peel having themselves tampered with the list, which was sent over to them at Tamworth ! pre vious to its final arrangement. If the account even of the carelessness, however, be confirmed (we ask no more), what a picture does it hold out of the way in which Irish placemen discharge their duties, and of the manner in which an English Government is likely to be served l On the other hand, scarcely does a post come in from Dublin without fresh proofs, as if such were needed, of folly and ferocity in the partisans of men appealing ostensibly to the laws of their country, which, in the course of our long experience, we have never seen sur passed. There have on this occasion of the O'Connell trials been made—lit, an attempt on the part of the town-clerk, so far as in him lay, by withholding the corporation books, notwith standing notice to produce them, to suppress the evidence whence it would appear that certain persons, magistrates and town-councillors, were disqualified by the 3d and 4th Victoria, from acting as special jurors. 'I he plain purpose of which was to pack a jury, and to commit the peace of the country to a panel of furious Repeaters. For be it known that Mr. Forde, who withheld the books, besides being town-clerk to the O'Connell corporation, is likewise attorney to the traversers I 2d. A second attempt of the brawlers for constitu tional purity and liberty was, as we have already seen, to deter, by loud menaces, the Crown solicitors from discharging their own imperative duty, and from exer cising the lawful and obvious right of their clients, by striking out from the jury-list the names of men from whose known devotion to the traverser., an unfair acquittal might with all confidence have been expected. 3d. The next at tempt for the indirect destruction of trial by jury was, by abusive publications and factious advertisements, to insult and degrade the jurors remaining on the panel, daring them to find a verdict of guilty in the teeth of an interdict from a silly Alderman in the Town Council, importing that the " prosecutions ought to be dropped altogether by the Crown !" 4th. The last attempt of which we yet have heard, although it would be rash to calculate on what another day may bring forth, is to stir up some sham commotion in the country. by representing the decent, sober, and merely technical discharge of their duties by the officers of the Crown, to be such a flagrant outrage upon the whole Roman Catholic body, as calls at this hour of factitious excitement for an " aggregate meeting" of those millions thus industriously exasperated, to sweep away the whole administration of criminal justice by bursts of clamour and pageants of multitudinous force. Every rational being must construe such a course of flimsy, senseless, and utterly fruitless violence as an index not only of conscious wrong, but of un deniable apprehension for the result cf this political and judicial struggle. It is the tendency of power to be composed, of im potence to be fretful ; and whilst all the world must admit that the Queen's Government has not erred on the side of eager ness or anxiety for battle, the opposite party have with equal truth disgraced themselves by offensive arrogance while danger was distant, and a shabby, sulky, and snappish querulousness, as it approached a little nearer. Nothing could exhibit a more discreditable contrast than Mr. Daniel O'Connell's whole de meanour before the Queen's Government showed signs of vigi lance with regard to him, and since the adoption of their more animated and active policy. The first metamorphosis wrought upon this grand ;incendiary was the work of the Queen's speech, wherein, according to seaman's phrase, a shot was fired " ahead of him." It was meant for a warning, but it had a more manifold operation. It did warn, to be sure; but it also irritated, provoked, frightened and perplexed him. During the session, and while the Minister seemed asleep, O'Connell's fierceness was not merely boisterous—it was buoyant, impatiseat, savage. Her Majesty spoke, and the effect was instantaneou s . Still he was equally loud and boisterous ; but the swagger was more circumspect, the ill-temper more guarded, the defiance mere vague, the growl more crippled. Such was the interme diate condition of the disturber. Next came the proclamation, finally the prosecution, and away at once went all of glorious war, even the " pomp_ and circumstance." The fight was evidently out of him. No more appeals to physical force, nor talk of triumphant millions—nor trumpet, summoning his re tainers to this broad field and that fair mountain—whether the recorded or the fabricated scenes of Celtic prowess—all sub sided from royal riot into " the better part of valour." The collision of arms degenerated into that of chicane. Forma of turbulence, obsolete for many years, are now again resorted to. " Aggregate meetings"—an innoxious imbecility—are called for ' • petitions are to be prepared—the proseeuting parties before the Court are to be abused—national movements are to be sus pended, or rendered susceptible of no better than a paltry galvanic impulse. Hopes are insinuated that Government may relent ! and withdraw its no longer despicable chargse To all this we answer—execute the laws. Surrender them— and you, the Queen's Ministers, will be abandoned by then ; and we, the unoffending portion of the Queen's subjects, may have to seek the protection of our lives and properties from the heartless, ruthless, and finally futile bayonet. Therefore, and to the last we say, for the sake of civil government, execute the laws ; meet evil report and good report—meet corrupt knavery, and calumny, and falsehood—meet licentious incitement, by even-banded justice, temperate, unflinching, and, when once victorious,—merciful, if you will. We have condemned, as unauthorised by equity and integrity, the gross assaults made upon the Crown and its officers for the strict performance of their unquestionable duty—with regard to the formation of the jury. It appears to us that, setting aside the mischievous male volence of such conduct, nothing could be more glaring than its 1 folly. Was it for the so-called representatives of the Irish " Liberals" to hold out to mankind the whole body of the Roman Catholic gentlemen as leagued and identified with O'Connell and his accomplices in this conspiracy to overthrow the State ? Was it for Mr. Pierce Mahony and Mr. Forde to tell the people of England—" Your Government in Ireland shall not be suffered to enjoy the