The Sun. — London, England, 1845-12-12 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. A Court of Common Council was held in the Guild hall yesterday, in' the purpose, among other business, of considering the propriety of petitioning her Majesty to take all such means as she may constitutionally possess for throwing open the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the free importation of food. The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor took the chair at two o'clock. The minutes of the last Court having been read and confirmid, and some business of an unimportant charac ter gone through, The LORD MAYOR briefly explained wby he had not called the Court before the hour of two. The requisition addressed to his Lordship was then read. Mr. D. WIRE then said that he rose on the present occasion with some anxiety, not because of any doubt as to the proper course to be pursued, but simply because of his inability to do justice to so great and so important a subject. He knew that, in the course of the debate, he would be followed by those whose talents and whose know ledge of the subject would entitle their opinion to great weight, and he would therefore content himself with briefly making one or two observations in support of the object stated in the requisition. He held in his hand four dis tinct propositions, and be apprehended that to neither of them would any considerable opposition be of fered. The first proposition was that this na tion was a great, a powerful, and a wealthy na tion ; but that, great, powerful, and wealthy as it was. a very great proportion of her Majesty's sub jects in Ireland, and a great proportion of her subjects in England, in Scotland, and in Wales, had long been reduced to teed upon potatoes. There could be no doubt that this proposition was a true one—there could be no doubt that, though these three great elements of prosperity were in the country, a large proportion of its people were starving upon a potato diet. This was a melancholy state of things, and called for the serious examination of every true and patriotic man, for the purpose of seeing whether some remedy might not be found for such a state of things. When millions of their countrymen were reduced to a potato diet, it was surely time to examine into the cause. But there was something beyond all this. There was the deteri oration of their moral and physical condition consequent upon this state of things, and it became them to see if Parliament had not the power within themselves of improving this condition of the country, and of giving the people a more wholesome and nutritious food than they at present possessed. Even in the more favoured parts of the country they would find that the moral and physical condition of the people had been deteriorated, and he would only ask those who were iu the smallest degree acquainted with the agricultural districts to vouch for this. They were w.yree fed than even the brutes.—(Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt, then, that this state of things called for inquiry. The next proposition he held in his hand arose naturally from the former ones—namely, that a large proportion of their coun trvine3 were living upon potatoes, and this could not be doubted, for the daily papers of all parties had affirmed, fur months past, that the potatoes now in Ireland would not afford food to the people of that country fur a longer period than March next. It was therefore their bounden duty to provide a remedy before that time. It seems to follow as a natural proposi tion, that if there be a deficiency in the crops of one country, there is a sufficient supply of food to be obtained from another country, and that Providence takes care that the supply shall be abundant fur the demand in every part of the globe. My Lord, it is an undeniable fact that there exists a scarcity of food in this country, and, therefore, as a patriot, a Chris tian, and a philanthropist, I cannot help deploring the existence of those laws which throw an impediment in the way of the introduction of corn into this country, and deprive the poor labourer and the hard-toiling mechanic of the abiiity to obtain the food necessary for existence. That this will be the case is evident unless the protection that is afforded to food that grows in this country be removed, or, in other words, that the corn laws be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) My Lord Mayor, baring said thus much, I shall content myself with mov ing the following resolutions, namely:- 1. " That great, powerful, and wealthy as this nation is, by far the greatest portion of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and a great portion of her Majesty's subjects in England, Scotland, and Wales, have long been reduced for their principal food to potatoes. 2. " That all classes, but especially the poor, have been, and are, great sufferers from this result of the national economy. 3. " That the blight which has now fallen upon that root has subjected the people to great anxiety and dis tress, and to the danger of famine. 4. " That their sufferings are attributable to errone ous legislation, which, by excluding the importation of food and restricting commerce, shuts out from the people the bounty and goodness f God." 5. "That this Court do present its earnest and anxious prayer to the Queen that her Majesty will graciously use all the means which are in her Majesty's power to open the ports of this kingdom to the free importation of food." It is not my intention to offer any other observations at present. but I will afterwards move a resolutiin, that, moreover, it be presented to the Queen, praying her Majesty to repeal the corn-laws. Mr. JOHNSON said that he rose to second the reso lution. This was a question respecting the abolition of re vrietive laws that had been argued over and over again. it, after all that had been said on the subject, all the money that had been spent on the question, and all the efforts of the Anti-Corn-law League, the same objections were still offered, and he could not but be surprised to think that now, in the year 1845, those same objections should still be made. There never was a question of greater importance. You find among those who are opposed to the abolition of the corn-laws a class of objectors who say there is no necessity for alteration. But was the commerce of this country of no import ance ? Without this were done away with, that would be seriously endangered, as was shown by agricultural countries having become manufac turing countries to a considerable extent. In answer to those who said there was no distress or danger of distress, he would call their attention to the great fact, that in this country population was in the course of rapid increase. The population of the British islands was increasing, at the rate (4 . 1,100 souls daily, or to the extent of 380,000 per annum ; and these souls had bodies, which must be fed. Yet to feed these it had been calculated that additional food would be required, equal to the produce of two of the largest counties in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) This one fact was quite sufficient to show the evil opera tion of any law that interfered with the free importation of foreign corn.—(Hear, hear.) He might be told that thread was not so dear in price as it had been in former times, and that therefore there was no pressing danger. But his objection was not so much as to what the price of food might be at present, but to the principle by which it was artificially raised. If a law existed which made the food of the people dearer than a hat it ought to be, he main tained such a law ought not to exist—a law which operated to the benefit of a class to the injury of the whole community. Another objection taken to the de 'nand made to the repeal of the corn- laws, and in reply to the apprehended scarcity, was, that there did not yet exist any deficiency of food in France, Spain, and other continental counties, or even here—that the danger had been much exaggerated. This objection, if worth anything, only amounted to this, because there is as yet no famine or starvation, therefore we must wait till this famine or starvation is actually developed before we admit any foreign corn duty free. It had also been much insisted on that a repeal of the protective duty on corn would injure the agriculturists and the farmers ; and by many this had been considered a conclusive ar gument. He would not, on the present occasion, take up their time in exposing such a fal lacy. It had been so repeatedly knocked down and depressed, that now it had not the least basis to stand upon.—( Hear, hear.) The farmers had been completely gulled with this barefaced fallacy by their pretended friends, and so lost sight of their true inte rests and that dependence which they should place in their own resources. Comparing this country with another European country, he found that the latter was more heavily taxed than this --a country where the labourers were better paid, whose climate was not so good, where general advantages were much inferior, and and yet one that managed to export a large amount of agricultural produce to foreign countries.