The Sun. — London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

terminationt of the Government to withhold pensions 0, he widows of all officers who fell in duels, they -;rlu.,e_etter record their determination publicly ; buthe ~,u_al.ct still entertain a hope that Government would re -I,u:slider the present case, and if there were not some net y a e fg ra Yating features in it, which the public were the 9Prised of, that they would grant Mrs. Fawcett Pension. Sir • L at i ROBERT PEEL said he gave his cordial appre- L: i l to the course pursued by the Secretary at-War. th at t i le t salon he (Sir R. Peel) had acquainted the House ra ge ts w i ,as the intention of the Government to discou thoupt 'a i r as they could the practice of duelling, al aetz4zet t -- nej dispaired of introducing any effectual en ofiktind on the subject. The Government disapproved tsit an b n g, any enactments, and approved of the course rul eof kois Right Hon. Friend. There was a general orth e ", that it was not the circumstances pen. , Merits of the widow that should entitle her to the 1 4 1 441 , but the merits of the deceased officer. Now, l' aw 3r it was no additional claim in favour of Mrs. ett that her husband should have fallen in a duel. t:l,ne,ubt there mi g h t b e c i rcumstances o f h ar d s hi p at zsueee. to her case, and so there were in every If th i n which a rule was rigidly acted upon. wid ow e Y merely looked at' the condition of the by hi s , the ca se o f a widow whose hus b and h a d f a ll en ease ci . O wn hand, mi g ht b e qu i te as di s t ress i ng as th e reg ard an officer who had fallen in a duel. Now, with Ilasutonletritis pa r ti cu l ar case , h e did no t t hi n k it suc h ti o any exception; at the same time he would in Colol e lc us ' lo Y guard hi mse lf aga i ns t us i ng an y ex pr e ssion , e ast disrespectful to the memory of Lieutenant- It I C, e `,„Pawcett, or the character of Lieutenant Munro. ofto e ; l P be recollected that Lieut.-CoL Fawcett was an .4 4 .' 4 0 in rank—he admitted a distinguished officer ek ;i t Should n o t b e f orgotten t h a t, w ith a ll hi s experi (sir ite selected as seconds two very young men. He obli ed feel) must again express his sorrow at being thi a t , to enter int o th ese ma tt ers , b u t he really did f rom all the circumstances that had come to his the h, ge, that it: wou ld not h ave b een i ncons i s t en t w ith 3 1D01 0 ' 4 "r of Lieut.-Colonel Fawcett to have offered an t c , ll g t. Y to Lieutenant Munro, and he (Sir R. Peel) If h is was his duty to have tendered this apology. in t b i Ri ght Honourable Friend gave the pension to dos the il ing in the army. Now, with respect to that is missal of Lieutenant Munro, he hardly thought )444orse could have been objected to. Lieutenant told 1 1 Was not dismissed in the first instance. He was tbs ent e ,would be tried for wilful murder, but he chose to thee Ptrself for two sessions, and then, and not till Ito ot Cld the Commander-in-Chief dismiss him, having Gentle course left open to him. (The Right Hon. tar 4 :tan then read the new articles of war, which tie s 0 f`, 37 recommended the discouragement of the prac sear duelling in the army ; and if one officer had the fr ac 'i' l rtune to offend another, he should offer a fair and 1) ,,ee1l o r _,°gi ; and if, on the contrary, an officer had °Mk a e nned. he should receive an apology, in the same ofee generous spirit. They further declared that fort e i t.A er should b e cons id ere d as . h av i ng in the least 'eng e ''" his pension for having refused to accept a chal ented and in cases where an amicable arrangement sh eie ;tot be effected, it was recommended that the matter le sw iu be laid before the commander of the regiment.) to rsi ' &aid the Right Hon. Baronet, if these declarations, g from so high a quarter, do not discourage the eo u i d tee, he feared that any step taken by that House ea not h ave so des i ra b le a resu l t. affai r 15 b 4t in., VERNAL was sorry that this unfortunate kt0 n. , 4 0 been so re-opened, particularly by the Right 14,• Baronet , who had just sat down, and agreed in the at. ken by the Right lion. Gentleman the Secretary- Th e ar, that the pension could not be demanded as a right. titi ow ep: v r er ie e si d n r g iven to the necessity of either fighting a li caste in society ; yet the Government l'a w , re fused to grant a pension to the widow of Colonel i cire ah 7 4 - He knew nothing about that lady's present ,n 8.4 catances, but he was aware that Colonel Fawcett Lie u w e : 4 , signalised for his bravery in China during the •Lie at ,7 4. n that country. He knew nothing either of tall te nant Munro beyond the fact that he was univer 4gapken of as a gentleman. After considering the 1. ° 48 and the Articles of War, he (Captain Ber tele coons sure th a t no o ffi cer in that House would rise li ari a aY but that a military man was placed in pecu -1,3„; , t rYing circumstances in some of those matters. °a ru llOWICK said, that after what he had stated f e do u b r k tier occasion, no person for a moment could ' l ent -t ' t " e sincerity with which he would join the Govern- Pute anY course which would have for its object the theh i° g down o f d ue lli ng . He should, in touching upon Isti v ,, res ent case, not at all allude to what was called the ject v 4 a.,. causes of aggravation to which men were sub tour if the object the Government contemplated by the te: e lhich they now adopted towards Colonel Faw e,tleie,,""ow were likely to put a stop to the practice of he no man would sooner coincide with them than ; and be should be at once in favour of a vraw— e,„ , ntv lug the pension ; but if there existed at th is on the part of those in authority W as 'a custom, he thought the withdrawal of the pension Ivhi, t h c ' t hing more than a case of individual hardship, asi c ,„,7 Was likely to produce no social effect. If he were `4 Whether, during the course of this debate the effect tote( Y to be produced upon the public mind was not c f.:no reverse of a tendency to put down duelling, or ite,2'Nintenance it , he should answer distinctly, that r a onid have a wholly different effect upon the public NZ% The t one of the de b ate was mere l y t h at th e t wo tms_were both to blame, and no strong criminality e; attached to either. According to the doctrine e et laid down, officers in the army were 1141 110 2ved the same privileges of protecting them -1/0 trona insult as civilians were. This he (Lord q4i c it) thought was most essential where a number eoe t Zra were serving in the same regiment, because a eile,„- - ` l 7 course would be subversive of all military dis tis-le ; but, in the case of Colonel Fawcett he did think "W onta irinciple was inapplicable. The practice of duelling prey to 'lever cease in the army so long as it was allowed th Gore amongst civilians ; and he called upon e tee; r imaent to put it down amongst that class, first,. 41 1el -a t , th eY punished the widow of an officer, who fell in a h' withholding her pension. Before sitting down !, 0 11 8 e -n ' t i I d say that he agreed with the Right Hon. Ba tneret his assertion, that, speaking comparatively, nai ls , were fewer duels amongst military men than civi l'ee,'+_,and h e a l so concurre d in the opinion that that ettse . 7 much credit upon, them. The only possible ex that t O render for the course adopted in this case was, atghtea l ight tend to prevent duelling, but it had not the it wlt likelihood of producing that effect ;he thought of e„ t s ," most severe course to adopt towards the widow k-r•tel Fawcett. 11 4 fir • COWPER said he quite agreed with what 4eri s k „en from the Noble Lord, the Member for Sun (leroe-'„u,', He believed that duelling was a crime con 'bee oy the laws of God and man. He believed that insti e f W ere no circumstances which were sufficient to Y a duel. The Hon. Member for Weymouth s aid tt ol °,,ted whether there was any one who, on religious o ly Zs, would refuse to fight a duel. Now he (Mr. ii -.or ti `r) felt it his duty to state that he, for one, would. to th„ ee ra-) There were many persons, who stood high meel it - "My and navy, and whose courage was uil. r - Poe,„"`u, who had pledged themselves to do all inthe Go,: for the suppression of duelling. He thought the . 1 14. 43 . Lent had taken a step in the right direction ttn recommended that disputes between officers ue referred to the commanding officer of the lie C., 4 t:* but this, however, did not go far enough. ', 4 st - I. °glat that all' commanding officers ought to have il e c ,'„l ° lts given to them of summoning courts - martial ,Ane l e t r 're into the merits of disputes between officers. f Ztoe:ere precedents for this. During the reign o .4 c , 47 the Third two cases occurred, in which the us . 'llad, Was settled by the intervention of the Horse Zntr r i s r One was a dispute between Lieut.-General al'ett„ i es J and Sir William Draper. In both cases, the abide" Co ncerned pledged their honour that they would ( liff e , e he d ec i s i on of t h e cour t, an d i n this way their Sir i t ' e . e 4 Were settled. :et INGLIS could not sufficiently express his re dtt ; , ,...the moral courage which had been shown by uentleman who had just sat down. — (Hear.) ecl a i a tght that it required more courage to make a t '''° ll like that just uttered by the Hon. Gentle *llo4ili'tan it did to fight a duel He (Sir R. Inglis) t i teli - h ," the Government was now called upon to adopt ' 4 °ll Ceasures as would show that they had a disposi ketin discourage to the utmost of their power the o °l ‘ 3 f duelling. It might not be in the knowledge mhlla t si,Members o f that House, and the Hon. and An II G entleman who had just sat down— , /1 ° .,.' 1 MEMBER—Not Gallant. t 'kie t i; I NGLIS—Yes, Gallant ; and it was this that 'too ti:Le declaration which the House had just heard t°t•th,,"` e l ion. and Gallant Gentleman the more praise orcie; It might not be in the knowledge of many let th e ' a e .ntielnen - , that an association had been formed „,ginl ati m t scontinuance of duelling. They sought for no d' aec ,' °4 on the subject they only sought the means Z r esso l A r aging the practice of duelling. They had ad ;•sa er Majesty on the subject. The memorial hQ th - e n u t c o the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary / 1. 11.1 e Department, for presentation, and though e t oward • Inglis) did not complain of a want of cour , ett. ) 3 3 hll3l personally, on the part of the Right . "hi hth yet he did complain of the manner in Is,the Lord, had been . received. The answer to 4 r a i s nie " re -t i , rd, who was chairman of the Association, to he th e Y , " I have the honour to acknow- L ee er Mt receipt of your . memorial L for presentation 11 b erc y, and to inform , your Lordship that it has th re es urah e her Majesty.' Hear, hear," from Sir t o e H at . u rtsc ,,,am-) The Rightßaronet recognised 411"11k of his (Sir R. Inglis's) detail, an d hegrieved „." he also recognised the propriety g o . f the fitwerT4l ? thought the Right Hon.. Baronet, in his Pr a ignt have thrown some discouragement upon des t %c e . y h ad t L duelling, by simply stating that her Ma ieht teak the subject into consideration ; and he ties-, least have appreciated the purity of the mo lt,. I , , tbiose from whom the memorial had emanated. t°tne V . Q. STANLEY thought the time was now Pat ink whe n the law r with respect to duelling ought to be %a id 11 force. He thought the public out of doors ' e .v- rer ne n r l t tli be satisfied with the explanation of the Go d a doPted, that night. He trusted that measures would . 