The Sun. — London, England, 1845-08-05 00:00:00

''''set;tt rot:ttignere, 'were at home, knowing too that the ottia4el Oh boils Sitieel were not prepared with authorities upon the point—under these circumstances he hoped `teat the Right Hon. Baronet would advise that these unfortunate men should have the benefit of these appeals. Sir J. GRAHAM said the question put by the Hon. And Learned Member was one of the highest importance. He had heard the particulars of the case, and after giving the matter every consideration he had communi cated with the learned judge who had presided over those trials, and he had consented to reserve the point. NEW ZEALAND. • Mr. P. HOWARD wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was prepared to state if any, and what, arrangements had been come to with the New Zealand Company, as it was important that the HoUse and the country should have every information en the subject? • Mr. G. W. HOPE said that he had to inform the .Hon. Gentleman opposite that a suggestion had been made by the New Zealan) Company to the department of Government in which he had the honour to serve, and he had had an interview with a deputation from that Company. Communications were still passing hes twoen them. SOUTH-EASTERN AND DOVER COMPANIES— ACCIDENTS. Lord PALMERSTON said that he had had a commu nication with the Directors of the South-Eastern and Dover Companies, and they stated that the cause of the late accidents was that the engines were toe weak for the work required from them, and that the subject had been fully considered by the Board of Directors. They assured him that there was no mistake in the quality of the material, the mistake was in the calculation at the time the engines were made. They also stated that the party who were directors at the period he had alluded to, were not directors at that time ; and, they added, that, on the Ist of October last, when they found that the en gines were too weak, they gave fresh orders for engines of greater power. He did not, however, think that ex planation was sufficiently satisfactory. He thought that when they found out that the engines were weak, they ought to have proportioned the weight of the trains to their capacity, and instead of putting two weak engines to a heavy train, they ought to have lighter trains to the weak engines. According to their own explanation they did not do so. They stated that it was only on one part 'of the line where the inclination was very steep that they did put one engine before and another behind, and that the trains in these cases did not go. at a greater rate than ten or twelve miles an hour. He was no engineer, and, therefore, would not presume to say that his:opinion was entitled to any value, but it appeared to him that that pace was too great for public safety. He thought the two engines ought to be in front ; but if the one were to be in front, and the other behind, then, in his judgment, four miles were amply sufficient. IE CASE OF JOHN MAYES. Mr. TOFFNELL put a question to Sir James Graham respecting the imprisonment of one John Mayes, who had been tried before Lord Chief Justice Tindal at the Spring Assizes, and in whose favour the judge, sheriff, aad others, had declared themselves. The Hon. Member was not distinctly audible in the gallery. Sir J. GRAHAM said some delay had necessarily oc curred with respect to this case, but• the individual was only kept in prison until the opinion of the judge who tried him (Tindal) was ascertained upon some documents which had been submitted to him. It was believed the party had not been g uilty of the crime of which he was convicted. He had been originally sentenced to trans portation for 15 years, which had been commuted to seven years, and the sentence was ordered to stand over until Acts, which had subsequently transpired, were in quired riga). If' the judge's opinion were favourable, he would feel great pleasure in recommending her Majesty ors grant him a free par ion. TEE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. MOFFATT asked when the new houses of Par _atnent would be finished. The noble lord opposite (Lord Lincoln) said in 1842, that they would be finished in 1546 ; but there was now no chance of such a com pleeion.—Would they be finished in 1847 ? Lord LINCOLN said that Mi. Barry was doing his utmost to forward the building—that he could answer for. No great national building of the same magnitude had advanced so rapidly. Last summer some imputa tions were thrown upon Mr. Barry, which had an effect the reverse of what was intended, for it threw him into a state of nervous anxiety, from which he was ill for two months. He could only say that the Central Hall would not be ready in the session of 1847. The Com mittee-rooms of both houses would be ready by that session ; and it would be for the House to say_whether it would be more advisable to complete the other parts with undue haste, or wait for another session. SI'AFIELDS INTERMENT NUISANCE. In answer to a question from Lord EBRINGTON, • Sir J. GRAHAM, who, as well as the noble lord, 'eels heard but imperfectly, said that measures had been taken to abate the nuisance of the Spafields interment, and to prevent the recurrences of the revolting transac tions connected with that place. The House then proceeded to the orders of the day. BRAZ4IL AND BRITAIN. On the reading of the order of the day for bringing up the report on the Exchequer Bills (£9,024,900) Bill. • Mr. M. GIBSON took the opportunity of pressing upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern ment the necessity of taking into consideration the pre sent position of British subjects resident in Brazil. It appeared, previous to the expiration of the treaty in 1844, they had the privilege of disposing of their pro perty by will, and also certain personal privileges, of which they were now deprived, although other foreigners posse4sed the:u. Thus the property of the British in that country was placed in great jeopardy. The Brazilian Government had also imposed a differential duty of 20 and 30 per cent. on cotton goods, the manufacture of this country, over and above the duty upon other foreign • manufactures. It was, however, intimated by the Brazilian Government, that the differential duties against ' us would be continued no longer than we continued to proscribe flair sugars. On these grounds he did not 'think he would be warranted in nllowing this oppor tunity to pass without endeavouring to impress this sub ject upon the attention of her Majesty's Government.— . (Hear, hear.) All these unpleasant circumstances and differences had Leen owing to the unfortunate policy of the Government of this country in reference to Brazilian sugar.—(Hear.) Ile would not now say a word about slake-grown sugar, or the impolicy of the mode in which slave-brown sugar was admiTted into this country kens Braze; but, in consequence of the mode in which that measure had been allowed to exist, and the monopoly of labourers exercised by the producers of slave-grown sugar, he would wish to ask whether any steps had been taken for the immigration of' labourers into the interior of the West Indies, in order to meet this alleged dearth of labour ? Ile had understood that a measure was in tended to be proposed by which to procure funds to _carry on this immigration, He would say nothing now on the policy or impolicy of the other measures of the Government on this subject ; but he trusted he might be allowed to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, whether any such loan had been asked for or guaranteed ; and if not, whether any steps had been taken in reference to the dispatches laid upon the table of this House in reference to the subject.—(Hear.) Mr. HOPE said the state of the case was simply this, that a loan ordinance had been proposed, by which to raise the means of defraying the expenses of the immi gration, and had not been ojected to ; but at the same time other parties not connected with the Government bad declared their intention of raising a fund for the purpose, independent of the loan ordinance. Stt R. PEEL said, he stated at an early period of the session that plenipotentiaries had been appointed to ne gotiate a treaty with the Brazilian Government on this subject, with a view to conferring on British subjects all the privileges in respect to this question, which the sub jects of other nations possessed.—(Hear, hear.) The last accounts received from Brazil stated, that a change had taken place in the Brazilian Government, and that the Seeretery of State had been removed from office ; but it would be seen from the report, that the Minister at the Court of Brazil had said nothing in reference to the [lon. Member's question. WESTMINSTER ABBEY. Mr. HUME' said he had delayed, until this late period of the session, asking the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to take any steps for discontinuing the fee now exaoted from persons visiting Westminster Abbey ? (Hear.) He should say it was extremely discreditable to exact such tees, and it was the first thing complained of Gy all.foreigners visiting the Abbey, on their return to their own country, knowing, as they did, that nothing of the sort was known on the Continent. The Hon. Member concluded by reading his motion, as follows, but 01 not press it :—" To call the attention of the House to the practice of exacting fees or reeiving gratuities from the public as the conditions of their admittance to cathedrals and other public buildings ; and to move, that, in the opinion of this House, the practice of ex acting fees from the public as the conditions of their ad - raittanco to cathedrals is highly improper, and ought to be discontinued." Sir R. PEEL saii lie had always expressed an opinion in favour of free admission to all the public institutions of this country, in so far as was consistent with the safety of the works of arts, for he conceived that nothing exercised a' more beneficial effect on the minds of the people than being permitted to have free admission to such places.—(Hear.) He should here add that no -thing could be more exemplary than the conduct of the working classes at those places, for instance, during their tree admission to the cartoons at Westminster Hall.—(Hear.) But then due caution was necessary to be exercised in order to guard against such occurrences as had taken place, in reference to the destruction of works of art, as in the case of the Portland vase. The Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter, which he said he bad received upon this subject, in which the writer stated that measures had already been taken whereby to effect a change in the charge nos made for the ad .mittence of straneers to Westminster Abbey. The substance of which was, that, in future, strangers were to be admitted to the nave, and the choir, and the north awl south transepts, without any charge ; in fact, there was to be free admittance to all persons to the body of the-church.