The Sun. — London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

THE Sm.; LORDON, NVVDNWSDAY EVENIN'at_ A.ITGrST 7, 1144. • • - . - • eer faesseeseao, it was tette that theEceleslastleal Courts Bill, The only question then was, whether Parliament had and other measures, had met with disappointment in the i the power to separate man and wife, and he was other House of P ar li amen t, but for this the Government i not prepared toe say it had not that power. would by no means be held answerable. He wished to I Ile did not, however, think any parallel to the power defend his Noble Friend and himself from any charge of given by this Act could be found, except in the Act of neglect, and to assure their Lordships that he was every Henry VIII., which gave to his proclamations, during way willing at all times to give all the information it was his-life, the force of law, and another Act of Henry 111., in his power to offer or afford, by which his obsequious Parliament gave to the De The Marquis of LANSDOWNE complimented the Spencers, and other minions of that monarch, the power Noble Duke on his constant attendance and incessant of making regulations that were to have the force of law. assiduity in that House. He thought, however, the No such power as this was ever given by any other Act. complaint of his Noble Friend was perfectly well But the separation of man and wife was now the ribs°. fouuded, and agreed with him in thinking that that lute law in 4 6 0 unions — many of them very e xtensive, Itouso had been by the present Government converted some of them covering as much as 300 square miles. In into a mere court of registration. The amount of busi- such a union as this, it was impossible for the poor to siness passed through this House, or, rather, hurried leave their homes to go so far for relief. The hardship through it, was enormous. It was impossible to suppose they suffered from this cause was very grievous. They that laws could be perfect, when they were hurried had been told on many occasions, and they had been through the Legislature without discussion—they were told last night, of the abuses of the old poor law. But forced through it, and ripened into sudden maturity, like it should be remembered that they were abuses, whereas fruit in the dog days. In the early part of the session, those evils of which he complained were legal parts of the there was a perfect vacuum in the business of that House. system—that was the great distinction. And these He had come from the country on the previous day to abuses of the old law were, besides, of comparatively oppose a clause in the Railways Bill, which he thought modern introduction ; they were principally these — would be injurious and insulting to the lower classes, the system of allowances, of roundsmen, and the pay and the clause was at length proposed and carried in a merit of wages out of the rates. All these practices most incomprehensible form, from its having been so were, he believed, introduced in the years 1795 and hastily drawn up; and the request of twenty-four hours' 1796. These were years of singular scarcity and dis delay, that the clause might be printed and circulated, tress, when the prices of provisions had risen to an so that it might be properly understood, was refused, enormous height, in consequence of scarcity aggravated because of the late period of the session. by the war. Then arose the practice of allowances and Those crude laws so hastily passed would, instead roundsmen, which was first adopted, he believed, in the of being useful, disfigure the statute-book. The mode county of Berks. But in the county of Durham, where in which the House proceeded in this business reminded he had long resided, and in the north of England, it had him of the story of an eminent individual, whose name only been adopted to a limited extent, though in probably might be known to their Lordships. He was the south of England it was so general that it very wealthy, and made a great number of legacies, and created the impression of its being a universal when it was asked how he spent his evenings before he practice. He thought it was their bounden duty, when went to bed, it was answered by calling for his will and they were endeavouring to fix on a right basis an en making legacies. It was asked how he spent his time in during system of poor-laws, that they should consider the morning, and it was answered, calling for his will well whether they could not revert to the state of things and altering the legacies he had made on the previous that existed under the 43d of Elizabeth, with such evening.—(Laughter.) The latter part of the session checks as ought to be provided against the repetition of was employed in making imperfect laws,' and the early those gross abuses which led to those evils which were portion of the following session in amending them.— made the plea for enacting the present law. Could such a (Hear, hear, and cheers.) For his (the Marquis of question as this be decided that night ? lie did not Lansdowne's) part, he was often glad to see the stran. think there were as many as twelve Peers present. The ger's gallery so thinly attended at the latter part of the House of Commons had taken six months to consider session, that it might be less generally known with what the Bill, while their Lordships certainly would not have speed the machinery of law-making was propelled in that as many hours. Was not this a measure of such a corn- House. He would not further detain their Lordships:. plicated nature as to render more ample time for delibe- The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE defended the Govern- ration absolutely necessary ? He must say that ,it was ment from the charge of neglect or procrastination. It not only a most complicated :,measure, but that he was said by the Noble Lord opposite that he had never thought the necessity for passing it at the present time seen a royal speech promise so little as the last. He was so inconsiderable—there was so little reason for (the Earl of Wharncliffe) thought that that was rather a passing the Bill this year, that to do so with so little merit than a defect. Most of the suggestions in it had consideration would be absolutely trifling with the sacred been acted upon, and brought to a successful conclusion interests of the poor. He did hope, that what he might —the Bank of England Charter, for instance. The have said that night, however weakly, or perhaps with Registration of Voters in Ireland Bill, it was true, bad an appearance of greater warmth than he ought to have been deferred, but that was a measure which required spoken, would not be permitted to injure with their the utmost deliberation, and they had accordingly post- Lordships the cause he was advocating; and he hoped poned it. Those were the only subjects mentioned in he had brought forward facts enough to induce their the Queen's spee c h. B u t h a d th e y done nothing else? Lordships to support the motion which he should now Had they passed no other measures which met with make—that this House do go into Committee on this with general approbation? Had they not passed the Bill on this day six months. measure of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., one of the The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had listened most important financial matters which had ever with great patience to the speech of the Right Rev. been brought under the consideration of Par- Prelate, and in reply, he begged to call their Lordships' liament? They had also brought in, and succeeded attention, in the first place, to the arguments which the in carrying, an amendment on the Factories Bill; Right Rev. Prelate had brought forward to induce their they were also about to pass the Poor-law Amendment Lordships to postpone the consideration of this measure Bill, and it could not be said that this had not been a most to a future period. In the first place, the Right Rev. fruitful session. It was true they had not been able to Prelate told their Lordships, an hour and a half ago, carry the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, but its own impor- that it was too late in the evening to go into the consi tance, and the still greater importance of other measures, deration of this Bill, and he afterwards said there was prevented a full discussion of it during the present ses- not a sufficient number of Peers present to discuss sion, but the Government had not by any means lost it. He begged to remind the House that they sight of it. He asserted that the Charitable Bequests had frequently sat till a much later hour than Bill relating to Ireland, had originated with the present this, and that at the present moment, though Government, and not with Noble Lords opposite. The their numbers were few, yet they were sufficient, Government had not done as much as they might wish to according to the constitution of that House, to con have done ; but they had done as much as was performed sider any question whatever. They were not at all in the average of sessions. He wished the Bills were too few to discuss a measure that had been so long sent up to this House a little earlier, and he also desired under the consideration of tho House of Commons, and that they might receive as full a description as possible. one which related to a subject so perfectly well known It _was asked why more measures, did not originate in to all their Lordships, and one which had, in fact, been t his House, but he did not think such Bills were re- under the consideration of Parliament during the last ceived in the same favourable spirit as in the Lower House three or four sessions. It had been introduced both by %ellen they originated there. He would not oppose the the late and present Government at different times, and production of the papers for which the Noble had had only been postponed in consequence of the pressure moved. of public business. At last, this measure had been The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not think the considered and brought to maturity, in the present explanation of the Noble Lord at all satisfactory. The session, in the Ilouse of Commons, and now came Noble Lord boasted a good deal of the Three-and-a-Half recommended by that House to their Lordships' per Cents., but he did not think there was any thing consideration. And this was the measure which was at very novel or statesmanlike in the idea : he believed it this period of the session to be put off, night after night, was a good measure, but it wasgenerally anticipated. He though it had for its object the amendment of many of approved of the financial policy of the Government gene- those evils in the present law of which the Right Rev. rally, but he altogether disapproved of the manner in Prelate complained.