The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-22 00:00:00

E S.UN, LONDON, I'lll3l law. What could they say, if a person charged with any offence were to plead ig norance of the law ? Such a plea had never been allowed; on the contrary, the plea of ignorance of the law was always considered of no de fence. Mr. MILNER GIBSON agreed with his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath, and hoped that he would adhere to his determination to have those foolish expressions, which stated ignorance of the law was an excuse for breaking it, struck out of the preamble. After a few words from Mr. S. WoRTLEY, Mr. ROEBUCK said he would put a case in point. A poor man comes to London; he is hungry, and begs a crust of bread, for whicb he is 4rought betore the ma gistrate. He asks is he not allowed to beg for a crust of bread when he is starving in a Christiai*country, and. the answer is," No, 'tis against the law ;" and, although he protests he knew nothing of the existence of such a law, he is sent off to prison. Surely this was very like one law for the poor and another for the rich. Sir R. PEEL said, although he did not wish to see Parliament interfere much in matters of retrospective legislation, still he thought this was one, in which Par liament ought to interfere to prevent gross injustice being done to many individuals who were subject to the most enormous and ruinous penalties, and he should consequently record his vote in favour of the Bill. In doing so, however, he felt called upon to say that he thought that part of the preamble which stated that-ig norance of the law was an excuse for breaking it should be omitted. After a few words from the Attorney-General, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Roebuck, Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE objected to the striking out those words, and he thought the Bill would never have arrived at its present stage, if the preamble did not con tain those words. He heard an Hon. and Gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Peel) say that was ignorance of the law, and was loudly cheered. It might be conve nient for lion. Gentlemen opposite to establish such a doctrine, as it would give a plausible answer to those who might come forward to vindicate the cause of the people, by saying that they did not intend violating the law. There had been such things as monster meetings. —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He had frequently ap plied to this House for the commutation of the punishment of individuals whom he thought had erred through ignorance ; and he had been as frequently answered by the Government, that ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it. He should persist on having these words retained in the preamble, and would divide the House upon the question. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the numbers were • For striking out the words Bl Against it Majority —s4 On the motion that the word in the preamble "actions" brought by common informers, or by other actual losers, be omitted, Mr. HAIVES opposed the omission. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY insisted on retaining the words in the preamble. Mr. HAWES said that the statute entitled common informers to bring those actions. That was recognised by law, and therefore it should not be, as it were, slighted in the preamble. He thought it would be better to state, as a reason for introducing the present Bill, that penalties had been sought for disproportioned to the offence. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not see anything unreasonable in retaining the words regarding common informers. Perhaps it would have been better to say " whereas certain actions had been brought, and whereas no action of the same kind bad been brought for 120 years, it was expedient," &c. Mr. WATSON saw no reason why the causes fur in troducing the present Bill should not be fully recited in the preamble. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY was in favour of the preamble as it stood. Sir R. PEEL suggested the propriety of the Hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, omitting the words objected to. After a few words from other Hon. Members, Mr. J. S. WORTLEY consented to withdraw the ob jectionable words. Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was very extraordinary to witness the persevering manner in which the Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. Wortley) had insisted upon retaining the words, and had instantly abandoned them at the sug gestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. One word bad been suggested—then another and another—and there was no knowing where those alterations would stop. It had been said that actions had been brought by no other than common informers ; such was not the case—actions had been brought by actual losers. They should have been at this moment listening to the eloquence, and edified by the instructions of the Attorney-General for Ireland, if it were not for those trivial alterations. Mr. BROTHERTON thought the House had been wasting its time in protecting gentlemen who broke the law. All the arguments that had been used in favour of the Bill were in defence of gambling, and seemed to have been brought in rather for encouraging than abating that vice. If there had been only 10,000/. at stake the House would have heard nothing of the Bill; but as the bets amounted to half a million, and as the betters belonged to the aristocracy, the Bill had been introduced. After a few words from Mr. Horsman, Mr. S. Wort ley, and Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. HUME said the only reason for bringing in the Bill was to shield certain noblemen and gentlemen who had trangrelsed against the law. It was said those hon. gentlemen and noble lords were in ignorance of the law. Be thought that was a very insufficient excuse. Those individuals had ample means of ascertaining what the law was, and ignorance should not be admitted as a plea. It was not admitted in the case of the Dorchester labourers, and why should the poor man be presumed to know the law better than the rich man? After a few words from several Hon. Members the preamble was amended in the form suggested by the Attorney-General for England. The Bill, having gone through Committee, was then ordered to be reported. ADJOURNED DEBATE.—IRELAND. The Order of the Day having been read, Mr. SMITH (the Irish Attorney-General) rose to resume the adjourned debate on Ireland. He - said that the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde), having thought it right to bring forward, at j the close of the debate last evening, charges against him with respect to the mode in which the recent prosecutions had been conducted, and having gone the length of imputing, not, perhaps, in express terms, but by insinuation, mat ters reflecting personally upon him, he trusted the House would bear with him while he laid before it the defence which he had to offer.—(Cheers.) The course he proposed to adopt was this. He had not had the goo:1 fortone to hear the whole of the debate, but only portions of it ; and he therefore thought his bestreourse would be to go, step by step, over the whole proceedings from the first, and state the reasons which had induced him to come to his Own conclusions upon every branch of the case. It would be necessary. first of all to advert to the eriod when the informations were sworn. Not h avin g brought those informations with him he could not then_ state the precise day, but he believed it was on the 15th or 16th of Oct'iber. The first circumstances which oc curred after the informations had been sworn to was a course of a most extraordinary nature adopted by one of the defendants—a course, he thought it the more ne cessary to advert to because it, to a certain extent, regulated the proceedings he adopted with respect to ;iie applications made by him to the Court of queen's Peach. A few days after the informations had been, swop, there was not a witness who, it was supposed had been fi xamined, or would be examined, but was placarded in every street in Dublin as a spy, an Informer, and a convicted perjurer. —(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Ile wished the House to know—he especially wished those in it who, were al ways declaiming about liberty, justice, and impartiality—that on the 20th . of October;in every street in Dublin, large bills were posted with these odious words in large letters at the head - of them ; and the • names of the witnesses in. equally intelligible characters. ! ---(Great cheers from the Ministerial side.) One wit ness was more particularly pointed at than any other. He alluded to a gentleman known to many Members 11f . that House, and who had been frequently em ployed by the . Commons' Committees in the taking of ev idenee—a gentleman who gave his testimony in so straightforward, manly, and candid a manner, that Mr. O'Connell, in addressing the jury on the occasion of the trial, had warmly and justly compli mented him. He alluded to Mr. Ilughes.—(Lond cheers.) And this was their spy, their informer, and their convicted ja.rjurerl— (Ministerial cheers.) This was the ntau who, for the purpose of defeating justice, it was c omplained of in every newspaper in Dublin, had been directed to swear T whatever was requisite fi►r the purposes of the Government.--(There -was het e an observation made by some Hon, Member—at first supposed to be by Mr. Shell.) He begged the Don. Member's pardon, but his interruptions should not. an noy him.—(Luud cheers.) Mr. SIIEIL-1 did not interrupt. I did not speak. Sir H. WINSTON BAMZON—The observation fell fr. MI 11W. _ _ _ Mr. sNirrit (in continuation and addressing Mr. Shell). lie should. before sitting have some matters to touch uyon in reference to hini.—(Ministerial cheer=.) This being the course adopted at the very outset of the proceedings, before even the bills of indictment were ,p u t up, it was clearto him (Mr. S m ith) th a t he was ru n to have a tair trial with t h e part i es i mplicate d . I t Cieltr to him that every imp e di ment was to b e t hroA ri in the path of justice, every annoyance to himself, the i tn , s e s , and all concerned.—(Loud cheers.) On t he 20th of October, informations fur perjury were tendered against Mr. Hughes, before the di►i sional magistrates—this extraordinary cOurse taken in order to turn the accuser into the acc used—to enable those charged with noun, to forward and make charges against others.—(Cheers.) The divisional magistrates refused to take those Jo formations.—(Hear, hear.) Four days aft e r the Com mission Court was opened before two of the Jullge: , . But the parties who had thus preferred a charge :of perjury against Mr. Hughes never went befor e thi s Commission Court during its sittings—(Hear, hear) — but allowed them to pass by. On the 3 . dof 3 , 4oveihtier. being the second day of . term, toe Lill dictment was laid before the grand jury, ant, oo the 6th of November, the indictment still being there, the course that was adopted was tf.is :—An applicatioh was made to the judges for a mandamus against the divisional magistrates, to compel them to, receive the 111- . formations against Mr. Hughes. What was the ob j ect o f this appeal ? To get at the information which it was intended, on sir. Hughes' evidence, to place before counsel.