The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

;,I{9. 'ge Cll . nerelY noceat much' cessarY n, nt the the/ e po int lit tht ) in the tied to 5 o f 016 nittle ht of t he leserir re, t he oci,:e d Justice' no t to ired for ot e. 5. trir being ica and pel t be -01 ' hat he :—theY le jut° a suf:6' lodge a a re anen t 9. e righ t ' at they gem "- teeo i ded t 0 goini 70111''' le to ' .0.6 to t ell is Je 119 ry e- • t boP o tb mes a tha- LS. ot ri aro; l , ea ad' If the t`' f° lll. • 1 :r 3 Co . tipper, )clli ll' r t fo h. el° g Zafe it ' st 81b 21 1 ) pat Abr.- o ):I, f a 1 ), a l : tl'e ). 9, " bfr' of ce 1 'ILd" COURT CIRCULAR. W i Stlxo.ty.—The Hon. and Rev. C. Leslie Con. - teaav officiated at the performance of Divine service this M orning at her : Majesty's Private Chapel, in the Castle. roag Queen and Prince Alb er t wa lk e d in the grounds sur the Castle vesterdav forenoon. Her Majesty and h is Royal Highness visited, in 'private, her Royal Highness the Dechess of Kent, at her residence, Frogmore Lodge. Baron de Brandenstein (Grand Chamberlain to the late Duke of Saxe Cobourg Gotha) left the Castle yesterday. The Baron was the bearer of the m'mrnful and unexpected intelligence of the demise of the Duke to his Royal Highness Prince Albert. The Royal Family were taken airings yesterday. Sir Robert Peel left town on Saturday afternoon, to attend ber Majesty at Windsor Castle. The 'Right Hon. Baronet returned to his residence in Whitehall-gardens in the early p a rt of the evening. A joint deputation from London and from Liverpool, rela tive to the subject of the Tea duties, had an interview with 1 1 1 „ r Robert, Peel on Saturday, at his official residence in -w iling-street. Sir Howard Douglas, ar . d Mr. Duckworth fermed the deputation from Liverpool. M.P., Mr. Potter, ,Sir George Larpent, Mr. John Abel Smith, M.P., and other gentlemen attended the London deputation. A deputation from the London Missionary Society, con- V t i , i ng of Mr. Alderman Challis, Chairman, Mr. Hindley, 1 , - ;•re with the Rev. Arthin• Tidman, and the Rev. J. J. '"an, Secretaries, had an interview with Lord Stanley, a t the Colonial-offie, on Saturday. The Baroness de Moncorvo, lady of the Portuguese Minister, was safely- delivered of a daughter, on Saturday, at i, three o ' c l ock in the morning, after a painful labour that - ' ste ' l nearly forty-eight hours. Both the mother and the child are Oilfavourably. Sir Smith haili aninterview with Sir R. Peel on •gsty a T tu h r e aa eo v mmitt ee on Education of the Lords of her Ma 's Most Honourable Privy Council had a meeting on were afternoon, at the on afteC `ncil-office. The Lords present b the Lord President, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Earl of --111,011, Lord Stanley, Sir J. Graham, the Chancellor of the ''''he;:pier, and Cord Granville Somerset. , Robert and Lady Peel gave a grand dinner to the prin lPal t n 1.1 1 ,. embers of the Diplomatic Corps, on Saturday, at ra residence, in Whitehall-gardens. A select party were esent aSteunt..to meet th e i r E xce ll enc i es. Di nner wa s served in the s gallery. The invitations included the French Aulbas an7A re nd the Countess de St. Aulaire, the Swedish Minister • 4 " Countess Bjornstjerna, the Belgian Minister and Madame B an Weyer, the Netherlands Minister, Mons. Dedel, the Minister and Baroness de Cetto, the Hanoverian i ar°ll m ister, C ount K i elinansegge, the Portuguese _Minister, , 11°w de Moncoo, the Rusian Minister and Baroness • - ' l , the Am rv erican Minister and Mrs. Everett, the L- iSian Minister and Madame Bunsen, the Danish Mi ter giant:tad Countess Reventlow, the Austrian Minister, • r°ll Nieumann, the Saxon Minister and Baroness Si c • s ': l°rf t; the Wurtemberg Minister, Baron de Hugel, the the llsselrotllei_itnister' General Castelcicala, the Sardinian Mi- • etser, Count Pollon, Baron and Baroness Langsdorff, Count the Lord - Chancellor and Wellington,ur and Cla II " CoPley, the Duke of Earl and Titess of Hadding6n, Earl and Countess of Jersey and I.)A'f Clemintina Villiers, Viscount and Viscountess Canning, prougham and Lord and Lady Wharncliffe. it h _ Chapel Royal, St. James's, has been hung with black, er sa s _ ecilience of G the death of his Royal W Highness the Du e 114 Cobourg Gotha. The Duke ofWellington attended I) I ..;;F'Y servic e yesterday. Prayers were read by the Rev. . Vaida esl eY, and the sermon was preached by Archdeacon If -ar d• The M arqu i s o f A ng l esey, L or d s C aw d or , Cl are , 4tat;eriden, Ebrington, and Wharncliffe attended the service bat..elve O'clock. The service was read by the Rev. Messrs. and Hall, a n d th e sermon was preachedby Arch- Goddard. M ETROPOLITAN DRAPERS' ASSOCIATION. lal eeting of the members of the assistant drapers, in ,370,(ilistricts Bishopsgate and Shoreditch, was held atr riday at the White Hart Tavern, Bishop Tate-street, ais w as fully and respectably attended, both by the as t'elotic' and the employers. The chair was taken at 9 Nhi eh 'V Mr. Hopkins, and the business of the evening, Tor , a ,... W ita to discuss the question and pass resolutions T the system for closing the shops at earlier I nan now in use, was immediately commenced. 1,t,, L C hairma n having briefly addressed the meeting, I,ritteit,Yilwell having also spoken in advocacy of the_ tife et ' to be carried out, the first resolution, to the she that tho meeting was decidedly of opinion that by hesent protracted system of business was attended Ino r worst results to the young men engaged therein, the bell , i ntellectually, and physically, was opposed to sari, to interests of employers, and perfoctly unneces -4(144 51.1blic convenience, was moved by Mr. Hall, and Th e hY Mr. Mills, and carried unanimously. second resolution to the effect that the meeting, Earlya,gd by the oodeffects which had arisen from tiosi n "Ved g where the practice had boon adopted, 13 Per • ° obtain the assistance, and relied upon the co - eo a s t : ° a n2 . ! a considerate public, was proposed by Mr. Its the land seconded by Mr. Buckingham, and carried A• tr, IT lne r• • lut'proposed the third E EDHANI, of Shoreditch, b 441 , Which was seconded by Mr. Foskey and car lerali4ieciamation to the effect that the meeting de ticbps to do it s utmost to promo t e the closiag of tlel oe k ill the districts and neighbourhood at eight Asireh , L ttrinc.• the summer months, from October to enThinerclusbive, and - at seven o'clock from April till Me . l , ifio„, ' !, fourth resolution, " That those already carried 487! ec ha, circul a t e d as extens i ve l y as possible by hand rphe2 was then p ut an d carr i e d una nimously.-.- Itl an e e , t b in r g o , ke ha ti v p in . g passed a vote of- thanks to the were or CARLISLE.—OH Friday accounts rece ived Ala i n town from Castle Howard respecting the 14,-It'ilinq illness of the Earl of Carlisle, which represent the prrnptoonlf the N . oble Earl to be exceedingly precarious. The 4, krtn; s which have manifested themselves are of an Z his'llg character, so as to excite painful apprehension s as irtpc.,ll4 - , ordship' s u l t i ma t e recovery. If anything th e N o b le Tli a ,Was somewhat improved on Thursday night, but the the ig e was so slight as not to remove in the least degree At that entertained by the members of his family assembled that seat. tr The H on. J . E . Elli ot, l ate Member for the county j d toxburgh, b ro th er t o Earl .pinto and paternal uncle to y John Russell has transmitted to the Treasurer of the ~.7hati-Cern National League A ssociation at Hawick the sum of 10/., d of the Leag'ue Fund of 100,0001. .42), .ItuRY-LANE THEATRE.---Mr. Bunn seems de lit''2l,:ned to surpass all his former efforts—for on Thursday „,,V _afte r the pertbianance of The Bohemian Girl„ Albert's Ql,ll(tida ballet of La Jolie Fille de Guild, will be brought for ",, ad will introduce us to one of the greatest beauties, therbest dancers, the Parisian stage has ever produced, oiselle Fleury, who sustains the character of Beatrice, of the piece. 'We are, moreover, 1,.h() lately himself, and hi s pup il , to have Mon o Monsieur ' Haguet Vestris, th2Ze is lY made s o successful a debut at the Academie—and bee en scene report speaks in the highest terms. TAIN TUC KETT'S BENEFIT.—This gentleman, as Tes t th e en from the theatrical advertisement, takes his be 'lllteiaryulliv..evelllugiain. the character of Falstaff; in the play of e all be well supported Keeley'and tlie"t°rdaurit • pe rf ._ anc , and every exertion will be made to render iit y n e effective. Two amusing pieces follow, the tttittu r c e u ll, D and the Thumping Legacy. LAYS, ST. JAMES ' S THEATRE.—These t kk e Lk e activ 4ll2,Peurefhor:n...ances have been visited during the week by the &:m, th e "' of Beaufort, the Earl and Countess of Chester • nle o „--"". and Countess of Errol, Lady Nleux, Lady Mary `ge Marquis'ue CoUntess of T kervine, the Marquis of Normanby, of an , ouro, the Baron Dedel, Lord Fitzroy Somerset, 4104 Pere arid Lady Forster, the Countess of Charlemont, Lady 14°1tit Kiel Lady Curteis, the Baron and Baroness de Rothschild, / p "'eggs'. Viscount Maidstone, Lord Auckland, slb ot, • B'e aislet, th e Earl of Clarendon, Sir George and Miss . 41 1 , -ATR or M AJOR-GENERAL iAJOR- GENERAL WALK ER, C.B. —ln ,,,,a:antil! demise of the above gallant and distinguished offi o;) N ding, with local rank of Major-General, the 21st :er . d ° si lL tish Fusiliers,at INladr ' as, ) was received by the "ic e , General Walker had been forty-five years in the '4lt e 1- 1 h e h ad serv e d at Bhurtpore, and compaigns of Lord N'4l4.l.lle„i‘i.ilieigfe_owf Kaloonga, under Major-General Gillespie, who " appointed Colonel of the 21st Fusiliers. :ao uttai xn •N ZEVER HOSPITAL.—OH Friday afternoon ch aff hfitt at ee,, tine of the Governors and supporters of this charity Qp ee tor. smoo F reemasons , Tavern, the Earl of Devon in the the in tuthwood read the report, which proved the exist. ropoli s of an awful amount of fever. The admis. t , t, t " Into the iho l 2 S °ter ~_hospital were 1,462 during the year ; being an excess t e ,41. 1e kiro`": preceding year. In March fever was at its height, ‘he ' 42 ' 4l Part,: "3 attribnstannes were 179. In the East-end there was little some i With the central, southern, and northern districts, ~ a gthere was not a house exempt from it, , o t l kf it tioo of utabl e to the undrained, filthy, and closely-built c 4 ,11. tied of n'.se localities. A large proportion of the patients o ten etso tof,,,c.ultural labourers and provincial mechanics who r' rated h q° ll, 111 search of employment, and whose illness was the ant of food and clothing rid being obliged to sleep tiass' oto ds: Relapses frequently occurred twice and thrice. k u , e rtallt y was a ,. • , Twenty-nine nurses ' l6 ad. ' neer ' of th about 15a per cent. e hospital were attacked with fever, of whom The 4:euipmt,bewr_res_tored to health during the year was were 2,556/. 35. 