11 :1 s h os. , by which every officer guilty of fighting a ord ic " ,, r be tried by a court-martial, tied punished I ,b,V• Z. t ge . h:d t ' il ll NEß thought the feeling of the public at 'ater here"' so roused upon this subject, that sooner bri n , ,IYlajesty's Government would be compelled on 0 e' d ,,, 4 19 into Parliament for the entire suppres tom eedin g . meet f ore GR OSVENOR felt grateful to the Govern thehaving Y had d g taken the subject up in the manner gene a one, altho ug h h e regretted that they had not re ed h further. Th e di scuss i on that night had th e ~ on the cub -4 Pra ct i ce subject of duelling in the army only, but duelling amongst the other portions of k v u r ttet i . a st e t atY ) : subjects it had left untouched. The ‘°cd.-Tyrefore, could not rest where it at present (Gear,Pass e hear.) He was sure, after what had 'who "'•' e would be done. He trusted that those ' l ' With hitaself would give due time for these THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1844, matters to be settled, because he felt if they legislated in too great a hurry they would run the risk of aggra vating the evil.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON said that, although several Hon. Members had declared that duelling was contrary to the laws of God and man, yet it was chiefly among the kigher classes that it took place. He for one would never give or accept a challenge. Let the principle of duelling be discouraged, by its being considered dis graceful to send a challenge. He would say, let the House express some opinion of its abhorrence at the system, and public opinion would put down the system. The resolution was then withdrawn, and the Report on the Committee of Supply was brought up. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES. Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the law relating to Roman Catholic charities, and the tenure of lands for the purposes of Roman Catholic worship, in Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 19th of April. ject to tithe) you buy only nine-tenths of it. Ido not say that the Church has not more than its due. I con tend that it has more than a tithe or tenth. The clergy should not have more than the tenth which the land will naturally produce, but they reap the benefit of the farmers' increased skill and capital, his draining, cluing, and mucking, and the tithe has also been greatly aug mented by the operation of the corn-laws; but this point is too extensive for me to enter upon further at this time. I allow that the commutation of the tithes will materially direct their increase, but the commutation is based on compositions set according to Act of Parlia ment prices of corn. They may have no poor, highway, and county-rates on the Continent, but have they no poor ? If they have, they feed and clothe them, and as well as we do. Are they worse fed or paid than our poor ? Perhaps sixpence in Russia will go as far or further than three sixpences will in England in the purchase of food. In Ireland, that unjustly treated and unhappy country, and which too is blessed with corn-law protection, it is stated that the labourers get but the poor scanty pittance of fourpence or sixpence a-day. So that you see with corn-law protection the poor may be as badly off as in Poland or Russia ; and can any body say that our poor are .well paid and fed, and that their state is independent ? As to highways on the Continent, if there are roads, they are kept in repair, and will take labour and materials as in England, and if there are no roads, how will the farmers get their corn to the shipping ports ? But the county-rates, which are increasing so fast ! Are there no gaols, no thieves, or rogues on the Continent ? If not, thD people there are better off than in England, and we need not fear being brought to the same state by free trade. The fact really is, that in many parts of the Continent, the direct taxes on land are as great, if not greater, than in England. This reminds me of the malt tax, which some protec tionists call a tax on land, but this, like the other taxes on articles of consumption, is paid by the consumer of the beer and not the grower of the barley. I fear that less good to the farmer will arise from a repeal of the malt tax than he reckons upon. Does his barley sell for more money since the repeal of the tax on beer? I think I may answer it does not. He probably would not be benefited more than to the extent that he is a consumer of beer. See too the effect on the price of hides occasioned by takingthe tax off leather; the consumer only is benefited. Never theless, I am for a repeal of the malt tax, it being, in my opinion, oppressive to the labourer. I wish just to call your attention to the alteration of the law with regard to the admission of foreign cattle into this country. Ido this to show you that you need not fear the importation of them so as to glut or affect our markets. The supply of foreign cattle (on account of the difficulty and ex • pense of transit) must be so small and limited that it cannot produce any effect on our markets. But I fancy I hear some of you say are not prices at Smithfield lower?- I admit they are, but I answer you cannot prove the importations produced the reduction in prices. Having now given you my opinions on the corn laws, I cculetude with re-stating that I consider, and I trust I have in.some degree shown that the cc rn-laws are rather an, injury than a - benefit to the tenant-farmers and their labourers, and, in the long run, to the landowner and titheowner; and having seen that these laws ha - ve failed to make the landed interest prosperous, I say that the sooner they are repealed the better, especially, too, as many of their advocates now allow. that their repeal is only a question of time ; but, remember, that with a repeal and free trade, I am for a revision of our monetary laws, and a reduction of taxation generally." Mr..RICLIARD PRIEST (liarleston) moved the first re solution. As many gentlemen present would doubtless make long speeches, he would make none of his own, but simply move the first resolution, as follows : " It is the opinion of this meeting that the corn-law, whilst injuring the consumer, has failed to benefit the producer, of English corn, inasmuch as it has fixed the expenses of cultivation, without securing a corresponding price. " That the duty on malt has proved a serious injury to both producer and consumer ; to the latter enhancing the price, and to the former, not only lessening the de mand, but entirely preventing the use of barley in its most advantageous form, as food for cattle. " That restrictions upon trade.are frequently injurious and always impolitic—preventing its expansion and tending to benenfit one class at the expense of another. " With the view, therefore, of forwarding the cause of free trade, it is the opinion of this meeting that a peti tion to the House of Commons, in accordance with the above resolution, be now adopted." Mr. GEORGE THEORALD, of Starston, observed, the observations that had been made by the Chairman con tained many incontrovertible facts, and it was on such facts his own opinions upon the vital question before him were based. He had looked back for thirteen years through his books, in order that he might arrive at the truth with respect to the good or evil effects of the system of corn-laws. He did not see, upon consulting his banking-book minutely, and from year to year, that such laws had been any protection to him as an agricul turist, or had accomplished any good for him as an occupier. That was the truth with respect to himself ; and he asked others, the tenant-farmers and agricul turists around him, whether such things were true or false with respect to them ?—(Hear, hear.) Like other men, he had from his heart believed that the corn laws had been enacted for the purpose of guaran teeing him, with others, a certain price for his corn. He expected he should have obtained that price. Ile asked those around him if he had stated the truth — if the expectancy was but a creation of his own brain, and not the general persuasion ?—(Hear, hear.) Figures were facts, and he asked those who heard him whether the figures read by the Chairman in the able address he had given them, were true, or likely to be true or not. In truth, and in short, be asked if farmers had ever realised those good prices held out to them• as pro duceable by the corn-laws, and the corn-laws alone 7 (Hear, hear.) But suppose these high prices had been realised, what would they have produced? If the laws were to do good, such good ought not to have been done at the expense of a man's neighbours. Where corn had been raised in price by the operation of these laws, no one eould deny it had increased such price for the benefit of the few, by the detriment of the many. Was this fair play? He believed that commerce and manufactures created the farmers best ens- tomers. When he found his yard full of bullocks and was desirous of turning them into money, where did he send them? lie did not sell them on the spot where they were fed, but forwarded them to London, and they soon became absorbed by the wants of that great commercial and manufacturing community.—(Cheers and voices of dissent.) By what means had our natural wealth been obtained, but from commerce and manufactures? Why, the agricultural classes themselves were dependent for their prosperity on commerce—(Cries of " No, no.") Could not people observe that England would have been little better than a second Poland, if not for her manu- factures and her commercial trade.—(Hear, hear , How could he say that the law served him as a member of the general community, when he saw it did not serve his neighbour? How were they to reconcile these two facts if the corn-laws had been productive of good to agriculture ?—he alluded to the decrease of agricultu ral population, and the increase of the manufacturing. Many around him were perfectly acquainted with indi vidual instances of the labourers leaving their agricultu ral employment and migrating to the north. Some had returned dissatisfied and impoverished, but those in stances were few and far between, and he stated with out fear of contradiction, as a truth known to many in that assembly, that the majority of labourers who had left this district of agriculture would not return to it for any amount of persuasion. All must admit that agricul turists were naturally an increasing population equally with others, and he would ask this question, supposing they had not left the land, would the farmers have found employment for them—was there employment to have been found by which these men would have supported their wives and families ?