The Sun. — London, England, 1844-09-05 00:00:00

opinion upon the goodness of the counts before the delivery of a verdict. No inconvenience could arise; oil the contrary, he thought great good would be pro duced from their adoption of the practice. In his opinion there could not be a greater grievance And oppression than these endless, unintelligible, univieldly, voluminous indictments. An indictment extending over fifty-seven pages was itself a grievance ; many prisoners could not afford to pay the clerk of the peace for a copy, and, when they got it, the most learned persons could not find out with what the prisoners were charged. The words were so ambiguous, that it might be that the ['leader who drew it up might mean one thing, the jury another, the judge a third, and the court of error a fourth, if they did not overthrow the whole judgment. There was also a mistake as to the prac tice of the Court of Queen's Bench in this country. It was said that when an arrest of judgment was /s wed on one count, the court was in • e habit of refusing if there was an ;.. r count which would support the verdict. that been so in the case of Feargus O'Connor? Ile had been convicted on two counts. The Court had heard the argument on one count in arrest of judgment, and had granted it, and then had proceeded to hear arguments on another count, which was so full of verbosity and ambiguous expressions, that the At s,ey-General discovering the great doubt which the entertained, had never pressed for judgment. I:,convenience could arise from adopting the cor rect practice. In a case of conspiracy which he had tried at Guildhall, objection had been made to a count. He said it was immaterial, as he was not going to pass judgment then, but had he been going to do so, he should have considered the goodness of the count, also e..!iere there were several counts on each, saying, " We apportion such and such a punishment to such a count, as.d such and such a punishment to others." And thus it would be reserved for the after-considera tion of the court how far the objections affected that judgment. Such was the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the proper mode, as it seemed to him, of proceeding. But his Noble and Learned Friends said that the objections were merely technical, and that no injustice could arise from the course that been followed by the Court below. Now he niust say that he thought there would be the greatest 1-ajustice. The case was not the same as if some irre levant stuff had been inserted which imputed offences. But it was impossible not to see thet if there had been three or four indictments, some of them bad, and the court had passed judgment on all these, the case would be the same, and there would be the greatest injustice, for the court might pass its judgment on the strongest clauses, and then the bad ones. The first case, which was relied on by his Noble and Learned Friend was, that of the King v. Powell, where the defendant was indicted for two offences—assault with a certain intent, and with a common assault. The jury found a verdict generally, and a writ of error was brought on the ground that the defendant was found guilty on two indictments. Now, there was one remark which fell from Mr. Justice Taun ton, to which he (Lord Denman) wished to direct atten tion. 'fat learned judge said that there were not two indictments, that there was but one act charged, and that the defendant was found guilty of only one offence. The words " misdemeanour" and "offence" comprised both the counts, and formed, in fact, a nomen conjunctium applying to one act. He thought that the decision of the judge separated that case from this appeal. The next case relied on was that of the " King v. Rhodes" for subornation of perjury. Some of She counts were deemed bad, because there were no assignments of perjury in them. The view taken of that case by the Lord Chief Justice Holt was, that there was only one offence, that of perjury, and that it was no matter what were the assign ments. Now to him (Lord Denman) that answer completely removed the case from the presentargu ment. The next case was an indictment againsta man and his wife for assault. There the objection was somewhat of a grammatical nature. In the first part of the indictment the singular number was used in the words " vulneravit et verberavit." But on the latter part the error was corrected, " vulneravesunt et verberaverunt." In that case Mr. Justice Parker held that there was only one count, and that the verdict was rightly found. These were the only cases which were relied on, and these were all the authorities on which the state of the English law before Lord Mans field was affirmed to be in support of his Noble and Learned Mend. But they relied further on cases which occurred shone. Let them first, however, consider w hat was the weight of Lord Mansfield's general dictum. His Learned Brother, Baron Parke, with more doubt than his subsequent argument seemed to war rant, had shown their Lordships that it was not of great weight as applied to this case. He (Lord Denman) concurred in that view. He would come now to the causes which were afterwards cited. The fiat was the "King v. Hill," Ist Powell and Ryan; that case was relied on, but he could not see what bearing it had on the present case. There were several counts; they all charged one offence and some of the counts were objected to. The judge said that he would reserve the objections, but in the meantime would pass sentence, and if all the counts were found bad judgment would be arrested; but if one was good the sentence would be carried into feet, but that it was the practice of the Court of King's Bench to take care Ll.at, no verdict should be taken for the Crown on a b count. The next case was that of the "King v. Aleson,' an indictment for obtaining money under false pretences, for which the p un i s h men t was dis cretionary—either pillory with imprisonment, or transportation. Now it was admitted that in the indictment two of the counts were bad; but it was evident that there was great want of distinctness in the case as an authority, for the 'learned reporter himself said in his marginal note that judgment was arrested. That case, however, was very different front those in which the successive counts contained cumulative charges, which would lead to greater punishment in the discretion of the court. Now he thought that in those cases, where there were bad counts, the discretion might be ill exercised, and he thought the court was bound to arrest the judgment, lest it should appear to have been awarded on the bad counts. The " King v. Yeung" was no authority on the point, although it ;v-is relied on by his Noble and Learned Friends. But T i ere the court only refused to arrest the judgment in the way stated, because there were good counts in the indictment, but it is relied on that because no writ of error was brought the decision of the court must be taken as conclusive. Yet, there was actually no means of trying in what way the judgment was entered upon the record, nor was there anything whatever to show whether a writ of error could or could not be brought. his Noble and Learned Friend said that the point had never been decided by a court of error, and, therefore, it was only difficult to make out any authorities upon this very doubtful, very loose, and (he would say) very censurable practice. His Noble and Learned Friend said this was purely technical in its nature, and that the effect of it would be, that if a party were found guilty, not generally upon such an indict ment, but upon the good counts only, he would n.,,t be able to defend himself in case of any tler charges being brought against him, by pA Aing that he had been already punished ; for answer would be "No," because he had e s- been punished on the imperfect counts. vk .r was the answer given by one of the most acute a , ' .;arned persons he had ever the good fortune to eo with in an argument ?