—(Helr, hear.) Mr. WM. COUPER said that it afforded him very great gratification to have heard the statements of the Right Hon. Baronet, for he did conceive it tvas a great sandal to the church that such exaction should ever have been made ; and he doubted very much whether the Dean and Chapter had ever any right to make any such chatve—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that this change would prove to be but the forerunner of a total removal of the exaction of any fee whatever.—(Hear, hear.) Mr-WILLIAMS concurred with the lion. Gentleman who had just sat down,, and said that this was the only country in Europe in which the clergy exacted such charges. Mr. P. BORTHWICK quite agreed with the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, that it was better this thing should be carried out by the good will and concurrence of the clergy,. than by compulsory enactment. Still he thought all those public buildings ought to be opened without any tax whatever. English men ought to be at home in their own country, and not be met with charges continually whenever they went to examine any of the public monuments. It was not so on the continent, where all the cathedrals and public buildings were thrown open to the public without a tax. He condemned the practice of turning St. Paul's Ca thedra and Westminster Abbey into show-rooms. They ought, as had been originally intended, to be open at all hours of the day for religions purposes, when the public could be allowed to enter without money and without price. Mr. HUME said, that what the Right Honourable Gentleman had stated was quite satisfactory. He was sure that by carrying out such an arrangement as that spoken of, the greatest good would be realised. The report of the Exchequer-bills Bill was then agreed to. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.—THE CASE OF MR. WRAY. Mr. HAWES rose to move the following resolutions of which he had given notice :—" That it appears from the report and evidence laid before this House by the Select Committee on the South-Eastern Railway Com pany's petition, that Mr. Wray, the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District, was, in the year 1836, the retained and paid agent of a private Company, to pro mote the success of a Bill introduced into Parliament on their behalf. That it also appears, from an address of this House, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has, in consequence of the report and evi • dente referred to, addressed a letter to Mr. Wray, ex pressing his strong disapprobation of Mr. Wray's cca duct. That it appears to this House, upon a reference to tho evidence, that Mr. Wray, on behalf of the South- Eastern Railway Company, paid the sum of 300 L, de rived from the sale of railway shares, to Mr. Bonham, for his services as a Member of this House, and as a Member of a Select Committee, to which the Bill of this Company was referred ; a circumstance to which the Secretary of State has not adverted in the letter ad dressed to Mr. Wray. That, in the opinion of this House, such conduct deserves not only the serious ani madversion of the House, but disqualifies Mr. Wray from holding an office of trust and responsibility u nder the Crown." The Honourable Gentleman said he regretted to call the attention of the House to the subject, as he had hoped that the conduct of the Government would have spared him the necessity. He had no personal ill will towards Mr. Wray, but he thought it was perfectly impossible for the House to pass over the subject in the way the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department had done. It was no . doubt a late period of the session for him to' introduce such a motion, but in justification I of that he would call the attention of the House to the fact that the report of the Select Committee, that sat to inquire into the allegations preferred against certain Members of that House in relation to the South- Eastern Company, was not laid on the table till the 12th July. After that, it was not till the 19th, that the Honorable Gentleman at the head of the Home Department addressed the letter to Mr. Wray, in reference to his conduct,and it was not till the 22d that it was printed. It was, therefore, impossible to have brought it before the House on an earlier day. What was the conduct of this person, as shown in the report unanimously agreed to by the Committee, not one part of which but what was sustained by the evidence adduced ? Mr. Wray was a public officer, holding an important and responsible situation, and a person who from his office held large sums of public money in his hands. In 1837, while holding this situation, he allowed himself to become the paid agent of a private company, in order to promote a private Bill through the Legislature, and it had been clearly shown that in that capacity, while fulfilling engagements that were strictly private and confidental on behalf of this company, he had been engaged canvassing Members of Parliament to support the Bill for which he was retained, and on one occasion he paid 3001. to a certain Member, in order to obtain his assent to the Bill, that Member being one of the Select Committee on the Bill. This could not be considered professional conduct. He (Mr. Hawes) had conversed with most respectable legal gentlemen on this subject, and they all expressed their indignation at the circum stances, and condemned the conduct of Mr. Wray as altogether unprofessional. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had given permission to Mr. Wray to follows his private business. Butproceedings such as these could not be considered a legitimate following out of private business. Here was a public officer becoming the paid agent of a private Company, and in that capa city paying sums of money to Members of that House in order to obtain a favourable result to his measure. Yet the House would be surprised that the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, in his letter to Mr. Wray, had not made a single allusion to that remarkable oc curence. There was no fact in the case which had not been developed in the admissions of Mr. Wray, in the evidence he had given before the Committee. But it would be important to learn what the House had done under similar occurrences in former times, in order to see whether the House could agree with the slight man ner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had passed over the conduct of Mr. Wray, who had evidently committed a breach of the privileges of the House. In 1695 serious abuses and corruptions were brought before the House of Commons, affecting certain Members. The inquiry took place, and the re sult of this inquiry, and exposure of the transaction, was the passing of a general resolution to the effect:—That all offers of money or other advantages to Members of Parliament, in order to obtain any legislative advantage, or to forward any Bill, was a high crime and misdemeanour, and subversive of the Constitution of the country.—(Elear, hear.) After that resolution was passed, a certain individual commit ted the identical offence, a Mr. Bird, and he was in con sequence summoned to the bar of the House, and repri manded by the Speaker for having offered a certain re muneration to a Member of that House. He (Mr. Hawes) called the attention of the House to these precedents, that Hon. Members might see how such transactions were dealt with in former times, in order to guide them at the present time—a time which never had its equal for a disregard of honesty and fair dealing, and for over looking all prudential considerations. But the House had another case much clearer to assist them. He would give the opinion of a former House on public com panies that tampered with the honesty of Members. The South Sea Bubble Companies employed large sums of money for that purpose, which were distributed among public officers and Members of Parliament. In conse quence of this, the House passed a resolution that the taking in, or the holding of stock by Members without giving in exchange any valuable consideration, or pay ment in money, were infamous and disgraceful practices. He gave this to show the opinion of Parliament at that time. Under these circumstances, he thought the House ought not to pass over that delin quency of Mr. Wray ; nor should they be content with the weak and unsatisfactory letter of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. Considering the important admissions of Mr. Wray, he could not be lieve the House would pass the matter over with the re proof of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was right to make a stand on the part of the public, and for the cha racter of the Government, against such malpractices. It was especially necessary that the Government should hold up the purity of its subordinate departments, and show its decided repudiation of such conduct. It was of no little importance that that House should look to the character and proceedings of those who held offices of trust under the Government; and hence it was that he brought the motion under the consideration of the House, as he had no objection to Mr. Wray on private grounds. He had avoided saying anything harsh or un kind respecting thatgentleman,but he must say his conduct had been such as ought not to be passed over by that House. He took this money to Mr. Bonham, whose services he had purchased.—(Cries of " No, no,") He said he took this money to Mr. Bonham, Mr. Bonham being under obligations to him. He did not say this to the dis paragement of Mr. Bonham—his observations were directed to Mr. Wray. He should have been the last man to solicit his services, and if Mr. Bonham unhap pily lent himself to Mr. Wray, he said Mr. Wray was to blame. Such conduct in one holding a public office, like Mr. Wray, could not be too highly censured. He (Mr. Hawes') had discharged a painful duty in bringing the subject before the House. In the expediency of bringing it forward he was borne out by the judgment of those most competent to judge. He should therefore leave to the House, and to the Hon. Gentleman, to de cide what course they should take ; for himself, he should divide the House on the motion he had made. The SPEAKER having put the motion, Sir J. GRAHAM said if the Hon. Gentleman enter tained doubts as to the course he was pursuing in his official capacity with respect to Mr. Wray, he could net but doubt that it was a painful duty which he had to dis charge. The case lay in the narrowest possible compass. He should not, therefore, discuss the constitutional doc trines brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman, who rested his arguments on precedents and on the strong declarations of that House in past time. There was not a Member in it more anxious than ho was to guard its purity; especially at a time when it was exposed to some danger by the wide-spread speculation of the pre sent moment—(Hear, hear)—as he considered that the high character of the House should be steadily guarded against its influence. With these general doctrines, he would proceed to the question. He was not about to extenuate—he was not there to defend the conduct of Mr. Wray. To the best of his (Sir J. Graham's) judg ment he had endeavoured to do justice to that House, and to give effect to what he thought was the wish of the Com mittee over which the Hon. Gentleman presided.