The Sun. — London, England, 1844-03-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 28. Their Lordships met at the usual hour. - - - Messengers from the Commons brought up the .l'utiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, and other Bills, which were read a first time, and ordered to be road a second time to morrow. ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. Lord DINORBEN presented a petition against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Lord KENYON presented a similar petition from the University of Oxford. The Earl of EOSEBERY presented a petition from several Dissenting-congregations in the town of Birming ham against the Dissenters' Property Bill, stating that it was likely to be attended with most injurious effects. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice that on Tuesday next he would move that the House, at its rising do adjourn to the 16th April. IRELAND—THE STATE TRIALS. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that in pre senting the petition, of which he ha , l given notice for to-morrow, he would not offer any other observations, or raise any discussion on the state of Ireland. He was induced to take this course for two reasons. The first was, that he was anxious to know what was the Govern ment plan relating- to the municipal and electoral franchise, on which sub ect they expressed their intention to bring in a Bill. He had thought that this plan would be submitted that evening in the other House of Parliament; but in consequence of the state of public business there, . it was not likely it would be brought forward that night. Lord BROUGHAM—The state Of public business there is, that there is no House.—(Laughter.) The Marquis of CL ANRICARDE —That was one reason, but another and much more serious reason for his comirg to the decision which he had was, that the pe tition alluded to the administration of justice in Ireland upon which he certainly would feel himself called on to make some observations. It would be quite impossible fur him to do so without adverting to the recent trials which had taken place in Dublin. There was every reason to suppose that some proceedings connected with those trials would come before the House in its judicial capacity. Therefore, to dis cuss the question at the present time would be highly improper, because his Noble and Learned Friends on either side of the House would be quite disabled from offering any opinion on the subject. He would therefore present the petition to-morrow, without offering any observations on it, but would give notice that he would call the attention of the House to the pe tition immediately after East-r, and would probably move that it be referred to a Select Committee. Lord BROUGHAM could not help expressing his concurrence with his Noble Friend, as to what he consi dered his duty upon that important subject, and he (Lord Brougham) could not but consider that the same principle would apply to the motion of which notice had been given by the Noble Marquis near him (Lansdowne). There was one of two courses open to his Noble Friend. He could adopt the course taken by the Noble Marquis (Clanricarde), and postpone his motion, which he (Lord Brougham) thought would be the better war ; er he could take the other course of having it most distinctly understood, that there was not one word to be introduced into the discussion to-morrow which could in any way affe( t the pending law procee - ings, or relative to the pros( nt aspect of affairs in Ire land. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE entirely concurred in the propriety of not entering into a general discus sion on the state of Ireland ; but he could not agree as to the expediency- of putting off his motion with respect to the challenging of jurors. In answer to a question which had been put to him (the Mar quis of Lansdowne) in that House when lie had given this notice of motion, he had stated his inten tion was not at all to interfere with any proceedings that had taken place in the late State trials, but to have a prospective inquiry as to the course to be taken by the Government f,r the future in Ireland with respect to the challenging of jurors. His motion was grounded solely upon the expediency of making known the in structions given by the Government to the officers of the Crown in Ireland for their future guidance. He should, therefore, allow his motion to remain, on the under standing that there should be no reference to the conduct of the Government in the late trials. The LORD CHANCELLOR, said that the result of the motion of the Noble Marquis would be, that their Lordships would be informed that the course which had been adopted by the present Attorney-General had been precisely the same which had been adopted by his pre decessors, and he had no doubt but that such a statement would be satisfactory to the Noble Marquis. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was confirmed in his resolution of bringing forward his motion to-morrow by what had just fallen from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack. Nothing could be more beneficial to the Government, or give greater satisfaction to the country, than the announcement that such was the inten tion of the Government as to the challenging of jurors. Lord BROUGHAM would only add, that if his Noble Friend thought that he (Lord Brougham) was to be precluded from giving his opinion on the whole sub ject, if it should be submitted to their Lordships, he would find he was mistaken. If any Noble Lord, in the course of the discussion, should allude at all to the conduct of the Government in the late prosecution, or to the conduct of the Court before which the cause was tried, he should feel it to be his duty to give his clear opinion upon the subject. If that subject were once gone into it would be impossible for any one to say where the debate would end. Lord WHARNCLIFFE was understood to say that there would be no objection to the production of the papers. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that his motion would not go to the inculpation of the Court before which the late trials had taken place. Lord CAMPBELL understood that it was agreed that during the discussion there should be no allusion to the late trials, because that subject would be brought judicially before their Lordships by writ of error. His own opinion was that the discussion could not be en tered en with advantage. There would be great difficulty in separating the legal from the constitutional question. It was much more expedient, in his opinion, that even now they should no further refer to the more difficult and delicate question which must, from what he had heard, sooner or later come before them. Let it not, however, be imagined that because he (Lord Campbell) and others abstained from giving any opinions upon the subject now or to-morrow, that they admitted the recent proceedings to be constit u ti ona l, or th a t th ey in any way sanctioned the conduct of her Majesty's Go vernment. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill be brought up, The Marquis of NORMANBY said he must take that opportunity of strongly expressing his dissent from the principle of this Bill, and also from the grounds on which it had been proposed. He did not know why the discussion of such a Bill should be left solely to the Noble amd Learned Lords in that House ; and having attentively listened to every word which had been uttered on the second reading—and he thought he was about the only Meinber of the House that had done so—he must say that never was Bill brought forward with so little title to their support. Why, the only ground on which it was supported was the not very creditable one that a better Bill would not be brought forward, inasmuch as it:would be opposed by the country practitioners. He would say that he thought the House of Commons,' had been very much wronged on this subject. Let him call their Lordships' attention to what was the plain state of the case. In the House of Commons, previous to the division, Sir James Graham, after stating all the authorities for the abolition of these Courts, and stating his own opinion as strongly as possible on the subject, wound up a most effective speech by saying, " Upon principle, then, I cannot yield to the opposition to this Bill. With all deference I must say that if the House shall think proper to reject this Bill, I cannot offer any measure likely to be more accept able in its place." Sir Robert Peel, also, at the conclu sion of the debate, said the Government were aware by introducing this measure, they were exposing them selves to the opposition of their friends, but they would not endeavour to purchase a continuance of their sup port by shrinking from the discharge of what they con sidered their duty. On the division the numbers were 186 to 84, a much larger majority, in proportion to the Members present, than any which the present " strong " Government had had since they first came into office. Now, what became of all that courage and determination not to shrink from their duty? Why, the Bill was re ferred to a Select Committee, and so far from being re cognised and adopted by the House of Commons, it was reported by that Select Committee on the 28th of May, and from that period to the end of the session no steps were taken on the subject. He thought therefore, it was hard upon that House to call upon it to pass the Bill which was admitted by a!1 to be the means of perpetuating very great evils ; it kept up the diocesan courts and perpetuated courts that had not business to sustain them. Under all these circumstances, he thought the country when it judged of this Bill, would believe that the Go vernment had pursued a course of yielding to the most humiliating necessity to which a " strong " Government was ever driven. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he had no objec tion to take his share of the responsibility of bringing in this measure. He admitted that the Government did before bring in a Bill that went much further than the present one. They found that there was a strong opinion respecting the Bill, not only in the House of Commons, but elsewhere, not only on the part of practitioners, but of the public in general. He was quite ready to take any blame for the part he had had in bringing in the Bill. Lord COTTENHAM said the question was not whether the Government had yielded to pressure or not, but whether it had acted properly. The question whe ther it would be inconvenient for parties to come to London to transact their business had been a matter of inquiry ever since the year 1832, and every report of the Commissioners had stated that the advantages of removing the courts to London would far outweigh any inconvenience that would be occasioned by making parties come to London to attend the courts. In answer to a question from Lord BROCGIIAM, as to the standing to be required in a barrister, in order to be qualified to sit as a judge in the court, The LORD CHANCELLOR saw no reason why five years should not be a sufficient qualification. He had no objection to make the required alteration. The question that the report be received was then about to be put, upon which Lord BROUGHAM rose, and said lie wished to correct a misapprehension which had arisen out of what he had stated the other night, upon the presentation of a petition from certain females in Scotland. He had received several letters from persons in the country, and one stated that he for one ought not to attempt to proeut the labouring classes from obtaining a limitation of their hours of labour, considering that he was at present receiving a large pension for doing nothing out of the taxes imposed upon the people. Now the pensions which he and his Noble and Learned Friend received were only compensations for large incomes they had sacrificed at the bar. His Noble and Learned Friend behind him (Lord Campbell) was in a still worse position, for he had given up a large income, yet he did not receive any pension. Lord C_&MPBELL—I often work ten hours a day. Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned Friend had worked ten hours a day, and frequently worked so hard that he envied the situation of the factory children. Some of the letters requested him to follow up the useful suggestion which he had made, that wages should be fixed at a minimum, and that manufacturers should be prevented from giving their workpeople less than a certain amount. What he said was, that he would prefer a law for a minimum of wages, unjust and absurd as it might be, to a law for a maximum of hours. Another of his correspondents asked him, how he could say that toil was the lot of man, and at the same time advocate the abolition of slavery. He spoke only of voluntary toil; all that he required was that men should not be compelled to work, or prevented from working. LUNATIC ASYLtikS-IR ELAND. Lord MONI'EAGLE moved for a return of the cor respondence between the Government and the Inspectors of District Lunatic Asylums, on the subject of the treatment of lunatics in asylums in Ireland. In Ireland lunatics were not subject to the supervision of any Government agents, and he thought there should be some provision made from the estimates of the year to effect this purpose. The motion was agreed to without opposition. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 28. There being but thirty-four Members present ai four o'clock, the SPEAKER adjourned the House tit to-morrow. PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS. (From Me Votes and Proceedings of the House o Commons.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27. BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months :"—Question put,' That the word ' now' stand part of the Question :" The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 67. Ainsworth, Peter Forster, Matthew Ross, D. IL Bannerman, A. Fox, Charles Richard Scott, Robert Berkeley, Captain French, F. Stansfield, W. R. Bernal, Captain Gibson, T. M. Stuart, Lord J. ISowring, Dr. Gisborne, Thomas Stuart, W. Villiers Bright, John Grey, Sir G. strutt, Edward Brotherton, Joseph Hawes, B Tancred, Henry W. Buller, C. Hobhouse, Sir J. C. fhornely, Thomas Butler, Colonel Horsman, E. Tufnell, Henri Byng, George How a rd, P'. H. Wall, C. Baring Cavendish, G. H. Hume, Joseph, Warburton, Henry Cobden, Richard Humphery, J. Ward, It G. Colebrooke, Sir T. Hutt, W. Wawn, John Craig, W. Gibson James, William Williams, W. Divett, Edward Johnstone, Alex. Wilshere, W. Duncan, George Labouchere, H. Worsley, Lord Duncannon, Lord Mangles, R. D. Wrightson, W. Duncombe, T. S. Mitcalfe, Henry Wyse, 3 . Dund,s, Admiral Mitchell, T. A. Yorke, R. H. Easthope, Sir John Morison, General Ebrington, Viscount Morrison, Jame; TELLErts. Ellice, E. O'Ferral;, R. Moie Muntz, G. k . .vans, \ V. Plumridge, Captain Scholefield, Joshua Fielden, J. Protheroe, Edward rence, without indeed the Legislature is prepared, not only to adopt a standard of labour, but a standard of wages with it. The question is one over and beside all considerations of philanthropy ; there are tens of thousands of persons who must work or starve ; they can only get work at such prices as the master can afford to give, and if those who are in work at pre sent are dissatisfied at any reduction of wages, so that it does not reach the bare starvation point, there are plenty of others who will be willing to step in and take their places ; the remedy is not by ten hours' clauses in Factory Bills, but by widen ing the field of labour—by increasing the demand for labour ; and then, when the whole working popu lation is employed, the hours of labour and the wages of labour, may be safely left to adjust them selves. As a proof of the questionable results of this interference with labour, our readers will remember that, some time since, an Act was passed, forbidding the employment of females in mines and collieries. We own it is a disgrace to a Christian country that women should be so employed; but we objected to the measure at the time, and our reason was that women would not work in collieries if they could get any more pleasant and profitable employment, and that, therefore, the best preventative would be to find them that better employment. Well, the result of that enactment has been, that the condition of the women has been made worse, and they are now petitioning Parliament that they may be allowed to resume their underground labours to save themselves from starvation. We instanced, last week, the case of the London setnpstresses ; no one will deny that their case is equally deplorable with the females of the mines and factories, and yet no one talks of legis lating for them ; and why ? Why, simply because the only alternative is between a life of intense appli cation, and the workhouse, or prostitution. If the Legislature could indeed find a remedy for the dis tresses and privation of the labouring classes—if they could at any sacrifice of individual injury, or class in jury, ensure the permanent improvement of the moral and social condition of the hard-toiling mil lions, we should be disposed to consent to a partial evil for a general good ; but when well-intentioned but meddling philanthropy attempts by bit-by-bit legislation to allot one set of hours to one class, leav ing others equally suffering, untouched, and doing but a doubtful good, nay, a positive injury, to those whom it professes to assist—we repeat, it is far better to let the whole social machine go on as it does, until from its very excess of disorganisation it commands relief.—Cheltenham Examiner. Ministers might, no doubt, by exercising their official influence, beat down the small majority of three by which they were outvoted; but this would assuredly not be advisable on a question affecting labour.— s nor indeed upon any other, regarding which Members have recorded their opinion so indepen dently. It is at all times bad policy to insist on the House rescinding its resolutions. - Such a course tends greatly to lower the Government as well as the Legislature, in the estimation of the coun try. The subject involved in Lord Ashley's amendment is altogether a difficult one for a Ministry to grapple with. On the one hand the arguments of the philanthropist are overwhelming; nor was the picture of the utter wreck of society, occasioned by the employment of women and children in factories, at all overdrawn. Something, unquestionably, should be done to stop the current of debasement which, by destroying the physical as well as moral stamina of the female sex, is rapidly undermining the strength and worth of the population. But what that something to be done is - Th what will best counteract the evil—that is the difficulty. Ministers were of opinion that the restriction of labour from twelve to ten hours would have the effect of increasing it : wages would be lowered—machinery multiplied—and consequently the sufferings of the labouring poor augmented. It was upon this practical view of the subject that they took their stand: and, filling the responsible offices which they hold, we are not surprised that they should have re sisted the amendment; though we do think that now, after the House has so plainly expressed its judgment, they should not farther oppose it, especially in the modified form to which Lord Ashley signified his willingness to agree. Interference with the labour market, it may be true, is abstractly improper; and the principle, once adopted, leads to a wide field of operation. But the principle, it should be remem bered, was not propounded for the first time ; it formed the very basis of the Bill. The difference between the original clause and Lord Ashley's amendment amounted simply to a question of time, not to the principle of restriction itself. And considering that the state of society in this country is altogether artificial, we really do not see why the Legislature should boggle at the use of artificial means in endeavouring to pre vent, if possible, the downward progess of the masses. True, the Factories Bill embracea only a particular range of industry, when, in justice, the same law should extend to all branches. But it must, at the same time, be admitted, that, in proposing to experi ment upon the factories the worst description of labour was selected. If the experiment proved suc cessful, then might the provisions of the Bill be ren dered general.