—let him observe not s'se with any doubt—it was stated by Mr. Justice (~. ;!I.ln, whose plain and manly understanding 9! .ieit the question before them in a way that ssaild not he doubted. He sail it was an injustice that a person should be punished who could nut plead that punishment against being punished a second time on the same state of facts. IVhat was the an ewer of Mr. Justice Patte:on to that ? lie said that the proceedings would be estopped. Why were :11T not estopped now, a conviction having taken ryi.ee on this indictment ? Now, again, there would be a difficulty in calling on the judge to decide at the assizes whether a count was good or bad ; and they were to assume that he did so decide and they were to get rid of that question: whether the decision was good, because he did not so ifcide. They were to have it both ways. They were to assume it was too difficult for him to give his mind to the subject at all, and they were to say* that he h ad apportionedthe • 1 judgment on those counts which were good in point of law. I-Ie thought when t w hey got rid of the supposed authorities, the dicta founded on afirenitistaken and unfortunate observation of Lord MAll u s Unsatisfactory, isr. t t h t at the principle would appear altogether looked at the recocriel?iry'tsel and he thought when they to the, other circumstanc,,,el f, without at all adverting of the case, it would be found that judgment wesllpronounced on counts stating no offence; as that there had been offences on counts stating u f i a 3 o p n, and which there were erroneous findings entered that e therefore the judgment of the court below ha pi b n e t been incorrectly passed. He stated again that this him not only with its novelty, but with theltwered , and he took demonstrated force upon which, when he came troatnhde examination of the arguments, it rested ur, therefore, the principle on which he thought they could only set aside the Judgment of the court below, namely, that what had been done by the court below was not properly done. He regarded the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin with the greatest possible respect, and he had the highest opinion of the talents and endowments of the learned judges of that court. He had still a greater veneration for the opinions of ,tiA learned brethren here, with whom he acted, and for whom he entertained the greatest pos ,iMe respect.. He acted there, however, as a juage for himself, and he felt bound in duty to ex ercise his judgment on the reasons brought before him. He thought that the reasoning in support of the judg ment was not good in point of law, and it was his T duty to . _vote against the motion of his Noble and Adealluia Knead. Lord COTTENHAM then proceeded to deliver his judgment. He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend who preceded him, as to the difficulty in which any Member of the House was placed who felt him self called on to come to a conclusion adverse to the great majority of the judges, and the effect of an opinion expressed by a great majority of the judges ought, of course, to make an x, one extremely cautious of coming to a conclusion con trary to what was expressed by their opinion, and it ought to niake one watch every th s e te m p in o d wnetaos supposed ok,andto weigh every conclusion which to come to, in order that if a person came to an opinion adverse to that of the majority; and he should exercise all the powers with which he was invested if he was to come to a different conclusion. He adopted that course, he carefully attended to all that had been urged at their Lordships' bar, and all the reasons that had been urged by the Lord Chief Justice in delivering the opinions of the judges. He hesitated at every step of the reasoning, as he followed him, and he still came to the conclusion that the opinion expressed by the majority was wrong, and the opinion expressed by the minority was right. He apprehended it was his bounden duty to state the reasons upon which he came to that conclusion. They asked for the assistance of the learned judges, in order to inform the House, to assist them in coming to a right conclusion in matters of law, and their opinions were entitled to great weight, but they were not to bind the House, they were merely to assist the House ; and no doubt when a majority of them came to one conclusion, the great est caution and care should be taken at every reason ing upon which one felt bound to come to a different opinion. On a question which lately carne before their Lordship, there was a unanimous concurrence of the judges, and two of their Lordships concurred in their opinions, and two others dissented, so that the decision come to was against the opinion of all the judges. Upon one part of the case, to which his Noble and Learned I riend had last adverted, namely, the point of the challenge of the array, he would merely advert to, for the purpose of guarding him self against the supposition of forming an opinion adverse to the case of the plaintiffs in error. He would only say that, if the judgment in that case was right, it would establish this strange proposition, that there was no remedy for an acknowledged wrong of great magnitude. The only part of the case on which he would address any observations to the House was, as to the effect to be given to the opinion of the learned judges, who thought that the first, second, third, and seventh counts of the indictment were to be rejected; the two last because they were hasten them selves, the others because the findings and the enter ing upon the findings were erroneous, and that a judgment and sentence of the court, which was " for his offences aforesaid" could not be impugned. A court of law could not be affected by a consideration of the nature of the counts which it was called on to reject. The question they had to consider was, whe ther there was error in the record, and if they read the record as any other document, and only gave to the words found there the construction they would receive if used in any other instrument, could it be for a moment doubted that, on the intend ments stated in the indictments in the several counts, the jury had found a verdict of guilty upon all, and that the defendants, for the offences aforesaid, were subject to punishment ? llad not the court below passed sentence for the offences in the sixth and seventh count, as well as for the offences charged in the others ? It was so found in the record, and were they to say that the court had not passed sentence upon all the counts ? He considered that the only answer given, namely, that the court only passed sen tence upon the good counts, was unsatisfactory. They could not look to the record to ascertain cer tain proceedings not mentioned in it. Some of the arguments that had been used, supposed the court below to be right in all particulars. In his opinion the reverse was the fact; there was manifest error on the record, and it was not competent for a court of error to inquire into the causes of that error. Supposing there was a charge in a count of a malignant libel, and that count was proved to be bad, was it to be said that the party was to be punished equally as if the count was good? Now, the judg ment of the House was to be governed by the cases that had taken place; and with respect to them seve ral had been referred to. Two classes of cases had been cited, the second of which -he considered only to be applicable to the present case ; the first were utterly inapplicable. The Noble and Learned Lord then adverted to the cases of the " Queen v. Rhodes" and the " Queen v. Ingram," for the pur pose of showing that the court in those cases had arrested the judgment on the ground that, some of the counts being proved to be bad, the court could not apportion the punishment. " Young v. the King" had been relied upon on the part of the Crown. He had carefully examined that case, and he did not consider that the decision pronounced in it had any bearing whatever on the present. It had been said, that in the " King v. Mason," a misdemeanour was charged on two counts, and therefore the judgment was sustained. Now that was not the fact; and in the " King v. Fuller," it was clearly laid down that judgment could not be passed if there was any good count. From all these authorities, it appeared that the rule in criminal cases, on a motion in arrest of judgment was, that the court having ascertained, before it pro nounced judgment, what counts were good and what bad, awarded the punishment, as it thought right, upon the offences contained in the good counts. It appeared to him that a court of error was in precisely the same predicament. It had no more jurisdiction over the quantum of pu nishment, and no better means of referring one por tion of it to one count, or another to another, than a civil court had with respect to damages in an action. In both cases the judgment proceeded on an indict ment which was found to be defective, and having come to one result upon the whole, which the su perior jurisdiction could not apportion, the same necessity existed in the one case as in the other, of holding the whole to be bad. It had been urged that much inconvenience would arise from adopting this rule. He felt satisfied that the inconvenience which would arise from the opposite course would be far greater, and would in many cases be productive of great injustice. The only inconvenience was, that the prosecutor would be com pelled to be careful as to the counts upon which he rested his case ; whilst the rejection of the rule would deprive the defendants of the benefit of a writ of error. The rule contended for by the de fendants was founded on principle, and necessary for the purposes of justice; and it was in perfect analogy with the decisions in civil and criminal cases. The opinion which he had then expressed he formed early in the argument. He had carefully attended to all that had b een urged at the bar by the majority of' the judges against it, and he had not found any reason for altering his view. Lord CAMPBELL then proceeded to read his judg ment. Ile said it was now his duty to state to their Lordships the opinion which, after great considera tion, he had formed upon the questions of law raised by this record, and to these, of course, he should strictly confine himself. In the first place, he had no doubt that there were various good counts in the indictment. A conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose, ur to effect a lawful purpose by unlawful means, was, by the common law of England, an indictable offence ; and if several persons deliberately plotted michief to an individual or to the State, they were liable to punishment, although they might have done no act in execution of their purpose. Where thy had actually done what they intended to do, it might be more proper to prosecute them for illegal acts; but in point of law, they remained lisble for the offence of entering into a conspiracy. The first five counts in this indictment clearly charged the de fendants with having conspired together to effect un lawfurpurposes. The fifth count was strongly objected to. Ile considered that any person who deliberately attempte.l to promote feelings of and hosti lity between different classes of her Majesty's sub jects, to make the English hated by the Irish, or the Irish by the English, was guilty of a most culpable proceeding, and that, if several combined to do so, they committed a misdemeanour, for which they might be indicted and punished. He was likewise clearly of opinion that the plea in abatement was bad in form, if not in substance, for not averring that there were not other witnesses duly sworn, on whose evidence the indictment might have been supported, and for not showing that the witnesses who were examined could not, on account of their religious profession, have been lawfully examined without being sworn in. He thought the Court of Queen's Bench was fully authorised to continue the trial in the vacation, and that the order for that purpose, though conditional, was quite sufficient. In his opi nion, the rule of the common law requiring the con tinuance of the order did not apply. The question raised by the writ of error, coram nobis, was more doubtful. The assignment of error in respect to the witnesses not having been sworn in court, was free from defects fatal to the plea in abatement. He had no difficulty in over-ruling Mr. Steele's point, that there was no statement written on the indictment of the names of the witnesses sworn. He was at first much struck with the objection to the validity of the judgment by reason of the form of the itr h ee t o g en n t is a a l n t e hou ei g n h to which the defendant w as re qu ired t o enter, and h e was by no means free from doubt up on he was not prepared to say that it would be a sufficientt ground for reversal. It mus t b e taken t o b e part of s:snotfenweheicphrohneouhnacdebdeuepon found n ou t n h d guilty, an d it couldc the defendant f or the offences recog not be se p ara t e d f rom the finding. Th e nisances imposed in this case might lead to perpetual imprisonment. Magna Charta provided that no fine should be im posed upon any party which it w• as out of his power to pay. The effect of the sent • sentence, this case, would be, that if the required rscognisances were not found, the party would remain in prison for the rest of his life. He felt still more difficulty when he came to the next part of the case—probably the most important part of it, as it was not merely a technical question, but one which affected the administration of justice—he meant the constitution of the jury by whom the defendants were tried. The only question here was, whether the challenge to the array was a remedy which the law allowed. (The Noble and Learned Lord here read that portion of the plea of the defendants which applied to this part of their case.) Now, he was clearly of opinion that the defendants ought not to have been tried by a jury constituted in the manner described in the case of the plaintiffs in error. It was there described not merely as a casual omission of names., but the averment was that the names had been fraudulently omitted. He conceived that under such circumstances the panel ought to have been quashed. No other remedy was suggested. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had suggested no remedy. If the jury list was found to he defective, the jury list of the former year ought to have been brought into operation as though no list had been formed for the current year. He confessed that he should not have been inclined to ad vise their Lordships to reverse the judgment merely upon this ground upon his own sole opinion, but since writing his judgment he had listened to the argu ments of his Noble and Learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and also those of Mr. Justice Coltman. The jury were unanimous in the opinion that the finding of the jurymen on the Ist, 2d, and 3d counts of the indictment were contrary to law. His opinion was that the punishment must be taken as having been awarded in respect of the supposed offences charged in the bad counts. According to the plain use of language and the com mon sense of mankind, the defendants were being punished on charges which did not amount to crimes, and for crimes of which they had not i been con victed. With respect to the bad counts, t was said that it was a rule of law if there were any good counts, a bad count would not vitiate the judgment. It would be strange if such were the universal rule. Such might very well be the case where only one corpus dilicti was charged in an indictment consisting of more than one count in utile per inutile non vitiatur ; but where the separate counts of an indict ment charged distinct offences, they must be consi, dered as separate indictments, and, as had been shown in the case of Feargus O'Connor, where the court had arrested the judgment upon one count as soon as it was discovered to be bad. They were told that they were to presume that the court below knew what counts were bad, and what were good, and passed judgment upon those counts only which were good. Such an opi nion would be contrary to the whole spirit of our law, which supposed judges to be fallible, and provided a machinery by bills of exceptions, writs of error, and other expedients, for the correction of any errors into which they might fall ; and it would be contrary to fact, for all the judges in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland had held the sixth and seventh counts to be unexceptionable. He would suppose a case, in which there were two counts, A and B, A being a good count, and B a bad one, the court below held B, which charged a grave offence, to be good, and A, which charged a light offence, to be bad, and passed sentence on the count B, would it be held that a court of error, finding the count B to be bad, would be bound to subject a man to that severe punishment, because A, charging a lighter offence, was good ? This doctrine was attempted to be upheld on authority, and by the general opinion of the profession. The dictum of Lord Mansfield referred solely to motions in arrest of judgment, and not to writs of error. It had no application at all to the present case; and in the cases of the " King and Mason," and the " King and Young," the point had not been raised. The case in " Russell and Bligh" amounted to nothing, as the Court had no power to consider any thing but the point reserved; and in the " King and Powell" it was decided that misdemeanour and offence must be con sidered as a novum collectinum, and as both counts were held good, there could be no doubt that the judg ment was correct. In indictments for perjury, if one assignment were good, that would support a verdict, because perjury was but one offence, and one good assignment was sufficient to support it, how many bad ones soever there might be in the indictment. It was said that this indictment ought to be supported on the ground of expediency. He could not see what inconvenience could possibly arise from taking A verdict upon such count, and passing sentence only upon those counts which were good. He understood thit Mr. Baron Rolfe had passed sentence in an indictment for murder in which one count was bad, but in such a case no practical difficulty would arise, as where one felony was proved it was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty, and it could never be worth the while of a person con victed of felony on one good count to sue out a writ of error. But in cases of misdemeanour it was very different, for according to the present loose system of drawing up indictments, a pleader having drawn one good count, might go on drawing other counts, each increasing in vagueness and ambiguity, until he involved the party indicted in such perplexity, that there would be the great e st difficulty in ascertaining of what he was accused. There could be no difficulty in taking a verdict of acquittal, or entering a nolli prosequi on the counts that were bad, and passing Judgment only on those that were good. It had been said by the learned judges, with the ex ception of Justice Patteson, on the good counts only, and not on the three bad ones ; and yet; those counts contained the most serious charges, including that of creating discontent in the army. Now, could their Lordships concur in the incredible fiction, that the judges, having the general verdict, so far neglected their duty as to overlook those grave charges ? He would remind their Lordships that they were not bound by the opi nion of the majority of the judges. The appeal was not from the Irish to the English judges, but to that Chamber, in the exercise of one of its most important functions, which he hoped their Lordships would long continue to exercise for the benefit of the coun try and the protection of its liberties. The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question thus —ls it your Lordships' pleasure that the judgment be reversed ? Lords Denman, Cottenham, and Campbell said, " Content." Lord Brougham and two or three Tory Peers (lay Lords) said "Not Content." The LORD CHANCELLOR was about to put the ques tion again, in the usual form, previous to taking the numbers or dividing, when— Lord WHARNCLIFEE rose, but on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, he sat down, put on his hat, and addressed the House from his seat. He said that he did not think it desirable that their Lordships should divide, as there was a majority of the law lords in the House in favour of the appeal. He humbly recommended those of their Lordships who were not law lords—and who, not having heard the whole case, were not so well qualified to judge of the question—to abstain from voting. It was far better that the character of the House, as a court of appeal, should be maintained, and that their decision should be against the opinion of the majority of the judges— even though in this case it should produce great inconvenience—than that those Lords who had not heard the case should, by their interference, reverse the judgment of those members to whom the deci sion of such cases was usually committed by the prac tice of the House. Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred in the opinion of the majority of the judges in Ireland and England. But he also agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken, that it was more advisable that those of their Lordships who had not heard the case, should not vote. He deeply lamented the division to which the House would come ; but he would now only say, that when he differed from the majority of the judges on the question of Presbyterian Marriages in Ireland, he did so upon the authority of Lord Stowell and other eminent persons. Lord CAMPBELL had voted with his Noble Friend on the question of Presbyterian Marriages, and for the same reason. He would now only say that the dis tinction between lay Lords and law Lords was not known to the Constitution, but that it was the rule of all courts of law that no judge should decide a case which he had not heard. The Duke of CLEVELAND was understood to say that he had paid great attention to the case, and that lie thought he had a right to vote upon it. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that if any other lay Peer voted, he would vote also, although he thought it would be calamitous for the character of the House, as a judicial body, if the established rule in such cases were departed from. After a few words from Lord VERULAM, the whole ( f the lay Peers withdrew. The question was again put, and Lords Cottenham, Denman, and Campbell having voted for the reversal of the judgment, and Lord Brougham against it, The LORD CHANCELLOR said—My Lords, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. Their Lordships then proceeded to give judgment in some appeal cases. HER MAJESTY'S MARINE EXCURSION.—WINDSOR, TUESDAY EVENING.—Ten of her Majesty's ponies and six of his Royal Highness Prince Albert's saddle horses left the Castle this morning, and were conveyed by the Great Western Railway from Slough to Paddington, en route to Woolwich, to be embarked on board one of the Government steamers for Scotland. They are to reach Blair Atholl by Monday next. The present arrange ments are, for the Queen and the Prince Consort to take their departure from the Castle on Monday, proceeding. from Windsor to the Farnborough station (where pre parations are now in progress for the accommo,lation of her Mdjesty), and thence by a special train to the coast of Hampshire, whence they will set sail in the Royal Victoria and Albert yacht. The Court is not expected to be absent from Windsor for mere than three weeks or a month. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. TROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. TIMES.—Two speeches, delivered in the course of the last few days, one by Mr. Disraeli, the other by Lord John Manners, claim attention. Though not delivered upon similar occasions, or to similar auditories, they prove one point in common, showing, as they do, the strong position which certain members of the high Conservative, or rather, high Tory poli tics, who hale dared to let go the Premier's leading strings, occupy in public opinion. That these gentle men have not suffered by their independence is pretty clear. And therefore it is pretty clear, so far as can be judged from these two instances, that it is not necessary for the character of a good Conservative Member, that he should be a thick-and-thin sup porter of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Disraeli goes through the session at some length, and justifies every vote that he gave in opposition to Ministers. " I had not the moral courage, or the immoral audacity," he says, " to say one thing to my constitutents at Shrews bury, and within twenty-flur hours after vote diame trically opposite in London." And after a moderate explanation of his differences from Sir R. Peel, he con cludes, " I was his supporter when in adversity—in prosperity I will not be his slave." The speech of Lord John Manners was delivered at the meeting of an operative reading association in Birmingham, at which he was requested to officiate as Chairman. The Noble Lord has made himself so known to the public as a zealous patron of the poorer classes, and an advo cate for extending their time of relaxation and amuse ment, that his name appeared particularly adapted to head such an association ; and, without any other knowledge of him than what his Parliamentary and literary character gave, he was invited to Birming ham. The subject of his speech is a useful one, and suited to the occasion. He deprecates the existence of " the class system which now prevails," and wishes for a more " cordial amalgamation" of the different ranks of society. Every one who attends to the state of things now must agree with this view more or less, and acknowledge a particular de ficiency in modern times on this head, compared with a former age. A former age, whatever were its defi ciencies, possessed a point of advantage in its grada tion of ranks, and the acknowledged position of one class below another in succession, all to a certain degree standing in a subordinat e relation to the class above them. The descent was thus carried by con tinuous steps, and came by an easy line down to the poorest class of all, who were thus made part of the system, and the last chain of a series. The modern system makes two classes of society, and two only— rich and poor. The rich are all one class ; the poor are as much below the lowest of the rich as they are below the highest. It is not considered a matter of degree and succession ; the poor, all clubbed together as one mass, are considered the inferior, coarse, and servile substratum of the community ; the rich rise upon them, as an elegant building rises above the sad, or the porcelain issues out of the clay. There is an impassable line which separates the two. Duke, Lord, and Squire, merchant and millowner, differ in rank among themselves, but are all equally , above the lowest class of all. And so far the posi tion of the latter is a servile one; for it is an ob servable point in the state of slavery that it makes those in it equally below everybody else. Against this "class system" Lord John Manners protests warmly, and wants high and low to see much more of one another than they do. We entirely agree with him, and we respect the motive which takes him to preside at the dinner of an association of the humbler classes at Birmingham, to enter into their plans, and encourage their schemes of harm less recreation and useful reading. We do not pro fess to be particularly warm admirers of me chanics' institutes and societies for turning the poor into natural philosophers and metaphy sicians. The genius of, the few has been less elicited by these institutions, perhapi, than the idleness •of the many. And the pomp and parade of science, without the reality, has thrown an absurd air over such attempts. But the Association at Birmingham has done itself the credit, instead of going to a Liberal spouter of utilitarianism, and a march-of-mind Cock ney rhetorician, to aid their start, and make fools of them and himself too,—has invited fur this purpose a young nobleman of the highest character and prin ciples, both political and religious, and who has made himself known for his strong opposition to the liberal ism of the day. Lord J. Manners has at the same time shown, by his attendance and observations on this occasion, that a politician of his school, so far from being averse to reading and self-improvement among the poorer classes, only wishes to base their attempts upon sound principle, and to disconnect them from that religious laxity and indifference which has so often accompanied them. GLOBE.