—(Cheers.) The country to which he referred was Holland. In looking at the statistical account of the British empire published by an eminent writer and first-rate authority, Mr.lL'Culloch, he found acomplete answer to Sir Henry Halferd, at a late agricultural meeting, who declared that the farmers were not able to do without protection ; that they could not enter upon that competition with the rest of the world which the manufacturers of England at present had to do. In that statistical account ho found the following facts in Telethon to this country and Holland, to which he had referred: -in England the quantity of cultivated land Arne 4 8,700,000 acres ; in Holland it was ealcu ated at 5,500,000. The population of England was i_a_p w ard s o f 26 m i ll i ons ; that of Holland was 2,900,000. The Proportion of population to each square mile was England, 250 persons ; Holland, 240 persons ; show ing that in this respect the countries were nearly equal. Th e c li mate of England was much superior toy that of Holland. No country could compare with this in the luxuriance of itsverdure tl or in the gener a l mild ness of its clim a t e ; whereas,other country had a a.evere winter. he river s and canals were frozen ,ovsr the greater part of tohcatetsizson, and even tie Ztlyder Zee was ntes ollan u d nd o er ice.. d Now, with all these disadvantages, H the position he had already sh own, and yet the ccufarmers prohibition. There this country were afraid Of the r emoval of There was yet another fact in f avour of En land la this comparison. In England the land -tax wasgonly 1,200.000/., while the general taxation of the country was 51,700,0001. per annu-rn. This land -tax Was only 2f pwr cent. on the whole tax of the country, while th e l and in Holland paid 25 per cent; and while the labourers' wages in England were on the average Is. 6d. per day, in land they were Is. Bd. These were important facts on the tuestion under consideration. A more powerful set of me n han our aristocracy does not exist in Europeor the world. They were men who were looked to in consequence of their high. station, and yet he found them wealthy, great, and powerful as they were, contending with the poor artisan for a portion of his scanty meal. He believed that Sir Robert Peel was favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws, and weuld have given them the benefit of the power he had possessed—for they might have heard that he had resigned it ; but then thee. was another power behind him, which crippled him even in the great position he held. Ile alluded to the power- of voting by proxy,_by, „w Nlaced in the hands of one . man hich_ could he aving the power of a majority on any question he chos e , an d h e maintained that such _a power ought not to be allow e d. lie every slay passed the Royal Exchange and saw the splendid monument erected to the noble Duke. He saw in its features the stern appearance of the warrior —the stern appearance of the chief who had led our armies to victory—(Hear, hear)—but he could not help thinking that the artist had exe cuted his task too faithfully, and that he had copied frpm the statesman the same stern inflexibility that ought to belong only to the warrior. If men would place themselves in false positions they must ex pect to subject themselves to inconvenience, and have their conduct open to all sorts of anim adversion. He felt that he had said enough, and would conclude by seconding the resolution proposed by Mr. Wire. The RECORDER then read the resolution, and had just called for a show of hands, when Mr. LAWRENCE rose and said that he wished to say a few words. They were aware that men were often led by circumstances into errors in both thinking and acting, and it was easy to put forth statements, but very difficult to bring forward facts to support them. He was one who thought an alteration in the corn-laws was requi site; but he did not quite agree in the view taken by his friend.—(Hear.) He agreed with him to a cer tain extent in the statement that the greater portion of the population of Ireland feed on potatoes, but he would ask him the question, whether, if they did not feed them on potatoes, they could give them anything better ? They were too poor to afford food of a better quality. Ireland was a more important country than England with regard to corn, as more corn was exported out of her to other countries than from England, while they fed on potatoes. But would his friend show that they were able to get better food while their wages were as low as they were at present ? He was much struck by the remark of an Irishman, at Coleraine, who said that potatoes were eightpence per stone there, but were only fourpence per stone at Tipperary. and said also that they were not half so well off there, although wages were the same. They might depend on it that whenever food was cheap the people got idle and unable to work.—(This remark was followed by uproar.) The resolution would not answer the case that had been put, that because the Irish had no potatoes, that, there fore, there should be a repeal of the corn-laws. The population of England was not fed on pota toes, and as a proof of that he would refer to what took place in the metropolis and the great manufacturing towns. The people of England, he be• lieved, were better fed than the people of any nation in Europe. The question of disease in potatoes had nothing to do with the corn-laws. That they ought to be repealed was his opinion, but he believed the effect of that would be to lower the price of wages.— (Cries of " No.") He asserted that such would be the case. It might be said that corn was an exception to all other matters connected with commerce; he did not seethe effect of that argument; he thought it would be, in some measure, unwise to do away with the import ditties altogether. He thought, if the corn-laws were re pealed, a new law should be introduced, fixing a duty of ss. The remedy of opening the ports could only stave off the evil.—(Hear, hear.) He asserted again that there should be a ss. duty on corn.—(Laughter.) He only asked for fair play in the discussion. His friend, the mover of the resolution, had said, that if the Court agreed with him, which he had no doubt it would, he should move another motion; he had no doubt it would so. He did not think the resolution met the case fairly, and he thought his friend in bringing it forward had been most deficient in his argument—he had never known him more so in his life. The first proposition held that this country was great, powerful, and wealthy, but that a large proportion of the inhabitants were reduced to a potato diet. He denied the fact.—(Hear, hear.) He challenged his friend Mr. Wire to the proof.—(Hear, hear.) If he had brought such proof, he (Mr. Lawrence) would at once submit, but in the absence of all proof he would not submit to the dogma of his friend Mr. Wire.—(Hear, hear.) The fact that the Irish were fed upon potatoes had nothing to do with the corn-laws whatever. It had to do with wages and nothing more.—(Hear, hear.) And he trusted that the railways now in progress in Ireland would remedy, in part, the evil. He considered that evil was in part caused by absentee landlords. But what was the fact? Why, the people of this country consumed more animal food and wheaten bread than any other people in the world. (Hear, hear.) It was stated that there was a deal of suffering in con sequence of this national economy. He did not know what the term meant. Was the national practice meant by the phrase ? But he found, also, that this suffering was attributed to erroneous legislation, in excluding the importation of food, restricting the extensiwi of commerce, and shutting out from the people the good ness of God. He denied this position. He denied the fact.—(Shouts of laughter.) Instead of restricting commerce by arbitrary laws, Great Britain has been liberal above all the countries of the earth in her mer cantile usages. He believed that as regarded the threatened famine, more was said on the subject than was true. He understood that they were dealing with this question in a commercial view, but he could not see what commerce had to do with the failure of the potato crop. It would be too idle to reply to what had been said in support of their views by those who maintained the en tire abolition of all restrictive duty. Why, every man stood aghast to know how this could be effected with a due regard to meeting the exigencies of the state. Was not clothing as much a necessary as food?—(No, no.) Now he conceived that those who differed from him would be very glad to resign one half of their food for decent clothing. The question for them to consider was, whether, under the existing state of things, they could affect the objects some gentlemen seemed so anxious to carry out? If they abolished all those protection laws as they proposed to do, they would act unjustly, and destroy those interests that had grown up under them, and which, he maintained, deserved to be supported. Ile would conclude by proposing this amendment, " That a petition be presented to her Majesty,:praying that the corn-laws should be abolished." Mr. PRENDERGAST considered it would be better not to press the amendment. The amendment being seconded, was read. The RECORDER, after a short discussion upon a point of order, decided that the amendment proposed by Mr. Lawrence was in order. Mr. CORNET thought they had better withhold their clamour on this subject, and leave it in better hands. Mr. STEVENS thought that the present was the proper time for the Court to adopt the motion that had been brought forward. The deficiency of food in the country called upon the Court to do so. He trusted that the Court would agree to a memorial to her Majesty, pray ing her to take into her consideration the situation of the country, and support those measures that would allow free access to food into this country before famine took place.—(Hear, hear.) He had supported a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws for years, and he would support it now.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. JONES had always been an advocate for a fixed duty, instead of the sliding-scale.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the corn-laws were a subject on which every man might fairly differ. He knew something of the failure of the potato crop. In a district in Wales, in which he had a farm, the po tato crop on it was deteriorated to the extent of three fourths, and yet he was no worse off than his neigh bours. They used a great amount of oatmeal in that district, principally got from Ireland, and this article, which a short time ago was 18s. a sack, was now 30s. — (Hear, hear.) He thought something ought to be done, and hence he cordially supported the original re solutions. Mr. Nonais objected to the amendment proposed. It was a high and honourable privilege they possessed to approach her Majesty as memorialists ; and there were only two courses open to them then—namely, to avail themselves of this privilege, or to adopt the amendment, and petition the Legislature on this important subject. He objected to the amendment, as it involved a proceed ing which was not in agreement with the usages and peculiar privileges of that Court. Nor did he think it the proper course under existing circumstances. The case of Holland had been referred to in a previous stage of the debate, and what, he would ask, was the reason of the prosperity of that country? Because they were free-tradeis in corn, as well as in all other articles of commerce. A permanent scarcity of food had been the effects of the corn-laws ever since their adoption ; and with the increase of the population going forward, it be came a matter of necessity for them to do something to provide food for the people. Mr. WIRE said he should only occupy the time of the Court for a very few minutes. He wished to make but one or two observations on the speech made by his Hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Lawrence, we believe). His Hon. Friend first apologised for his desertion of his former opinions, and any gentleman had a perfect right to do so either in private or in public.