7d., and the disbursements . ,pi to rt, • ieavin g a debt of 4001. After the adoption of Lon don, e 'olved to petition the Government, the Corp°. th e all or jp ero _ao w d other public bodies, in aid of the hospital. bl e ear wern ! es re-elected president, and the other officers haisto4o7PPointed. After which thanks were voted to time 1 1 , kl eY tNI " ANT ) .1(1 at sPecl a i toee ,, MEDWAY CANAL COMPANY—On 171., jo th e G eor _ e l n g d of . the Proprietors of this Company was i:eject7vhaer,oh.ttiruft,,, V ulture Tavcra, Cornhill, John Mown, made for j " , ?lie purpose of considering a proposal which il or "teco ottr taking a lease of the canal with p a view to the of a railway from Gravesend to Itt.chester, ht;re/pl:ratthwe.i.determination of such special meeting into tto !tvw eh nes and m r _,eed, from which it appeared that the object 44 '11 4 . f 7rott, Roeb e raY Canal Company is to connect Graves vhi'r'llllestale, li ne of r :!er. Chatham, and Brompton, by laying '154 . th en `? d o uod l e ': the Company's property, .which they tc„ pc,, a' lation of their powers of incorporation, and by t4 l 4 l4,C , ree et , ed the canal will not be affected. Proposals trklacNu.etiefithe ra`iZa7a,ntatieorninent contractor, to gua t r o a v n i t d e e e t om : ti t , t ` q e. f p, t ?,_ n . es, stock, and eve s ' and Works, and to 14 1 , 4 tft . ur o of p ry requisite for conducting P the `lle wh o ' f . , ouo/., the contractor taking the loan flt th e exe .that amount, and to open the line at six e • s` z o cat ookre e d u"?o or the contract. The traffic has re -161411 Pecte d tl with great care, and the g • 1 r oss estimated . eisp ensei, 8 railway i s 24,0001., from which deduct 441.1, fro mthere would b e a nett income of 4 w0ri1d,....' Si that' take interest on 65,0001. additional an estimated sum of 1: 7501. annual sur. k ep , o 5 c amongst 4h and loan note anal Com e present share A L er ne _ , Paoy• After a long discussion between Pt en . t the ;in, Mr. Mocatta, Mr. A. Ilankey, and other w4l a „, a n t n e e s r a df rh a ao p ins p id o : r g, t i t o thh n ee i n t : p l o t; e t w s fa u s r p at dlhuoesptaremodo, proposed Passe s fo r „i l es ohl :!1t hold .er; of a u ha f:r4 theo 4)11. Si r 1114t:._ tx a eholaers Z i t t Ni t c• W v tich ' i t i b en or i Manne r in which he had pleaded the cause Hayman In m o o n v e ec y l a n v r ote of p thanks ) so likely to bweaa peeted at n the o u T a na nk it s te e as to their portion of the roatu s i o ' g , I f d a V Ote O c t* n separated. beneficialalst, pass t e o d t t h o e tl o ie ld ch p a t i o r . . The Meerniect ?, t tl te ' v l J,Ly cAuGUT e wE slarlsfield . Newton, of the Horse and nzt ()use A ut cif th 4 l ti etne barrel 3 . more d (havr tile mornino q g y ttst(noNh'ecr,ne that h i a ' i d s into the ig 11.1.rv,14: fit , tut s i x -nt in the cellar on Monday n . 1 t. After e an were secured. With ' cellarbottle, s o n. n hd t e e en s o t T he 4 4.4 114 4 i - Tr ; e li n ' , l l l/ w iii_g_ e in in ti t t o ten a din Tt . The servant had a key altered tae,AtAl,t_th.e,cellar door.--Doncaster Gazette. ty•—Our fishing. this season has c ri ve uer e l re avourahlv. Twelv • 1 1 aud at Doefif e goo'. sa mon have 'ter. ut,out tWerl our no less than forty-five. In ty , • _ v been caught.—Juverness / THE EARL OF CARDIGAN AND LORD W. PAGET. (From the Observer. ) The foil 'wing correspondence, relative to the recent action brought by Lord William Paget against the Earl of Cardigan, and the two act ions now pending between the Noble Lords, has been sent to us for publication :- 1 (No. 1.) "238, Oxford-st., 29th Jan., 1844. • 4 MY LORD DUKE,—I address myself to your Grace as Command- r-in-Chief and head of the British army,' and I throw myself upon your Grace's well-known love of justice and manly conduct to protect me, by interpozing your high autho. rity in the matter between the Earl of Cardi g an and myself, by causing a military inquiry' into the truth the charges which I have brought against his Lordship, and which have lei to the following correspondence, and whirls I have the honour to inclose for your Grace's perusal. My Lord Duke, all I seek is a full, complete, and searching inquiry into the whole matter between us : and this, the wealth and power of the Earl of Cardigan enables him to evade by civil process.' My Lord, I have made the same appeal to the Earl of Had dington, as ' First Lord of the Admiralty,' and have forwarded to his Lordship a copy of my letter to your Grace.—l have the honour to remain, my Lord Duke, with the most profound respect, your Grace's most faithful and obedient servant. " WILLIAM PAGET. "P. S.—l have the honour to transmit your Grace a copy of the letter I have addressed to the Earl of Haddington. " His Grace the Duke of Wellington, K.G., &c." (No. 2.) " London, January 30, 1844. " Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington presents his com pliments to Captain Lord William Paget. He received last night his Lordship's letter of the 29th inst., and several in closures marked No. 1,2, 3,4, 5, relating to, or giving cause for questions between Lieut.-Col. the Earl of Cardigan and his Lordship. The copy of the letter to the Earl of Iladdington, referred to by his Lordship, was not sent. The questions are all of a social character, and are properly cognizable by a court of common law ; and it appears that one in which the Earl of Cardigan was defendant was under , discussion before a competent common-law tribunal, but the record was withdrawn by his Lordship's desire. In re spect to the other of more recent date, in which the Earl of Cardigan is plaintiff, it appears that the Earl has commenced proceedings before the competent common-law court, which proceedings must take their course. Even if Colonel Lord Cardigan, as plaintiff, was to apply for the interference of a military tribunal in these proceedings, such application could not be complied with, as his Lordship, Lord William Paget, the defendant in these questions, is not liable to the media tion. Under these circumstances, Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington begs leave to decline interfering in any mariner in these questions. " Captain Lord William Paget, R.N., 238, Oxford-street, London." (No. 3.) " 238, Oxford-street, 31st Jan., 1844. " Ma' LORD DIIIKE,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Grace's letter, and will not again trouble your Grace upon the subject; but whilst I see in every line the justness of the opinions your Grace has condescended to make known to me, your Grace will perhaps permit me to remark, that in the case in which the Earl of Cardigan was defendant, the record was not withdrawn by my consent (or even with my knowledge), but that in the absence of a material witness, it became the duty and business of my counsel to withdraw the record (pro forma), but that his doing so had only reference to the impossibility of the cause being tried on that particular day. I beg your Grace's pardon for this further intrusion, and have the honour to remain, with the most profound respect and gratitude, your Grace's most faithful and obedient servant, " WILLIAM PAGET. • " His Grace the Duke of Wellington, K.G., &c." (No. 4.) " 238, Oxford-street, 28th January, 1844. " DIY Loan,—l address myself to your Lordship, as First Lord of the Admiralty' and the ' head of the profession' to which I have the honour to belong, and doubt not that if your Lordship has the power to do so, you will afford me your powerful protection by ordering an inquiry into all the circum. stances which have led to a correspondence between the Earl of Cardigan and myself, a copy of which I have the honour to inclose you. My Lord, whilst I cannot believe that two officers holding her Majesty's commissions can ever be permitted to enter into a correspondence conveying such grave charges as those which characterise the letters in question with impunity (as regards the professions to which they respectively belong), it is equally clear to me that the wealth, and power, and moral in. fluencs of the Earl of Cardigan are sufficient (or, at least, that it has been so up to the present moment), to enable him to evade by civil process' the consequence of his misconduct. My Lord, I have the honour to enclose You the copy of a letter I have this day addressed to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, upon the same subject, and I entreat your Lordship to give the matter to which I have called your attention your most earnest consideration.—l have the honour to be. my Lord, with the most profound respect, your Lordship's very faithful and obedient servant. " WILLIAM PAGET. " To the Earl of IladdinWon, &c., &c., &c. (No. 5.) Admiralty, 7th Feb. 1844 "MY Loan,--I have turned my attention to your Lordship's letter, and to the copies enclosed therein, of the correspond ence relative to the questions pending between your Lordship and the Earl of Cardigan, and of your letter to his Grace the Commander- in-Chief. The whole have been read by the mem bers of this Board, and, after mature deliberation, we concur in thinking that, as an action is in depend ence i n thi s case , it is one in which it would not become us to interfere. If we thought otherwise, the circumstance that Lord Cardigan is an officer in the army would render our interposition impossible without the concurrence of the Horse Guards. I understand that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief is in accordance with that I have just stated as the opinion of the me obers of the Board of Admiralty.—l have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient, humble servant, " lIADDINGTON. "Captain the Lord William Paget, R.N." (No. 6.) " 238, Oxtord-street, Jan. 28, 1844. "MY LORD,—On the 23d December last I addressed a letter to your Lordship, and which (writhing under a succession of injuries which I felt I had received at your Lordship's hands), I had determined to give every publicity to ; but the circum stance of your Lordship making known, through the columns of the ' high authority of' the Times newspaper,' that so far from having been privy to the absconding of Winter, you desired the most searching inquiry into the whole charge I had brought against you, and was prepared to show it was altogether without foundation, and that it was your intention to take legal pro ceedings against me on account of the letter in question, I felt that it would be most improper to carry my intentions in that respect any further, and I instantly suppressed every means I bad adopted for the circulation of it, in the full belief that your Lordship really intended to take such legal proceedings against me as could not fail to lead to a searching inquiry into the whole of the charge I had brought against you. I find, how ever, that an attempt is being made by your Lordship to avert the possibility (so far as you can) of the truth being elicited at all, by your taking steps, which (however offensive and incon venient they may be to me) cannot fail to leave the real ques tion at issue between us a matter of doubt and uncertainty ; and this you have done by bringing an action against me in the Court of Exchequer for pecuniary damages (laying them at five thousand pounds) for an alleged libel, instead of applying to the Court of Queen's Bench for leave to file a criminal information against me. In the civil action which you have instituted against me, your Lordship is well aware that neither your Lordship nor myself can be examined ; and the simple question (in the shape the action is brought) resolves itself into libel or no libel.' Why, my Lord, every schoolboy would in all probability say, without a moment's hesi tation, that the letter to your Lordship is, per se, a libel ; but had your Lordship taken the ether course I have men tioned, your Lordship must have deposed on oath (' not upon your honour') whether you had been guilty of the crimes imputed to your Lordship or not ; by the same rule, and of course with the same view, in the pro ceedings your Lordship has adopted,,you are depriving me of the opportunity and advantage of stating the facts, to which I am ready to make oath. My Lord, I invite, I challenge, I dare you, to subject yourself to this ordeal. If you are inno cent, why shrink from it, when, under such circumstances, every conscientious man would believe you ?