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that he had no personal con nexion with Mr. Wray. It did so happen that in the execution of his official duties with Mr. Wray he had never been called into personal contact with him, and therefore he could have no favour with him. He might, therefore, say solemnly that, until he wrote the letter, from no friend of Mr. Wray, and from no individual what ever did he receive any application concerning him. (Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, solely responsible for the letter, which was written by himself. After a dis passionate view of the circumstances of the case, that judgment not being grounded on personal favour, either one way or the other. The Hon. Gentleman regretted that he had brought foward this question at that late period of the session. He (Sir James Graham) re gretted that he did not bring it forward a week or ten days ago. There were only three out of the fifteen Members to whom the question had been referred present.—(Hear, hear.) This showed that the subject did not greatly interest those that were absent. After all, the matter really at issue was—had be or had he not followed the recommendations of the Committee.—(Mi nisterial cheers.) He repeated that he had endeavoured to carry out their recommendations to the best of his ability. However there were two or three circumstances which, before they could decide the question whether he had fairly carried out the recommendations of the Com mittee or not, ought not to be lost sight of. The Honourable Gentleman used the expression that a bribe had been given to Mr. Bonham.—(Ministerial cheers.) In the first place, it was distinctly shown by the evidence, and admitted in the report, that the part taken by Mr. Bonham, as a Member of that House, was taken without THE LONDON,TITESDAY EVENING, any prospeci of reward froth' the company—(Hear, hear)—that was expressly set forth in the report, and borne out by the evidence. It did not appear that the money paid to Mr. Bonham was made at Mr. Wray's suggestion, but at that of a gentleman connected with the company. He had said that Mr. Wray was unknown to him, whereas Mr. Bonham was intimately and well known to him. He was still proud to call him his friend. —(Hear.) He committed a grave error—he acknow ledged that he committed a grave error. He could not offer to extenuate it. He (Sir J. Graham) regretted that he could not extenuate it, but still he said Mr. Bonham was his friend. The Hon. Gentleman said that' Mr. Bonham was under obligations to Mr. Wray. The statement that the money paid to Mr. Bonham went to liquidate a debt owing by him to Mr. Wray had been refuted, and was without foundation. Mr. Wray's was only the hand that gave it to him. The evidence proved that Mr. Wray did not directly or indirectly receive any benefit from the money. If Elsgood, who was in at tendance on the Committee, had been examined, he would have proved that the money did not pass through Mr. Wray' private account. He called upon the members of the Committee who were present to state, whether he did not include, in the statement which he had made to the House, his strong disapprobation of the conduct of Mr. Wray ? With respect to Mr. Mg nett, he distinctly stated that his conduct rendered him unlit to be employed as a servant of the Crown. Then with regard to Mr. Bonham and Captain Bolder°, who had stated that they were of opinion that they had done nothing to impair their efficiency as members of the Ordnance • but thinking that the public se rvice would be impaired by their remaining in office, they tendered their resignations, which were accepted by the Govern ment. The report of the Committee stated that the con duct of Mr. Wray was deserving of serious animadver sion.—(Hear, hear.) He would state cordially the in formation he had received with respect to the proceed ings of the Committee. In the draft framed by the chairman, the words " deserving of serious animadver sion" did not stand alone, as there were added to them, and afterwards expunged, " that the attention of the Secretary of State be especially called to this subject." —(Hear, hear.) If those words had been inserted, they would certainly have called his attention to the subject more strongly than " serious animadversion." He thought it right to state that the suppression of that pa ragraph by the Committee materially affected his deci sion.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. Hignett had been ignomini ously dismissed. Ono Member of the House had re signed his office under painful circumstances to himself an to his friends. No dispassionate person could blame him for the course he had adopted ; but if he had erred, it was for the House to say. Mr. HAWES said as the paragraph in the report was originally framed, it stood thus—" That Mr. Wray's conduct deserved the immediate notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department." Some objection was raised in the Committee to referring the subject to the Secretary of State, the general opinion being that it should be referred specially to the House, and, conse quently, the words " that his conduct deserves the notice of the Secretary of State" were expunged, and the words " serious animadversion" were inserted in their place. Mr. SHEIL said it appeared from the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman that, with respect to the conduct of Mr. Wray, he did not come to his determina tion without the utmost deliberation—at all events he was in communication with one of the Members of the Committee. He (Mr. Sheil) thought he mentioned the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) whose name he found in the Committee. He understood he was the noble and dis dinguished person to whom he referred. He ilr. Sheil) thought that it was rather extraordinary that he should not have consulted the Chair man himself on that point—in which lie was the principal and original agent. The draft of the report Was furnished by the Chairman of the Committee in the performance of his official functions as the head of the Committee. Would it not have been mere regular, and more consistent with the duty of the Right Hon. Gentleman, to have sent for the Chairman instead of en tering into a communication with one individual Member of the Committee. At all events, it appeared that the Itight Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Deport ment did not write the letter in a hasty mood. Now, it was singular that the Hon. Gentleman should have omit ted from the letter addressed to Mr. Wray all mention of the most material charge against that gentleman. The report of the Committee made a distinct specifica tion of that particular charge upon which the Hon. Gen tleman has expatiated.—(The Hon. Gentleman then read the resolution a the Committee, which stated that 3001. was paid to Mr. Bonham, and that 100 shares were re served for him before the passing of the Bill, which were disposed of for his sole benet, and paid to him by cheque as a gratuity for the services - rendered to the South-Eastern Counties, both in and out of Par liament, as a Member of the Committee on their Bill.) He would now pass from one branch of the transaction to another, namely, to the letter of the Right Hon. Bart. What was the complaint made by the Right Hon. Bart.? Why, it was limited to what was not really the most serious part of the charge which the report of the Com mittee made against Mr. Wray. The Right Hon. Baro net only animadverted upon the charge, that Mr. Wray had been the paid servant of the company, while he was one of the paid servants of the Government ; but the Right Hon. Baronet spoke of his having canvassed men out of Parliament,—he did not say a word of the trans action which took place between them, and which was so minutely detailed in the report of the Committee,—so minutely indeed, that the whole evidence of Mr. Bonham upon the subject was transcribed and cited at length. Now a general canvass of Members of Parliament was a very different thing from applying to a Member of a Committee to whom a Bill had beet referred to support that Bill. Every clear minded man would see that it was something to canvass Members of Parliament in the lobby of the House, and an ther to canvass an individnal sitting as it were as a juror, and solicit his sentiments upon the measure which had been referred to him in his judicial capacity. Now in the report of the Committee they had evidence coining from Mr. Bonham, and a statement given by Mr. Wray. Mr. Bonham stated that in the early part of the session of 1836, Mr. Wray, to whom he was under considerable obligations, and to whom he owed money, came to him and said he was very much interested in the success of the South-Eastern Railway, and he wished him to give it a lift, and wished his advice upon some points. He replied that he was under considerable obligations to Mr. Wray, and should be glad to do anything to serve him, and the report added that Mr. Bonham regularly attended, and voted in the committee. Now, he thought everybody who read the evidence must admit that this was a case entirely dis tinct from that of simply canvassing members of Parlia ment. Mr. Wray said no conversation took place be tween him and Mr. Bonham as to the advantage the latter was to receive for "giving them a lift ;" but he admitted that afterwards Mr. Bonham received 3001 as a gratuity for his services in behalf of the company, both in and out of the doors of Parliament.. Now, could the House, under these circumstances, be of opinion that the letter ad dressed to Mr. Wray by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was a sufficient reprimand upon Mrs Wray ? The committee was composed of men of all parties. and of high rank and station in that Honse and they were unanimously of opinion that the conduct Of Mr. Wray was deserving of serious animadversion. The Right Honourable Baronet, however, had omitted all mention of the most serious accusation against Mr. Wray, and lie thought, in this respect, the Right Honourable Baronet had been guilty of some departure from his duty. Mr. W. PATTEN said, whatever might be his opinion upon the conduct of Mr. Wray he could not but lament that the Hon. Member for Lambeth had felt it to be his duty to bring a motion forward upon this most painful subject, for the question could not be discussed without points being entered into which were painful not only to the House, but many individuals out of it. Upon two of those individuals a punishment had been inflicted quite comtnensurate with the nature of their offence ; anything ht ulavpmoo,wn and with rp s e u eg b ra j hr e ad c p t :soh:An might another hg s eh i r o t ni individual vdai allowed o anti he should abstain as much as possible from saying made ntoces t o concerned d a in the matter, namely, Captain Boldero. He believed that the Committee concurred in stating that Captain Btddero's character remained perfectly unimpeached. The honour of Captain Bolder°, they said, was unsullied anti untouched, and he thought his resignation added still more to the honourable nature of his feelings.