—(Cries of " Upon the land.") The land—the land would not have employed them, for the agriculturists have now more labourers than they know how to provide for.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him a great crisis had arrived in agricul tural affairs. He looked around him and he found one course of general agitation upon one great question—the continuance of the corn-laws—nor would that agitation subside until that question had been set at rest for ever.— (Hear, hear.) If free trade were good for the 'manufac turer, if was good also for the farmer, and the converse of the proposition must be equally true. He fully be lieved in. the good to result from the principles of un fettered trade, and, thinking so, he must join with those who thought with him. Not influenced by any individual, he said free trade for the community would be produc tive of the greatest good, and the sooner free trade came the better would it be for all. He advocated free trade upon• the grounds of eternal justice, nor would he think of asking for its adoption if he thought, for one instant, it was contrary to the spirit of reason and truth. W. Masox (Chartist) moved the following amendment : —" That this meeting believes the principles of free trade, as propounded by the Anti-Corn-law League, to be visionary and fallacious in the extreme ; and that their practical operation would be productive of the most wide-spread and devastating distress ; and further, that a just protection for all classes in the community is most likely to secure the happiness andpromote the prosperity of the society." He had once been an advocate for free trade, but he could assure them, after the most patient in vestigation, he had found free trade fallacious and erro neous in the extreme.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should attack the principles of the League, as the gentlemen who had gone before him had identified themselves with that bedy.—(Cries of " No, no.") He contended that they had, and by exposing the fal lacies of the Anti-Corn-law League, he also exposed the fallaci es those gentlemen had brought before the farmer of Harleston and its neighbourhood. — (Loud cri es of " That is mere assertion.") Repudiate protection What were governments but protection ? Mr. Theo bald said he abhorred " protection; ' but, if a thief were 3 to attack him on the highway, or rifle him of his pre )perty, would he abhor the protection of a policeman ?—(Loud laughter.) CHernsaAN—We do not come here to support the Anti-Conn-law League.—(Loud cries of " Yes, yes," and " No, no,. put him down," &c.) WALTIM 7 AASON—It is my right to speak, and your duty to het r.—(Cries of " Who sent you here? We knowyou reome to disturb the meeting. Speak to the ques tion, and 'we'll hear you.") I repeat that the League say the corm law has increased the foreign trade of this coun try. Listen to me, and I will show, in spite of what is advanced, that the trade has increased, aye increased monstrous ly. [Here . violent altercation took place between Mr. William I ,eapitiga ell, of Fressingfield, and another gen tleman, in which the word " lie" was frequently repeated by the fu rmer gentleman. This altercation had been caused by a charge made against Mr. Leapingwell, of having brt night Walter Mason to the meeting for the purpose of disturbing its proceedings. Mr. Leapingwell declared tb at the individual was unknown to him, which statement s though appearing to satisfy his immediate antagonit k. but increased the asseverations to the con trary oft na ny around him. After this uproar had con tinued so the time, the Chairman interfered.] CHAIRMAN—Pray, let us be orderly. Let us behave like men. Allow the speaker to proceed. Ifwe are not to'hear arguments against, as well as our own, we had better leave the room.—(Cheers.) W. MAsoN—lf you have no wish to hear me, I will sit down. ___ CHAIRMAN — We wish to hear you, and therefore pro eeecl. W. MASON—He would prove by figures, which, as Mr. Theobald said, were facts and could - not err, that during the period of this baneful corn-law, which had produced the ruin of the foreign trade, that trade had been upon the increase.—(Hear.) In 1798, the official value of British produce and manufactures exported was, 19,672,501/.; in 1808, 26,662,2881.; in 1818, 41,963,527/4 in 1828, 52,092,15 1 / 4 in 1838, ninety two millions and odd pounds. This, mind, was at the time when the trade was stated - to be going down by the operation the corn laws.—(Hear, hear.) A VOICE—WiII you read the declared value ? W. MASON—He would. In 1798, thirty-three mil lions; in 1808, above forty millions; in 1818, forty-five millions; in 1838, upwards of fifty millions; and in 1841, the real value was fifty-one millions. Therefore, in stead of foreign trade being depreciated, it had been precisely the reverse.—(Hear, hear.) But, although both foreign and home trade had increased, yet the wages paid to the labouring classes had decreased. What had been the cause of this ? (A voice—" I deny the cause.") What, do you say there is an effect without a cause ? A pretty sample of the argument we are to expect from you l I say there has been a cause, and I will tell you what it is. The cause is machinery. (Here another uproar arose, in which the Chairman was obliged a second time to interpose.) He repeated that the cause had been machinery, and that cause being kept out of sight, had produced the errors into which the Chairman and Mr. Theobald had fallen in stating their argument. He would show them now how machinery had increased, throwing out of employment the industrious and laborious citizen. In 1792 the mechanical power of the country had been equal to twelve millions of human beings. Between that period and 1817 it had been increased to two hundred millions. In 1833 it rose to four hundred millions, and in 1841 it had increased to the won derful power of six hundred millions of human beings. Such was the increase in machinery, and it was to keep that power in work, that the Leaguers and their friends clamoured for free trade. What had been the wages at the early part of this era, and what at the last ? In 1792, when the mechanical power was twelve millions, a hand-loom weaver was paid 15s. for weaving a certain length. When the power had reached 200 millions, wages for the same length had fallen to 4s. And when, the enormous power had risen to 400 millions, the remu neration had sunk to the paltry pittance of Is. 7d. This was in 1831.—(Hear, hear.) It was to keep this great power, increasing still, in work, that the cry was made. An excuse must be made for this. Foreign trade was said to decline, and means must be taken to keep it up to the full amount of supply for the lion's mouth. Open xew markets, cut down the wages of the labourers, ruin the farmers, destroy the land—but limit not the power of machinery. As regarded the emigration of the poor he thought the meeting bad not heard all the truth, and he thought.also such emigration would be found bad both for the agri culturist and the millocrat. What would become of the poor, when upon going to the manufacturing districts, they found all the work done by machinery ? The end of such a state of things would be really too dreadful to contemplate, and the long and short of the matter was that the poor must return to the fields they had left, and there strive to produce corn for themselves.—(Cheers.) Mr. HENRY WALNE, of Syleham, observed, that he, with others, came to that meeting to discuss questions of importance to all. He had adopted no principle at first sight, but, before he had acknowledged a principle to be good, or denounced it as bad, he had surveyed it under all aspects, in order to arrive at the truth. He held no principle but such as he hoped might serve the general good. He claimed for himself the same liberty of speech and action that others did, but he trusted his claims were founded on reason, and that a man should arise in any meeting who claimed the possession of reason, and state that the principles of free trade were absurd was to him really monstrous ! He could but wonder at such a man's temerity I Free trade visionary, too I Why, what did Sir James Graham say—one of the brightest intellects of the age ?—(Laughter.) Sir J. Graham said in 1842, - that the principles of free trade were the principles of common sense. He was no great politician, nor had he any affection for particular men or particular parties, and he would select his examples at random from one side or the other, just as it happened. What said Sir Robert Peel, when that statesman brought forward the tariff ?—mind Sir Robert was one of his opponent's friends—the " farmer's friend," recol lect.—(Cheers.) Sir R. Peel had said it was the right of every man to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest: was not that the very quintessence of free trade? Mr. Baring, a candidate at the last election for the City of London—an election confessedly a struggle be tween the friends of free trade and Monopoly—said that the principles of free trade were right in the ab stract. Mr. Baring's friends said that, though free trade was right in the abstract, yet the circumstances of the country were such that it was imprudent to put those principles into action. The argument of Mr. Mason was a mere waste of words, when he attempted to show that, by opposing protecting laws in corn, an opposition to the protection of Government was intended.—(Hear.) An Englishman's house was his castle; all men knew that, and so nothing more needbe said on the point; and what really was opposed was the protection devised for a class, and designed to benefit the few, and not the ge neral mass.—(Hear, hear.) All agreed, both One party and the other, that the object of the corn-laws Was to make corn scarce and dear.—(Cries of " No, no.") He said " Yes, yes;" and he had heard on the previous Wednesday, at a meeting held on the spot where they were then assembled, that farmers could not live with out high prices.—(Hear.) Mr. LEAPINGWELL—YOU are wrong; fair prices were the words used. Mr. WALNE—He believed the contrary. He had beard confidently to the contrary, though if Mr.Leaping well asserted what he said on his word, he did not wish further to contradict. He would put it to the meeting, whatever the aim of the corn-law, to . say whether the law had in reality accomplished that or not. The farmers therefore had been duped.