—Ayr Observer. Upon what a miserably l ow f o oti ng d oes h er Ma jesty's Home Secretary place our manufacturing ascendancy ! Is it really a fact, that we cannot allow our operatives the needful time for rest and recrea tion without causing " the downfal of our domestic manufactures ?" Can it be that all our manu facturing greatness is the product of two addi tional hours in the day of infantile labour ? Who is there, with any spark of generosity in his breast, who would not say, perish the great ness that can only be so preserved ? But it is a complete hallucination, and the argu ment refutes itself. For by the law as it now stands, infantile labour is limited to twelve hours a day. Why, then, do not fo re i gners, w h o wor k th e i r children fourteen hours a day, now undersell and ruin us ? If there be anything in the argument, it ought to be carried further, and we should go back to four teen hours, as in Austria, or to an unlimited number of hours, as in America. Could it be clearly shown, indeed, that our manufactures stand upon so preca rious a foundation that they are liable to be under mined by any nation that shall choose to work longer time than ourselves, it would behove even those who are most clamorous for the repeal of the corn-laws to beware how, by curtailing the ability of the English farmer to buy, they injure that which may so speedily become the only market for their goods. Sir James Graham's speech, though a lame defence for the ma nufacturers, is an able one for the corn-laws. And could we be so far charitable as to suppose them sin cere, we should still believe them in error. How is a shortening of the !tine of labour to bring about a reduction of wages ? All our notions of political economy would lead us to anticipate precisely an opposite effect. For how is the rate of wages mainly affected ? At the extreme point, doubtless, by the cost of subsistence ; but at ever y par t o f th e point, by th e propor ti on our and the dem an d f or it. s betweenca le a b o t s b . e e t s h u e p pl e y x torfe labour b e Curtail the hours of labour, and it must require more hands to do the same work. Nor do we suspect that profits would suffer more than wages. On the con trary we believe that profit and humanity are here quite identified. Who should be the best judges upon this point, but the manufacturers themselves ? And what is the testimony of two of their body who went up to London as g s deputation on this very Bill? "That they could get more work performed in 11 hours than in 13.' This we have on the authority of Mr. Beckett, one of the Members for Leeds, who, tells us, moreover, that " he had consulted seventy eight manufacturing firms in Leeds, and that, out of these, forty-seven were in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill, and thirty-one were divided between a Ten and Eleven Hours' Bill; but not one was in favour of twelve hours." Surely this should go for something against the merely interested dogmatisings or feverish forebodings of those who have instructed Sir James Graham to say, that unless they are allowed to treat her Majesty's subjects as if they had neither souls nor senses, personal responsibilities nor domestic duties, the manufacturers of England must be (as Thomas Moore, we believe, has it) "Clean done up and spifllicated." —Liverpool Courier. The merits of the short-hour question are so appa rent that it requires a considerable stretch of charity to suppose any one capable of the error of mistaking them. It is proposed, that one-sixth of the present working hours in factories shall be cut off—that work shall be done during only ten hours, instead of twelve, each day, as at present. This amounts to a proposal, that during seven weeks, and upwards, of the year, all the mills in the United Kingdom shall stand still, and become unproductive—that, during that time, industry shall be paralysed, and the mighty capital embarked remain barren and useless. Now, if any one be prepared, seriously and soberly, to stand by this, for the sake of the toiling operatives of the na tion (and would that we could, consistently with their benefit and the public good, send those operatives to indulge in freedom from labour for double or treble the time !) let him come forward and propose that one-sixth of the land throughout the United Kingdom shall be taken out of the hands of the great landed proprietors, and applied to the benefit of the poorer classes. To stop the factories for two hours out of twelve, is practically to alienate or destroy one-sixth of the capital of the manufacturers ; and, upon the same principle, we would be justified in lay ing our hands upon one-sixth of the capital of the landlords. Are the gentlemen who take credit for peculiar humanity prepared to do this ? If they be not, let them cease to offend by their attacks upon manufactures. If the condition of the operative ma nufacturers will justify this attack upon the property of the mill-owners, a case, not less strong, can be made out to warrant interference with the broad acres. The deep misery which prevails in the agri cultural county of Dorset, represented by Lord Ash-• ley, and to which we may refer at another time, rnE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 29, 1844. MAJORITY-NOES, 77. Acland, T. D. Feilden, W. Pakington, John S. k'Court, Capt. R. Ferrand, W. B. Peel, Jonathan Allix, J.hn Peter Flower, Sir James Pollington, Viscount Arkwright, George Fremantle, Sir T. Pringle, Alexander Bailey, J. Fuller, A. E. Rendlesham, Lord Bailey, Joseph, jun. Gaskell, J. M. Russell, Charles Barrington, Viscount G!adstone, Captain Round, John Baskrrville, T. B. M Gordon, Hon. W. Rushlsrooke, Colonel Peresford, Major Grimlditch, Thomas Russell, Charles Blackstone, W. S. Hamilton, W. J. Russell, J. D. W Borthwick, Peter Herbert, Hon. S. Sandon, Lord Bramaton, T. W. Hinde, J. H. Shirley, E. J. Bruges, W. H. L. Hodgson, F. Smith, Abel Buck, Lewis W. Hodgson, R. Somerset, Lord G. Buckley, Edmun I Hope, Alexander Stanley, Edward Buller, Sir J. Y. Hussey, Thomas Taylor, J. A Carnegie, Captain Jermyn, Earl Waddington, H. a Chute, W. L. Kemble, Henry Wellesley, Lord C. Collett, W. R. Knight, Henry Gaily Wodehouse, E. Cripps, W. Knight, F. W. Wood, Colonel T. Larby, George Lawson, Andrew Wyndham, Colonel Davies, D. A. S. Mackenzie, Thomas Yorke, E. T. Denison, E. Zeckett Maclean, Domld Young, John Douglas, Sir H. Mainwaring,:T, Douglas, Sir C. Manners, Lord J. TELLERS. Duffield, Thomas Marton, George Dugdale, W. S. Egerton, W. T. Miles, P. W. S. Newdegate ,C. N. THE FACTORIES BILL. (FROM THE COUNTRY PAPERS.) The debate on the hours of work clauses in the Factory Bill came to a most singular issue on Friday. The Government were then beat by Lord Ashley, and Lord Ashley was then and there vanquished in turn by the Government, on the same subject, in the space of a few minutes, and without the change, addition, or substracti o n o f a single man among the voting parties. Of 369 Members present, 186 voted against the twelve hours' clause, and 183 for it, leaving an adverse majority of 3. When the ten hours' pro position of Lord Ashley, immediately afterwards, was put before the same 369 senators, 181 voted for it, and 188 against it, thus throwing it out by a majority of 7. What is the meaning of this ? Is it a clear and simple case of self-stultification on the part of the House ? Or are we to suppose some Members to have been present who opposed both propositions because they disapproved altogether of legislative in terference? Though the latter ground has by no means been taken up openly and strongly, it affords the only rational mode of explaining these two suc cessive divisions. Certainly the motives of Members on both sides must be heterogeneous. The same rea soning, we imagine, could scarcely ever bring SirJas. Graham, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Bright to join issue on the one hand, and unite on the other Lord Ashley, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Thomas bun combe. Whatever be the causes of the late extraor dinary rotes, we heartily wish that the House would take warning by the unwonted discre pancy of opinion among all parties, and leave the matter where it was left by chance or fortune. on Friday night—that is to say, adopt no hour-de termining legislative proposition whatever, but endea vour to improve the condition of the manufacturing operatives by measures of less doubtful propriety. Where, we may ask, should interference stop, if so unequivocally entered upon ? Has Lord Ashley no sympathy for the multitudes of poor women in Lon don, and all our large cities, who " stitch, stitch, stitch" from dawn to midnight, and sometimes from midnight to dawn again, for a pittance far smaller even than that earned in factories ? To be consistent, he ought to interfere for their relief no less warmly than for that of factory inmates. In a thousand other cases, also, the same plea exists for intermed dling. It would be dangerous to establish the pre cedent, or at least to carry it beyond a mere protec tion for the very young who cannot judge for them selves.