—(Loud cheers.) He was bound to say, as a Member of the Committee, that he had been taken by surprise by the Hon. Member's motion, and he thought, if the Committee were again called together, to consider this subject, they would not express themselves upon it in exactly the terms of the Honourable Gentle man the Member for Lambeth. The Committee, in his opinion, only intended that a serious animadversion should be passed upon the conduct of Mr. Wray ; and he thought the Right Hon. Baronet had placed a fair and proper construction upon their report.—(Hear, hear.) Under all the circumstances of the case, had the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded to dismiss Mr. Wray from his office, he would not go so far as to say it would have been gross injustice ; but the. Right Hon. Baronet would have pursued a rigid course of justice towards him. He concluded by moving the previous question as an amendment. Colonel PEEL seconded the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the question before the House was whether the House should take any notice of the transactions in respect to which the Committee had laid their report upon the table, or whether the House should entirely pass- it by. The Hon. Gen tleman who moved the previous question, had said that the subject was a painful one, and involved the cha racters of individuals out of doors ; but because it was a painful case wore they altogether to abstain from ex pressing an opinion upon it ? It was a question upon which the House was bound to express an opinion, and it being a painful linty was no reason why they should shrink from the performance of a duty which the Con stitution had placed upon them. The Government complained of the Hon. Member for Lambeth having brought the question forward at this late period of the session, but he had postponed it with a view of suiting, nHwooti n h n. F i e o e riwdn report‘, vh b e u t t wh ea t r h s e hl ea c i o idn n tu enin e - p e nodne e d the c e of tottaabkt table, e , a n hyeasn oticeked Government.hoi s f these transactions; and he replied that he thought it right to wait a week before he did so, to give the Government an opportunity to deliberate and decide upon the course they intended to pursue.—(Hear, hear.) It was rather har - d, therefore, for the Government to complain of the delay which his Hon. Friend had allowed to take place before bringing the question before the House. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that he acted upon the re port of the Committee, and had carried into effect what he understood to be their intention. But he (Lord John Russell) had never heard of a case in which the Com mittee did more than report the evidence adduced before them, and their opinions as to the charges referred to them. He had never heard of a Committee specifying the punishment to be inflicted, or the course which the House ought to take in any particular case. As for instance, in -- the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, whose case was much graver than the one now under the consideration of the House, the Committee in that case did not lay down what was to be the penalty. They stated no more than that he had been guilty cif a grave offence in appropri ating to his own use money paid into his court. But they never attempted to indicate the course which the House or the Government was to take in that case. Both Houses of Parliament considered of themselves what was the course, and they addressed the Crown to dismiss Sir Jonah Barrington from his office. The Right Honourable Baronet was in error, also, when he applied to members of the Committee for their individual opinions. If he thought it necessary to ask any one's opinion, it should have been the chairman of the Corn mittee.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) thought that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Hawes) was justified in bringing before the House this grave case which could not be passed over without injury to the character of the House.—( Hear.) The offence was that of offering a bribe of .£3OO to a member of that House for services rendered to particular persons in his capacity of Member. What was the punishment inflicted on him by her Majesty's Government ? It was to inform Mr. Wray that he had done something which was in compatible with the efficient discharge of his duties in his office under the Government.—(Hear, hear.) It was much the same as if the Right Hon. Baronet reproved a messenger in the Home-office, that he could not attend to his duty in that office, if he employed his time in running about to distribute bribes to parliamentary electors.—(flear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet said that Mr. Bonham had not been bribed—that it had never been said to him that he was to receive money for his vote. But if the House looked back to what had been done in the reigns of William 3rd and George the Ist —in thine reigns it was declared to be bribery to give any gratuity to any elector after the election, whe ther it could be shown that he had voted in the expec tation of such a gratuity or not. Would the House. in the present day admit, or allow it to be inferred, that they were less pure, and less sensitive as to the evils of the bribery of their members, than their predecessors in the reigns to which he referred, and in which two Acts were passed to prevent the offer of any gratuity to mena bers?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read the evidence of Wray before the Select Committee, from which he contended that Wray admitted that tho sum of £3OO was given to Mr. Bonham for the assistance which he had ren dered to the Company by his services in Parliament. —(Hear, hear.) It such bribery were passed over, how could they condemn to a prison the poor hand-loom weaver, the cobbler, and the daily labourer, for accepting bribes, to which he was almost driven by the necessities of his family ?--(Hear, hear.) Would it not be a gross injustice to punish such persons when a gentleman of high station, a Member of that House, was allowed to receive 3001. upon his vote, and the person who offered it escaped with a mere reprimand.—(Hear, hear.) Taking that view of the case, nothing should hinder him (Lord J. Russell) from giving his vote to maintain the purity of the House as much as he could.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet said that the offence of Mr. Wray had been committed so long ago as 1836. But, looking to the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, he found that the subject was brought before Parliament and inquired into, and that addresses were pre sented to the Crown for his dismissal from office. in 1829—the offence having been committed 25 years before, that is in 1804 or 1805.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet.further said that the proposition of his Hon. Friend would be a vote of censure upon him (Sir J. Graham). He could not admit that the House should not preserve its purity, because it might imply a vote of censure upon the Secretary of State.—(Hear.) It was not attempted to be implied in the motion of his Hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State was at all involved in the objectionable transaction.—(Hear, hear.) But only that his reprehension of the offending person was not sufficient to vindicate the purity of the House. (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet complained of the late period of the session when this motion was brought forward, and said it should have been made ten day:, ago ; when, in point of fact, the motion , 1% as delayed out of forbearance to the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet said that he had acted from motives oe lenity. That had not always been the ruling motive of the Right Hon. Baronet in the discharge of his duty. lie had not been lenient to those foreigners whom he accused of being suborners of assassination, and whose innocence was admitted by his Right Hon. Friend four teen months afterwards.—(hear , hear.) With respect to Captain Boldero, he (Lord John Russell) did not think theft he was not guilty of any criminality, but that he was the feast culpable of the three—(Hear, hear) —and he thought that the vindication of the purity of the House required him to give his support to the motion of his Hon. Friend.—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said that the Noble Lord had en tirely mistaken the purport and intent of his Right Hbn. Friend, in complaining of the introduction of this motion at so late a period of the session. What his Right lion. Friend complained of was that the letter to Mr. Wray was laid before the House on the 22d of July, and notice of this motion was not given until the Ist of August.— (Hear, hear.) Whereas the notice ought to have been given on the day when the Secretary of State announced to the House what he had done.—(Hear, hear.) The Government had not shrunk from the pain of accepting the resignation of Captain Boldero and Mr. Bonham, who were the personal and political friends of his RightHon.Friend and himfelf.--(Ministerial cheers.) He did say, that having had occasion, in his public ca pacity, to perform many painful acts, yet it never had fallen to his lot to have acted a more painful part to his private feelings, than when he had advised the Queen to accept that resignation.—(Hear, hear.) NVith respect to Mr. Bonham, he (Sir Robert Peel) had long been upon terms of private friendship with him, and when that Hon. Member was labouring under the in fliction consequent on his removal from the public ser vice, yet he would say, that his friendship for him remained the same.—(Hear, hear.) And with respect to Captain Boldero, though he was not upon the same terms of private intercourse with him that he was with Mr. Bonham, yet when he advised the Queen to accept his resignation also, he did feel a considerable degree of pain ; and this he would say further, of that lion. Gen tleman, that in the whole range of the public service he did not believe there was a man who had discharged his duties with greater industry, integrity, or fidelity.— (Hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) knew all the difficulties of his position, yet he would appeal to his lion. Friend, and ask him if he ever knew a man who had discharged the duties of his office with greater satisfaction.—(Hear.) With respect to Captain Boldero, again, he (Sir R. Peel) would ask why had he tendered his resignation ? Not because he felt he could be accused of any breach of official duty, or that his official conduct could be questioned ; but he tendered it in that spirit which he felt should actuate him, having seen the report of the Committee.—([lear, hear) But even under these cir cumstances he (Sir R. Peel) would have no hesitation in saying that no feelings of private pain would have de terred him from the performance of his public duty. — (Hear.) Ile did think, then, that he had shown through out the whole of this affair, in the acceptance of the re signation of these two gentlemen, a desire to set an ex ample, and protect the public.