The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

fectly safe in the hands of the Committee, but the Hon. Member ought to furnish the Committee with such facts as would enable them to test their veracity. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL. On the third reading of the Bill having been proposed, Mr. M. OTERTIALL rose to oppose it. During the whole time this 81l had been before the House no mem ber of the Ministry had given any explanation or state ment. Sir J. GRAHAM—In Committee it was discussed. Mr. M. O'FERR,ALL—Yes, there was some discus sion in Committee, but there had been no Ministerial statement on the principle of the Bill, or the reasons which induced the Government to press it on the House. —'lronical cries of Hear, hear," from Sir It. Peel.) Ile understood the meaning of the Right Hon. Barontt's cheers. That the late Ministry had done so—(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches) — but it was proposed under very different circumstances, after a Committee of the House of Lords had sat for four months on the state of Ireland.—(Hear from the Opposi tion.) When the Government asked for a continuance of a stringent law he thought they were bound to prove a case of absolute necessity for it. They were bound to show that heretofore they had exercised their power leniently, and without injustice. They were b nind to prove that they could not with safety carry on the public service without a continuance of this stringent law. Such, however, had not been the case The law had been most shamefully abused. It had been the means of sending spies amongst the unfortunate peasan try of Ireland. These spies had induced the peasantry to form combinations. And all this system of spies had been carried on with the sanction of Government. He admitted that this was a strong charge to make, but it applied with double force to the Noble Lord the Secre tary for Ireland. When he (Mr. M. ()Terrell) contrasted the declarations which the Noble Lord had made on taking office with his "subsequent acts, he felt that he had good ground of c.enplaint. The Noble Lord could not deny that such acts as those to which he (Mr. M. O'Ferral I) hadalluded had occurred within the Noble Lord's knowledge. The Noble Lord could not deny that such acts occurred in 1842. and that he per mitted them to be repeated in 1843 and 1844. He would prove what he had stated ; and the first case to which he would allude was a prosecution which took place at Armagh, in the spring of 1842. Several persons were prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Oaths Bill. The principal witness against them stated that he had made Ribbonmen by the hundred—that he was in the habit of attendir.g ribbon meetings, at which he prepared the documents. This he had been directed to do by the magistrates in the neighbourhood, The next witness examined was a policeman named Fox, who sail he went amongst the peasantry, and by false hood induced them to enter into combinations. Mr. White side, than whom a more eloquent pleaderdid not live; was the counsel for the prisoners. Judge Crampton, in sum ming up, said the conduct of G. Fox. the policeman, to sax the least of it, was uncommon, for he went about fa bricating falsehoods. He went on to say that Mr. Whiteside, the counsel, had preferred a charge which was most disreputable to the Government. The news paper in which this case was reported did not state what the charge was, but it was_ not difficult to imagine it. The Learned Judge said he thought the charge had been unintentionally made, but- NIT% Whiteside got up. and said, " No, my Lord, and so far from retracting it., I re assert it."—(Hear, hear.) This was a subject which the Noble Lord ought not to have suffered to pass over without investigation ; but no such step had been taken. Here were a certain number of men employed by the agents of the Government to seduce persons to enter into this sort of conspiracies—giving them the signs . and pass-words—swearing them in to become Ribbendmen, or members of some wicked society or other, and then betraying them to the Governme it ; who, in their turn, look upon the n as molt etfi;!eat oFfi •e , -3, an I promote and reward them accordingly. He ( \lr. O'Ferrall) should not think of oprsing the renewal of this Bill if he could not justify his refusal of the powers it gave to the Government by the statement; he had male to the House. The laws, he admittOd. sheuld be administere 1 with strictness, with energy, and with vigour, but at the same time with justice ; and proof should be given to the people that the law was not enacted for vengeance, but for protection. The Government should, by the enactment of their laws and the administration of them, satisfy the people of Ireland, as the people of England were satisfied, that the law was their best friend, and that, so long as they kept within its pale, it would be their never-failing safeguard. They should induce the Irish people to have faith in it. But at present they had no confidence in it, and they were justified ; for when they contrasted the trials of the Chartists and other per sons in England with the trials for political offences in Ireland, they saw too plainly th it justice meant a very different thing in one country to what it (lid in another. —(lrear, hear.) In the trials in England every man, in every quarter, was satisfied that the law was adminis tered with mercy and justice, and with the simple ani proper view of vindicating the law and maintaining the institutions of the country • but he (Mr. O'Ferrall) was satisfied that. this creditable construction could not be put upon the administration of the law in Ireland. But lit would be urged against him, that he had been a party to the original enactment of this law. He admitted he had. But the state of the country was very different now to what it was at that period. Why, there was more pro perty destroyed in one month now in the two counties of Suffolk and Norfolk, than had been destroyed in the whole of Ireland for many months pact—(Hear, hear) —and yet they heard of no such Act as this being passed for the governing of the English people.—(Elear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was at present sincere in his desire for the maintenance of the union, and was willing 'to bear, as best he could, the unpopularity which at tached to all those who held such opinions, and dared to give expression to them. The continuance of that com mon compact was alike cherished by large majorities of persons on both sides of that . House; but see what an argument was furnished against them by the enactment. 'of such harsh, repulsive, and unequal laws as this.— Weer, hear.) The Government, by their conduct, were daily taking from those friendly to the union the strong and useful arguments they were anxious to re tain, and were putting most powerful weapons into the bands of all who now thought, or who might feel it their duty hereafter, to enrol themselves amongst the friends of the repeal cause.—(Hear, hear.) With such opinions as these of their conduet Tend its tendency, he (Mr. O'Ferrall) felt it his duty to move that " the Bill be read a third time that day six months." Lord ELIO r said the . . Right Hon. Gentleman had brought a cheree against the Government, which. corning from him, was mast extraorilinary—namely, that they had brought forward . this Bill without f.roiiig into any explanation of its provisions. Why, the Go vernment of which that Ri,ht Hen. 'isntlemen was a me uher, had not only in the year 1839 brought forward this very same Bill, word fer werd as it now stood, with out entering into its merits, but they had passed it into a law without inviting or eateriniinto any discussion upon it whatever.—(Loud cries " !fear, hear.") The Right lion. Gealemen, too, was actually one of the authors of a Bill which, when the G iverninent asked the House to renew for only a limite3. period, he new abused in a most virulent manner.—(llear, hear.) It wits as' well known to the Right lion. Gentleman, as to any one at all acquainted with Ireland, that fir fifty or sixty years past secret societies of one kind or another, and under one name or alother—bus all of them most abominable and wisked ass viation3—had existed in that country ; and that the members of them weee bound by the most horrible oaths to obey the corn mends, however horrid and murderous, of the leaders of them. It was not ne cessary for him (Lord Eliot) to enlarge on the evils that had at telded every step of these societies. It was for the Right Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. o:Ferran), if he oppose:l the Bill altogether, or desired any relaxation of its provisions, to prove that these evils did not now exist, and that if the societies did exist, they were at least become powerless. But this he had failed to do— or rather, he had not attempted to do.—(Hear, hear.) For his (Lord Eliot's) part, he should consider no mea sure too s•ringent which could, consistently with jus tice, put down these societies wherever they existed. And how could the Government effect this object, but by Bills such as this, and by the oceasienal aid of the approvers Me. M. O'FERRALL—But not of spies. Lord ELIOT said surely there was a difference be tween an approver and a spy: Besides, the evidence of an approver was rarely, if ever, relied upon, unless there was corroborative testimony to support it. The greatest vigilance and precaution were used, and whenever the slightest suspicion of unfair pl iy reached the Govern ment, the most determined measures were taken to bring the offs-inding . parties to condign punishment. Why, in the very case instanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman— that of Ogle—he had been committed to gaol—he was in gaol now—and was going to be tried on a charge of subornation of perjury.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") But the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn a parallel be tween the enactment of laws for England and Ireland which would rot hold. He (Lord Eliot) would ask the Right Hon. Gentiernan, in sober earnestness, if he really meant to comp ire the state of Suffolk and Norfolk, with reference to the Bill then under di-cus,ion, with the state of Ireland? Were there any secret societies, ad ministering unlawful oaths,- and binding men to the cowm'ssion of the most atrocious crimes in Norfolk and Suffolk, or in any other part of England. No such thing. And it' there were such societies existing in any' part of England, he dare pledge his life that the con fidential Ministers of the Crown would come down to Parliament an I demand exactly the same extent of powers as they considered necessary in the case of Ireland.