The Sun. — London, England, 1839-01-16 00:00:00

THE CANA RISONERS. QUEEN'S BEN CH-(YESTERDAY (From our Second Edition of last night.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in continuation from our First Edition—lt ;shall and may be lawful for the Lieutenant- Gover nor of the province, by and with the advice of the executive coun cil thereof, to grant, if he shall think fit, pardon to such person in ber Majesty's name upon such terms and conditions as may appear proper. lam now supposing, my Lord, that an Act in these words is passed by the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. If such an Act had been passed, can there be any doubt of the power of the Lieutenant-Governor, after a party has been charged or indicted, and the prisoner has petitioned that he may have pardon under this Act of Par. 'lament, to grant a pardon to him upon the condition of his being transported for life. Now the great objection that my Learned Friends have taken in this part of their argument, which I think chiefly arises under the third head of objection is, that a man cannot be said to do anything against his will—that he cannot assent to his own death. They might have gene further, and said, no man can assent to a eetneeon assault—that is, my Lords, where there is no autho riey in law to authorise such a proceeding. But will it be said that the supreme power of a State cannot create a law which would enable a person charged with a crime to agree, without submitting his case to a jury, to a particular punish ment, which might be awarded ? I confess at once this could not be done without the authority of the Legislature; but can it be doubted that the Legislature can confer such an authority ? My Lords, in the Habeas Corpus Act itself, in the 14th section of that Act, your Lordships will find it pro vided, that if any person or persons lawfully convicted of any felony shall, in open Court, pray to be transported, beyond the seas, and the Court shall think fit, such person or persons may be transported to any part beyond the seas. Now here is the case of a person convicted of an offence for which he was not liable to transportation, because the Act says, if he agree to be transported then he may be transported. That is matter of contract—that is matter of assent ; but it is alone under the authority of the Legislature, and therefore the proceedings are legal. Lord DON MAN —You allude to the 31st Charles, I suppose? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL —Yes, c. 2, s. 14. My Lords, it would be a very cruel thing upon persons who are guilty, if such a law might not be enacted, because it might deprive the Crown of the means of extending mercy to them, and might render a trial and conviction indispensably neces sary. The case to which I have referred in the Habeas Corpus Act is when after conviction a party prays for trans portation, which, without his prayer, could not be lawfully passed upon him. But, my Lords, if a person be indicted for an offence, and apply to be transported before trial, and it should be lawful upon his petition to pronounce sentence of transportati on upon him, and then if the sentence is to be carried into effect, is he to move for a habeas corpus and say that he wa d unlawfully deprived of liberty, because although true it is he eAd consent, yet that consent is null and void, because it is illegal. The 13th section provides that nothing in the Act shall give benefit to any person who shall, by contract in writing, &c., agree to be transported to any part beyond the seas., and receive earnest upon such agreement, although afterwards such person shall renounce such contract. It is met for punishment, but liter a man renouncing his liberty : he enters into a contract not by way of punishment for crime, but he is to receive certain rewards for services performed. Now, my Lords, does not this Act of Par liament in Upper Canada contemplate that conditions shall be performed, aye, that all shall be done which is necessary for carrying that condition into effect. When a party is charged for high treason he might petition to be par doned, and a pardon may be extended to him upon such terms as are deemed proper. Well, then, is not transportation clearly within the meaning of that enactment ? My Learned Friend says, could he agree to some enormous suffering un known to the laws of England ? It is quite unnecessary to ask such a question. The Legislature, in the terms that were employed, has contemplated punishments known to the land. They were terms that were to be deemed proper; and to ,such an act, in point of principle and an point of humanity, no objection could be made, and I was really astonished to hear this Statute denounced as cruel, as tyrannical, and oppressive. It must be supposed that it is lawfully and properly cart ed into execute:se. If it be so, I say that It is a merciful and humane law— it enables the representative of the Crown to extend mercy to those who may have been seduced by the instigation of others, and who are much less guilty than those by whom they are instigated, and who cautiously avoid , he danger. But by such a law, when there is treason committed, a prosecution for treason must proceed—there must be a conviction, and sentence nsay be passed—that frightful sentence to which my Leessaesi Friend referred, and which I should rejoice as touch as he were it to be no longer pronounced; but is it not a humane act that the person against ehom, such a charge