—if guilty, how, my Lord, can you reconcile to yourself, as a man and a sol dier, to have treated me as you have done? My Lord, I have always known and frit the fearful odds I have contended with in encountering the wealth and rank and influence of your Lordship, and of the host of furious partisans, Lords and Ladies,' by whom you are supported ; but, let me tell your Lordship, that in the matter between us the time is past for any such interests to avail with you or against me. There is a power and an influence greater than all this— ' public opinion ;' and that I have the commiseration of every honest man and every virtuous woman I am fully persuaded of, and that too amongst a class of life much more numerous, in finitely more moral and intelligent, though somewhat in point of rank' below the order' to which, my Ls rd, both you and I belong, and where such matters are not viewed quite so lightly as in the fashionable world.' My Lord, the eyes of the world are upon you, and upon me ; my Lord, the attention of the British army, in which your Lordship holds so distinguished a rank, is especially fixed upon you, and I flatter myself, that not a few of the officers of my own pro fession are equally alive to the unprecedented position in which two officers, holding her Majesty's commission, stand towards each other, in the persons of your Lordship and myself, and which may not long remain so. My Lord, either your Lord ship or myself, are unworthy to hold her Majesty's commission. Your Lordship (and you alone) has the power to prove which of us is guilty, Lind which is not, in this matter ; and I dare you to do so And I declare that you are afraid to encounter the examination you would have to undergo if you took any legal eourse by which you would subject yourself to such an appeal to, and test of, your Lordship's veracity ! "My Lord, 1 repeat, you have put dishonour on me ! You have made it impossible for my children ever again to hear the name of their unfortunate mother without a blush of shame, nor the tion and sorrow. And lam prepared to show, and to prove (if your Lordship will give me the opportunity of doing so), that the charge I have made as regards the absence of Winter, and the cause of it is not, as your Lordship has stated, alto gether without foundation ;' and yet neither your Lordship, nor Messrs. Powell, Broderip, and Wilde, may ever have seen Winter or spoken to him, or paid him a farthing. In doing all this, you have committed the greatest social and moral offence which one man can offer to another; and in the vain hope in the first instance (for I will do you the justice to believe so) of saving the unfortunate creature from the degradation and ruin in which you have involved her, you have persisted, and still persist, in refusing me the reparation which is always accorded between man and man in such cases. Be assured, my Lord, it is in vain that you determine to per sist in this course. Of your guilt I cannot entertain a shadow of doubt ; and justice you must and shall do me, sooner or later. " The Earl of Cardigan. " WILLIAM PAGET," - - HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.—That dashing style of treatment which made last year's opera so delightful to the public and so prosperous to the management, will character ise the present season. Mr. Lumley exhibits even an increase of vigour in his present programme, instead of finding in past success a moral Capua. The arrangements for his ballet present an unprecedented accumulation of strength. Four s e c d h F a n t y t a ne e s sEde a a ss sse C oi hei a lre r ,; ff l o nar t ene t ,vd a w je: G i tnhhr addition eF s df i or , da sr ei Ft appeared n ht y oo s t C ehb e e i es i aei t un, o tw , ay Diary nebyhesat T svo es at theatreaeg p l dhio four fold uannr Pinlganacisili negt charm upon her art. Perrot is wielding his sceptre as here tofore, and is busily at work upon a new ballet, to be en titled La Esmeralda, which will follow Herold's master piece, the Zampa, upon the opening night. This is to re store us "the" Carlotta, anxious to expatiate the guilt of a more easterly sojourn by her re-appearance on more aris tocratic boards. We may also announce a grand heroic ballet, called Jeanne d'Arc, for Fanny Elssler's first appear ance. In opera, our old favourites and friends, the glorious Lablache, those admirable artists Fornasari and Mario, the divine Grisi, and that nightingale Persiani, come back to us ; while the Signora Favanti, whom report describes as a star of the first magnitude, and that excellent tenor, Corelli, make their first appearance before an English audience. Costa's opera, Don Carlos, which is composed expressly for the company, will be produced ; and Ricci's Corrado d'Almatura, with the Fantasma of Persiani, will be added to the old repertoire. Such unprecedented attractions not,ought h t o e n secure e a d sple i ndid s i t b e s n c d r iepdt visit a o n f d t h w e i , Kingee odoubt French to these shores, produce a season whose brilliancy will efface that of all its predecessors. We cannot close this notice without a word for our own compatriote, Favanti, who comes to us crowned with unfaded laurels, won in the land of song. We hail the advent of this native syren with feel ings of mingled pride and pleasure, and feel convinced she will receive the same warm welcome which has attended her progress through foreign lands. THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY' 12, 1844. IRISH STATE TRIALS. TWENTY-TiIIRD DAY. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—FianAy. TIM QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS. The Court met at ten o'clock this morning, when the Solicitor-General proceeded with his address, and after com menting on speeches made by Mr. O'Connell at other meet ings, concluded by expressing his conviction that the jury wold feirlessly do their duty. He concluded at one o'clock, when the Court retired for a quarter of an hour. On the Judges taking their seats the utmost silence prevailed. The CHIEF JUSTICE then spoke as follows :—Gentlemen of the jury, it falls to my lot to make such observations as it occurs to me necessary to submit to your consideration in reference to this important case ; and I am happy to say that, on conference with my brethren, I find there is a perfect con currence of opinion among us as to the subject matter to be laid before you. Gentlemen of the jury , it has been , and is highly satisfactory to the Court, and highly creditable to you, that great deal of attention, I may say constant and unremitting attention, has been paid by the prey throughout this strange and most important case— strange as regards its duration, and important as regards the consequences. Gentlemen, you have heard during this long trial a goad deal of eloquence—brilliant eloquence ; you have heard somewhat also of declamation—you have witnessed great oratorical powers, and powers of reasoning—you have heard a great deal of what might be deemed poetic, and I do not mean to say but you have also heard a good deal of what may be more justly termed prosaic ; but, Gentlemen, you have heard observations made to you which I cannot help saying ge nerally bordered on the very verge of propriety. But, what is more material, you have heard a great deal which it would be difficult indeed to say was properly relevant to the subject that you are to consider. There are many questions to he con sidered, both of law and of fact. On the latter subject you are the constitutional judges. You are to determine and come to a just conclusion upon the facts. The law of the case you will take from the Court, the Judges of which are constitutionally entrusted with the adrninistrati. n of that law, and bound to administer it under the most solemn sanctions, and independent alike both of the Crown and the people. We, the Judges, therefore, sit in this Court of Queen's Bench, having the same obligations that the Queen holds to administer justice with mercy according to the laws of the land. Gentlemen, there are, as you know, eight traversers now upon their trial—Mr. Daniel O'Connell, Mr. J. O'Connell, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. T. M. Ray, Mr. C. Gavan Duffy, the Rev. Thomas 'Tierney, Mr. or Dr. John Gray, and Mr. R chard Barrett. These are, Gentlemen, the several traversers upon their trial ; and here is an abstract of the indictment upon which they are charged, and to which they have respectively pleaded " Not guilty." They are indicted for conspiring to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the Queen's subjects. It will be very tnaterial (or you to keep in mind, in coming to your verdict, the difficulty of dis tinguishing between the several traversers in respect of the nature of the conspiracy charged against one and the other of them. The first charge, then, is for conspiring to raise and create discontent and disaffection among the Queen's subjects, and to excite them to hatred and unlawful opposition to the government and constitution of the realm. The second is, conspiring to stir up jealousies among the Queen's subjects, and to promote in other subjects of the Queen, especially with regard to Ireland against England. The third is, to excite di affeetion in the army. The fourth is, to collect unlawful assemblies in large numbers in Ire land, in order to obtain a change in the laws and Constitu tion, by intimidation and demonstration of force. The fifth is, to bring the courts of justice, established by law, into disre pute, and with the intention to induce the subjects of her Majesty to submit their disputes to other tribunals ; and to induce the Queen's subjects to withdraw the settlement of their disputes from the tribunals by law established, and to re sort to other modes of adjudication. The first count in the in dictment contains the several charges of the conspiracy that I have adverted to, accompanied with divers and several -avert acts, by means of which these objects were to be carried into effect. The overt acts are not part of the conspiracy, but they are inserted in the counts of the indictment as statements of the evidence be which those charges of conspiracy are to be sup ported. They are so for the laudable purpose of giving the parties who are accused of the conspiracy notice of the parti cular facts by which the Crown intend to support their charge. these overt acts are only evidence when the question is not so much as to the exhibition of the particular overt acts men tioned, as to the conspiracy of which th e y are ca ll e d i n evi dence. You will have to say not whether the overt acts did take place, but whether the parties accused are guilty of the conspiracy. You will find it very necessary that you should have a very clear and distinct idea of the particulars of the alleged conspiracy. The first count of the indictment charged them with endeavouring to excite among the Queen's subjects an unlawful opposition to the Government and the constitution ; secondly, to stir up jealousy among the Queen's subjects, and to excite ill-will among various classes of her Majesty's subjects, especially those in Ireland against those in England ; thirdly, to excite disaffection in the army ; fourthly, collecting together large assemblies its order to obtain changes in the law and constitution by intimidation and an exhibition of physical force ; and lastly, to bring the courts of justice, esta blished by law, into disrepute. Now, it is a conceded fact that the indictment on which the traversers are brought to trial consists only of an offence of one nature—that is to say, it may have different branches which, in this case, it has; set still the whole is an indictment for a conspiracy, and for nothing else. There is no indictment against any of the tra versers for sedition, nor for any other separate and distinct breach of the law. They are all, one and all, indicted for the crime of conspiracy ; they cannot be convicted, unless it be proved to your satisfaction that they have been acting on the illegal charge set forth against them in concert with some other persons and individuals—unless they have acted in this concert, they are not guilty of conspiracy, though they may be of a numerous class of other offences. For a con viction of conspiracy the law requires that the jury should be satisfied that there was a consent either for the purpose of doing an illegal act, or doing, or causing to be done an act legal in itself, but to be brought about by illegal means, Gentlemen, I think that to be the defini tion of conspiracy according to law, ald which I am bound to put before you. You see in that definition Ido not include as a component part of the crime of conspiracy either the ex istence of treachery, as it was insisted on by Mr. Fitzgibbon, on the first day of his address, nor of secresy, which was in sisted on by him on the second day that he addressed you, and which was afterwards reiterated and repeated by Mr. O'Con nell, one of the traversers, who addressed you in his own de fence, which he had a perfect right to do, when he stated his case to you. In my opinion, and in the opinion of this Court, it is a mistake in law to say that to establish conspiracy it is necessary for the Crown to prove the existence of either treachery or secresy in order to complete the charge. I do not say it is contrary to it. It very often happens that both treachery and secresy concur in the existence of various conspiracies ; they are cognate to such any offence. But, I deny aliogether that it is the l aw o f this. coun try that the existence of eith er one or t h e other ingredient should be proved in order