acknowledged rights of plaintiff or pro secutor in a court ,if justice against the enemies of the Imperial Crown, if it should turn out that the individuals affected by the exercise of such rights are members of the Church of Rome ?" Is this the pretension of the Rotnan Catholic body, that individuals appertaining to it shall be allowed an exemption from those restraints of law to which all P ro t es t ants are sub jected ? that the epalilyso preached about lig our libel's. tors—that while a Protestant repealer is quietly struck off the panel, a Roman Catholic repealer shall be continued thereon, on pain of a universal outcry? The clamour amounts to this acknowledgment, and no less—viz., that all Roman CatholiCs, without exception, are to be considered as de facto conspirators against the union ; that their religion is at once to absolve them from the consequences of all transgressions, both temporal and eternal—to guard their persons in every conflict with human law, and to confer on them a charter of impunity. Our justifi cation of this reasoning wa do not scruple to state—namely, that one and all of the individuals excluded in this instance by peremptory challenge of the Crown were avowed and known members of the Repeal conspiracy; against the collective words and deeds of which conspiracy the State prosecution has been directed. Dispute this, and legal government is brought to a speedy end. We may just add, that, from the most recent proceedings of the town council, the speech of the late Lord Mayor, and his proposed petition for an act of amnesty to the firebrands of the Corn Exchange, appear to have had some what more of trickery and somewhat less of gratuitous childish ness than we at first suspected. The siraple-souled alderman appears to have hatched a plot for purloining an set of grace to the Repealers, that they might the more easily, as a return for the Royal mercy, carry OR their seditious Mil:1030TO un molested.— Times. LAW INTELLIGENCE. ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 13. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. THE KING OF HANOVER. The M A STYR 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 Cambridge claimed to be the legitimate agnati of the family. The plaintiff was then deposed, and his brother William was recognized as Duke of Brunswick. By a deed made in March, 1833, signed by his Majesty King William IV. and the Duke of Cambridge, it was decreed that the Duke of Brunswick, having wasted the fortune which he possessed ie 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, cs hich amounted to several hundred thousand pounds, but his Majesty had refused to reeder 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 Hanover 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 subject 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 not liable to be sued ; secondly, that such exemption was not confined 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 had 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 Brit a in, 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 be 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 had been given him, he would not perhaps afterwards be able to make another 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 bad 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 to enforce its decisions. His Lordship said he had given the case his fullest consideration, and he thought it must be considered upon the whole, according to the law of nations, that a foreign prince was exempt from the jurisdiction of the court of the country in which the prince may be residing. The interest of mankind required that justice should be done to all, but where obedience could not be compelled, and justice was not 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 ho 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 country, could not be released from that legal subjection which he previously owed. His Lordship thought it was not contrary to an y of the opinions to consider that the immunity of th e Ki ng of Hanover was modified by his duty to the Queen of England. H e h a d a l ways cont i nue d his liability and subjection to the law of England, and since he had become King of Hanover he had been, so far from renouncing his claim as a subject, owing allegiance to the Queeen of England, that he had actually come ever here, and renewed his oath of allegiance, and had taken his seat again as an English Peer. He came to this country, not as King of Hanover only, but as a subject of the Queen of England • and he, therefore, ought not to be exempt from the power Of the Queen of England. It could never be consistent with justice that exemption should be allowed to any person without there being some power also in return. The King of Hanover might come to England, might be guilty of acts contrary to the law—he might even sit in the Privy Council, and give impro per advice to the Queen —it could 'not be supposed that he should hold himself free from the Courts of this country and yet commit any illegal acts he thought fit ; he could not be al lowed to enforce contracts or make claims here without being liable to submit to the law of the country. The defendant was a Sovereign Prince, and inviolate ;in his own do minions, as well as in the dominions of any other prince to whom he was not also a subject, but in this country he still remained a subject, and as such he owed a duty to this country. His Lordship 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, although 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 deciee sought was against him as a subject, and it ought to appear on the bill that the case was one to which special immunity ought not to be extended. There were strong reasons to believe that only as King of Hanover was the defendant appointed guardian to the Duke of Brunswick ; and, connecting all the acts, his Lordship was dis posed 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 question he had to consider was whether, under the cir cums t a nces of this case, the Court had jurisdiction, and his L or d s hi p 's opinion was that the acts of the defendant were net acts in respect of which the defendant was liable to be sued in this Court. The demurrer must, therefore, be allowed. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 13. (Sittings in Banco.) caaroa e. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY COIITANY . The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed this morning. _ . . Mr. tnESIGER, on the pa r t of the defendant , said they had no wish to dist ur b t h e verdict, an d therefore they would not trouble the C ourt w i th any arguments on the second point, but they w ere very desirous to have the opinion of the Court as to the first point, namely, whether under the provisions of the 153 section of the Act, notice was or was not necessary. The COURT baring expressed a wish to hear the Counsel of the plaintiff in reply to the observations of the Solicitor- General on the point of notice. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL shortly addressed the Court, and in reply to that part of the Solicitor-General's argument which went to sh ow th at, b ecaus e evidence had been given as to the state of th e road, therefore, it was to be presumed that the action had been brought against the Company in the capa city of propriet ors o f the road, and that they were entitled to notice, contended—that if that objection were worth anything it should have bee n t a k en at t h e trial to the admissibility o f t o give evidence as to the state of the road, in ord er to show the evidence, but th a t i t cou ld no t be taken to the form of the action ; besides, it was necessary negligence on the part of de• fendants in driving over it at too rapid a rate. The COURT teok time to consider its judgment. HARE V. BA ItsTOw, The arguments in this case were resumed this morning. The ATTOANIV.GENERAL, on the part of the defendant, contended that th e ru l e i n this case for setting aside th e ver diet and enterin g a nonsu i t, mus t be made absolute. H e wished to set th e i nsurance compan y right with their Lord ships and with th e p u bli c, i n res p e ct to the defence of thi s action. The insu rance company was bound by law to make the division of risks which they had done, by the provisions of the Act g Geo. IV., which inflicted a penalty of 1001. on any parties effecting an insurance who did not make such divi— sions, although the different buildings insured might have one joint; occupier. He denied that the jury had decided that this was all one building, and great as was the respect which he always felt inclined to pay to the verdict of a jury, he con sidered that in cases like the present, it was frequently necessary to have their verdicts revised. It was evident that both the parties to this policy intended to act under the pro visions of the Act of Parliament, and it was clear that the premises were quite distinct ; there was nothing to. , siennect them, except the steam engine, which was the common moving power of the machinery in both buildings, and, therefore, ac cording to the prolitikti of the st4tti% it Wie ittCtailry Qat they should be insured as separate risks, and being insured as separate risks, it was impossible that the plaintiff could re curer, fur he contended that there was no ambiguity whater,r in the policy, and consequently no'hing to go to th, jury, and he therefore submitted that the rule for a nonsuit must be made absolute. Mr. llocciNs followed on the same side. The COURT took time to consider its judgment. COURT OF EXLIIEQUER, Jan. 13. (Sittings in Banco.) TOMFREY V. SMITH. Mr. MA aus applied for a rule to show cause why the ver dict obtained for the plaintiff in this case at the last sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Baron Alderson, should not be set aside, on the ground that the defendant, an attorney, was not an actual partner in the firm of Bush and Co., under which the de. fendant's brother, Richard Smith, a coal-merchant, traded. It was admitted on the trial that Walter Smith was merely a partner, and never transacted any business on account of the firm, invariably referring parties who applied to him on business to his brother, who gave ords t a for goods, and transacted the whole business of the firm. He (Mr. Martin) contended that as Walter Smith had never taken any part in the business of the firm, he wai not a responsible party.—Application refused. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM ASTON. Mr. Han moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue to bring up the body of William Aston, a prisoner in the StAfordshire house of Correction, who had been committed on a charge of putting in bodily fear a person named Brewen, in order that the cause of his detention might be inquired into.—Application granted. BAIL COURT, Jun. 13. (Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.) Nothing of the least general interest came before the Court this morning. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,Jan. 13. (Sittings in Banco.) LJBEL.-COIHEAD V. PRITCHARD. The plaintiff had been for many years mate on board one of the ships of Messrs. Ward and Co , of London, and was at length promoted to the station of captain in one of their vessels bound to the East Indies ; but, upon the first voyage, the ship was driven by a storm up St. George's Channel, and by the assumed authority of plaintiff's first mate, who was supported by the crew, she was put into Swansea. From that port the mate, Mr. Cass, wrote to the defendant an ac count of the transaction, in which he stated that the cap tain was drunk, and that he (Cass) was obliged to take charge of the ship. The defendant showed this letter to Messrs. Ward, who, upon instituting inquiries, dismissed the plaintiff from their service, and he has since remained un employed. The ground of action was that this showing of the letter was publication of a libel. On the trial, evidence was adduced to show that the plaintiff was a competent, sober, and trustworthy man, and the principal owners were amongst the witnesses. On the other hand, the mate and some ot the sea men were called to justify the statements of the alleged libel. The jury, iu the first instance, found a verdict of 31)0/. for the plaintiff, upon the first count, but on the second count the , , found for the defendant, that there was ❑o malice. The Lord Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, ruled that this was tantamonnt to a verdict for the defendant, and so he ordered it to be entered. Sir T. WILDE this day obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. ADMIRALTY COURT, Jan. 12. THE SPEEP,-COLLISION. This was a cross-action between the owners of the bark Thames, of Newcastle, and those of the Speed. a large timber vessel, belonging to New Brunswick, to recover the amount of damage which each vessel had sustained in a collision that had occurred in the River St. Lawrence, near Orleans Island, about 