is brought, and who feels be is guilty, and ise conscious he has no defence—who may be taken in arms lighting against the troops of her Ma jesty who. may have taken an active part in trying to dismember the British Empire—is it not a merciful thing to allow such a person to petition that he tmay be pardoned upon terms short of suffering the last sen tence of the law, in the hope that that mercy may have a beneficial effect upon him, and upon the community at large ? Well, then, my Lords, the law says that the party may petition, it is his own voluntary act—he need not take advantage of this law—it is introduced for his benefit—he may renounce it if he pleases ; but if he does seek to take the benefit of it—if he acknowledges that he has committed high treason—if he acknow ledges that his life is forfeited to the law—if he acknowledges that the sentence, as for high treason might, upon conviction, be lawfully passed upon him, is there anything contrary in principle to iellow him to petition for mercy, and that a sentence sparing his 'life may be lawfully pronounced upon him. My Lords, the Act of Parliament says that, and no more. Well, then, is that sentence to be carried into effect ? Is he to be al lowed to present his petition, to acknowledge his guilt, to o :otain a pardon, and then to violate and disregard the condition upon which that pardon has been granted. If this Were a statute of the Imperial Parliament, would it not authorise everything to be done which is necessary to be done ffor the purpose of carrying it into effect? Well then, my Lords, it is not a statute of the Imperial Parliament, but it is a statute made under a statute of the Imperial Parliament—it is a statute made under the 31st of Geo. 111., chap. 31, which establishes a supreme legislature in Upper Canada without any restriction whatever to make such a law. I will not refer to any thing that is not upon the return, but I believe that the statute is recited in the beginning of this local Act and in the beginning of every Act passed by the Legislature .of Upper Canada. Well new, my Lords, the only question on this part of the case remains whether this sentence can law fully be carried into effect beyond the limits of Upper Canada, it being under an Act passed by the Legislature of that province. My Lords, I say that the Legislature of that province that had the power, and that has the power, the undisputed power of enacting the punishment d death to be inflicted on any person found guilty of any particular offence, has the power of affixing transpor. tation as a punishment, because it is lower titan death. That is a punishment which is pronounced in the colony, the liability to which has been incurred in the colony, The party on whom that sentence is pronounced is in the colony, and in the colony he becomes a party sentenced to transportation. 'He being in the colony, a convict sentenced to transportation may be lawfully transported. My Lords, there is no British Act of Parliament to authorise transportation from the colonies to any part of the world. It is done by the Colonial Assemblies themselves, and it will be a most alarming decision for your Lordships to come to, that all those sentences which have been pronounced for a long course of years are illegal —that all who have been sent from the colonies, in the East or West, have been sent there contrary to law and unjustly deprived of their liberty. I apprehend that when a person has been convicted in a colony, and sentenced to transportation under a colonial law, that then the Crown by virtue of its prerogative has a right to carry that sentence into effect. It is immaterial whether it is carried into execu tion beyond the limits of the colony. My Learned Friends have referred to two statutes, one of which justifies the gene ral detention of prisoners that were sentenced to penal colonies. There is no Act of Parliament authorizing the transportation of convicts from the Colonies to New South Wales, or Van Diemen's Land ; that has been invariably done under the Acts of the Colonial Assemblies, and by the prerogative of the Crown. And the power to do that is fully recognized by the lith Section of the sth George 111., which does not give va lidity to such transportation, but assumes its validity, and only says, if parties who are so transported come to this country, they may be eonfined in the ships that are set apart for the punishment of offenders, and sublet to the discipline of these places while th e y rema i n i n England. The Legis lature has clearly recognized .the right to transport pri soners from the Celoniee to another part of the world. If there be such a power, can t h ere b e a doubt that the Legis latur of Upper Canada had a right to pass this Act, which does not say, that a person convicted of a particular offence should be tr aesported to V an Di emen ' s L an d, b ut i t says that if a person. ehaegecl with treason, petitions the Lieutenant- Governer, ased admits his guilt, he may receive a con ("Hostel pardon, upon being transported to Van Diemen's Land ; that is the substance and effect of this law. Is there any doubt that it might have been expressly enacted, that any person charged with high treason, upon petition to the Lieutenant-Governor, confessing his guilt, might, with the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor have been transported to Van Diemen's Land ? That would merely be exercising the same power which is given by the passing of an Act whereby