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Wire) was exceedingly glad to find that in this case the change in his friend's opinions had been for the better, for as before they had been for a fixed duty upon corn, they were now for its total abolition.—(Laughter.) His Hon. Friend was following the example set him not long ago by an illustrious individual, and he was glad to find that that example was contagious, for it even took Broad -street in its march, and had reached the heart and head of its worthy representative, Mr. Deputy Corney, who had seconded the motion for the abolition of the corn-laws.—(Continued laughter.) It was his (Mr. Wire's) intention very shortly to direct his Hon. Friend's attention to one or two fallacies in his speech, which, by the by, was not only for the corn-laws, but against and beyond the corn laws.—(Laughter.) His lion. Friend had stated that his first proposition was fallacious, as this was nut a question of corn, but of com merce. Did the lion. Member suppose that he could im pose this argument for a moment ? did he mean to say that a question of food was not a question of wages? --(Hear, hear.) Did it make no difference to the work man, if by the abolition of these cruel laws he coull get a greater quantity of food for a lesser price than at present?—(Hear, bear.) It was not a question of wages alone—it was a question of food also.—(Cheers.) But the Hon. Member had said that they must show how better food could be had even were the corn-laws abo lished. Why thus:—lf the corn-laws were abolished—if all restrictions on the importation of food were done away with, then Holland, Poland, Egypt, and America 'You'd pour their grain into Britain, and take her manu factures in exch ange . Did t h e H on. M em b er not h ear the anecdote told of Mehemet Ali, the present Pacha of Ee"YPt ? When the imperfect condition of his muskets was referred to, he said, " True, I know that English muskets are bettair, but I have no money t o p urc h ase them. If England should take my corn, then I shall be enabled to take her muskets in exchange."—( Great e "--(Great cheering.) And th us would both of these countries be benefited. But another extraordinary argument of the llon. Gentleman's was, that if f oo d was cheap, the people would be idle. It was all very well to speak of the delights of labour ; but what man would work in a heated atmosphere for twelve hours, if ten hours would be sufficient for his wants? Why any man would be mad who should do otherwise, Hi s Hon. Friend had told them not to forget that he was an advocate for a smaller fixed duty, and yet his friend had moved the total repeal of those laws. Why, protection resembled a nurse who denied her child the free air of Heaven ; the poor thing, deprived of the necessary free dom, grew warped and stunted ; and so it was with pro tected commerce.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman admitted that a large proportion of the Irish lived upon potatoes, but he denied that the same thing held good in England, Scotland, and Wales. He - could assure the Hon. Gentleman that if he had gone through the houses of the poor in that metropolis, he would have found that the majority of the poorer classes lived upon potatoes. --(Hear, hear.) He would not detain them longer, but he trusted that the original proposition would be carried. The RECORDER then proceeded to read the original resolution again. Mr. LAWRENCE wished to make some observations on the amendment. _ _ _ Mr. JAMES—Did the defendant ever make any objec tion to this sermon ? Witness—No, he did not. I never heard one word of complaint upon that point till to-day. Mr. Collins himself read it to me when I called at his house, and he appeared to be much amused with it. A juror asked the witness if she had any idea of the object Mr. Collins had in view in reading it to her ? Witness—No, indeed I have not. He read it over to me in the presence of his wife and his two children, and they all laughed at it most heartily. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Serjeani GAGELEE then addressed the jury, commenting upon the licentiousness of the sermon, and declaring that it was one of the causes which induced the defendant to remove his children from the school. But he had another defence to the action. At the time Mr. Collins placed his children and Miss Matthews at the plaintiff's school, it was under stood that the defendant was to be at liberty to remove them without giving the usual quarter's notice. A witness was called to prove this fact ; after which Mr. JA.DIES replied. The Learned LORD CHIEF BARON then summed up, remarking that there were two questions for the con sideration of the jury. Firstly, did the defendant remove his children from the plaintiff's school in consequence of the sermon ? If so, he had made out his second plea, and their verdict upon it must be in his favour. Secondly, was the quarter's notice dispensed with by the plaintiff, and if it was, then, again, the verdict must be for the defendant ; if not, it must be for the plaintif£ The jury retired, and after an absence of about half an hour, returned into Court with a ver dict for the defendant on the first issue ; and, with regard to the second, the jury found that there was no evidence to show that the defendant removed his children in consequence of the sermon, and therefore his Lordship directed the verdict to be entered for the plaintiff on that issue. The RECORDER said that the debate was closed, and the amendment was then before the Court, and that he could not speak upon it. Mr. LAWRENCE said that it was only the day before yesterday that the Lord Mayor had ruled that he could speak upon the amendment, under similar circumstances. The LORD MAYOR said that the amendment had been spoken upon, and could not be debated again. The RECORDER said that the original question having been discussed, and the amendment having been de bated on, the Lord Mayor was of opinion that at that stage of the proceedings no further observations could be listened to. The amendment was then put, and negatived. Mr. GADSDEN then said that the petition called on the Queen to exercise her constitutional prerogative, and cause such measures to be taken as would meet the exi gencies of the people. A member rose to order. Mr. GADSDEN said that he was simply going to move, as an amendment, " That this Court is of opinion, that it is inexpedient at this moment to interfere, either by petition or otherwise, in this important question, in asmuch as it believes that the Ministry has been dissolved, and that it would be proper in the present state of affairs not to add to her Majesty's embarrassment, and that, there fore, the further discussion of the subject should be post poned." He proposed this amendment, as he believed that Lord John Russell had it all his own way, and it would not be too much to ask him to wait until Parlia ment assembled.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") The amendment was then put, and negatived by a large maj wity. A Member then handed up another amendment, and the Recorder was proceeding to read it, when Another Member asked if any amendment could be read by the Recorder until it had been properly proposed and seconded. BAIL COURT, Dec. 11. (Before Lord Chief Justice DeNmAN, Mr. Justice PAT TESON, and Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.) At the sitting of the Court this morning their Lord ships gave judgment in the following case, which has been so often before the public. BARON DE BODE V. TUB QU EEN . M Lord DEN AN said i t would be necessary to enter at some length into the preliminary history of this case, for the purpose of explaining the general propositions of the supplicant. It was alleged that the money which the supplicant claimed had been paid into the Bank of Eng land, and that it was virtually received by the Crown in trust for him, for the purpose of paying him compen sation for the property he had lost at the French Revo lution. It was alleged that this was as clear a fact as if the supplicant's name had been mentioned in the treaty that had been entered into between England and France. On the part of the Crown very long and able arguments had been urged to prove that even althongh the main facts put forward by the supplicant had been proved in evidence, still there could be no judgment in favour of the supplicant in the form of his proceedings, inasmuch as the property provided for by the treaty was only land or chattels. The Court at first might feel some regret that this line of objection had not been adopted at an earlier period against the supplicant's claim, for it might have had the effect of bringing the whole pro ceedings to a close, and have thereby prevented a large expenditure of money. Considering, however, the nature of the authorities that had been cited, and the obscurity which hangs over their law, the course that had been taken could not excite surprise ; for it was very natural that the advisers of the Crown should require all the facts to be distinctly proved which could constitute the claim, without surrendering one point of their jurisdic tion. The dignity of the Crown was such, as to require that if the right existed it should be pursued, without coming to any decision upon matters merely technical ; and it was the duty of the Court to examine as to whether the facts which had been found by the jury were such as to establish the rights of the supplicant. The Baron de Bode made his claim in the character of a British subject, for compensation in respect to property which had been confiscated in France during the Revo lution. His Lordship having alluded to the conventions of 1806, 1615, and the Act of the 59th Geo. 111., pro ceeded to say, it was declared that there was a sum of 418,000/. deposited in the hands