10 miles from Quebec, on the sth of October, 1842. The Thames was a vessel of 150 tons, laden with coals and glass, bound for Quebec ; the Speed had a cargo of timber, and was chiming from the same place. On the part of the Thames, it was contended that the collision was occasioned by the Speed's helm being ported. instead of being starboarded. in the other hand, the owners of the Speed alleged that the Thames hao run into that vessel owing to her not having luffed to wind ward, as it was her duty to have done. The evidence was, as usual in these cases, totalty at variance upon all essential points. The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Haggard were for the Thames. and Dr. Addams and Dr. Hayford for the Speed. The Trinity Mi.sters, by whom the Court was assisted, were of opinion that the Thames wa► exonerated from blame, which rested solely with the Speed. Dr. LUSHINGTON pronounced for the damage sought to be recovered by the owners of the Thames, and dismissed them from the action brought against them by the owners of the Speed in both cases, with their costs. SHE BKOTNERS.-COLLISION. This was another case of consolidated cross actions, in which the owners of the bark Brilliant and the bark Brothers sued each other for the damage caused to their respective ves sels by a collision which occurred in the Channel on the 2d of October, 1843, the Brilliant being bound from London to Glasgow, in ballast, and the Brothers from London to the Sandwich Islands, with gunpowder and general merchandise. A similar conflict of evidence was exhibited in this case as in the last, except as to the wind, which (contrary to most examples) both parties admitted to be about N. W. After hearing Dr. Addams and Dr. Robertson for the Brilliant, and the Queen's Advocate and Dr. H. Nichell for the Brothers. The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the Brothers being on the starboard tack, it was her duty to keep the wind, which she did, and that it was the duty of the Brilliant to bear away, and that, by attempting to cross the bow of the other vessel the latter vessel had occasioned the damage. Dr. LUSIIINGTON was of the same opinion, and dismissed the owners of the Brothers from the actions of those of the Brilliant, an'l pronounced for the damage claimed by the owners of the Brothers in both cases, with costs. SURREY SESSIONS. DANIELS V. THE POOR-RATE OF WEST MOULSEY. This was an appeal from an additional sum of 3001. 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. Bevil', were retained for the respondents. From the evidence adduced to the bench, it appeared that the Hurst contained 79 acres, and that in 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 held 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 accom modation of the public at the races, Mr. Dani. Is himself re ceived no profit from the races, but, on the contrary, it was deemed an injury and inconvenience to him ; and it was also proved in evidence that, until the year IS4O, 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. CHAMIF.ItS, 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 now had 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 achich was derived, and said that. if Mr. Daniels gave up pos 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 cal culation of the money received for the summer races, which he estimated as follows : —Twelve gam bling booths, 450/. ; stable standing, 100/. ; thimble riggers, 75/. ; drinking booths, 2001. ; standing of carriages in the in closure, 350/. The Spring Meeting was not so profitable. and he kad that put down at 50/. There was also a cricket club, which produced Si. per annum. There were private matches, shooting, and other national sport a, 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, Mr. Daniels was clearly liable to the rate ; the race-course had local advantges. Epsom Grand Stand, and the Lord's Grounds were rated to the poor, and there was no possible reason why Mousley Hurst race-course was not liable. Several witnesses proved that Mousley Races were improving every year, and that Queen's Plates 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. Coats, 40s. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (SATURDAY.) GUILDHALL. On Friday 'William Aynscomb, a gardener, lodging in Daubeny-place, Pentonville ; Frances, his wife, and Henry, his son, were re-examined before Aldermen Johnson and Gibbs, charged with receiving a large quantity of Chusan and other dresses, the property of Messrs. Price and Partridge, of Cheapside, calico and woollen printers. The MAGISTRATES having consulted together, agreed to admit the husband to bail ; but as further material evidence was to be produced, which might implicate all the prisoners, the Aldermen could not discharge either of them now. Thu prisoners were remanded till Thursday. The Rev. W. Jones was summoned before Aldermen J. Johnson and l'tumphery to show cause why he refused to pay the sum of 3/. ss. for poor-rates due to the parish of St. Gre gory by St. Paul. Mr. Wilkins appeared on the behalf of the parish, and Mr. C. Pearson, the Cit) Solicitor, was present to advise the Ma gistrates, 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, gift, 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 not 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'a certifi cate 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. appeal. _MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Joseph Emmington, a private in the Coldstream Guards, was brought before Mr. Hardwick for anal examination, on a charge of having committed an unprovoked assault on George Stephen Bond, carpenter, of No. 11, 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 company, when he was suddenly attacked and ill-used by the defendant, who appeared to be drunk. He called for assistance, and a policeman and his friend, who had not got out of hearing, came back and took the soldier into custody. In defence, the soldier said the complainant wanted to take infamous liberties with him, and this was the reason why he had assaulted him. The complainant, who appeared horror-struck at this decla ratioss. asserted that it was utterly false, and, if allowed, he would bring forward proof to that effect. Mr. H.Aunwicx having consented to remand the case until Saturda2l, all parties were in attendance. 