—Scotsman. We regret deeply the decision of the Government with regard to Lord Ashley's motion. However " inextricable" the "confusion" caused by the two divisions of Friday last, it is abundantly clear that the voice of Parliament has decisively pronounced lagainst the proposition of twelve hours as the limit for the labour of females and young persons ; and the responsibility resting thus upon Parliament, it would be a gracious act on the part of the Ministers to accede to the opinion so clearly expressed. It must be quite unnecessary for ourselves to repudiate any participation in the unfair and unjust censures, which some even of our Conservative Contemporaries have cast upon the Government in respect of the course which in this matter they have felt it their duty to pursue ; but it is notwithstanding most unfortunate that last year, when on the educational clauses of the then Factories Bill the pressure on the Govern ment proceeded from the opposite direction, they should have been induced to gave way, and that this year, when the pressure is from their own friends, they should persevere unshrinkinglyand with so much determination as to produce from the mild and ami able Lord Ashley a complaint that they "added insult to injustice." We are sure that Lord Ashley was mistaken in this idea; but that such a man—one of their own firm supporters, one too who by his re fusal of office for the sake of this very question had proved indisputably his earnestness and sin cerity, should think himself, owing to the incau tious language of the Home Secretary, exposed to such treatment, is, we repeat, a great misfortune ; and we fervently hope that the Government may not hereafter have cause to rue the course which they have taken. That they themselves believe the in terests of the country require them to resist the proposition of Lord Ashley, we are willing to admit ; but we believe at the same time with equal sincerity that they, and not Lord Ashley, are wrong; and seeing, as Sir Robert Inglis reminded them, that they are on this occasion supported by their habitual opponents and opposed by their habitual supporters— (no less than ninety- three Conservative Members voted against Ministers last Friday), it ought at least to awaken so much doubt in the mind of Sir James Graham as to preserve Lord Ashley and those Conservatives who act with him fr om th e i mputation of pursuing a " Jack Cade " line of action. But ob serve, moreover, the inconsistency of those who pre fer such a charge. The Government themselves pro pose to limit the hours of labour to twelve : Lord Ashley seeks a further restriction to ten. Manifestly, therefore, the question at issue between the two par ties is one of degree, not of principle ; and conse quently, if the " Jack Cade ' accusation have any applicability at all, it must apply to the Govern ment measure equally with that of Lord Ashley. how dangerous, then, is it for those who li v e in g lass houses to cast stones thus around them !—Brighton Gazette. As usual, we find the most outrageous misstate ments passing current in Parliament, and through the press, in reference to this measure • and, unfortu nately, nobody seems able and willing to disabuse the public mind on the sub,' ect. What, indeed, can be more glaring than the repeated assertions of the Standard, that many mills are now working only ten hours a day, and that factory labour is at present ex ceedingly irregular ? That journal, on Monday last, says : " We remember to have heard, and not very long since, of forty or fifty mills idle in a single town, and of the rest of the mills in that town working but half time We know that at present many mills work but tin hours; and from all we have been able to collect upon the sub ject, we are convinced, that instead of working 3,110 hours a year, or ten hours a day for the 311 working days of the year, the sum total of the mills do not work two-thirds, or 2,000 hours, if indeed they work quite half the time, taking the average of periods of five years." We wish the Standard would tell us where the mills working only ten hours a day are to be found. Except in a period of excessive depression of trade, such as the one to which allusion is made at the com mencement of the preceding extracts, there neither are nor have been any in this district ; and we feel confident that there are none elsewhere. It is true, that Mr. John Fielden tried an experiment of the kind a few years ago—an experiment which, if we mistake not, lasted exactly three days !—the honour able gentleman having been fully convinced, even in that short time, that it would be attended with a most serious loss to himself. The other assertion of the Standard, that the workpeople employed in facto ries do not, on an average of five years, labour more than half or two-thirds of ten hours (that is, from five to six-and-a-half hours) per day, is as monstrous a falsehood as we recollect to have met with ; and its absurdity is quite as conspicuous as its want of truth. If the people employed in factories work so little as the Standard asserts, it is idle to legislate for the purpose of giving them additional leisure; for they must have more than enough of it. But everybody conversant with factory labour knows that it. isthe nixost regular and constant employment in existene;.atid that the ;Standard's al legations are mere inventions. Yet upon these and similar inventions are the votes of Members of Par liament mainly founded; and honourable gentlemen set about endangering the prosperity, and almost the existence, of most important branches of national in dastry, in the most complete ignorance of the facts with respect to which they are legislating. What will be the result of these things time only can deter • mine.—Manchester Guardian. The Ministry having sustained more than one le feat in Committee on the Factories Regulation Bill, have, it seems, made up their minds to abandon it, a course they have been compelled to adopt by the heterogeneous and successful opposition which has encountered them. In the propriety of that course, though widely differing from them on most other matters, we entirely concur. Holding the opinions they so well expressed in the course of the debate, Sir James Graham and Sir Robert Peel would have been traitors to their Sovereign and to the nation had they consented further to pursue a measure, into which , _ a._4lgulatioir„ ha/ _ been introducel, whiolf, they considefed well d he - pito . duetitle-,of disaster, if not ruin, to the greatest manufacturing interests of the country. We are fully aware that we are about to take up the unpopular side of the question, but no consideration of that kind ought to deter us, or shall deter us, from pointing out what we consider to be an error, and an error fraught with fatal consequences to the very class which Lord Ashley, by his short-sighted legislation, hopes to benefit. We are aware that the limitation to ten hours' has the support of large bodies of the opera tives employed in the manufactures to which it would apply, but upon what ground and in what expecta tion ? A placard posted at Manchester by torch light, and alluded to by Mr. Cardwell in his pithy and well-reasoned speech on Friday, will serve for answer to the question. "Less work, —more wages,—sign for the Ten Hours' Bill !" It is against this expectation, as dangerous as it is delusive, that we feel called upon to warn the operative classes. Would the manufacturers, who have the labour market at command, owing to the redundancy of supply, pay the same wars for ten hours' work as for twelve ? We will leave more wages out of the question, and ask could they afford to pay an equal amount of wages ? If they did pay the same wages for less labour, or its equivalent, a less amount of production, they must be content with less profit, or they must increase the price of their goods ' • and then, closely pressed as they are on all sid es , how could they compete with the foreigner ? And if they cannot compete with foreign manufacturers, what is to become of the trade by which the operatives have been accus tomed to get their living ? It is worthy of notice, that 35,000,0001. of our whole exports belong to the manufactures which would be affected by Lord Ashley's amendment. Reduce the demand for goods, by impeding the power of the manufacturers to com pete with foreign rivals, and you reduce the demand for labour, and, by a natural consequence, wages ; thus inflicting injury on the very persons you desire to benefit. The evidence given before the Import Duties Committee clearly proved the intense com petition which the English manufacturer had to encounter from foreign rivals. It showed that he had been entirely driven out of many markets, and partially excluded from others, by the force of that competitisn. The danger, therefore, of placing him at further disad vantage, or, as one of the speakers in the late debate expressed it, of giving him more weight to carry in the hard race he has to run, must be too apparent to need further exposition. And if circumstances will not permit the manufacturers to increase the price of their goods, so as to enable them to pay the same wages for a less quantity produced, can they afford to pay increased wages by a corres p on di ng diminution of their profits? Not, if we may judge from the case of Messrs. Fielden, which has recently been before the public. This firm, one of the most important in Lancashire, when required to return their profits on an average of three years, for the income-tax, returned —nothing ! and so firmly did they adhere to this declaration, that they submitted to have a portion of their effects seized and sold by auction, to defray the surcharge imposed on them by the Commissioners, rather than give the slightest ground for suspicion, by voluntary payment, that they had stated what was untrue. The Messrs. Fielden then, have no profits out of which to pay an increase of wages, and if their case bears any affinity to that of others, which we may reasonably suppose it does, the manu facturers in the North generally, are not in a condition to submit to any reduction of their profits. Even supposing that they were, is it likely, in the present state of the labour market, where the difficulty is not to procure hands but to .obtain employment, that the manu facturers, who by this circumstance have all the power on their side, would consent to suffer any such deduction for the purpose of paying the same wages for less work, or, which is the same thing, an advance of wages. Would not the workmen be the first to suffer ? Would