of Commissioners to pay off those claims which were guaranteed under terms of the treaty between England and France, and that more than 200,0001. of this money still remained in the Bank of England, having been paid them by the Go vernment ; and the supplicant claimed this sum, to make good the amount of compensation which he sought. The first step taken by the supplicant was in support of his character of a British subject, and the Court would assume, without giving that point conside ration, that his position so far was satisfactorily proved. The next question, however, was whether the supplicant was in such a situation as that the treaty could be fairly said to apply to him. The words of the treaty were to the effect, that the subjects of the two powers residing in cat hos their nt a r t c erp h y ya itthi committedcw e u r' hl particular cr h o a u trh n oen t cy r ao y sh t wiooffenres a en l withoutell v be p ie angga rivi i; n disturbance, but in hien to continueo long lawscase of of any suspicion of misconduct against the laws being com mitted, the parties shall be entitled to twelve months' notice, in order that they may have f u ll o pp ortun i ty o f removing their property and effects frota the country. This favour, however, was to be denied them if they acted contrary to the established law of the country. That was agreed to in 1806. In 1814 a provision was made for the sequestrati.rt of theproperty of those who had com mitted certain offences against the laws of the country. The treaty in 1815, in the 9th article, considered the ne cessity of executing the four additional articles of the previous treaty, and it said that the subjects of the English Government had claims upon the French Go vernment, such persons as, since the Ist of January, 1793, had suffered confiscation, and that they should be idemnified and paid when their claims should be admitted as legitimate. This was a disputed passage of the treaty, and it was said that it only recognised those claims, and indemnified such, as were made according to the terms, and under the conditions, to be hereafter stipulated. In the treaty of commerce which had been entered into, in respect to emigration, it was declared that the supplicant should set forth the whole particulars upon which he founded his claim; but the second clause stated that if these conditions were violat e d by hi m , h e was t o b e pre vented from removing his property and effects. The spirit of the two treaties, it was said, engaged to protect the supplicant's property, provided that he made it clear that the revolutionary government had confiscated his property. The inquisition, however, merely stated the facts that had occurred, and left the Court merely to draw the inference that the property had been unlaw fully confiscated. It did not say that this confiscation immediately followed the revolution in the country; on the contrary, it appeared that there was a viola tion of the law of emigration on the part of the sup plicant. The Court could not take judicial notice of the meaning of the word, nor pronounce the law in respect to it. The general proposition could not be maintained unless it was proved that the individual was not in any way amenable to French law. If this law of emigration was not proved absolutely void as against the supplicant, they found that there was no co m pl a i n t ever ma d e o f th e French tribunal having pronounced sentence under it. They might constitute themselves a court of error in point of law, and a court of appeal in respect to all sen tences pronounced against British subjects ; but, what ever they knew of the French Revolution, tt e y wou ld not be justified in giving an opinion in any case without direct proof of the whole parti cu l ars as well as the na ture of the inquisition entered into. It appeared that the Baron de Bode had taken refuge in the Austrian army at the time it was actually invading the soil of Prince. No statement whatever appeared on the inqui sition that his claim had even been admitted, or any amount ascertained ; but the contrary in both respects. The Act of George 111., which w as f oun d e d on t h e treaty of 1818, had for its object the providing for those claimants to whom the indulgence had been guaranteed. These were such persons 95 had ca use d t h e i r names to be duly registered within the period described by the convention of 1818. The supplicant alleged neither that his game or claim had been registered until after the passing of the Act. The Court could not see how it was possible to extract any claim, legal or equitable, to the payment of any money, the nature of which claim, or the amount of which had never been clearly established. Until such an inquiry was properly made, the Lords of the Trea sur y must h ave had good reasons for refusi ng the indulgence (guaran teed under certain circumstances) to the supplicant. The Court was, therefore, left to draw those inferences which he should have drawn fur himself. Even it the main facts were maintained, the question would remain as to whether her Majesty should be said to have re ce i ve d the money that the supplicant laid claim to. A rule for a mandamus, to be directed to the Lords of the Treasury, had been applied for before Mr. Justice Coleridge, who discharged the rule on the ground that the Lords of the Treasury were the servants of the Crown, acting for the Crown, therefore there would be a great incongruity in placing the Sovereign in the situation of issuing a writ against the Sovereign. The Court thought it right to express doubts upon some points of the case, but in re spect to this point, their Lordships had no doubt what g.pnin,mn and th f a u t rtli th e e r r t e ha w t as no it e v money e r They ree w e i e v r e e d , therefore, by t he so Sovereign, e o l had The h n e o o t t b h e e e r n b r u e s 7 n i e v s e s d w t o a s t h n e o t u o s e t. p o u t b t l h i ce interest.So v e r e i g n. Sir C. MARSHALL seconded the resolution. The RECORDER then read it aloud. He moved " That the Parliament of the United Kingdom should proceed to establish a fixed and moderate duty." The amendment, which excited great merriment in the Court, was, after some little confusion and desultory conversation, withdrawn. The original resolutions were then put and carried by an all but unanimous vote. Mr. WIRE then moved " That a loyal and dutiful address and petition be presented to her Majesty, founded on the resolutions jnst agreed to, and praying that her Majesty will use all the means in her power to effect the opening of the ports for the free importation of food." The motion being seconded, Mr. LAWRENCE moved as an amendment, to the effect that it be mentioned in the address, " That on the opening of Parliament, her Majesty be requested to re commend a fixed duty on corn of ss. per quarter." Mr. PRIOR seconded the amendment, as one, which, if adopted by the Court, would reflect great credit on it. Mr. R. TAYLOR objected to their being called on to support a principle which all parties in the state had now repudiated. The amendment on being put was negatived by an immense majority, only two voting for it. The original motion was then put and carried, with the same number of dissentients. Mr. WIRE then moved a resolution" That the address to her Majesty be presented in the usual form," which was also agreed to. A deputation of five members was then appointed to prepare the address, and immediately after they retired to draw it up. Upon their return, after an absence of ten minutes, strangers were ordered to withdraw. During our ab ence, we understand the address was read and agreed to, and the Court adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock. SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 11. ;Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURcRELL and a Common Jury.) PROCLAMATIONS OF OUTLAWRY. This being the County Court-day for Middlesex, Mr. Kemp, the officer of the Sheriff, made proclamation in the usual manner, and the following persons not answer ing to their names, were declared outlaws at the suit of their respective creditors John Aden Smith, Henry Hope Vernock, Augustus Pocock, Henry Lescombe, John Mynde Cooke, at two separate suits; Robert Rout ledge Craig-, the Hon. W. H. Byng, Richard Everett Walker, George Swaby, George Pitt Rose, and Sir Henry Chudleigh Oxendon, Bart. SEQUESTRATION OF A CLERG Y MANS LIVING-SMITH V. NISBETT. In this case Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Phinn for the defendant, the action being brought t:. recover the sum of 3221. 16s. 7d., under the following circumstances:— From the statement of plaintiff's counsel, it appeared that in July, 1844, the plaintiff, Mr. Henry Vincent Smith, recovered judgment against the Rev. Charles Wetherall (whose name has been recently before tire public in the celebrated action for trim. con., brouglit against him by his son-in-law, Mr. John My nde Cooke),. the rector of Byfleet, Northamptonshire, for a debt of 1,5001. The beneficial interest of the living came into the possession of a Mr. Henry Nisbett, the brother of the defendant, who was indebted to the plaintiff in the. ; sum of 3001., which the defendant covenanted to p ay with interest. This debt accrued under these cite stances:—Some time since the Bishop . of Peterbo og h, in whose dioN , se the living is situate, issued his t .trratit THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVE_NING, DECEMBER 12 1845. sequestrating the living of Byfleet, and ordering that the debts of the Rev. Mr. Wetherall should be paid out of the profits of the living. The plaintiff being the first sequestration creditor at the commencement of last year, sent in his claim, the defendant entering into a covenant to pay him 3001., with interest. As this was not done the present action was brought, the defendant admitting, by allowing judgment to go by default, that there were some profits of the living in hand. Mr. H. P. GATES, solicitor, of Peterborough, said that he held a warrant from the Bishop of Peterborough to sequestrate the living of Byfleet, Under that seque,tra tion he was appointed to receive the rents, and had re ceived a sum of money amounting to 1,5611. Before the 23d of April in the present year he received the sum of 541/. 