—(Hear, hear) The Minister; felt it their duty to ask for a renewal of this Bill, but still 'they asked it only for a limited period. The late Ministry anal(' not, in 1839, have introduced this measure, had they not been convinced of its neces sity, and the pa ,sent measure teas nothing more than a repetition of that Bill. He should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to persevere in the motion, that the Bill should now be reac, a third tune. Mr. M. BELLEW supported the amendment. He thought iz was but fair that Hon. Members should draw an inference from the manner in which Government had acted with respect to juries in Ireland, for the purpose of showing how thee would act iii,other cases. The in cautious manner in which th -• Attorney-General for Ireland had made statements in that House, would not give much confidence ro Honourable Members as to the course he would purs 3C if the present Bill passed. There was a great difference in the administration of justice in Ireland a, id this country; here everything was free font. taint, bus that was Lot tie case in Ireland. lii that country parti , s were brought before magistrates of a different religion to theinselve-, and who on that accouat were prejudiced against them, and would no doubt be tried by a jury selected by a partisan sheriff.-- (Hear, hear.) The ifaiuse ought, therefore, to be more eauttime in giving power to the executive in Ireland than in this ,:cuutry. "..rills might be a:small matter, but it was one that §hPiod the- vinia• and tendency of ber Majesty's Government. There never was, he believed, a t time when there were less private associations in Ire land, and he trusted, therefore, the Government would not press the Bill. If they did he should feel compelled to vote against the third reading. Mr. SHELL had great objections to the present Bill, because it would furnish to informers an opportunity of carrying on their nefarious trade, which, but for this measure, could not be carried on. Whenever the Whigs had brought in Bills that were calculated to extend liberty, the present Government always selected them as matter for avoidance, but when they brought in mea sures having a contrary effect, then they were taken as examples.—(Hear. hear.) The Hon. Member for Kil dare had asserted that the Bill was not only liable to abuse, but that it had been productive of abuse, and that too in a most serious degree. In 1842 a case oc curred in Armagh, where a person of the name of Ha gan, having incited parties to commit a crime, informed of it. Ile did not accuse the Government of being party to such things, but they must know that such things existed ; that informers took advantage of the Act, and that the police had employed them had been proved in a court of justice. Hagan, it was true, was dismissed when he was found out ; but there were many cases that might not be found out at all ; and that he looked upon as substantiating their case, and, added to this, it was well known that Ireland was a country fertile with informers. Had the House forgotten that, in Kilkenny, a person, high in the constabulary, had em ployed a policeman to go to a printer, and induce him to print a seditious ballad, in order that he might after wards prefer a charge against the man whom he had induced to commit crime 2--(Hear, hear.) Where they had a knowledge of the people, and what was going on, was it wise or prudent to insist upon an Act like the present ? By the present Bill they were making that a crime which ought only to be evidence of a crime. The measure was only brought in from due necessity in 1839—it was not necessary in 1840, and it ought not to exist in 1844. Let the Government follow the advice of the Hon. Member for Kildare, and make as little distinc tions between this country and Ireland as possible ; he trusted they would not avail themselves of a majority to draw a line of demarcation between England and Ireland. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH (Attorney-General for Ireland) complained that questions had been mixed up with the present discussion in no way connected with the question before the House. Allusion had been made to the State Trials, but he would not discuss the subject, except to state that, he considered himself perfectly justified in the observationshe had made at the close of the proceedings. With respect to the present case, the Hon. Member for Kildare had confounded the character of a spy with that of an informer, although they were perfectly distinct. After having received the information of an informer, to make use of him as an instrument t entrap others into the commission of crime was unjustifiable, and no man in that House would denounce it more strongly than he would—(Hear, hear) —but in all prosecutions for the administration of unlawful oaths, they were com pelled to prove that the words found on any person were actually the pass-words of the particular society stated in the indictment.' and this evidence could only be given by an informer, who had been connected with the society. It was impossible to prosecute without such evidence. On this point he would read the opinion of' Lord Plunkett, who admitted the necessity of having the evidence of the informer.—(The Hon. Gentleman read a passage from a charge to the jury. by his Lordship, in a trial for this offence.) He could also adduce the au thority of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Clonmel, who, when Attorney-General for Ireland, conducted the prosecution in the case of " the Queen v. Jones." in which he made use of evidence of this kind, after stating the defects of the existing law, and the necessity of some statute like the one under discussion. To show that the evidence of informers was generally admitted, he cited a case in which a 'man named Ken nedy was examined, who was proved to be of the most depraved character, having even assisted in the commi sion of murder. Having read this man's evidence, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that no person could he more sensible than himself of the impropriety of employing what were properly called spies, hut the dis tinction between one of these men and an informer must be remembered. It mest also be recollected that, in the case of secret societies, it was impossible to arrve at any proof, unless they got the testimony of some person con nected with them. With respect to the case in the county of Sligo mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kil dare, the policeman's name was Ogle, and he suborned a man to charge another with having administered an un lawful oath. Of that he might have been guilty under the Act of George 111., and the present Act would pro vide no remedy for such a case. Under the whole of the circumstances, he trusted there was sufficient grounds for the present Bill. The O'CONOR DON was glad that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn a distinction be tween spies and inf rmers. and he hoped the Gosern ment would in future repudiate the assistance of the in former ; but, unfortunately, in Ireland the man who had been employed as an informer, generally became a spy. Being an outcast, he was compelled to attach himself to the police of his district, in order to supply them with information. In the Sligo case, it was prevail that the man Kane was entirely supported by the police. The Crown prosecutors were so ashamed of the man's testi mony, that they retired in disgust from the court, and when evidence was called to the character of the pri snner, the jury said they did not require any, and ac quitted him. But the worst of these cases was, the b-id impression they left on the minds of the people. At the previous assizes two men were transported on the evi dence of this man, whose testimony in this case was re ,jetted. This produced a feeling of universal distrust and suspicion, which was exceedingly injurioes. In another case, a clergyman, named Day, was fired at in the county of Roscommon, and the parties having been traced, it was discovered that the identical man who had fired the shot was an informer, who had convicted several men in the county of Louth. Sir It. PEEL said he hoped the proposal of the Go vernment to continue this Bill would not lead to any misconstruction as to their experience with regard to the employment of spies. He did not believe there was much difference as to the employment of' persons; but in this country, or in Ireland, to reject the evidence of informers—of men, who, withont any previous connec tion of the parties, who hail been really and bona fide concerned in crime, would be to defeat the ends of cri minal justice. He recollected that in some of the must' aggravated cases of murder, the conviction of the mur derer depended upon the evidence of the accomplice.— (Hear, hear.) Look to the case of Mr. Baker. A per son named Keating had employed five or six persons to murder him, and he was afterwards the person who gave evidence against those whom he employed. lie received a raward of 2,0001., and he actually instituted an action against the Government for not giving hint snore.—(Much laughter.) The parties were convicted but they were not executed. This wretch was con stantly complaining because he did not get more. To reject the evidence of informers, therefore, would be impossible. With regard to the employment of spies, or persons who performed the functions of what were called spies, he would say, that to send men with authority to invite othsrs to commit crime, by entering into a secret society, and then for the Go vernment to avail itself of information an obtained—that he thought that a Government which was guilty of such an act ought itselt to be visited with a punishment as severe as that of the guilty parties.—(Hear, bear, and cheers.) Nothing could be more dangerous, dis graceful, or more calculated to bring disrepute on the administration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Govern ment ought to be more cautious with regard to em ploying a man in future, who gave information of some crime which was passed, because he would be likely to incite others to crime, that he might make himself of importance.—(Loud cries of " Hear," and cheers.) Those were the principles of the Government, and the subordinate agents of the Government in Ireland ought to know that the Government would not countenance any person who incited others to commit crime ; and that if they resorted to those acts, they would meet with no encouragement from the Government.