—(Cries of " No, no," and " Yes.") The Chairman himself had shown in h is tabular s t a tement that the law h a d p rov ed entirely fallaciou s. He would put this question to the meeting. Who were benefited by the law? Had there not been five Com mittees within comparatively a small number of years, and since the operation of the Corn Bill, sitting upon agricultural distress? Could the agricultural labourer be employed at a remunerating price for his labour? Had the tenant-farmer been benefited, or had the poor been benefited? He did not complain of the landlord or of the clergyman, but he would assert this most confidently, that under that law which had benefited them, the tenant farmer and the labourer had been much injured.— (Hear.) The landlords' rent had doubled.—(Hear.) The tithe had doubled. H a d th e farmer secured any of that doubling ?—(Loud cries of " No.") Had t h e poor ? " No-'') Suppose the —(Cries of philanthrophy of the landlord and the clergyman had given back a portion of this added value, this doubling that was spoken about, to the farmer and to the labourer, would it have ben un fair ? By whose energies had the land been increased in value, if not by the farmer and the labourer? and if the two latter had had but a small portion of this in creased value bestow e d upon t h em , it would have enabled one to have paid his landl or d better, the other to have served his master bett er and both to ha ve been b etter customers to the manufacturers.—(Loud cheers.) As to emigration, why, what an absurdity to talk of that when farmers themselves wanted all the mouths they could get to eat their corn. When trade was good in Manchester and Sheffield, the price of produce was so excellent in those :localities that graziers would s end their st ock there, knowing even at that distance, the prices of good times would amply repay them for the journey. But where did they take their beasts when trade was bad ? Why just to the nearest point, and even then were under the necessity of accepting such prices, fair or un fair, as were offered them.—(Hear, hear.) Again he would return to ' re madthe position that the cor-laws we re de signednefit only the few. The manufacturer n ever com p lained e to make corn dear—that they we n of the high price of produce if his trade were good, but the corn-laws limited trade, foreign trade especially, and it was a mere bag of moonshine in any man to say to the contrary. If trade were extended in freedom, many rational evils would cease. What did Tory, Whig, and Radical agree in saying on the late de bates upon the Chinese affairs ? Was it not stated as an advantage when three ports in that country were declared open ? If free trade were good in China, it was also good in England; and if the free dom of three ports were good, greater benefits would be conferred if three hundred were free.—(Cheers.) He had given them some few of his arguments why he pre ferred free trade and open ports to monopoly and re stricted commerce.— ( H hear.) One gentleman had con d emne d machinery ; but how were we, as a menu facturing nation, to d o without it ? A neutral ground spirit existed, r resorted instance, tedto to which all nation s o f a co mmercial dispose of th e i r commo di t i es . Th e foreigner, with his low taxation, and his machinery im perfect, as it was said to be, was enabled to undersell the Englishman,,. who, though his power of production was a hundred times the foreigner's superior, he must yet succumb, because of restrictive laws and protective corn duties at home. Such an effect was now really in existence. Mr. MasoN—Tell us about machinery. Answer my argument. Mr. WALNE—Your argument has been settled long ago. 'What did the political economists say about machinery? What did Maculloch and others give as their opinion of the effect of machinery—men that saw, as it were, over the world?. They said, and he thought English farmers would perfectly understand their saying, that without machinery England would not have withstood the French. — (Hear, hear.) Then as to wages, and what Mr. Mason had stated, that the hand loom weaver bad to compete with the power-loom—let them compare manufacturing wages, depreciated as they were said to be, with the wages given by occupiers of land, protected as it was called by Acts specially passed for their benefit. He had been in Lancashire, and for the very purpose of comparing the amounts of wages, upon going into a manufactory and seeing a number of girls at work, he had inquired how they were paid. There are two there, said the manufacturer to him, to whom I pay 18s. a-week; to yonder rank I pay 155., and there are none here earning less than 12s.—(Hear.) Mr. MASON—And how long do they work? Do we not know that the manufacturing system is a system of the greatest cruelty? Mr. WALNE—The gentleman has but a distorted view of manufactures. He (Mr. Walne) knew some thing more of manufactures than the gentleman who had interrupted him, being a manufacturer himself ; and he would state this—that such was the anxiety of labourers to gain manufacturing employment in an agri- cultu - ral district, cruel as it was, that he might employ girls at the wages of only 3s. a week. He had a girl, who lived in Brockdish, and - whom be would name if it were necessary, to whom he paid 7s. 9d. a week—nearly as much as her father earned.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. LEAPINGWELL (of Fressingfield) observed that many able addresses had been delivered that evening. With respect to the very able statement of the Chairman he had listened to it with many agreeable feelings ' • but he did not assent t o it s argumen t, an d h e disputed its facts. Much had been said of what had gone by, nothing had been offered of what was to come when free trade should be the law of the land.—(Hear, hear.) Foreigners' had no roads of an expensive nature to make and repair, as Englishmen had ; foreigners were for the most part unacquainted with roads, except the important military roads which inter sected the country. The state of cultivation too was far different; the climate also was different. In some instances it was merely necessary to scatter the grain over the earth to ensure an abundant and superior har vest. The principal subject of that evening's discussion ivas free trade, but the Chairman had said that their meeting upon free trade had nothing whatever to do with the Anti-Corn-law League. He would not sup port that view. He could not see why the two were not to :be identified, and for the Anti-Corn-law League gentry collectively he had no hesitation in saying they were the pest of the country, and were connected with a man who had been convicted of conspiracy. —(This al lusion to Mr. O'Connell produced a burst of applause which could not be checked.) O'Connell had been con victed. A VOICE—Can you say he has been convicted by other than a packed jury?—(Loud cheers.) The CHAIRMAN—If I made any allusion to Mr. O'Con nell, I only mentioned his name as an authority for the low state of wages in Ireland; and therefore it is unfair to use his name in reference to any argument a gentle man might be disposed to bring before the meeting. I cannot see who Mr. O'Connell's conviction can have any connexion with an argument upon free trade, nor do I believe I used his name.—(Cheers.) _ _ _ Mr. LEAPINGIVELL—WeII, let Mr. O'Connell pass, then, and he would return to free trade. The advocates of free trade had not told their opponents how the nation was to be benefited by the abrogation of the present laws. He held in his hand a Report of the Harleston Farmers' Club, just published, and then read an extract from the document with reference to free trade, by an individual who professed to support it. Why, he would ask, should farmers be asked to give up twenty-five per cent? What had been said that night by the Chairman he did not believe. He did not believe that the corn-laws were enacted to confirm the farmer in the belief that certain prices would be guaranteed by the corn-laws. CitsinNAN—All that was stated was, that such had been held out to them. Mr. LEAPING WELL—WeII, the Chairman might have his own way, and he would go to another part ©f the subject. He should have been better pleased if the free traders could have shown the position of farmers to be better under free trade. Good and proper protection was necessary for the agriculturists. Agriculture was the greatest prop of the State. The agricultural interest was the foundation of the empire, and should be kept intact. He did not wish to say much against manufac turers, but he was certaintly ready to eontend that the manufacturing interest was an overgrown power. Show him the country where there was a free trade in corn, or that free trade existed at all ? A VOlCE—Jersey ; and the rent of land in that island is four pounds an acre. Mr. LEAnNowEue—Seeing all the world was pro • tecting itself, he thought it would be the height of folly for British farmers to wish to relinquish the protection given them.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. CIIDDEN (Bungay), thought the question before the meeting was not at all a political question—a ques tion of party—but simply whether free trade were or were not likely to be of benefit to the country.—(Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel had said, that the price of corn should not fall below a minimum price of 545. a quarter, nor rise above a maximum of 58s. Now, since this had been said, the farmers had had two bad seasons, and therefore, according to the promises held out, the growers should have been protected by the operation of the law. But what had been the real state of things ? Only last year farmers obtained at some times 445. a quarter-225. a coomb for their wheat.—(Hear, hear.) He would say this, that if the land bore an abundant crop, the probability would be that wheat would fall to 20s. a coomb.—(Hear, hear.) So, whether the crop were good or bad, the farmer got no protection by the law.—(Hear, hear.) In 1828 Mr. Canning brought in a corn-law, and he said the prices under its operation would range between 555. and 655. Were such prices secured? He (Mr. Cudden) assured the meeting that after the law had worked six or seven years—namely, in the year 1835, he had bought as fine wheat as man wished to use at 17s. a coomb.—(Hear, hear.) He pledged his word and honour to that state ment. In short, the matter came to this, farmers must not depend at all on Legislative protection, because he repeated it was fallacious, and only deceived them to their ruin. —(Hear, hear.) It was clear to him the tithe commutation had given to the clergyman 35 per cent. upon his tithe more than in fairness he ought to have. When Lord John Russell passed his Bill respecting this tithe commutation, it was not to be forgotten that himself and family held large possessions in Church property. When that law was passed the poor ought to have had 50 per cent. given them, and then perhaps the adjustment would have been more equal. Could it be likely that when the tithe had been given to the clergyman it was intended to bestow a full tenth of the land, its produce, and all its improvements, on him ?—(Hear, hear.) He would advise tenant-farmers not to run after the hifing of farms in the headlong manner they were accustomed to do, but to go fairly and wisely to work, and offer less rent.