—(Cheers.) The judges put the question to to them, when they applied for their mandamus, " whydid you not go to the Commisssion Court?" They told them also to send up bills of indictment against Mr. Hughes be fore the grand jury then sitting. From that hour to ; this, no bill of indictment had ever been heard of • (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Such was the conduct of the individuals who declaimed so loudly about an t administration of justice, and who - adopted a t ioarse which he should not condescend to designate at' it. de served to be designated.—(Cheers.) The next Step in the proceedings was when the bills were found,' - gn or about Bth November. The bills of indictment 'having been brought down, the defendants required Copies of them ; and, under the 60th of George the Third, they were entitled to them free of expense. Fortunately for him (Mr. Smith), the first step of the defendants in the proceedings had put him upon his guard, and he antici pated.that every attempt at delay would be made ; and as h 4 proceeded he . would prove to the House how de terminedly This intention had been carried out. — (Cheers) The 'defendants applied for eight co pies ; to their surprise, if not to their annoy ance, the eight copies were ready prepared for them.—(Cheers.) - t But they were intitled to certified copies, and the slightest clerical error might have been productive Of the greatest evil. The consequences had been foreseen, and the,greatest portion of .the enactment —nearly all of ,it—had been printed, and, fortunately, the eight copies turned out perfia tly correct. The next step of the defendants was to give nine notices of mo tion, the object : being to avoid being forced during the term to plead the general issue, and thus again to cause some more delay.— (Hear, hear.) Next came the application to the Court on the ground of the witnesses names not being indorsed on the back of the indictment, and the application of three of the parties simply for a copy of the names of the witnesses—the course being thus varied by the traversers in order the better to ensure delay.—(Hear, hear.) He considered lit necessary, knowing as he did well, the motive for these, proceedings, to oppose vigorously all these motions thus brought before the Court, and he did so successfully, the whole Court being unanimously in his favour. Another application was made on the same day to set aside the rule to plead, be cause the caption of the indictment was not annexed to it—but ag ain was he successful in his opposition. All he conten ded for was to abide in these, as in other pro ceedings, by what, as he thought, had been the uni form practice of the Court. Here and here alone the Court was not unanimous in his favour. Mr. Justice Perrin took a different view of the law and the practice to what he (Mr. Smith) did, but the three others coincided with him.—(Loud cheers.) The next step taken to create delay, was to tender nine pleas in abatement to the indictment. This was on Tuesday the 14th of November. Then they tried to quash the indictment because the witnesses whose evi dence was to support it had not been sworn in Court. These two matters he resisted, and successfully. The defendants had taken five days to prepare their pleas, to which he put in a demurrer, and on the 20th of Novem ber, he (Mr; Smith) applied to have the demurrer fixed for argument on the following morning. When he ap plied for this, he was encountered by the argument that the defendants were entitled to another four day's rule. Well, the case was argued on the 21st of November, and it was decided unanimously by the Court that the pleas in abatement were invalid, and that the demurrers taken ' on the part of the Crown must be allowed.—(Loud cheers.) So that, at length, after ever effort for delay. after every plan had been resorted to, he had extorted from the defendants a plea that they were not guilty. Now, he wished the House to recollect that he was a public officer ; that in all that he did herein he was but performing punctually and faithfully the func tions attached to his public situation ; and he protested that in thus resisting the successive and never-ending motions for delay, he was actuated by no personal feel ings whatever, but solely by a sense of public duty. — (Loud cheers.) Notice of the time for trial being given by the Crown, the defendants opposed it on two grounds ; first, that, from the magnitude of the cause, they had not time to prepare for trial ; secondly, that the special jury -list, for the year 1843, contained (oily 388 names— that of these names between fifty and sixty only were Roman Catholics ; and that of these fifty or sixty there were only about twenty-five that could be made avail able, and that they could not have a fair and impartial trial if it were to take place, as originally intended, on the I Ith of December. He had enforced a plea of " Not guilty ;" and he could have rejected the request for a trial by another jury list, had he thought proper.—(Hear, hear.) He had been charged, by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worces ter, with desiring to procure a conviction per fas act nefas. Now, he believed the ground on which the re quest that the trial might he postponed until the jury panel of 1844 was prepared—he said he looked upon it as a reasonable one, and he acceded to it.—(koud cheers.) What became, then, of the heavy and harsh imputations which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had cast upon him.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) The trial having then, with his consent, been postponed to the 15th of January, what did the traversers do? They sought to have itagain deferred until the Ist of February, but to that he would not consent.—(Hear, hear.) On the 29th of December, the lists having been copied into the jurors' book by the Clerk of the Peace, they were handed to the Sheriff. His duty then was, within ten days, to make out a special jurors' list. On the 3d of January the Sheriff waited on the proper officer with the jury list for 1844. One of the charges brought against the Crown, was that Mr. Mahoney, or one of his assistants, had stated that he had applied to the Crown Solicitor, that the clerk of the peace should give copies of the jury list both to the traversers and the Crown, and that Mr. Kemmis would not consent. The reason for it was this. He was in total ignorance of the jury list,' till nine o'clock of the night of the 3d January ; but he considered they' were not complete until they were in the sheriff's hands. Had they consented to this they would have consented to give a copy . of a jury list which, in fact, had no existence in point of law. On the 22d of November, it was agreed upon that the case should be tried by the jury-list as revised by the Recorder. What was the nature of that revision ? Two copies had been served by the attorneys for the traversers on , all those citizens who were qua lified to serve as jurors, and who were Re peelers, to attend before the Recorder. At the same time a notice was served by the same party on every respectable Conservative who was considered as likely to be hostile to the traversers, telling them that if they did not appear in court to support their claim, although that claim was perfectly valid, application would be made to have their names struck off. This was the act of one of those who declaimed so much about liberty, and about the purity of the administratiOn of justice. Their object was to pick and cram the jury box with men entertaining repeal opinions.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He (the Attorney-General for Ireland) consented to the revision of the jury, in order that the traversers might have no excuse for saying they had not been fairly and impartially dealt with ; and not as had been stated by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, per fas aut nefas, to obtain a conviction. What was the consequence of the new revision. In 1833, only 188 Ca tholics were qualified to appear on the jury lists. In 1844 twenty-five Roman Catholics were so qualified.— (Cries of " Hear, hear," from the same quarter.) No doubt could be entertained but the traversers had bene fitted by the revision of these lists, and in the manner of their revision, and the circumstances attaching to it, as far as the officers of the Crown were concerned, he felt confident that a British public would refurn a verdict of acquittal notwithstanding the numerous charges that had been made against them. The copy of the special jury panegwas supplied to the attorneys for the traversers the moment it was ready. Mr. Kemmis had made an affidavit, that up to nine o'clock on the night of the 91h of January the Crown had not seen a copy of the special jury lists. The attorneys for the traversers, Messrs. Cantwell and Ford, .pro ceeded to draw 48 names from the list so framed. These :names were drawn, and then an adjournment .of twenty-four hours took place to allow each party time to decide what names they should strike off from the list. A great deal of misapprehension had been created with respect to challenging the jury. In point of law, and in point of fact, he denied that striking off th e names by both parties was in the nature of a chal lenge atall.—(Cheers.) The Legislature never contem plated- such it thing when it passed the Act of Parlia ment. .Forty-eight names were drawn from the list of 717. 'Out of these, each party had to strike off twelve. It was not the intention 'of the Legislature, when it passed the Special Jury Aet, that the parties who struck off the names from the special jury list should be called upon to state their reasons for so doing.— ( Loud cheering from the Ministerial benches.) .lle confidently asserted, in the presence of the members of the English bar,.that .it never was the intention of the Legislature that persons, in striking off the names from the special jury- list, should be called upon to state the reason which influenced their in so doing.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It was a privilege given to each side.—(Hear, hear.) The traversers in the late prosecutions had the privileg e of striking off twelve . names, - and they availed themselves of it.—(Hear, hear.) Why; then, should they claim to know the reasons Which influenced the persons for the prosecution in striking off the other twelve names ? On the 12th of January a notice of motion was served by Mr. Cantwell to quash the special jury panel, on ac count of the omission of certain names. The lion. and Learned Member for Worcester said that, if the At torney-General for England had been called upon to consent to tittash that jury panel, he would have had a ,sufficient regard for his honourand his character to have assented to • the application. (Cheers, and counter cheers.) Now, lie (Mr. Smith) thought that lie had some reason to complain of the Hon. and Learned Gen , tleman.