412 TiN t ag 9 J 4 •YQuAg wow 4ik 0 14 LW. Gimp street, Paddington, said she was in the park about seven o'clock on Thursday evening, when a soldier "ame up to her, struck her, threw her down on the gt and --vant. a to abuse her person, but she resisted succe?sfuliy. arid just at that mo. merit a person came up and wa , instantly as;aulted by the sol dier. That person was the complainant. Witness went to the station-house to state how she had been used. The complainant did not speak a word to the soldier before he was ill-used The soldier might have been drinking, but he appeared to witness to be more wicked than drunk. A footman named Wise proved that he had left the com plainant not more than a minute behre the assault took place, and he perfectly well recollected the witness Thompson coming up and telling the police that the soldier had just been ill-treat ing her, and afterwards had run over and struck t he complainant. The complainant's solicitor said he had a host of most re spectable witnesses in Court to speak to the character of his client. Mr. HARDWICK said it was wholly unnecessary to call them, for the evidence clearly proved that the charge had been trumped up by the soldier, in order to cover the unjustill,ble assault he had committed when drunk. No: hing could be more abominable than such an infamous eefence, and if the soldier received a punishment of two years' hard labour for his con duct, he would get no more than ke richly deserved. He should go as far as the law allowed, arid inflict the inadequate penalty of 51., or two months' impriserment. The com plainant left the Court with an unblemished character. WORSHIP-STREET. On Friday six dejected and miserable-looking men, named Joseph Corbel, William. Smith, William Hinde, James Booth, William Carrington, and John Hantswell, were chargtd before Mr. Bingham, by William Horsford, one of the officers of the Mendicity Society, with mendicancy. I-lorsford, while- pass.ng through Bunhill-row, at eleven o'clock, met the six prisoners, four of whom Hinde, C,rring ton, Booth, arid Hantswell) were in a body in the middle of the road, singing a loud and doleful song, made up for the oc casion, on the subject of their distresses, while Corbet arid smith were on either foot payment, tollowing and begging of the passengers in the moat importunate and obstinate manner The prisoner Corbet, who bad been a soldier, hut discharged for misconduct, was an old and incorrigible offende., and he had taken him into custody only a short time ago under the same circumstances. Booth and Hantswell stated that they were machinists by trade, and natives of Stockport, where they had endeavoured to get employment in any branch of their business they could, but without , uccess. They at last resolved to come to the metropolis, where they had been only six days; but the same had fortune attending them here, they had been induced by Corbet to join him and the others, in the ho n e of obtaining enough money for their shares to carry them back to their native place. They assured the magistrate, in a very earnest and apparently truthful tn.inner, that they were not habitual beggars, that this was the first time they had ever asked tor alm,, and that they dui not know they were offending by so doing. Hinde, and Carrington said that they were mechanics, but out of employment, which of no description could they obtain anywhere. They all had wives and children, who were in a state of absolute sta: vation, anti it was not until they had pawned and sild every artide that would fetch a penny that they had adopted this course. I hey each told a tale of con summate misery and wretct,edness, and implored the magis tate to do something for them. Mr. BINGHAM asked if they had applied ttl their parishes for relief ? They all, except Corbet, replied in the negative, and said they would sooner perish than expose themselves to the rebuffs and contempt of strange overseers to whom they woull be obliged to apply. 51r. BISON/in said that from the appearance anti manner of the poor men, he was much disposed to believe that they were in the state of extreme wretchedness and distress they repPe sented themselves to be in ; but in exact proportion to their distress and want was their right and title to relief from the parishes to which they belonged , and if, upon a proper appli cation to their overseers, relief was refused to them, they had only to apply to himself or any other, the nearest magistrate, and that magistrate would compel the parish officers to perform their duty. As to Corbet, it had been proved that he was an old and practised beggar, and, as an example to others of his class, he should commit Lioi to the 1-Lais.. of Correction, with hard labour, for a month. Booth and Hantswell he should dis charge, that they might return to their native place imme diately, which he trusted they would do ; but and Carrington he should remand for another examination, that inquiries might be made into the truth of their s.ate merits, when, if they shouxl be found to be correct, be wi.uld see what could be done for them. Directions were then given to the officers to make these in• quiries, and report the result to the magistrate. LAMBETH-S: PEET. After the ordinary business of the c•iurt had terminated on Thursday evening, Nehemiah Shakqearc, late an engineer in the employment of Mr. H. Johnson, cigar manufacturer, at No. 35, Gloucester street, Commercial-road-east, surrendered to his bail, and appeared befsre Mr. Norton for final examina tion on a charge at having wilfully and maliciously caused the explosion of a steam-boiler, by which the lives of upwards of seventy individuals were placed in jeopardy. Mr. Duncombe, the solicitor, attended on behalf of the prisoner. It will be recor.eeted that Mr. Johnston's suspicion as to the guilt of the accused rested upon the fact of his finding, on en tering the engine-room on the morning of the explosion, at eight o'clock, all the appearauces to indicate that there was an abundant supply of water in the boiler, and the prisoner him self, in a conversation at that time, admitted that the pump worked so well that it more than sufficiently: supplied the boiler without any other source. There were other circumstances which strengthened the :suspicion, and those were, that imme diately after the explosion Mr. Johnston observed the prisoner smiling, even after he had said to him, " Well, Shassp-are, you have done a pretty thing ;" and believing he was so amiiina, said to a friend who was with him, " See, the villain smiles," and though his master had then said he would give him into custody he left the yard under pretence of going fur his jacket, and did not return before the Thursday morning, when he was given into custody. It will also he recollected, that on the last examination Mr. Fennell an engineer, and Mr. Mar-hall, tt.e maker of the boiler in question, swore positively that it was their decided opinion that the explosion took place solely from want of water. Dlr. Johnston, the complainant, was cress examined at very considerable length by the prisoner's solicitor. He said that between three and four months ago he purchased the boiler in question from Mr. J. Marshall, of Colchester street, White chapel, and paid him 451. for it. He did not think at the time that it was new, and thought he got a great bargain. He did not know whether the boiler had been used before, or who used it, nor did he knew the person who h.