—(Hear, hear.) The real question which they had treated that House, which was now the then was, whether they should enter into the discussion chief subject of discussion. The Irish Registration Bill of a Bill having this amendment for its object. The might not be very pressing ; he felt confident it was Right Rev. Prelate had alluded to the subject of work better the present law should be allowed to continue than house chaplains, lie (the Duke of Wellington) la that the Government measure should pass into a law. It merited that the Bill did not contain all the amendments was a farce to say the present constituency of Ireland of the existing law on this point, which he thought it was popular—it was narrow cramped, and restricted. ought to have contained. But theßight Rev. Prelate having The Charitable Bequests Bill contained much that was entered into that subject very forcibly, then warmed up, good and useful, but, at the same time, it was a great and came to what was his real object, which was the mistake to say that the measure had originated with the repeal of the existing law. That was what the Right present Government; it had been devised by their pre- Rev. Prelate wanted • he wished them to return to the slecessors. The hurly burly wa y w hi c h measures h a d s y s t em th a t ex i s t e d before the present law was enacted. been passed through that House was in a great measure They ought not, he said, to pass this Bill, which was attributable to the Government. Many Bills had gone not intended to amend that law, but at once to repeal it. through the House without a single word being said upon Now, if the Right Rev. Prelate pleased to give notice them. The Grand Jury (Dublin) Presentment Bill, he that, in the course of this or the next week, he would would venture to say, was not understood by any of bring in a Bill to repeal the existing law, and bring into their Lordships, and no one had said a word upon it but operation the 43d of Elizabeth, he might rely upon it himself. He thought the motion of his Noble Friend that notice would bring down to that House a sufficient well timed ; and he trusted that he would bring it for- number of Peers to discuss that or any other sub ward next session. For his own part, he thought the ject—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—which deserved course that had been pursued was not calculated to in. their attention. But he entreated the Right Rev. crease the esteem of the people for Parliament. Prelate not to set to work to repeal the existing law, by The Earl of WICKLOW was net at all surprised at preventing the passing of a Bill which had for its object the course that had been pursued by the Noble Marquis, the amendment of the evils of which he himself com as these species of discussions had now taken place for plained. Now, the abuses of the old law, which had several years at this period of the session. He thought been referred to, grew out of the operation of the Act many of the complaints that had been made against the of Elizabeth, and so great were the evils, that in many Government with respect to the introduction of Bills parishes of England they consigned to ruin the land of was totally uncalled for. As to the censure that had those parishes by causing a total cessation from cultivation been cast upon the Government for the counting out of and labour. And everywhere the evils were such as to the House of Commons, he thought it lay with Members require attention ; and they did receive the on the other side, and not with the Government. - • attention of some of the greatest men who The Marquis f NORMANBY, in reply, stated that ever appeared in England—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Whitbread, the manner in which the business of the House had been and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Each of these endeavoured conducted latterly was greatly detrimental to the coun- to introduce and carry through Parliament Bills to try. Bills had been hurried through the House in a amend the 43d of Elizabeth ; but every one of them most unseemly way. In conclusion, he wished to know failed, finding they could not attain their object ; the whether the Metropolitan Buildings Bill had been sub- abuses were so great and so various, varying in almost m tted to the Commissioners alluded to by his Noble every parish throughout England, that it was absolutely Friend, He thought some course ought to be adopted to impossible to remedy them except by the establishment put an end to the legerdemain legislation that had lately of a central and uniform system of management. That taken place. He thought if the House met at four was an epitome of the history of the Poor-law Amend o'clock instead of five o'clock that might be prevented. ment Bill; and from that Act, they could not depart The Duke of BUCCLE ITCH said that the Metropoli- without going back to the old system o f a b uses . Wi t h tan Buildings Bill had no t b een s p ec ifi ca lly re f erre d to respect to the Act of 1834, he had never himself acted the Commissioners alluded to. as a poor-law guardian. In consequence of his duties, The motion was then agreed to. he could not reside long enough in the country to do so. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. But he was in the habit of residing for portions of the Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the House should year in two different parts of the country ; and while resolve itself into a Committee on the Poor-law Amend- there, he often visited the workhouses of those districts, ment Bill. and he must say that it was impossible for any places to The Bishop of EXETER objected to the motion. Ile be better managed than those workhouses were ; and thought it would be useless to attempt to go on with the he believed they gave great satisfaction. He spoke of measure at the present late period of the session ; they what he knew ; he had frequently stated this in that had, in fact, only that night to discuss it, although the House in reply to a Noble Earl not now present, House of Commons had taken seven or eight days to who was a strong opponent of the poor-law, and do so. There was no pressure for the measure during ho always should do so whenever he was called on. the present session, and he should therefore move that it The Right Rev. Prelate had complained of many things be committed that day six months. It became that in the existing unions, some of which this very Bill was House to give the subject its greatest attention, and was intended to remedy. Now one of the things of which it to be said that it could be properly discussed in a the Right Rev. Prelate had complained, was the separa- House consisting of not one twentieth of its Members ? tiou of man andlwife ; and he said that he had never Rev, rbe v - The present law was an experimental law, and the ex- fore heard o f suc h a thing. Why did the Ricrh periment had answered most marvellously ; that it had Prelate never h ear o f workhouses under the systemold e been the cause of the incendiariem that had taken place of the law of Eliz a b e th ?—(H ear, h ear.) Did the R• ht he thought there was very little doubt. These reasons Rev. Prelate never h ear d o f hospitals 2—Ulcer, hea g r alone appeared to him to press their Lordships to con- Why the common decenci es o f lif e requ i re d that where.) sider well what provisions should be made with respect a large number of persons were brought twee to the poor, and to take care that no rash provisions ther, the males and females should be separated. should be adopted. No provision in the present Bill had It could not be otherwise—the laws of decency required any relation to the spiritual education of the poor, such separation.—(Cheers.) Not only had this always and he thought such au omission showed that the sub- been the case in the hospitals, but it had also been the ject had not been well and duly considered. He thought case in workhouses under the old law of Elizabeth.— the Secretary of State was responsible for this, not only (Hear, hear.) Then, with respect to education, it would to his country, but to his God. Their Lordships could be much better if the Right Rev. Prelate would suffer the not pass a measure of this kind hastily, if they wished Bill to go into Committee, and propose a clause to ensure to have the sanction of their country. He felt indignant that schoolmasters should be properly qualified, instead that men, placed in the situation of Ministers of the of declaiming, as he had been doing to-night, about the Crown, should dare so to trifle with their duty as to en- inferiority of the present schoolmasters.—(Hear.) No , deavot4r to thrust forward a measure lik e th e p resen t. th a t was not t h e o bj ect o f t h e Ri ght Rev. Prelate.--. If their Lordships passed this miserable expedient, they (Hear.) The object of the Right Rev. Prelate was not might depend upon it that they would set at nought the to amend the Bill.—(Cheers.) The object of his motion best interests of the people. The law of Elizabeth said was not to postpone the Bill to-night, in order to give that the poor had a right to subsistence and to be pro• their Lordships a better opportunity of considering g it to tected from want ; but if the present measure p asse d, morrow or the next d a y. H e did not wish to o into that right would be taken a wa y. The Poor-l aw Bill o f Committee on the Bill a t a ll—h e w i s h ed to destroy 1834 was the product of the Malthusian theory. He (Hear, hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate were in earnest, (the Bishop of Exeter) bad the greatest respect let him state his objections, and propose his amendments for Me. Malthus, but he objected to his principles. in Committee, and see if his Noble Friends would adopt The hipgrapher of Mr. Malthus said—Mr. Malthus' his suggestions or not. On the subject of chaplains he p h ir uo . l. l 7ter and the poor-law must stand or fall together. knew that, according to the system of legislation este r., on teblackstone said the poor were entitled by blished between the two Houses, no amendment could the o f every law to relief from the parsons and parishioners be proposed on that point, but he might propose there should be work k e s f t o a u t n u d te f o o t r Elizabeth required that amendments on other points if he chose. By doing th a t, the poor in their own he would be rendering a service to the House and to the parish: It Positively enjoined the building of new cot- country, but to pretend to stop this Bill to-night, in tages for them, if their previous dwellings were not suf- order to defeat another measure which circumstances ficient. Liberty.