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not condescend to , tell the. House what was to be done after the panel had been quashed.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Now he (Mr. Smith) would explain to the Muse and the country what would have been the. 'consequence of that proceeding. lie would state-this confidently, for although the - Iron. and Learned Gentleman seemed to think that all honour and integrity was confined to the English law-officers of the CrOIVII, yet lie would tell' that Ilon:-and Learned GCn.. den= that there was as much honour and 'honesty in Ireland.—(Cheers.) lie would now explaisi to the House what the Hon. :and Learned Member fon Wor cester found it inconvenient to explain. The., special jury panel could not have been, quashed except upon the i p eae r s u nt l ue e lt i .l p it l 3 e nr.i t u h s at the special jury li s t for the year 1844 was i r t rli r c em li e o m n. be tt r ild, th L at ea t r i n ie e r d to be tried in Ireland besides thatw e Member r o e f other t h h f e o r e Queen ‘ e V a ( s e r s - O'connell.—(clheers froth the Ministerial benches.) office e l d w i n t I h ) t w m h e o e m t • T h e e views Or:: thk w w h e a at h a e sp w ir a a s nt s s ay ti n a- g and Learned Member for Worcester • might gossip in Westminster Hall ; but this he would state, and he be lieved that it would be assented to by every person at • all acquainted with the law, that he could not legally- or constitutionally have assented to the addition of one name to the jury list without affecting every other case to be tried in Ireland in the year 1844. /clad he con sented to have quashed the jury panel, then he must have I either taken the patiel. , of 'last year, or postponed the trials for twelve months.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Suppose lie had adopted the former course, and had taken the list of the preceding year, what would then have been said by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, seeing that in that year the proportion of Roman Catho- 1 lies was much smaller in the list than this year ?—(Ilear;) Now, what was the nature of the imputation which had 'heen cast upon the persons conducting the prosecutions ! in Ireland ? It was founded a one. aq affidavit of 111 r. Mahoney, which had 'teen: adverted' to by the Hon. and Learnedllember for Worcester, tthich affidavit was of so eXtraordinary 'a character, that he (Mr. Smith) ventured to assert that no Geprt in Westminster Hall, and he spoke in the presenceoof, his lion. and Learned Friends the;. Law Officers of the Crown—no Court in Westminster Hall *Curd iiave acted upon a statement which , imputed fraud, but which failed to state And by whom, that fraud had been conimittect ' f :Thn Affidavit stated that in the belief of the-creponero, a)rilfuVand corrupt sup pression of the nettles of peesons qualified to be on the special jury lift hbeen made: Now the singularity of this swearing *as, that it did 'not assert by whom this fraud had-been committed. Might not, then, the imputation just as well attach to thoseVersons who were connected with'. the defence ?—(Loud';cheers from the Ministerial benches.) What was the Course pursued by Mr. M'Grath, the deputy clerk of the peace, who was himself a Roman Catholic? What4was'the course he had pursued ? Why he had actually furnished Mr. Mahoney with the revised lists of the special jurors, while he re fused the same indulgence to the persons conducting the prosecutions, although frequently applied to. This had been stated in an affidavit by Mr. Kemmis. SHELL--There was no such affidavit made. Mr. SMITH • could confidently assert, on his own knowledge, that such was the fact. Mr. Kemmis had told him over and over again that he was unable to get any information from Mr. M‘Grath. Mr. SHEIL—Ho did not swear it. Mr. SMITH continued—He held that it would have been inconsistent with his duty to the country for him to have consented to the quashing of the jury panel. whereby a postponement of the trial would have resulted. Coe • sidering the state of Ireland, it was impossible for him, consistently with his duty, to consent to anything which would lead to a, postponement. He contended that most of the grounds upon which the affidavits of the attorney for the traversers :rested were only derived from mere hearsay, and he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) thought that such evidence was not worth one farthing. That affidavit mentioned the names of only two individuals out of the eleven who were stated to be the excluded Catholics, but he had documents which would prove that most, if not all, of those persons, were members of the Repeal Association, and had taken an active part in that agitation, and some of whom had attended at and signed the requisition, calling the great Mullaghmaet and others of the monster meetings.— (Cries of " Name.") He should not enable the opposite party to place their fingers upon him.—(Tory cheers.) Mr. Kemmis had Sled an affidavit, stating that he believed the names of about ten Catholics only had been omitted, and he had good reason to know that all those were attached to the Repeal Association. He would ask whether he was to blame, underthose circumstances, for not quashing a - panel, and thereby causing con siderable delay in those trials.—(Tory cheers.) He could assert that, in a particular case in this country, when parties were tried for rioting, several jurors had been set aside, on the ground of their belonging to the disturbed district ; and he contended that the Crown had a legitimate right to challenge those who were connected with the Repeal Association. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester had charged him with not selecting a common jury, for if he had done so, he dared not to have set aside, the ju rors as he had done ; but this ho (the Attorney-General for Ireland) denied, and would state to the Hon. and Learned Member, that shortly after his appointment, to his present office, he had, without the slightest recom mendation from the Government, written circulars to the different crown solicitors, on the mode of forming com mon juries, giving them directions in accordance with the directions of Chief Baron O'Grady, and those direc tions had been also issued by the Hon. and Learned Member for Clonmel, who had held the same office which he did. He should now allude to the conduct of those who; had criticised his conduct. He was pre sent on the occasion to which he was about to allude he was present, and certainly a more extraordinary proceeding he had never witnessed. A regiment of soldiers marched into the town of Carrick- on-Suir, in the county of Tipperary, and an altercation ensued between them and another detachment of soldiers stationed there, ,The townspeople took part with one body of the mili tary, and Mr. Pearse, the chief constable, a gentleman of high character, finding the riot becoming most alarm ing, ordered the picket to fire, when a boy was shot. The Right Hon. and Lea' ned Member for Dungarvon prosecuted Mr. Pearce in that case, who was indicted for wilful murder. What was the course pursued by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman ? He set aside 36 jurors, and of the first 30 so challenged 29 were Pro testants.—(Tory cheers.) He (the Attorney-General for Ireland) would ask, was not that something very much resembling a packed jury?—(Renewed cheers) — and those were the parties who set upon him, and said he dared not set aside the jurors from a common jury. A charge had been brought against him by the Honourable Member for Cork during this debate, an d he felt sure that Honourable and Learned Gen tleman would retract it when he knew the facts. He had said that he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) had been in the habit of compelling the attendance of the traversers every day in court. He would state what he did ; and what he would do again under similar circum stances. He believed that, with the exception of the day on which Mr. O'Connell stated his case to the jury, and that on which the Right Hon. Member for Dungar von also addressed the jury, Mr. O'Connell was not in the court, on an average, any day for more than ten minutes ; and he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) never inquired whether he was or was not, and-would have thought it unnecessarily harsh and ungenerous it he had done so. Again, with respect to Mr. Duffy, when that &entleman was unwell, he was informed that he might suit his own convenience as to his hours of attendance. What the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Cork had stated, in one instance, with respect' to the trial being stopped to com pel the attendance of the traversers, was true. They were present at the swearing in of the jury,,in order to prevent any legal technicality , from being raised by counsel. On another occasion, where the Hon. Member for Limerick took the chair at the Repeal Association, where the subject of discussion was avowedly the State trials then pending, Mr. O'Connell left the Court for the purpose of being present there, and he (the Attorney-General) would appeal to English practice, ifa traverser would be allowed to leave the Court to attend at the meeting.of an Association which formed one of the principal features in the indictment?—(Tory cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester had complained that the Government had not sooner put down this agitation, and said that the Government had been laying a trap to ensnare the tfliversers, But in her Majesty's speech in the House of Lords on the 24th of August, the repeal agitation and the state of Ireland was the subject of strong remark ; and, he would ask, was this a sufficient intimation of the intentions of her Ma- Majesty's Government, given many months before the Clontarf meeting? How was the determination received by the repeal party when it reached Dublin ? Why, there was a meeting of the Association, and a kind of counter-speech emanated from that body, and the people were told that they bad no one to depend upon except themselves, and that they had nothing to expect from the Imperial Parliament. Monster meetings were held, and the people were told that the Governmentwere about to go to law with them, that they bid the Government defiance, and that " old birds were nut to be caught with chaff."--(Hear, and laughter.) They set the law at defiance, - and carried on the agitation in the very teeth of the speech from the Throne; and yet he was told that the Government de layed giving - en 'I - nth-nation of the course they would pursue. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester had alluded .to the indictment being one for -misde meanour and not for treason, and wondered that this in dictment had not been framed in a similar manner to-' that against Lord George Gordon; that then Lord George Gordon had gone to the door of the House to overawe the Legislature by his, personal intimida tion, at the very door of `the House, and that con sequently his crime deserved . to be indicted in a different manner. He (the Attorney-General) thought the Honourable and Learned Member's law would not meet with much approbation in Westminster Ball. It was of no consequence whether those monster meetings were held in Palace-yard or 60 miles from the House of Commons. Some of the most eminent Judges of the English Courts had decided this point. The Hon. and Learned Member had also alluded to the count of ' the indictment charging- the traversers with conspiracy, but lie (the Attorney-General) would tell him where lie found that count. Why, he got it from Mr. Maule of the Home-office, and it was the one framed by the law officer of the late Government in the trial of Frost and Edwards in Wales—(Laughter from the Tory benches) — and he had the original document in his possession now, if the lion. and Learned Member wished to see it. Now,* lie (the Attorney-General for Ireland) was charged with straining the law, because he adopted a line of policy which he considered to be bad, and that was copying everything which - had emanated from the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester.--(Cheers, and laughter.) It was rather too bad .to accuse him of straining the law, when it was nothing more than a transcript from a Whig straining of the law. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman attempted to convey the imputation that the Irish Government had sought to prosecute the press, and that they made a point of doing so. They did no such thing. But he held, and would continue to hold, the opinion that those connected with the press should not be exempted from punishment, merely because they were so connected. Dr. Gray and 'Mr. Barrett, proprietors of the Freeman's Journal and Pilot newspapers, had attended a variety of meetings, and took an active part in them. With respect to the reading of newspapers on the trial, and their ad missibility as evidence, he contended that the newspaper evidence tendered on the 'trial was perfectly legal and proper, and the - Right Hon. and Learned Lientleman the Solicitor-General for England, whom he consulted, was entirely of his opinion. Those news- 1 papers had been identified as having . been circulated by the Repeal Association—by the printer for .that body, who swore to the printed regulations of the Repeal Association—a copy of which was produced on the trial. With a view to carrying out the organization in every city, town and village, the repeal wardens. were directed, to circulate the evening Freeman and Pile! newspapers through every district which had subscribed 20/., and it was further the duty of those repeal wardens to circulate the Nation, a weekly newspaper, in every district which had subscribed 10/. It was the duty of those repeal wardens to take care that the papers were circulated in such a ' manner ; that every person in the neighbourhood might have an opportunity of reading them. Every man thus became 1 a publisher of repeal. opinions, and by the circulation of the most inflammatory articles, the minds of the Irish people were poisoned, and rendered hostile to the people of this country. The system of sedition had been mainly worked out by the instrumentality of newspapers.; Two I I of the editors were in the constant htibit of attending these monster meetings, and Was:he to ~ h e toldlhat the editors newspapers Were to be' exempted kora the cnusequences of the commission pf i ,With respect; to an absent and respected t . Whom - he held, and would alwil.ya c,untinite to h6ld, in the greatest respect, but whd- had . _heen treated in a very harsh manner,. ii n i st ;,, s a y a t, few words--the Lord Chief Justich , . fpf-. the Queen's Bench in Ireland had,' in; common with::thes,drown lawyers and the jury, been maligned. ii the' -grossest, manner. ' The Lord Chief Justice had the colicurrence of his brethren on the bench in the - miknner ifovlifch he laid down the law to the jury. It should be recollected that one of his coadjutors Was Alf. Justiee Pe'rrin, who had been Attorney-Generalunder theWhig-Ge'veimuent. —(Hear, hear.) But he, too, agreain the manner in which the law had been laid down by the Lerd;Chief Justice ; and if he differed from that expositipn, he would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of - duty if he did not state why he so differed. ThellOn. and Learned Member had alluded to the manner in which the Solicitor-General had sent the docunients to the jury. He said they were disjointed scraps, here and there pasted on pieces of paper, and that the whole documents had not been sent. He (Mr. Smith) most emphatically de nied this. The newspapers from which the extracts were made were sent up, except, indeed, in the case of the leading articles, which had been printed together, for the greater convenience of the Crown lawyers. With respect to the charge of the Lord Chief Justice, he ad mitted that it was not the habit of persons tried for offences to be in love with the Judge's charge.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.") The accused often thought that material portions of their defence had been omitted by the Judge, and no person in Court thought so but themselves. In the course of the trial the try; versers had called a mass of evidence for the defence which, properly speaking, was wholly inadmissible. For instance, the speeches of Mr. O'Connell in 1800 and 1810, which had nothing whatever to do with the trial, but were yet not objected to by the Crown. Mr. SHEIL—You objected to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I did not. Mr. SHEIL—You did. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--(in a warm and ex cited manner repeated that he had not done so)—He positively stated that he did not. Charges had beet brought against him personally, which he did not think he deserved. He had abstained from going into the merits of the case, because it could not be said to have been yet concluded, as it must receive some future 'con sideration in the Courts in Ireland ; but what he wished to refer to was of a personal nature. A complaint had been made against him, and he thought with justice, of an act committed in the course of the proceedin g s • he had been misled by feelings of irritation, whichhe oueht not to have yielded to. The Court having adjourned, he permitted himself, after language of a very irritating nature, to take a step which he deeply regretted.—(Cheers, from both sides of the House.) He was sure there was not a gentleman in that House who would not make allowance for his feelings under the circumstances.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He did not wish to say a word about Mr. Fitzgibbon—he was absent, and he be lieved the language which had escaped from him, and which had irritated him (the Attorney-General for Ire land) had escaped from him inadvertently. Enter taining these views, he should not say a single word to inculpate him—he thought it would be base and un generous to do so. He (the Attorney-General for Ire land) considered that he had received a gross insult— that personal dishonour had been imputed to him-- whether right or wrong he would not then determine. Those who knew him would say that he had always main tained a character for honour and honesty. In a moment of excitation the occurrence took place, and had it not been that the Court unfortunately adjourned, it would not have happened, for he would have had time to cool.— (A laugh.) He did not urge it as a justification, but he was willing to go the whole length, and say that he acted with impropriety. He thought that a generous and manly . allowance would be made for such feelings under such circumstances. He had explained this matter the more fully, that it must Ija thought he was unwilling to admit he had been in thewrong. A charge had been made against him by the Han. Member for Dungarvon in Ireland—that he had at one time made a speech containing language very offensive to Roman Catho lics. New, he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) went to Mr. Millikin's, the bookseller's, in Dublin, who had published his speech in a pamphlet form, and by much the fullest report of it; and in that speech, though there was strong language regarding the appro priation clause, he did not believe anything could be found offensive to Roman Catholics. If, however, there was any sentiment which gave pain to individuals of that persuasion, all he could say was, that he sincerely regretted it. Right Hon. Gentleman knew that he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) had been friendly to the claims of the Irish Roman Catholics ; at a period when it was not fashionable to be so, he had been fa vourable to Catholic emancipation. He would not longer detain the House. He felt that he had intruded a great deal upon their patience.—(Bear.) He must own that he had hitherto felt somewhat awkward, and that he did not feel so much at home as when addressing a court of law ; but the kind manner in which he had been received by both sides of the House would relieve him in future from much of that embarrassment in addressing them, though he would not trespass so grie vously on their patience as he felt constrained to do upon that night.—(Loud and long continued cheering from the Ministerial benches.) _ _ Mr. DILLON BROWNS moved the adjournment of the debate, amid loud cries of "Sheil, Sheil."—The adjournment was agreed to. A few orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Ten minutes to Twelve o'Clock. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. PROM TILE EVENING. PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—If parties were to be judged of only by their outward acts, there might perhaps be some ground for surprise, and in some quarters even for dis appointment, at there being no more difference than is shown in debate, betiveen the pleasures suggested by Lord John Russell and those which the present Mi nistry, seem willing to adopt. But the s ame measure party m w u h o, i l n l may have a different m eanin g and a very different effi c;syhinaivdiff:yrenat lhonangdcso;urasned oft illhisia.s speatall a -- the case ill-usag e, e a , r andy must fa in our dealing with a people alienated from us as the looking at any measure o f redress w f i a l l l li v n i g ew sh i o t r i t n — a a y s ey a r ll measureshnrtof theirnow t p o re b s e en p t roposedby n demands, Efferent light, accordingly as it comes from those who lave ever been more ready to repress than to relieve, or from those who have always done for them as much as they, were allowed to do—little, perhaps, as the Irish may think that to b e. It is u ndoubtedly through u ee dn s t ,t ecxe withp r o e f s thisv e ry eiro yn the oof ulniht Sydney dwnoaefryd thes Smith, m Ir ela nd, T t h o , r h i e a st s o hu t h is te a h t tehr t t e h oe e ira i njustice r. give to the Tories may give to the better ittle show of reluctance or regret, to mitigate the tenor gfirtsot make ofupEnanglaonldd, quarreli s very ofof its severity; t an d d ay th , o o u r gh at we an m y a part of them, full credit fur a wish to repair the wrongs done by their predecessors, yet to employ them in the work of reconc il iation of Ireland, which is at present ;r u e h a ad been, from mediator, one the great as i business itiatte an m d p