--If we are later than some of our Con temporaries in noticing Mr. Ward's " Ideal of a Christian Church," we derive this advantage from delay—that three months having now elapsed since its publication, we are entitled to express surprise that an open plea far Popery, and protest against the Reformation, by a clergyman of the Church of England and resident fellow of Baliol College, Oxford, has yet evoked no remonstrance from the University, or censur e f rom hi s. diocesan. Mr. Ward's work i s a long one ; but a very few passages, or even sentences, are sufficient to enable our readers to judge whether we have fairly described it as an open plea for Popery, and protest against the Reforma tion. " Protestantism," says Mr. Ward, "is intellectu ally the subtlest and most extensively poisonous of heresies, just as Lutheranism is morally." (p. 41.) Mr. Ward is speaking of the English Reformation, when he expresses, in page 44, " the deep and burning hatred with which some members of the Church (in cluding myself) regard that miserable event." And in a note in the same page, determined that there shall be no mistake about his feelings, he adds, "I cannot the English Reformation it, I k now o f no single to agree the foreign with r e g those n so who far prefer from movement in the Church, except Arianism, in the fourth century, so destitute of all claims on our sympathy and regard." Mr. Ward charges against the Reformation that it has violated two great prin ciples—the sacredness of hereditary religion, and the supremacy of the moral consci ence . A clergyman of the Church of England, holding such opinions as we have already quoted, is a funny champion supremacy of th e mora l consc i ence ." is phrase we do not profess to The of‘‘ nt' understand ehaeninsgu p ; r i oe t ifn m at may be a misprint for " supre macy of the Roman pontiff;" for Mr. Ward tells us, in page 480, that he takes the oath of supremacy, "non -natural " w ay he sub spiritual authority to the Pope,'' in a " non-natural he understood as denying s"en"'s. h e h w ln o u t l h d e naturally r e a scribes the eleventh article, which enunciates justifi cation by faith only; for Mr. Ward thinks this " a most atrocious and immoral senti ment," and stigmatises it as invented by Luther for his heresy: The Romish Church, as it is, comes nearest to, if it is not itself, Mr. Ward's " Ideal." " For my own part, I think it would not be right to conceal—indeed, I am anxious openly to express my most firm and undoubted conviction, that were we, as a Church, to pursue such a line of conduct as has been sketched in this work, in proportion as we did so, we should be taught from above to discern and appreciate the plain marks of Divine wisdom and autho rity in the Roman Church, to repent in sorrow and bitterness of heart, our great sin in deserting his com munion, and to sue humbly at his feet for pardon and restoration. . . . In these two necessary and fundamental duties of a Church (moral and religious discipline and orthodox faith), never in any period has the Roman Catholic Church shone with brighter lustre than since the Reformation." (P. 472.) There can be no mistake about the sentiments of the author of the above passages, and no chance of his being _ _ unjustly judged by them. Mr. Ward does not con sider that he subscribes the twenty-second article of the Church, on Purgatory, in " a non-natural sense," but looks upon the common understanding of that article as "non-natural." He thinks that the twenty- second article "cannot, without distortion, be ap plied to abstract Roman doctrine at all ;" and that so to apply it is to force the natural mean ing of the article as much as he himself forces the eleventh article, in order to sign it. (P. 480.) This is Mr. \Vard's view of the present state of the Church. "In a word, lam perfectly convinced that no one clergyman of our Church would be able to subscribe all such formularies of our Church in a natural and straightforward sen se; and I attribute this fact to the utter want of fixed religious principles displayed by the leading Reformers." (P. 481). And Mr. Ward is a clergymen of a Church based on Arti cles, some of which he avows that he subscribes in " a t t i h o e n t n e a f t o u r I n a a l t s i e o n n s , e," for a w n havin g which he fe e i l t s s ,d e ep distinctiveand burning hatred," which he calls " a miserable event," and to whose promoters he ascribes " utter want of fixed religious principles." Where is the Bishop of Oxford? Mr. Ward is also a resident Fellow of a College in a University which makes the Articles of the Church of England the test of membership, and will not part with that test, to allow avowed Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to share in its advantages. Where are the orthodox zealots who raised the in sulting clamour against Mr. Everett's degree —where Hampden, that they have be en silen t the lusty champion of purity of doctrine wh o hounded on Dr. Pusev, an d Ai n Ne xman, and Mr. Sewell, to prosecute Dr. all this while on th e su bj ec t of Mr. Ward's extraor dinary producti on ? D o they who strained at Dr. Hampden's gnat, bolt Mr. Ward's camel ? STANDARD.—The Morning Chronicle will not await, or permit us to await silently, the decision of the House of Lords upon the writ of error in Mr. O'Connell's case. Our Contemporary has, this day, a long article upon the subject, in which, however, it does not make the slightest allusion to what we said yesterday of the complete finding upon the unobjectionable eleventh count, which count, fully found and free from all exception, comprises the whole offence, with all its attributes, as variously laid in the other ten f counts. This eleventh count, in fact, describes a ' crime which could receive no aggravation whatever I from the most complete finding of the other ten. To even mention it would, of course, be fatal to the whole of our Contemporary's argument, which goes upon the hypothesis suggested, we regret to say, by Mr. Baron Parke, that the several counts of the indictment charge either separate offences, or at least the partes integrantes of one offence, or more; and by consequence, that the judgment pro nounced upon the convicted culprit must be taken as compounded of modicums of pu nishment proportioned to the guilt imputed by the counts severally. Now, with all respect for the Morning Chronicle and Mr. Paron Parke, we contend that this hypothesis is wholly untenable. The counts of an indictment do not charge different offences, or partes integrantes of one offence or more. Each count is a substantive indictment per se, and whatever their number, these counts all charge but one and the same offence— they charge that offence in different aspects, and in varied terms, in order to meet all the possi ble chances of a trial. A different hypothesis leads to the absurdity of supposing that when a grand jury presents an indictment containing several counts, twenty-three • gentlemen upon their oaths falsely assert that several offences have been committed, where, in fact, there has been but one ; and it may be worthy of Baron Parke's con sideration to get out of this difficulty, and to reflect whether the intervention of the grand jury does not wholly destroy his fanciful analogy between civil and criminal cases in this respect. But if the counts of an indictment are, as the truth is, but multiplied descriptions of one and the same offence, it is obvious that the punishment due to the offence is neither augmented nor diminished by the number of these descriptions that may be found de fective or sufficient, accurate or inaccurate. It is precisely the same thing whether a party be convicted upon one sufficient and accurate description or upon y fift. I AW INTELLIGENCE. LOUSE OF LORDS, Sept. 4. APPEALS. After the decision of the case of " O'Connell v. tl:e Queen (in et ror)" yesterday, Lord BROUGHAM proceedL d L) give judgment in that of BYRON V. COOPER, in which the only question was, whether the rector of a pathh in Lincolnshire was entitled to receive his tithe in kind, or bound by the existence of an alleged modus. The Court of Exchequer, from which the appeal was brought, had decided against the modus. The House of Lords now reversed the decree as to some of the lands in question, reserving to the clergyman, if he thought proper, the power of having an issue directed from the court below, as to whether the remaining lands were subject to the modus or not. DRUMMOND V. MAUN. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed with costs. CREED V. CREED. In this case a decree of Lord Chancellor Sugden had been appealed against, the qu es tio n b e in g wh e th er some annuities charged upon real estate had or had not priority over other legacies charged on the personal estate. The Lord Chancellor had held that the an nuities were entitled to priority. On the motion of Lord COTTENRAM the decree was reversed. TAYLOR V. CLEMSON. This was a question as to a tenantcy of land under the Manchester Railway Act. Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord COTTENHAM were of opinion that the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber must be for the defendant in error with costs. MURRAY V. MURRAY. This was a question upon a private Act of Par. The judgments of Lord BROUGHAM, Lord COTTEN IIAM, and Lord CAMPBELL were that the interlocutors of the court below must be affirmed with costs. STIRLING V. ]iii ART. Lord BROUGHAM, Lord COTTENFIAM, and Lord CAMP BELL gave judgment in this case, affirming the judgment of the court below with costs. KNIGHT V. BOUGHTON, BART. This was a question upon the provisions of a will. The Loan CHANCELLOR moved that the decree be affirmed without costs. Lords Brougham, Cottenham, and Campbell concurred. STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY V. BARRATT. The LORD CHANCELLOR delivered the judgment of the court in this case, in which the question was, whether the railway company could demand the higher or lesser duty upon coals exported or shipped from Stockton upon-Tees. His Lordship moved that the judgment for the defendant in error in the court below should be affirmed with costs. THE EARL OF ROSSLYN v. AYTOWN. In the year 1780 George 111. granted to Sir James St. Clair Erskine, afterwards Earl of Rosslyn, the office of Director of Chancery in Scotland, for his natural life. In 1830 the Earl appointed his eldest son, Lord Lough borough, and John Dundas, jointly and severally, and the survivor of them, to the office of Clerk of the Chan cery in Scotland. In 1837 the Earl died, and afterwards King William IV. granted the office to Aytown, the present defendant. Two questions arose, whether the Earl as such director could grant such an office to two persons jointly ; and secondly, whether a party who only held his own office fur life could appoint to an office for the life of another person who might survive him. The Court of Session had decreed that the late Earl had no such power. Lord CAMPBELL now delivered judgment, affirming ;he decree of the court below. The Mouse will sit to-morrow at ten o'clock, to dis. pose of some other judgments. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) GUILDHALL. Yesterday Mr. Alderman Wood was occupied a considerable time in investigating a charge of stealing about 741. in gold, silver, and notes, from an Irish pig dealer. The charge was made against William Franklin, a young man lodging in Hoxton, and also said to be a pig -dealer. The facts of the case have already been reported. After hearing additional evidence, Mr. Alderman Wood said he had no doubt of the prisoner's guilt. The stolen notes were traced to his possession. The prisoner was committed for trial. BO W-STREE T. Yesterday an inquiry took place before Mr. Jar dine into the conduct of two individuals, charged with a criminal off ence . O ne was named Frederick Mansell, residing in Lamb's Conduit-street, aged 36, and the other a youth, named John Pollock, living in Stanhope-street, Clare -market. On Tuesday night, about twelve o'clock, the younger prisoner went into the Macready Coffee house, Little Russell-street, and asked for a bed for himself and cousin, upon getting which he went out side and let in the elder prisoner. They retired to bed, and were soon after followed up stairs by Mr. Dent, a gentleman who was formerly a licensed vic tualler in London, but now resides at Riegate, in Surrey. He retired to his bed-room, but while put ting his boots outside the door, he heard such con versation and expressions pass between the prisoners, who slept in the room opposite to him, as induced him to go down stairs and raise an alarm. He then proceeded with the porter to the chamber of the. pri soners, and ordered them to get up. The elder pri soner denied most strongly that anything had taken p lace , but Mr. Dent told them he was convinced otherwise, from their language. The younger pri soner declared he would not leave the house, as he had paid for his bed and h a d a r i g h t to it. He, how ever, dressed himself, and policeman F 37 took him into custody. He afterwards attempted to escape, by running up a court into Bow-street, but the constable ran round and intercepted him. Both the prisoners denied that anything improper had taken place, and said they were very drunk. Mr. JARDINE remanded them till Saturday week, and offered to take bail in two sureties of 501. each for each prisoner. The bill was not procured, and they were removed ,o Tothill-fields prison. MARY LE B ONE. Yesterday Henry Wagstaff, residing at No. 23 -Jarrow-road, was charged on a warrant obtained against him by Rachael Wagstaff, his wife. Complainant stated that she had been married nearly ten years to defendant, and that they had lived apart since June last, when he attacked and broke three of her ribs, for which offence he was fined 3/. ; on the 20th of last month as she was going from home, he followed and threatened to annoy her wherever she went, at the same time vowing, as he was determined upon being revenged, that he would cut her up - into quarters, grill her bones upon a grid iron, and broil her heart at the back, of the fire, in spite of any attempt which might be made by mortal power to prevent him. Defendant—l deny the truth of the greater part of what my wife has alleged against me. I have no in tention whatever of injuring her. Mr. RAWLINSON ordered him to enter into his own recognisance in the sum of 201. for his keeping the peace towards complainant for twelve months. CLERKEIV WELL. STABBING. —John Ueren, a stonemason, residing at No. 23, E ag l e court, St. John's-lane, Clerkenwell, was charged with stabbing Jane Ueren, his wife, so as to endanger her life. It appeared that the prisoner returned home be tween nine and ten o'clock on the previous night. His wife had supper prepared for him at the usual time, seven o'clock, but it became cold whilst he was squan dering his earnings at a neighbouring gin -shop. He, in consequence, applied very gross language to her, and she endeavoured to soothe him by putting the food on the fire for the purpose of heating it, when seeing him seize a knife she ran towards the door, but the prisoner overtook her and made a thrust with the knife at her body. The knife entered the thick part of her arm. She cried " Murder," and a lodger called in a policeman. The prisoner by the force of the thrust bent the knife against the bone of the arm, but having made it straight, was eating his supper very unconcernedly with it when taken into custody. Air. William Walker, asargeoh, deposed that the wound was threo , quarters of an inch in length aid an inch and a half in depth, the knife having pene trated to the bone. Mr. COMBB (to the prisoner)—What have you to say to the charge ? Prisoner—That it's true. Mr. Combe remanded him. Mr. G. Stephens Murphy, residing in Spencer street, Northampton square, was brought before the magistrate, charged with causing the death of John Rogers, and injuring three other persons, one of whom (Elizabeth Bignall) is despaired of. Inspector Proud, of the S (Evision, announced that an inquest had been held that day at the Whittington and Cat, Holloway, before Mr. Wakley and a jury, on the body of Rogers, and a verdict of Accidental Death was returned. Mr. Murphy (whose face was plastered in several places) was about to leave the court, when Mr. COMBE said—Pray remain a while, Sir; as you have been brought before roe I must hear some evidence before I can discharge you. Mr. Murphy—But I have been disch — arged by. the coroner, and he told me there was no charge against me. Mr. COMBE—I cannot say what the coroner may have told you. The coroner has no power to take a prisoner from the magistrate's jurisdiction. He has often tried it, but he never could succeed. In the present case one person has lost his life, three others have been injured, two of them seriously, and I can not part with you until the matter undergoes inves tigation. What was the evidence adduced at the inquest ? Inspector Froud—Two witnesses only were ex amined, one, a Mr. Duckworth, of Finchley, with whom the prisoner dined on the day in question, and who proved that he was sober when leaving his house ; and another gentleman, who saw the horse running away a short time before the catastrophe. The fore man of the jury asked quesjons of the Bignalls, two of the sufferers. who said they believed it was acci dental. Mr. COMBE—WeII, I must say that is the strangest way of obtaining evidence that ever I heard. Sir (addressing Mr. Murphy), you must be bound over to appear here to-morrow to answer the charge. Recognizances were entered into,and Mr. Murphy left the Court accompanied by his friends. WORSHIP-STREET. Francis Crocker, who stood charged with having fraudulently obtained the sum of 155., and a gold wedding-ring from a young servant girl named Mary Judd, under the pretence of prosecuting at her suit a young man named Abel, for breach of promise of marriage, was brought up for final examination. At the former examination the prisoner positively denied having assumed the character of a solicitor in the transaction, but represented himself merely as an agent, and in that capacity delivered the papers he had received from the prosecutrix, as the ground work of the action, to the clerk of a solicitor named Hutson, who had neglected to carry on the suit. Mr. Hutson, the solicitor, now stated that he had not the slightest personal knowledge of the prisoner, but he had ascertained from his clerk that the prisoner had left some papers at the office relating to the mat ter, but no money had been received from him ; and it being the opinion of a pleader, before whom the documents were laid, that they did not furnish grounds sufficient for an action, no proceedings what ever had been commenced. Nothing was at that time known respecting the presentation of a wedding-ring to the prosecutrix ; for had that fact been divulged by the prisoner, it would, no doubt, have been deemed sufficient to constitute ample grounds for the contem plated proceedings. Mr. BROUGHTON then ordered the depositions to be taken, and the prisoner was fully committed. LAMBETH-STREET. THE LATE CASE OF CRUELTY TO A CHlLD.