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude by stating his conviction that, under the corn-laws the landholder and clergymen obtained too high rents and tithe, and the tenant and the poor too tittle remuneration.—(Hear.) Mr. JAMES PRATT (Needham) did not hold with Sir Robert Peel's law. Peel was nothing to him; but he did mean to say this, that the present law, though a bad garment to cover the farmers, was nevertheless better than nothing—much better than taking away that which they had. He wanted to ask, in what degree the farmers were to be benefited by free trade, for benefit had never been made apparent to his eyes. The Anti- Corn-law . League were a strong body, and called a " great fact"—but so was the Devil a " great fact," and men were not told to flee from him, as the farmers were doing from the League, but were commanded to resist him.—(Laughter.) A VOlCE—Don't forget the Times originated the title. It is the abettors of monopoly that called the Anti-Corn law League a " great fact."—(Hear,) The CHAIRMAN—Had any other gentleman a desire to make any observation upon the motion and amend ment ? With respect to machinery, he was desirous of asking what Legislative enactment could prevent fo reigners from employing machinery? Some years since the Legislature were so foolish as to pass a law prohibi ting the exportation of machinery, and the consequence was, that though even with a stringent law against ex portation, machinery nevertheless left the country. He had a relative who was forced out of this country by the very law now spoken of, and he established a large ma nufactory abroad, where he constructed machinery which was driving his countrymen out of the markets. He stated this to show that the use of machinery abroad could not be stopped.—(Hear.) After a pause, the CHAIRMAN put the amendment and the original motion to the meeting, when the original motion, in favour of free trade, was carried by a majority of nearly three to one, amid loud cheering and expres sions of the most enthusiastic description. Mr. R. B. HARVEY then proposed the adoption of a petition to the House of Commons in favour of free trade. He thought free trade was the right of free men. That the principle of free trade was good was evident, and the only obstacle appeared to be that the time for its adoption had not yet arrived. But it struck him if I free trade was necessary at all, the nation ought to have at once. Mr. SAYER, shopkeeper, Harleston said—That the operation of the corn-laws had done evil to the farmer could be proved. He knew many years since an old woman who had a farm, and who though she eat and drank well, nevertheless contrived to save money. She died, and her sons in looking over her effects found to their very great surprise 1,400 guineas in her drawers. They followed the occupation of farmers, but had they increased their stock of cash ? Had they even kept it ? No, though they had cultivated their land as well as their parent, they had not now 145., much less 1,400 guineas.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. H. DowsoN (Geldeston) observed, that to attempt to stop machinery, as Mr. Mason wished, was to follow the example of Mrs. Partington, and attempt to mop out the Atlantic. Machinery had increased—had not the rent of land increased ? He held in his hand an official statement of the increase of rent on land in Suffolk. In 1796, the rental of Suffolk was 446,000/. ; when last taken it was 1,297,900/. A VOICE—For what purpose was the rental taken ? Mr. DowsoN—For the purposes of the poor-law. A VOICE—Then were not buildings included in the last statement ? Mr. DowsoN—lf they were, they also were in the first. The petition was then put and carried unanimously. C. A. MILLS, Esq. (Fulham), proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman, for his excellent presidentship. WAT.TER MASON seconded the motion, which was car ried unanimously. The CHAIRMAN returned thanks, and could not avoid saying, that he felt proud that the little town of Harles ton, seated in the midst of an ag ricultural district, had originated the movement among agriculturists in favour of free trade.—(Cheers.) Nor had this movement been the single one which had originated in Harleston, cal culated to prove of ben efit to agriculture. Farmers' clubs also originated in that town.—llear, hear.) The meeting, which, inits effects, is evidently looked upon by the monopolists. as the comir encement of an ag it a tion in favour of free trade among the farmers themselves, then s e p arated, having borne a most tri umphant aspect throughout the whole of its pro ceedings. NATURAL CLAIRVOYANCE.—Dr. Teste, of Paris, has lately announced the arrival in France of a man who, in his natural state, has the power of seeing through opaque bodies. He is a Polish Jew, named Rabbi Horech Dcene mark, and on his arrival at Mentz, in August last, exhibited letters from the Pope, Prince Metternich, and some professors in Germany, testifying the reality of his pretensions. The three seances he held at that city are asserted to have been satisfactory. He read a closed book by his hand. He has a son, aged ten, at St. Petersburgh, who is said to possess. the same faculties in a higher degree. He is consulted in cases of sickness or as to the future event of affairs ; he is declared to have mentioned to the Emperor Nicholas what was con tained in the apartments of the Empr.ess. At a recehtex amination of his pretensions , he is said to have exhibited proofs of his powers ; they are to be investigated by a com mission of the faculty.—Polytechnic Review. Sir Robert H. Inglis transacted business yesterday at the Home-office. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, March 7. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Special Jury.) TOPHASI AND WIFE V. IWGREGOR AND WIFE. This was an issue out of Chancery, to try the validity of a will, executed in favour of Mrs. Topham by her former hus- band, Mr. Wrightson. The peculiar nature of the case, and the large amount of property depending on its decision, have excited very great interest in this county. The Court was crowded at an early hour. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Wortley, and Mr. Addison, appeared for the plaintiffs ; lir. Fitzroy Kelly (who had been brought down specially in this case), Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton conducted the case for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES stated the case for the plaintiffs. They were, he said, called upon to vindicate their claim to certain property, to which ➢irs. Topham had become entitled under the will of her former husband, a Mr. Wrightson. The case was a very important one, not only on account of the amount of the property, though that was considerable, but on account of other considerations, and other and still higher interests involved in its issue. The cause must necessarily be a long one; but it would not, he was assured, be to the jury a tedi ous one, as every point would receive at their hands a full and patient consideration. The testator, Mr.Wrightson, was the son of an attorney, but he hinthelf, for some time, at all events, before his death; was of no particular profession, .though in his earlier years he had held a commission in the North York Militia. He resided at Houghton, in the neighbour hood of Darlington. He had no children, and his mode of life, from his riinited means and other circumstances, was necessarily quiet and retired. While there he became ac quainted with Mr. Mewburn, a solicitor at Darlington. Mr. Wrightson's sister, now Mrs. M'Gregor, and one of the de fendants in this cause, had been acquainted with Mr. Mew . . burn long before, and it was through her that the introduc tion took place. The acquaintance, however, between Mr. Mewburn and the testator never became intimate. It con- tinned, indeed, strictly of a professional character—that merely of solicitor and client. In the summer of 1829 Mr. Wrightson removed to the town of Darlington itself, and towards the end of that year a circumstance took place which made a very great difference in his circumstances and pros pects. There died in that year a lady of the name of Garth, who resided at Cockerton, near Darlington, and by her will she bequeathed to Mr. Wrightson a very considerable pro perty. This was the Ist of December, 1820, and immediately after her death, indeed that very day, Mr. Wrightson removed to Cockerton, and he resided there until the following year, when he died. Mrs. Garth at her death had in the house a very large suns, amounting to about 4,000/. in notes and gold, and the immediate removal of Mr. Wrightson to Cockerton was thought necessary for the purpose of protecting the property. At Cockerton, Mr. Wrightson found two persons who had for a great many years been in the:service of Mrs. Garth— George Hind, who acted as bailiff, and Jane Fenny, who had been a servant. These personslhad been left each a consider able legacy in Mrs. Garth's will, and they continued to dis • charge the same duties as before in the household of Mr. Wrightson. As a necessary consequence of so large an ac • cession of property, Mr. Wrightson \ had occasion more fre quently to consult his attorney. There was the probate of Mrs. Garth's will to take out, certain rents of which Mrs. Garth was only tenant for life to be apportioned, and various other business to transact. Among other matters were two estates, one the Newhall and Fowlaw farm, which on Mrs. Garth's death came to Mr. Wilkinson, the pleader, of the Temple ; and another, Buttsfield, the reversion of which was in a Mr. Greville. Application was made to Mr. Mew burn by Mr. Wilkinson for his deeds, and after some corre spondence (which the Learned Counsel read in detail), it was arranged that Mr. Mewburn should at an early day go over to Cockerton, and examine and arrange all' the deeds belonging to Mrs. Garth's estate. On the 26th of December Mr. Mewburn wrote to Mr. Wrightson, saying, thatif he had no engagement Mr. Mewburnwouldhave the pleasure of coming over on the Tuesday following, spending the day, and going through the deeds. Mr. Wrightson, at a former in terview, had requested he would, when he came out, dine with him, and take a long day at this business. To this letter Mr. Mewburn received a reply, stating that Mr. and Mrs. Wrightson would have great pleasure in seeing Mr. Mewburn, as they had no engagement. On the 29th Mr. Mewburn went over to Cockerton. He was engaged the whole day in the examination of the deeds. He stayed din ner and tea, and in the after:part of the evening some conver sation, the subject being introduced by Mr. Wrightson, took place about his making a will. It was by no means an im probable occasion for such an idea to occur to him. The late death of Mrs. Garth, and the occupation in which they had just been engagednaturally suggested it to him. It was natural, too, that in making such an arrangement , his wife should be the principal object of his bounty. Except his