---the liberty of the public at large— had rendered absolutely necessary, was unworthy both of was recognised in that statute theMagna Charta, as he the station and the abilities of the Right Rev. Prelate. of the poor ventured to call it, lature had recognised this right*" If the British Legis. He hoped their Lordships would not attend to the dealt with the poor as freemen, inst ead4o, it would have Right Rev. Prelate's suggestions, but would go into up in gaols. Gaol was a strong word, but. shutting them Committee, and allow the Bill to proceed as far as it an authority to prove that it was not too he would cite could do to-night, and would then proceed with the t st Right. Rev. Prelate then read a letter I (The other business before the House.—(Hear, hear.) law Commissioners, characteristic of the the Poor- The Marquis of NORMANBY would not detain their system, as a system of poor-law restraint). ,Isizr-house Lordships long. He concurred fully in all that had fallen which was necessary to establish the justice was e all from the Noble D u k e ; b u t as l ast n i g ht h e h a d g iven appellation. He then referred to the st a t e of the his support to th e mo ti on o f th e Ri g h t R ev . P re l a t e , f or pauper schools, and the ignorance of the school- hour to go into .1 • masters. Mr. Tufnell had stated that the character ' of the bulk of the adult population, and the wished to say a few words. He could not but express example they set were of the worst description. thes surprise it at the course which had been adopted by Was it to be endured that honest persons of go o d gi d it Rev. Prelate to-night. He had last night pro character should be compelled to associate with persons stating the postponement of a few hours only, without who would contaminate them, and that their wives and Mar qu i s of ohe intended to pursue, a n d h e (th e Normanby) had cert a i n ly never ant i c i pate d course children should be exposed to the same evil? These the adoption of such a course on the part of the Right considerations were so important, that he defied them to Rev. Prelate, as go on with the Bill in its present shape. As Christians, almost every elaellrop ef osing the rejection o f th e Bill, which was a relaxation of th e they could not, as legislators they would not. Under old law, on th e harshness the old law, and u nd er th e Gilb er t Acts, man and wife Prelate had so long descsasn of d which the Right R ev . (Hear, hear.) The re could not b e se p ara t e d. I n case re li e f was required, the was in fact n o connection whateverte*— argu wife could not be removed to th e pl a ce where she had merits of the Right Rev. between the Prelate and the motion with a settlement, even though the husband had no settlement which he had concluded—(H ear, he ar) and he believed at all. Lord Brougham had deni e d that the Commis- that he could assign the re a l reason sioners ever ordered the separation of man and wife. Prelate moved the postponement last why the Right Rev. Ile had taken pains to bring that to the test. He was, the Right Rev. Prelate wished for The fact wished to bring the point to issue, by a trial in a The Right Rev. Prelate had last nighta Complaineduller audience. cult of law ; but his counsel told him that his diffi- the smallness of the number of Peers who were present, of t "7 was this : the orders of the Commissioners were and he (the Marquis of Normanby) had cautioned -resell mate of the same the authority as an Act of Parliament. Right Rev. Prelate not to be too sanguine as to the re- suit. He had told the Right Rev. Prelate that those chairmen of boards of guardians who had been there last night would not be there to night, and the result had shown that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had been the better prophet as to the success of the ex periment. He should reserve his defence of the general measure to the time when the Right Rev. Prelate should bring forward that motion, to which the Noble Duke had alluded, for its repeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate, however, had not acted quite fairly—he had quoted a letter written by the Poor-law Commis sioners, in 1539, at which time he held the seals of the Home Department, on the appointment of chaplains; but the Right Rev. Prelate had omitted to state that since the date of that letter there had been a decision of a court of law on the subject. The Right Rev. Prelate had not said one word about the first clause of the Bill, and yet that clause amended the existing law as regarded , the bastardy clauses in the very sense in which the Right Rev. Prelate had urged their Lordships to amend • them for the last ten years. Now, if the Right Rev. • Prelate had assumed a tone of triumph on the occasion, • he might have been excused. No doubt they must own • that the bastardy clauses had not answered the objects which the original proposers of the measure had in view, He agreed with his Noble Friend in opinion that, as fur as those clauses were concerned, the experiment had not succeeded. The Right Rev. Prelate also objected to the size of the unions. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had always thought the unions too large, but really it ap • peared to him as if the Right Rev. Prelate had not read the Bill—(Hear, hear)—for the Bill contained provisions to lessen the size of the unions. —(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the schools, the Bill provided for the es tablishment of district schools, which would cure the evil of which the Right Rev. Prelate complained.—( Hear.) The Bill also relaxed the law in relation to the granting of out-door relief, a subject to which the Right Rev. Prelate had also alluded. With regard to the 26th clause, which related to that subject, his Noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) had proposed an amendment in which he could not concur ; widows generally wore their weeds ' fur twelve months only, but he was not aware that their distresses left them at the same time. The Right Rev. Prelate had apologised for his warmth and excitement; now he must say that he had observed no symptoms on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate of anything like warmth or excitement.—(Hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate had spoken as he always spoke—with great ability and great tact, but he had shown no warmth—(Hear)—and, in deed, considering the state of the House, it would have , been remarkably odd if he had shown much excitement. There was, however, a great deal in this. The Right Rev. Prelate had not intended that speech specially for their Lordships' ears—(Hear, hear)—and no doubt the Right Rev. Prelate felt that if the speech should have the good fortune to reach those for whom it was really intended, a little confession of warmth would not make it tell the less effectually.—(Hear, hear.) He could not think that any person could be considered as labouring under warmth and excitement, who had availed himself, as the Right Rev. Prelate had done, of a quibble.— (Hear, hear.) The /tight Rev. Prelate had said that the union houses resembled prisons, and bad quoted a letter of Mr. Tufnell, in which he stated that the exte rior of those houses resembled prisons ; but in the same letter, Mr. Tufnell stated that the ladies who had visited them had found them so comfortable, that they were afraid persons would be desirous of getting admitted to them. Now, seeing that the poor were more concerned in the comfort of the interior, than in the appearance of the ex!trior of those houses, he thought the Right Rev. Pre 16,te ‘l'llS .not justified in the quibbling use which he had made of Mr. Tufnell's authority.—(Hear.) He himself had eecently visited the Bethnal Green work house, and when Ile compared the condition of the poor in that house with that of the labouring poor in the eastern parts of the metropolis, he could not but be struck with the contrast, and this was more particularly the case as regarded the children.—(Hear, hear.) Having held the office of Secretary for the Home Depart ment for two years. he could bear his testimony to the justice, humanity, and kindness with which the Poor- law Commissioners exercised their functions.—(Hear.) Lord WROTTESLEY, as a chairman of a board of guardians, and as one of those who had originally col lected evidence on whcih the new poor-law was founded, could not but protest against the first nine clauses of the present Bill, which were calculated to revive all the evils of the old law, as regarded bastardy, and would give a premium to perjury and incontinence, and place the guilty in a better position than the honest and indus trious. He admitted, however, that the Government were placed in a difficult situation, and he thanked the ' President of the Council for the speech with which last night he had introduced the measure. Their Lordships divided, when there appeared— For g oing into Committee—Contents Non Contents . Majority against the Bishop of Exeter's amendment—l 6 The House then went into Committee on the Bill. On clause I being proposed, Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the present law was a great improvement on the old system. Under that system the poor suffered under great grievances, and it was to remove those grievances that the new poor-law had been introduced. Could the Right Rev. Prelate for one moment entertain the idea of re-establish ing the Act 43d of Elizabeth ? The Right Rev. Prelate knew that it was impossible to do so. The present law he contended, was far more humane than the original law, and the poor were better off under it. The law of Elizabeth was passed for different times to these in which he now lived, and it was idle to suppose that such a system could be applied now. The Bishop of EXETER took that opportunity of re plying to the arguments which had been used against his amendment. He said that he had' brought that amendment forward solely on his own responsibility, and without reference to any party out of doors. It was true, the law of Elizabeth was passed for other times, and so was Magna Charts; but we still held Mag na Charta to be a good foundation for legislation, and he contended that the law of Elizabeth was a good founda tion for legislation on the subject of the maintenance of the poor. He concluded by giving notice that, early . in the next session, he should move for a Committee to in quire into the means of spiritual instruction afforded in union workhouses.