to constitute the crime of conspiracy. Secresy is very often i nvo l ve d i n it; but, in my opinion, it is not a necessary ingredient. I say there are crimes like the present—by saying that, I do not mean to anti cipate—no, God Lrbid ! but, if secresy were a necessary ingre. dient in the crime of conspiracy, the present charge might have been carried on, and the parties could not have been stopped in their progress. A great many au th or i t i es were cited by Mr. Fitzgibbon in his argument, both on the first day, when he insisted on the existence of treachery, and on the second day, when he insisted on another alternative, the exist ence of secresy. I have looked into those authorities, and I am bound to say that they do not support the propositions which he brought forward. I would say further, that I was much surprised at the statement which lie made with regard to some of the eases to which he referred as if they contained any ground for the introduction of such a proposition. I have looked carefully over them all, and, without troubling you with a recapitulation of those the opinion cases,pinion fI am bound the Court, to there say t h is n a o t t o i I n t em ofy j t u t e g m m e w n h t a h n , i t i oe in s suppot t the proposition for which they were cited—that in order to substantiate the charge of conspiracy either treachery or secresy was necessary. The definition of conspiracy I have already stated to you, as we hold the law, to be the mutual consent of two or more to bring about, by concert or design, an end illegal in itself, or an end abstractly legal in itself, but to be brought about by illegal means. That, you will see, includes within it, wherever they exist, the charge of treachery or the charge of seeress , ; but yet those are not necessary ingredients in a conspiracy. But Mr. Fitzgibbon insisted that the definition I have given conspiracy has been found fault with, or over ruled in a case to which lie refers, by Lord Denman, the Chief Justice of the Queen's B:rich in England, that person, who, is alleged to have first introduced the definition of conspiracy such as I now lay it down to you. I beg leave to say to Mr. Fitzgibbon, it does not appear that Lord Denman ever did any such thing ; and, moreover, that the reason or definition which Lord Denman had given in one place, afterwards had been the rule and definition adopted and followed, not only by Lord Den man, but by a variety of successive Judges, in the different Courts of England, giving judicially their judgments on the subject. Mr. Fitzgibbon slid that Lord Denman, in the case in which he had laid down that rule, did not act judicially ; and he said that what he did say was either obiter dictum or ipse &sit, the term obiter dictum is that he made it in considerately, or necessarily determined it ; ipse his own personal opinion, unsupported by anybody else; these are the meanings of his words. It so happened in the case to which he referred, the case in which the rule was originally mentioned by Lord Denman, Ist Adolphus and Ellis, he not only did not lay down that rule extra-judicially, as obiter dictum, nor unsupported by other judgments, but he stated that rule judicially. The very founda tion of his judgment, an I given in the most deliberate manner, was so far from being unsupported by the opinion of the other Judges in the Court of Queen's Bench, that all concurred in opinion will Lord Denman, not only in the judgment he gave, but also in the rule which he laid down and adopted as the foundation of his judgment. So far with regard to the statement of ipse dixit, and not only because the same cir cumstance in several other cases in which it became neces sary to consider the law of conspiracy, and judicial opinion pronounced from the Bench severally, and given seriatim by each individual Judge, in which one and all concur in the justice of the rule, and they pronounce the judg ment in their respective cases, according to their common opinion. The same rule is laid down before Lord Denman's time by the late Lord Chief Justice of this Court. He also, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in this country, adopted the same rule in precisely the same terms. The only imputa tion that ever was cast—and it is the mistake into which Mi. Fitzgibbon fell—the only imputation that ever was cast by Lot d Denman on that rule, I will now advert to. The rule was cited in the progress of argument by (I think) a Mr. Carrington, a gentleman of the English bar. He stated the rule to be as I have stated it to be—a conspiracy is either the agreement of two or more persons to procure to be done an unlawful act, or a lawful act to be done by unlaw ful means—and, says Lord Denman, " I doubt the correct ness of the argument." That is the whole of what. Lord Denman says ; and which is brought forward and cited in this Court as giving judgment against all the concurrent deci sions of other Judges. Everybody knows Lord Denman to be a most learned and accurate scholar ; and what he meant by this expression was, that an exception might be taken. All the Judges in England before whom the question has ever since been raised (it has occurred very frequently) have reiterated and restated the existence of the same rule, and have acted on it accordingly. Mr. Fitzgibbon, with a good deal of seriousness—perhaps I may say, solemnity--an nounced the law not to be such as I have stated ; and lie found fault with his friend, Mr. Moore, who was for mother traverser in the same interest with him, for having idrnitted the law as the Attorney-General had declared it. tie said, with au earnestness to excite your attention, that that was not the law—that by the law as existing so long go as the reign of Edward 1., nothing could he termed a conspiracy except by respecting any other defraction but a certain one mentioned in an old Act of Parliament of that time. We learn from that it was said that nothing is a con spiracy except an unlawful association of men bound together by oath or other ill ega l o bli ga ti on , f or th e p ur p ose o f im posing a false accusation on another man—it was something to this effect was said. Mr. Fitzeibbon then referred to a pas sage by way of pointing out the law as to conspiracy, but there would not necessarily have been been treachery if the law had been so stated as laid down by Hawkins, and taken from the old Act of Parliament of Edward 111. Mr. Fitzgibbon forgot to add, that in two pages after that to which he referred, , Mr. Ket wood, a gentleman of the bar, who published the last edition of Hawkins, records this passage—" Modern cases have certainly stretched the doctrine of conspiracy far beyond the old mule of law." That was the observation when a case of conspiracy against two or more persons was brought for ward. The offence was considered to consist in purposing by the combination of several persons to convict an innocent per.. son by a perversion of the law ; but, Gentlemen, it has been very properly stated that the ancient law has been extended far beyond the cases mentioned. I need not multiply instances in which that extension of the law has been established and acted on by courts of justice. It is by no means necessary that treachery or secresy should form an ingredient in the crime of conspiracy as the law now stands. Now, Gentlemen, having told you to take the law from a certain report. and having' explicitly shown what the law of conspiracy is, and what it is not, I forbear troubling ou with such cases respect. ing a subject in which I and the rest of my brethren concur in opinion. Having thus stated to you what it is the traversers are accused of, I think it will be right for me also to lay dOwn a few other rules with regard to conspiracy, that you may afterwards see the proper beating of this case. Iu order to convict the traversers, or any of them, of the charge of conspiracy, it is necessary that you should be satis fied— I do not mean to say that you should have ground to sur mise, but that you should have such evidence before you as would convince your consciences that the traversers, or some of them, did respectively and in common combine or agree to do an unlawful act, whether that act be unlawful in itself, in its original design, or whether it became so by the unlawful means by which it was agreed it should be brought about. That is one observation. Another observation is this—that, to constitute the crime of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the unlawful thing agreed to should be effected—the crime of conspiracy i s complete, though, in point of fact, the criminal end was never obtained. I will also lay down this—that, if you are satisfied that an unlawful agreement has taken place of the nature I have stated, either to do an act unlawful of itself, or cause it to be done by unlawful means, though the act itself, per se, should not be criminal; but if you be once sati,fied that such an agreement —a criminal agreement— has taken place, and from thenceforward the acts of each one associating in that conspiracy are, res p ec ti ve ly, ev id ence against the other, ii conducive to the same criminal end, though it be not proved that each and all of the several con spirators have either participated in each individual act, or though it be not proved that each and every of the several traversers charged with the conspiracy have been guilty of the perpetration of any particular act towards the common illegal end. I will go further, Gentlemen, and lay down another rule for you: —" h is not necessavy"—and I am now using the language of a very eminent English Judge, in one of the late trials, which took place in 1837, in giving his charge to the jury—" It is not necessary that it should be proved that the several parties charged with a common conspiracy met to concoct this scheme, nor that they should have originated it. Who the parties were who met to concoct the illegal agreement, it is not necessary should be absolutely proved to you ; it i 3 enough for you to see whether, from the acts that have been proved, you are satisfied that those defendants were acting in concert in this matter. If you are satisfied that there was a con cert between them (that is, an illegal concert), I am bound to say, that being convinced of the conspiracy, it is not necessary that you should find both the traversers doing each particular act, as, after the fact of the conspiracy is once established in your mind;, whatever is either said or done by either of the defendants, in pursuance of the com mon design, is both in law and common sense to be considered the act of bath." I will lay down another rule which you will also bear in mind, as bearing, perhaps; more particularly upon the instance of the Rev. Mr. Tierney than any body else. It is not necessary that it should be proved that those defendants went to concoct this scheme, nor is it necessary that they should have originated it. It is said of Mr. Tierney that he did not join the Association until the 2d of October. If a conspiracy be already formed, and a party joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty—certainly he is equally guilty if he adopts the already formed conspiracy, as it then stood. Idon it by any means impugn the doctrine of Judge Coleridge, in the general way in which he laid down that proposition ; but you have to decide the question whether or not Mr. Tierney, who does not appear to have joined the Association until the 23 of Oc tober, is or is not to be visited with the previous acts of that Association. I would put this to you on that subject—did he adopt those acts when he j iined that Association ? You will recollect this, that almost all the charges of crime for which the several traversers are here upon their trial, as imputed to them, were, for the most part, committed before the 2d of October, 1843. The general way in which Judge Coleridge has laid down the proposition which I have read to you, would, as a matter of course, involve the party in the previous guilt who had not joined the Association till a late time. If you are sa tisfied that he (Nlr. Tierney) did join them, did lie at that time adopt the Association as it then stood, with all its acts and cri mitialities, if such existed, as they then did exist ? I might as well here make that observation with