—(Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord said that the House should not be deterred from passing this resolution ; now, he (Sir. R. Peel) b?gged to assure the House that his Hon. Friend did not seek any exemption from any punishment his conduct in this affair:might merit.—(Hear, hear.) But let hon ask, did his Hon. Friend'slconduct deserve censure? for that was really the whole question now be fore the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question as azainst Parliamentary privileges, and not as against an officer of the police. Well, then, this House took cog nizances of it as such, and appointed a Committee to in vestigate it, and on that Committee devolved the duty of reporting upon it. Now, if the House were to be called on to decide this question, without reference to that re port, why then he would say it was an attempt to lead this side of the House into a snare..—(Hear, hear.) Let him just read what the decision of that Committee had been. Here the Hon. Baronet read an extract from the report, which was to the effect that the conclusion the Com mittee had come to with reference to the South-Eastern Company's case was, that Mr. Hignett had corruptly used the influence of his station, and was, therefore, un worthy of a continuance of the confidence reposed in lihn.—(Hear, hear.) By that the House could see that the Committee did not, as in other cases, state the facts and leave the punishment to this House ; but they stated at once what punishment ought to be inflicted ; and upon that report he (Sir R. Peel) advised the dismissal of Mr. Hignett.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then it had been said by. Hon. Members oppOsite, that the Committee was composed of distinguished men, and that they were una nimous. Why, that is the very thing that they at this side of the House had acted on, for they conceived they could not have adopted a better course than to carry out the intention and recommendation of the Committee. — (Hear, hear.) With respect to Mr. Bonham and apt. Boldero, the report stated that those gentlemen's C con duct had been inadvertent and inconsistent with the integrity of Members of this House, and the conse quence was, that they had tendered their resignations.— ( [fear, hear.) Well, then he came to the case of Mr. Wray; and what did the same tribunal of this House, that pronounced Mr. Hignett corrupt, say of Mr. Wray ? Why this, that the e induct of Mr. Wray deserved the most severe animadversion. Well, then, what had he (Sir Robert Peel) done, in pursuance of the report of the committee ? Why, this, that Mr. Hignett had been dis missed—the resignation of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero had been accepted, though his own private and political friends, and they had expressed their disappro bation of the conduct of Mr. Wray.—(hear, hear). Well, now, let him contrast the metion now before the House with the recommendation of the Committee.—(Hear, hear). The Committee, in their report, had drawn a marked distinction ipt we en the merits of the case of Mr. Hignett and that of - Mr. Wray ; for in the former they state ho is unworthy of confidence, while in the latter they say the party deserves " severe animadversion," while the motion before the House says that Mr. Wray "not only" deserves animadversion ; but had not the confidence of the House.—(Hear, hear). By putting in these words the conduct of Wray and Hignett would b e assimilated, which the report of the Committee had not done.—(hear, hear). Well, then, if so, let him ask would there be any justice in the House adopting this motion?—(Hear, hear). He begged to declare most solemnly, that if. the Committee had come tothe same de cision in reference to Mr. Wray that they had to Mr. Hignett, he had not the slightest doubt but that his Hon. Friend would have dismissed him at once.—(Hear, hear). He also begged to say that, considering the position of Mr. Wray as a member of a high and honourable profession, and that he had had inflicted on him the expression of the sense of disappro bation of this House—he did not know what the Noble Lord opposite might think of such punishment—but he (Sir R. Peel) should say that, next to dismissal, it was the severest punishment he could have got.—(Hear, hear.) And what was the object of punishment of any sort, if it was not to deter others from similar courses ? —(Hear, hear.) He would say then that, looking at the whole of this case—taking into consideration the fact of the dismissal of one party, the resignation of two others, whose resignation the Queen of this realm had been advised to receive, and the reprimanding of a fourth—if the object was to deter others by punishment—surely he (sir R. Peel) could not be accused of not having inflicted :hat punishinent.—(Hear, hear.). If the llOuse went :*urther than that, they would not only be driving punish- merit beyond its legitimate limits, but they ~s;Uld also be taking out of the hands of their own tribunals the powers they had invested them with. Mr. HUME said he was sorry he could not agree with his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth on the pre . . sent occasion. Not that he did not concur with the Con- demnation of such practices as those he had referred to, but because he thought the matter against Mr. Wray had already been carried too far. He had known Mr. Wray for twenty years, and until now he had never known that gentleman guilty of a mean or a dishonour able actiou. He (Mr. Hume) admitted that Mr. Wray had acted a very improper part, but he did not think his conduct at all assimilated to the conduct of Judve Bar- rington, in the case of 1795, which had been referred to. lie blamed Mr. Wray for his indiscretion, but he did not think he had been guilty of corruption. There had been no evidence of that kind adduced before the Committee. Mr. Wray had already suffered much ; he had been severely punished in the publication of the letter of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which must operate very severely on a sensitive mind. That, with the de buto of to-night, he considered punishment sufficient. Viscount EBIIINGTON was surprised at the course recommended by the Hon. Member for Montrose. He recollected the case of the Durham election, on which a Committee of that house sat, and though there was no evidence adduced that Lord Dungannon had used cor rupt means to influence the voters, yet as money had been used by the agents engaged in the election in some form, so as to give a colour to the supposition that the electors had been unduly influenced—he was unseated. This was an analogous case. Mr. Wray had been the agent of the company conveying money from that company to Mr. Bonham. He was surprised that this extraordinary fit of generosity should now be shown in favour of Mr. Wray which on other occasions had been denied to other parties. It was imperatively necessary to preserve honesty and integrity in those who held public offices, when such excitement prevailed in the money market. He should support the motion of his Hon. Friend. Mr. WARD said he would troble the House with a few words. This was not a question whether the letter of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Home Secre tary wes perfect, but whether by affirming the last reso lution proposed by the Honourable Member for Lambeth they would inflict utter ruin on the party referred to. Nothing, he admitted, could be less acrimonious than the tone and observations of that Hon. Member, yet they ought to bear in mind the palliating circumstances con nected with this case. The House ought to recollect the bad practices which prevailed in 1836, when there were not fifty Members in the House but what were mixed up in railway matters to a much more questionable extent than Mr. Wray. At that time it was impossible to carry a Bill through the House without doing what had been charged against Mr. Bonham. He believed that Mr. Bonham had never applied a farthing of the money to his own use, and as far as Mr. Wray was con cerned it had yielded no advantage to him. There had been no previous undertanding between them as to what was then done ; for the offence the suffering had already been great, and as Mr. Wray had a large family de pendent on him he hoped the House would not act harshly and run down such small game. To pass such a resolution as that proposed by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes) would be utterly to destroy and ruin a man who had already greatly suffered.—(Hear, hear.) Colonel PEEL considered he was perfectly quali fied to give an opinion disinterestedly in this question as he had never held any railway shares in his life. The Gallant Member, though in a very inaudible and rapid tone of voice, went through the leading particulars of the transactions involving Mr. Wray, Captain Boldero, and Mr. Bonham, contending that none of the gentlemen had been influenced by cor rupt or pecuniary considerations in the course they had taken. Sir J. EASTIIOPE differed with the Gallant Colone and the Hon. Member for Sheffield. Mr. Wray he did not know, but one of the lion. Gentlemen he did know, Captain Boldero ; and he was pleased that he had been acquitted of all dishonourable motives or practices by the general sentiment of the House. With regard to Mr. Wray's case, he thought something more should be done. What would the public think if they went out of the usual course to screen this party, while on humbler persons they inflicted the full ri g our of punishment. He should vote with the Hon. Member for Lambeth. Sir 11. INGLIS said that being originally one of the Committee, he might be allowed to say a few words. He had not attended the first day's sitting, but he had after wards carefully attended to the case, and carefully exa mined into, day by day, the report of the evidence ad duced. He then thought the case was pressed too heavily against the three gentlemen ; and if he thought so then, he must view the case of the Hon ourable Member for Lambeth with much less favour now. He considered the punishment had already been too much, and he hoped the Hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) would withdraw his amendment of the previous question so as to give a direct negative to the motion. He hoped that the House would negative the proposition of the lion. Gentleman, and thus testify their respect for the House and their confidence in the conduct of the Secretary of State. Mr. MITCHELL said those who had risen to defend Mr. Wray had only induced him to depart from his original intention of not voting at all and of voting for the motion of the Hon. Member. ' If Mr. Wray was to retain his situation, why did they accept the resignations of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero ? Sir J. GRAIIA'M hoped the Hon. Member for North Lancashire would persist in his motion. Mr. Wray was not placed in so responsible a situation as either Mr. Bonham or Captain Boldero ; but nevertheless he would not defend his conduct. Mr. B. ESCOTT held that Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero were honourable men, and that Mr. Wray, who had offered money to Members of that House, was the guilty party, and ought not to be allowed to escape. He should vote for the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. HAWES then replied, and said that the Com mittee considered that their resolution would have the effect of leading to his resignation or dismissal. Their words in the report to Mr. Ilignett were not so distinct, yet he was dismissed, and then with respect to Messrs. Boldero and Bonham, why did the Government accept their resignations if they did not intend to dismiss Mr. Wray? The lion. Gentleman had not condescended to allude to the standing order of that House, which ren dered it a breach of privilege to offer a bribe to a Mem ber of that House. 