—The clause was then agreed to. Clause 2 was proposed. Lord WHARNCLIFFE explained its operation. The Bishop of EXETER objected to that part of the clause which provided that, in affiliating a child, there I should be some corroborative evidence added to that of 1 HO NEE CIRCUIT. :ord,, Tuesday, August 6. MTH. SIDE. (Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.) THE BLOODSTONE CASE—SECOND DAY, lIERI:ERT V. DAY. - William Crook examined—l live at Apperley, about two miles from Waiter. -hill. In 1848 I went to Mr. Newman's to perform .an operation upon a colt belonging to him. I had seen the. same colt in the summer of that year. He had a very pretty head, and was rather, thick set and " cabby." This colt had a white stripe down the face, and more white about the heels. After I per formed the operation the colt was taken ill, and I did not see him any more. Cross• examined—No money has been offered me by Newman. He did not say that he would give me 1001. if I would swear that I operat e d upon t h e co l t. I did not say it was a bad job, and I would have nothing to do with it. I did say I would have nothing to do with it. because it might expose my profession.—(Laughter.) They did not offer me money to prove that the colt died after the operation. lam not the Mr. Crook of Coal house, Apperley—(the person referred to in yesterday's evidence). He is a relation to me, and is a licensed dealer in horses. I don't know that he has bred a colt within the last ten - years. He may have had three or four brood mares within the last three years. I know a gentleman named Walker very well. There was a per son named Smellcomb, but I did not say, in the presence of those persons, that I had been offered 1001. to swear that I cut the Beiram colt, and that it died under the operation. And I did not say either, that it was a black job, and I would have nothing to do with it, as it would all come out. Re-examined—l did not wish it to be known that the colt I had operated upon had died, as it might have hurt my business. Mr. John Noble Partridge—l am a coal-merchant at Cheltenham, and in 1841 I lived near Mr. Newman, at Walton, and I remember his Chesnut blood-mare having a foal in 1841. It was a very pretty cult, had a small head, white mark on the face, and two white beelsbehind. I remember the same mare having another foal in 1842. It was in the spring of the year; April or May, I believe. The colt Bloodstone is the same cult, if ever I saw him. Baron PARKE—What do you mean by that ; it is an odd expression. Mr. PLATT—It may be very true, my Lord. Witness—l swear that Bloodstone is the same colt. He had a largish head, a white mark on the forehead, and one white heel behind. By Mr. PLATT —I have seen other colts upon Mr. Newman's farm. I was not present when the second foal was dropped. Robert Shorter—l am an ostler at the Royal hotel, Cheltenham, and am acquainted with Mr. Newman. In 1841 I had a half-bred colt at Walton. It died about Christmas in that year. I remember the thorough-bred mare having a colt in 1841. Ile had a very neat head, rather small inclined, and cobby. The same mare had a second colt in 1842, and this one was much larger and lengthier, and when it was five months old was inclined to be as big as the other. A colt, very much like him, stopped at my house on the way to Jones's, to be trained, but I did not recognise him as the same colt. I observed that he had capped hocks, and looked at him particu larly, and I am sure the horse Bloodstone is the same. By Mr. PLATT—I cannot swear it is the same colt I saw in the paddock at Mr. Newman's. Re-examined—He was very much like him, but I cannot swear he was the same colt. Edmund Jones—l live at Rockley-house, near Marl borough, and have been a public-trainer of race-horses for many years. I saw Mr. J. Newman at Tewkesbury Races in 1843, and ho spoke to me about a colt he had atilNVed inu alt Ion: He wasandl went y etroypttiil see i l i. im the next day and exa mlheaded, and had large ears, but had length, and some racing qualities. I saw that he was inclined for curbs, and that his hocks were capped. He had a small white diamond-shaped mark on his forehead, and one white heel behind. The same horse was brought to me to train, and he remained with me until he went to run at Ascot, but before this I heard Mr. Herbert had bought him, and on the 19th sf May he was transferred to Mr. Herbert's account. I saw the colt run at Ascot in the name of Bloodstone fur the New Stakes. A filly named Carissima met with an accident during the race ' and was thrown out, but I do not think any of the field had a chance to beat Bloodstone, and he came in several lengths a-head. I did not examine the colt's mouth until after Ascot Races, but I do not pretend to be able to tell the age of a horse by examining his mouth; but he appeared like:all the other two-year-olds that were under my charge, and there was nothing to in duce me to believe that he was other than a two-years old. I saw the mare Romaike, and she was pointed out to me as the mare that had run against a mare of my own named Susannah. She ran for the Guy Stakes. The mare that run against mine was a large chesnut mare similar to the one I saw at Mr. Newman's, but I cannot swear it was the same mare. Cross-exateitied—Race-horses are generally handled when they are yearlings. Whether a race-horse should be gelded depended a good deal upon the character of the animal. There were some very good geldings. I have bought a good many horses, but I know nothing about their mouths. I don't know when horses lose their sucking teeth, but I can guess to five years. I know the difference between five and six years old. The persons who send horses to me are respectable men, and it is not my busine-s to look at their teeth. When I first saw the colt, I told Mr. Newman that he was a horse of power, and he sent him to me on the 28th August, 1833. I looked in the horse's mouth after the race at Ascot, and, according to the best of my belief, it was not a three years old mouth. I could tell the age of a horse cer tainly better by his mouth than his tail.—(Laughter.) The colt is now in my keeping. Application was made to me to show the colt, and I refused to do so. Reexamined—The horse was examined on the day of the races, and the day after; he was also examined on the third. I told Mr. Day the horse should be at his disposal whenever he wanted to see him. William Lovesey—l live near Wa!ton, and occasion ally went to Mr. Newman's, and remember seeing a chesnut mare there that was called Romaike in the sprang of 1841. At that time she had a chesnut colt, with a remarkably pretty head, but it was too small for a race-horse. The same mare had a second colt in the following year. He had a large head, with a white spot on the forehead, and one white heel, and was much more like a racer than the other. Bloodstone is the second colt that I'have referred to. Cross-examined—I am related to the Newmans. Richard Newman is my cousin. I had no bets on the race that Bloodstone won. I have kept race-horses, but I did not run a horse at Hungerford races which was afterwards disqualified after it had run. I have been in the army, and am now living on my property. I have bought several horsee and I generally looked in their mouths to ascertain their age. I know nothing of a horse's age until after he is four or five years old, and before that age I could not form any opinion. I do not know when a colt sheds his sucking teeth, but I should say that the permanent teeth present a very different appearance from the milk teeth. William Brunsdon—l am a farmer, and live at a place called D ee rhurst, near W a l ton, and have been a y e. trainted with • the Newman f am il y f or several years, an frequently was at his plae,e I knew the blood mare Romaike, and remember her having a colt in 1841. The witness described the Beiram colt in the same terms as the former witness.) He also described the second colt represented to be the horse Bloodstone, and said that he had that day seen the same colt at Guildford. Cross-examined — l don't know much about horses, but I can tell a horse from a handsaw.—(Laughter.) I have bought and sold horses, and I always look in the horse's mouth when I buy. I can tell a four. year old horse, but I know nothing of their mouths before that age. I have had several colts, but I never looked at their teeth. I know that they do shed their teeth, but I cannot tell at what periods. By the Jury—l don't know what became of the first colt, but I heard that it died from an operation. John White proved that he saw the blood mare and the two colts at Mr. Newman's, and he gave a similar description of them to that of the last witness, Cross-examined—Witness saw several colts at Wal ton, both in 1842 and 1843. The Newmans breed horses the mother. He thought that, the more modest the woman, the less chance was there of corroborative evi dence. He thought it was right to give the magistrate a discretion, but that was an additional reason why cor roborative evidence should not be demanded. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving the amendment. Lord WHARNCLIFFE must oppose the amendment. The Right Rev. Prelate alluded to cases of seduction by the men, but the fact was, the greater number of bas tards were not the fruit of seduction at all. In most cases the woman seduced the man. The Right Rev. Prelate talked of the indecency of an expose in a court of justice, but he did not apprehend that any such would be the case. There would be no indecency whatever in the corroborative evidence. 'The Marquis of BUTE differed entirely from the Right Rev. Prelate, and would oppose the amendment. He thought the clause went too far. The amendment was negatived without a division. The Bishop of EXETER thought some other mode of receiving the money should be devised than that of the woman's receiving the money from the putative father, which was exposing him to further sin or to further bru tality. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE agreed with the view taken by the Right Rev. Prelate, and would devise a remedy. The Bishop of EXETER said in case of appeal by the woman's father from the decision of the two justices, the woman in most cases would not be able to sustain the ex pense of the appeal at the quarter sessions. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE said, there undoubt edly might be cases where the woman might not be able to sustain the expense of an appeal ; but it should be re collected that the man wag bound in security not only to pay the allowance to the woman, but to pay the costs likewise if the appellant were un successful ; besides, many attorneys would be glad to take up her case for the purpose of pocketing the costs, and gaining a certain degree of notoriety for himself. occasionally. Witness was positive that the white mark on the forehead of the first colt went down one side of The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. The fifth clause was likewise agreed to, as were the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, which are the bastardy clauses. Clauses up to 40 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 41 being proposed, The Bishop of EXETER suggested that the chaplain should be appointed by the Commissioners instead of the guardians. ord WHARNCLIFFE said that the subject had been fully discussed in the House of Commons. He could not accede to the suggestion made by the Right Rev. Prelate.—The clause was agreed to. the face, and I am positive it had one white heel behind, and I believe it had two. I think the second colt also had a star on its forehead. I was not at all interested in these colts, and had no reason for takiag particular notice of thew. I don't know much sbeett horses, but I can tell a horse from a mare.—(Laughter.) Re-examined.--I am sure the Morse I have seen a Guildford is not the first colt that was with the mare. Watton, the driver of er Ry, deposed that be saw a Chesnut mare and a colt at Mr. Hicks's, and he remarked that the mare had a. tery long tail, and that the colt had a white mark down the face, and two white heels. He saw a second foal with the mare, in the opening of 1842, and he had seen the same colt and mare at Guild ford. He was sure it was not the first colt that that was shown to him at Guildford. Cross-examined—Had been among horses all his life, but could not tell the age of a colt by its mouth, nor what teethlt had when it was two years old. My mas ter has bought some hundreds of horses, and I have looked int o th e mout h s o f a goo d man y o f them, but I am no judge. I know nothing about the age from looking, andonly did so from curiosity.--(Laughter.) I cannot tell anything about the age of a horse by looking in its mouth. William Taylor, a farmer and coal-dealer, residing near Walton, gave similar testimony to the former witnesses relative to the two colts being at Newman's farm in 1841 and 1842. He also said that the horse at Guildford was marked in the same way as the second colt, but he could not swear positively that it was the same horse, although, according to the best of his belief it was. Margaret Hopkins proved that she went to work at Mr. Newman's, and remembered seeing the colt in 1841, and remarked that it had a very pretty little head. She also saw the second foal in 1842, and she gave a similar description of it to the other witnesses, and expressed her opinion that Bloodstone was the same colt. John Hawkins deposed to seeing the mare and the colts, and also stated that he had frequently heard it remarked of the first colt that he would snake a good one .to drink out of a ,jug, as he had such a small nose. He expressed his opinion that the horse now in Guildford was the colt that he first saw in 1842, with its dam, at Mr. Newman's. William Taylor, a butcher in the neighbourhood of Walton, gave similar testimony. Patience Kitling was called to speak to the same facts, but she stated that she saw nothing of the mare and the second foal in 1843. Cross•examined—l s sure sho did not see the mare and foal in 1843. The witness was evidently confused, and she at length explained that she saw the same ani mals up to last Christmas. The witness was cross examined at some length ; and she several times altered tho dates of the different transactions which sho pro fesF cad to speak to, but she persisted in saying that the mare and the hors& she had been shown at Guildford, , were the same ituhuals she had seen in the paddock. The remaining clauses of theThill were then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to- morrow. _ The Merchant Seamen's Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow. The Irish Arms Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. The House adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve till :0-morrow at a Quarter to Four o'clock. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. NOTICE TO MARINERS. SAFETY BEACON ON THE GOODWIN SANDS CARRIED AWAY. " Admiralty, August 6, 1844. " Sir,—l am commanded, by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to transmit to you herewith, for the information of the C omm i ttee f or manag i ng the affa i rs of Lloyds, a copy of a letter from the clerk in charge of her Majesty's na va l yar d at Deal, reporting that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands, had run against and carried away the safety beacon erected there some years since, by Captain Bullock. " I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, " SIDNEY HERBERT. " W. Dobson, Esq., Secretary, Lloyd's." (coPy.) " Deal Yard, August 5, 1844. "Sir,—l hare the honour to acquaint you, for the in formation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands early this morning ran against and carried away the safety beacon erected there some years since by Captain Bullock. " From subseequent inspection it appears that the vessel - struck the top of the beacon on the western side, and carried it away ; that the mast is gone just above the surface of the sand ; and that the whole is a perfect wreck, held by the rigging and chain plates. "I have cleared and brought on shore to-day as much as the state of the tide would allow of, and I shall avail myself of the first opportunity to secure the rest. " I have the honour to be, &c., (Signed) "CHARLES WOOTTON, " Clerk in Charge. " The Hon. S. Herbert, M.P., &c. &c., Admiralty." Mr. Joseph Pratt, a coach proprietor, driving upon the road, past!, Mr. Newman's paddock, also spoke to seeing the mare and the two foals, but he could not identiCy the horse at Guildford, known as Bloodstone, as one of those colts. Mr. Davis deposed that he had seen the mare and the colts, and he expressed his opinion that Bloodstone was the colt brought to Mr. Newman's in 1842. Cross-exaz.iined—Witness has bought several mare,, and, of course, he always looks in their mouths for fear he should buy an old one for a young one,--(Laughter.) Does not know the appearance of the mouth of a three year old, because he does not buy them. Thinks he could tell when a horse was under three years old ; but over three, he would have a full mouth. By the COURT—A horse has not so many teeth when he is under three years old, as when he is over that age. Cross-examination continued—He did not touch the horse that was shown him at Guildford. Did not look in his mouth, but it was not because Mr. Newman told him not to do so. Mr. W. Coleman—l am a veterinary surgeon, and have been in business for twenty years. I carry on busi ness at Cheam, in Surrey. In my judgment the appear ance of the mouth of a two 'or three-year old is not an infallible rule to ascertain the age, but I think you can generally tell the age. It is sufficient to decide between an early two year-old and a late three year-old colt. If an early two year-old colt was taken care of, and fed with cow's milk and corn, as well as being suckled by its dam, it would make a considerable difference in its growth and general appearance. There was an appearance of lace ration in the gums where the tushes would be expected. The training, or the manner in which a horse was bitted, would make a great difference in the appearance of the colt's mouth, and keeping the bit in the mouth would be likely to remove the temporary teeth much earlier. In my opinion the horse now in Guildford is thirty months' old, and if I had been called upon to examine him pro fessionally, I should have given a certificate to that effect. Cross-examined—l was at the last Epsom races when Running Rein won the Derby. I don't know whether I gelded a colt by Saddler out of Mab, but possibly I might. I am not aware that Running Rein was des cribed as a colt by Saddler out of Mab. It was so des cribed, but I know nothing about it ' • but I know that the horse that did run was an entire horse. I did not give any information to the stewards, because I knew nothing of the matter. I castrated a bay colt for Mr. Goodman, or Mr. Levi Goodman. Mr. PLATT—Or Mr. Goodman Levi, for I believe he goes by all these names. Witness—He may, for what I know. Cross-examination continued—l don't think I knew of a horse named Gladiator, but I may have seen him at Epsom. If I had to give a certificate of the age of Bloodstone, I should say he was thirty months old. Re-examined—l had nothing to do with the races at Epsom, or with the pedigree of the horse described as by the Saddler out of Mab. Mr. Brown, veterinary surgeon at Warwick, confirmed the evidence given by the last witness relative to the effect the biding a young horse would be likely to have upon the teeth. He said that he examined the horse Bloodstone at Rockley, and he considered he was a two year old, and according to racing rule he would be con sidered a two-year old in January last. I have exa mined the mouth of Old England, the second horse ; and, although his teeth are not so forward as those of Bloodstone, I have no doubt they were both two-year olds. Old England is certainly a two-year old. Cross-examined—I don't think there is any certain rule to tell the age of such young horses. If a horse is entered to run as a two-year old, I consider he is a two year old—especially if he belongs to a respectable person. That is not the reason why I say that Bloodstone is a two-year old. Bloodstone has