regard to Mr. Tierney, because I find, on reading the judgment of judge Coleridge in this case of the Queen v. Murphy, that I might make whit I may call a qualification—l do not mean of what Judge Coleridge has said—but in this case I should prefer now leaving it to you to consider and pronounce whether or not the qualification ap t:isotfo tthhee traverser v. 111 e ' s.. at 1' large.er n y 1 1\ 1 '4%, wy you u come iave t t o . ktehne downqu es those observations which I laid down to you with regard to the law of conspiracy. Before I go into the observations in this particular case, I would like to read you some ob siev.r a q t i a o d n o s p t fr a o s m m a y n o w a unt;h it t r i i t s y fr q o i m i quoted o by caselN I r o . f S t h h e e i K 1 , j a w t d g a g wch a h i n i Kirwan—Mr. Peter llurrowes was counsel for the defendant. fullyl ade concerning Ny i t t r e gard t t e o m t statementsnent man. have be en, made observation, een which I shall read to you, is not inapplicable to the present ca e. In page 203, in his address to the jury, he says —" That to assume such a right as to represent the people, or any part of them, would be an encroachment on the exclusive pre rogative of the House of Commons, and that any person who should exercise the function, legislative or judicial, would bu guilty of a high misdemeanour." Now, Gentle men, I fully subscribe to that position. These are sound con sti.utional principles, thus inculcated by an eminent man and constitutional lawyer. He is no more now, but he has left these behind. Mr. Sheil—and I thank him for it—has referred to this speech in his very able speech, no doubt as having his assent to the principles in culcated by this eminent man. What is the law and the circumstances which we are called upon to bring into judgment ? The law as its exists—the law as it has existed for the last forty-three years—the law which her gracious Majesty is by her coronation oath bound and sworn to main - tain? Gentlemen, I will read you the coronation oath, at least part of it, as I find in Blackstone's Commentaries, page 2-41 r--" The Archbishop or Bishop shall say Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England and the dominions attached thereto be longing according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and the laws and customs ofithe same ?"Ile Queen or King shall say, I solemnly promise and swear.'" This, Gentlemen, is the coronation oath. Now, with regard to this country and its connection with Great Britain, are the Statutes which she bath sworn by her coronation oath to abide by, administer, and preserve, applicable to this country. We have heard a monstrous deal of assertion —we have heard a monstrous deal of declamation —we have a monstrous deal of complaint of grievances —and we have heard a great deal of what the law ought to be. We have heard ou called upon to decide whether such a law ought to continue, as if you had any power on the subject at all. The law of the realm as it stands and is settled by the Act of Union, until that Act is repealed, is the only law you can take into your consideration on the subject. This is the Act which the Queen, by her coronation oath, has sworn to preserve; and it is idle to say that the Queen, if she thinks proper, may depart from this law, and call a Parliament of her own in Ireland,supposing her own desire accorded with the people, and set up a new law and new constitution for this country, in direct violation of the Act of Union, which I shall now state to you. This is the Act, the 40th George . 111., c. 38:— " An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland : " Whereas, in pursuan ce o f his Majesty's most gracious m H o zecomendation to the two (louses f Parliament in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, to consider of such measures as knight tend to strengthen and consolidate the connexion between the two kingd m s , th e two Hous of Parliament of Great Britain and the t wo H ouses of Parliamentse of Ireland have severally agreed and resolved that, in order to prom ote and secure the essential inte res t s of Great Britain and Irelan d, and to consolidate the stren g th , power British empire, it will be ad v i sa bl e to concur,and resources of the in such measures as may best tend to unite the two kingdom; of Great Britain and Ireland into one kingdom, i n such manner, and on such terms and conditions, as may b e esta bl ishe d b y the acts of the respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland." There is the recital of the national compact called the union of he two by t countries respectiventrie LegislaturessofGreatßritad Ireland, and sanc tioned in the same s olemn way in which the Act of Union bet ween Great Britain a nd t Scotland had been transacted and confirmed at a former period : " And whereas, in furtherance of the said resolution, both Houses of the said two Parliaments respectively have likewise agreed upon certain articles for eff ec t ua ting and establishing the said purposes in the tenor following : " Article First—That it be the first article of the Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our Lord 1801, and for ever be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Grert Britain and Ireland, and that the Royal style and titles appertaining to the. Imperial Crown the ensigns, the said United Kingdom and its dependencies. a nd also ensigns, armorial flags, and banners thereof, shall be such as l his Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation, underthe ,, great seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint. In pass ing the Act of Union the kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist, and the kingdom of Ireland ceased to exist; and instead of these two there was formed one united kingdom, under the style and title of the United Kingdom of Groat Britain and Ireland. It was not that there should he one King having thereafter two kingdoms for his dominion, but one King having one kingdom ; and to say that the King or Queen of Ireland may be treated as the King or Queen of a separate kingdom, this is absurd—seditious. Until the law be al tered by the proper authority—and I don't s a y that it may not—but while the law remains as it is—and it has been so during the whole of the year 1843 and the preceding years which have intervened since the enactment of the Act of Union—there is one King over this kingdom, i nca p a bl e b y himself of treating with any c lass of his subjects, except through'; the Legislature, with regard to a new constitution or new laws, with respect to any part of the United Ki ng d om. I say, moreover, that whi chever of his subjects would take upon himself to inculcate—toproclaim among the subjects of this part of the United . Kingdom th a t h e or any body else abstracted from the Legislature the p ower, e i t h er separately or by himself , or jointly by hi mse lf and a portion of the inhabitants of this part of the United King dom, that Ile or they, independently of the Legislature, had a power of treating with the Queen f ar an abro gation of the existing law , and to put in its pl ace a new law, such as we heard suggested, is guilty of a great offence—he is guilty of the crime of sedition. Scotland as well as England are a party to this Act of Union, as appears from the third ar ticle of union. The Judges of our Courts are bound to admi nister the law as they find the law constructed by the proper authorities, and are sworn to preserve the law, to administer justice according to that law, and we have no power, if we had the disposition, to take upon ourselves—nor have you, Ge tle men of the jury, to take upon yourselves—the po wer o f a l ter i ng that law which had been passed by the King, the L or d s, an d t h e Commons of the country, as by law establ ished. It would be productive of wildness, anarchy, and confusion, if every man, or set of men, abstractedly from Parliament, were permitted to say " we do not like this law as passed by our Legislature —we think it was not properly passed . —we think th ere were reasons which should prevail against it ,: and theref ore we are not bound i in conscience to obey t. .Any man w h o wou l d in culcate that doctrine publicly, is guilty of sedition ; it is not for us, or for you, or any act men, or any individuals abstracted from Parliament, to take that power and responsibility on themselves. The law permits it to nobody except the lawful Legislature of the country, which consist of the Q ueen, L or d s and Commons, as s ettled by the Act of Union. Then, Gentle ' men, the fourth article goes on to regulate the number of re ' presentatives, Lords spiritual and temporal, and the repre sentatives of the House of Commons , which should thencefor ward be returned and sit in these respective Houses—so many for Ireland, so many for England, and so m any f or S cot l an d . It provided all these essential articles of agreement on the basis of which these three great c iuntries, England, Scot and, and Ireland agreed to together to become one great empire, under the denomination of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I need not go over the other articles which regulate other matters thus formed between the two parties—all these have been duly enumerated; a Al these articles being recited in the Bth article, the whole were de clared to be the Articles of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, and the same shall be enforced and be in effect for ever from the Ist January, 1891. That Ad was, of course, carried into effect. This is the law announced and ratified by the King, the Lords, and the Commons of both countries, and that is to be for ever the law of the land—what her Majesty the Queen, by her coronation oath is sworn to preserve; and let no man presume to attempt an alteration in this law by illegitimate or violent means—by threats of violence—or other such shifts which may be resorted to. Rea col'ect the doctrine of that constitutional lawyer, Mr. Bur rowes. that " the omnipotence of the Legislature must be ad ministered in any regular state." Mr. Shiel required me, when I should charge you in this ca s e, t o a d ver t t o th e doc trine of Baron Alderson, in his charge to the grand jury in the case of the Queen against Vincent, given in a volume of Carrington and P a y ne ' s R eports, page 93. r Having stated the case, his Lordship thus proceeded j —Now, Gentlemen of the jury, there is the constitutional laws as laid down by this very eminent constitutional lawyer, Baron Alderson, than whom no man was more highly respected and esteemed. Mr. FITZG BBON— The parties were acquitted of the charge. The CHIEF JUSTICE—Yes, but that is not what Baron Al derson said. What I was indeed going to observe was this, that I fully concur with Baron Alderson, both as regards his charge to the grand jury and his charge to the petty jury. Now it is no crime for a man to state a grievance ; it is no crime for a man to make a mistake with regard to his political posi tion, in respect to the alleged grievance ; he has a right freely to communicate his sentiments on the grievance to his fellows similarly circumstanced. He has a right to make the communication, not merely to his friends or fellows, but to strangers; he lies a right to make his complaints wherever he goes, should he think proper to do so, even if he should attend a public meeting, however large, the mere fact of its being a public meeting is no reason why a man who has a grievance, or thinks he has, should not attend that meeting, malting a statement of what he conceives he has a right to complain of, and so, on the principle of free discussion, endea vour to get by peaceable means as many advoca'es in support of his alleged grievances as he can procure. That is the mo rality of the law as stated by Baron Alderson, and concerning which he said, " God forbid the country should ever be without it," and so say I, too. But, in order to disseminate those grievances, he must take care not to infringe upon the rights and privileges of others, and he is the more bound to be careful as to the effect of what he does, if the assemblage which he at• tends is assembled and congregated in such masses and multi tudes, as to excite terror and alarm amongst the neigh bouring people, or amongst