—Yes terday _Elizabeth Pollen alias Webb, was again brought before the Hon. G. C. Norton, charged with dreadful cruelty to a child. Previous to the case being gone into a gentleman handed a sovereign to the magistrate for the mother, and said he was requested to present the money by the lady of an Earl, who did not wish to have her name published. Her ladyship wished it merely to be acknowledged under the initials " S. N." Mr. NORTON said he had also received a letter on the subject from Mr. George Robins, the eminent auctioneer, who wished to know if there was any charitable institution in the metropolis which would meet the case of the poor woman ? If there was he should be most happy to hand a handsome subscrip tion to the Secretary ; and if there was no such in stitution he would subscribe towards the formation of so useful an establishment. The gentleman then said with the kind permission of the magistrate he would take the child and buy it a pair of shoes. The gentleman then took the child to a ready-made clothes warehouse, and completely clothed the little fellow from head to foot. Mr. NORTON directed that the mother should be brought in, and Po!ice-constable Hands informed his Worship that he had made every inquiry into the character of the mother, and had traced her to seve ral places where she lived. No female could bear a more exemplary character, everybody described her as a meek, kind-hearted creature, and a most honest and industrious woman. The MAGISTRATE then informed the poor woman that he trusted now her ill-usage and suffering would terminate, as several benevolent individuals had al ready exerted themselves on her behalf. He then requested one of the ushers of the court to hand her 10s. for her immediate use, and said that with the subscription, perhaps the better plan wou ld b e t o p l ace her in some little business. The mother, with tears in her eyes, begged to thank the Magistrate for his humanity, and to return her thanks to the charitable individuals who had be friended her. Hands, the officer, then brought up the father, and he was.placed at the bar beside the female prisoner. The officer said that the father was in a sad plight, as his Worship might perceive; but this was occasioned by the workmen at the shop where the male prisoner worked administering to him what they termed a dose of " Lynch law." The fellow having had the teme rity to show himself among his comrades, was taken before the foreman for having brought scandal upon his fellow-workmen by his shameful conduct. He was regularly tried by the laws of the society, found guilty, and the foreman condemned him to be tarred and feathered, which was carried, with hearty good will, into immediate execution. Mr. NORTON—If I understand rightly, Hands, you took this case upon your own responsibility ? The Police-constable—Yes, Sir. I demanded to see the child, which was at first denied; the female prisoner then said it was her own child, and at that time I did not know that she was not married to the man at I the bar. Mr. NORTON --- This is a case of unheard of cruelty, and your conduct is highly merito rious. The parish have declined to prosecute ? The constable informed Mr. Norton that the board of guardians refused to take the matter in hand, although at the request of his Worship. Mr. NORTON—The case shall certainly go for trial, •and let the depbsitions be forthwith sent to the Home office, with the request for the Home Secretary's per mission for the constable to prosecute. John Lewis then deposed that both the prisoners came to lodge with him in the month of April last, and were in the habit of most cruelly ill-using the poor child. The female would frequently keep it without food for two days together. Both the father and the female, with whom he lived, beat it in a most dreadful manner with a thick whip. The child was not allowed to play with or speak to other children. The prisoners only lodged with him for two months, during which period the poor little fellow had fre quently two black eyes. The child was invariably beat two or three times a week, and the father would frequently come home late at night, wake it out of its sleep, and give a most dreadful beating. Witness has known the child to be kept so long without vic tuals, that he has gone into the street, and picked up pieces of cabbage-stumps, and eaten them in the most ravenous manner, for which the female beat it with a whip with the greatest cruelty. Another witness proved that the father was present when the female beat the child in a most horrid man ner. She had, also, on several occasions taken the child in her arms, and thrown it from one wall to the other with such frightful violence that it was a mercy its brains were not dashed out. The mother here stepped forward, and informed the magistrate that the poor little thing was nut suf fered to go down into the yard, and the female pri soner, on two occasions, made the child eat :most revolting filth. Mr. NORTON—WeII, here is a horrid case of cruelty, and yet the parish and the board of guardians decline to prosecute. I am, however, determined to send the case to the sessions, and I shall make the constable the prosecutor. The police-officer was then bound over to prosecute, and both prisoners were fully committed. • Mr. NORTON acknowledged the receipt of 20s. from an anonymous quarter for the use of the mother. We understand that a subscription is being raised in this city, with a view to present the talented Celtic scholar, Mr. L. Al‘Lean ' of Glasgow, with a testimonial, "in consid erat i on ," as the document sets forth, "of Mr. M'Lean's own many valuable qualities, together with his unwearied exertions in promoting the religious, moral, 'intellectual, and physical improvement of the poorer class of his countrymen." We never disapprove of seeing .merit suitably rewarded, and we have much pleasure in taking notice of this affair, in order that, ere the papers be closed, it may reach the ears of lovers of Celtic ar dour and philanthropy, both at home and abroad, who otherwise might not be aware of it. LONGEVITY.—Died, a few days since, in Killarney, a eat and a parrot, belonging to Mr. John M'Seehy, New•street, both at the advanced age of 86 years. The cat and parrot had been given to him by the late Sir Aubrey Do Vere Hunt, of Curragh Souse, county of Limerick.--Dublin Packet. PORI'ENTOUS LAUNCH AT GREENOCK. It is pretty generally known, that for some h i d , past a schooner has been buildi ng a t thi s p o rt, intee d as a sort of floating battery, to enable the minister s , the Free Secession to ca r ry on th e i r war a gainst r t f t Church, among the sound s an d s h ores o f the 11 . 7 ) Highlands. By the brusque and fiery zealots 4 whom this enterprise originated, every conceis'su,, effort has been exhausted, in order to invest it of; an interest and consequentiality, not dissimilar to sci: attache4 50 years ago to the London h Missionary '; sel calk(' the Duff, a name, by th e wa y, which Hebridean privateer might not unsuitably etuul 3 i e ' t compliment to that exploit, w h ere b y a cer tain Calc u . : o officer in the same service has recently made free the site for " the Orphan Refuge," belonging of t 'l ol to the Establishment h e h as d eserte d. Enthesi'd has been wrought up to the highest pitch in 10° 1 %1 the Greenock galley. E ven d ur i ng t h e sacrament, week just ended, the free ministers Who had cora', it assist at the communion were repeatedly obserl 4 the building-yard, insp ec ti ng it s progress. Yes te r r was the day fixed upon for the launch, for which r parations of no ordinary kind had been proudly ranged. All sorts of gay Erastian flags we te d ' ef e dizening the merry m as t s . H orr id wor ldl y guns "free ever and anon piercing the peaceful air. Th e t ii ii ; mantuamakers and other free l a di es were se en t 7 t he and trailing from all quar t ers . A finer day re f t he occasion could not possibly have been desired ; iii d assembled concourse of sympathising seamstressesbea of truants, both from th e coun t er an d the kiteteie was considerable. Several f ree seceding Ini°, l) r were present; but the serm on an d consecra ti o n l; were given by the Rev. Dr. P a t r i c k M`k 31. 