got four permanent teeth, but I do not think that is a proof that he is a three-year old horse. Mr. Bradshaw deposed that he was a veterinary sur geon, and carried on business at Stratford-upon-Avon. He saw Bloodstone run the race at Ascot, and he examined him on the 21st or 22d June. He did not consider the mouth of a horse a certain criterion of his age, but in his opinion this horse was a two-year old. The mouth of a race-horse developes itself much sooner than that of another horse, on account of the mode of feeding and sweating them. He had examined Blood stone and Old England at Guildford, and was satisfied they were both two years old, but Bloodstone was six weeks forwarder than Old England. Cross-examined—Bloodstone has not got any of his molar teeth. If a horse is foaled in April or May his racing age is calculated from the January preceding, so that he should consider Bloodstone to be now two years old and a little more, and he would be considered a two yearis whether he was foaled in ro ol dnAuln,nyAt Ri pl KaJEr ay, t —n ouTfa the hye e, i 321. sBe u4a ers . will do. l 8 482 a. Mr. PLATT—Exactly so, my Lord. Mr. W. W. Bryan, another veterinary surgeon, de posed that he examined Bloodstone yesterday at Guild ford, and, according to the best of his judgment, he was two years old. lie did not consider the appearance of the mouth a certain proof of the age of a horse, and witness had been mistaken on some occasions with regard to the ages of horses he had examined. Cross-examined—He was of opinion that a horse being well fed would cause his teeth to grow faster. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. PLATT then rose to address the jury, and he observed that, having at length got to the end of the plaintiff's case, it was his duty to lay before them the evidence upon which the defendant relied, to satisfy them that the real facts of the case were very different to those that had been alleged on behalf of the plaintiff. The jury, no doubt, perfectly understood that the ques tion at issue was whether the horse now called Bloodstone was foaled in 1842, and that his dam was Romaike, and his sire Bubastes, and, although many of the plaintiff's witnesses had boldly sworn that he was the same animal, he had no doubt that he should be able to give them conclusive evidence that in truth he was not so. It would be the duty of the jury to look at all the cir cumstances of the ease and see on which side the truth really was. lie submitted that the plaintiff's evidence was very unconclusive, and he said it was very extra ordinary that veterinary surgeons should have been pro duced from distant parts of the country, when a hundred skilful men, who could have no interest in the twitter, might have been found in London, or in this imme diate neighbourhood, who could have proved the horse to be a two year old horse if he really were so. He would now state the history of the transaction. In 1840, the mare Romaike was put to Lord Exeter's Beiram, and in due time produced a foal, and while this foal was at her foot she was sent to Mr. Hicks's to be put to Bubastes, and it would then appear that the fraudulent proceedings commenced, for the next year the same mare, which was a thorough bred fine mare, was sent in a false name to a gentleman named Gib son, being represented as a half-bred mare, to be put to a horse called Liverpool, end while in the possession of that gentleman, she was delivered of the real Bubastes colt. The jury had seen the conduct of Richard Newman with regard to those letters that had been produced re ferring to this transaction, and he put it to them whe ther they could doubt that he was not perfectly aware that some improper transaction was going on. (Mr. Platt then read an extract from a letter written by Richard Newman in the name of Crook, in which he stated that the mare was in foal by Bubastes, and that, as she was only half-bred, and his object was merely to breed a steeple-chaser or hunter, he should not give more than 101. for putting her to the horse Liverpool.) In March, 1842, the mare, Romaike was sent to Mr. Gibson's as a half-bred mare, and at this time she had the mange, and was in very bad condition; and it would be important for the jury to remember the evidence given by John Newman that he had had the mange in his stable, which was a catching disorder, in confirmation of the assertion that this was the same mare, although all the witnesses had positively sworn that she never was, at Mr. Gibson's. On the 17th of April, 1842, the mare dropped the real Bubastes colt, which was a weakly, small, miserable animal, and to this one no doubt the story told by the wit nesses about the castration affair referred. He should prove those facts beyond the possibility of doubt, and he should also show that Richard Newman applied to Mr. Hicks to give him a receipt as for a mare covered in 1841, when the occurrence really took place in 1840, which evidently showed that he intended to make some animal a year younger than it really was. Mr. Hicks was aware that such a false receipt could only be re quired for some dishonest purpose, and he therefore re fused to give it. The Beiram colt was at that tithe a year old, and if he had succeeded in getting the falsely dated receipt it would have been evidence to show that he was two-years-old instead of three at the period of the races. The whole of the proceedings were very suspicious, and there was strong reason to believe that Bloodstone was in reality the Beiram three-year- old colt. It was not, however, for the defendant to prove that fact, and it was enough forhim to show that Bloodstone was not the Bubastes colt foaled in 1842. The principal witnesses for the plaintiff were all deeply interested in the matter —the horse had been entered for stakes amount ing to between twelve and thirteen thousand pounds, and they, of course, felt a strong desire to make out their case, and this would probably account for the manner in which they had given their evidence; and the conduct of Richard Newman with regard to the letter, which it was quite clear had been written by him. The horse having been entered for certain races his name would be placed in the Racing Calendar, and it became necessary that some caution should be used with regard to him; and, accordingly, in his first race for the New Stakes at Ascot, Mr. Newman felt that if he won he would excite attention and inquiry, and he therefore gave Bell, his jockey, instructions to lose the race, in order, no doubt, that he might be regularly entered as a two year old ; and having been beaten it was thought no inquiry would be made about his age, but he would be acknowledged as a two year old horse in future. Immediately after the race eminent veterinary surgeons were called in, and they at once pronounced the colt to be a three year old horse, and they would again to day repeat that opinion, not accompanied with any evasion or doubt, but positively and certainly, as they did at first. The Learned Counsel then went on to state other facts, which will be detailed in the evidence, and concluded by expressing himself confident that the jury would award the stakes to the defendant, who was the proprietor of Old England, the second horse, and that they would be satisfied Blood stone was not the horse he was represented to be. The following witnesses were then examined. Mr. Henry Hicks, examined by Mr. SIIEE—I live at Atherley, near Cheltenham. In the spring of 1841 I had a stallion called Bubastes, which I had hired. In 1841 - _ and he told me he would take ten guineas, of which I informed Newman. SOOll after this John Newman called upon me, and told me had received a letter from Mr. Gibson, informing him that his mare Romaike had not foal.ed, and he wished ice to tell him when the mare was covered, and I gave him the date, the 4th of May. I saw John Newman afterwards, and he told me the mare liar foaled, and that she had a very good colt foal. T autumn of 1843 John Newman applied to me for a _ ceipt, for his two mares in 1E342. I told him I had had no no mares of his in 1842, and I should not give him any such receipt as he required. I was at Ascot races, and Mr. Herbert told me it was his horse that had ruu, and that he had bought it of Mr. Newman, and I understood that ho had given 3001. for him, and was to give 5001. more if he won the Derby. After the dispute about the horse's age, Mr. Herbert told me that he should send the horse to Tattersall's, and sell it for what it would fetch, and bring an action against Newman for deceiving him as to the age of the horse. Cross-examined—The charge for the two mares was 7/. My charge was 8/. 17s. altogether. I have betted 5001. to 50/. upon the result of this action. I made the bet for Mr. Gully in favour of Old England. I believe Old England is his horse, and, of course, he is interested in it. I paid down the money for Mr. Gully, and I have no interest whatever in the bet. I should be a winner myself; if Bloodstone were to have the stakes. By the COURT—Bubastes never covered a mare for Crook. John House—l am a labourer in the employ of the last witness, and recollect a chesnut mare coming to be covered by Bubastes in 1841. She had a foal with her —a very good sort of foal, likely to make a good horse. I remember being at Ascot races, and hearing Harmer say, " Here's a devil of a job—the Bubastes colt has come in and beat them all ; but they have proved him to be a three year old." I said I hoped not, and that John Newman would have the stakes. Upon which Harmer replied, " It is the Beiram colt which was with her when she went to be covered by Bubastes;" and he added, " that it was no more Bubastes' colt than it was old Defence's." Defence is a horse that was staying at Mr. Hicks's. Harmer then said that John Newman owed him for two mares, and that if he did not pay him he would toss him over the bridge. I after wards saw John Newman and Harmer talking together at one place, and a boy was sent to listen to what they said, but they moved away to another part of the yard. Cross-examined—I am sure Romaike was the mare that was sent to Bubastes in 1841. I wished John New man might win the race, but it does not matter to me who wins. I was not aware until after the race that Mr. Gully was at all interested in Old England. Robert Pincher—l am in the service of Mr. Hicks. I remember Harmer saying to me, " There's a pretty job, Bubastes foal has won the race." I said, "Is it Bubas