those who are bound to watch over and preserve the peace and constitution of the country. If he goes with arms, it is the more likely that the law will be infringed; but if he goes without arms—which is the case always here—it does not, therefore, follow that that meeting has been lawful. I do not mean to say that the mere attending a meeting is unlawful ; on the contrary, the mere attending a meeting, however large and numerous it may be, if no breach of the peace be committed, nor a tendency to a breach of the peace, at the time or immediately ensuing the meeting, I do not mean to say that so attending a meeting, under such circumstances will be necessarily unlawful—l do not mean to say that it would be necessarily lawful. I shall explain that. But there is nothing in the mere fact of the asemblage of the people that ren ders that an illegal act. Now, in order to make a meeting un lawful it would not be necessary that in point of fact the peace should be broken. It does not follow that because there is no breach of the peace the parties attending the meetings are not guilty of the offence of exciting terror and alarm among her Majesty's subjects. If meetings to which parties went unarmed have been attended with demonstrations of physic 1 fore that would reasonably have excited fear, terror, or alarm, amongst the peaceable subjects of her Majesty, they are whether they consist or not of an unarmed mass. A multitu'lle of per sons assemble, and if persons are alarmed and terrific I by that multitude so assembled, by the terror so caused, they would be shown to have been an illegal assembly, and for whatever terror the parties so assembling would be answerable. But it is not necessary that that should have been the state of things in order to make that an unlawful assembly. Suppose the parties all went to those great meetings, in ever such great misses and multitudes—suppose they went without arms— suppose they conducted themselves with great propriety—sup pose no breach of the peace was committed—and suppose there was no tendency to a breach of the peace ; all these facts might concur towards the establishment of the innocence of that meeting, but, Gentlemen, of the jury, that meeting might have been an illegal assembly, and every party who went to that meeting might be convicted, if they concurred in the objects of the meeting. Suppose the object of collecting those hundreds and thousands of persons was not for the purpose of com mitting a breach of the peace —suppose it had an ulterior and more remote object —suppose it was fir the purpose, not of terrifying the neighbours by what was done, or in tended to be done, by the persons assembling at that meeting—but suppose that the persons who had collected that mass and multitude together, did so for the purpose of making a demonstration of immense force and phy sical power, guided and actuated by the will and command of the person who had caused that multitude to assemble—sup pose they had no intention of disturbing the peace, but that they met for the purpose of exhibiting to those with whom they had to do, to those who were the legal legislators of the country, and that his object in calling all those people together—hit object in assembling, dispersing, and calling them, was to do that with the greatest psssible notoriety. Suppose he did it in the open dal , when all the world could see and hear him, and that hi s obj ec t was to overawe the Legislature, wh o are likely to have to consider certain political subjects in which he was interested, and for the purpose of deterring the Legislature and the Government of the country from a free, cool, and deliberate judgment on the subject— if that were his oiject in causing and pro curing that demonstration, then, Gentlemen, I say, that that is an illegal object in him and in all who concur and agree with him in the procuring of such means. I have not ventured to say that I suppose that any of the traversers are yet proved to be ' guilty, but I am merely explaining to you what I take to be the clear and incontestible law on this subject. I admit to the fullest extent the principle of full and free discusion—of the cool and deliberate consideration of any given subject. I admit that warm arguments might bs used in support of every thing advanced—they might not only be admissible but abso lutely necessary for the information of all who were present, and for enabling them to come to a conclusion as to the course which they should advise her Majesty to take with regard to the subject under consideration. I should be glad to know if the Parliament of the country, the Queen's Ministers, or those who are interested in the management of State affairs, are they to be the only persons in the country whet are not to have the benefit of free discussion—the benefit of fair, open, and impartial deliberation ? Are they to be influenced and led astray by intimidation, and fear, and demonstrations of physical;force ? If they think proper in their judgment to come to a difference of opinion on this or that political subject, are they the only persons who are not to have the advantage of free and full discussion ? Are they to be told this—" Here are hun dreds of thousands of fighting men; they are all peaceable; there is no breach of the law ; they coalesce with no illegal bodies ; they are warned and advised to keep out of secret societies ; they have been guilty of no breach of the law ; they have not appeared in arms, but they are the finest pea santry in the world; they stand No. 1 in the class of nations. Differ from me if you like ; but take care that, at the first step you make, these masses that are now dissolving at my com mand, like the snow under my feet, will re-assemble at my call, and then what will be the step that you take? Take care of that !" If you be of opinion that their object was not what they profess, to consider a grievance —to discuss which, in order to lay a petition before that Parliament, the legitimacy of whose existence they are denying—if you believe that that was riot the object, but on the contrary, that it was for the purpose of procuring by intimidation and overawing of the councils of the Legislature, an alteration in the govern ment of the State. I am of opinion that that latter object was unlawful —and if more than one concurred in pursuing it by unlawful means—they are guilty of the act of conspiracy. I lava already said, Gentlemen of the jury, that the doing of such things by one is not enough to prove a conspiracy ; there must be the concurrence of two or more. Before we go to the consideration of particular causes, I will make some further observations which seem to me to apply to the case of all. The traversers are persons who conscientiously entertain the opinion that repeal is best suited to the exigencies of this country. They say that perhaps on that account they have grievances I will not now enter into the allegation which is put forward, and with which this Court was occue pied for several days, as to the grounds and the means by which the Act of Union was carried. It is forty-three years ago since the Lords and Commons of the two countries passed that Act of Parliament ; and by their common concurrence the Act of Union has continued in force, and is in force in this year. Very many Acts of Parliament have been passed in the last forty-three years by the United Parliament. In those Acts of Parliament the Members who were returned for Ireland, and the Members who were returned for Scot land, and the Members for England have had their share, and they all voted, or they had an opportunity of voting and speaking, or free discussion in every sense of the word, Very many of the most important Acts of Parliament have passed—pissed according to the deliberative j u d gmen t o f the Unit e d Parliament—where an individual did not act for another—where one part of the kingdom did not act for another—but where the entire Parliament, under the sanction and concurrence and co-operation of the King or the Queen, make their decisions on the political subjects which come under their consideration, and passing the Legislature, received the Royal assent. I need not say that among these was the Act of Catholic Emancipation, by which every Roman Catholic of Ireland is entitled or would be entitled to the p'tsiti,n in which he or they now stand, to the rights which he enjoys ; and were it not for that Act of Parliament which was passed, conferring those rights on those persons—passed by a Parliament which it is now alleged to be utterly incapa ble of passing an Act of Parliament—that would be so if the Act of Union were void. The Reform Act, with a variety of other Acts, with which we are more or less con- I versant, were also passed ' • and observe, also the R e f orm A c t for England and Scotland. The Irish Members, sent from I this country under the Act of Union, gave their voices and their votes—or they might have done so—they condemn 1 that Act of Parliament which was so passed. If the proposi• tion be true, which I have heard so often contended for that the Act of Union was a nullity—and if Mr. O'Connell was right in proclaiming that to the hundreds of thousands assembled at Mullaghmast and elsewhere, the result would have been that Mr. O'Connell himself would never have sat in the English Parliament, nor could any emancipated Roman Catho lics have become entitled, as free citizens, to the rights and pri vileges which they ought to enjoy as such. Now, Gentlemen of the jury, they are all accused of forwarding—whether by means legal or illegal, will be the question for you—the repeal of that Act of Parliament, which, if what the last proposition states to you were correct, would render it perfectly uselesss for these persons, or any of them, to take such a step. If the Act be void, w here is the necessity of seeking for the repeal of such an Act? The two things are inconsistent, when seeking the repeal of the union, in the eye of reason and common sense. Pre-suppose the existence of the Act of Union—we have no right to discus the merits of that Act ; it is in full force, and if you had the power, which you have not, of interfering, directly or indi rectly, it would be difficult for me to tell you the consequences which would follow the exercise of that power. A great many years ago Mr. O'Connell appeared to entertain a strongly grounded opinion against the propriety of the Act of Union. He has given in evidence that he attended a meeting in Dublin, re gularly constituted, and regularly assembled, at which he ade a • speech, and declared these sentiments in public. That was a subject of free discussion; nobody prevented him doing so. Everybody did not agree with him. That, per haps, is another matter. He had a right to deliver those sentiments ; but what has that to do with the question whe ther he is guilty or not of what took place in 16613, something more than 13 years after his attending that meeting in which he made that speech. In 1810 he attended another meet ing, 10 years after the Act of Union. This meeting was a meeting regularly called, not by irresponsible authority, but by the High Sheriff or Sheriffs of the city of Dublin, where ever y freeman and freeholder was entitled to attend for the purpose of free discussion, either to petition for the repeal of the Act of Union or the contrary. As far as he confined himself to such discussions, without giving any undue offence to any person, he had a right to deliver himself as he did. But what has that to do with his defence? It is the first time I ever heard, in the year 1844, a man seeking to justify himself from the charge by putting forward what he had done forty or at least thirty years before. " Oh !" says Mr. Sheil, " what a man has ex pressed in political discussions at any time may be given in evidence." As to his opinions in support of his argument he referred to the case of Horne Tooke. But what is that ca-e? Horne Tooke wrote a book of very questionable matter, and; he was permitted to give in evidence his pre ceding writings for the purpose of proving continuity of purpose, and to give a colour—a true one, perhaps—to the matter thus tried. But what is the case here? Mr. O'Connell puts in two speeches made at public asse 1 blies. convened by the High Sheriff, when petitions