transportation is made the substantive penalty for a specific offence. If, then, transportation is not mentioned in this section of the Act, as one of the terms which may be agreed upon, is it not clearly involved and comprehended in it? The words are, " upon such terms and conditions as - may appear proper." What was in contemplation of the Legisls'eare at that time ? Transportation is a penalty well kr:own to the law of England. It is well known in tie mother country—it is well known in the Colonies. There is no o ccas i on for considering whether any punishment. which is not usual could be inflicted. Transportation is a known and recognised punishment, and it clearly was one of the conditions upon which the pardon might have been granted. Will you, my Lards, if that be so—will you sanction the objections to the legality of this proceed ing ? If a man is convicted at Quebec or any place in Upper Canada, for larceny,and sentenced to tran sportation for that crime, there is no doubt he may lawfully be sent from that colony to Van Diemen's Land; so it is clearly and unequivocally enacted by the Legislature itself. If be may be sent directly, he may come circuitously, supposing there are no means of sending him directly to his utmost des tination. There being such an offence, or such a pardon, or condition, as we have here, it is impossible to deny that, if the Legislature has power to affix 'transportation as the punish. ment for an ofFene, there is a power in the Legislature of Upper Canada to say that a person charged with the crime may upon petition, confessing his crime, be made the subject of transportation. So much, my Lords, for the power of the Legislature of Upper Canada. My Learned Friends say we have not shown the power of the Lieutenant- Governor. My Lords, I rely upon the 31st Geo. 111., and the Act of the Co lonial Legislature, which has been returned upon the answer to the Habeas Corpus writ, and I say that I have shown the power of the Lieutenant-Governor, in showing an Act, lawfully passed, vesting him with that power, and subjecting such persons to transportation as petition him in the manner I have stated. My Lords, I come now to consider the fourth objection, which is to the manner in which this condition has been executed. We are asked, What right had Sir John Colborne to interfere? lam now arguing upon the supposition that this is so far a lawful proceeding, and that by lawful means a person so petitioning might be sent from Upper Canada to Van Diemen's Laud. Then, my Lords, I ask, are not all the means necessar) for doing that legalized by the same Act. The return expressly avers —and it is to be taken for true—that there were no means fur transporting these persons from Upper Canada to Van Diemen's Land. My Lords, I believe we cannot enter into the facts ; but I think there is no port in Upper Canada— ns an inland province —whence vessels sail on such distant voyages. Lord DENMAN—You are passing over, I think, one argu ment drawn from the enactment that the conditional pardon should have the effect of an attainder upon the personal and real property of the party. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My Lord, I sincerely thank you for calling my attention to that. I seek no benefit from those words, and they will not prejudice the return, nor the right to carry the condition into effect. The words I rely upon are these, that upon petition a person charged with high treason, and praying to be pardoned for his offence, it may be lawful for the Lieut.-Governor, by and with the advice of the executive council, to grant a pardon to such person upon such terms as he may think proper, and it is enacted that if a person charged with high treason petitions for pardon, that pardon may be granted, on such conditions as may be thought proper by the Lieut.- Governor and Council. Does it not follow that the terms upon elaich the pardon is granted and accepted are to be carried into effect? Is the prisoner to have all the benefit, and the Crown and the public no security? Is the pardon, instead of being conditional to be absolute ? Unless there be a power of care) leg the condition into effect, it will be so, for the prisoner is entitled to his liberty, and must be discharged, to go where he pleases, and conduct himself as he thinks fit. But, my Lords, the pardon being granted upon terms and conditions it is a conditional pardon, and the condition is to be executed—is not that the inten tion of the Legislature ? But there being merely a pardon and a condition of transportation, if the person pos sessed half the province of Upper Canada, it would have remained his after he was transported. This was thought not to be a fit state of things, and it was considered that beyond the terms that might be prescribed by the Lieu tenant-Governor, there should be a forfeiture of lands and goods, but no corruption of blood, which, upon attainder would necessarily follow ' • therefore it was en ac t e d th a t th e pe tition of a party charged with high treason, as I have stated, should have the effect of an attainder so far as reg Hs for feiture of property, real and personal. But, my Lords, it does not follow that because a forfeiture is to be the punishment, that therefore it is to be the only punish ment, and that as soon as the pardon is pronounced, the condition of the pardon is to be neglected ; this is an additional enactment which leaves the condition of the pardon still to be observed. My Lords, when