‘d set it. It was set by a person who was recommended to him by the foreman of the engineer who fitted up the engine, and the fi•ting up took place under the prisoner's personal observa tion. There was a collapse of the upper part of the flue before the prisoner took charge of the boiler, but not to any extent, as it did not exceed the size of his hand. This was occa stoned, no doubt, by want of water, but it did not seriously injure the boiler. lielieved the plate, or ,übstatiee of the boiler, as well as that part of the flue that gav:i way to be three-eighths of an inch in thickness, and it was warranted to him to bear 501 b. weight of steam to the square inch. Had neither a steam nor water-gauge to the engine. Duyght, who was in the employment of Mr. Johnston, and used to drive the engine before the prisoner was engaged, admitted that the pumps which supplied the boiler with water had been frequently out of order, and that the prisoner and himself used to set them to right. He admitted that they had done so two or three times within a month. Williams, another servant of Mr. Johnston, in his cross examination, said that on the morning in question the engine was stopped tw:ce, to repair the at. se of a roller in ti e saw room. On the first occasion it was set to work, hut had not taken many strokes when he (witness) saw hi• strap giving :say, and called out to the prisoner to stop it, which he did, and in ten minutes after the explosion took place. Mr. NoitToN— ! hen, was the engine stopped when the ex plosion took place ? Witness—Yes, Sir, it was ; I'm sure of that. Mr. Johnston--And it is still more extraordinary, if this be true and I have vow heard i for the first time, that tour of the flanges of the fly-wheel, which were of Brea, strength, and which were quite out of the reach of the butler, .should have been broken to pieces. Mr. Marshall, in his cross- examination, ,aid he had sold the boiler to Air. Johnston four months ago, for 4.5/. It had been made by hint about four years ago, as an experimental boiler, but had net been tried. He considered the boiler sold by him to Mr. Johnston a perfectly safe one with care, and attributed the occurrence solely to a want of water; and added, it was self-evident it was so. This was the whole of the evidence in support of the charge. Mr. Duncombe called Mr. Cater, a boiler-maker of th• South wark•bridtge-road, who depo.ed that the boiler in question wag such as should not have been put up or considered safe ; on the contrary, it was highly dangerous for such a purpose. The witness, in reply to Mr. Norton, admitted that the im msdiate cause of the explosion was the want of water. Mr. Bruton, of the firm of Bruton and Sons, John-street, Blackfriars, engineers, said he had examined the boiler in question, and considered it unfit for the purpose for which it had been used. In his opinion it was a "doomed" boiler, and its destruction with a pressure of steam was inevitable some time or other. In fact, he should pronounce it highly dangerous. Air. Manwaring, of York-street, York-road, corroborated a great part of Mr. Burton's evidence, and said, that the sub stance of the tube in th' boiler was not more than a quarter of an inch thick. Mr. NORTON obsereed, that with regard to the criminal charge against the pr,soner he would at once get rid of it, as he did not tnink that any jury would find him guilty of it, and with respect to the negligence the witnesses called had re moved that charge alto from his mind. In conclusion he could only say, that it affurkled him pleasure to acquit the accused of the charge. THAMES-POLICE. On Friday Captain Murray, master of the Coquette, was charged under the Merchant Seamen's Act with abandoning a black seaman, named Thomas Duncan, on the coast of Africa, about four and a half years since. The complainant, a powerful and intelligent negro, stated, that about five years since he was engaged ender articles by the defendant to go on a trading voyage to the western coast of Africa. Whilst at anchor off the coast, Captain Murray being at the time on shore, the crew contrived to get at some spirits, and they all became intoxicated. Complainant partook of some of the sftts, but had no part in procu r i n g them ; there were several roomen on board, but they were not intoxicated. This happened on a Saturday night, and_ when the captain came on board next day he ordered the men to work, but being Sunday they refused. Complainant being one of thoFe wno refused, the captain ordered him forward to the forecastle for the purpose of delivering him up to the natives, sonic of whom were on board. Nut wishing to he put into the hands and placed at the disposal of a naked and barbarous people, he re fused to submit. A signal was then passed ashore, upon which a party of the natives armed with guns and cutlasses came on board, and complainant was given into their custody, and after some time he was taken 20 miles up the country, where he re mained seven months, and never saw the lace of a white man during the time, except that once before being taken up the country he saw Captain Murray. On that occas.on hY rem,.n strated on the cruelty of being left behind amongst a barbarous people, but the capta n took no heed of his entreaties. Com plainant ultimately got back in another vessel to Liverpool, and the reason why this charge had not been made before was that he had not fallen in with the captain until lately. Captain Murray, in his defence, said that when he got on board on the Sunday he fend eve' ything in a state of the ut most confusion, and all the men swearing riotously. He then learned that they had broached some spirit casks, and taken more than two gallons. The defendant then entered into a detailed