were , ea,lepted aed presented to the city representatives ; hut were ael of these meetings convened magisterially? I do not in as to say that there were not magistrates present, but were any of these meetings convened by the order of a inseistrate? At least lam not so informed. Were any of tin in convened by order of the Repeal . Association ? Why, we have the distinct acknowledgment that they were from Mr. O'Connell's own lips. Between the cases, then, there is n o analogy—existing circumstances arc quite different. I have no objection that that word continuity of purpose should go to tar jure anti that you [ Addressing Mr. Shell] should t. have the fol. benefit of it. Sir Colman O'Loughlin was anxious that I should take notice that an alteration took place in the name of the Association—namely, that the word loyal was in setted, thereby -11,wirig that they always maintained the duties of loyalty and allejiance to the Queen. Now lam quite ready to give them the merit of that. The Attorney-General brings no accuse' i )0 aeainst Mr. O'Connell, or the members of the Repeal Associned re —he makes no charge without knovring whether there be guilt 0, not. flis position is, I don't inquire as to what took place before the year 1843. Gentlemen of the jury, you will bear in rend that the crime imputed commences in 1843. Mr. O'ii einell and the other traversers avow that they attended el procure the repeal of the union by such modes as the law and the constitution warrant. Mr. Solicitor-General says---I say nothing as to the proposition until we come to 1813 inc union is what you consider to be a grievance, and you bait a right, by free discussion, by petitioning Parlia ment, and by adopting every other legal and constitutional step, to cedeavour to relieve yourselves from those grievances, and thereby procure a repeal of the union. Now what the tra verser: profess and state they were doing was this—following those means which the law allowed to secure their object. The. Crown says that in the beginning of the year 1843 a great change took place in the affairs of the Repeal As soeiati el, and Irons thenceforth the means by which the member' a tempted to effect a repeal of the union (if that were their ol•ject) became illegal. Now, Gentlemen, such is the proposition of the Crown, and it lies on them to maintain it. It appears that from some time in 1843 —the precise time or place is immaterial—Mr. O'Connell said something to this effect, " how could I prove an alibi." Why, it is not neces sary to do so. lie has had the bill of particulars, and he has had overt act, placed in the indictment, but without proving as to the direct time or place in which the agreement was concocted between the traversers, it is for the jury to say, whether they are satisfied, from the facts laid before them, but, although the actual time of the commencement of the conspi racy is not stated, yet that such a conspiracy as imputed must have taken place. Gentlemen, you must be satisfied as to whether their guilt has been proved, that is to say, that satisfac tory evidence has been given to you of the existence of the al leged conspiracy—of the alleged agreement—of the common design between the several traversers, or some of them, and if you are not convinced—if you have any reasonable doubt on the subject, it will be your duty not to convict. No, Gentle men, you must not convict on presumption—you must convict on proof. I pass over, without more particular detail, the evidence given on the part of the traversers. It will be for you to say whether you are satisfied or not with the mode in which the Crown would prove its case. Excuse me, Gentle men, far a few mi nu t es . I want to say a word or two to my brother here. [I he Chief Justice and Mr Justice Crampton then retired for a short time. On their return, his Lordship resumed his address, and thus continued] I .think there is evidence to support the statement, that some time in the beginning of 1843 a material alteration took place in the regulations of the Association. It had before that time become a very great body—l mean in point of numbers—and I believe a considerable sum of money had been sent to them in the way of contributions from various parts of this country, from Great Britain, America, and perhaps from France, but lam not sure of that. They had extensive communications, and, I believe, in 1843, proceeding's were adopted for ren teeing those communications more exten sive and efficacious. A plan or new method was also adopted for the admission of persons desirous of becoming members of the Association—classes were created, into which the members were distributed under the names by which they were to be known. There were three classes—the general class were called associates. Every person who subscribed a small sum of money, amouating only to a shilling a-year, was c Table of becoming an associate, and was ad mitted by a certain kind of card to this society. Every person who paid a pound a-year was entitled to admission as a member. The third class were called volunteers, and they subscribed ten pounds, or procured subscriptions to that amount ; and one and all of these persons were, by a certain form, to be adrni ted into the Society and enrolled on its books. Now, here was certainly a very strange—l was going to say formidable—mode of organisation, which was adopted by the Society in 1343. Mr. O'Con.:ell said, at more than one meet ing, " That in one way or other he had three-fourths of the male pe r ulation enrolled members of that Society." A compu ation, taking the lowest member at a shrilling a-year, would show what a large sum of money this So. ciety became possessed of. I don't absolutely say that that was illegal ; but if it was intended to extend it, and ramify itself in any such way, and to collect a sum of money from each person, about the application of which they knew nothing, but collecting from ca. •11 person a sum of money to be laid out for the objects and purposes of the Association, whatever they might be, that appears to me to be a dangerous state of things. About the same time resolutions were passed with regard la the appointment of officers of this Society. They appointed what they called inspectors; but we have no par ticular account of them; but there is evidence that these officers did exist, and that they were spread over the country. Repeal wardens were also appointed in the year 1843, some time about the period when the arrangement was adopted for the admission by cards of the several members of this Society. You will see, Gentlemen of The jury, whether or not there was any discipline in the way in which the repeal-wardens conducted their business. They were instructed in the duties prescribed to them, and all their acts were the acts of the Association. Committees were appointed to report ; reports were adopted and acted on by the creation of a system of repeal-.wardens all over Ireland. The charge of particular di s t r i c t s was given to them, and they regularly transmitted re ports to, arid received orders from the Repeal Association re • lative to their respective duties. That, with the assistance of a repeal inspection, amounting to something very like a well re gulated police—in calling them police I only call them what the Association themselves called them—there was no part of Ire land into which that system was trot introduced. The duties of the repesl. wardens was to see that every adult male in their respectise riots should become a member of the Associa tion. They lied another duty imposed upon them—he would be very mach obliged to the gentlemen on the other side, if he mis-stated at all, that they would correct him ; it was quite necessary fe- the ends of the law that he should be so—that they should t ike care that newspapers should be supplied to their Asseei,tions, and should be read to them. These papers were the Pilot, the Nation, an 1 the Freeman. The owners of these papers were three of the traversers at the bar. Mr. Fr re -; BbON begged permission to say a few words. CHIEF JUSTICE—Of course, Mr. FitzAibhon, I should be extremely sorry to prevent you. Mr. Preen macre-then said that there was no evidence be fore the Court that Dr. Gray was the proprietor of the Evening or Weekly Freeman. CHIEF JUSTlCE—Gentlemen, I was--. ATTOR NEY •GENERAL and Mr. Sergeant WARREN—It has been distinctly proved, my Lord, by Mr. Vernon, that Dr. Gray is the proprietor of all the papers published under the de nomination of the Freest in. CHIEF JUSTICE-It is of very little consequence, but these papers were circulated for the purpose of indoctrinating the people into the system and the objects of the Society—no doubt for the diffusion of the Association. It is, however, ne cessary for me to refer to this card. You will see from its general nature that it is a statement, and an enumeration of many circumstances. Mr. Moons, Q.C.—I wish to be understood, on the part of the traverse, s, that we do not consent to that card being sent up to the jury. I make the observation now that we may not be precluded from adopting any course which we may think right at the conclusion of your charge. Unless I made that obser vation now, it might be thought that we did consent. CHIEF JusricE—Mr. Moore, you are quite right, and I have no right to assume that these documents are laid before the jury ; but I shall make a few observations on them. My intention is not to enter into the minuteness of detail, but to give you g.trmrally a correct notion of what they are, and to leave the subject to your consideration. If I mistake their present object, t'ne gentlemen here are ready to correct me. The general object of this member's card is apparent upon the face of it. We have certain things done : it is itself of a green colour. We have on it an enumeration of our population, and a stateniont of the ability of Ireland to have a Parliament of her own, and the Association has taken upon itself to disseminate through every part of the country those cards, which contain a statement of matters upon which they (the members of the Association) had no right to make any de cision. They may give their opinions—they may circulate these opinions—they may endeavour to support them, they have a right to enlist popular opinion in favour of what they call their grievances ; by all fair means they are entitled to do so ; but is it to be so considered, when they are enrolling the whole country under stated officers, under repeal wardens and inspectors, and that these cards are given and circulated, to be placed by these officers in the hands of persons whom we find gathered as conscripts? Gentle men of the jury, the intention of such enrolment is for your consideration. Is it with a fair intention of free discussion —of midi.' and deliberate opinion—or is it with a view of banding the persons through whom cards are distributed, and that newspapers are desired to be circulated? Are they banded, I say, in favour of the particular political views enter tained either by Mr. O'Connell or by the members of that As sociation—is that the intention? Or is the intention to pro mote free d.scussion by the enrolling of members to be con federated in one universal object, the nature of which they themselves do not know, and to which they subscribe while they are igs. rant of the purpose ? The CHIEF JUSTICE then intimated that he would postpone the further consideration of the case till to-morrow. The C iurt was then adjourned till ten o'clock the following morning. There wai great excitement in the Court, and large crowds in the vicinity. ROYAL EXCHANGE.