18s. 11 id. Of that sum he paid away on the 14th of April to Mr. Du Pasquier, the defendant's attorney, 3001. That was the only sum that had been at the dis posal of the defendant, the remaining portion being de voted to repairs, the curate's stipend, and other things. In November, 1E44, the balance was 380/. Mr. PIIINN made several objections to evidence being received of money received by the witness on account, after the action was brought, contending that money re ceived on the 23d of April could not be taken into con sideration. _ _ _ On cross-examination, the witness stated that he was the officer of the Rishop, but paid over to the defendant the rents he received. He was not aware that Mr. Du Pasquier had a lien upon the living. He paid the money to him as defendant's attorney, under the sequestration. ➢ir. Du Pasquier gave him no notice that he had a lien upon the living. Mr. PHINN said he understood from Mr. Du Pasquier that he had a lien upon the living, but as that appeared not to be the fact, he would leave the case in the hands of the Court. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain tiff—Damages, 3221. 165.:7d. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, Dec. 10. (Before Mr. Baron PLATT.) Thomas Kirk, 27, and John Blades, 19, two stout young men, having much the appearance of railway " na vigators," were indicted for that they, on the 27th of September last, at Hawsker-cum-Stainacre, in the North Riding, feloniously and violently did assault one Wil Liam Ward, and steal from his person one shilling and twopence. Mr. Blanchard, with whom were Mr. Shaw and the Hon. Mr. Phipps, conducted the prosecution. The pri soners were both undefended. The prosecutor, an old man, in a bumble station of life, stated that he lives at Stainacre, which is situate at about two miles from Whitby. On Saturday, the 27th of September last, he went to the town of Whitby to make some purchases, and was on his way home, on foot., at about eight o'clock in the evening, when, at some distance from the town, he saw two men in the road. He could not recognise the prisoners ; but he stated that on approaching the men there was something in their manner which excited his apprehension, and he could perceive that one of them had on a dark dress, and the other a light one, and that was afterwards shown to he the dress of the prisoners on the night in question. They immediately closed upon him. One of them, he could not say which, seized him by the neck ; he received a blow on the neck or head, which felled him ; immedi ately after another blow en the side of his head. He had a purse in his breeches pocket, containing one shilling in silver, and twopence or twopence halfpenny in copper, besides some halfpence in his waistcoat. The men rifled his breeches pocket of the purse and its con tents, and then left him. On endeavouring to rise he found a bludgeon, or a thick stick, of about two feet and a half long, lying across his breast. This stick he kept, and gave to a person living near by. It was a round knotty stick, apparently a bit of a sapling, and from its having a broken nail in it, was described by Ward as having formed part of a paling-fence. Several other witnesses were called to show that the men at the bar were seen on the road near the place of the robbery, both shortly before and shortly after it was committed. A woman going out to milk some cows noticed them pass near the spot at about five ; and some neighbours of the prosecutor, who followed him on the road from Whitby soon after he left, identified the prisoners as two men whom they had met walking at a quick pace towards the town, at about half-past eight. A police-officer of Whitby said that he had met. the prisoners at a late hour on the night preceding. They stated to him that they were destitute, and without a lodging. He procured a lodging for them for that night in a house in the town, and there, it appeared, they had no means of paying for either breakfast or dinner, as they left the house in the morning, and took no meal there during the day. But on the following evening (that of the robbery) they re appeared at their lodging-house, and they then brought with them some bread and cheese ; and Blades, or. being asked if they wanted any tobacco, said they had plenty. A woman at the house asked them if they had " done anything," and Kirk said, " Yes ' they had got as much money as would pay for their lodging," and for that they paid 6d. Mr. Wilkinson, the constable of Whitby, stated that, on being called on to apprehend the pri soners, he had asked them how they had obtained the bread, some of which he found along with them. They said they had begged it in the town, but could not say where. The wife of a joiner, in Whitby, proved that, at near nine on the evening of the robbery, Kirk came into a shop kept by her, and there purchased about 21b. of bread, fur 4d. He asked for some cheese, but they had none for him. He was then alone, and he produced is. in silver, receiving Bd. in copper for the change. The piece of bread found by the constable was not now pro duced, but another piece was produced in Court, to show the description of the bread found. The constable said it corresponded exactly with that sold at the shop, being of a similar shape, and what is termed " sad" (heavy) bread. The woman from the shop deposed that such was the kind of bread sold to Kirk. It ap peared from the evidence of a grocer, from another shop at the next door, that Blades purchased half a pound of cheese and half an ounce of to bacco at about the same time ; and he also appeared to come alone. He paid fourpence for the two articles. A medical gentleman, who had been to see the old man professionally, immediately after be was robbed, said that when he found him at his house he seemed half stupified—" naazed." His face was covered with blood. There was a severe wound on his right temple, and a severe bruise behind the left ear, and his face was scratched, as if from falling with it upon the ground. Upon these facts, after the Learned Judge had taken a full review of them in his summing up, the jury almost immediately pronounced a verdict of Guilty as to both the prisoners. In passing sentence, the Learned JUDGE addressed the men at the bar in terms of strong condemnation of their crime. His Lordship reminded them that that crime would but a short time ago have had to be expiated upon the gallows, and told them that it' the prosecu tor's life had been taken away by their violence they would certainly have forfeited their own lives as his murderers. _ _ Sentence, to be severally transported for life. Margaret Pattinson, aged 27. John Brown, aged 30, and Mar Best, aged 28, were tried for having, on the 16th of October last, at Leeds, feloniously and violently stolen a purse, two sovereigns, and some other ariicles, from the person of Benjamin Wheaten The prisoners were all convicted, and each sentenced to transportation fur Jonaoan Bennett, aged 25, a mechanic, charged with manslaughter, in having killed Mary Knowles,, at Shef field, on the 16th of August last, was found guilty of a common assault. It was proved that the prisoner had struck the deceased some blows, while in a state of in toxication; but it appeared probable that she bad died of apoplexy rather than from the act of the prisoner. Sentence, to be imprisoned one week, the prisoner having been in custody during three_ months_before his trial. (Before Mr. Justice ERLE.) Joseph Broadbent was charged with an offence against the bankrupt laws, in having on the 24th of October last, at Leeds, feloniously refused and neglected to appear to a summons of the Leeds District Court of Bankruptcy. In the opening of the case by Mr. Hall, it was ad mitted that, although a notice to appear had been served on the bankrupt, the manner of serving it was not in strict compliance with the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 122. His LORDSHIP said he had considered that point upon a previous occasion, and deemed such compliance essential to support a criminal proceeding of the present kind. Without it the prosecution must fail, according to the view he took of the statute. The prisoner was therefore Acquitted by direction of the Court. Joseph Hutchinson, 31, was indicted for having, on the 9th of August, at Sheffield, feloniously stabbed, cut, and wounded Ebenezer Hutchinson with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Ths t i oaohn:n They had ds togetheroc, nu quarrels brother, rnr eals ; acolliery t d h a t t ha b et o p t Ahr ofprosecutor ee cr t ,u h it e io m ffr. It appeared . from the evidence of Ebenezer Hutchin hid heard that the prisoner had been telling tales against him to the manager of the colliery, in order to cause him to be discharged from his employ. On the day in hehTandhviesefwteeohngre prisoneru, pleanrnngitsdloyniViw eharras., undefended. tion. question they were m a public•house together, and after leaving it the prosecutor saw the prisoner in the street, talking with two other persons. He approached him, and said, " Well, Joe, what hast got by thy tale-telling?" The prisoner replied, "I'll tell thee." He (the pri soner) lifted his fists at the same moment, and squared, as if to fight. The witness immediately knocked him down. Shortly after they again met in the street, when the prisoner came up to the witness, who immediately felt himself stabbed by his brother. He " let his bowels out." The wounded man then went to Mr. Shaw, the surgeon, " carrying," as he expressed it, "his bowels in his hand." Mr. Clayton, the assistant of the medical man, proved that the prisoner afterwards, in speaking of the wound inflicted, said that he hoped his brother might die. Mr. Justice ERLE, in sentencing the prisoner, observed to him, that whenever recourse was had to deadly wea pons in this manner, an example would certainly be made in the Courts trying persons for such offences. This, was a remarkably aggravated offence, and the sen terr.te, therefore, was, that the prisoner should be trans ported for the term of fifteen years. Liverpool, Dec. 10. Their Lordships were engaged during the greater *part of the day in the trial of a Oays of cases the parti culars of which are unfit for publication. Nothing of pubic interest occurred in either Court. DBATH OF SIR W. REID, BART.—We understand that accounts have been received from Ceylon of the death of Sir W. Reid, Bart., of Barra, who died on the 20th October, on his passage from the Mauritius. The deceased Baronet had only succeeded his brother, Sir John Reid, within the last few months. The deceased was born in 1795. POST-OFFICE.