sister, Mrs. M'Gregor, he had no immediate relation. She was married, she had no children, she resided at a distance, and there had not been between her and her brother any great cor diality. When the subject of the will was first mentioned, Mr. Mewburn thought it would of course be one of considerable length, from the limitations usually introduced in such cases where property to so considerable an amount was to be disposed of. Mr. Wrightson, however, said it would be very I short, as he intended to leave all to his wife. The Learned Counsel then went on to state the mode in which the will was executed, as subsequently detailed by Mr. Mewburn. It was attested by Mr. Mewburn, and the two servants, George Hind and Jane Fenney. Mr. Wrightson died in December, 1830, and Mrs. Wrightson entered into possession. In 1831 she became the wife of Mr. Topham and the two persons, Fenney and Hind, continued in her service for a considerable time. Year after year passed away, and it never occurred to any one to throw any doubt on the validity of Mr. Wright son's disposition of his property until so late as the year 1842, when a bill was filed by the present defendants. Mrs. M'Gregor, formerly Cordelia Wrightson, was married to NI r. M‘Gregor a year or two before the making of the will, and, had for many years resided in Edinburgh. When a party files a bill of this sort in the Court of Chancery, ho is, as a matter of course, entitled to an issue, and the v alidity of the will is left to be decided by a jury. There would be two main points in this case; one was the will signed by the testator in the presence of three witnesses. On this point they would have the evidence of Mr. Mewburn, the first attesting witness. If the other witnesses to the will were called to give other testimony, he would again have to address them, and to comment upon that evidence. The second point would be, was the testator capable of making a will ? He hardly thought his Learned Friend Mr. Kelly, after the evidence that would be laid before them, would deny his capability, though it might perhaps be sought to show that some considerable time after the rule was made, and in the latter part of the year 1830, he had in some degree fallen into habits of intoxication. In the meantime he would leave the case in their hands, and for the present detain them no longer, especially as, in all probability before the case closed, he would be under the necessity of again addressing them. Evidence to the effect stated by the Learned Counsel was then given, and the Court adjourned. March 8. The case was resumed this morning, the interest continu ing unabated. The case for the plaintiffs closed with the examination of a few more witnesses. Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury for the defendants, i mpeac hing the validity of the will, on the ground that it was signed by the attesting witnesses, while it was a blank merely ; and secondly, that the testator signed it while in a state of unsound mind from continual intoxication ; and that, in short, the making of the will was the result of a conspi racy between Mr.l opham and his wife, and Mr. Mewburn, their law agent. Evidence at great length was given in support of the state ment of the Learned Counsel, and the Court again adjourned. Mizrch 9. This morning the further evidence in the case for the de.. fendants was resumed. Sarah Pattenson was called, who deposed that Mr.Wright son was almost always drunk, and that on the day the will was said to have been made she drove him out in a pony gig, and that he said to her that he wished to get away from the quill-driver (Mr. Mewburn) and Mrs. Wrightson, who were always teasing him to make a will, but that he would not 'sign his death-warrant. Other witnesses were called, for the purpose of showing, by inference, that the signature to the will was a fabrication, and that the person who had written the testator's name had done it hesitatingly, and with a slowness implying imitation. It was shown on the other hand, that the real signature of the deceased (attached to some notices to quit) partook of the same .character. At the close of the defendant's case, Mr. KNOWLES replied in an able speech. He admitted that he felt anxiety, but it was lest the jury should permit prejudice to influence their minds to give a verdict which would affect the honour of Mr. Mewburn, who had made the will now disputed, for a man of fairer fame or higher prin ciple did not exist. If they should decide that his will was invalid, it would be the first instance within his knowledge, or, he believed within the knowledge of any one who heard him, in which a will had been set aside on the testimony of the witnesses attesting it. If it were believed that juries could be persuaded to do so, how dangerous would be the conse quences. Unprincipled witnesses to a will might wait until the witness of truth was dead, the witness who would, if living, maintain as honest the honest act which he had done, and the property which a testator had left to those he most loved in life, and winch had for years been enjoyed by them as his gift and the testimony of his affection, might be wrested from them on the testimony of those who came to invalidate their own act, and to ask for credit from a jury while they declared themselves parties to a fraud. His Lonnsitly having summed up with great minuteness, occupying nearly three hours, The Jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. • This verdict affirms the validity of the will. _ PROPOSED AMENDMENT of the POOR-LAW. MEETING OF DELEGATES OF THE METROPOLI• TAN PARISHES. _ - - Yesterday a numerous meeting of deputations from various metropolitan parishes was held at the Marylebone Court house, for the purpose of considering certain clauses in the Bill now before Parliament for altering and amending the Poor law Act. Amongst the deputations in attendance were those from St. Luke's, Middlesex ; St. James, Westminster ; St. George's, Hanover-square ; St. James, Clerkenwell ; St. Pancras ; St. Mary's, Islington ; St. Margaret's, St. John's, and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. Mr. KIRBY, a barrister, was in the chair, and after stating the objects for which the meeting had been convened, said, that the representatives of those parishes which had the ad vantage of possessing local Acts, could not but feel that the amended Poor-law Bill, now before the House of Com mons, was a fatal blow about to be aimed at their independ ence.—(Hear, hear.) Should the 56th clause of that amended Bill be suffered to pass the Legislature,. their in dependence was not only totally gone, but they would be placed entirely under the control of the Poor-law Commis sioners. Then, with regard to the proposed establishment of district asylums aneschools, there would not only be a great increase of expense inflicted on the various parishes, but the very fact of such clauses being inserted in the Bill implied that they were not able to manage their own affairs, or that they had grossly abused the trust reposed in them.— (Hear, hear.) It was admitted, on all hands, that the parish of Marvlebone was never so well conducted as it had been since it - had been under the control of Hobliouse's Vestries' Act; and this was borne out by the fact that the rates had been reduced from 4s. 4d. in the pound to 35., and a further reduction was still contemplated; but he would ask what might they not have to expect under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners 2—(Hear, hear.) It was clear that the system of c entralisation sought to be carried out by the amended Poor• law Bill was not at all adapted to parishes like those of Marylebone and others who were represented there that day.—(Hear, hear.) Letters were here read by Mr. Thorne, the Secretary to the Board of Guardians, from Mr. Temple Leader, M.P., Mr. Duncombe, M.P., the lion. Captain Rous, M.P., all of which agreed in the expediency of opposing those clauses affecting the Local Acts referred to. Mr. MAUL; of Saville-row (Churchwarden of St. James, Westminster), said that a Committee of their vestry had been appointed, to ascertain in what particulars the amended Poor-law Bill encroached on the local Act of St. James's. They unanimously came to a resolution—" That the general principles of the Bill so entirely destroy or materially affect the local Act of this parish, as in the opinion of this Com mittee to render it desirable that the same should be strenu ously opposed.—(Hear, hear.) By the general principles of the Bill, he (Mr. Maule) begged to observe that the autho- rities of St. James's did not mean to impugn by wholesale the Poor-law ; but, at the same time, the 7 wished clearly and distinctly to express thei r s t r o ng conviction that the pro posed appendage did not act fairly and honestly with exist ing parochial Acts. Its effect would be utterly to displace all sorts of local government, and destroy the present salu tary establishment of an independent board of auditors chosen by the rate-payers.—(Hear, hear.) The apprentice ship clauses of the Bill were most partial and unjust, and the district houses for the destitute and district schools were not required. Taking the Bill in many of its leading features, he considered it descry ed their strenuous and determined op position.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. G. DANIELL wished the Chairman to inquire if there were any gentlemen present who had formed part of the de putatiOn which had waited on Sir James Graham on the subject of the Bill, as they might be enabled to afford the meeting information. Mr. JOSEPH said that the deputation merely consisted of Members of Parliament, as he understood was indicated in the letter from Sir Charles Napier, read to the vestry of Marylebone on Saturday, and which he would now move be read to that meeting. The resolution having been seconded and carried, the letter from Sir Charles Napier to the Vestry-clerk of St. Marylebone was read by Mr. Thorne, as follows 178, 1844. " Sir,—l only received your letter this night, on my arrival from the country. I shall not fail to attend the meeting. " I was with Sir James Graham this morning, with other Members. He declined discussing the question of asylums, but will consider the 28th clause. " Relative to the 56th clause, Sir James declares that he has no wish to touch the unions under local Acts, and he means to alter the clause. All he wishes is, to oblige unions under local Acts to hold their meetings as often as the unions under the Commissioners do, and to oblige them to have a Chairman and Vice-Chairman ; but, even if the clause stands, it does not affect Marylebone, because the population is above 20,000.—1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, " CHARLES NAPIER. " C. Flood, Esq., Vestry-clerk, St. Marylebone." The above letter was received with derisive laughter, and cries of " Oh !" Mr. DANIELL said that every sentence in the amended Bill was•diametrically opposed to each sentence of the Gallant Commodore's letter.