--(Hear, hear.) That was the principle on which his Noble Friend acted. Those who had once become informers, had lost their ordinary occupation—their character was blasted. They, therefore, wished to be able to bring forward new cases, and on that account it was neces sary that the greatest caution should be used in giving them employment in future.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure that the convictions for the possession ofpass-words required the greatest caution, and the Government ought to watch the conduct of subordinate agents with great care. The Bill would only remain in force for a year, it would then under g o serious consideration before it was renewed, and in the interval during which it re mained in force, the utmost vigilance would be exer cised on the part of the Government. But he was sorry that when her Majesty's Government came forward to renew the :Act which was in existence when they came into office, that that circumstance should be taken advan tage of in order to hold them up as enemies to the liberties of Ireland.—( Hear.) Their predecessors brought in the Bill, and when they were charged with indifference to the peace of Ireland, they came forward and pointed to this Bill which they passed for the suppression of un lawful assemblies. It was said that the Bill originated in a Committee of the House of Lords, but the late Go vernment said it was their own spontaneous act. — (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.)" It remained in force; and now that the present Government proposed to con tinue it for a year, lion. Gentlemen opposite came for ward and charged theta with being disposed to be tyran • nical.—(Cheers.) It therefore became necessary to tell theltruth.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite per mitted the Bill to go through the House of Commons with out saying one word in opposition to it.—(Cheers.) In the book which contained the proceedings of the Howse on that Bill, he could not find the name of the person who introduced it —the name of a single speaker was net found.—(Hear, hear.) It was described, " Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill ;" introduced, first reading, second reading, Committee and report, third. reading, and not one of the gentlemen opposite opposed the continuance of the Act when their friends were in power, or thought it worth while to urge a single objection against it.; and when the Bill was under discussion in the House of Lords, those words, " Having an unlawful excuse," which w-re not in the Bill originally, were introduced by one who was a member of a Conservative Administration. — (Loud cheers.) He read the Bill—(Cheers) —and took, by the introduction of those words, the precaution against the possible punishment of innocence.— (Hear, hear.) He suggested that addition, which had never occurred to Hon. Gentlemen opposite —and if there were mitigation and secrecy evinced against the punish ment of innocence, that mitigation and that secrecy were entirely owing to one who was a Minister in a Conser vative Government.—(Loud cheers.) Let them recollect the imputations they east upon the Government, with regard to the Arms Bill. The Government reminded Hon. Gentlemen opposite that they let the Bill pass when proposed by the C l geraraant of which, they ap proved, and now, when the government came for Ward this session to continue the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill, the credit of having introduced it being claimed by the Government who persuaded them, it was found out to be an intolerable injustice to Ireland.—(Hear. hear.) He did not mean - to say that Hon. Gentlemen opposite might not have opposed the Bill for the welfare of Ire land ; but it was neither fair nor wise to add to the excitement of Ireland, by imputing to the Government intentions which they could hardly really and seriously think they entertained.—(Hear hear.) He gave the Hon. Gentlemen opposite all credit for the firmness with which they had resisted the attempts made to indnce them to join in the repeal agitation, but, when they said it was difficult to resist the cry for repeal, seeing that there was a different law applicable to England and Ire land; he beeged to remind them that, in 1839, they gave their cordial suppoi t to this very Bill.—(Cheers.) He admitted that the criminal law of England anti Ireland ought to be subtantially the same.—(Hear, hear.) He would not contest that principle. All he complained of wa-, that an attempt was made to raise what he called unjust clamour against them for taking a course less open to objection than that which wai taken by the Government which they supported themsebes.—(Hear.). Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought there was more of ingenuity than candour in what had fallen from the , Right Hon. Baronet. The Irish Members supported this Bill in 1839; when there was nothing beyond mere conjecture that the provisions of the Bill would be abused. Now they resisted its continuance, because they had experience of its being abused. He hoped the words of the Right Hon. Baronet would be attended to by the officials' in Ireland, and that they would form part of the instructions to the stipendiary magistrates. If his Right Hon. Friend pressed his motion to a division, he would vote with him ; but, after the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, he thought he would do better to withdraw it.—(ielr, hear, from Mr. Escott.) He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) thought the char of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was most unfair. He came down to the House prepared to vote with his Right Hon. . Friend ; but he took the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet in the spirit in which it was given. —(Bear.) Lord ELIOT explained. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that on his side of the House there was every disposition to take the proposition of the Hen. Genth man in a fair spirit.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ROSS did not think there was any necessity fur the Bill, but that there was not was owing to the exer ti.dis of the Roman Catholic clergy, who set themselves against secret vcieties,- and the habits of temperance which they inculcated upon the people. Dr. BOVVRING was much interested as an English man in this discussion. He thought the Bill a harsh one, 'but every credit was due to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the benevolent interpretation which he put on it. He though there was a good deal in the taunt of the Right Hon. Gentleman against those Irishmen who supported the Bill under the late Government. Mr. M. O'FERRALL expressed himself so satisfied with the speech 'of the Right Hon. Baronet, which he considered so much more useful than a division, that he would not divide the House.—(Hear.) ' He would sug gest that the punishment of transportation should be changed to two years' imprisonment._ Sir R. PEEL said it would be better to leave the mat ter to the responsibility of Government. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. • • POOL-LAN. ' • On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the House went into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. Clause 61 was agreed to. On clause 62 being proposed, Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause, as an attempt to give justices of quarter sessions power to act as judges of assize, having to decide difficult points of law. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that at present the board of guardians were exposed to very unfair inconvenience as respected the debts eue to them. The persons of the guardians themselves were not responsible for debts in curred, and even when actions were decided in the cre ditor's favour, there was no property to be seized. Al though a novel enactment, it was a necessary one. Mr. DARBY objected to the clause, because it gave no power of appeal. Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the clause, for the pur- . pose of taking the. matter into consideration. On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, clause 63 was struck out. . Clause 64 was agreed to. On Clause 65 being proposed, • Captain PECHELL said he had yesterday called the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to a case in which a woman, wishing tO see her relation, who was about to be -confined in a workhouse, was not allowed access to her. He wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had given that subject his consideration with a view to some future regulation ? He also complained of the employ tnent of the inmates of workhouses in grinding bones, and hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would express his disapprobation of such a system. • Sir JAMES GEAMAM said that, with every desire to superintend the working of the poor-law, it was im possible for him to attend to every minute regulation. Power was granted to the guardians, subject only to the control of the guardians, and he was persuaded that in every well-regulated workhouse, admission in cases like that mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman would be granted. With reference to the introduction of bone-grinding in workhouses, he had last year, he did now, and he would on all occasions, express his dis,ent to the use of that particular employnient.—(Hear, hear.) The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 66 and 67.'' Schedules A and B were also agreed tn. Sir J. GR .1 lIAM then brought up the following elau..e to inserts d instead of clause 14 : " And be it enacted, that no owner of property shall be entitled to vote as such, under the provisions of the said ,recited Act. either in person or proxy, during the year following the 25th day of March in any year, un lesS before the .Ist day of February next preceding such 25th day of March he had given to the overseers the statement required by the said Act, signed by him, nor unless such statements contain a description of the nature of the interest or estate he may have in such property, and a statement of the amount of all rent-service (if any) which he may - receive or pay in respect thereof, and of the persons for whom he may receive or to whom he may pay such rent-service ' • and no person shall be entitled- to vote as proiy until fourteen days after he have made his claim so to vote in the manner required by the said Act; and no person shall be entitled to vote as proxy for more than four owners of property in any one parisb(except he he a steward, bailiff, or land agent, or collector of rents for the cwners of property for whom he may b, appointed to vote); and no appointment of proxy shall remain- in force for a longer period than two years from the making thereof, excepting only in the ease in which an owner appoints his bailiff, steward, land agent or collector of rents to be his proxy; in which case such appointment shall remain in force so long as the proxy may continue to be such bailiff, steward, land agent, or collector, and while such ap pointment remains unrevoked."