narrative, from which he would have it appear that the crew were in a state of mutiny. When he wanted to search their chests to discover the spirits, the complainant and others swore that they would not suffer him: Things rose to suet; a height that he fired two guns, upon which the native king sent down some of his people, and complainant, who was most riot ous, and encouraged the others, was put ashore, whilst another of the ringleaders was put in irons. Evidence of the facts complained of was then given, and Mr. BannasertnE called on the defendant to put in bail, him self in 801. and two sureties in 401. each, to answer the charge at the Old Bailey. Mr. Pelham appeared on behalf of the Lascars on board the Thames, to whose alleged pitiable condition public attention has been directed, in consequence of inquests held upon two of the men, whose death was supposed to be the result of neglect. rabial SSW tat UP paw tor vimb eppostad were 73 in number, belonging to an old Indiaman called the Thsme.. which. for the lass - tst o rnonthF, had been in tEe 1 er r of Loridon. The vrs•ei leteriged. to Mr. ern. of Bristol , and the men had been hired, at Calcutta, lir one of their wan €lllWrym, n, who sac aLswerabie, at the hazard of his life or perpetual loss of lit,eity, for acting that they were paid, at Kell as for protecting them against any ill-usage, He was structed to say that they had been so badly treated during the voyage, that the original serang ran away at the Isle of Frances after having lodged a complaint in one of the Court' there, against the captain, trawled Baker, who was fined in a sum al 2,000 rupees, and this fine was attempted to be put up as a ' el ' off against the claims of these poor Lascars for wages due t° them. When the serang ran away, the duty devolved att th?, tit - vial, or mate, named Kadder Brix, who was anxious to loo' after and protect his countryses. After the late inquest sign° humane persons called oa him (Mr. Pelham) to retain hit° on behalf of these poor Lasears, and he understood that their chief complaint arose out of the want of a sinfficiency of proper food. They were in a starving condition in addition, to the Id' juries they hid received, and by which some of them had been deprived of the use of their limbs. They were about now t° be sent back to their own country in a ship called the Svphiss which was to sail the next day, but they were unwilling t° leave without receiving their wages, which collective l y amounted to a sum of 2631. 18s. Mr. BA LLANTINt said he had nothing to do with the quit' tion of wages. Mr. l'etnain said, that what the parties now complained of was, that they were subjected to the tyranny of the maste r ' who was a cruel, uneducated man, denying them the absolute necessaries of life ; insomuch that they had even gone that very morning without any breakfast. Mr. BA LLA NTINE directed Inspector Maddox, of the Thaing police, to inquire into the mat , er, and to ascertain if there le° any foundation for the complaints. Silo , tly after the departure of the inspector, Mr, Bark er ' broker to the Thames, presented himself before'the Magistrates and stated he understood that a number of black men had been making complaints as to food and wages. The fact wet , that they hail received more pay than they were entitled to, had done no work since they came into the Downs, and as they it h s cost 7i;/. to bring the vessel up. They were the greatest tar cals imaginab'e-•e-had stolen everything they coal(' lay the ir hands on in the vessel, and would steal the ship itself if it sari portable. Inspector Maddox returned a little before five o'clock, ha" caretully investigated the whole case: He found that the men were allowed twe whole sheep per week to last for three Jay e ' and to be cooked in their own fashion. For. the other AA! r days they were showed fresh and salt fish. In addition to tht they had four sacks of rice, weighing 16.51 b., with a like amotni t i of sonic other sort of pulse, with potatoes, greens, turnips , a°, other vegetables. and oa the whole they appeared to be o r, well led. Their gre..t anxiety seemed to be to possess thee' selves of the money witch they said was due to them, but wh ir " if they got there would be no likelihood of their leaving by tb So; hia. UNION-HALL. Oft Friday George Gardner was brought before Mr. Ce tingham, charged with stealing a cash-box, containing "2 7 ‘" the ptopert s of Mr. Dialer, a baker, et Kennington . The prisoner having a near relation in the complainant employ went c. , tee hint on the 11th of iNovember, and &rid his visit ontrived to obtain possession of the cash.bozs On; twining the before-mentioned sum of n oney. He then >tote". for B.rmingham, where he remained for some time, and the: returned to London, when he was taken into custody.s4"' peisouer was committed. MARKET NE NIT S.—SAI' URDAY. CO ENT -GAR.I.MN Although we had only a inodcrute lithe•of-year suPF s l of vegetables, the &undid ruled inactive, and prices I t 4 in sonic few instances, a 1!1p11 twist! ttlitu.ney. the bo fruit was quit- as (tear, but other kinds were a nuere disk EL UNGERFOUXI. de , The supply of fish was ratner extensive, yet tile !nand for It was so:Ady, at full prices. In most ()aw l ~irricies a very binioli bu,iness doing, 411(1 ;he rates had u downward tendency. NEWPORT. Our mark,c exhibits:!: but a woderute supply of th eil6 yet the trade wasluaoive. GSGATE. Tho general ci.Thand 1%21, lOttetrii• at barely late WO' larb,,t.s. 7s t o 18 s ; C o d F in n, Is to 8s ; 16 4s ; Haddocks, Gd to is 4d ; Lobsters, 6d to 3 3 3d l WilliirG , gS, 2d to 4d ; b ea t es, 2 a to 4 s ; urnatt, Eels' to ls ; Plaice, 41 to 9a ; S o les, 6d t o 3 s per pair ; 4d to 10d per lb ; Flounders, is to Is 6d per dozen i Oysters, 81A to 48s per bushel ; a n d H err i ng s, 10$ 20s per barrel. WHITECHAPEL. There was only a inodet ate supply of moat, yet the trade was heavy, at about stationary prices. iIIZIIX7S4II.IrI.I 11.:a1121 L.0.5.1:51:111}1.8.1LI. We had rather an extensive supply of both Game gi n Poultry, owing to which the trade was eV :e. : sively dull, at drooping prices—FowlS, 2s 3s 8cl ; Chickens, Is to 2s ; Ducks, is 3d to 2s 3d ; Ge4e , „ i 6d to 5s 6d ; Pigeons, 6d to 10th ; Turkeys, 4s to 1 ; Rabbits, 4d to is 6d ; Hares, is 6d to 3s ; Grouse , 3 ', 6d to 2s ; Partridges, is 6d to 2s ; Pheasants , A , to 3s 6d ; Wild Duck, is to 2s ; Peal, is to is 6 " . Widgeons, is to is 6d ;. Snipes, 6d to 9d ; Woodee ek o g i Is 6d - Co• 31, and Plovers, 3d to 6,d each ; Larks,. 