t t h in e pr fe e u se d nt fo g r ene m ra a t n i y on have, as regards generations. But between e a en ne w ith o bo se u f r ara , the sent to his hi t m h the eheTro rn s r f n ihe a Ireland, something more than the sins of their fathers to answer for. Disclaim and disguise it as they will, it is, not . the less true, that whatever there is in. Englandltfand there is much of antisCatholiC and anti- Irish feeling —we might almost say, whatever there is in this coun try' of disaffection towards Ireland, is to be found in their ranks a chief element at the same time, of their strength as a party, of their weakness and in capacity as a Government. The better and wiser portion among them may regret the existence of such a spirit, may even lament most bitterly the violence and indiscretion . of its occasional outbreaks ; but there it is in the midst of them, thwarting their good intentions and tainting all their coun sels ; and where it cannot mar their purposes in the conception, raising up between their fulfilment and the Irish - people, the still cherished remembrance of past oppression. This it is that in so great a degree unfits the whole party for the task of mediation ; and in this .sense it was both fair anit'pertinent, in Lord J. Russell, to remind the House, as he did in this debate, of the very "untoward" speech of the present Lord Chan cellor. It is all very well to say that the words have been explained, and that the explanation or apology, Such as it was, has been deemed sufficient, and accepted, we suppose, on behalf of the Irish people, by both Houses of Parliament. All this may be true enough, and, as re gards Lord Lyndhurst himself, it might be unfair, after this, to charge him with any peculiar bitterness against any who may .differ from him in religion or in race. But the question still remains, what is the impres sion which the words made, and still make, upon the Irish people? The insulted nation, for it was an in sult, is perhaps entitled to require some better atonement than that sort 'of apology which passes current in Parlia ment ; and the Irish people, in particular, may be ex cused fbr its reluctance to place either its honour or its interest in the hands, at any rate, of the present House of Commons. On the same grounds, even the various sallies of Mr. Bradshaw, uttered as they were to the ears of au applauding constituency, were not altogether unworthy of notice; for to the Irish such things appear but as a specimen of the manner in which the suffrages of Englishmen may be won, and such things, in truth, blotches as they are upon the otherwise fair and smooth face of Toryism, betray but too surely the existence of the bad humours within. For all this, it is the present pleasure of Englishmen that the Irish as well as them selves should be governed by Tories, and it remains only for us to consider in what way they have dealt, and are likely to deal, with this great difficulty. .The present debate contains their defence up to the present time, and a more suicidal defence than that put forth by their great advocate, Sir J. Graham, we think we never saw. STANDARD.—The trial of the Irish prosecutions in the House of Commons bids fair to rival in tedious ness the process which is the subject of scrutiny. Al ready six nights have been consumed without, appa rently, the slightest progress towards an end ; but with this consolation, that the Whig speeches become steadily more shallow and more stupid, and therefore less mischievous as they proceed. We doubt whether (to borrow the Greek phrase) even " the brazen bowels" of a Tipperary fanatic could • secrete all the poison diffused throup the capita mortuu of Mr. Benjamin Hawes and Sir Thomas Wilde's drowsy labours of last night. Mr. Hawes is very angry with her Majesty's .Ministers for having done nothing for Ireland, in two years and a half that they have been in office ; but men with mare knowledge and better memories than Mr. Hawes, will be of opinion that her Majesty's Ministers ' have done a great deal for Ireland within their period of office, short as it has been. First, they have obviated the rebellion threatened by Mr. 'lames SDAY MORNING, " F:ETI.R 11. 171 :;4 't : .1 . • e • • s e • . • — sere - ea., a and hoc friends e . sa es inevitablinevitably!' . consequense oft Mr. Dodd, a surgeon; rdeletintatt NO; 12, Portman-girt, : the di3rnhiea7. girt 4E; • laic (1 overnment, Portinen-square, exannne Ira s Mr, ORDSW9I:TII-1' . ht : t4l , 4ii 'She , late Covernmatit , kaa to 13, . tended Mrs. Fraser in lute I; cOnflnements, on Janr was best to prepar'ot for s whatever AdminVtratit': siould 1828; on August, 7. 1 Level 41. ()Ober 6, 18 . 41 ; and . ' , onia• December 9, 1842. I attended bey !oilier occasions houses follow fit. NU* this is surely doifigS ionise sea!: -tee pa .n s es • " ‘. • Ireland ; a rebellion re no jest i ng mattei, and teem...tore, t motner. I don't know whether the last, child has blue eyes: ' • as far kelarid is concerned, Ministers . ; have 'clone finielF. Cisiss-examined by lir. - 11tenemeve-The last child las But ire 'this affair they have done a good deal foe Et- red )lair, and the child'befort 4bC hist, None of the L land :slid Scotland, a s s well as Ireland, .forS they have hive red hair. shown that thee fear of an Irish rebellion; h:y . sabich -it , 'Zii.phaniah Davis exaneine& by Mr. rireeiner.s-4 was in was attempted to' rivet a mischievous and'odieas Ac the service of Mr. Bagley as a clerk. i left the same night on ministration upon - the empire, is . ' a begbiar. 'ivltich Mr. Bagley gavOta dinsear: party in 1840. Mr. FraSer But, cry the philosophers of the Hawes school. soines' I wasnliere. Mrs. Fraear andeinettter lady were there. The thing .bught hive been done for treiand: Now, thZ pSrty broke up at half ,-past , fari. M Fraser left with hii answer to this trash is that—besides that the state wife carefully arranged. and Miss Birch. Mr. Bagley desired me to have the, , in which the late .Government left slreland chambers, by their Croas-examined by Mr: TitESIGER-- . -1 was clerk to' Mr. • - own confession, ripe for rebellion, is not that in which Bagley about three months. - I was :recommended to' measutes of, any kind can be tried 'with , the b6t• 'Hodges. Mr. Bagley 'is about 35. He has not red hair-I-lie prospect of success—lreland, like England W and Scot- has red whiskers.(A laugh.) His hair is of a sandy colour. land, has been doing something for herself, I don't think it is sandy. I he r pes -a it is the same colour as and doing it,very effectually, for the social condition of my own. (The witness's hair being very black, his answer the country is improving with a rapidity perfectly as- created much laughter.) When I said the hair was sandy, I tonishing. The fewer somethings from- without by was confounding it with the" whiskers.-.-(Laughter.) I per which that process of improvement shall be inter_ fectly recollect Mr. Bagley.'sahair. swear it is not sandy. It is the same colour inienv own rupted, the better for the country. The politiaal MaKersay—Look at this geistlema'n's hair (pointing to tinkers, who always make two holes while they badly Mr. Bagley's brother), and say is it as dark as this gentle- stop one, have been hitherto the curse of the man's hair. country, and the highest praise to any Irish Witness—Decidedly darker. government will be, that it abstains from tinkering. Elizabeth Barrow, examined by Mr. KELLY—I am in the Nobody has for centuries said that something must be service of Mrs. Fraser. I entered into it on the Ist January, done for England or for Scotland ; br, if any one has 1839. I was cook. When I first went Mr. Fraser was said so, he has been laughed at, and therefore England absent from home about five weeks. When he returned, he used to be very little at home. He pelled to submit to the law, when disposed - to be restive, and Scotland have done very well for themselves ; com pelled to coins home about eleven or twelve o'clock at night. • and therefore in the end reconciled to it, and even fond of J recollect the birth of one of the children, named Joseph. He came home very late at the time this child was born. it. So it will be with Ireland, if only the something- I used to open the door till a key was made for him. Mr. mongers be put to silence or disregarded, as there is Fraser went for the doctor. He left home after breakfast and good hope they soon may be. The Irish Government returned late at night. He did not dine at home during has, however, done something more than obviate the the connfinemet of Mrs. Fraser. From what I saw going on present rebellion threatened—it has extinguished the in the house, I gave notice of leaving. I thought Mr. Fraser seeds of future agitation and of ultimate rebellion, by could not be the master of the house. I afterwards made extirpating the Repeal Association, for extirpated it is, inquiries, and found she was sister to Lady Doyle. though the name survives. I then remained. I did not know Mr. Bagley until we had removed to Melcombe-place. He used to visit frequently there when Mr. Fraser was et home, and when he was not. On one occasion he came with Mr. Fraser when Mr. Fraser was going to Exeter. He' de sired me to take care of my mistress while he was away, and that Mr. Bagley was to sleep there. Mr. Bagley did not sleep there. On one night he slept at the house when Mr. Fraser was in town. It was a very snowy night. He slept on the sofa in The drawing-room. Mr. k rater slept in the house that night. I recollect when 'lsabella was born. Some time before, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Bagley came home together, about eleven o'clock in thc.morning. They went up to Mrs. Fraser's bed-room. I saw them there. Mrs. Fraser was dressed in a morning gown. She was sitting when I saw her. The others were standing near her. I do not know what passed. I heard Mr. Fraser,frequently say that he asked Mr. Bagley to dinner. This was mostly in 1842, about winter time. Mr. Bagley had been often invited to dinner when Mr. Fraser was not there to receive him. There used to be a lady there frequently. I remember Mr. Fraser going away, and not coming back again. This was in 1842. Mrs. Fraser went to Brighton. I saw Mr. Bagley at Brighton. I recollect on one occasion that Mr. Bagley and Mrs. Fraser, and one of the children, went out. 1 and the other servant went to church. On our return home we found the street-door open, and also the parlour door. Mr. Bagley and Mrs. Fraser were in the parlour. Mr. Fraser returned to town, and went to York-buildings, shortly after she was confined. Mr. Bagley called after she was confined. Mrs. Fraser was in bed when he called. He asked how Mrs. Fraser was ; I answered she was going on very well, and asked him up to the drawing room. I went and told Mrs. Fraser that Mr. Bagley was `come to inquire for her, and I asked her if she wished to see him. She said she would be glad to see him. He went up stairs; none of the children were there then. In a short time I went up again with a message; some of the children were in the room then. In a short time he came down, and said that Mrs. Fraser was very nervous and feverish. Dr. Car lisle came to see her about four or five days after this ; he came to see Mrs. Fraser, and remained a short time with her. In 1843 we went to Ramsgate. Miss Watson was with us during a part of the time we were there. Mrs. Fraser had several friends there with whom she associated. I saw Mr. Bagley there. He came to see us about four days before we left Ramsgate. Mr. Bagley came up with us. Mr. and Miss Elwis also came up. Mr. Bagley came to York-buildings ; he remained for some time and left; he left Mrs. and Miss Elwis there. Mrs._ Fraser appeared to be a fond and kind mother. She was prudent and economical in her household habits. Cross-examined by Mr. TnESIGER.