—Agreed to. Clause to follow clause 14 : _ :: • And the overseers of every parish containing a population exceeding two thousand persons, according to the last enumeration of the population published by the authority of Parliament, shall, on or before the sth day of the month of February in every year, enter in the book to be from time to time provided for the purpose the names and addresses of all persons who, before the Ist day of the said' month of February, have given such statement or made such claims as owners or proxies as aforesaid ; and such overseers shall allow any person to peruse such book, without payment of any fee, at all reasonable hours, between the said sth day and the 10th day of February ; and any person who has given such statement or made such claim, or any ratepayer of such parish, may, on or before the 15th day of the said month of February, object to any MM. person as not being entitled to vote as such owner, by delivering to the clerk of the board of guardians of the said parish, or of the union in which it may be comprised, and at the ad dress of the person objected to, notice in writing of the grounds of such objection ; and, on or before the 20th day of such month of February, such clerk shall send to the overseers of such parish, notice of some day, between the 24th of the said month and the Ist of March then next, on which he will hear evidence in relation to such objections, and of the place within the parish or union at which he will attend to hear such evidence ; and such overseers shall forthwith cause a copy of such notice to be fixed on or near the doors of all churches or chapels within such parish and at all the usual places of affixing notices of parochial business ; and such clerk shall at ' tend on the day and at the place so appointed, and shall, in the prcsence of all persons who may think fit to be present, hear any matter adduced in sup. poll of such grounds of objection, or in oppo sition thereto, but none others ; and the overseers of the said parish shall thin and there attend and produce to such clerk the rate-books of the parish for the whole year preceding, and., shall answer all su3h questions as such clerk may put to them, or any of them, touching the matter of any such objection ' • and such clerk shall retain in the said book the name of all persons to whom no objection has been duly made, and of all persons ob jected to, unless the party objecting have appeared in support of his objection ; and when the name of any person has been duly' objected to, suck clerk shall re quire proof of the right of such person to vote, as owner; and in case any matter be adduced in support of the objection, and the right of the pet son objected to be not proved to the satisfaction of such clerk, he shall expunge the name of such person ' from such book ; and such clerk shall have power to adjourn, from time to time, and administer an oath to the over seers of any parish, and to all persons attending before him, claiming a right to vote as owners, or objecting to such right, and to all witnesses who be tendered'or exp amined on either side ; and such clerk shall write his initials against every name struck out, and sign his name to every page of the said book ; and the persons whose names as owners are retained by such clerk in such book shall be deemed to be the persons entitled to vote in such parish, as owners of property, for the year follow ing the 25th of March next ensuing, and no other person shall be deemed to be so entitled : provided always, that the said dommissioners may,*if they see fit, by order under their hands and seal, direct the guardians of such parish or union to appoint some person other than the clerk to such guardians, as a paid officer, to hear and decide - the matter of such objections as aforesaid."— Agreed to.- Second clause to follow clause 14:— " And whereas, by the said first-recited Act it is pro vided that no person shall be deemed a ratepayer, or be entitled to vote, or do any other act, matter or thing as such, under the provisions of that Act, unless he shall have been rated to the relief of the poor for the whole year immediately preceding his so voting or otherwise acting as such ratepayer, and shall have paid the parochial rates and assessments made and assessed upon him for the period of one whole year, as well as those due from him at the time of so voting or acting, except such as shall have been made or become due within six months immediately' preceding such voting or acting-; be it enacted, that such parochial rates and as sessments shall be deemed to extend only to rates made for the relief of the poor."—Agreed to. Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed, that after TIII SUN, .LOl 30N, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY J 9, 1644. clause 53 the following clause should be inserted:— " And whereas by the said Act, passed in the 55th year of the reign of King George the Third, it is enacted that if any person or persons shall desert, or run away from any workhouse or workhouses, and carry away with him, her, or them, any clothes, linen, or other goods, as afore , said, such person or persons being thereof lawfully con victed, either by the confesSion of such party or parties, or by the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness or witnesses,-before any justice or justices of the peace, be forthwith committed to the common gaol or house of correction, there to remain without bail or mainprise for the space of three calendar months ; and it is further enacted, that in case any person or persons maintained in any public workhouse or, workhouses established for the relief, maintenance, and employment of the poor shall refuse to work at any occupation or employment suited to his, her, or their age, strength and capacity, or shall be guilty of drunkenness or other misbehaviour, every such person or persons, being thereof lawfully convicted before any justice or justices of the • peace, shall thereupon, by such justice or justices of the peace, be committed to the common gaol or house of correction, there to remain without bail or mainprize for any period of time not exceeding twenty-one days. and during such time to be kept to bald labour. And whereas it is desirable that justices'of the peace should have a power to Commit Such persons as are first mentioned for a period of less than three months, and such persons as are last mentioned for a period greater than twenty. one days, in cases of repeated offences ; be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful for any justice or justices to commit any such pers - ms as are first mentioned to the common gaol or house of correction, to be kept there in the manner provided by the said recited Act for any period mit less than seven "days, nor greater than three months, and to commit any su.lh persons as are last men tioned, in case such persons have been before convicted of a like offence, to the common gaol or house of correc tion, in manner provided by the said Act, for any period not exceeding forty-two days." Captain PECHELL thought this was an excellent alteration. , The clause was then agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM proposed to insert the following clause after clause i 3 :—" And whereas it is provided by the said first-recited Act, that all rules, orders, and regulations made by the said Commissioners, under the authority of the said Act, shall be as valid and binding, and shall be obeyed and observed as if the same were specifically made by and embodied in the same Act,' but no sufficient provision is made for bringing such orders to the knowledge of courts of justice : be it there fore enacted, that any copy of any such. rule, order, or regulation, printed by the printer duly authorised by her Majesty or any of her royal predecessors or successors, shall, after the lapse of fourteen days from the date thereof, be received in evidence, and judicially taken notice of, and shall, until the contrary be shown, be deemed sufficient proof that such order was duly made and is in force." The clause had been suggested by the Solicitor-General to remedy a defect in the law. The clause was agreed to. Mr. SCOTT then proposed the following clause : " Provided always, and be it further enacted, that wherever overseers shall haVe, for the first time, been separately appointed for any township or village, since the 14th day of August, A: D. 1834, all persons who, in case such'township or village had been a township or village maintaining its own poor from time immemorial, would have been legally settled in such township or vil lage, shall be considered to have their place of settle ment in such township or village notwithstanding, at the occurrence of the circumstances conferring any such right of settlement, such township or village was united with a larger diatriet for the maintenance of the poor ; and every such person shall or may be removed to such township or village, as to his or her place of last legal set tlement.' The clause was intended to remedy this evil. Many townships had separated themselves from other townships with which they were joined in the rate to the relief of the poor. The consequence was, that those paupers belonging to the separated townships. who were not resident in the parish at the time of the separation, could not be removed to them, and the maintenance of such paupers was thrown upon the other parishes. The present clause would prevent such occurrences for the future, and the object of the proposed clause was to remedy the evils which had occurred. Sir J. GRAHAM admitted the existence of the evil, but the present measure would' prevent its recurrence. The evil, however, had as yet gone to a very small ex tent, and he thought that the litigation to which the clause would_give rise w ould be a greater evil than the one it was intended to remedy. The poor could not be injured, as they:would haVe to be maintained as casual paupers in the unions in which they, were domiciled. • Mr. SCOTT knew of an instance in which forty pau pers were maintained by a township in which they had no settlement, in consequence of their own township se parating in the : manner in which he had stated. He thought no difficulty could arise in carrying the clause into effect. • • Sir J. GRAHAM wished the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to explain what the precise meaning of the words'" legally settled" was? - Mr. SCOTT said, settlement in a township from time ..Sir J. GRAHAM said he would consider the matter, and trusted they would arrange it in a satisfactory manner on a future occasion. The clause was then withdrawn, by consent. Mr. R. YORKE moved the insertion of the following clause:—" That the Commissioners be not empowered to enforce indiscriminate separation between man and wife, and that in no instance shall they sanction or allow separation when the application for relief shall be sub stantiated as arising from _positive inability to obtain work, or from physical infirmity, and not from idleness, vice, or crime." Surely persons in a free and civi lised Country should not be treated worse than the slave, in .a country where liberty was not so jealously guarded, and yet it appeared from the regula tions regarding slaves (which the Hon. Member alluded to at some length), that slaves were allowed to live with their wives, and even with their concubines.