1 , to is per dozen. Prime Beet' and Mutton commande d steady sale, at fully late rates. In other kinds of MI . very little was pass!ng.—Beef, from 2s 8d to 35 6t ' . Mutton 3s to 4s 4d; Veal, 3s 6d to 4s 6d ; an d 1)0 1 7 .2s 10d to 4s 4d per Sibs by the carcase. BREAD. The prices of Wheaten Bread in the metropolis O c t from 8d to 9d ; of Houbehold ditto, 6d to Sid 41b Loaf. li/DE IVLAUKET. Raw Hides at per sione of 141bs :—Bvst Steers 2 7 ; Heifers, 5s 4d to 5s 9d; middling Hides, 4s Btl to 5s • inierlor ditto, 4s to 4s 6d. Sheep and Calt at per skin :—Market Calf, 6s 6d to tis ; Long w„011 Sheep, 2s 6o to 3s 9d ; short ditto, 2s to 3s 3d. HAY W.A.ILICLTS. SMITHFIELD —Coarse Meadow llay, useful ditto. 31 5s to 3/ 10s ; fine Upland 3/ lis ; Clover Hay, 31 to 4118 s ; Oat Straw, 1/ 64 118„ W heat Sirabs, 11 8s to 11 lOs per load. 15°t d Hay and Straw met a very dud sale, at bare;y statiotA ri ditto,2i 1 prices. Cu MBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2115 s to 81 5 10 useful ditto, 318 s to 31 ; tine Upland ditto, 3115 6 , 41; Clover Hay. 3/ to 41 15s ; Oat Straw, 116 s to 1/1 3 5 1 , Wh; at Straw, 1/ 9s to 1112 s per load. supply 14, ° ` The bust Metdow 14,y moved off stestuily, a. lull pric t: ut otherwise the demand was exc, heavy. WIIITECIrAPEL.—Coarse sdi.w Hay, 2/5s to 2 11 . ° ; useful ditto, 31 to 31 12s ; fin e Upl an d d itto, 31 13 - , g 3/ tBs ; 4 lover Hay, 3/ to 51; Oat Straw, 1/5 6 to 117 4 10 Wheat Straw, 11 8s to 11 lUs per l o ad. Supply Spa and trade dull. W A KEFI ELI) i. t.tl iN Al .'i Mil:T.—Films'''. ,.. There was rather a slender attendance of buyers at thi! ° I 'd market. Saks of Whvat. have progressed slowly, at an ItI T L IP I , - '6 of l...per quarter. Barley is nut plentiful, bat last w t et rates are fre-ely paid Oats and Shelling have been in b e i `;i, demand, but prices are without material alteration. bl i " held at ativsm ett brie. i. Beaus re- lin %testily. c•,:r qr. ui 60th to the husnel,,, OLo No .5 4 i', - -!:. ,, . Sutipilk, EsAex. and Ken?e ':..::.-53.10 56 s:'. 5J Ditto ....lit° Norfolk Red 52 54 4 , ri Ditto ditto White... 55 59 b 0 Lincolnshi'e and Cambridge Reti....... 51 52 4 : 0 Dd , o ditto Whi. e... 53 56 5 ,: g ifrri '.4re Ditto - ditto White... 51 55 " s . i Ditto •• • •,•••• iiitto .4.....44... Wilde 55 59 .... et s l' Per guar .r iMP 1 ,1 , S • , 14.1, Iv t:;• -. •,-..' •.ol , - :51 0 Grp , ding Foreig rer yr. t 63lb. th '''' r :seaii.,, Sma I It Tics 3l 2,1 f 44 .... • Foreign ... , 14 '.!ats, I•4i.t, a d I'ola d. ... ... mealin.... ...... 10.:. to 111., Fcr. ign —d t.' —4l. pep 3t°l" . i hulling - ( "2 . ;:., - .fait L..'" Ri0e..4 0 .4... .......... .4...44...44.... 23(.411 th , .no. 23'. lIA. leg KEEN SHAVING.—It Will be remembered 414 7 market has commenced ut Seaham-harbour for the r i l4 venienen of the colliery districts, and to improve extend the trade at that place, the tradesmen up o t o taking to supply . every article- of as good qualityau cl . ( h a the same terms as in the large towns in this district. ," ) p the last market daye. , a pitman went into a barbels to get his week's crop removed from his chin, '"'",, b having been duly soaped, and all ready for the opera tic 0 he suddenly started up, nod exclaimed, " Does 1, 3 ' shave at Durham prices ?" Yes." exclaimed be astonished shaver, " what for " Why," said t o pitman, " if thou aad'nt thou should have w ashed I . tho l soup off again, my lad, for we'll pay nae mOr - Durham prices.—Newcustle Advertiser.• LOS DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING ()NEBEL! I N th e norf.--Li London, every man is so submerged in At multitude, that he who can hold his head high en ° ,lO out 01 the living mass to be knout n, must have sottietuV of remarkable buoyancy or peculiar villany abous : hi po Even Parliament, except to a few of the leaders, Is all distinction. The member fin. the shire is clipped el ; 0 1 his plumage at the moment of his ent e rin g that c 010 5.0 poultry-yard, and must take hi s o b sc u re pickings /f 1 other unnoticeable towl.—Blachwood's Magazine. Jo " Never put off till to-morrow what you o° l if to-day ;" and, ther e f ore , if you mean to do a credito r, fe better not to put him off, but to tell him honestly that yoo "- put himdown among the things to be dome immediately..,,oese BIRTHS. On the 10th inst. at Bath, the lady of Captain J. late 15th Regiment Bengal Native Infantry, of a boo. o f g, At Conan House, Ross-shire, North Britain, the hull M. Boulderson, Esq. , of a son. 5 ,,,. of On the 11th inst., at Woburn. square, Mrs. John LI a daughter. On the I Ith inst., a Lorn-road, Brixton-hill, the 0165 ° Mr. Jarn,s Robaison, Ironmonger-lanoa son. o f Or On the I..th inst., the wife of Mr. G e orge Barker , ford -street, of a daughter. MARIED. t• On the Bth inst., at Kenni R ngton, J. Ball Campbell, 14 „110 Maria, daughter of Captain Pettiugal, British °- Vi ce- Dunkirk. C.difi ra t2n the 10th inst., at Berriew, Illontgonterysbirs, J. Dyer Green, Esq., to Sarah. youngest daughter of the '" Humphreys, t..tq., of Berriew Rectory. • bi tb On the lab mat., at St.. Anarew's Church, Plynte,u t Rev. Thomas Helmore, Vice - Principal of St. , Marks err* Chelsea, to Kate Wilson, third daughter of the late J. ham, of Plymouth, Es, i th e le , On the 18th of November, at Agra , East Indies, v " pea .l wife of Captain Philip Harris, of the 70th Regiment Native Infantry. won ° On ti , s passage from Bombay to England, in the November Captain Rettray, of her Majesty's t+6th, • i fi fsn - On the 4th insi., at Nev Lind, Edward D'Oyly , f" e son of Edward t )wen Jones, Esy., of Hay -lull, Glouttest e c r i ;orr On the 9th inst., at Hatlebury, WorcvAershiro Lewis, Esq. , fieh bet l " On the 11th inst., at Belvedere, Tunbridge Wells, -4 "" relict of the late T. Harrison Border, E , q., ~..p t siP On the I lih inst, at Eatei:-place, 13elgrave-square,`"" 6 r* J. Bernhard Smith, R.N. On the 9th inst., in George-street, Bermonds e y , Jam gtoOrli On the 11th inst., at Lambeth-terrace, Lambeth; f 14ff ' Beck, Esq., surgeon,. late of the Royal Artillery. On the 1001' inst., John Stancliffe, the infant on .ower Tulse-hill, Surrey. Ellis, London: irintedana. Published by 111 . 11R13 0 1; 140 1. 24. 112, Strand, at The Sufi Office, No. 112, On Gratz of 141441 past piadsy, *wig lb, Sew it A I L N P Ca Deposiip. teclero of ? Alessrs. AieLis.rs. Air. ,;,oh ~' , k•rß A.O, Prolmo palpita' debilit; tovior 4tut a f lietn " 4 1)1e If Ils e Oil "G wiele, PILL; life. ili thi, rely tivir aeall