—We are glad to see that the architect of the Royal Exchange has availed himself of the resource.; of science fur the security of this fine building, by protecting the spire with lightning-conductors. They are erected under the superintendence of Mr. Charles V. Walker, whose researches on this subject are sufficient security thr their being arranged most efficiently. We observe that they commenced by a pointed rod, rising from the back of the grasshopper; and that the whole mass of metal constituting the vane, &c., is associated into the system. Every precau tion will be taken, in carrying them downward, to provide a safe and ready escape for the most powerful discharges. And we shall be glad when we have the opportunity of layinr , before our readers the general plan which has been adopted ; because these conductors may be taken as a good model for others. How is it that architects have heretofore been so slow in introducing these very valuable appendage 3 to elevated structures? The cost is a mere frac tion compared with the security they afford. That they need not interfere with the general contour of a building is admirably shown by the manner in which these are placed. We, in common with many of our readers, have repeatedly looked at this tower, and were not aware of their presence until our attention was directed to the vane. It is to be hoped that the time is at hand when a lightning-conductor will be considered part and parcel of every lofty building. Is the Castle, and is the Palace of our Sovereign protected? Do lightning-conductors form part in the contract for the new Houses of Parliament ? Which of our church spires are protected.—Po/gtecimic Review. THE ITALIAN OPERA.—The programme of the engagements fur the forthcoming season has just been issued by Mr. Lumley. It contains the names of Grid, Favanti, and Per siani, Mario, Fornasari, Lablache ; and in the ballet department, Carlotta Grist, Adelaide Frasi, Fanny Ellsler, Cerito, and Taglioni. The Opera will open in the first week in March, with Fornasari and Persiani, rn Herold's opera of Zamitra. A brilliant season is expected. The next mails for Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, and the lonian Islands, will be made up on Thursday morning, the 15th inst., and for Egypt, India, Hong-Kong, and China, on the morning of the Ist of March, via Southampton. The overland closed mail to India, via Marseilles, on the evening of the 4th of March, if not detained. The West Indies, Ma deira, Bermuda, St. Jago de Cuba, and Venezuela, on the morning of the lith instant, to be forwarded by the Clyde steamer, via Southampton. Sydney, New South Wales, on the morning of the 29th inst., to be forwarded by the Supe rior, via Gravesend. British North America, Bermuda, and the United States, on the evening of the 4th of March, to be forwarded by the Caledonia steamer, via Liverpool, Halifax, and Boeton. •.. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four o'Clock. Several petitions relating to private Bills were pre sented. Lord CLIVE presented a petition from Shrews bury against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Capt. PECHEL L inquired of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite if he had learned anything re specting an outrage which had been committed at Brighton on the 31st of January last, by some soldiers, whereby considerable property was destroyed, which the town had to make good ;ana if so, whether any steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of such disorders. Sir 11. lIARDINGE said he had received no ac count of the matter, but that he would make it a point to institute inquiries respecting it. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that on Friday next, upon going into supply, he would move an amendment, that the consideration of the esti mates be postponed. Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would move, on Monday next, that the evidence obtained last ses sion respecting the customs frauds should be- laid before the House. The Hon. Gentleman also gave notice of a motion, to the effect that the surplus revenue be applied to the reduction of the taxation which presses most upon the workin ,, classes. COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY S. Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE inquired of the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. NVallace), whether he pur posed persevering with his motion with respect to the not placing upon the Committee directors of railways and leading shareholders. Mr. WALLACE said the course he intended to pursue was, to move an instruction to the Committee, which instruction he should put on the paper for to night, declaring the principle which, in his judgment, ought to govern the House in this matter. Mr. GLADSTONE said, under these circum stances he should move the appointment of the Com mittee. The SPEAKER having read the names of the gentlemen to serve on the Committee, Captain PECHEL L said, that he had received in structions from his constituents, to oppose the ap pointment of directors on railways to serve on the Corn mittee. ✓ After a short discussion the motion was put, and the'Committee was appointed. METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. The Metropolitan Improvements Bill went through Committee. TRADE WITH CHINA. Sir G. STAUNTON said he had intended to put his question relating to their commercial relations with China on Monday, but understanding that it would be equally convenient to the Noble Lord the Secre tary for the Colonies t o answer i t i mme di ately, he would put it now. He be gge d t o i nqu i re whether British subjects, acting in contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of our recent commerc i al treaties with China, by endeavours to introduce into that country the -prohibited article of Opium, are to be considered to forfeit, by such acts, the aid and protection of the British Crown ; and if so, whether, in addition to such forfeiture of British aid and pro tection, they will be liable to specific pains and penal ties under British laws, or to any direct interference and obstruction on the part of the British authorities in China :—also, whether the article of opium will be allowed to be landed and warehoused at Hong- Kong for the purpose of re-exportation into China. He had been induced to put this question by the request of several merchants in the City connected with the China trade. Much difficulty and misunderstand ing would be prevented if it was in the power of her Majesty's Government to state in answer what was the course intended to be pursued with respect to the opium trade with China, and also the nature of their commercial regulations generally. Lord STANLEY said the question put by the lion. Gentleman was one of great importance, and he should have n o h es it a ti on i n g i v i ng hi m, if not the details, at least the principle by which her Majesty's Government intended to be guided. The Honourable Gentleman would agree with him that the suppression of the opium trade by forcible measures, considering the determination on the part of the people of China to consume that drug, and on the part of the principal officers of the Chinese Government to connive at its introduction, was hopeless, and he thought the Hon. Gentleman would agree with him also, that it was an object of considerable importance to induce the Chinese Government, if possible, to consent to its introduction, and to legalise the trade, by imposing such an amount of duty on it. That was the object Sir Henry Pottinger attempted to bring about, with what degree of success he had not been able to ascertain. If it was impossible to prevent the introduction of opium into China, it would also be impossible to prevent its introduction into the island of Hong-Kong; but it was important to secure a legal trade in that island ; and as they were determined to act with good faith towards the Chinese Government in all the regula tions, the most stringent instructions had been given that no encouragement whatever, and such discour agement as they possibly could, should be given to any smuggling trade between the island of Hong-Kong and the coast of China. Of course they could not interfere with the Chinese police, but the merchants had been warned that if they chose to violate the laws of China, either by the introduction of prohibited goods into a legalised port, or the intro duction of any goods whatever into ports not legalised, they were not to expect the protection of the British Government, but must be exposed to the penalties inflicted by the laws of China. with regard to the introduction of opium into Hong- Kong, the Government had given discretionary powers both to Sir H. Pottinger, the late Gove.nor, and Mr. Davis, who was appointed to succeed him, and than whom the Government could hardly have se lected a gentleman more competent for the situation, both by his intimate knowledge of the subject and his acquaintance with the pecu liarities of the Chinese character. The instructions sent out to the Governor of Hong-Kong were in substance these :—lt was their desire that the is!and of Hong-Kong should not be made a great nest of smugglers, for the purpose of carrying on an illicit traffic with the coast of China. It was their object that it should become the great mart for the commerce of all nations, and for the ex tension of a legal commerce with China ; they did not intend to prohibit the introduction of opium into Hong-Kong for the purpose of consump tion. They were of opinion that the imposition of a moderate duty on importation without a drawback on exportation, would have the effect of preventing its being imported for the purpose of being exported again. He understood that there was a difference of opinion amongst the Chinese authorities on this subject, as they thought that the imposition of a duty was giving a kind of sanction to the trade. The Governor had power to act ac cording to his discretion on this point, and might take such means, both for preventing smuggling and promoting the legalised trade, as would satisfy the Chinese Government that this was their only object. Sir GEORGE STAUNTON begged to thank the Noble Lord for the information he had afforded, and to express his gratification at the purport of it. But he was still not without apprehension that the opium trade would be likely to disturb their relations—their amicable relations with China. He should therefore reserve himself for a future consideration of the subject. He thought the appointment of Mr. Davis was one that did honour to her Majesty's Government. POOR-LAWS. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if the House were disposed, he would now briefly state the alterations he intended to propose in the present poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) As it seemed, then, to be the disposition of the House that he should proceed, and as he saw that the Honourable Member for Finsbury, and the Honourable and Gallant Members for Brighton were both in their places, he would first allude to certain provisions which were in the Bill he intended to introduce the ses sion before last, and which were not to be found in the present Bill. The House would recollect that the two gentlemen to whom he referred, objected more particularly to the abolition of the Gilbert unions. He entertained a strong opinion that they ought to he abolished, but as there was a difference of opinion with regard to the propriety of abolishing them, and the nature of their operations, he was not disposed to refuse inquiry on the subject—(Hear, hear)—and he did not propose to abolish those unions. —(Hear, hear.) But he should be prepared on the part of the Government to move, on another occasion, for a Se lect Committee to inquire into their operation. Having stated that point, lje would now proceed to state the material alterations in the present Bill as contradistinguished from the former Bill to which he referred. In the first place, he would refer to that portion of the existing law which had long been a subject of much controversy, and which had excited warm feelings throughout England and Wales. He alluded to the bastardy law.—(Hear, hear.) Great dissatisfaction had been experienced with the operation s of that part of the law as it stood at present Wales and 118S4, and in the North of England. In ofth the Bill Io an or as it passed that House, the power der for relief in cases of bastardy, an end to. It was the female, would operate as a restraint makingabsoutely put and be conducive to chastity and greatly PAalrulciahmdeinsetuosn supposed tha d t u w p a s o s u n ch a principle diminish illegitimatee in the other children.ou se of principle, and a power was given to t i o i c e ne n ti ro u e( e l t i b op e fl r atei the magistrates in petty sessions to make an order upon the oath of the female. But then a necessity was imposed for testimony corroborative of the o a th of the mother herself. So the law stood till the