—It is a strange and anomalous fact that a letter from Paris reaches Galashiels sooner than one from Glasgow, the latter usually lying twenty - four hours at Edinburgh,-yikeder Watch, LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 11. (Sittings in London at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF JusTwE and a Special Jury.) THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. ROBINSON AND OTHERS. This was an action for the penalty upon a deed of contract for the drainage of lands belonging to the plaintiffs, adjoining the sea-lake called the Lough Foyle, in the north of Ireland. file cause was tried before, and the plaintiff.; obtained a verdict with Is. damages, the effect being to enable them to enforce the contract and recover costs. The defendant since obtained a rule for this new trial, which will occupy at least another day. Mr. M. D. Hill, Mr. Sergeant Channel], and Mr. Bovile appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Tal fourd, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Ser geant Byles, and Mr. Hindmarsh, for the defendants. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec.ll. (Sittings in Guildhall at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.) GOODWIN V. COLLINS. This was an action of assumpsit for a breach of con tract, the declaration alleging that the plaintiff's wife kept a school, at which the defendant formerly had two children, but he subsequently took them away without giving the usual quarter's notice, which formed the breach of contract. The defendant had pleaded the ge neral issue, and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to proceed with the schooling of the two children. Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser geant Gazelee for the defendant. Mr. JA DIES stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was a merchant's clerk, and he sought by the present action to recover 131.25. 6d. for a breach of contract of the usual and ordinary character. The plaintiff some short time ago married a lady named Hogg, who for some years pre viously bad kept a school at Belgrave Lodge, Merton place, Turnham-green. At Easter, 1842, the defendant, who was a gentleman of considerable property residing at Sunbury, placed two of his daughters, together with a young lady named Matthews, at Miss Hogg's school. The children remained at school till the Christmas of 1844, when they went home for the usual vacation. In the following January, however, only one of them re turned, and the consequence was, that the plaintiff, who was now married to Miss Hogg, wrote a letter to the defendant, complaining that he had neglected to give the usual quarter's notice of his intention to remove his daughter from the school, and intimating that either the notice or the quarter's schooling money would be in sisted upon. The defendant refused to give either, and the present action was brought in consequence of that refusal. The contract alleged to have been broken was contained in Miss Hogg's prospectus, which stated that there was no entrance fees required on entering the school, but it was expected that parents would give a quarter's notice before they removed their children from the establishment. Miss Hogg, the plaintiff's sister-in-law, was called to prove the facts stated by the Learned Counsel. She said she was one of the teachers of the establishment, and could state positively that it was an invariable cus tom to give a quarter's notice before any of th• scholars were removed from the academy. The defendant was made aware of this custom at the time his children en tered the school, and it was upon these terms that her sister consented to undertake their tuition. The witness was cross-examined at some length oy Mr. Sergeant Gazelee, with the view of showing that the system of education pursued at the plaintiff's school was both defective and immoral. She admitted having read a sermon produced by the Learned Sergeant in the presence of one of the defendant's daughters and a junior tutor of the academy, a young lady between 14 and 15 years of age, and said she saw nothing objec tionable in it. Mr. JAMES said he was sorry to interrupt his Learned Friend, but really he could not for the life of him see what this sermon had to do with the case. Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE insisted that it had every thing to do with the case, for he intended to read it for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff's wife was un willing to teach the defendant's children in the ordinary and proper way. His Learned Friend had mis taken the defendant's plea. It was not that the plaintiff's wife was unwilling to take back the children, but that she was unwilling to teach them with propriety and decorum. The Learned Ser geant then read the objectionable sermon, amidst the laughter of a crowded Court. It was the copy or note of a sermon purporting to have been preached by the Rev. C— C—, who took his text from the 29th chaps of Genesis, the 10th verse:—" And Jacob kissed Rachel." The sermon opened by asserting that it was a universal practice amongst the ancients to indulge in the practice of kissing, and declaring that the practice was strongly recommended by the Scriptures. It was honourable to the present age that this example of the ancients was enthusiastically and strictly followed, and the preacher proposed to take upon himself the task of considering, first, the meaning of the term " kissing ; secondly, • the important duty of kissing ; and thirdly, to represent or describe the pleasure attendant upon the performance of the duty of kissing. The sermon then proceeded to contend that kissing was not to be taken in the ordinary acceptation of the term, as mean ing a simple salute or smacking of the lips, but it was used in the text as intending to convey, and did in fact invariably convey, the idea of embracing. The ser• mon extended to a great length in this strain of argu ment, and after dwelling upon the pleasures derivable from the practice of kissing or embracing, wound up with a general recommendation that it was a duty incumbent upon every lady never to lose an opportunity for in dulging in the practice of kissing. The witness said she allowed one of the defendant's daughters to copy this ser mon and take it home with her. The LORD CHIEF BARON—WouId it not have been better had the defendant taken his daughter from the school on the first receipt of this letter ? Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE—So he did, my Lord, and this is our answer to the action. The children never returned after this sermon went home. Mr. JAMES—I doubt that. You admit that one of them did return at all events. Now, Miss Hogg, when did this effusion go home to Mr. Collins ? Witness—l think it was before Christmas, 1844. Mr. JAMES—When was it written ? Witness—At the end of 1844. Mr. JAMES—Were you the author of the sermon ? Witness—No, it was given to me by my brother-in-law. Mr. JAMES—The plaintiff ? Witness—Nos another brother-in-law. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. George John Ford, a printer, was brought before M&. Alderman Hunter, charged with arson. Baker, the ward beadle of Cripplegaf.e, stated, that on Wednesday the Coroner of London called an inquest to inquire into the cause of a fire which had recently oc • curred in Braim's-buildings, Beech-street, Barbican, by which two houses were burnt ; and the prisoner was given into his custody by the coroner, with directions to bring him before the magistrate. The jury had found a verdict that the prisoner had wilfully set fire to the premises. _ _ Mr. Alderman HUNTER asked if any one appeared to prosecute him for the offence? Baker said the witnesses were in attendance, and there was a gentleman on behalf of the Imperial Fire-office. The gentleman referred to rose, and said he attended to watch the case, but he had not received any instruc tions to prosecute. Mr. Alderman HUNTER asked the beadle if he had any witnesses who had not been examined before the co roner ? Baker answered that he had not. Mr. Alderman HUNTER said the case appeared to have been sent before him by the courtesy of the Co roner of London, but as a warrant Gf commitment would be issued by the coroner, and the witnesses had been bound over to appear at the Central Criminal Court, it was needless for the magistrate to travel over the same ground. His abstaining from doing so involved no failure of justice, and he should allow the prisoner to stand committed on the coroner's warrant. The Coroner of London shortly afterwards reached the office, and said he had heard from the beadle the result of the proceedings, but he wished to explain to the Magistrate the reason he had sent the case before him. The prisoner had caused two houses to be burnt, one of them being his own house. The burning of this was a felony by the statute, but not by the common law, and therefore he, as coroner, could take no cogni zance of that offence, and sent the matter before the Magistrate for inquiry. At the same time he must be permitted to express his surprise that the solicitor for the Imperial Fire-office had stated that he had no evi dence to offer, no instructions to prosecute. He expectud the fire-office would be the first to support a prosecution and take care the ends of justice were secured, and he was surprised to find the solicitor was not prepared to say what course he would take. He bad committed the prisoner only for burning the house next to his own, which was an offence by the common law as well as the statute law. The solicitor to the fire-office said they were not in different to the matter, but had not determined what course they should take. He thought the remarks of the coroner were uncalled for, as the Queen was the prose cutor. The Coroner asked him if he shut his eyes to what was passing daily round him ? Did he not see public bodies, and even individuals, prosecuting charges in police courts, by the aid of counsel, to take care that the ends of ,justice should be attained ? . . Mr. Alderman HUNTER asked if the witnesses were still in attendance ? The beadle said they were not. There was only one remaining, who would depose to a conversation he had with the prisoner. The ALDERMAN said he had heard enough to justify him in:detaining the prisoner :for further