not the loss first fall upon them ? Do we not always find it thus in the social scale, that the burden is shifted from those above to those below, so long as it can be shifted; that distress always begins at the bottom and makes its way upward, or that, in familiar phrase the weakest goes to the wall ? As suming that it were possible by legislation to reduce the hours of labour, and yet keep wages at their present rate, it follows as a natural corollary, that it is equally within the power of legislation to raise wages • without increasing the hours of labour, or the quan tity to be performed. The very belief in such a power is fraught with infinite mischief. It must lead to expectations never destined to be realised, create dissatisfaction at an assumed preference shown to particular classes of workmen, and lead to Parlia ment being perpetually called upon to legislate for the regulation of matters, that are in reality governed by laws which it may thwart but cannot control. If Lord Ashley believes that Parliament can curtail the hours of labour without effecting a corresponding diminution of wages, he must believe that it can increase wages without a corresponding increase of labour. Why not turn his attention then to procuring this much-wanted increase for the wretched agricul tural population in his own county ofDorset, where one seventh of the labourers are paupers, and the rest even worse off than they? What need for him to look far away to find objects on which to expend the fulness of his benevolent heart, when they are thronging al most around his own door? Lord Ashley knows that it is not in the power of Parliament to raise wages by direct legislation, and therefore he attempts nothing so Quixotic. But his legislation can only benefit the operatives by a similar process, by giving them the same amount of wages for a less quantity of work. If it reduce their wages, as it assuredly would do, so far from being a benefit, it would be a hardship to them. On this account we regard his efforts as the offspring of a partial and mistaken humanity which overlooks consequences, pays no attention to results, and might produce transient good at the cost of wide spread and lasting evil.— Worcestershire Chronicle. Since our hurried remarks were written last week, we have seen no argument to induce us to alter our opinion ; we do not deny for a moment the desirable ness of a lower rate of labour being accorded to the operatives of all classes, but we are convinced that the compulsion to this by legislative enactment will only defeat its own purpose by forcing the master to • lower the rate of wages. Perhaps the simplest way to put the effect produced by this diminution of labour would be the following :—A manufacturer, employing 600 hands, is enabled to make a certain quantity of goods in a week, which he sells in the market for such a price as will barely enable him to pay his workmen and get a living profit. Under the operation of Lord Ashley's clause, the hours of labour would be reduced one-sixth ; his 600 men would only now do the work of 500 before ; they would take seven days now to do what would have been a week's work formerly ; in fact, the productiveness of his factory is reduced one sixth, and his returns are diminished in proportion ; and as of course it is impossible to get the same amount of profit out of five-sixths in amount of work, it is evident that some one must suffer, and it is also evident that that some one will be the workman him self, for the master must either reduce the gross total of his wages, or increase the gross number of his hands ' and in either case at a reduction of the wages of his individual workmen. As we said before, the question is one of A B C; the conse quence must follow, despite of all legislative interfe- ought to touch the sympathies of the Noble Lord, upon his own principle, and induce him to call for a confiscation of a portion of the land, for the benefit of the poor labourers.—Northern Whig. LAW INTELLIGENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 28. The House met to-day to hear appeals. The Lords present were Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. MURRAY U. MURRAY. The arguments were concluded in this part-heard case, and their Lordships postponed their judgment till after the Easter recess. BRYAN U. COOPER. The arguments in this part-heard case were also re sumed, but not having concluded at four o'clock, the further consideration of the case was adjourned till to morrow (this day). COURT OF CHANCERY, March 28. The part-heard appeal motion of Nicholl v. Stretton occupied the Lord Chancellor the greater part of the day. VICE-CHANCERY COURT, March 28. The VICE-CIIANCELLOR OF ENGLAND took motions to-day, none of which were of such interest as to require a special report. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. Mr. James Hill, who holds the situation of weigher and teller and stamper of weights at her Majesty's Mint, appeared yesterday before Sir Peter Laurie, for the pur pose of complaining that he had presented at the Bank of England a sovereign, which the official to whom he handed it clipped, without having tested it by the legal and authentic brass weight. The weights used by the establishment were made of glass, and not authorised by the Government, and enormous loss to the Government was likely to be incurred by the use of such weights in dealing with the gold coin of the realm. Shopkeepers would follow the example of the Bank in using unsanc tioned weights, if some step were not immediately de vised to put an end to the practice ; and he was fully determined to proceed against all parties who should issue any spurious instruments of the kind. Sir PETER LAURIE, after some conversation with Mr. Hill, which, as nobody was in attendance on the part of the Bank of England, it would be imprudent to report, asked that gentleman whether he came to the Mansion House to make the complaint upon the authority of the Government. Mr. Hill replied that it was not known to the Government that he meant to attend for the purpose of making the complaint ; but he considered it to be his duty to come forward on an occasion of so much importance to prevent a practice calculated to increase most prodi giously the expense of the Government who had acted with regard to the light sovereigns and half sovereigns with great liberality to the public. He had, he said, been twenty years connected with the Mint, and had weighed many millions of sovereigns and half sovereigns, and he well knew the large expense incurred by the re cent calling in of the coinage. Sir PETER LAURIE then sent a messenger to the offices of Messrs. Freshfield, the solicitors to the Bank of England, observing that the subject was too serious a one to entertain without the attendance of some autho rised person upon the part of that establishment. Mr. Charles Freshfield immediately attended, and having been informed by Sir Peter Laurie of the nature of the representation which had been made, said, that he should make inquiry on the subject ; and that no doubt a satisfactory explanation would be afforded as soon as possible. Two young men name.' Edward Stone and William Dunn were brought up charged with having used threats against Mr. Christopher Clark. The prosecutor stated that he was the proprietor of eight omnibuses, which plied to and from the Bank and Pimlico, and that some time ago he detected two thieves belonging to what was called " the swell mob," who had robbed a lady in an omnibus of which he was conductor. In consequence of having caused the transportation of the delinquents he had been exposed to the grossest insults from their " pals," who still remained to prey upon the public. On Wednesday, as witness was with his omnibus in Cornhill, Dunn shook his fist at him, and used some words in a menacing tone. Witness got down off his foot board, and asked the man what he meant? and Stone said " Cut a button-hole in his b— eye." Dunn then said to witness, " You lagged poor Moore and another, and we'll put you away." He gave them into the custody of the police, as he considered his life to be in danger from such men. He added that one of the prisoners had threatened him as he was attend ing his omnibus in Regent-street. Sir PETER LAURIE—Why did you not give him into custody then ? Witness—Because my omnibus was full, and I had nobody to take my place, otherwise I cer tainly should have done so. Stone denied that he had ever opened his lips to the prosecutor. He was, he said, of no trade or profession, but was allowed 150/. a-year by his uncle in Aberdeen. Dunn said he knew nothing whatever of the prose cutor ; that he never in his life had been in trouble, that he was a cab-owner in extensive business, and was wholly unknown to people of bad character. Sir PETER LAURIE said the very circumstance which led to the annoyances to which Mr. Clark had been sub • ject, proved how deeply the public were indebted to him for the manly exertions he had made to catch and punish the thieves who had robbed the female passenger. The prisoners were then ordered to find bail in se curity to the amount of 40/. each, and to be bound over in the sum of 801. each to keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects, particularly towards Christopher Clark.— The bail was procured. GUILDHALL. Charles Reynolds, a well-dressed man, with a profusion of black hair and mustachios, was cha rge d with robbing Mr. Softimos Miles, a watchmaker, residing at No. 8, Carter-lane, Doctors' Commons, of two silver watches. Mr. Miles stated that yesterday the prisoner came into his shop and asked to look at some watches. Witness shewed him several, and the prisoner chose one, but they could not agree about the price, and the prisoner then left the shop. On the same day he came again and agreed to pay 31. 