—Jessy Salter and Mary Cameron were in the service of Mrs. Fraser part of the time I was there. Mr. Bagley used to visit us frequently during 1841 and 1842. I did not know when Mr. Bagley was com ing, except when he was to dine there. Ido not recollect being desired to get a chicken, or rabbit, or some other deli cacy, for Mr. Bagley. Ido not recollect making any obser vation to the servants, Salter and Cameron, with regard to Mr. Bagley coming so often to the house. The solicitor for the plaintiff called upon me at York-buildings. I did not answer any questions to him. Mr. Shaw, the solicitor for the defendant called upon me ; he was not with me four hours; I don't think he was with me two hours. We went to Brighton in July, 1842. Ido not know when Mrs. Fraser and Mr. Bagley went out on the Sunday. Ido not recollect that I prepared dinner for them. Ido not recollect whether Mrs. Fraser desired me and Mary Cameron to go out. It was about eight o'clock ; it was not quite dark. I will not swear that it was not nearer ten than nine o'clock. We met Jessy Salter on the Sunday. She made an observation to me about their being all sent out. Mr. Bagley has_ light hair; it is sandy; it is not so red as his whiskers. the two last children have red hair. I do not recollect calling Miss Isabella Miss Bagley. I do not recollect s_aying it in the presence of Ann Kenrew. I never said that Mrs. Fraser must take care of what she did, as Mr. Fraser was not there now to have any more children fathered upon him. I might have made a foolish remark with regard to Mr. Bagley's so often visiting Mrs. Fraser alone. - John Carlisle examined-4 am a physician. I became acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Fraser at Munich. Mr. Fraser used to go out at night. I heard Mrs. Fraser complain of it. I saw them when I returned to this country. I went to them to dine two or three times. I met Mr. B ag l e y once. About May, 1842, I saw Mr. Fraser at Hampton Court, with some ladies;. his wife was not one of them. I called at Mr. Bag ley's chambers to inquire about Mr. Fraser. In consequence of what Mr. Bagley told me, I went to Mrs. Fraser's. It was after her confinement. She inquired about her husband ; I told her the last time I saw him was at Hampton Court, with some ladies. I did not visit her a professional capacity. John Bicker Caarteen, a barrister, examined—l know Mr. Bagley. I occupy a part of his chambers. I recollect a dinner party at his chambers in 1840. I was one of the party. Mr. Fraser, Mrs. Fraser, and a young lady were there. I did not know Mrs. Fraser before that time. They remained till eleven. 'A Mr. Fitzjames came in to tea. 'We saw the ladies into a coach. This was before Christmas, 1840. I never saw Mrs. Fraser at those chambers afterwards. I recollect that the lock of one of the doors was out of order in 1842. While in that state a persots might have come in. The inner door was in consequence kept locked. Mr. Fraser's chambers were on the ground-floor. To go to Mr. Bagley's a person must pass Mr. Fraser's chambers. Cross-examined by Mr. TREssoma--I was a good deal in ray chambers. I used not to be there in the evening. Mr. Bagley had the use of my room when I was absent. i did not see any other ladies at Mr. Bagley's. Mrs. Captain Rattray examined—l am sister of Mrs. Fraser. I saw Mr. and Mrs. Fraser in December, 1841, in Melcombe-place. I was there fifteen days. Mr. Fraser slept out several nights during that time. When he came home it used to be very late. On ode occasion I was going to pay some visits, and Mrs. Fraser was about to accompany me. On saying that Mr. - Fraser was to accompany them, she said it was the first time they had walked out for many months. Mr. Fraser laughed at this. I said it was no laughing matter, and I told him that Mrs. Fraser charged him with living with a person named Arnold. He denied that it was the fact, and said it was the old story again. He desired me to try and make Mrs. Fraser get rid of her jealousy. He said that he had desired Mr. Bagley to persuade her to get rid of herjealousy. He took Mr. Bagley into her room for this purpose. Before that I told him it was exceedingly improper, and that he was not justified in taking him into Mrs. ISraser's bed-room. He said he was a very intimate friend of his, and had brought up his family from BroadsteirQ I said he would not allow any unmarried man to b r i ng hi s wife from Broadstairs, unless he had some motive in it, and that it seemed as if lie wished to get rid of his wife and family altogether. He said ho had a brief and could not give h up. I said that Mr. Broughton as a married man would be,a more proper person to get to bring his family to him. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 21. (Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice WIGUTM. AN and a Common Jury.) BUN. NPYrr V. BREEZE. The Court was engaged up to the hour of our going to press with this cause, which involved mere dry questions of account, the validity or non-validity of a contract, and a dis puted liability ; but presenting no one feature of interest or importance except to the parties concerned. Mrs. Ash, examined by Mr. CiLutnEns—l live in Milton street, Dorset-square. My husband is a Major in India: I have known Mrs. Fraser since 1840. I was in - Brighton in the summer of 1842. Mrs. Fraser was there at the same, I saw her daily. Mrs. Fraser came up to town on Monday. She returned on . the next Sunday, about ten o'clock. She had a sprained • ankleat the time, which kept. her at home for several days.- We were very intimate. I saw Mr. Bagley at Mrs. Fraser's once rafter we returned from. Brighton. I I saw Mr. Fraser at his own house only once. Mr. Bagley went away early on the evening I saw him: I saw him on the 18th of August after, and ho came from Ramsgate. I understood Lady Evans accompanied her. She remained with me a few days. She then went to Mr. Broughton's. She also went to Mr. White's. She appearpd very much dis tressed. She was careless in her dress. She. appeared to be a very good wife: On ono occasion she showed me an old shirt. It was marked "W. F." - Cross-examined by Mr. lll73tritnEy---I u n d ers t oo d t h e shirt was Mr. Fraser's : I saw the letters as she Was putting them into a basket. Miss Margaret Farrah examined—l keep a boarding house in Dorset-square. I know Mrs. Fraser. I recollect her coming to my house in the year 1842, from Brighton. She caine on Monday the 15th of August, about 5 o'clock. She remained at our house till Saturday. She slept every night at the house, while she was there. She tell d own stairs and sprained her ankle while there. Mr. Bagley came to the house once. There was another lady there whom he used to visit. Misa,Emily Farrau examined by Mr. litsm.y—l was with Mrs. Fraser as governess.. I was with her at Brighton. I saw Mr. Bagley there. He did not spend any Sunday with Mrs. Fraser. I never saw any improper familiarity between them. Cross-examined by Mr. 'MERGER—Mr. Shaw spoke to me about what occurred at troadAairs. Mrs. Fraser did also. When there we' used to be all constantly together. I do not recollect them walking out together. Lady Elizabeth Doyle was next called, and examined by Mr. KEux—l am the widow of Sir A. Doyle, and sister of Mrs. Fraser. She appeared to he very proud of her - husband, and attached - to him. She was was a very fond mother. She was not at all particular as to her dress. Mr. Fraser was a fine man. Cross-examined by Mr. TursmEn—l do not consider my sister to be of a very placid temper. I believe Mr. Fraser has a good temper. I saw my sister about a week ago. I asked her to tea. I g o t a snbpo - _ , na to come here. I George Dyke—l was formerly clerk to Mr. Fraser. I went into his employ in January, 1840. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Bagley were very much together, and seemed to be very . intimate. I recollect a female of the name of Shu mons coming .there about nine months after I came. She came several times. She used sometimes toremain as late as ten o'clock. Another female named Arnold used to come there. I think it was in October, 1840. She used to come at various times, and used to remain, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes an hour or two. I left her behind me at the chambers. The two females sometimes came together. They used sometimes to meet there withent coming together- They had a quarrel at one time. Mr. Fraser was there and I left the room. The father anti two brothers of Miss Arnol d era ser. often came with her. They used to dine N They used to go to the theatres. I got ticket's'itt'ohr them. They used s o come buck to the chambers and have refreshments. 1 used to get three and tour tickets at a time. I_ got the re freshments at Wood's Hotel. s to take letters to Miss Arnold used to visit till the spring of 1841. After that time d the post-office, addressed to her in and I went to pay money to a dress-maker, living in Ut street, Fitzroy-square. It was a_ch . eque, which was crossed, and the dress-maker refused to take it . ~.she sent messengers COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 20. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Jus tice TnrnAL, and a Special Jury.) FRASER V. BAGLEY.