your Lordships drew my attention to this point, I was adverting to the fourth objection upon the ground of irregularity, but, my Lords, if there were an irregularity in the sentence, is there any ground for discharging the prisoner from his present lawful custody ? But there is no irregularity—there is a clear right to take all steps necessary for carrying the sentence into execution. Put the case of an inland province, where there is no port at all, how is the sentence to be carried into effect ? That may be the case in Upper Canada or not ; although the return does not say specifically that there is no port in Upper Canada, it does say that these prisoners could not be sent directly from Upper Canada. How is the sen tence to be carried into effect ? Why, he must be transmitted by the power of the Executive Government from stage to stage till he reaches the place of his destination. There can, therefore, be no pretence for the illegality CUM plained of. I now come to the fifth objection, that no warrant has been returned. In many cases a warrant is not neces sary--if a person be committed for trial there must be a war rant to authorize his detention—but where the prisoner is in the execution of his sentence, or what amounts to it, there is no warrant, nor is any required. The case to which my Learned Friend referred of the King v. Clarke, established the fact that where there is a commitment by warrant, the officer must return the warrant ; but . where there is a commitment and conviction, there is no necessity for the production of a war rant, and that makes the very case before us. The Learned Counsel then referred to the facts of the case, wherein the defendant being before the Court of Aldermen, the Court committed him by warranty in writing to Newgate, for re fusing to accept a certain office. In such a case no doubt the warrant should be returned, but when the commitment is in Court to the proper officer no warrant is necessary, and the whole truth of the matter, is to be returned on peril of an ac tion. My Lords, in this case the gaoler is to return the whole truth of the matter on peril of an action, and I deny if a man be sentenced to transportation, that there must be necessarily a warrant to each person in whose custody he remains until the execution of his sentence. It is no more necessary than that there should be a warrant to detain a man in gaol who has actually been convicted. What is returned? That the gaol of the borough of Liverpool, to which place the ship came, was the fittest and most convenient place for retaining the prisoner until he was sent upon his destination. It was alleged that he arrived at Liverpool, and there not being the means of conveying him to Van Diemen's Land, he was delivered into the custody of the gaoler until the means were ready for conveying him there. There fore, the truth of this matter is alleged, and it cannot be contested that this is the fittest place for the prisoner. Du my Learned Friends say that it was necessary to keep him in the hold of the ship—that it was unlawful to enter the port of Liverpool, and that he should remain off ;lie mouth of the Mersey, exposed to the fury of the elements, until a ship was prepared ? Was it not more humane that the vessel should come into port, and that the prisoner should be placed in some convenient place until a vessel had been prepared. My Lords, these returns show that what was done was imperatively neces sary, and was the most convenient course. I have only one other objection to meet, and I confess it rather surprises me, that the return is not sufficiently explicit, and that it ought to set out more at large all the documents to which it refers This is rather inconsistent with another observation made by my Learned Friend Mr. 1-1111 again and again, viz., What does the gaoler of Liverpool know about this? and, I must say, that to impose upon the gaoler to set cut all the do cuments of which he may not be cognizant is very unrea sonable. The law which should say if this be not done by the gaoler the detention is unlawful, would be a very unjust law, but this is not the law of Eng land, which does not require any minute details in a return to a writ of habeas corpus. I refer your Lordships to the well-known rule laid down in Barne's case, in 2d Rolls Reports, page 157, where it is said that a re:urn to a writ of habeas corpus differs from other judicial proceed ings and such precise certainty is not required, but it is sufficient if the Court can learn from the return the circum stances of the matter. That rule has been most fully com plied with The same rule is laid down in 3d Wilson, page 439, and I venture to say, that I doubt whether ever a return to habeas c)rpus set out the particulars so fully as the present. I would refer your Lordships to;the case of the King v. Saddis, Ist East, page 360; that was a writ of habeas corpus directed to Sir William Pitt, Governor of Portsmouth, to bring up the body of John Saddis. The return set out the proceeding of a Court-martial at Gibraltar, and stated that the Court having heard evidence in support of the pro secution, was of opinion that the prisoner had receivep certain articles of wearing apparel, knowing them to be stolen, in breach of the articles of war, and sentenced him to be transported to Botany Bay for fourteen years. The return went on to state that the return was ap. proved of, and in order to carry it into effect the prisoner was sent to England under