7s. 6d. Witness offered to take the amount, and the prisoner produced the money in his hand, but before he gave it to witness he asked to see another watch in the window, which witness immediately put into his hand. The prisoner then threw down the money, jumbling the two watches together, and ran out of the shop. The prisoner, after running some distance, was captured in Bell-court, Doctors' Commons; and one of the watches, which he threw over a wall 14 feet high, was found, and the other he gave to the policeman. A duplicate was found in the prisoner's "possession of va rious articles, amounting to 51., which were supposed to have been stolen. Alderman HUGHES remanded the prisoner till Saturday next. BOW-STREE7. A cabman named Robert Steadman, was charged before Mr. Hall, with driving his cab over a young woman named Ca roline Nolan, and thereby endangering her life in Chancery lane. It appeared that the complainant was standing in the middle of the street in Chancery-lane, last night, talking to a man. The prisoner was driving his cab down the street, and before the complainant could get out of the way the cab wheel struck her and knocked her down. She was not, how ever, severely injured, but she was bruised by the fall. As soon as she got up she gave the prisoner into custody. The prisoner in his defence said, he was driving at the ordinary pace :along the street, and he thought the young woman was out of the way. It was entirely her own fault that the cab struck her, inasmuch as she had ample time to get out of the way of the cab. M. HALL questioned the policeman, and he said the pri soner was going steadily along the street. He thought the complainant herself was to blame, for if she had exercised ordinary caution, the accident would not have happened. The complainant said she had not time to get out of the way. Mr. HALL said he did not think there was much blame to be attached to the cabman, and therefore he should discharge him. The complainant, however, if she thought fit to go on with the case, m►ght have a summons against the prisoner. The complainant said she would consult her master upon the subject. The prisoner was then discharged. CLERKENWE L L. John Hill, a chee , emonger, residing at No. 16, Stock well-street, Greenwich, was charged with causing the death of Ellen Cash, a child of seven years old, by driving a cart over her. From the evidence of police-constable Churchyard, 174 G, and that of other witnesses, it appeared that the prisoner was driving a spring-cart along Portpool•lane. That at the junction of this lane and Leather-lane a number of children had gathered round a heap of the sweepings of a grocer's shop, and were busily engaged in picking raisins out of it, when the prisoner drove up. They all ran in different directions, but the unfortunate deceased, running against the step of the cart, was knocked down, and the wheel passed over her chest. A young man, who witnessed the occurence, which took place at eight o'clock on that morning, immediately took up the child, and carried it into a surgery hard by, but when he reached the surgery life was extinct. All the witnesses concurred in the belief that the prisoner was driving at a moderate pace, and that he could not have " pulled up " in sufficient time to enable the child to escape. The father of the deceased who seemed greatly dis tressed, said the constable had told a different story out of Court, imputing the blame of neglect to the carter, but this the constable positively denied. The prisoner, who seemed to treat the matter with un feeling indifference, was then discharged. Joseph Wright was charged with deserting his wife and child, whereby they became chargeable to Islington parish. The prisoner deserted his wife about - three years ago, and she became chargeable to Islington, in December, 1842, at which time, being largely pregnant, she Was admitted into the workhouse. The wife, however, ad mitted to the magistrate, that the child who was fourteen months old, was not her husband's, but the result of an adulterous intercourse with a man named Briggs. Mr. GREENWOOD decided, that in accordance with the opinion of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, i n t h e case of the King v. Flintan, that where an ad u lt erous of a mec h an i c, was charged intercourse was proved to have taken place, the h us b an d was no longer liable for the maintenance of hi s w if e. James The prisonerPvitikhe P ike, Rhodes. h wilfullyawv iansgadnti and maliciously appearance a al r i geeiously destroying a p ort i on o f a fence in the Britannia-fields, Islingto n , th e property of Mr. Police-constable 237 N depoud that, at a quarter to one o'clock that morning, he was on duty in the Britannia fields, when he saw the prisoner go up to the fence, and break three pales in three different places. Witness went up to him, and asked him why he did so. The prisoner denied the eharge, and witness, thereupon was accompanying him to the spot to show the damage, when the prisoner ran away, and, after a long race, was stopped by two other constables. The fence TM ereCttd, to enclose some private property belonging to Mr. Rhodes, which had been long trespassed upon by the public, and through which a footway ran. Mr. Ilernard Murphy, in the employment of Mr. Rhodes, swore that the amount of damage done by the prisoner was 2s. 6d. The prisoner said he was in liquor on the previous night, and did not know what he was doing. He had a wife and family. _ _ The constable said, so far from being drunk, the prisoner was perfectly sober. The prisoner then said he regretted the commission of the offence. Mr. GREENWOOD said the law was in a very imperfect state regarding cases like th e p resen t , w h ere, t h ough i t was satis factorily proved that wilful and malicious damage had been done, the offender could only be fined in the amount of the damage ; so that a person might do ever so much damage maliciously, and escape with impunity, provided he paid a certain sum of money. He must pay the amount of damage done, 2s. 6d. Murphy added that there was a disposition in the neigh bourhood among the lower classes to injure this fence, and it required the constant attendance of policemen on the spot to prevent its destruction. Martha Cunningham, a woman of notoriously bad charac ter, was charged with creating a disturbance at the Clerken well workhouse, and with being drunk. The prisoner went there drunk, and her conduct. was most outrageous. She applied the filthiest language towards the master, said she was starving, and when Mr. Hamlet offered her lodging and food, she became more violent and abusive than before.—She was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. WORSHIP-STREET. Win. Brown, who lately kept a beer-shop at Hackney, was brought before Mr. Bingham, for final•examination, charged with having been concerned in the perpetration of numerous burglaries in Essex and Cambridgeshire, in conjunction with two notorious " cracksmen," named Cuttress and Bennett, who have since been sentenced to transportation for life. It inay be recollected that a vast quantity of multi farioos property was discovered by the police at the pri. soner's residence, the greater part of which was proved to be the produce of different burglaries that had been committed in the above counties within the last few months. Four distinct cases were established against the prisoner at he former examination, and he was re manded, to give time for the identification of numerous valuable articles that remained unclaimed in the hands of the police. Emma Dean, a domestic in the service of the Hon. Mr. Herbert, f Ickledon, in Cambridgeshire, now iden tified various articles consisting of two silver candlesticks, a pair of antique bronze chimney ornaments, a writing desk. &c., as the property of her master, whose mansion was broken into and plundered during the absence of the family on the 19th January last. Sergeant Brannan deposed to his having found the several articles recognised by the last witness, at the house occupied by the prisoner in Nelson-street, Hack ney-road. The depositions in all the cases having been com pleted, the prisoner was fully committed to Newgate to await his trial at the ensuing sessions of the Central Criminal Court. BIGAMY.—Anne Connor, otherwise Layton, a person of very respectable and prepossessing appearance, was fully examined on the charge of having intermarried with Thomas Hayward during the lifetime of Edmund Connor, her former husband. The case excited a good deal of interest in conse quence of the prisoner having been given into custody through the instrumentality of her sister, who volun tarily presented herself as a material witness in support of the charge against her. Benjamin Turner, the parish-clerk of St. Sepulchre's, produced a register-book, containing the entry of a mar riage solemnised between Edmund Connor and Anne Layton, on the 2d of May, 1837. Mary Overand proved that the signature " Anne Layton," in the book produced, was in the handwriting of the prisoner, who was her sister. Joseph Rouse, the parish-clerk of St. Mary's Hag gerstone, produced the registry of the prisoner's second marriage with Thomas Haywood, which took place on May 28, 1839. The prisoner's sister stated that she acted as bride's maid at the latter marriage, and she knew that the pri soner's former husband was living, having seen him in Court that morning. A solicitor who attended for the prisoner addressed the magistrate, and said that the unfortunate woman was greatly to be pitied, as she contracted the second marriage in the positive conviction that her first husband, from whom she was separated a few days after their union, had been long dead ; and she received no assur ance to the contrary until she was given into custody by her sister, who was well aware that the prisoner was on the eve of acquiring considerable property, of which she would necessarily be dispossessed in the event of her conviction as u felon. Mr. BINGHAM said that it was his duty to send the case before a jury, but, under the circumstances, he should take very moderate bail for her appearance. The prisoner was then committed for trial. UNION-HALL. William Carr, William Haines, and John Buchham, were charged before Mr. Cottingham with being engaged in the manufactory of illicit glass. Richard Pope, an Excise officer, stated that, having re ceived information that a considerable trade in illicit glass was being carried on at a house in Union-court, Maze-pond, he went there, accompanied by other officers, between eight and nine o'clock on the preceding night. They effected an entrance at the rear of the premises, and on rushing up stairs discovered a room on the first-floor fitted up with all the ap paratus for making glass. The furnace was fully heated, working with three crucibles, and there was found an immense number of glass articles. The three prisoners were taken in the room, after an ineffectual attempt to escape ; and when brought before the magistrate two of them were recognised as having been previously charged with the offence.