—(A laugh.) In a country which so much professed to observe the tendency of the Bible, it was altogether anomalous that the husband and wife should be separated by the law under circumstances. Sir J. GRAHAM observed, in a jocose manner, upon the phraseology of the clause. He did not understand the meaning of the, words " indiscriminate separation." The Hon. Member should be aware that at present the board of guardians had a discretion to permit man and wife to sleep in the same apartment. lie would not ad vocate the transfer of this power from the local boards of guardians to ,Somerset-house, for the Poor-law Com • missioners could know nothing, about the particular facts of each. case, by which alone a • just decision could be arrived at. He did.not think the Hon. Member was cor rect in making either the Commissioners or the boards of guardians jadges of the vice or virtue of paupers. He must.oppose the clause. Mr. R. YORKE said he would give up the phraseo logy of the clause to the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he conceded to him the principle for which he contended. Mr. A. DARBY opposed the clause. Mr. S. WORULEY would also oppose it, though he was certainly adverse to any restriction being imposed upon man and wife in the workhouse. Dr. BOWRING thought the clause would produce greater evils than it was intended to remedy. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the clause - 6 Against it. " 96 Majority against the clause —9o Mr. BURROUGHS moved that the following clause be added to the Bill; by way of rider :—" That, in the case of any person being a widow, who shall have a legi timate child or children dependent upon her for support, and no- illegitimate Child born after the commencement of her widowhood, it shall be lawful' for the guardians of the union or parish to which such widow or widows may have begome chargeable, to grant relief, if they shall see fit, to such widow or widows, although not residing with in the union or, parish in which she or they may have a legal settlement: ' Sir J. GRAHAM gave great credit to the Hon. Gentleman for the good feeling which dictated his pro position, and assured him that were he himself to be governed by his own wishes he should not for one mo ment oppose it. But a good principle of the law was at stake and his sense of duty compelled him to maintain that principle. Relief of this sort to non-residents was a wholly new principle—one never heretofore recognised —and which the House should pause about before con senting to engraft it on the present Bill. In some cases relief to non-residents was allowed, as in the first six months of widowhood. . A departure from the principle would entail boundless expense on the rate-payers. Mr. SPOONER regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet would not consent to the amendment, as the law at present inflicted' in many cases' very grievous hard ship. The expense to the parishes was very much in creased by it. • Mr. HAWES said the law at present gave sufficient latitude to meet such cases. After a few words from. Mr. BROCKLEHURST, Mr. T. EGERTON said that these cases were found principally in the rnanufacturine' districts, and it fre quently happened that a small allowance from the agri cultural union would enable the widow and children to support themselves. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was neither more nor less than applying this small amount in aid of wages in the manufacturing diitricts. Mr. T. EGERTON explained that the children were enabled to support themselves ; the, widow alone re quired the assistance. Sir J. GRAHAM :still thought it amounted to the same thing. Mr. BANKES thought the recommendation might be adopted without danger. Colonel ROLLESTON supported the clause. He was of opinion that a diseretionary power should exist. Mr. BROTHERTON thought the guardians might have a discretionary power of giving relief to the widows. After a short conversation, the Committee divided, when there appeared - For the clause' 49 Against it Majority against Government —1 The announcement of .the numbers was received with loud cheers. The clause was then brought up, and ordered to be made part of the Bill. Mr. HAWES mov e d th e following clause :—" And be I. it enacted, that in e ver y case in which a parish:contains more than twenty th ousan d p e rsons, according to the enunieration of the pop u lation then last published by authority of Parliament, the cost, charges, and expenses properly incurred by th e officers of such parish in making out, preparing, printing, and collecting the lists of persons qualified t o serve o n j uries, according to the provisions of the A c t 6 Ge o . 4, c. 50, and relating thereto, shall be paid and allowed to them out of the poor-rates of the said parish, together also with all expenses properly incurred by the same officers, on the perambulation of such parish, and in setting up and keeping in proper repair the' boundary stones of the said parish, provided that such perambulations do not arise more than once in every three years."—Agreed to. Mr. BROCKLEIIURST moved the insertion of a clause to the effect that persons of good character, above sixty years of age. applying for relief, should not be compelled to go into the workhouse, but should have out-door relief granted to them. Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the clause as un necessary. By the law, as it stood at present, the guardians had full discretionary power to grant relief in such cases. Mr. TATTEN EGERTON hoped that henceforth it would be clearly understood, that guardians had dis cretionary power in such cases to grant out-door relief. In the North of England the general opinion among the guardians was that they had no such power. Colonel ROLLESTON recommended the Hon. Member to withdraw the clause, as it imposed greater restric tions on the boards of guardians than they were under at present. Colonel WOOD assured the Hon. Member, that in the South of England, the guardians generally exercised that discretionary power. Every magistrate in that part of the country was aware that he could make an order for out-door relief for persons above sixty years of age. Mr. BROCKLEHURST, on the distinct understand ing that the same system should be pursued in the North of England, would withdraw the clause. The clause was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. DARBY, in the absence of Mr. Alderman Thompson, proposed the clause of which that Hon. Gentleman had given notice, empowering the Poor-law Commissioner•, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to detach parishes from one union, and annex them to another. Sir J. GRAHAM said he disclaimed, as Secretary of State, all discretionary power, and preferred its being vested in the Poor-law Commissioners, who were the best judges, and who would be held responsible for their acts. He would put a clause into the hands of the Chairman—an amended clause—conveying the purport of that proposed. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proposed the amended clause. Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the clause. Mr. S. WORTLEY supported it. Sir J. GRAHAM explained the effect of the clause, which, he laid, would remove the restraints from the discretion of the Commissioners with respect to the dis solution of unions, which at present required the assent of two-thirds of the guardians. The relative rights of parishes would remain the same as under the exist ing law. Mr. BANKES opposed the clause, and urged the im propriety of discussing such important provisions at so late an hour of the night. In his opinion, the clause did not go far enough. Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure the House he had not brought up the clause until after the most mature and anxious consideration of the evil it was in tended to remedy. There certainly had been an original imperfection in the working of the Bill, arising from in experience, and this was the cause of the too large extent of some of the unions. The remedy, however, must be applied with discretion and care, and he hoped the present clause would prove a gradual, but adequate remedy for the evil complained of.—The clause was then agreed to. The preamble of the Bill was then agreed to amidst loud cheers, several Hon. Members congratulatinc , Sir James Graham on the excellent temper and considerate feeling he had shown throughout the whole proceedings in Committee. DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL. This Bill was considered in Committee, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday next. The Canal Companies Bill was withdrawn by Mr. GLADSTONE, who announced his intention of bring fag in another Bill upon the subject in the early part of next session. The report of the Joint-Stock Companies at Law and in Equity Bill was brought up and agreed to. RAILWAY BILL. Mr. GLADSTONE postponed the Committee on this Bill till Monday next, at one o'clock. CUSTOMS ACTS BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Customs Acts Bill, Mr. GLADSTONE moved the following resolution: —" That it is expedient to reduce, under certain circum stances, the duties payable on books and engravings." Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whe ther there was any objection to the printing of the evi dence taken before the Customs Frauds Committee. The CHANCELLOR ofihe EXCEIE4UER said the only objection was, that the evidence cast certain impu tations on p a rticular individuals. Mr. DUNCOMBE said there were some persons who did not object to having their names published. The Bill then passed through Committee. The District Courts and Prisons Bill was read a third time. The Lecturers and Parish Clerks' Bill passed through Committee, and the report was received. The Western Australia Bill was read a third time and passed. The Farm Buildings Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was read a third time, and passed. The Loan Societies Bill was read a third time, and passed. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Qaarter befoie Two. ORLANDO AND THE DERBY SWEEPS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SlR,—Having been designated " one of the Bishes of the world," in Derby and. St. Leger sweeps, and having, much practical experience, may Ibe allowed to state my opinion, through your valuable journal, relative to the claims on the prizes in the various sweeps on the late Derby race, at Ep som. Having observed in the Era of Sunday last, that a Mr. Jenson, of the Fir Tree, Church-lane, Whitechapel, bad waited on Mr. Norton, the sitting Magistrate, at Lambeth street, for his advice, in consequence of the holder of Running Rein claiming the first prize in his sweeps, and having like wise stated that several other licensed victuallers were in the same situation, I would recommend to Mr. Jenson, and all others so situated, to be determined, and pay the prizes to the real winners of the Derby—Orlando Ist, lonian 2d, Bay Momus 3d. I have had no trouble with my sweeps, and have paid upwards of 4,0001. in prizes. I received, from two par ties in London, letters claiming for Running Rein, but took no notice of them. I ask, what claim had the drawer of Running Rein to either the first prize, or even to a draw back ? That horse never appeared on the course ; he never started for the race ; he never was disqualified for the race— in fact, he had no more claim than any other horse that was entered and paid forfeit. Therefore, even admitting, that by the rules of the club, that the horse that came in first, and so placed by the judge, was entitled to the prize, the horse called Running Rein has no claim. The judge placed Orlando first for the Derby race, because he was judging the Derby horses; and the horse, supposed to be Running Rein, had no more to do with the race than any horse that was ridden to clear the course. I am borne out in these assertions by the proceedings on the trial, where the question was, "Is this . Running Rein, or is it not ?" It was proved not to be Running Rein, but a colt by Gladiator, and four years old, instead of being three years old, and by the Saddler, out of Mab. The case of Leander is somewhat different; I believe he would have been proved to be four years old, if he had won : but we know of no other Leander, and therefore it would have been a question with him of disqualification through age. But the alleged Running Rein was not the horse at all. I hope this explanation may meet the eyes of the parties interested ; and I am sure, if they are not wrapt up in selfishness, they will honestly con fess that they have taken a wrong view of the case, and will admit with me, that they have no claim to the prize. With my best wishes for the honour and uprightnesss of the turf, I am yours, very respectfully, JAMES BAKE. Post-office Hotel, Manchester. THE LATE FIRE IN WHITE CHAPEL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. sts,-Being one amongst hundreds of those unfortunate depositors with Mr. Fryatt, the pawnbroker, I am quite at a loss to know how, and in which way, the property not de stroyed is to be disposed of. On Friday evening, the sth ult., the fire took place, and hitherto no notice is given how the public are situated. Hundreds of poor creatures, who have pledged the property intrusted to them by their employers, are out of employment; and too many haVe suffered by pledging their tools To enumerate the great sufferings of the poor in this neighbour hood would be impossible. The shop presents at this mo ment an awful spectacle ; hundreds of sufferers are seen lurk ing about the place, the shutters are closed, the first, second, and third floor windows are open, and the articles pledged are hung up in sight of the owners. Although the upper part of the premises, where the fire commenced, and where the small parcels are kept, is only destroyed, still no notice is given to the public whether they shall receive such pro perty not damaged, and, if it is at all to be had, when ? Surely the pawnbroker cannot detain all and every article in his possession, damaged or not damaged? By giving publicity to the above in your valuable journal, it may be the means of appeasing the minds of thousands who have suffered by this calamity, and you will greatly oblige your very indigent servant, A GREAT SUFFERER. 48, Whitechapel, July 17, 1844. • Some curiously large strawberries were last week shown in Ludlow, grown by Mr. Richard Hance; they were of the Elton sort, some measuring upwards of six inches in circumference, and of the extraordinary weight of one ounce three pennyweights five grains, a few of which was trans mitted to a distance by post.—Ten Towns Messenger. THE BATHING SEASON.—REMEDIES TO BE APPLIED IN CASES OF DROWNING, &c.—The bathing season being now in its height, the Royal Humane Society have caused to be printed and circulated a small circular, containing the methods of treatment to be observed in recovery of persons apparently drowned a ft er they are taken out of the water. The following remedies for adoption will be found of the greatest importance :—" Send quickly for medical assistance ; lose no time, avoid all rough usage, never hold the body up by the feet nor roll it or casks ; do not inject tobacco smoke or infusion of tobacco, nor rub the body with salt or spirits." The foregoing are cautions, the following are the reme dies:—" Convey the body carefully, with the head and shoulders supported in a raised position, to the nearest house ; 'strip the body and rub it dry, then wrap it in hot blankets, and place it in a warm bed in a lower chamber; wipe and cleanse the mouth and nostrils. In order to re store the natural warmth of the body move a heated covered warming-pan over the back and spine ; put bladders or bottles of hot water or heated bricks to the pit of the stomach, the arm pits, between the thighs, and to the soles of the feet ; foment the body with hot flannels, but, if possible, immerse it in a warm bath, as hot as the hand can bear without pain, as this is preferable to the other means for restoring warmth ; rub the body briskly with the hands, but do not, however, suspend the use of the other means at the same time ; apply sal volatile or hartshorn to the nostrils. On restoration to life, if the power of swallowing be returned, small quantities of warm wine or weak brandy and water may be given. The patient should be kept in bed, and a dis • position to sleep encouraged. Great care is requisite to main tain the restored and at the same time to prevent undue ex citement. The treatment recommended by the Society is to be persevered in for three or four hours, as it is an erroneous opinion that persons are irrecoverable becan9e animation does not soon make its appearance." LAW INTELLIGENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS, J►►hy 18. Their Lordships sat to-day in a Committee for privileu,.. s. The Peers present were, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kenyon, Lord Sondes, the Earl of R ,des dale, the Earl of Eldon, the Bishop of Lichfield, and Lord Bexley. THE FITZWALTER BARONY. Mr. L. IVlGuam summed up the evidence on behalf of the claimant to this barony, Sir Brooke William Bridges. The Somerrou-GENERAL shortly replied on behalf of the Crown ; and Their LORDSHIPS declared that the claimant had made out his claim.—Claim allowed. ADAM V. FARQUHAR. The arguments were then resumed in this part•heard Scotch case, and occupied their Lordships the remainder of the morning. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 18. IN RE GEORGE AUGUSTUS BEVEL CHAPMAN-DRURY.. LANE THEATRE. The Court was crowded during the hearing of this case by persons connected with the theatrical profession. The insolvent't petition was opposed by Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of the proprietors of Drury-lane Theatre, and by Mr. Crouch, on the part of Mr. Pitcher. He was sup ported by Messri. Cooke and Woodruff'. - Mr. BURGESS, Solicitor to the Committee of Drury lane Theatre, stated that the insolvent rented the saloon in this theatre for 400 L per annum, having the privilege of selling hooks, bills, fruit, &c. The rent was to be payable halt yearly, and in July, 1842, he owed rent to the amount of 2501., and when applied to for payment he replied, that the alteration in the rules and customs of the theatre, introduc,d by Mr. Macrearly, in prohi biting females of a certain class from frequenting the saloon had so far lessenei the receipts and pmfits of the saloon that he was quite unable to pay so high a rent. Although the Committee had refused to take 6001 a year for the saloon, they consented to tale 1001. out of the 250/., and release him from his engagemmt, but the insolvent would not accede to this proposal, and an ac tion being brought by the proprietors the insolvent put them to 1001 costs by vexatiously defending: it. Cross-examined by Mr. COOKE —Mr. Mit2ready de prived the insolvent of many of the privileges which he possessed previous to that gentleman be-oming lessee of the theatre. Mr. Maeready also reduced the number of acting nights from 200 to 116, and then, of course, the insolvent must have suffered. He had also forbidden the admission of females of loose character, and had fixed a reduced rate of prices for the refreshments served in the saloon. The Committee had nothing to do with these arrangements. There was also a Sub-Committee, con sisting of four members and a chairman. The Earl of Glengall was the chairman of this Committee, and the members Sir W. Curtis and Messrs. Ramsbottom, Allen, and Cabbell. The insolvent's family had rented the saloon for upwards of twenty years, during which time they had paid to the proprietary nearly 20,0001. Mr. Pitcher's opposition rested up , m the insolvent