'With respect to the time he should have brought forward the motion, he held that as long as the Parliament sat he was at liberty to do so, and he was not to be prevented from doing so, because other l lon. Members neglected their duty, or because the time did not suit the Government. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority against it —63 INCOME-TAX COMMISSIONERS. On our return to the gallery we found The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explain , ing to the House that it had been found impossible to obtain the precise return, which related to the pro ceedings of the Income-tax Commissioners, moved for by the Hon. Member for Rochdale, and ordered to be made a few evenings ago. After a short discussion the modified return was or dered to be made, and the remaining orders of the day , having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven o'clock. r ADVERTISEMENT.] —BRUSIIEs.—NEW INVENTIONS. —The Triple Hair Brush. One stroke of this is equal to the effect of one penetrating, five small-tooth combs, and one even cut brush ; to be had in four sizes, No. 7, ss. 6d ; No. 8,7 s. 6d; No. 9,9 s. 6d. ; No. 10, I Is. 6d. The Double Anti- Pressure Nail Brush, which dues not divide the quick from the nail, no pressure being required, and thoroughly cleans and po lishes the nails in a tenth part of the time of any other me thod; price in bone, No. I, 2s. ; No. 2,2 s. 6d. ; No. 3,3 s. 6d. ; No. 4, ss. ; and of all sizes and prices in ivory. The New Tooth-pick Brush, which entirely enters between the in terstices of the closest teeth ; marks, full-sized brushes, No. 1, hard ; No. 2, less hard ; No. 3, middling ; No. 4, soft. The narrow brushes, No. 5, hard ; No. 6, less hard; No. 7, mid dling ; No. 8, soft, at Is. each, or 10s. per dozen in bone; and 2s. each, or 21s. per dozen in ivory, the hair warranted never to come out. The Medium Shaving Brush, between the usual badger hair and bristle brush, being a selection of the strongest hair only from the badger skin, in a variety of sizes, both in bone and ivory. The above articles are the inventions of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, London, and, being protected, any one imitating them will be proceeded against. ADVERTISEMENT.—Defective Sight and Hearing relieved. Instruments and spectacles sent into the country by post.—The Eyes.-39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Optical Improvements to enable persons at advanced age to read with ease and to discriminate objects with perfect distinctness.— Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, have invented Spec tacle Lenses, &c., of the greatest transparent power, which are patronised by his Majesty the King of Hanover, her Grace the Dowager-Duchess of Bedford, their Graces the Archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin, the Dukes of Devonshire, Norfolk, Argyle, Marlborough, and Manchester Bishops of Exeter, Lincoln, Cork, Elphin, and Kildare. this invention, imperfect vision is preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons are enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupation, and can see with these Lenses of a much less magnifying power, and they do n9t require the fre quent changes to further helps. Also, Achromatic Teles copes, Open! Glasses, Microscopes, invisible, and all kinds of Acoustic instruments for relief of extreme deafness. Caution —Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, are not in any way connected with a person of the same name, in their immediate neighbourhood, nor in any part of the country. To prevent mistakes, be cautions, and observe, only to be had at 39, Al bemarle-street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel. [ADVERTISEMENT.] — Ladies, whether temporari exposed to the scorching rays of the summer sun, or frequer, ing the crowded saloon, or close assembly, will find Rowland Kalydor a most refreshing preparation and auxiliary to comfort, dispelling the cloud of languor and relaxation from the com plexion, and immediately affording the pleasing sensation at tending restored elasticity of the skin. The numerous va rieties of cutaneous eruptions, sunburn freckles, tan, and dis eolourations, are pleasingly eradicated by the Kalydor, and the skin rendered delicately clear and soft. Its purifying and re freshing properties have obtained its selection by the Court and the Royal Family of Great Britain, and those of the Continent of Europe, together will the elite of the aristocracy and haut ton. The high reputation it bears causes unprincipled shop keepers to offer their spurious " Kalydors" for sale, composed of the most deleterious ingredients, containing mineral astrin gents, utterly ruinous to the complexion, and by their repel lent action endangering health. It is therefore imperative on purchasers to see that the words " Rowland's Kalydor" are on the envelope (an engraving of exquisite beauty, from a steel plate by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon, and Co.) All others are raudulent counterfeits. Tne Earl of Denbigh, Master of the Horse to her Majesty the Queen Dowager, accompanied by his family, ar rived at Blackwall Pier yesterday morning by the General Steam Navigation Company's steam ship Soho, from Antwerp: AUGUST 8, 16451 ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT. —Croydon, August 4. CROWN COURT—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. ) Frances Mary Wilson, the young women who was acquitted on Saturday upon a charge of robbing her master, again sur rendered this morning to answer the other indictments that had been preferred against her. She was first arraigned upon a charge of stealing a cambric handkerchief, the property of Thomas Cook, her master. Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Creasy again appeared to support the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Hawkins (who held Mr. Ballantine's brief) were for the prisoner. The evidence of Mr. Cook, the prosecutor, was to the effect that he purchased 18 cambric handkerchiefs at a Custom-house sale, and that he put his private mark upon them, and brought them into his stock on the 14th or 15th of May, at which time the prisoner was in his service. On the night of the same day he counted them, and found one was missing, and, upon his in quiring about it, every one employed on the establishment de nied any knowledge of it; and on his questioning the prisoner, she said that she had not sold one, and she likewise said she knew nothing about the handkerchief. He afterwards found the handkerchief in one of the prisoner's boxes when it was opened by the constable Collier ; and it was produced, and he swore that it was his propeaty. Cross-examined—He did not say at the station-house " the will get ten years, and I will get her fourteen if I can," but he did say that she was a wretch. He did not say that the prisoner denied knowing anything about the handkerchief when he was before the magistrate, at the examination of the prisoner. This was not because he had not forgotten it, but because he was not asked anything about it. The prosecutor was then asked by Mr. Clarkson whether he had not had some conversation with Inspector Collier outside the Court that morning, arid he said he had, but he declined to state the particulars of the conversation, as they were per fectly irrelevant. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE told him he must answer the ques tion. If he chose to talk to the witnesses, he was bound to state what took place. The prosecutor then said that he was standing outside the Court, and Collier told him that the prisoner's father had re ported that he, the inspector, and witness, had been in commu nication together respecting the property, and he replied that it was entirely false, for he had not seen the officer since the conclusion of the proceedings on Saturday. Cross-examination continued—Witness suspected the pri soner was robbing him for a month before she was taken into custody, and the young men were set to watch her. One of them reported that a piece of cambric had been taken from her " playfully," and that he could identify it from its having his writing upon it, and on the morning before the prisoner was taken into custody it was intimated to him it would be better the piece of cambric should be given back to the prisoner. He did not recollect who said it would be better, but they had a consultation about it, and it was arranged that the piece of cambric should be thrown about " playfully" by the young men in the shop, so that the prisoner might have an opportunity to take it, which she did, and put it in her pocket ; and it was understood that when it was in her possession the inspector should be sent for to take her into custody. He had consulted Collier upon the subject, but he did not tell him anything about the manner in which the piece of cambric in question had come ;into the prisoner's possession on the morning of the 18th of June. Mr. CLARKSON asked the prosecutor whether the object he sought to attain was not for the inspector to find, as it were by accident, this piece of cambric upon the person of the prisoner? The prosecutor denied that he had such an object; but it was admitted in the course of further cross-examination, that when he first applied to the inspector, on the morning of the 18th of June, he did not say a word to him about the piece of cambric; and it was only after his return to the shop, where the " play ful" scene was enacted, and the prisoner got it into her pos session, that the inspector was immediately called upon to take the prisoner into custody. The prosecutor was next asked whether he did not, while the prisoner was at the station•house, use most opprobrious epithets to her, and he denied most positively having done so. Inspector Collier was the next witness. He merely produced the handkerchief, and deposed that he found it in one of the prisoner's boxes. Upon being cross-examined, he said that the prosecutor came to him on the morning of the 18th of June, and told him he suspected Miss Wilson had been robbing him, and referred to a transaction that had taken place that day, when the pri soner cut off a small quantity of glazed lining for a dress, and gave it openly in the shop to a dressmaker named Grainger. Mr. Cook went away for about 20 minutes, and when he came back he told him to ge with him immediately and apprehend the prisoner. He likewise said it was very probable he told Mr. Cook that he had never in all his experience heard of a felony being committed in the presence of so many people. The prisoner was in convulsions nearly all the time the case was under examination by the magistrates, and while she was in that state he heard the prosecutor say that hell was too good for her. Mr. Cr... RKSON—Did you hear him also call her a ? Witness—l did not hear him use that expression, but he did use a vulgar and opprobrious epithet, and I rebuked him for it. He also said that hell was too good for her. Mr. CLARKSON—And this was while the prisoner was in a fainting and almost insensible state? Witness—lt was. The witness was then questioned as to what conversations had taken place between him and the prosecutor, and he swore positively that he had not made any such statement as that de posed to by the prosecutor as having taken place outside the court that morning. Some other persons, in the serviee of Mr. Cook, were then examined, to show that they had not sold the handkerchief to the prisoner, and that she had net made any mention to them of its being in her possession. Mr. CLARKSON then addressed the jury, and commented with considerable severity upon the conduct of the prosecutor, and urged upon the jury the impossibility of placing any re liance upon such testimony as had been given in support of the prosecution. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up, the jury re tired, and were in deliberation about five minutes ; when they returned into Court, The Learned JUDGE, in reference to the scene that took place on Saturday, said, that before the verdict was delivered, whatever that verdict /night be, he requested no person would presume to exhibit any manifestation of feeling. It was very improper, and he should certainly commit any ono who was observed to be guilty of disturbing the Court. The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Mr. BODKIN said, that after what had taken place, he should not offsr any evidence upon the other indictment, and verdicts of " Not Guilty" were accordingly recorded. The prisoner was ordered to be immediately discharged. The business on the Civil Side has been entirely uninterest ing, and Lord Chief Justice Tindal was occupied the whole of to-day in disposing of three petty cases of trespass. The spe• cial jury causes will not come on before Wednesday. OXFORD CI RCUlT.—Monmouth, Aug. 2. CROWN COURT—( Before Lord Chief Justice DE N MAN. Edward Price, 66, was indicted for the violation of Ann Hall, at Abergavenny, on the 18th July and found, Guilty.— Sentence one year's imprisonment George Jenkins, 23, surrendered to an indictment, charging him with violently assaulting Maria Meyrick, on the 16th May, at Newport. On the night in question, a young woman named Higgins, slept in their house, and was awoke about two o'clock by hearing screams, which proceeded from the unfortunate wo man, who ran into the room, followed by the prisoner, who called on her to go down. She refused, on which he said it should be worse for her, and went down stairs. In a short time he returned into Higgins's room with a poker in his hand, with which he struck the victim of his brutality several blows. He then dragged her down stairs again and renewed his vio lence ; she cried out. Higgins went to her, and found her lying on the bed, in her night clothes, covered with blood, and the prisoner sitting on a chair opposite to her. Higgins took the poker and hid it from him. The two women then went in their night clothes to the station-house, and Meyrick was taken to bed at a neighbouring house, by direction of the police authorities of . the borough of Newport, who instituted the present prosecution. A brush handle, broken in two pieces. was found on the bed. When taken, the prisoner said, " I did it, and I kicked her several tunes." Having been found Guilty, Lord DENMAN sentenced him to he transported for fifteen years. William Pritchard, 30, Henry Johnson, 22 (a man of colour), and Richard May, 22, were indicted for burglariously breaking open the dwelling house of Charles Arkwell, at Caldi cot, on the night of the 21st April, and stealing a side of bacon, three spoons, and other artieles therefrom. The prosecutor and his wife, two old people, live in a small cottage in a solitary place. On the night in question, the prisoners broke into the house, which consisted of two rooms only, both on the ground floor. The old people heard the door broken open about two o'clock, and Johnson with Pritchard immediately came in, one standing on each side of the bed. The old man had risen up in bed, and said, " What do you want?" Johnson replied, " Money, arid money we'll have, or blow your brains out." He pushed the old man down in the bed, and pressed his hand over his mouth, Pritchard standing over the old woman with a great bludgeon in his hand. They said, " Its no use, if we can't do it we have got a lot more outside, and we'll bring 'em in." Ark well, on this said, " Take all we've got, but spare our lives." The prisoners then opened the boxes, and ransacked about for nearly an hour. Pritchard then asked the old lady for the key of the other room, and she gave it to him, and they both went in, leaving the old couple locked in their bed-room. The prosecutor heard them go away in ten or fifteen mi nutes after. They were obliged to get an iron bar to open their bed-room door after the robbers were gene, and they found that the articles named in the indictment had been taken away by the burglars. Pritchard took the old man by the shoulder when they first came in, and said, " Give up yourself and money, or you shall hang." Mrs. Arkwell looked out through the window, and by the light of the moon, which was shining brightly, saw May standing at the garden-gate, leaning on his left arm, to whom Johnson went out and spoke. He came back and said to Pritchard, " Can't thee find anything? Look again. They've got some, and we'll have it." She was more frightened when they went into the next room, as she thought they were going to get something to kill her with, and begged them not. Several witnesses were called to prove an alibi, but the prisoners were found Guilty. Johnson and Pritchard were sentenced to 15 years' transportation, and May to one year's hard labour. John Jones, who was yesterday convicted of stabbing Henry Morgan, was sentenced to 15 years' transportation. John Brothers and William Jones, convicted of a burglary, were also sentenced to 10 years' transportation on the first in• dictment, and to be fined Is. on the second. The business of these assizes concluded about five o'clock y 1 T lIIE EIGHTH EDITION OF " MR. BURKE'S PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE" has just made its appearance, and com pensates for the lesigth of time devoted to its production by the completeness and finish of its details. Every line seems to have been searchingly revised, and the whole now forms the most comprehensive and perfect history of our Nobility ever produced. Peers, Baronets, and their numerous off-shoots are all accurately and most clearly shown, and the re searches connected with Mr. Burke's other great National work " TUE DICTIONARY of the Landed Gentry," have enabled him to add a most interesting feature, in the introduction of the thousands of Gentlemen's families allied by descent or inter marriage with the titled orders. Consequently, almost every reader finds some one of his connexions recorded in the pages of the " PEERAGE." It may be said, indeed, that there is no work published more essential than this to the conversation and occurrences of every day life. ADVERITSEMENT.] —An Extraordinary Cure of a Diseased Knee of Ten Years' Standing, by Holloway's Pills and Ointment !—Mr. Edward Perryns, residing at No. 21, Fargate-street, Worcester, is now cured of an abscess on the knee and a stiff joint, which had been bad for ten years, indeed, ever since he was fourteen. He had lost from the knee joint several pieces of bone, one be in g two inchesin length. He had been under the most eminent of the faculty in Worcester, and at last was told that his leg must be amputated, as a cure was quite impossible! A perfect cure has been effected in this hopeless case by these wonderful medicines. S o ld b y a ll chemists arid by the proprietor, '244, Strand, London. TIIE WHITE SLAVE AND THE RUSSIAN PRINCE. —This novel seems to have excited as much attention as the author's preceding and remarkable work, " The Revelations of Russia." Regarding the story as a fiction merely, it is one of great excitement and power. Living characters are unsparingly introduced, and all the leading dramatis persona; are evidently designed as portraits. The sketches of Russian lite and manners are eminently graphic and vivid. Originality is one of the grand features of the work, and, throughout, it abounds with the most spirited and striking adventure. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE• TATTERSALL'S.—YESTELDAY. Until near six o'clock, the attentian of a very crowded room was wholly occupied in settling on the Goodwood races, 09 which, owing to the number of events, and the unprecedente d bri,kness of speculation, the accounts were exceedingly heavy; It is a gratifying proof of the healthy s tate of the ring that money was plentiful, and that this important finale to a mesas brilliant meeting passed off satisfactorily. The ' t. Leger as touched upon late in the evening, and . a few scores and fifties invested in the following prices : ST. LEGEP.. 3 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Weatherbit 7 to 1 agst Mr. St. Paul's Mentor—taken 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Old England 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Merry Monarch 14 to 1 agst Mr. Johnstone's Annandale—taken 16 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa—taken 25 to 1 agst Mr. Watts's The Baron—taken freely 25 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Ranger 25 to I agst Mr. Irwin's Ould Ireland 30 to 1 agst Major Yarburgh's Red Robin—taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. Painter's The Pacha—taken 40 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Wood Pigeon—takes 1000 to 20 agst Lord Stradbroke's Idas—taken 1000 even between Old England and The Merry Monarol DERBY. 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gill's Sting—taken 25 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Arkwright—taken We understand that his Majesty the King of the Neth erlands was so delighted with his visit to Goodwood, that he h as ea' pre,sed his intention to the Duke of Richmond to see th e " Orange Cup " run for next year. Mr. 1-libburd, we believe, will in future officiate as starter 0 Goodwood races. A serious accident befel Mr. Fagg, a subscriber fait Tattersall's, on his return from Goodwood last Friday. 