examination; and he therefore remanded him. CLERKEN WELL. James North, late a private in the 2d Regiment of Foot, was placed in the felon's dock, charged with bur glariously entering the house of Messrs. Walker, sur geons, 57 and 58, St. John-street, Clerkenwell, and stealing therefrom a gold watch, brooch, and other articles ; also, on suspicion of being concerned in bur glaries at the houses of Messrs. Darlow, Baldwin, and Neale, 61, 62, and 63, in the same street. The prisoner was undefended. It appeared from the evidence that, on the night of the 22:1 of November last, a series of burglaries of a most daring description were committed at the above-men tioned houses, but since then the police have been unable to discover the perpetrators. Nothing could be more adroit than the manner of their execution, and one would be led to think from the circumstances con nected with them, that the burglars were more desirous of showing their skill than of acquiring gain, for in Mr. Walker's they took a watch from the very bedroom in which he slept, leaving untouched another gold watch which stood upon the table. From the same room they took a bunch of keys, not minding about 1001. in gold and notes which were within their reach. From another of the houses they carried off 10/. in cash, and never meddled with a drawer full of plate which lay open be fore them. They forced their way into the lower part of Mr. Walker's house, and entered the others by the windows. They escaped with their booty undetected. The prisoner lives in Bridgewater-gardens, Chiswell. street, and although without a pension, and destitute of any means of obtaining a livelihood, has a very comfort able home. When arrested by inspectors Lernan and Tate, of the G division, he had two knives and five counterfeit crown pieces on his person. He was ar rested in consequence of information given by a man named Tapp, to whom the prisoner said that on the night of the robbery he was going home along St. John -street, when he saw a ladder against one of the windows. lie further said that the stolen watch was offered for sale for the sum of 51., and mentioned other incidents connected with the burglary. When apprehended, he stated that a man, named " Civil Jack," was on the watch outside Mr. Walker's, whilst the others were doing the " Civil Jack" has since been discovered, and denies all knowledge of the matter. He is quite a poor fellow, of good character, and no suspicion attaches to him, further than the very questionable declaration of the prisoner. It should be stated that at the prisoner's house were found fifty duplicates for gold rings and other articles of value. The prisoner denied any participation in the burglary and said he found tie base coin in the street. He was remanded. LAMBETH. SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A RAILWAY POLICEMAN. William Moore, late a policeman on the South-Western Railway, was charged before the Hon. G. C. Norton with violating the person of Sarah Prevett. Mr. Dalby, the:superintendent of policeion the South- Westernlway, said that three weeks ago a repre sentation had been made to him by one of his sergeants with respect to the misconduct of the prisoner towards the young woman, which he felt it to be his duty to pl ,ce before the manager, and the result was, that the prisoner was ultimately dismissed from his situation. The Directors felt, from the prisoner having been em ployed by them to protect the public, his conduct had been such that, in addition to his dismissal, they ought to send him before a magistrate, and had instructed him (Mr. Dalby) to state that should his Worship be of opinion, after a full investigation of the circumstances, that the case was one for prosecution, they would be accountable for all the expenses. The complainant, a rather pretty-looking young woman, who gave her evidence with some reluctance, upon being sworn, stated that on the day before (Wed• nesday) three weeks, she obtained leave from her mistress to visit her father and friends at liingAnn, and had paid her fare to go by the South-Wese rn Railway. W hen about to enter the train, the prisoner, who opened the carriage-door for her, asked her where she was going, and what time she should return, and she told him, an:l said she would be back by the six o'clock train ; upon which he said he should be on the look out for her. She did not return so early as she intended, but on arriving at the Nine Elms-station she saw the prisoner. He ex pressed a great desire to see her home or part of the way home, and she, at his request, waited in front of the station for him until ha had done duty for the night. The prisoner and herself then proceeded as far as Tower hill, on her way to her mistress's, when Moore re quested she would go into some public-house with him, that he might have an opportunity of taking down her address, in order to write to her. She went into a public house with him, when they had a pint of ale, and where he kept her till half•past eleven o'clock at night, though her proper time to be home was ten o'clock. The prisoner then told her it was no use her attempting to go home that night, and said that if she accompanied him to his lodgings in Battersea-fields, his land lady would procure her a bed for the night, and she could get home on the following morning. Upon his promise that a bed should be provided for her, she accompanied the prisoner to Battersea, but on getting there he said the people at his lodgings were all asleep, and there was no use disturbing them. He also said he knew of a house in Battersea-fields, where they could sit until the coffee shops were opend in the morning, and not suspecting he meant anything wrong. she went with him until they reached a shed and some haycocks, and here for the first time he commenced taking improper liberties with her. She succeeded in defeating two attempts upon his part to vio late her person, but in his third attack he effected his pur pose. Her clothes and bonnet were much injured by the muddy state of the field, but after cleaning them as well as she could, she, on the Thursday morning, went to the house of her mistress, said she had unfortunately missed the train, and could not get to town on the night before. Her mistress, however, refused to take her back, and discharged her. She removed her boxes to the house of her aunt and uncle, and on the same evening went to the Nine Elms terminus to see the prisoner. She spoke to a sergeant of the railway police, who questioned her about her intimacy with the prisoner, whom he represented to be a married man, and she told him what had happened, and by his directions she went before the superior officers of the railroad on the follow ing day. Upon being closely question e d by the Magis trate, the witness reluctantly admitted that, after coming out of Battersea-fields, she had accompanied the prisoner to his lodgings, and that there a repetition of the act took place without her making any resistance; but added, that this was in consequence of the prisoner making the most solemn promise of marriage, and declaring he would never forsake her. Mr. Dalby here said, that upon being spoken to in the first instance by the manager of the railway, the prisoner had offered to marry the young woman, provided it was found that she was respectable, and that her character was good. The manager in consequence kindly insti tuted an inquiry, from which it appeared that the father of the young woman was a very decent man, and had been for some years in the service of the Woods and Forests; and the young woman herself was also found to be a person of good character; but the prisoner, notwith standing, did everything to evade his promise. Mr. NORTON observed, that the conduct of the pri soner was most disgraceful, and the case was a vary proper one for the directors of the railway to take up. The prisoner was employed to protect the public, and particularly those travelling by the railroad, and should be the last to be gnilty of such disgraceful conduct. The prisoner was remai.ded. THAMES. COAL DUTY. —William Bramstone, master of the Countess of Malmsbury, appeared to a summons charg ing him with having unladen a cargo of coals without payment of the duty, whereby he forfeited a sum not exceeding 5/. The City Solicitor supported the stumuous; and fir Ballantine, jun., with whom was Mr. Pen, of the fill Laurence and Pen, Bucklersbury, defended. The case was considered important, as many ot hers a similar nature will be finally governed by it. ito / before the Court on the 17th ult., and was adjourned,o allow time to consider the arguments pro and con. Ai article on which the question arose, by one part)" To coal, and by the other fuel, is a large brick-sIg:K J ''' p " mass, with a surface like granite. It was adun tted 0,0 be for the most part composed of coal and coal ta r, a slight admixture of peat ; but the coal being' alleged, deprived of its sulphuric acid gas, which f rpoi one of the elementary qualities, it was contended 11,Ait no longer ihe same substance commonly known es "' f Sol and therefore did not come under the description e, ; 0 of the three substances mentioned in the Act as Its it to dues—namely, coal, culm, or cinders. Yeite r tald was proposed by the defendant that the summons spot be withdrawn, and the case tried by action. Mr' 110 son refused to accede to this. He would first take to, Magistrate's decision, and if that went against hint' P r r coed by action. Mr. Ballantine, the Magistra te, sided. k Pi tce Mr. Ballantine, jun., after reverting to what te° h oi on the previous occasion, said he had Mr. Marsoicli Dr. Ure now present to support the argument I be/ he had formerly urged, namely, that the CO B s ob entirely changed its character and become a n ew stance by the process it had undergone. The , te rti trate's decision on the case was looked for as a In B ; o plei great importance. One of the questions to r t . pot was, whether the substance in question was cea l , a b e Or, When coal was spoken of, it was generally e s 0 , be tural product of the mine without any altera.ti°_, l poi the article had been materially altered bond fi de, 971 V with a view to evade the City dues, and moreoo9lo cost per ton was more than the cost of coal. I t OA always be observed that the law was averse to tas 00 and always construed the Acts favourably to the P i liable to it. He would show this by two cases p, ° of Barnwell and Alderson's reports. The first was th o til of Casher against Holmes, where harbour duel 000 claimed on god as coming under the head of "s ll , 4 ber metals." Lord Tenterden, in that case, said "All s 0 in the Act of Parliament must be understood in tri v mon popular sense, and in th a t sense they cert a tsi re d, not include gold and silver ; and Judge Littledslestfof saying they were always distinguished a s P er 0 0/I metals. The other case was the " Kingston'Aier, Dock Company v. Browne and others," when Ili t aol terden used the phrase, " accordinr, to the PoP ti ors general meaning of the word, which' is the g i $O l meaning of the words used in Acts of Parliatt" relat ingßALmL to atters of science." P t Mr. ANTINE, sen., said the words of °poll were coals, coke, and cinders. These were t hes d the same substance, yet each was specified. 