having employed him to defend the action brought by the proprietors of the theatre, and having vexatiously defended an action brought to recover the incidental law costs. Mr. COOKE having addressed the court, in favour of the insolvent, Mr. Commissioner LAW said the insolvent had no right to complain of harsh treatment on the part of the proprietors of Drury-lane Theatre. In the case of Mr. Pitcher a gross fraud had been committed. In the pre sent stage of the proceedings he should adjourn the case, in order that the schedule which was now very imper fect, might be amended. SUMMER ASSIZES. HOME ClRCUlT—Chelmsford, July 18. CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.) Elizabeth Belcham, 22, a good-looking young womv, was indicted for the wilful murder of her male illegati\ mate child, by casting it into the waters of the Chelmer river, and thereby suffocating it. Mr. Clarkson, with Mr. Espinasse, conducted the pro secution. Mr. Ryland appeared for the prisoner. Mr. CLARKSON addressed the jury, and from his state ment and the evidence adduced, it appeared that the pri soner had resided with her mother at Southminster, in this county, but about twelve months ago she became acquainted with a man named Dean. a carrier at Chelms ford, and eventually went to live with him, her friends being induced to believe that they were married. They continued to cohabit together for several months, when the prisoner proved in the family way, and it appeared that when this became apparent Dean behaved very unkindly to her, and at length turned her out of doors. The prisoner returned to her mother's house, where she was delivered of a child, the un'brtunate infant in question, about five weeks ago; and it appeared that she had several times applied to the father of the child for assistance, but could not obtain any from him. On the morning of the sth of July the prisoner left her mother's house, taking the infant with her, and, just as she was about to depart, she told the nurse to kiss the baby, for perhaps it might be the last time she would see it. The prisoner represented that she was going to take the child to Chelmsford, to place it with a wet-nurse. She was traced along the road, and at a beer-shop in the evening, at a short distance from Chelmsford, she had some beer and a biscuit, and she was seen to chew a portion of the latter and give it to the baby. The last time she was seen With the infant alone was about ten o'clock the same night, at which time she was going towards the river, and at eleven she went into a public-house, where it was observed her clothes were very wet, and her boots were also wet and covered with gravel of a similar description to some that had been placed on the banks of the river. The next morn ing a labouring man, who went to the river to water his master's horses, found the dead body of an infant in the water. There were no marks of violence upon it, and it had evidently died of suffocation. To prove the identity of the deceased it was found necessary to call the mother of the prisoner as a witness for the Crown, and she was obliged to admit that the deceased was the off-pring of her unhappy daughter. The man was also examined, in order to prove that the day before the dead body was discovered in the river the prisoner wrote a letter to him, to the effect that the child was no more, and that it had died on the previous night. An additional fact, tending to show the identity of the deceased, was also proved by the medical man, who said that upon opening the stomach of the deceased he found in it a portion or masticated biscuit. Other facts were also disclosed, which made out a very strong case of suspicion against • the prisoner. Mr. RYLAND made a very forcible appeal to the feel ings of the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commynt(ll in severe and ap.ropriate terms upon the conduct of the man Deans, who, he said, had first ruined and then de serted his unfortunate victim. He admitted that a case of suspicion had been made out, but contended that the evidence was not conclusive of the prisoner's guilt, and that, und-r the circumstances, they ought to give him the benefit of any doubt that appeared in the case. Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, July 17. CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN.) Peer 11PDonald, aged 34, was indicted for a rape on the 4th of June last, at Potterspury, in this county, upon Sylvia Ann Hatlev. Mr. \Ving conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Miller de fended the prisoner. From the evidence of the prosecutrix it appeared that be tween eleven and twelve o'clock on the day in question she was walking from Shenley to Towcester, when the prisoner, who was a stranger to her. overtook her between Stony Stratford and Potterspury, and offered to carry her .box, and asked her to go into a public-house to have some beer. She refused. He went in, but overtook her before she got ou t o f the town, and again offered to carry hor box. She bade him to walk on, as she didn't wish his coMpany on the road. He walked on for about a mile, and then stopped and asked her to shake hands with him. She refused He laid hold of her and said, "Come, sit down." She said, " No." He then said, " I'll make pill," and threw her down and committed the offence charged. She struggled with him, and screamed out as loud as she could, and told him she would have him taken care of. It was by the side of the road, in a lonely place, that he threw her down, with her feet towards the hedge. She felt his hand in her bosom, and tried to force it away, but could not. As soon as she got off the ground she felt in her bosom for her money, and found it gone. It consisted of one sovereign and four shillings in silver, wrapped up in a piece of paper. Two men came up to her, and she said, "That rascal has insulted me and robbed me, and if you will take,hirn; I will satisfy you." He was by this time running away as fast ds he could; but she now swore to him posi tively, and to his having completed his purpose. William Foster was hoeing beans in a field by the side of the turnpike-road at some short distance, and heard a woman say "Go along." I shortly afterwards heard her scream out " Oh, dear, oh V,' I went up to the spot and found the pro secutrix on the ground with her clothes disordered, and the prisoner going away from her. He walked two or three yards and then ran off, looking behind him several times. John Wilcox deposed to his having seen the prosecutrix lying on the ground crying, and appearing very faint, and her clothes all over dust. She told him, "That there has robbed me of 245., and insulted me." A man was running up the road, dressed like the prisoner, and looking back se , veral timer. William Sanders deposed to having seen the young woman and the prisoner comirg along the road, about three yards apart, the prisoner being first. It was then about a quarter to twelve. Thomas Henson proved that at about half- past twelve the prisoner inquired of him the way to Northampton. He was walking fast, and appeared very hot. James Howard was at home about mid-day, having his dinner, and saw John Wilcox, the witness, and another man run by. He made an inquiry of them, and being told by them what had happened, he took his telescope, and dis tinctly saw a man running along the road, and sometimes looking back. He took a horse immediately and pursued. He went down to Towcester and gave information to the po lice. On afterwards finding that the man had not passed the turnpike-gate, he went back a little way, and went down a lane, and soon heard of him; and when he had gone a mile and a half further on saw the prisoner walking fast, and looking very warm, and wiping his face with his hankerchief. He entered into conversation with him, and rode by his side nearly half a mile, and then made an excuse and got off his horse and collared him. He then, with assistance, brought him down to Towcester, and gave him into the custody of the police. The prisoner said that he knew nothing about the girl, and that he had come from Wolverton that morn ing, and had collected 6d. there. John Nicholson, constable. of Towcester, about half-past twelve received information from Mr. Howard, and went up to the prosecutrix, who gave him a description of the man. She was crying, and her clothes were covered with dust. The prisoner was given into his custody by Mr. Howard, and witness searched him and found in a pocket, inside his waist coat, one sovereign in gold, two half-crowns, and one six penny piece in silver, and eighteenpence in copper. The young woman had complained to him of having been robbed of 11. 45., and violently assaulted by the young man in such a way as she had never been as-multed before. The description she gave him of the young man corresponded with the ap pearance of the prisoner. Mr. William Elston, surgeon, of Potterspury, examined the prosecutrix, but did not find any marks of external violence, but saw other appearances which led him to believe that the act had been done and by violence. Mr. John Huntley, of Shenley Brook-end, deposed that the p rosecutrix was his servant, and bad lived with him about eight months. She had had leave to go and see her friends 1 near Banbury, and he gave her some money over -night. lie believed she had 11. 4s. He gave her a sovereign the day before. She always conducted herself in a proper manner, and was a good servant. The prisoner's examination stated that he had 11.95.' when he left London. He came to Dunstable on the Sun day before. On Monday he came to Wolverton, and slept there all night, and left on Tuesday morning about ten o'clock, and overtook the prosecutrix. He asked her if she had . walked far. She said she had come four miles the other side of Stony Stratford. He said " You are walking very slow ; I'll have to go and leave you." She said " Very well," and sat down by the side of the road. He went on. He asked the witness,llenson, the nearest way to Northamp ton, and went as he was directed, until the man came and took him on a charge of robbing a young woman. He was brought to Towcester, and searched. He got the money from Samuel Taylor, engineer, 45, Albion-street, Rotherhit_ He krl sw nothing at all about the robbing of her, or the violation of her body. . This beihj the case for the prosecution, Mr. Mtr.t.E}, addressed the jury for the prisoner, and The Learned 4 unGE having summed up, The jury returnee a verdict of Guilty, and he was there upon sentenced to transpurtation for the term of his ne viral life. There was another indictme.'it against the prisoner for the highway robbery, which, of emir, e, was not proceeded with. William Crisp was then indict& for an assault on the with of July last, at Great Creston, upb.n the person of Betsy Harbour. Mr. Maunsell was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr . Miller for the prisoner. It was clear from the facts that the charge of assault with intent could not be sustained ; and it was adniitted that the prisoner had been guilty of a common assault. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four months. Thomas Townsend was convicted of a crime of a disgusting nature.—Sentence of death was recorded. It was intimated that his life would be spared, but he would be sent to a penal colony for the remainder of his life. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) CLE RKEA WELL. Richard Mustcn. an apprentice. was charged with assaul t ' ing Thomas \Viggington, his master. a chain-noiker and jeweller, reiding in Corporation-row, Clerkenwell. The complainant deposed that since Monday last, on whack day he refused the defendant a holiday, he had been anno vea t by the defendant's dogged determination not to e xecute his work properly. On the previous day he gave him a jo b f work to do, which the boy not executing, witness mato!'" strated with him. The defendant became exceedingly i ns''' . lent, whereupon he seized a leathern strap, and struck the defendant on the shoulders with it. The latter immediatelY; seized a pair of iron pincers, and struck him on the forehead with them. He gave him into custody. The prisoner could make no other defence than that di(! . master had struck him first; whereupon The MAGISTRATE obserVed that a master had a right t 0 give his apprentice reasonable correction, and fined the bq 10s., or a commensurate term of imprisonment. SUICIDE OF LORD NORTHLAND'S VALET. On Mr. Hardwick, the illagistrate, taking his seat on the Bench at Marlborough-street, yesterday morning, Mr. Fitz patrick, the chief-clerk, handed to him the following letter: " Westminster Bridewell, Tothill •fields, July 18, 1 844 " Sir,—l have to acquaint you that John Riley, a prisoner remanded to this prison on the 12th inst., to appear her°, l/ you this day, on a charge of robbing his master, Lord No rt f . land, of a bank-note, committed suicide during the night. bq suspending himself by the neck, by means of a handkercb i to the fastenings of the cell window. " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "AUG.i FRED. TRACEY, Governor. " To John Hardwick, Esq." The bearers of the communication stated that the wretched man had effected his purpose in a most determined manne r ; the handkerchief by which he had suspended himself b.! had tied in many knots round his neck, and another tbiex handkerchief he had tightly tied in close folds over hi ° mouth. He was discovered quite dead on one of the gaol ° entering his cell in the morning, and had apparently been 0 for many hours. Mr John Wolff, from the office of Mr. Thomas Flower , of No. 96, Hatton-garden, solicitor, who was in attendance 0 ,, the part of the deceased, stated that he saw him the pr evie° : evening in the goal, and received instruction from him as to In; defence. He then seemed to be in fall health and spirits, en expressed his confidence of an acquittal, as he was maocen° of the charge against him. The prisoner had been two years in his Lordship's servi ce : The stolen note, which was for ten pounds, was r roved to I 1 been passed by him. The prisoner's defence was, that he did not deny pooing the note, but alleged that it had been given to him by n_ master to get change. This, however, was positively de nieu by Lord Northland. The mother of the deceased was in one of the waiting rooms of the Court, and on being informed of her bereave' ment, fell into violent hysterics. CORN AVERAGES. GENERAL AVERAGE' PRICES OF BRITIS.H CORN' of For the Week ended July IS, 1844, made up from the Returns the Inspectorw iu the different Cities and Fowns in ,Englan. • Wales. per Imperial Quarter. 10 Wheat..„.„.. 544. 10d. I Oats 2 1 2. 34.1 Beans.•—.. Sarley.... ..... 344. 10d. I Rye AVE/LAMES OF THE LAST SU WEEKS. Weeks ending; WHEAT. BARLEY.' OATS. 1 RYE. 1 BEANS. rSA°' June 8.....» 55 6; 31 9 21 11 33 11 35 1, n 15 55 9 31 4 22 6 .:4•2 4 3•1 11 0 9 g 55 8 3: 10 211 8 31 2 37 10 38 36 I I'9 55 9 34 4 22 9 Si 0 38 0 6 July 6 55 A St 5 22 11 35 0 33 2 3 6 g 13 54 10 134 10 22 3 .4 2 3' 8 .„. IttlreatAr AOORCOATS ityItRAOSS or Twit wrras i la Wheat........ 55: 62. I Oats 8ar1ey......... 32t. 21 .. . Rye DUTIILS OW roaniGrf COAX. Wheat Ori. 011. 02.18eanr.... ..... 0 " 61 ,A . Barley i st, 02. Rye ..... 8. nu.l Pease 7 - "" MARKET NEWS_YESTERDAY. 40,1".....••/...M. 'KAT. MAMA BraTuFrEw.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ lOs to 41 ; now' ful ditto, 41 4s to 4/ 8s; fine Upland ditto, 41 lOs to 41 16s; Clover Hay, 5/ to 61 69. Oat Straw, u 124 to 11 141 , Wheat Straw, 1/ Ns to 1/16s per load. Supply but mode rate, and trade rather dull. CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay 31 15s to 4 1 45; ful ditto, 41 6s to 4/ 14s; fine Upland ditto. 41 15s to 5 l G Clover flay, 4115 s to 6/; Oat Straw, 1/ 145 to 1/ 165; W b A ea s Straw, 11165 to 1/ 18s per load. A limited aupply, an" steady demand, at full prices. WIIITECHAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ 12s to 4/: u se ful ditto, 4/ 4s'to 4/ 8s ; fine Upi.and ditto, 41 10; to 4/ 1 0 ". Clover Hay, 3/ to 6/ lOs ; Oat etraw, 1/ 12s to 1/ l'" f ; Wheat Straw, 1/ 14s to 1/16s per loan. Both bay and stra y , moved off slowly at the above quotatOns. N'ew Mead ° r Hay sold at from 31 5s to 41, and new Clover, 4/ to 5 1 P e load. MEAT, MAIZICETS. • SotrrnALL, JULY 17.—Although we had a full average time-of-year supply of each kind of fat stock here to-day , general demand was tolerably steady, am! last week's.:l o , ° ,l - ; tions were mostly supported. Beef from 2s 6d to 3s iv": Mutton, 2s 6d to 4s; Lamb, 4s to 4s 10(1; Veal, 35 to 4 i ," and Pork, 2s 4d to 3s 8d per Ribs. Supply—Beasts , 4 Sheep and Lambs, 3,010; Calves, 60; Pigs, 50. at RomFonn JULY 17.—Prime stock was in dema nd, full prices. but otherwise the trade ruled dull Beef , f rom 4d to 3s 10d; Mutton, 2s 8d to 4s •, Lamb; 4s to ss; - Veal, . 7 4d to 4s; and Pork, 2s 4d to 3s 6d per 81bs. Suckling Call; 18s to 325; Quarter-old Store Pigs, 16s to 19s; and 104 Cows, with their small calf, 161 to 191 104 each. LEWES, Jots 16.—We bad only a moderate busil l . e .. 6s . doing here on the following terms :—Beef, from 2 s 6 d to 4t Mutton, 3s to 4s ; Lamb, 4s to 4s 10d ; and. Veal. 39 4d. 3s 10d per Blbs. . • 611 COLLIERS' STRIK E.—This . unhappy business -7, remains in a lamentable state of indecision and gncertairitln' presenting few new features, and those that are new b Y .II" means satisfactory.-7'yne Mercury. SAVINGS' BANKS FUND —The question now I r t i; comes general, " What do the Government mean to do „n o the enormous surplus fund in their hands, arising Jr° Savings' Banks ?" Ladies travelling, or temporarily subjected to 511 ( 1 0 deviation of equable temperature, will find in RoWI OII Kalydor a renovating and refreshing auxiliary, dol le n j ling the cloud of langour from the complexion , 1 - 0 - immediately affording the pleasing sensation atten dle a restored elasticity of the skirt. The distressing eir/sc, unsightly varieties of cutaneous eruptions are promptly eradicated by the Kalydor. Spots, pitree.i; freckles, dkcolourations, and sallowness, yield to specific qualitie , , and are succeeded by a s moothu es and transparency of the skin, giving rise to senstitil e of the utmost pleasure and surprise. Being univer ss l preferred, its consequent great demand excite s cupidity of unprincipled shopkeepers, who give the titj e of "Genuine" Kalydor to soma compounds of their o wsi manufacture. of the most deleterious character, O h l) ; taming mineral astringents utterly ruinous to t' complexion, and by their repellant action endanger i l health. It is, therefore, imperative on purchasers t` see that the words " Rowland's Kalydor' are on th e wrapper. All others are fraudulent counterfeits !I I rfi A WONDER FU Il S CURB BY . or,L pa owAy's ''" 4 5, AND OINTMENT.— FAlWai P. bite, residing et tie? Clement's-lane, Strand, was -11 in-door patic:it College Hospital, for an abscess -in the! thigh, could wound, nine inches long, on the same limb. He ce'd, neither bend his knee nor put his foot to the grouebe He remained at the hospital five months in bed, wh e t," was informed "that nothing more could be done for h, :g He was then carriel to his home, and commenced tt sfr , the above invaluable medicines. He can now walk t;u c ' eg all the day long ; but, to complete the cure, he still us b , the remedies. Sold at Professor Holloway's esta bl q is v ment, 224, Strand, where advice may be had gratis ; t he by all respectable venders of medicine throughou t civilised world. BIRTHS. rmint° On the 10th inst., at Longford Hall, Derby. Anne , ,--- fef of Leicester, of a son, which survived its 'birth only $ hours. f s. 3f On the 10th inst., at Brunswick-square, St. Pancrao, Robert Aylwin, of a daughter. __.-- MARRIED. On the 2d inst., at Edinburgh, Lieutenant-Colonel V' A dd Low, of the Madras Army, to Thomasina 't o il" daughter; and William Logan White, Esq., of liellero'ot advocate, to Jane, younger daughter, of the late Sir J : s l Foulis, Bart., of Colinton. •tlod s On the 6th inst., at St.John's,Paddington, Capt. 1 1 ". S• Royal Artillery, to Cara Mary, only daughter of the la Dance, Esq., Deputy Commissary-General to the Fore DIED. 1 Abr j ; On the Bth inst., at New Brighton, near Liverp c4)- '„of - ham Welland, Esq., late of the Hon. East India C° 33l r - i Bengal Civil Service, aged 79: idof ° On the Bth inst., at Gravesend, Mrs. Ann Sharp, 4° J. Sharp. lA° On the 9th inst., at Preston, the Rev. Theoph iltl6 Rector of Horndon, aged 47. ese bier On the 9th inst., in London, Mr. T. A. Teulon , o f I park, Limpsfield, Surrev, aged 81. 6 04 On the 9th inst., at Boulogne-sur-Mer. Harriet, 1 daughter of Henry Hewgill, Eq. On the 9th inst., in Wilton-street, Grosvenor-Pile * Phoebe, the wife of C. Falconar, Esq. fiss I°rl On the 10th inst., at Hornsey-row, Islingt on, 3 - Pq' 0 Louisa, eldest daughter of the late T. F. Gastenhofer,,isopto On the 10th inst., at Petworth, Sussex, Thomas ' • ----* Hale, Esq., M.D. „Of . A London: Printed and Published by 31151W 0 . ° 1 1 No. 112, Strand. Printer, at The Sun Of e o cei c ipitr Strand, in the Precinct the Savoy, in the Middlesex, Friday, July 19, 1844. N‘ll •IA IN , tr e , lil ac 4,ar hi,' Dati for