7,„, was first thrown from his gig, and laid for some time on t"; road with a broken leg, was taken up by one of the extra c oaches from the races, and this being immediately afterwards over turned, the same leg was again fractured. POPLAR AND BLACKWALL REGATTA• te This regatta took place yesterday, in order to comniernorat the day on which the first meeting was held at Blackwali c) , establish the Watermen's and Lightermen's Almshouses 5, Penge Common. The race was in five heats, with six toiler': for a very handsome and serviceable skiff, and other prit (the boat, of course, being for the first man), liberally scribed by the residents of All Saints, Poplar, and BlackvilD First Heat—J. Gudge (yellow), 1; J. Tyler (light blss)' 2 ; and C. Presman (red), 3. It was a very good heat. The men went away well togetbsedr, at the same moment, and then Tyler drew away with the l e d but before they had proceeded half a mile the winner challesg , andSepassed him, and won by two lenths. • cond Heat—J. Corey (dark blue g ), I; J. Wheldon (P l°k)' 2; G. Linch (green), 3. Corey took the lead, held it, and won easily. Third Heat—Tyler, I ; Wheldon, 2 ; Pressman, 3; • Linch, 4. A well-contested heat, in which they were nearly all tog.,,e t ,, b , e i r , Fourth Heat—Corey, 1 ; Tyler, 2 ; Gudge, 3 ; and "' don, 4. rotO All four scull and scull for some distance, and then took the lead, and kept it, winning easily. It was a eir race for second place. Grand Heat—Corey, I ; Tyler, 2. ro ° The distance in this, as in the preceding heats, WO ! e r Blackwall-stairs, and go twice round in each heat, the race or tending from the Folly House to the East India Dock buoy ills posits the Brunswick Wharf. The winner drove away I I the lead, and kept it, winning easily. FOOT RACING AT WALWORTH. Bee' Yesterday some interesting foot races came off at all t he hive grounds at Walworth, and from the great celebrity e' r• contending parties, the affair attracted upwards of 3,W? r oso sons. The first prize was for a silver tankard, wh ieo walked for over a ten miles distance, and the following W;) e known pedestrians contended :—East of Westminster, fillor, of Hammersmith, Oliver of Pimlico, Powell of Hampton, (Jo , rison of Hounslow, Penfold of Tooting, and Blackwell, the ep t known Bee, and Howe of London. At the signal they °c ol off at a smart pace. When six miles had been covered , ,e rit e of the men had relinquished the contest, and finally the was won by East, who accomplished the ten miles in one P;e11 and thirty-five minutes, fair toe and heel walking, and 13° ., t 0 1 came in second. he next contest was for a handsome 51,i'to cup, to be run for over a quarter of a mile of ground, an i a e c leap ten hurdles. The following men formed the S e o r starting :—Smith, the London champion, Jenkinson, the don Stag, Warwick of Epsom, E. Smith and Pattersoß I l i don, and Handley of Nottingham. The competitors Wino, off at locomotive speed, and cleared the hurdles with g reat o t lerity, and after a very admirably contested race S mith,' en d in the winner, and won the cup; Jenkinson was seconot ht to Warwick third. Subsequently the day's sport was brou„g wa rdi a conclusion by the race for a silver snuff-box, over 4 4 ,V e op of ground and ifteen hurdles placed equi-distant. a l 5 )1 Makpiece, Bung, Read, and Williams (country professlatet. and E. Smith and Fibbins, of London, were the ea0,?',1004 At the start Smith went away with the lead, closely l ° ', o is by his adversaries, when, after a spirited race, Smith es "" the winner. vICO' WRECK of the JOHN HEND.- - DUTCH EAST INDIA/SIAN. o ptsi° We are happy to state that the eleven men, left b abe Jobs R. W. H ec k e lb ur y, o f th e D u t c h E as t Indiarnso, the Hendrick, on the 30th May last, upon a rock neer, fr ightf!' as was reported in The Sun, were rescued from thei r set a e situation, after having be e n on the rock 15 days, b a love " Snell, of the merchant ship Eliza, of Liverpoel , S P ,, the r 111 ): rived in London. It will be recollected that, °lf : v essel , tain, with seven of the crew, being taken off, di t ys Pi e: board of which they were received, was for sev er a ' malil° l o vented, by a violent storm and adverse winds, f r°fA d of head towards the rock, and was carried some bon dre i n that 111 away from it, when, it being supposed by the cap ers ta poor fellows would ave been starved to death,their fate. to be no means of obtaining food, they were left to _ su ff e r dreadfu Fortunately, however, after enduring the most _ eye ate. ings and privations, the Eliza hove in s ight, t i i n nd o _pl ie . 00 that calamity which was looked for by the capta ft Hendrick. SO' been given by P. L. Zeetzi The following account has oP the second mate of the John Hendrick, one who was left 4 a s th the rock, of the dreadful visitation of his companions, on e `, whom was th e surgeon o f the vessel. It was expected tatoo after the captain had left, every effort would be niscl e t be return and take them off ; but, when it was found th at gel wind was so long in a direction that would carry the 'roe away from them, they took steps, under the direction ° . : e surgeon, to provide for extremities. The rock was di;e°" o g 0 to be about half a mile in circumference, and upon 11 33 7f 0 , 1 ' survey of it there was found to be a plentiful supplY4eol but no fresh water was anywhere to be met with. I it ,g i ed meat they had was a little pork : with this they made 1 1 6 ; i e attached to nails, which were made in the form of h° l ? i feel by them caught fish, which abounded there. They tifoe fowls, a sort of duck, during the night, and in the by let gathered their eggs. There was a description of era ociiit'r, the rock, the legs of which were serviceable in qu'i, t 110", their thirst. For some days they were able to a cW b a t food by burning pieces of the wreck of the vessel till the t ie exhausted, and by pounding the charcoal and In' d e ptt l with the sea water they thought they should be able t° to otle it of its saline properties ; but in this they were 101,10 os ful. During the day, between eleven and three o'e7 e its• account of the extreme heat, they waded into t ' 14 0,r, 11 In this situation they continued for eight days, wh en e the whole of them were seized with a swelling of t h - t heto and tongue and a vertigo, that for two days render ed Th e almost insensible. This arose from the want of wat e T • ii , surgeon for some days previous had been in that s itua o° lt ait the tenth day they were visited with occasional showers:: ' Os,: to collect which the sail they had was expanded, a 1 11 ; rsir in the centre, and a cask placed underneath in which t•o,— distr i , water was collected. This, which was very sparing l i. tt st ' buted, assisted to restore the strength of all. In tb l e s A tSi ° they remained till the 15th of June, when the Eliza, „lei° e Snell, belonging to Liverpool, and trading to Sydney , ,vei l sight. A flag was waved which was happily observed ilea so of the Eliza's crew, upon which two boats were lower d bi the whale were taken off. They were most kindly tr e , lt boO,l the captain ; but for ten days they endured the greates.eeatet' sufferings, several of them not being expected to rei be Shortly after being on board, as the captain expecte fro; short of water, upon the Lenters, Captain Gelol°Sl'e pt Bombay to Liverpool, appearing in sight five O f were put on board that vessel. The Lenters reached seeds pool last Friday, when the men brought by her p ro be ing to the residence of the Dutch Consul, who, uPO°,O the made acquainted by them that they belonged a roc , / ' 1 ; John Hendrick, and were the men abandoned upon `" ~, gave them immediate assistance. He provided ea ch ' l 'i - s o to!, a jacket, a pair of shoes, and a pair of stockings. H e Or"; their passage up to London,: and gave them a letter o f re jjo duction to the Dutch Consul in London. The nien,!,,soer lodging at the Yorkshire Grey Tavern,' in Lower _Ptect street, and appear not to be in the least degree affe'ere'e their dreadful sufferings. The rock on which the roen•bett tb supposed to be a volcanic eruption. The mate dese rl d gIO P composition of the material of it to be iron, stone, a ° t he tl There are three spires or pillars arising •ut of it, 0 0 m ete r , of one of which (this being a flat surfaoe, a few feet ditsi";ooe; a flag was placed during the day, and a man was als° % u rge to watch for a vessel. It has beer, ascertained that th,' s t tb e and five men, who were in the Eliza, have been len ue o f t b Brazils, where they were taken under the protectiooFstteo: Dutch Consul, and treated with the utmost kindness sou .o d th,s; tion. Nothing was heard of the mate, five seameo,,_:itorY, passenger, who went off previous to Captain ectli': departure, and it is supposed that they were lost in e d ja . ,„ already spoken of. The captain of the Eliza had plaj , e , o f 0 ' care two quadrants, two spy glasses, and the log bou' John Hendrick, which he retained possession of. S BIRT t be On the 2d inst., at Stafford H our , the Duchess 0 f Alfa land, of a son. On the 28th Wt., at Paris, Rue de la Madeleine, 0 11 ° ttl ° of Guqave Masson, of a son. On the 30th ult., at Holbrooke House, near Ipso lady lady of Frederick D. Fryer, Esq.. of a daughter. lady 0t On the 14th ult., at Alexandria, in Egypt , the Saunders, Esq., of flu irep On the Ist inst., at Montague-place, Rusee""' 9 • S. I. Joseph, of a daughter. Fr ' a rd . On the Ist inst., at Peckham-rye, Mrs. T. H. )'Dadf° On the Ist inst., Mrs. Ainger, of John-street, row, of a son. of A S IO Ono the Ist inst., at Lee, Kent, Mrs. T. B. o On the 2d inst., at Greenwich, Mrs. John daughter. Es o q. n , t t h o e 3 .la O r t y h A ul n t. n , a3tro.3Culonfilerleirtßite,l:ll:n4g)lihst„erTliontas .tt• L lete ; Drewell, Esq., of Colerne. , • l' s it I.) On the 31st ult., Captain Jenkinson, of tOlife the ( 3, : v i f i iil, , Hussars, eldest son of the late Bishop of St. Davids'',Witiblil3' eldest daughter of A. Lyster, Esq., of Stillorga N l / 4E, : O qi x. n : i t c t , l oE te isd: 3 l.t., l r s oe t fa ult., iNn‘, iGii i eur a as t ri ed3s,: Matlock, eldest J s a n n n i e s Ricl , a r d 1% lb . ell ° I. Dan park , •,..-. o e . ), of vice _ebo. , joy Wigram, to Margaret Helen, fourth daughter of Pet er Derbyshire. 1) I E D. for On the 4th inst., at her residence, Stamford -hill, Fsrliclii, 23 years the affectionate and beloved wife of Mr. g Lendenhall-street, aged 46. I h Allis t°' On the 31st ult., at the Grove, Clapham, .- n ' i eldest son of Thomas Howell, Esq., of Hark -lane-t t on ° On the 27th of July, at Hull, Frederick, intan Ca O ptain Fredernd, ILA. Lieu tel'3° On the 3d of ick JuneCleavel a last, at Meerut, East Indies, , i ; o ot. Richard B. Gwilts, of her Majesty's 10th Regiment o,..l_regiisli On the 11th ult., Anne, relict of the late Rev. Jo Watson, of Arnwood, Habits, aged 63. On the 26th ult., at Dawlish, Frances Isabe lla, wife °f tlje‘ Rev. Hyde W. Beadon. On the 29th ult., at Hampstead. John Eaton , s ( i t ' ~,Aft9' On the 30th ult., at Pembroke-square, ICen' le f.: ,_ (- 1. Elizabeth Spence, relict of Captain 11. 11. Spenee!,o ' o f MO* Ht (il t % i t i l l i g. e s, V: , ilgt,.;tl2sz.____.. .._._._.__at Ludlow , Elizabeth,* _,........igu ,______----_,,,G, .. _.,........_- - . --- ----- --- r .not ou' ill , Lc mion : i t rintcd and Publishes bv MU.- . So. - 0 ( !40. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sus Office,__ol3o. Strand. in the Precinct of the Savoy, ill the V Middlesex, Tuesday, August 5, 1845. ,T O ( ta ct, 4, 111 1 , Dogi t 4grei