—(Hear.) Why, every person who pe rused this Bill of Sir James Graham's, put a different con struction upon the meaning of its various clauses. If this Bill was to become a law, and they were to obey that law, it should be clearly defined. Sir James Graham first asserts that the Bill will interfere with parishes having local Acts--• - and then he says it will not The purpose of the till was for nothing less than to carry out a scheme of centralisation in order that the whole and sole control of large parishes should be under the management of the Government. :Let every man then be up and doing—let every parish now go verned by local Acts be active, and prevent, to the best of their ability, their being placed under the thumb of the Poor law Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Daniell then moved the following resolution :—" That the experience of many years has proved the inestimable value of local and inde pendent boards, which are justly popular with rate-payers generally, and have been maialy instrumental in fostering the spirit of liberality, and endearing to Englishmen the con stitution of this country." . _ _ Mr. HOWARTIT, churchwarden of St. Pancras parish, after some strong preliminary remarks, moved, " That the Poor law Amendment Bill, now before the House of Commons, contained provisions which, if enacted, will increase the ar bitrary power of the Poor-law Commissioners, subvert the ancient independence of local boards, and repeal, without express enactment, important and valuable privileges, by depriving rate-payers of the control over their own re sources in the administration of relief to their local peon!' Mr. CLARKE, of St. Pancras, seconded the resolution, which was unanimously carried. Mr. MAULE begged to propose, " That the principle and details of the Poor-law Amendment Bill are alike obnoxious ; and the principle, as being a further centralisation of power in an irresponsible body, to whom are delegated the functions of the three estates of the realm to issue rules having the force of law—the details, as being calculated, through the power given to the Poor-law Commissioners, to render the operation of the law vexatious and contrary to that mild spirit which has endured for centuries during which the powers remained unfettered in local representatives to protect and relieve their own poor." This resolution haying been seconded, was carried nem. dis. Mr. RATIIBONE proposed the following resolution :--" That the amended Poor-law Bill, proposed to give absolute con trol to the Poor-law Commissioners over parish apprentices ; that, remembering the restrictive and sectarian character of the classes, together with the vexatious and penal regulations as to persons taking parish apprentices, that were embodied in the Poor-law Bill introduced in 1842, but subsequently withdrawn, there is reason to apprehend that the Poor-law Commissioners may exercise their new powers by issuing similar objectionable regulations, and thereby deter many worthy persons from taking parish apprentices, and deprive poor children, in many cases, of the means of earning an honest and independent livelihood." The resolution, having been seconded by Mr. HARBERT, was carried unanimously. Mr. ROLFE, a delegate from St. James's, Westminster, moved the fifth resolution, and said, that schools being esta blished in the heart of such a parish as St. James's would greatly deteriorate the value of Property : " That the proposed establishment of district schools will not only entail additional expenses upon the rate-payers, but will tend to aggravate the miseries of pauperism, by remov ing children away from their parishes, and will curtail the opportunity of communication with their parents, and alie nate them from the legitimate influence of local guardians and the superintending clergy." The resolution having been seconded, A GENTLEMAN from the parish of St. Mary, Islington, said, that he could not agree to the principle of the resolution just proposed, as the children belonging to their parish were at Drouett's establishment, where none of the miseries enume rated in the resolution were to be found. Mr. PARSONS, of St. Luke's, said the system of schools was approved by the greatest portion of the inhabitants of that parish, their children being well-treated at the establishment in which they were placed, and, therefore, he must oppose the resolution. After a few words from the Rev. E. SCOBELL with refer ence to their not requiring the interference of Government in the instruction given in the schools in Marylebone, the reso- lution was put, and carried with but one dissentient. Mr. PorrEn moved the next resolution, and said that Lord Brougham, the great mover of the New Poor-law Bill, had given his reason for it—that the object was to preserve the landed interest; but in his (Mr. Potter's) opinion the object was to obtain the gift of something like 15,000-places. It was that alone which prompted the Whigs in framing the mea sure, and it was that only which caused the present Admi nistration to follow it out.—(Hear, hear.) The Government thought a great deal of the asylums for the houseless poor, and that was the reason they wished to make them adopted by parishes The asylum in Playhouse-yard stated that they had relieved in one year 8,000 persons, and the managers held it forth to the public as something great ; but in that.parish they relieved more than 8,000 every week. It was true, in a great measure, what Lord Brougham had said, that the object of the New Poor-law was to save the landed interest, for out of the 8,000 relieved at the asylum in Play house-yard, only 200 belonged to the metropolis, the remain ing portion being poor creatures from the country districts. —(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to their own workhouse (Marylebone), out of 1,400 inmates, not more than 25 were mechanics or their wives, the remainder having followed the avocation of gentlemen's servants.—(Hear, hear.) He begged to move " That the proposed establishment of district asylums for the casual houseless poor will tend to increase vagrancy, rather than legitimately provide for destitution, and that the proposed incorporation of parishes, having local Acts for such purpose, will subject them to the control of the Poor-law Commissioners, by including them in a district for the auditing of accounts, thereby interfering with the duties of other auditors already appointed under local and general Statutes." The resolution was then seconded by Mr. MEcm, and car ried nem. con. Sir B. HALL, M.P., then rose. He said that as he was about to hasten from the meeting, he would at once state that he should oppose any interference with the local govern ment of that parish, or any other in the metropolis, as sought to be done by the amended Poor-law Bill. Further, he should be proud to accompany the deputation to Sir James Graham, and to do anything in his power to oppose the passing of a Bill which would interfere in the management of the affairs of' that parish.(Hear, hear.) Mr. POTTER inquired of the Right Hon. Baronet if he did not think they would succeed more effectually in their object, if they could have an interview with the Premier? Sir B. HALL—Even if an interview were obtained with Sir Robert Peel, the probability would be that the deputation would be referred to Sir James Graham. Sir Robert Peel had enough to do, and would, he felt assured, not meddle with the province of the Home Secretary.—(Hear.) Mr. PERRY then moved and Mr. CLEnx seconded a reso lution—" That it is the decided opinion of this meeting that every parish having 20,000 inhabitants, and governed by a local Act, ought to be exempted from the operation of the said Bill, as containing within itself sufficient material for efficient local self-government, and for the economical management of its own poor." Mr. RAxx, of Shoreditch, said there was a portion of the Bill which had not been referred to—he meant the bastardy clauses. These clauses lie considered were cruel in the ex treme as regarded the female, for she was compelled within six weeks after the child was born to affiliate it, or in failing she would be debarred from receiving relief. An enlightened country, like England, he contended, was disgraced by having such clauses introduced into any Bill. With respect to the resolution he was about to propose, he must say he fully coincided in it. Though politically opposed to the prin ciples of the Times newspaper, still he must say, that for the advocacy of the poor, and the strenuous opposition that jour nal had given to this Bill, the zeal and ability with which those gentlemen connected with it had supported the poor against everything that was bad in policy or unjust in prin ciple, called forth the cordial thanks of all those who were anxious to better the condition of their poorer brethren. — (Hear, hear.) He begged leave to move : "That the thanks of this meeting be given, and they are hereby given accordingly, to the Times newspaper, for its strenuous and consistent advocacy of the rights of the poor, a t h n e d r, e t o t r , e t x h t e e n n d u i n n g i e r o o v u e s r a ab p l e e ri articles n w 3 h ,ea i c h a a al ve appeared rdifferent rdsuttieos theof the ro3o Legis lative their relief." I Administrations, ably advocating the constitutional rig hts of l t a h t e iv p o eo a p a l t e i , p a r n iv d at f e ea b rl e e n ss e l v 3 o ' en assert ing ben evolence, as the duties Mr. JOSEPH seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously. A deputation was then appointed, to be composed of Mem bers of Parliament, churchwardens, and chairmen of the boards of guardians of the different metropolitan parishes :to wait upon Sir James Graham with reference to the Bill not to interfere with parishes under local Acts. Thanks having been voted to the Chair, the meeting sepa rated. ABLANK DAY WITH SIR JOHN COPE'S FOXHOUNDS. —The meet on Saturday last was at Temple House, Birham, near Great Marlow, the residence of T. P. Williams, Esq., M.P. for that borough, where a splendid luncheon had been prepared for Sir John Cope and his friends. After drawing the several great covers at Mr. Clayton's, around Clay Hall, near Hurley, blank, the pack was then taken towards Twy ford, then to Mr. Bulkeley's, at Hare -Hatch, and nearly to Wargrave, and thence all around to Lawrence Waltham, and although between 40 and 50 covers were drawn, extending over a large portion of the county of Berks, not so much as the ghost of a fox was found during the whole of the day up to four o'clock in the afternoon, when the pack returned to kennel. In a provincial town in Hampshire, not a dozen miles from Southampton, a member of the musical profession announced his intention of forming a singing class on the plan adopted by Hullah. He commenced by giving an in troductory lecture, in which he descanted much on good singing, and moralised on the relative merits of nature and art, observing that the former could materially assist the latter, but that art could not improve nature, when he was interrupted by a voice from among his auditors, with "How would you look without your wig ?"