tes' foal ?" He replied, "Itis no more Bubastes' colt than it is old Defence's, and if he don't pay me I'll fling him over the bridge." Mr. De Witt—l reside at Stockbridge, am an attor ney's clerk, and I was instructed to take the evidence of Harmer and reduced it to writing. He told me he was present in April, 1841, when Romaike dropped a foal to Beiram. It was a chesnut colt with a star on the forehead. and a near white leg behind. Some time in 1842, he said he saw Romaike in Newman's paddock with Bubastes' foal, and he did not observe any white about him. He also told me that he did say after the race at Ascot that Bloodstone was a three-year-old, and that he might have said that he should not have said anything about it if John Newman had paid him his fee. Cross-examined—The witness Harmer made the statement of his own accord, and I took it down in writ ing. I was introduced to Mr. Gully on last Monday morning. Mr. W. Walker—l know Mr. Hicks, and called at his house in April 1841, and stayed there all the night, and during the night I was disturbed by a noise, and in con sequence of a communication'made to me I called at Mr. Newman's, at Walton, and there I saw a mare which I have since seen at Guildford, and which I knew to be Romaike. The mare at that time had just foaled, and the mother was very savage to it. I am sure this foal was a chesnut ; and am pretty sure that it had a white star on the forehead, and one white heel behind. I have seen the horse Bloodstone, and, to the best of my belief, he is the Beiram colt, but I will not swear positively to it. I saw the colt afterwards at Mr Newman's. n th Cross-examined—l have been in the hop and seed trade, and also a farmer. I was a bankrupt, and also took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. I was in Worcester gaol before I took the benefit, and I made an attempt to escape from the officer who was taking me to gaol. I sold one cow to Mr. Hicks shortly before I went to gaol. Re-examined—l was unfortunate in a hop speculation eighteen years ago, and it occasioned me to become bank rupt. I have not the slightest interest in the result of this cause. Joseph Walker—ln 1841 I lived close to the Messrs. Newman, at Walton. I recollect the chesnut mare coming to Walton in foal in 1840, and I was informed that she was in foal by Beiram. She foaled in April, 1841, and I saw the colt when it was a yearling. After the mare foaled she was very vicious, and would not take to her foal at first. I observed that the foal had a star on his forehead, and that he had or.e white heel behind. I have seen Bloodstone, and I believe he is the Beiram colt. He is the same colour and has the same marks about him, but I cannot swear he is the same. I know the witness Crook. He told me he had been offered 100 L by an agent wrapped up in paper, to tell some stories about cutting the Beiram colt, a n d h e sa id that he had spurned the offer. Cross-examined—l have twice taken the benefit of the Insolvent Ace. Mr. Gibson—l reside at Castle Bromwich. A chesnut mare was sent to my place in 1842. It is my habit to record the time when every mare is brought in a book (produced). The mare in question came on the 31st of March, 1842. Before the mare was brought, I had received some letters from a Mr. Crook, who represented the mare to be his. (These were the letters represented to be written by Richard Newman.) The mare was to be put to Liverpool, a horse that was then in my possession. (The letters were read. In one of them the mare was described as a half-bred one that had never run.) Examination continued—When the mare came, she was in foal, and very poor. She had been dressed for the riff and mange before she was brought to my house. It is a catching dis9rder. When I saw the mare I was satisfied she was nearly throrough-bred. Crook repre sented himself to be the owner of the mare. The mare dropped a foal on the 17th April. It was a very . small shabby foal, with upright shoulders, and short in the quarters, and had not a white hair about him, except, perhaps, a small spot on the forehead. I never saw the man Crook in my life, and he never made any inquiries about the mare. John Newman came to my place, I believe, after the mare had foaled, and he saw all the foaling mares that we had, and also the horse Liverpool. lam certain that I showed him this mare. She was taken away, with her foal, on the Bth August, 1842. Since I have been in Guildford, I hare seen Ro maicke, and I am sure she is the same mare which was sent to me trom Mr. Crook. I have also seen Blood stone, and he is certainly not the foal that was dropped in April, 1842. The circumstance of the mare being sent to me as a half-bred mare excited my suspicion, and I showed her to certain gentlemen, and we were all satisfied that she was thorough bred. Cross-examined—The mare in question was in a very bad and diseased state when she was brought to me. Re-examined—l am quite certain that the mare I have seen in this town is the same mare. I have no doubt of it. Mr. G. Gibson—l am the son of the last witness, and I recollect perfectly well the mare being sent to us, in the name of Crook, on the 31st of March. I made an entry in the book kept for that purpose, and described the mare as half-bred. The witness then read from the book the remark that the mare foaled a chesnut foal, without any white, on the 17th of April. I have seen the mare Romaike, and the horse Bloodstone. Romaike is the mare that was at our place, but Bloodstone is cer tainly not the colt that she dropped in 1842. I never saw anything of Crook. George Swan—l am groom to Mr. R. Gibson, and remember the chesnut mare being brought to his place. She bad a foal while she was there. It was a very small colt—a chesnut, and had no white about it. I have seen Bloodstone. He is not the horse foaled in 1842. Romaike is the mare. She had the mange very bad when she just come, but was getting better when she went away. Mr. John Fowler—The mare was shown to me by Mr. Gibson, and I recognised her as a mare that had run at Warwick races for the Guy stakes, and I knew her to be Romaike, and to be a thorough bred mare. I saw the same mare several times at Mr. Gibson's, and I saw the colt, she dropped there. It was a chesnut colt, and I don't think it had any white about it. I have seen the mare in Guildford, and am sure she is the same. The horse Bloodstone is not the colt that was dropped at the time in question, April 1842. Mr. T. L. Evans—l saw a chesnut mare at Mr. Hicks's in the spring of 1841, and I have no doubt that I afterwards saw the same mare at Mr. Gibson's. The same mare is now in Guildford. Henry Bell—l rode Bloodstone at Ascot. Before the race I saw Mr. J. Newman, and he told me to ride him a quarter of a mile, and then pull him up, for he would not have him win on any account. I told this before the race to Captain Rous and Colonel Wyndham's training groom, and consulted them what to do, and they told me to win. —(A laugh.) I did win. —(Renewed laughter.) I had no difficulty to win. I won in a canter. Cross-examined--I believe the horse fell lame on the day before. I was riding him a gallop at the time. A mare named Carissima ran with me, but I don't know whether she hurt herself. Mr. PLATT—Did she gallop with you the day before? Witness—Yes. two mares were sent to Bubastes. One of them was Romaike, and she was covered by Bubastes. Romaike was a chesnut mare ; the other was a brown mare. Ro maike came to me in the name of Mr. John Newman. She had a colt at her foot, which Mr. Newman said was by Beiram. Just before Warwick Races, John Newman came to me, and requested me to ask Mr. Gibson what ho would charge for half-bred mares to be put to Liverpool, a stallion then in the pos session of Mr. Gibson. I asked Mr. Gibson, accordingly, Mr. PLATT—Did she beat you in your gallop the day before ? Witness—Yes, by sufferance.—(Laughter.) Mr. PLATT—Were many persons present when she beat you ? Witness —Not many. Mr. PLATT—Just, I suppose, to take the news home ? Witness — Yes.—(Laughter.) Lord Stradbroke—l was one of the stewards of Ascot races, and was present when Bloodstone beat Old Eng land. A complaint was made that Bloodstone was more than two years old, and the stewards sent for Mr. Field, the veterinary surgeon, from London, and another gen tleman, named Parry, from Reading. When Mr. Field examined the horse, he immediately pronounced him to be three years old, and gave a certificate to that Effect. Mr. Parry gave a similar certificate. Mr. John Field—l am veterinary surgeon, and have been in practice twenty-five years. I examined Blood stone at Ascot. He was a three year-old horse. I have no doubt of that fact. I have seen the horse since, and there is nothing to alter my opinion. The jury here intimated that they were quite satisfied. Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL intimated his desire to reply. • Mr. PLATT—We have plenty more evidence. Another veterinary surgeon was then examined, and he likewise expressed a positive opinion that Bloodstone was a three year-old horse. The jury again said they Were perfectly agreed upon finding for the defeadaut. Mr. Etarou have tutu, gootteni&l, 0 1 0 Y", were of that opinion l ong ago, and I think you cou ld come to no other conclusion. Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL]; then said that after the opinion expressed by his Lordship, and what had fall from the jury, ha shou;d not feel himself justified in proceeding any further with the case ; but he claime d the privilege of making a few observations in justifica tion of the plaintiff. He should have made some r e : marks with referen c e to the id en tity o f th e an imal sel l to Mr. Gibson's with the m a r e R oma ik e , b ecause he must confess he was n o t qu it e so we ll sat i s fi e d w ith that evidence as the jury appeared to be, and if that idea' tity was not proved, the defendant's ease had completely failed. After the strong opinion expressed by the :P* however, he would refrain from making any observation s upon the evidence that had been adduced ; and h e would only observe, in justification of the conduct of Mr. Herbert, that there was nothing whatever to, show that he had not fairly and h ones tly b oug h t t h e h orse , with t " . his engagements, believing him to be a two years old, and that there was no imputation whatever upon Mr' Herbert's character, and he w as sure th at h e never woo have been a party to th e p resen t procee di ng if he had not believed that those who had given him the inforiav tion upon which he relied were persons of integrity. The foreman of the jury said they were of opinion thei Mr. Herbert might have been deceived. Mr. PLATT—WC believe that to be the case. It ij very probable that he knew nothing of the fraud allegeu against the other parties. Mr. Baron PARKE expressed his opinion that the kill could come to no other c o n c l us i on th an t h e one t h e y ha' determined upon. The history of the case probably Wi g that it was the small miserable colt which died, a nd the other was put in its place. The jury returned a verdict foe the defendant. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. " (YESTERDAY.) MA NSION-HO USE. An Irish gallant, named Michael O'Grady, was brought before Aldermen Sir John Key and Farebrother, charg e( /' with having refused to con t r ib u t e t owar d s t h e suppo rt O f his wife, who became chargeable to the parish of Aid gate. It was understood that the defendant intended t ° plead that he had never been married to the complainan t, who happened to be considerably the older of the two. , The complainant produced a n old, disfigured piece 0 ` paper as her marriage certificate, which appearcd to be of the date of May, 1827, and showed that the cererool had taken place in Killarney, in th e di s t r i c t o f the pans of Aglos, and been performed by the Rev. Doctor NV:Naughton, a Roman Catholic clergyman. She said the marriage was legal according to the Roman Catholic creed, the religion• they both professed ; and she de' (dared that her husband had fur a series of years treated her with the most heartless neglect and cruelty. She had, however, until lately, never required any assistance from him ; but finding that her strength was failing her and that her husband was able to support a youthful substitute for her, she thought it but fair that he should save the parish the expense that otherwise must necessa• rily fall upon the authorities. Sir JOHN KEY—Do you mean that he has married another woman ? Complainant—She lives with hiniat any rate, your Lordship. H e gave me regu l ar notice that lie intended to leave me. He said, after looking al e in the face for some time one day, your Lordship, that I was too old and too ugly for him, and that he mus t have a handsome young woman, and no other would do for him. Sir JOHN KEY—How long is it since you parted Complainant—About eight years, but we often parted before that ;we have been always parting;—(A laugh.) Sir Jous KEY—When did you last receive assistanc e from Aldgate parish ? Complainant—This day I 014 obliged to apply, while he dresses out his lady in Silk g and satins. Sir JOHN KEY—Well, defendant, why do you refuse to relieve this poor woman, who has a legal claim to all you- can d o f or her Defendant—Please your Lordship, I was never met' ried to her. To be sure, we have lived together, and better, more affectionate, or kinder-hearted husban d never breathed the breath of life.—(Laughter.) Alderman FAREBROTHER—And to convince her of the warmth of your attachment,. you turn her off and take another woman into her place ? Defendant—Y (4lr Worship, I really thought she was dead - or transported . There was no use in my acting kindly, for away ell! would tramp from me when e v e r s h e too k i t i nto be' head. She has been the death of me fifty times at least. Complainant—Oh, goodness! why, your Lordship, be knocked me up stairs and down stairs till I was quits insensible. Defendant—l can call witnesses to my tenderness , your Worship. _ I was the sweetest tempered man" (Laughter.) A professional gentleman, who attended for O'Grady' said his client had never b een l ega ll y married. Ile begged to be informed by the complainant what was the name of the chapel in which she had been joined in 11 1 W trimony to Mr. O'Grady ?—The complainant said th they were married in a house, and that it was as good ceremony as ever was performed by a priest. Mr. Goodman (the Chief Clerk)—And you are both Catholics ? Co m pl a i nan t—C er t a i n l y we are. Mr. Goodman—Then your testimony is quite sufficient • as to the validity of the marriage. The defendant's solicitor—He was only seventeen years of age when he formed this connection. Defendant—And I was so comfortable, and ace tionate, and tender, to her, your Lordship. Alderman FAREBROTHER-And by way of showing] all this you kicked her up and down stairs. Defendant—l never touched her in my life, I'll be OP my oath.—(Laughter.) Sir JOHN KEY—Well, you will prove the sincerity of your affection by taking her home, and sending Mi ss Sniffam about her business. Defendant—And if I do, why she m us t go to the parish. It's quite impossible for me to support 'eta both upon my small means, and Sniffum is of some use t ° me; but Mrs. O'Grady used to take delight in followittl me from situation to situation, and then abscond. have not been in her company this eight years till now' and I hope this is our very last meeting. For a length of time the defendant resisted the apPl i• cation to allow his wife a farthing, declaring that he should be obliged, if th e aut h or i t i es persisted in comp" ing him to support her, to go upon his travels to othe r countries. At length, how ever , upon the assurance ( the Alderman that his travels should be bounded by th e walls of a prison, of small dimensions, he entered jar sureties to make the a ll owance d eman d ed b y the par t Sir JOHN KEY said h e h a d rece i ve d a l etter from 14°'- Strangford, stating that his Lordship, having observed in the daily papers, an account of the impositions Pr ae ; tised by a person calling herself " Ellen Willoughby and " Margaret Cope," and having received 16 , letter signed "Ellen Willou g hby," i nc l os i ng a (no d o ubt) forged certificate, similar to these described in the r e• port ; he had thought it a d v i sa bl e t o transm i t the sit°l,.; to the Mansion-house. Hi s L or d s hi p a dd ed that i!J had sent to Hythe, th e pl ace i n w hi c h t h e wr i ter sal she was known, and to which she was desirous to g e ; and ascertained that no such person was known there 0 all. SirJ. Key stated that he had also received a letter / * N D another nobleman, mentioning that a letter had beef sent to his wife: (no doubt up on th e aut h or i ty of the ret` book), directed to Brook es ' Cl u b-h ouse, St , j ar nes' 6 " street, and subscribed " Fleming," to the same effect as those, copies of which had appeared in a former tea. sion ; that 11. had been sent to the writer before the sc, port had been seen, and that th e o bj ect i n trou bli ng John Key was, that the Dublin police might endeavol to get hold of the parties i m pli ca t e d i n t h e i nge nious fraud which, if it had not been for the press, would tU r questionably have very extensively succeeded. Sir JouN KEY stated that he had received a sovereig n for the relief of John Thompson Irvine, the unfortuil merchant who lost all his property at Hamburgh, u r n. s has been ende avour i ng f or many years to support 01 children, whose mother has been some time, in cou se ; quence of the pressure of adverse circumstances, tn . ,. lunatic asylum. The no t e i nc l os i ng the money Wra signed J. 5.," and requested that th e Alderman woll acknowledge it in the Times. He likewise stated that he had received for the same poor man the second hi': of the five-pound note whi c h h a d b een transmitted by,.: benevolent person who h a d seen t h e statement of tu" distressing case in the newspapers. CLERKEIV WELL. Mr. George Williams, a middle aged man, proprieT r . of a hair-dressing es t a bli s h ment i n W arner-street, Cle, r r a , unwell, was char ge d w ith v i o l at i ng t h e person o f Ell .o beth Duckworth, aged 15. Th e case was reman d e d further evidence. Benjamin Beadle, a cab-driver was charged under the following aggravated circumstances:— On the 7th of Jun e an un f ortunate g i rl, namea ',ge -1 Hughes, was sitting in the Guy Earl of Warwick pilu bo house between five and six o'clock in the morning, o r the prisoner enter e d, an d, a f ter us i ng language o f a /et:). rough and offensive c h aracter towar d s her, asking hero drink some gin and milk. She refused, whereupo n the prisoner, without rece i v i ng f urt h er provocation, flunche glass at her and broke it to atoms on her foreheatl. t he by unfortunate woman was d rea df u ll y mang led-bled splinters of th e g l ass . Sh e b ecame i nsens ibl e, an d a profusely from the wounds. When she fell, he flu n g& pint p o t a t h er h ea d, w hi c h f ortunate l y did not talt° l a t Get. When th e p o li ce were conveying him to the Ois l3agnigge-wells st a ti on , h e su dd en l y t h rew himself '?n eel his back and ki c k e d N o tt, p o li ce consta bl e 9 9 G , so vioi en on a delicate part part of his person, that the oilif e f o r most fainted from pain, and was for some days un fit duty. He was se n t ence d t o a mont h' s imprisonntel, BIRTHS. On the 2(11 inst., at Homerton Cottage, Hornerton rolf• Mrs. William Frith, of a daughter. On the 2d inst., at Clapton, Mrs. W a lt er Yenning, ocl eV ri ll. On the 3d inst., in Portland-place, the lady of Tritton, Esq., of a son. St• On the 3d inst., in Berkeley-square, Mrs. Humphrey John Mildmay, of a daughter. ° f On the 26th ult., at Frankf or t- on -th e -Maine, the u tof Robert Koch, Esq., h er B r it ann i c M a j es ty's Vice-Co ns u' daughter. On the Ist inst., in New-street, Spring-gardens, Lady 313/1 Hoare, of a son. DIED. .., On the 31st ult., at Richmond-hill, Bath, th e l'e''' Johil Parsons, of the Island of Barbadoes, Vicar of Marden. ~r , G. On the 31st ult., at A vranc h es , Mary Frances, wife or Gardiner, Esq., of the Bombay Civil Service. • m Willia On the 4th inst., at Clapham-common, Esq., (d H i e tt, are-hill, Cheshire, aged 85. tbe On the 4th inst., at E as t A c ton, Middlesex, llarr wife of Mr. R. L. Evans. bte r of On the 3d inst., at Hampstead, Idonea, eld est dang William Purton, Esq. On the 2d inst., Mr. Joseph Waite, aged 7.5. On the 3d inst., at Norwood, Miss Ann 8r00k5..., , sci.• On the 4th inst., Mrs. Nash, wife of Sebastian ivlsm' of St. John's-wood-road, Regent's-park. Wbbert, os London : Printed and i' - üblished by DIURDO ;12t No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office; ~.,I ; ty 01 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the %iv bliddlesez, Wednesday, Augazt.7 7 1844. t