—They were fined 301. each, and in default of payment committed for three months. - - IRISH ASSIZES. NORTH TIPPERARY—Nenagh, March 23. WILFUL MURDER OF THOMAS TIERNEY. Patrick Gleeson, a powerfully-made young man, was placed at the bar, charged with having, on the 12th of March, 1843, been concerned in the wilful murder of Thomas Tierney. Mr. BREWSTER, Q.C., stated the case for the Crown, and said—Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner at the bar stands indicted for one of the most barbarous murders that has dis graced even the annals of this county. It will appear in evidence, that some time in the winter of 1842, or the begin • ning of 1843, Thomas Tierney, who had been a prisoner swore informations against two persons for firing at him . That fact will be establi s h e d b eyon d a ll d o ubt ; b ut w h et h er he himself was mistaken in reference to the person who fired at him we have no means of judging, as he never lived to prosecute the parties. A man named Thomas Gleeson, the brother of the prisoner at the bar, was one of those whom h e charged with the commission of that offence. The place where this occurred was between Toomavara and the Devil's bit—a wild district in this county; and Tierney having sworn his informations in February, 1843, and being bound over to prosecute at the following spring assizes, it was con sidered advisable to put an end to the prosecution by putting out of the way of the author of it. Thomas Gleeson, one of the men accused, was a brother of the pri soner at the bar; and it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact, all distressing as it is, that in this country there are two codes of law in full operation. One is the law of the land, which we are now assembled here to administer—one in which every man accused has thrown around him the best safeguard and protection, while every care is taken to pro tect innocence from being unjusily condemned. It is a righteous and beneficent rule that better should ninety-nine guilty men escape than one innocent man suffer, and such is the code we are here to administer. By its agency the pri soner is put on his trial in the face of open day, with his ac cusers before him, and the Court vigilant to see that his cause shall suffer no unjust prejudice. Thomas Tierney, the deceased man, met with no such trial. He was tried behind his back—he did not know what was his crime, or who were his accusers—no forms of justice were gone through—he was condemned in secret, and met his death by the hands of as sassins, the willing instruments of that terrible code which has made life and property, and everything dear to man, insecure in this country. On the evening of the 12th of March, 1843, the deceased was sitting in the house of a woman named Sally Gleeson, or Sally Brien—in that house where the owner of it, her two little children, and a young girl, Bridget Grady. Bridget Grady was stand ing *beside the fire-place facing the door, having a view of every one coming to the door; • the deceased was at the opposite side of the fire, fondling one of the little chil dren between his knees, when a party of monsters rushed into the house, just after nightfall, and found him in that condition, which was one calculated to disarm the most sa vage heart. But those executioners had no compunction ; they desired the mother to take her children into another small room, and she did so, getting with them under a bed, and being in such a position as to render it impossible for her to swear to the appearance of any of the men —or, at least, she could not identify any engaged in that transaction. She is an adult, and probably had not the courage to brave the mandates -of a savage code. I find here that complaints have been made, and sometimes I myself have indulged in the .expression of disapprobation, of the conduct of those who refuse to come forward to bring the perpetrators of a crime to justice; but, after reading the details this case, my surprise on the subject has ceased. It is an awful consi deration, and I am afraid you will find during the progress of these assizes that murder is a crime committed here in the most daring manner, and that those concerned in it proceed in the most business-like way to put their unfortu nate victims to death. The child Bridget Grady, who was in the house that night, has not sense enough to know the danger of telling the truth. She witnessed the transaction, and she is the only witness you can have to assist you in your investigation. Upon her testimony alone the case must depend. She is a very young child—not more than 11 years of age—and she, who is fully sensible of the obligation of an oath, will tell you the entire of this transaction. It does happen that, owing to a particular circumstance, she was well acquainted with the person of the prisoner. She was accustomed to receive instruction in the house of a schoolmaster of the name of Kennedy, living very near to the cottage of Sally Gleeson, and his place was on the road side leading to a bog, to which the prisoner was in the habit of going frequently to draw turf. I believe she did not know his name, but she knew him by a soubriquet applied to him of the" Omadhaun," and was intimately acquainted with his person. She will prove that he was one of the five men con cerned in the murder, although I belieVe he did not strike a blow. Upon the whole of the case it will be for you to form an opinion as to the veracity of this witness, and if you en tertain no doubt of her veracity, and are also certain that she could not be mistaken, why then it will be your duty to find the prisoner guilty. Sally Brien was examined, and corroborated the statement of counsel as to the murder of Tierney in her house. On her cross-examination she stated that the place was dark. She never saw or keard who the men were that committed the murder. Bridget Grady, a very intelligent child of about eleven years of age, was also examined and gave strong evidence of the prisoner's guilt. The prisoner's brother, sister, and mother, were examined in support of an alibi. Judge BALL charged the jury, remarking that the case de pended on the veracity and accuracy of the child. The jury retired at ten o'clock, and after a time the fore man intimated that they had not agreed ; and asked if there was any reasonable doubt of the child's accuracy, should not the prisoner get the benefit of the doubt ? Judge BALL said that was the great principle of the law in criminal casas. The jury at half-past eleven returned a verdict of Not Guilty. When they first went into their room the majority were, we understand, fora conviction, MARKET NEWS.-(YESTERDA'Y') PLAYMA.RIiETS. SMITHFIELD.—Coarse Meadow Ha v , 2/ 15s to 31 ; 115 0 8- ful ditto, 3/ 3 s t o 31 lO s; t i ne Upland ditto, 3 / 12s 31 16s ; Clover H a y, 315 s to 51 ; O at S traw, 1/ 6s to 1/ 81 Wheat Straw, 1/ 8s to 1/ lO s per l oa d. Both HAY all Straw again sold heavily at the above prices. CUMBERIAND.—Coarse Meadow Hav, 3/ to 3158; us ditto, 31 6s to 3/ 14s; fine Upland ditto, 31 15s to 6 Clover Hay, 3/ 5s to 4/ 15s ; Oat Straw, 1175 to 1/9s; 1 ",1 Straw, 11 8s to 11 12s per load. S upp l y m oderately and trade dull. WHITECHAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2l 18s to 8155; ,0 useful ditto, 3/ 6s t o 31 lO s ; li ne Upland ditto, 3 1 to 125 31 15s ; Clover Hay, 31 5s to 5/ 5s ; Oat Straw 11 6s f u il 1/ 8s; Wheat Straw, 1/ 8s to 11 lOs per load. average supply, and a heavy demand. MEAT MARKETS. SOUTHALL, MARCH 27.—Alth oug h th e su pply o f fa t : the was but moderate, the d eman d was throudepression owing' c d ' . is thin attendance of buyers, at a general depression ofl og i e r, ' some instances 4d per Blbs., yet a clearance was not ell Beef, from 2s 10d to 3s 10d ; Mutton, 2s 8d to 4s 0; 1 •4" to 4s 10d to 5s 10d ; V ea l, 38 4d to 4s 4d ; and Pork , 2s 6d 3s 8d per 81bs, to s i n k th e o ff a l . S upp l y —B eas ts, 38; and Lambs, 1 892 ; Calves, 48 ; Pigs, 39. ROMFORD, MAncti 27.—There was only a limited bus doing here this morning, at the following depressed rat Beef from 2s 4d t o 3 s 8d ; Mutton, 2s 6d to 4s 4 d; -' 4 'so. 5s to 6s ; Veal, 3s 8d t o 4 s 4d ; and Pork, 2s 0 to amore per Sibs. Suckling Cal ves , 18 s t o 27 s •, q uarter -old St:,; CI" Pigs, 15s to 19s ; and Mulch Cows with their email to 19/ each. LEWES, MARCH 26.—Prime Sheep and Lambs sold fire at late rates, but o th erw i se t h e tra d e was very i s Beef from 2s 8d to 4 s ; Mutton 3s 4d to 4s 8d; La mb ' to 6s; Veal, 3s 4d t o 4s; and Pork, 2s 6d to 33 4d per Bbi, CORN AVERAGES. ar.' or GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH cAs For the Week ended Mai eh 23, 1544, made up from the 1 00' the Inspectors in the differ en t Citi es an d T owns in Ent Wales, per Imperial Quarter. chi , Wheat 56s 5d Oats Sark) , 33s I Id. Rye ...... 345. Id I Pease ... ..»•• AVERAGES OF THE LAST SIX WICEICS. Weeks ending! wilarr. 111A1LET.1 OATS. 1 RYE,. 1 SSANS. riot' - 7 ,... r. , 7 Feb. 17 53 6 33 4 19 33 5 3O , igi r 24... (' s ' )31 March 2 56 2339 20035 3 1 30 3l .; 9 56 0 31 6 19 1 33 9, 31 0. ii • 16 56 3 33 3 20 n 2 33 8 21 ~ - 0 31 23 56 5 33 1 20 0 34 1 3 1 gS IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES OF THE SIX ~fi t lad Wheat......... 