11 !., gotr not call science to analyse the substance then l'sertsi Lion, but simply ask himself, was it not withi n the r ged of the Act, and as the w ord wa s colloquially un tie o tO He could not say it was, and e ntertaining that (I° would not inflict a penalty on the defendant. Mr. Pearson—ls that your decision, sir? i pto t ! • The MAGISTRATE-Yes. I have considered ' doe ject much since the case was here before. i ; dp think them coals under the term used by the L'es." l , se and entertaining that doubt, I will not exercise mary jurisdiction. hoe ti s Mr. Pearson—Then it is your opinion that I doses .„ not a sort of coal which the City should claim Ul3- 0 11 : The MAGISTRATE-I am not in Parliament w o od 11 ; 0 opinion. I merely con s t rue th e A c t as I undersold Mr. Pearson—l und e rstood the case was ad:Ppr, llr6 obtain the opinion of scientific men. Here *r e • i 1 Mr. Marsh, and others. tha t 10 Mr. BALLANTINE-No ; it was a dj o urne d —ei l y satisfy myself. I should always he happy t o i 0 with these gentlemen. I have spoken to SeVert i abe subject, and I find it is still a vezata qucestio. ape 1# Mr. Pearson—Your opinion seemed to itt o pil other way on the last occasion, had we then PI . a decision. a.,' Mr. BALLANTINE-It would have been then_w ar; o 1 you. No one knew my opinion, not even .D 3 - 1 ; 0 or (the chief clerk) until ten minutes ago. 1 ~o t oro co to no other decision than that the substance i 8 - I . 1 " Mr. Pearson—Such being your decision, ip eLf you won't think it offensive if we wish to have brew summonses which are lodged tried before Y eur 1 1 magistrate. - Mr. BALLANTINE-Certainly not ; you a re 14 liberty to do so. qu o e P St i Mr. Ballantine, jun.—But you try the %.„ action, and not by summons, putting us to tr'" j o of various attendances. _ A 9 Mr. Pearson—No, there is a summons loclr" iti must be heard. 14 1 Mr. Ballantine, jun.—Then, if it is distill have power to ask for costs, and will do so. The parties then retired. 0 Ind c. - f..T i cAitts' - i [ADVERTISEMENT.] —SIGHT AND ..---,..,t1e Albemarle-street, Piccadilly, and 25, South ti — h ur# Edinburgh—Newly-invented Spectacle, Telestenellortlij glasses, Microscopes, &c.—Patronised by '''' e Frs v o , Edward Paget, Sir Evan Lloyd Maistonf tt c o Goodfallow, Clayton Grosvenor Morrison, Dii i ,jltirf, son, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, 0, Proo Price, Lindsay, and Thaekray, Major-General SiLreolegf stone P. Fyers, D. Maclead, Hamilton, Turner, l' ir ,l. rdi Cock; Lieutenant-Generals Sir Henry BODYCliet ° s eat, donall, Sir R. Barton, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir We l ' P I S' Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir Dsloel o r Sir Geese Monday, Sir George Martin, Sir µi 00 r - Whitshed, Sir D. Gold, Ross, Alexander, Cu.,SoPY kin‘on, Hollis, Price, &c.—Messrs. S. and P...,,, 0 0 0' Opticians, have invented Spectacle Lenses ur re " 1,4 10 construction. Immediately they are placed blo t ttl,o l , feet vision, that mist and dullness which appear be7jistily, is at once removed ; every object becomes clear se" b r i4 l !'l that the most aged and imperfect sight become / 0( 10V brilliant, and is brought to its youthful, natural, e .. PO ti state. Also, Achromatic Telescopes, Opera Gls s// 0 - e tts, scopes, Invisible and all kinds of Acoustic Instr i sitioll relief of most extreme deafness. Caution—Not in eili o siei t o netted with a person of the same name in thelrobor(4l neighbourhood. To prevent mistakes, be cautious, ll y , $r i Only to be had at 39, Albemarle-street, Piemi,d.l.,fore4is, the York Hotel, and 25, South Castle-street, Eat VI" [AnvERTisEmENT.]—The AtrapilatorYt, it se Hair Dye, the only dye that really answers for all 0 1 ' it 00 0 doss not require re-doing, bat as the hair grows? e iee o es fades or acquires that unnatural red or purple ti°l ,t 00 self all other dies. Ross and Sons can, with the gre at % tbsir te, recommend the above dye as infallible, if dose it wai t/ ; and ladies and gentlemen re quiring ee 6 0 1 01 1/ quested to bring a friend or servant with them t °,„ 0 itti se; used, which will enable them to do it afterwenefecoA chance of failure. Several private apartmen ts et sbli'lli g l tirely to the above purpose, and some of their pos e, ~ if having used it, ;he effect produced can be at en c . , to 'l, think it necessary to add, that by attending stricl'elediefejl atructions given with each bottle of dye, nutserees7 Petss A,,t sneceeded equally well without coming to flee_ , Roes and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-stree t, pe rt, 0. Perruquiers, Perfumers, Hair-cutters, and 1 40 . 11. ;i g ats" Parties attended at their own residences , " sfe distance. NGI /P)11 t: EADVERTISEMENT.]-CASES OF DE W " - 0,10-iir IfACHS, SICK -HEADACHES, WITH LOSS Or S r 0 08 1001, ENERGY, CURED BY HOLLOWAY'S PILLS. ;( I ,_ 119" ASP' above cases the hands and feet swell, the face pn o '; it 0 0 r , times a sense of fulness will be noticed to exist B b d 10 d attended generally with much nervousnessseeolis fisro spirit.. These symptoms, if neglected, frequentilh i lia i , e t y paralysis, or apoplexy. To regain full hes'it' op etis i s 'il v eat no vegetables, get plenty of exercise in t b .,,!if e ,.ple i pt take Holloway's Pills, according to the diree;rbe 04 2- rO/,,i them, when any of the complaints named Wh i th er eradicated from the system, even when everY, other P . .j had failed.—Sold by all druggists, aad at Pon e ' „.4 ! hi Establishment, 244, Strand, London. nlegltl P ig The Whitehaven junction has been c° lll "tace o rsb.k its opening for public traffic was to have take i a ti P o lo l° O er-A w . 2d instant ; but Captain Coddington reported, to rob of the gauge, and the Board of Trade have ret7l-eitit'h its security, &c. The Company have, cons el 10 A poned the opening, in order to relay the re l '' ' pr o D cccupy some time.— Tyne Mercury. C ream 011 NATIONAL GLASS COMPANY Of IRS .- , Corgr a , most happy to announce that this truly Irit" ;t ion t, already so far progressed that it will be in a P°s'„rie6' hi glass of native manufacture very early in the s r e pliplr lie Evening Post. W an e WRECK OF A SCIIOONER.OIL • • e h i s til c k ..i n, means of the telegraphic signals between,tr t he i , Pro. head, we learned that on Monday nigh t jlon ti re / 00 0, Cheering, of Dover, was wrecked on iVes' ile rl) Omer She was totally dismasted, and was lying ell t wel c- ite The Point of Ayr life-boat put off to her at I .. po pt o o o f yesterday, and the Hoylake life-boat at h a ` 0 I ss er t P.M. The 1 crew had not been heard of. ,I,° eater derate gale blowing at Holyhead during the is .............../ yesterday.—Liverpool Courier of Wednesday- BIRTHS. lam" 3l6* iS'' ' On the 30th ult., at Stade, the lady of a r „,10 th e On sth Hanoverian Regiment, of a daugh ter c iOP , h e On the 4th inst., at Thorp Perrow, the lay biro, V. Milbank, Esq., of a son. yeti° or!' On the 7th inst., at the Hill-top, Leybur n, wife of the Rev. Miles G. Booty, of a daughte h r: ,so ffco' ol , On the 7th inst., at the Vicarage, Aldeburg ,01 Henry T. Dowler, of a son. c O lO , As On the Bth inst., at Cheltenham, the lady o' i fillr brow, of a daughter. e , gr / * 0 1 On the Bth inst., in the Crescent, Minors as( Edmond inst of a daughter. ele et t h On the Bth, at Ventnor, Isle of Wigh t ' _.,30 Rev. William Sharpe, of a son. M rs ' W i"ia' fles d On the 9th inst., at Croydon, Surrey, .. of a daughter. Tr 100' 9 l‘it' 1116 On the 9th inst., at Well-street, ....se „If Turner, of a son. 113116-r, '1 (061 On the 9th inst., at Cambridge-squa re ' P I lady of W. Wilberforce Bird, Esq., of a 80[ 1 .4 Lpdf On the 10th inst., at Bedgebury-park , tu Hope, of a daughter. cro p MARRIED. , Lf vir• On the 6th inst., at St. Mary's, Islington, w r ' bu rt iftfi A " to Mary Andrewes, of Waybridge Lodge, ,ferdotir'Poi On the Bth inst., at the Episcopal Chureh ,l csa. , ;; t er Wells, second son of the late Edward AllfreY, " — did" 1 1, anston-square, London, to Adeline Franeet t ore. le s; 1 Colonel Sir Robert Mowbray, of Cockairnie 'Re' F" e cbo r eo lv On the 9th inst., at Leamington , the Locke, to Blanche, second daughter of the Isl e Right Hon. Lord Edward Somerset, G.C.13- -------- to frf DIED. On the 3d of October, on route from Borulpoteiitler'o;io pore, Major Henry Delafosse, C.B , of the Benge d i s k ‘ / , d 'ir'' On the Bth of October, at Allahabad, Ea s t , 1 ,, u SO' Catherine, wife of Captain Robert Price, 67i" t. fantry, aged 24. rr rel oll o' On the 4th inst., at Leamington, the Rev. •.,,.- - , t ,op, On the 7th inst., in Spital -square, 111atthevf 11 ,„,: - j o li" On the Bth inst., in Regent-street, R. PAY '`''' t 13 ' , ,-,..;t..0 4 On the 9th inst., in Carlton-terrace, North PL." On' Flinn, Esq. , . Rei f ' 4 , 51,(1,tch,ean9onthoficnsatn.,tearbtuIrVyrotham, Kent, t''' - ite' Or e l' IP On the 9th inst., in Camden-grove, Peckham. S Robert Hill. 9, On the 9th inst., in Brooksby-street, Islingt°ll' Of Tempest. lico, 11 u J On the 10th inst., in Victoria - roa d, Pim J-. e- r Chinnock, Esq., surgeon. of London : Printed and Published by MURD O IsToll tit No. 112, Strand, Printer, at T he Sun .0 1 !; Ce Strand, in the - Precinct of the Savoy - , Middlesex, Friday, Detember IZ, 1545. NAT, 1 11EATIti The COL: , efts to a ir VAGU E 411:NC E 011 t, Richard C F E s , 44 MIT] t 6 .1 14 -se e =net m rlth re, ei ,ed -orfei bi ); a ar k crest of y, The t tt 1 1 ,fteee.3 , .._ . 11 04 4 - Zletors ' °4 toll ar 4 p i , -eal ki t tTi 44 (41 eri tuft t 22 t lane ke,„;