0 . Whether the solemn ordinance of baptism Was Poe faned and travestied by an effusion of wine O ber , schooner's stern, when bestowing her name upon, ve 3 we were not near enou g h t o ascer t a i n. Th e 1 )& 0 " barque, however, was designated " The Breads, ("Naething will be l os t b y th at ," sa id a sfoe deacon, in our hearing); and at length, when's' ik a preliminary forms were finished, a gun, of more Pi o usual pomposity and loudness, announced thatLl7 wooden idol, with all her flags and finery, via 5 1 ,7 0 0 to glide majestically into h er deitined element. ° O O off she certainly did. The b o y s , poor thi ng s! hurrah—a few mouldy s pi ns t ers even ma de re, s l to wave their pocket h an k erc hi e f s; b u t, a l as ! had the idol touched the water ere she nearlY,yito sized. Away she went o n h er beam-ends, and very outset of her career presented the a ppearanc`, a wreck. The men on board were o bli ge d t o sa ve t l ' e , t o ) selves by scrambling from the deck t o th e gunall e or e l bulwarks. People were running in all directions to! , 00 the extent of the disaster. E ver y h ear t wa s qua ll o o every brow was melanch o ly, an d every b on net-s,' was drooping at this ominous and humbling 4's l;' sation. " Troth, but that's bad luck to begi n of said a grave-looking maid en l a d y; " th ere ' s been c muckle human dependence here. To pit folkS ' t o ol in marquises, wi a' that farrafonade o' 1 1 0 oe braves, is just as verasteen as to trust in chariotser, horse. Och, Sirs! sae hoo the masts are a' fi.,__ ; ll° ,li, See thae vile riband flaunti ngs , h oo th ey 're arimoi in the water, like the t aw d ery fi nery o ' a drueke ti o ld wallowing in a ditch. I wuss gude may conie bst ,J, this sycophantish Bread a lb an i ng . Gi e ' s your eO. Kirstie, and let's a wa ' t o our c l osets an d "." , oa Yon glowring' deacon fallow has his C' o r folks' pooches already. He'll mak' r fli er! pocket on the spot. H as t e ye, ye um —of come awa'. Ships are uncanny things to b, i rr e bes. dealings ; baith Jonah and Paul kent that. f so, homely musings of the maidenly bystander, ha`. e fol liloquy and half dialog ue , sugges t mater i a l s for tab le reflection. Our free friends were wont to ben h irds observers of portent s . Wh en Willi am the ttl, portrait fell from the wall s o f Holyrood PaleA„e,„""tir time of the disruption —a n d w h en t h e L or d ti°"", er sioner's carriage horse stumbled on d r i v ing btu the Erastian Assembly, these significant ee d with the doom of the acc urse d Ch urc h, were P°ll,,i;lei upon by the free interpr e t ers o f even t s , an d o ur over as the harbingers of the total downfal e it! r Establishment. In w h a t way th e i r pre tty l a ' ' the for construing signs may deport itself °e l to present occasion, w e are not over care4,:bliat guess. It may possibly occur t o them g:' prosperous launch would be a dreadfully Ero ti l i all' fair. Make of it what they will, however, we, es,, h a' ful chroniclers, record th e i nc id ent exactly " pened. Their boasted flotilla for a sectarian coati was against the most h a ll owe d i ns tit ut i on o f the i . to was virtually stranded a t th e very mome nt t od the deep. An insufficiency of ballast, we unde lo ve' (a blunder which capsi zes every F ree Chureh.r-girg ment), was the cause, und er G o d, o f thi s hurnD l f r ee occurrence. A large s ch ooner wen t o ff to the oil schooner, to render her some h umane assista nc e ; hot as the very commencement of Freeism itself 1 1 5 0 1 3 a sorry and unsuccessfni launch a rear ago; w e ' not wonder to see the Church's - triumphant w l aid and engines imploringly hailed to save th e le ei Freeism from the beam-end perils w hi c h, in SP , 1 011 its fine flags and loud huzzas, it i s t o o eyri e t be suffering. " Except the Lord do bless the shiP',. builders launch in vain."—ReVrewshire Adverrik' . gel STATE or TRADE.--The yarn market catnip' steady, but without animation, so far as regards th ees ef ping demand ; but with a ver y an i ma t e d i nqu iry f° r o irt , yarn suited for the home tr a d e . G oo d s are Yeti '4Ol and some descriptions are a shade lower than on ni e last.—Manchester Guardian. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, IVIOLLuA • e 0 TENDER 2.—The market has been much the sn ; for some weeks past ; perhaps with rather I L e9 OO l quiry for the coarse r kind of goods. There lone been much activity i n th e woo l mar k et , and 0 0 c in prices. af t d i rt NARROW ESC A PE.---On Monday night, soo n ten o'clock, three inspectors of the Thames police, the Hambrook. E veres t, and Griffin, were going d, oW w bri l river in one o f th e po li ce ga ll eys on t h e e bb tide , their boat w as ca p s i ze d, an d t h ey narrow ly esc h rl e r o icei l watery grave. It app ears th a t t h e City of l ied steam-slap, lying off the p o li ce - s t a ti on at "7 boa came up the river at seven o ' c l oc k, an d wa s ridin7o 1 0 upon tide, with one rope out ahead of her, mad e f i l er t° the London , about eighty yards ahead, and ann.' th e the shore. In making their way towards the stil t ,Ti e inspectors shot ahead of the London to get. n 'a'rer) City of Aberdeen ; and while they were passing l o t fl e between the two vessels, a steamer coming nr I , ;i t speed caused so much commotion in the water t ii t nh warp ahead of the City of Aberdeen became tau t • t the galley was passing over it, and lifted the b o a i n r t into the air, turned it right over, and threw th, e l - 0 5 Pr i e ;i tors into the river. Fortunately they were ali w ber swimmers, and, though two of them were enc,?,, s bor2 with heavy clothing, they all managed to reach iT au ste,; and landed at Wapping New-stairs much el' i - o f tP„" The galley was carried under the paddle-whee l City of Aberdeen, where it remained fast betw!" c ico r ' floats until several constables put off and got Fol ic : Durin. the last six mo n th s e l even o f t h e Thanif s have been thrown overboard while passingover tabacrdee; to which the steamers are made fast, near the A de ° and Dundee Steam-wh ar f, an d un l ess so methill:orinl ,, to abate the evil, and compel a safer mode o , 0 115 the steam-ships, similar acc id en t s an d loss et . inevitably occur. 00 1 " [ADVERTISEMENT].—A MAGIC CURE )31. 1 " LOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS. Jan' . „i ° o fr o , 4 residing in the Calton, Glasgow, had been a e n g,,, L ' u ed her youth with a contraction in the knee, oee ns ",, n t pP ii t o a fall, which produced fifteen abscesses in diffe,, r ` t hat 5. i of the leg and thigh. It need scarcely be st uu tite st e r/1 , - ; had had the advice of medical men of the Br e t she nence, but all failed to afford the least relief, b n i ur ed , " r "; now be seen walking ab ou t Gl asgow per fect/ l iter eve abscesses healed, and her limb sound, and o'lo fa lle n ,' other means but these wonderful m e diciae s o 4,Str il s 'l Sold at Professor Holloway's Establishment , iraes t - e a (where advice may be had gratis), and IV! C ifilis respectable vendors of medicine throughout t ue world. _ lady 01 IRTHS. On the 31st ult., at Cla B rkston, in Stirliiigshi re, °I L'S e r Major R. Gari.iner, of the Hon. East India OOP t be vice, of a daughter. ntont • On the 2d inst., at Bittern-grove near Southanir lady of Alexander Hoyes, Esq. of a s s 9 44 On the 3d inst., the lady f Solomon Lazarus, Carlton-villas, Maida-vale, of a daughter. vokf On the 4th inst., i n Upp er St am f or d-street, I, road, Mrs. Thomas Barton, of a son. DID On the 4th inst., at Ili sham-hill Waltharast°' 0, Bury Cape!, of a son, still-born. On the 4th inst., at Heddestlon, Herts, the lad/ of 1. Stokes, Esq , of a daughter. , to .:" MARRIED. R I . On the 2d inst., a tL eam i ng t on , Captain Mered ithl Marian D'Oyley, widow of the lateJ.l3. flog, Esq., ° I o re hill-park, Southampton. trJoh ri liO n On the 3d inst., at St. George's, Camkerwc•-, ~..ott • Rogers, M.A., Oxford, of the Inner Temple, barrista of Ga to Maria, eldest daughter of William Hichens, Es t i" I t l berwell-rove, Surrey. • • 0- On tic 3d inst.,. at Leamington, Captain • 0 Regiment Madras Native Inf a ntry, to Mary An n '', n j,y , vivin g (laughter of the late Rev. Wilton Il ea, mil Rector of Clarendon, Jamaica. „ On the :3(1 inst , at St. George's, Hanover-sq" B— 'to Marten Meeard, Esq., of South Molton, Devon' of 1 " - Ann, only daughter of the late R. Hamer, i t niJgton. e Ar lbl o, On the 3d inst., at St. Maiylebone Church, J3,TA-socleo° Esq.,3l()rg a o n it E he sq uo t i l m , 3el,airyteg, Regent's -park. of JoEePI ---- DIED. Eq., 1, On the 24th ult., at Dover, J o h n Parker Suttsl fi fe Exon of the Yeoman the Guar. On the 29th ult., at of Sydenham, d Oxfordshire , 111/11 ' of Mr. J. Atee aged 41. - 0 On the 30: l c ulth ,at Guernsey, Sibeila, th e la d y o f 0 Stirling, of the Bombay Army. A Pr i i i ii i1...9 ' f On the 31st ult., at * Houghton Hall, Cumberla ,_ Robert Grant, Esq., eldest son of Sir J. R. Grant, of to` Carlisle- O' .rc, On the Ist inst., Mrs. Parsall, of Patriot-sclu— loco bridge-heath, aged 76. On the 2d inst., Henry John, e ldest son of 1 101 Siffken, of Clapton-square, Hackney, aged 16. o DO I r ° lj° 1 1 h London: Printed and Published by 50. 4 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Olumr A ysitrf Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in t'h e Bliddleaes, Thursday, September 5,1844! _ - . ( 3),R. D er Si Pare--p o st ar on C LI FECILET&I SoLterroi PARLIAM, be„ithe takt , 4 Pplic the e ktreet Lc 13 :L( 11 ' 48 rna I 141 .4ert a % 1"S Nun 444 alt a „ to do, ~1~~ Sir T hor Sir Thor Thomas,, ...j e t,. 13 caster E bert o rna3 Frederic the p Willian Daniel Messrs, The Li The rn Sir Joh] Jam" 7 vu tl tl -"` Iliad co nvex I ° , ksh e ashir e This 'will be l ''' l 7 on At se THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPTEIVIAER 5, 1844. :iitil A. ( Jain Rob T ° the Cly, Sh 4 i rni t Vv ( bro