-GRIM. CON. At the sitting of the Court on Tuesday the evidence on the part of the plaintiff in this case was resumed. Its ten dency was to confirm the testimony of the witnesses examined yesterday ;`but no new facts were elicited beyond those given in the testimony of the persons examined on behalf of the plaintiff's ease on the first day. That evidence being concluded, Mr. F. KELLY said.that he should be able to prove that a great deal of what his Learned Friend had been instructed by the plaintiff to state, in his opening of the case, was utterly fable and unfounded ;: and he then proceeded to con tend, that under none of the circumstances in this unfortu natebusiness had the plaintiff a right to come into this Court, and ask for damages for the loss of his wife's society. Mr. Fraser had been led by motives ofcupidityand avarice, to seek a union with his unhappy and persecuted wit'e, passing, and re presenting himself as a man of fortune and substance, at a time when, in point of fact, he had not a shilling which he could call Lis own. Th 4, lady, at the time a widow, had 10,0001. of her own, in addition to an annuity of 3001. from the East India Company, • 6,000/. of this money was previously to the marriage with *"..'tlr. Fiasee settled on herself, but the other 4,00(4. he got possession of, and squandered in acts of extra- N ta(a) - hn a rb e g da n a Ih n dateh e od e nsev . ied,i:t 4, lie ,ilniidttaii il : ishg h ;h, o to u tehwh l xe tl ac ptet p hlph r ata o ei ut v owt e lni sn t e sy soughtnti nl a e de t ea t tr)l se was a;a nl the tieodn hm ioosef n nu a c sui : jr : orc e i einh3illo”it-Rei7:2l,:hea occasions as hdaoneandst: as he expected company ; and that often, while he was sup posed to be absent upon his professional avocations, he was spending his substance on other persons. To talk of the plaintiff's being deprived of his wife's society by any act of the defendant, was utterly absurd. He never had it, for lie was scarcely ever at home ; and Mrs. Fraser was an ekect of sympathy with all who knew her. Shortly after six o'clock the case was again adjourned. FEBRUARY 21. FRASER v. BAGLEY--CIUM. CON. At the opening of the Court this morning this cause was proceeded with, by sailing the following witnesses for the defence : Edward White examined by Mr. CuABIRERs—I am soli citor to the Duchy of Cornwall. I prepared the marriage settlemer.t between the plaintiff and his wife. The wife had 10,3001. fortune. Mr. Fraser got 4,3001. immediately after the marriage. Mr. Fraser had no property of his own. After the marriage they lived abroad for about five or six years. After their return, I used to see them professionally. Mrs. Fraser used to complain of the conduct of her husband. I did not speak to him of any complaints she made. I heard of something about a sale of the furniture when Mrs. Fraser lived in Wilton-crescent. An ap plication was made to Mrs. Fraser's brother to become mortgagee, but he declined. At a meeting which subse sequently took place, Mr. Bagley offered to advance the money ; at first he seemed disinclined, but ultimately he ad vanced the money. The object was to preserve the property for Mrs. Fraser, whose property I believed the furniture to be, and not Mr. Fraser's. About May, 1842, I saw Mrs. Fraser with regard to the furniture. Mr. Fraser was very much embarrassed. I received Mrs. Fraser's interest, and I paid it over to her. To the COURT—The 3001. which was advanced by Mr. Bagley was paid over to Mr. Fraser, who claimed the furni ture amongst others. To Mr. C'HA'ainEßs—An execution was subsequently put in. I left directions to my clerk to settle the matter for Mrs. Fraser. I received a letter from Mr. Fraser, dated the 18th of July, enclosing one written to Mrs. Fraser, dated the Bth of July, and addressed to her, at No. 30, Baker-street, Port man-square. There was merely an envelope round the letter to Mrs. Fraser. (The letters were put in and read. The letter to Mrs. Fraser was very long, and its reading occupied a con siderable time. It was full of charges of unkindness and violence on the part of Mrs. Fraser towards the writer.) I enclosed a letter from Mrs. Fraser, in answer to that letter. It was dated the 26th of July, 1842. (The letter was read. Another letter, dated the 23d of May, from Mr. Fraser to Mrs. Fraser, was handed in and read.) lam not aware of anything occurring between the 23d of May and the Bth of July to account for the alteration in the tone of those letters. Mrs. Fraser was in Brighton in July, 1842. She came to town, and called upon me for my advice. I advised her to take lodgings, instead of renting a house as she proposed. Between July, 1842, and July, 1843, Mr. Fraser came to me for the purpose of raising money, to enable him to go to India. I saw him several times during this time. I do not recollect his asking where his wife and children were, except when she was 'hang at,_ Ramsgate. Mr. Fraser wanted 200/..; I urged Mrs. Fraser to advance the money out of her means ; she consented, with some reluctance. I proposed to Mr. Fraser that his passage should be paid, and to give him a letter of credit for the balance when he arrived at Bombay. He had to get a certificate from Lord Denman to enable him to practice at the Indian bar, which delayed him for some time. He then said that lie wished to go over land to India, as he had to escort a niece of his and another lady. I gave him 20/. to buy some things ; he afterwards came for the residue in October, and said he was going in November. I objected, and told him I did not wish to trust him with the money. He subsequently got the balance. Mrs. Fraser visited my family when she came to York-buildings. I con sidered her manners were rather free. Mr. Fraser hinted a sus•picion to me with regard to the conduct of the defendant and his wife. This was before he received the money. Cross-examined by Mr. TxZSIGER—Mr. Fraser told me there were reports circulated to the prejudice of Mrs. Fraser. do not recollect telling Mr. Fraser that I would see Mrs. Fraser on the subject. Ido not recollect telling Mr. Fraser that Mrs. Fraser said he had nothing to do with her friend ships or acquaintances since he had separated from her. I believe Mr. Fraser said on one occasion that it was a pity she had not ',wile person to keep her in the right path. I might have answered, that that was more easily said than done. I le expressed a wish that she should continue her acquaintance -with the Broughton family, and have respectable persons about her. I do not recollect that I gave the address of Mrs. ,Fraser to Mr. Fraser; which he - asked for in his letter of the 18th of July. Re-examined by Mr. KuLLY---If I did not give the ad dress- of Mrs. Fraser, it was with no intention of concealing it from Mr. Fraser. Mrs. Fraser has, continued her ac quaintance with time Broughton family, and continues to have respectable acquaintances. I do not know of her hav- - ing one disreputable acquaintance. Mr. Fraser:continued his negotiations for the 200/. after he expressed his suspicions with regard to the defendant. John Curtis, a clerk in the office of the last witness, was called and examined by Mr. KELLY—The evidence of the witness related to the :bill of sale of the furniture, and the money transactions referred to by Mr. ; White. Chas. Wood; examined by Mr. Wonnsworrot—My mother keeps the hotel, called Wood's Hotel, in Portugal-street, Lin coln's Inn-fields. I know Mr. Fraser. We have an account with him, commencing in February, 1840, and ending SepteMber 34, 1841. The amount for that time is 1181. Is. 44. I get two acceptances for the amount. When they became due they were dishonoured. Captain Chines hart—l am Captain, on half-pay, of the 60th Regiment. 1 know Mr. - Fraser. I knew him when he beeame a candidate for the representation of Hythe. I un derstood him to say he had expectations of a large fortune from his Ober. I knew Mr. and Mrs. Fraser before and after their marriage. Mr. Fraser used to ask me_ to dine. Sometimes Mr. Fraser came home very late, and sometimes he did not come home at all. Ile used to tell me that I - would always find Mrs. Fraser at home. About 1840 t hiy were living in Melcombe-place. I met Mr. Bagley there at thinner sometimes. Mr. F. was present, and when he was absent my daughter.dined there. I never no ticed any particular familiarity between Mr. Bagley and Mrs. Fraser. Mr. Bagley used to play with the children. I never saw him play at blind-man's butt with them.—(Laughter.) I never saw anything like unkindness on the part of Mr. or Mrs. Fraser towardS each other. After Mrs. Fraser left Melcombe-place, she told me she hired at Lady Doyle's. She did not dress in a showy manner. As far as my opinion goes, she is not an attractive person; but that is a matter of opinion. —(Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr. TIIESICIER.—I should not say that Mrs. F. was extremely nald.—(Laughter.) She was a mild person. I never heard anything about family jars.— (Laughter.) • There was some talking as to Mr. Fraser's extravagance, and his coming home later than his business required. I never heard Mr. Fraser use a harsh word to wards Mrs. Fraser. Tliere was a constant upbraiding of Mr. Fraser on the part of Mrs: Fraser, on account of his extra- Vaganee, and his being absent from home. and examined by Commodorenown her aboutir John oshi six years. I knew her in 1839. I knew her when she removed as on intimate terms with her up to the time that I heard of to HI a-4 11 3. 1 rale e d\s 1C ). 0 1C i tI n u4 b kst e ‘lll‘l'l l: ri l niv a i T l eAl e ll . H7 a. I l F t . mar% Fraser. s s"e. Is a -ta r vco f afe i l ro lke m my house. I was this trial. We • saw each other frequently. I remem ber when Mr. Fraser • slept at -- my house. It might have been more than one night. It wax about the time she was removing to Melcombe-place. 1 have known very little of Mr. Fraser. I never saw him when I called. I saw hiM two or three times when I dined there; never on auy other occuien. I cannot say if they lived happily together. Mrs. Fraser appeared to be a most devoted mother. J should say her mode of dressing was ra ther shabby.—(A 1%14h.) She generally won , a cap. She was tidy, but not so well dressed as be her situation, might have been. I was often shown the picture of her husband. She appeared to be extremely fond of it; more so than she ought to be in my opinion. Cross-examined by Mrs. THEstcEn—Mrs. Fraser appeared to be fond and proud of Wr husband. My husband was in the Lae., India Company'4 seryice.. • ; ;_ ,-; ; ,~: f . . ry e.:,10;r:,. :Fraser altce.' i that. Mr. Frascr sent me to a shoP leitgateAill for so :me ; I bouglit, iti'aud it remaincd,for c3at4c days at .the chambers. I then directed to take it !:,,A`tr tol.dlgate ., liill, and wait till Mr.'Fraser came to ine• some- time, a , :companie4 by::Miss Arnold. They t,.ol,t,iit: tell of •silk,from me, and wentinitO the shop. , I say Fraser at the chambers two or thee times.. Mr. Fraser tell Mrs. Fraser he was acre there; or Was - busYt ,1 , -Aver she called. Oa one ociti:Sion'l'she sent for Mr. -..t.ne•-cy,itness was- cross-examined b . y : •3fr: HUMPIINET 11l tcii length about the number ofilnagis!that Miss .Artol,,, • Simmons came to him. The let Ar's for Miss AM*" Erected to Miss Charlton's Schigd,l'ixeter. lc other female. witness was cRll4d, at* whose evidence, which there 'was nothing very partieul.ar, :the Court ad ;, uruedtill to-morrow, when Mr."Thesiger will reply en ehalf of plaintiff. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. -7-- - NORTHERN CIRCUIT.- 2 ,4aneaster, Feb. 19. The Learned Judges of Assize aqiyed'here from London on Saturday evening, and opened 'the commission for the northern division of the county of Lancastgr. YesterdAY, their Lordships attended Divine service, as Usual, in t he parish church. This morning, about ten o'clock, th e y proceeded to the Castle. Mr. Justice Coltman took his seat in the Cro wn Court, and charged the grand j u ry ; an d Mr. Baron Rolfe proceeded to the Nisi Prius side. The business is remarkably light. On the civil side the were only three causes, all of - which were undefended , an were disposed of in less than half an hour from the can; mencement of business. The Learn e d Baron the:: rose, but afterwards returned to Court, an d t r i e d two or three cases and a case of simple larceny. The calendar contains a list of 17 eases, nearly all o f ill ordinary kind usually tried at quarter-sessions ; -and nearly 14' of which were disposed of before five o'clock. It would be no difficult matter to finish the whole in the day. Two or Ore!, will, however remain for to-morrow. Nothing of interest, or indeed worth recording, occurre d during the day. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House gramma:is.) WEDNESDAY, FEB. 14. HORSE RACING PENALTIES BILL. Order for second reading read; Motion made, c and Qeest,r proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time Amendment proposed, to lea v e on t f rom th e wo rd " That, to the end of the Question, in o r d er t o a dd :the words" a S elect Committee be appointed, toinquire into the existing Statute! against Gaming of every kind ; and what penalties are enac ted by such Statutes ; and w h r th er the same, or any and wbE`tr, t parts of such Statutes have fallen into desuetude, or oughtZ, be repealed," instead thereof :"—Question put, " That words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 112. Ackers, James Ferguson, Sir R. Alford, Viscount Ferrand, W. B. Murphy, F. S. Allis, John Peter Flower, Sir James • Murray, A. Mundy, E. Antrobus, Edmund Forester, Huts. G. Nicholt, J. Archdall, Captain Forster Matthew Northland, Lord Arundel, Lord Fox, S. Lane - Oswald, James a Baillie, Colonel Fuller, A. E. Pakington, John , : a Baird, William Gaskell, J. M. Palmerston Vise°" Baring. F. F. Gisborne, Thomas Pi of R. Avid Barnard, E. G. Gladstone, W. E. - Pollock, F. Barrington, Viscount Gorc, Montague Power, James ~., Beresford, Major Gore, W. R. 0. Prhrgle, Alexan*: Berkeley, Hon. C. Gore, Robert Repton, George '' Berkeley, Grantley Goulburn, Henry - Ross, D. B. C o Bolder° H George Graham, Sir James Rushbrooke, t-' F Portheick, Peter Granger, T. C. Scott, Hon. F. Bradshaw, Jame; Gregory, W. H. Seymour, Sir a giver 13rareston, T. W. Hamilton, J. Hans Shelburne, Ea rl e , Sromtley, Hoary Herbert, Hon. S. Somerset, __Lor,„ o Bruges, W. H. L. Hinde, J. H. Stanton, W. rs''' Buckley, Edmund Hodgson, Richard Stewart, John rt Buller, C. Hope, G. W. S tuart, W. Vali' But rell, Sir Thomas Hornby, John Stuart, H. a. Butler, Colonel Hussey, Ambrose' Strickland, air —I& Butler, P. S. Hutt, W. Sutton, Hon. si• Ceobrane, A. Irving, John Thesiger, F. Colborne, N. R. W. Jermyn Earl Tollemache Jo b „ Collett, W. R. Knatchbull, Slr E. Trench, Sir ' F. T . . 0 10 Ccote, Sir C. H. • Langston, J. H. Waddington, r" Cripps, W. Leveson, Lord Walker, R. Darby, George L inco l n , E ar l o f Wall, Charles 3 1 4 0 LP Israell, Ben;air in Lindsay. H. Wo r tley, Hon. T. Dodd, George Lockhart, William Yorke, Hon. r••• Dundas, F. Mackenzie, W. F. Y oung , J o hn ' Eaton Richard J. Macnamara, W. - Eliot, Lord M'Neill, Duncan Etwall, R. Manners, ' Lord J. .. .. , vanr, W. Milner, II M. Ferguson, Colonel Morris, David TELLER_,, Wortley, J. s " u " . Peel, Jonathan. MINORITY—NOES, 25. Berkeley, Captain Hindle), Charles Thornely, ThoM s ' Blcwitt, R. Hume, Joseph ~., 'Vrelawny. J. Brocklehurst, J. Marsland, H Turner, E. Y. Brodie, ton, Joseph Mitchell T. A. Villi ers , Char , ', Busfield, W. Philips, Mark Wawn, J o hn i. Childers, J. W. Phillpotts, J. Clement! ' Lord Plumridge. Captain TELLE a 9 Duncan,, George Scholefield, Joshua Gibson, T. M. Gill, Thomas Smith, B. ' 'Pechell, Captain Hawes, B. Stansfteld, W. R.- MARKET NEWS.—(YESTERI)A". CRN COZ. rig We had about a n average EX sup ßA ply of N English Whea t. te s, the finest parcels the demand was steady, at previous /*silo, but in other kinds exceedingly little was doing. I.(l.e n c i rs Wheat Was a heavy sale, but we can notice no alterrAtiorte4, prices. Barley was quite as dear, but Malt Barley sUPP ° IO3 . Monday's figures. Oats, Beans, Peas, and Flour iver e altered. ARRIVALS. F lour ..... 0 4 , Wh eat. I Rarlev. I Ost:i 3,44 0 .ac I li4 qr.. 3,570 qrs. (1,40 a Irish .... - 700 , -10,550 Foreign • ! GOO I 1,280 Malt, 1,750 qrs. wurrzaiLaibmr.. Although the supply of each ki n d' o f mea t w as but 111`-d.e rate, the trade was throughout heavy. on the folloW ; terms :—Beef, from 2s 2d to 3s 4d; Mutton, 2 e 6d to 39 7 v . Veal, 2s 10d to 4s 6d; and Pork, 2s 6d t o 4 s per Blbs, the carcase. _ .._ • • The marriage of the Earl of Mansfield w ith the lovely Miss Baillie is finally arranged,—Court Journal" 1 - . tea GRAND CEL TIC ENTERTAINMENT.—The celiko Highland pipers and dancers, who had the honour of fore selected by the Marquis of Br ea d a lb a ne to perform be er iog her Majesty and Prince Albe r t, a t T a ymouth Castle, du n to the Royal progress in Scotland, have arrived in Lond 00 ,!„ 0 . give a senes of entertainment s , s i m il ar in character to Tit/ov. with which her Majesty exp r es se d-so much grFiti 6es ob- Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to patrorse_,‘"• te a, ject. The Highland Society o f L on d on a l so liberallY ny, on and many of its most influential me mb ers were pre'" - oa rs, ' Monday at the Music-hall, St ore - s t ree t, Bedford -sc lors where the first entertainment took place. The P erf° urn ° were five Highlanders, a tti re d i n t h e same na ti o nal C°' A t he as when dancing bef ore th e Q ueen an d P r i nce Albert, an me nobility of Scotland, at Tvmouth Castle, The prc'g r e itic consisted of a selection of p i e ces f rom th e mos t poPwa r u pio-, music. Amongst the tunes most applauded were-- Tile; baireachd," " Sleam fein an g l eaun ;" or ," Th e glenwiesicnolve tool, " The Highland laddie ;" and " Qu een Vi c toria's Dunkeld ; ' and amongst the dances, the " Gillie Call Sword dance " (by Archibald M'D ona ld) ; "The tog o ,cl. reel," and " The 3larquis of Huntley's reel," were ens n t. a The dancing of Archibald M‘Donald, in the chartict er ,„ptic Highland Shepherdess, was e ncore d am idst enthas" to.. plaudits. The performance was announced for rer,etit e lois morrow evening. A national son g , i n k ee ping wit l3lll would and the dancing, now and then, during the evening , of: be an improvement to these entertainments, Zifittl' THE inISH PEASANTRY.—Whatever may b e ~,( - ' iie; of the Irish peasantry, it i s an i n di s p u t a bl e f ac t that TAT to hard-working and faithf u l s ervan t s , as f a i t hf u l as the ti t g oß t ' his master; and anything that is given them they t 4. 64 in gic of: grateful for. Notwithstanding the before unheard - f.,. : " ,e o ,` the Attorney-General, that the monster meetings, ''',, - ;' - n cloor their perfect peacefulness, were the more to be appr• u i ` a - ,64: the , have stamped upon the Irish peasantry ev a ,..„, r '.40 . 0 6 ', zit:lit Probably the t ghting Attorney-General oon' sa d intemperance and a breach of the law the moat sect'' that may explain for his challenge to Mr. Fitzgibbon. , t v Tara.ACCIDINT ON T I I9 SOUTEE-WBSTREX g„ . St. way.--The unfortunate man, Weller, is still Iling2L " • o ell; Thomas's Hospital in a ve r y p recar i ous s t a t e . He r 7,11 o f perfectly insensible up to Tuesday, w h en a slight retl v et' ?onsci,nsnoss took place. It is stated., }layover. doP Of little hope of his ultimate recove_ry is entertained. A - [ADVERTISEMENT.]--A ONDERFUL CURT , i cC. BAD LEO BY HOLLOWAY'S Pit.ts sum OINTN:WIT !-''' I -f,..S • ward Turner, by trade a carpenter, an d re siding al' icc i mouth, do solemnly de c l are th at f or a ver y long Per;e6 was fearfully afflicted with'a had leg and foot, acc(ol 6 ti, with seven dreadful ul cers an d muc h i n flammation; L.- my case was so desperate that for weeks I could not eve-D' y, my feet to the ground. I lastly declare, that aPt 10! of other ',beans failed, I was radi c ally cured in a shoat Is :, time by the use alone o f Holloway's Pills And oil l 7. 1. 0‘ , ; Dated Exmouth, 30th Octob e r, 1843.—501 d at PicoV , Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand (where advice I,ril l t had gratis); and by alm os t a ll respectable venders oc c i,' i nine throughout the civilised world. In Pots and 132 la lid., 2s. 9d., 4s, ad., 11 s ., 225., and 33s ..,:,..,,,....... .11111011 MI \ ~......M...;:i ... , BIRTHS. A i 9 0 At Upper Clapton, on the 20th inst., Mrs. Albert ...l O a of On the 19th inst., at Storey's-gate, St. James's-- po.sr , wife of J. Wright, Esq., M.D., of a daughter- lit' On the 19th inst., a St. Helen's-place, 'Bishops& r A j llalket, of a daughter. or On the 18th inst., at. Pulbro-place, Vauxhall, Mr, Droosten, of a daughter. icl/ On the 18th inst., Mrs. Thomas Green, of A kit' e place, Camberwell, of a daughter. to On the 19th inst., in Great George-street, the ficv sio John Talbot, of a son. '' I ° On the 16th inst., at Heston Hall, Heston, the lady 14 Raver Hogarth, Esq., of a daughter. ' On the 16th inst., Mrs. T..Teape, of a son. illtal l On the 17th inst., in Gower-street, Mrs. llensleigin ~, wood, of a daughter. -dV MARRIED. On the 17th inst., at Lvminster Church, to min , O t lro f t i i t:rederic Brownlow Rushbrooke, Esq., Captain in 011'4 0 itsilier Guards, to Albinia Maria, second daughter of ' 19" Evans, Esq., of Lyniinster. - l lO4 On the 30th of December, at Somers et Church, lilt Al, William Armit Eyre, Esq., 20th Regiment, to ifari it4 i , Phine, eldest daughter of Joseph B a llingall, Esq., - 4 0 1 ' Storekeeper Superintendent of her Majesty's do< 0 , Bermuda. , ,01 , • On the 10th inst., at St. John's, P.addington, Pierce Pl A te the younger, to Charlotte, the Youngest daughter of OW G. Jones, Esq., of New-street, Dorset -square. -rf „,, , On the 15th inst., a Buckland Church, near Dover, or Potts, Esq., to Cecilia Ann, youngest daughter of; P Martin, of Buckland House. - ./. ' 4 ! On the 11th i n st., at Isle wort Middlesex, Miss IPt‘i Drinkwater, aged 74 . P i ' O n the 13th inst., Liebe E lizabeth, relict of the lat. -4, • mund Prideaux, Esq., of Hcxworthy, Cornwall. 4 1iir e ' On the 14th inst., at Warmington-grange, Gloucestse -_,,re;, the lion. Mrs. GiSt, only d'aughter of the late Lord Bova .P et of On the 15th inst., at'. Cheltenham, Ann Elizabeth, ra.'o,llo the late George Adam Ashew, Esq., of Pallinsburir 0 Northumberland, aged 84. , ' tell . On the- 16th inst., at Brenton, Devonshire, Mrs—. izs'izev,, Holwell Holwell, of Devonshire -place, widow of the late b i . :(lward Ofspring liolwell, Vicar of Plymtree. On the 16th inst., Mr. lienry Purkis, ofElm-cotnt,TeA to . . On the 16th inst., at South A, ick-serest,Hyde-par4; SO * , if s c:jest daughter of the late Captain H. Leigh. ,' Oil toe .16th inst., in Park - place , Leeds, Mellena, the'. orDr. George Wilson, M.D. ;', f. On the 17th riiist. at S db - Hall Y 1: 1' .e the Ft , e uri ,cn s 11l , • Gilpin,aged 73. On the 19:h inst., at Shoreditch, lie. Frederick Clark? On the 16eli,inst., at Brentwood, Mr. Daniel Thorne. On the 18th it t., Susanna Elis abeth. Bartley, of 02 , r , s_troe T._ t_ --- , aged 82. W e . ----- , : Printed , and ..Published by -MURDO TOUR o. 111, Strand, at The„Sokckftlec, N 0.112, Strand, 84+ i 1'11111:y of PetiddteiA OttiMi v - FebrOary •1,•"- LE' he , 444 nOI at the r tio , ' the I, err, e, 4 81 or af t , ". t,. , o.. tk xe,,ent J o h n , 4 area N 7, "° 4 4th 44 411 ADD, Al c o 4 - (4: P 12 4 14 kLliq k ~~le 4 11 ii 1 , 4 11.4 . 14 03 tttni ply` 1 ~~L 1~ tl Riii N u hv ad' 1114 tKa►' pen are kai ritc, boy Ott stip i To