55.. 7d 1 Oats ......... 19s. 10i.1 Beans ..... .... 30 ‘ gd. Barley 333. Si 1 Rye ...... ... 335. lat.i Pea5e....... 31s. DUTIES ON toREIGN CORN. Wheat ......I7s, (kl.l Oats ......... I Dd. Beassr...sn lo, 6a. 0.. Barley ...... ss. Oct. Rye ......... 93. 6d. Pease•••••••" DARING BURGLARY, GALL A N T CAPTURE, AND SPEEDY CONVIC-TI ° „,1 o. ;er; Information ha v i ng b een rece i ve d by Mr. Gou - fl o st chief constable of the Leicestershire constabulary , a number of burgla r i es were contemplated in the ne l, o . bourhood of Leicester, by a gang well knqwn to the the rough police, he immediately took steps to sou r ! ' t he burglars in the very ac t o f comm i tt i ng t h e o ff en ce, a ll t he result shows. the signal success attending his plan. s ,:i o • whole of the gang b e i ng capture d an d convicted ent%•be few hours after the perpetration of the burglary to f first house which it was i n t en d e d to p l un d er was !I/insist., Mr. Davenport of Evington. On Sunday, the 24t0 constables Rowley. Allard, 'life, Wardle, Daws °l3l special constable Widdowson, were sent over singly, ttp ington, and arrived at the house at different per;l i es prevent any suspicion being entertained of the p re „ p ort being watched. A little after six o'clock, Mrs. Da y ; the and her servants went to chapel, leaving the house, who then divided themselves into two P i , be agreeing on a signal which Allard was to give ' Tv4ild required their assistance, Allard, Dawson. aut aria dowson secreting themselves in the drawing rer . .' tip Rowley, Wardle and Iliffe locking themsel i ` - t bel in the servants' bed-room. In a few minutes heard a smart rap at the door, and after two men came up stairs into the (1114- pso room. When they had got into the roota others followed, and having procured a light , L in sla diately broke open the escruitoire, from which theYo7:o„ic to remove the plate, one of the gang remarking', rff ists here, you —, here's plenty of swag." The u ll v - r. o le• (whose names are John Boulter, James Men all, policeetxties, rick Noon, and Edward Gibbons) had removed ready carrying carrying away, the foll ow i ng art i c l es o f p l a te:, o s, 5 urn, 2 decanter-stand s , cream j ug , 1 3 dessert-sr... 10, table-spoons, pepper ca s t ors , t oas t rac k s , w ine * t h - joi ds pint cup, candlestick, snuffers, and extinguishers; air prettily-ornamented work-basket, when they w e r o osli turbed by Allard, w h o gave t h e signal Pred ilita agreed upon. The lamp which the thieves ha ols them was immediately extinguished, and they _ale, a rush at Allard, wh ose l am p was put out in the f , ‘ ho s and who was knocked down on the stai rs ',4 l o kept his hold of the burglar nearest to proved to be Noon. Th e ot h er part y of pops a rived on the spot a t thi s j uncture, Iliffe tr l Pr i jaf Merrall's heels up as he passed him, and Rowley 1001 - him as he was rising at the bottom of the s tairs. t o l d ter then made a ru s h, b u t was se i ze d by Wardle , airs; the two rolled to ge th er d own t wo flights of L e aea where, after a desperate resistance, Wardle su,r;glin in securing him. The only remaining 1 " - ' 5 ,00 Gibbons, sprang at Iliffe, and struck him,: Or blow on the back with "jemmy." On 'nu e bed" ing upon him with his staff, he retreated into thhee room and crept under the bed, from which place • c ar dragged by Iliffe, and conveyed to his companionsin,-Asi tivity. Underneath the bed where he had been cone ;d a were found a number of skeleton keys, a jemroY , t D or quantity of silver sp oo n s . Th e p o li ce h av i n g now g? session of the whole gang, secured them, and brough t Jet' over to Leicester. Oa the f o ll ow i ng aft e rn o o n they IP; 01 went an examination before the Rev. J. M. Cog . J. D. Burnaby, Esq., and were fully committed tr be fote In about an hour afterwards they were arralgo e Ode Baron Gurney, when they pl e ad e d Guilty. " 1 ' 1 , 4 01 morning they were sentenced as follows : JP' Noon, and Boulter to transportation for 'D e o * Gibbons (who received a good character), to 12 p , imprisonment to hard labo ur .—L e i ces t ers hire Ju ., r.'" I.Y AN OLD TRICK SUCCESSF PLAYED OFF. d JO On Friday last two men, named John Lee a n court' Johnson, were brought up at the Borough .pec charged with obtaining two 51. notes by the old P' - 1 of “ megging." , v o lifar ° „„ The prosecutor, a middle-a ge d man , name - - , 11 t he Marsh, a nail-maker, from Chowbent, stated that , - ° b e Ist inst. he came to Manch es t er on b us i n ess ; an cl, tha t eg to was passing the Infirmary L ee accos t e d him, eq„, i c ring he had just arrived from A mer i ca , an d w as inte r bid' purchase goods in Manche s t er t o t a k e back e . e" Prosecutor remarked that he was in the nail trig' 'per the prisoner said he would purchase any th. ili e g ye 09 .1 which he could make a profit, adding that bus_., l %ide',. , very brisk in New York, and that there was a W 070 0 0: of building going on. He then invited the Pr to lta n ' t to go to the Brunswick Hotel, Piccadilly, 011 i joill!:p glass of ale. They went into a private room, an' in ovw? been'there long when the prisoner Johnson con e " o fel e ' s h Lee said to him, "Landlord, will you fill me a gla ss 1;0 1 , Johnson replied, "I am not the landlord, b l l .l ,(lbil,'" I was." Immediately afterwards, Johnson sai d , , t I ha: been a working man all the days of iny life; R u e to 111 7.• lately received a fortune, and some land is can thr ee ° et My cousin has been holding it from me i l l be t b k . four years, but I have got it at last ;'' a t n,`"„g ba n ,f drew from his pocket a roll of papers, reseMe; h l 7olota notes, saying, "Here I have got some e i c' - opl'i, with me, and I will now enjoy myself." lafao es, i t h" 8 very careless about the papers, and Lee offer — , ana,,e him to wrap them up; he consented to this i t ob , ',- roll was afterwards safely deposited in his A nd p r o ; then took out of his pocket a similar rf",i' doee te d formed the same office for himself as he bad % bit f t, Johnson; after which, as the prisoners ha d la S P - 4, their money, the prosecutor thought he vi n t wo s 0 his also, and took from hi s pocket T or J notes. These Lee took from hi s hann 1 04 them up in a paper, as th e p rosecutor thong t ee c are bo placed them in his pocket book, telling him t c) „,,ic 0 ,1 0 of it. Prosecutor having returned the i ni ts ior de pocket, Lee pr o p ose d th a t, as J o h nso n ha a ° luichl ro " - fortune, he should treat each of them with a t the tee chief, and he took them out for that purp9se; bg is poc; e d, secutor was soon left alone, and, on examining,, a nca f r book he found that the two 51. no tes had o ls ti l ilw 4 Nothing was heard of either of the prisoners all.streela daylast when the prosecutor met Lee in Hig h borge' b ill. charged him with the robbery. He denied the c sh4 de a. said that he was landlord of the Turk's BTur k ' s ' W i r e The prosecutor accompanied him to the He re The a both Dee where the prisoner Johnson was found, an o de, y be given into the custody of Inspector M`Bir n f denle`:,,,, t oi constable Wm. Sutcliffe. Both the priseee r 4 t. to w u r charge; but, the prosecutor swearing psitol.% i fi f f oiti." - they were committed for trial at the sessions' ter Guardian. 1 ). the BIRTHS. ;0, , On the 24th inst., a t Hith er - gree n, Lew— aril ' o dic Mrs. Spring Rice, of a daughter. d Thre g ‘ .. ,,i On the 21st inst., the wife of Mr. E. Ede n ' . & street, of a daughter. Gra nt; On the 21st inst., the wife of Mr. George .... t o Pulteney-street, Golden-square, of a son, still - h'?4, o bil a P On the 23d inst., at Impington Hall, Cam b q a solP tsi fj. lady of the Rev. Hnry Hutchinson Swinny, 0 o f CeP On the 23d inst., at Winchester, the lady . ta g of Thoulas, slat Regient, of a son. on , Of"' On the 24th inst., m at the Lodge, Upper O A P' . 0 0, Charles Salisbury Butler, Esq., of a daughter.,..ed '''' On the 25th inst., at Dunstable, the lady ofx.""" of t o Esq., of twins, both sons. ~„ Ijill, On the 26th inst., the lady of Mr. 1ie,,n . . 7 00 , _„..,..."'" Camden- road Villas, Camden New Town, or ?.....„1......-,---- e, 0( , l g MARRIED. o llsaL i o lo 6 On the 2d inst., at St. Helier's, Jersey , Ja m _ to (, the Chateau de Crenan, Cotes du Nord , France, „,,...., ,;( Ida P. 7 . . youngest daughter of Thomas Acton W ollaston,, ...,, i oo o `, Folinais Henenbihen, in the same departmem- ~,e v. .r ~,, of On the 22d inst., in Gorey Church, the ..r_b_ ong hte Leslie Badliam, M.A., to Emily Hesketh, e 0 % 1 4 . w e R. M. Muggeridge, Esq., of Westmount, I•Y 2 "._ Mi r P,! Si* On the 23d inst., at St. Marv's, I s hng;u , ,,,F.h 4 to Francisco Luiz Pereira, of the *Bland of_ep,r on . Elizabeth Ann Phillips, of River Cottage, lenu 6 ' • ' t G e ' le I DE. . 7 iali On the 26th inst., of consumpti D on, Caroline 491 t o, aged 24, deeply lamented by her family gull fan j et(' ' On the 27th inst., in Bedford-street, anal _ N o ! Jane Hopkins, agcd 30. Killed in action, at Maharajpoor, on the 2_ ~.fthe 1843, Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Sandell, C. P. v ) Engineers. On the Bth inst., at Rome, W. G. Crosve _ o n e. On the 21st inst., at Sible Hedingharn, Ess e f,: n roolkailb dalen, the widow of the late Rear-Admiral GeV oc kjog On the 21st. inst., John Raven, Esq., of m , _go Essex, aged 65. RAO '-- d On the 23d inst., at Kemp-town, Brighton , fro Henry Kennedy ! Esq., aged 36. tbs On the 25th inst., at Chehnsford, Elizabeth, - 19t,thvociiefr: ecrole:4ol, John Copland, Esq i iUNGj; London: Printed and Published by MUED ( 2, 4 1 , 4 I ' No 112,. Strand, Printer, at The Sun Oniceic o utti Strand, in the Precinct of , the Salroy,,itt t he Biiddienz, Friday, March 29,•1844: - - C 44. „:4 ~.i ., k „ ,,,,,,,,,..a ., Vtrii Q t„,.._ t, . i lii kti,,,..*.t , _,,,,, '4 !.!;, .`' .! " I ; , f ttiiiZ •; 4 4 1 4. k,!3„ ist % air 4 T. k Ai .4,4, 44x04044 10..t0 c 1 k 1, 04 % i tem, Sti t ke e li' 1 12 %4 1 fat s kiZZ to 1