—Dramatic and Musical Review. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-office from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. liispatches were also received yesterday from the Governor orthe ghu ritius. TOBACCO TRADE. Mr. HUME moved for a Select Committee, to exa mine into the present state of the tobacco trade, and to inquire what effects have been produced by the changes in the laws relating to it ; and whether any and what Legislative measures, compatible with the general in terest of the country, might be advisable, in order to pro mote the trade, or to check smuggling in tobacco ; and to report their observations thereupon to the House. The motion was agreed to, after a few observations from the CIIA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. F. BARING. The Committee of the Poor-law Amendment Bill was postponed till Friday. - On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, the following Members were appointed as the Select Committee on Medical Relief to the poor:—Lord Ashley, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Bell, Colonel Fox, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Owen Stanley, Lord John Manners, Mr. Warburton, Lord Robert Grosvenor, Mr. Gaily Knight, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. Manners Sutton, and Mr. Bramston. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Reduction Bill, which was read a first time and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow (this day.) The House Adjourned at Nine o'Clock. FREE TRADE MEETING. (From the Suffolk Chronicle.) On Wednesday evening last, a meeting of landed pro prietors, tenant-farmers, merchants, and tradesmen, was held at the Swan Inn, Harleston, to take into considera tion the propriety of petitioning Parliament to repeal the duties on foreign corn, the duty on malt, and in fa vour of free tt ade generally. Thomas Lombe Taylor, Esq., of Starston, a gentle man of wealth, station, and intelligence, was called upon to preside, which he did with an ability seldom exceeded on similar occasions. The meeting was highly respect able, and composed of wen holding various political opinions. The CHAIRMAN-You are all aware that a meeting was held in this town upon thii day week of those par ties who were favourable to protection-protection only. Many individuals holding the same politics as myself, con sidering that meeting was, as it had been stated, to be a pub lic meeting, attended, but to their astonishment found they were not allowed to open their mouths.-(Hear.) Many in dividuals indeed were afraid to show themselves, because their names being gathered, and afterwards inserted in the Morning Post, and not being allowed to express their real opinions, the public in reading the report would have 'imagined they belonged to the monopolists.- (Hear, hear.) For this reason, as well as others, the present meeting had been called. Upon this occasion full and free discussion is asked for-(Hear) -the fuller and freer the better. With respect to himself, in order that there might be no mistake about his own senti ments, he had put them upon paper, and which by their permission he would read :-" I am so connected with the land, that if the corn-laws are beneficial to those immediately interested in the land, they will -be so to me. I state this, trusting you will be more inclined to listen to what I may advance in favour of an entire re peal:of those corn-laws. But however dependent I am upon land, I would not advocate any law which might be thought to advantage any one part of the community at the expense of another. The corn-laws (and I beg to remind you that we have had several, five, I believe, during the last forty years) may at times have been a benefit to the landowners and titheowners, but it is doubtful whether they are now a benefit even to them, and I am of opinion, and will endeavour to show, that they are now, and almost always have been, an injury to the tenant-farmers and their labourers. Have the corn laws, for any continuance of time, realised to the farmers the expectations held out to them by the framers and passers of those laws ? You cannot have forgotten the frequent recurrence of agricultural distress, under these protective laws. lam far from thinking that the repeal of these laws will produce very cheap corn, as the Anti- Corn-law League contend it will, and consider that the League has much injured the cause of repeal and free trade, by holding out the hope of cheap bread ; but, I believe that repeal would produce greater uniformity between English and Foreign prices, and also more regular prices. Both landowners and manufacturers are too selfish and one-sided in their views of this question. I will now call your attention to the working of the different corn-laws. From 1805 to 1815, the law allowed free importation of wheat at 6d. per quarter when the price was above 665. per quarter. During those 10 years (excepting 1815) the price never ranged so low as 665. the quarter, con sequeatly there was free importation. In some of these years, prices averaged 120 s. per quarter, although there was, I repeat, free importation. I beg to ask whether the corn-laws caused these high prices, and the high rents then put upon the land ? Did not the paper money produce some effect ? And I ask may not the present currency laws (I refer partly to Peel's Bill of 1819) produce some effect, and more even than the present corn-law does on the present prices, and therefore are not the farmers wrong in looking to corn-laws and the sliding scale only as a protection? In those ten years (1805 to 1815) the importation of wheat averaged about a million quarters a year. I mention this to show that with open ports and high prices to tempt importation, we can not have unlimited supplies, as some suppose. We certainly could not then have supplies from the seat of war (and even now France cannot spare us any corn) but Poland, Russia, and America were open to us, and in those countries corn is said to be the cheapest. Con sider how much population has increased all over the Continent of Europe, and in England too, since the peace in 1815, and remember, too, w hat much greater supplies are now required to feed their ' increased population. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, our imports of wheat exceeded two million quarters a year, and yet it cannot be said there was a surplus of food, or that wheat was then cheap. No, the more our manufacturers are employed, the more corn and food they require, and the better prices we shall receive. In 1815 wheat was down to 635. Bd. per quarter, on the year's average, and the landowners, considering then that it could not be grown for less then 80s. per quarter, passed a law prohibiting importation when the price was below that sum. Then the ruin of the tenant-farmer and the la bourer commenced ; and mark, that during the ope ration of this corn-law, Peel's Currency Bill was passed. Notwithstanding this law (which was to guarantee the farmer 80s. for his wheat), prices kept lowering till 1822, when wheat was 435. 3d. per quarter on the year's average, little more than one-half the price contemplated by the framers of the Act of 1815. Need I remind you how many farmers were ruined at this period? The state of things at that time ought to have warned the farmers never again to have relied on a corn-law for pro tection, and it ought still to warn them. The average price of wheat in these seven years, between 1815 and 1822, never reached 80s. per quarter, except in 1817 and 1818, and then the higher price was tb be attributed to the bad seasons of 1816 and 1817. The law failed in effect. Agricultural distress produced a new law in 1823. This prohibited importation when wheat was below 70s. per quarter, with a duty of 17s. per quarter when above. Landowners and tenants supposed that whilst this law remained in force wheat would not be under 70s. This law continued till 1828, and how did it work ? The average never touched 70s. per quarter, and in only two out of the five years (from 1823 to 1828) even 60s. The lowest, in 1823, was 51s. 9d. Great imports did not pro duce these low prices, as they did not average 300,000 quarters a year. The landowners, however, during this time, were getting high rents, set according to Act of Parliament price of corn, and not the market value. In 1828 another law (the sliding-scale law) was passed:- that being a more recent measure, I need hardly state its effects. It did not, you must allow, produce a healthy state of things ; prices varied as much as ever. In 1834, I find the average price of wheat was 465. 2d. ; in 1835, 395. 4d ; and in 1836, 48s. 6d. per quarter. It cannot be said that great importations at this period caused these ruinous prices, as in 1833 the imports were 83,601 quarters. 1834 1835 1836 It is clear, however, that this corn-law did not keep prices up to the farmers' expectations, and the fluctua tions were very considerable. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, we had large deliveries of foreign corn, the largest ever known, and I beg to ask whether these were the farmers' worst years ?- In 1838... Imports, 1,821,151 qrs....Aver. price, 645. 7d. 1839... „ 2,652,553 ... If 70s. Bd. 1840... „ 2,295,419 ... 19 665. 4d. And probably more foreign corn could not have been obtained with perfectly open ports, as much of this corn consisted of accumulation of the growth of former years. The sliding-scale did not prevent prices going down to 365., and up to 70s. per quarter. here has not been more corn raised in foreign coun tries than has been consumed there, or exported ; and from the accounts of travellers, it appears that all the land near good roads or rivers is cultivated. If their exports are to be increased, their cultivation must be extended, and this cannot be done without a great outlay of capital, the want of which must be a bar to a great or rapid extension ; besides which, the skill in cultivation, as I can certify, is also wanting. The ex pense of transit of foreign corn, port dues, merchant's profits, warehousing, loss by moisture and heating, being from 15s. to 20s. per quarter, will, with the benefits of free trade, be a sufficient protection to the English farmer ; but, in addition, I say we must have a healthy currency adapted to our enormous taxation-there must be no tamperings with it, so that one day anybody may have credit, and on another nobody, and so much of Peel's Bill of 1819, as regulates the price of gold, must be repealed. In an agricultural parish the rates are paid by the farmers, but in a manufacturing town they are paid (and often in a much higher proportion) by the manufacturers and their dependents. The tithes have been called a bur den en land, but these never belonged to the landown ers or their tenants. If you purchased an estate (sub- I t. e t' be l o olio / jell t~G I