charge of Lieu tenant Roger, of the 17th Foot. There was no warrant tent by Lieut. Rogers to Sir Wm. Pitt, nor is any authority set out ; but the return merely alleges that he was sent by the Governor of Gibraltar to England, in the custody - o Lieutenant Rogers, and that he was taken into the custody o the Governor of Portsmouth, until he was sent to Botany Bay. My Lord, the Court decided that this was a good return, and Saedis was remanded in execution of his sen t enc e. Mr. Justice WlLLtaxs—Was the want of warrant the ob jection then ? - The ATTORNEY- GENERAL-Mr. Erskine was Counsel for the prisoner, and Mr. Abbot, afterwards Lord Chief Justice Abbot, on the other side. The case was elaborately ar gued, and various objections were taken, but this objection it was not thought possible to take, and I will read your Lordships what Lord Kenyon says on that subject. There were various objections made to the return, but I think the want of warrant was not one of them. Lord Kenyon says, " there should always be a leaning in favour of liberty; but we must take care, however, not to carry it too far, lest we loosen the bonds of society, which is kept toge ther by the hope of reward and the fear of punishment. I have always considered that a Judge, in our foreign posses sions abroad, is not to be bound by the course of proceedings in our Courts here." And then his Lordship says they were not sitting as a Court of Error to review the irregularities of the proceedings abroad ; and that be said that much for the purpose of removing doubt, and he saw no reason for saving that the cause returned was not sufficient. Mr. Justice Gros, who followed him, said that the objection made was an objection of error, and they did not sit as a Court of Error. Mr. Justice Lloyd observed that it was a return to a writ of habeas corpus made by the person in whose custody the prisoner was placed in execution of his sentence. He could not be taken to be cognizant of all the proceedings—it was enough that the Court had authority to pro nounce the sentence, and the Governor returns the cause why he kept the party in custody. Mr. Justice Leßlanc said another objection taken was, that the return did not state the offence of which the prisoner had been convicted. The an swer was sufficient that this Court had authority to in flict such a sentence, and the prisoner was in custody under that sentence; therefore, according to the four Learned Judges it was enough for the keeper of the gaol to retnrn the conditional part of the Act of the Colonial Legislature to justify him in retaining Mr. Watson in custody on his way to Van Diemen's Land in the execution of his sentence. I have now, I believe, gone over the whole of my Learned Friend's objections, and if I have omitted anything I should THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1830. be obliged to him if he reminds me of it ; but before I sit down I feel bound, in the discharge of my duty, to call your Lordship's attention to this, that if there be any informality in the return, of which I am not aware, this is not a case in which your Lordships may discharge the prisoner. It appears by the return that he is in cus tody on a charge of high treason, committed within the dominions of her Majesty, for which, if this statute of the Colonial Assembly be a nullity—if this conditional pardon be a nullity, be is still liable to be tried. If he renounces the Statute, he throws himself upon the general law of the land ; and it appearing by this return that he is in custody upon such a charge, I humbly submit, that being indicted upon it, he is not entitled to be discharged ; for that I refer your Lordships to the 16th section of the Habeas Corpus Act itself. The 31st Charles 11., which enacts, that if any person shall be committed for a cepita' offence in Scotland, Ireland, or any foreign possessions abroad where he ought to be tried, such person may be sent to such place there to receive his trial. Therefore, my Lords, by the Habeas Corpus Act, when a person is guilty of any capital offence in any foreign possession, he may be sent to it to abide his trial. lam now arguing on the supposition that, as my Learned Friend asserted, the Colonial Statute is a nullity, and the conditional pardon if a nullity, and that the party is in the same situation as if he was merely indicted. I submit that according to this Section, he is not to be discharged. If the proceedings are irregular he is still amenable to justice. I would regret that he should put him self in jeopardy by contending that this statute is a nullity--and I would rejoice to see his sentence mitigated, instead of his incurring any i.eril of re nouncing the benefit* conferred upon him. At the same time, if he thinks fit to declare that all these precedings are illegal and null, lie cannot, for that reason escape the penalty of the law. I would refer our Lordships to two cases on this point—the one is the case of the King v. Kinverley, in 2d Strange, 148, where the defendant was brought up from Wood-street Cornpter, to which he had been committed on a charge of bigamy. Mr. HILL—I submit that if there be any thing in what my Learned Friend is now saying, it should come on in the shape of a distinct motion. My Learned Friend in answer to my objection, gave me a list of his answers, and this is not among them. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL.—I am making no distinct mo tion. lam meeting the motion of my Le (rued Friend, and submitting why the prisoner ought not to be discharged, and cite the case of the King v. Kinverley in support of that ar gument. Lord DENMAN—This must be taken as a motion to discharge the prisoner. Mr. HILL—My argument is that the return is bad. Under your Lordships' direction I sent a list of my objections, to which my Learned Friend sent me a list of his answers, and there was no surmise of the point he is how taking. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—I regret if my Learned Friend was not aware of it. My object was to put him in possession of all my answers, and I told him that I should move to amend the return if it was necessary, which I do not anticipate. The Learned Attorney-General then referred to the case of the King and Kinverley, but was interrupted by Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, who inquired if it appeared what was set out upon the return ? The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—I have read the whole report, as it appears here. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Perhaps the warrant of committal vves produced. ATTORNEY -GENERAL—That does not a; pear one way or the other. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE— You must make out that this man has committed this offence. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—I am contending that there is reasonable ground fur presuming that he has committed this offence. The Act provides, that where a person has committed an offence in Scotland, or Ireland, or abroad he may be sent there for trial. You ore not to prove his guilt before the Court. You are merely to prove that this charge is depending against him. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—My question is, whether this re turn, not setting out the warrant, or any other instrument, is enough. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My ground is that he has been indic ed fcr high treason. There is another case of the King v. Platt, in Ist Leache's Crown Cases. Then there was a warrant of Mr. Abbingdon, a Magistrate of , Middlesex, for high treason, committed at Savannah in the State of of Georgia, in North America. The prisoner was ecm mittcd to Newgate, and an application was made to the Sedge that he might be tried or discharged. Upon that application the prisoner was remanded, because there was this warrant against him for high treason committed in North America. I should have apprehended that a Mid dlesex Magistrate had, strictly speaking, no authority to grant a warrant for treason committed in North America. It appeared, however, that he was in custody on that charge, and the Court refused to discharge him. Now Watson has been indicted for high treason, and that shows that proceedings are depending against him for it— he may still be lawfully tried on that charge, and if that be so according to the Habeas Corpus Act, and the authority of these two cases, I submit that he is not entitled to his discharge; but I believe, looking at this return, it is sub ject to no objection whatever. I appre bend that this is a e Act of the Colonial Legislature of Upper Canada, which they had a power to do. Under that Act the Governor was empowered to grant a pardon, on condition of transportation to Van Diemen's Land. I contend that that was tantamount to a seri esnee of transportation, and might lawfully be carried into effect. If that be so, your Lord ships will be of opinion that all that was necessary for carrying that into effect became legal—that it was lawful to transport him from Upper to Lower Canada, and thence to Liverpool, and that it was lawful to detain him there until, with all expedition, a ship was pre pared. My Lords, I have done. I have discharged my duty, and I hope that I have not in any degree trans gressed the line of it. I have heard, I will sincerely say. with great satisfaction your Lordships' judgment with respect to the validity of the writ, but .1 confess I shall heal with the deepest affliction any judgment from your Lordships, holding that these proceedings are irregular and invalid. I know you will come to that decision with the utmost possible reluctance, because the most frightful cones. quences may be anticipated from any such proceeding. But I believe your Lordships will, without any difficulty decide that all the proceedings have been legal—that the prisoners are lawfully in custody, and may be lawfully sent to the place of transportation. I hope that the prisoner may there, upon reflection, sincerely regret the part he took in this rebellion, and will really feel the penitence he expresses in his petition, and I am sure that the utmost disposition exists to extend to him every possible degree of lenity which the safety of the state requires. The SOLICITOR- GENERAL—I have the honour to appear on the same side with my Learned Friend, the Attorney - General, and I shall detain the Court but a very few minutes, my Learned Friend haying stated very fully the authorities by which he supported his arguments, and I shall confine myself to a few observations by way of explanation: The propositions for which I contend to justify the returns are these—first, that it is within the compass of the Colonial Legislature to enact transportation by way of punishment for offences committed within the colony. Se cond, that the Act of the Colonial Legislature referred to— the Act of the Ist of Victoria—does in substance impose tran sportation in certain cases there referred to. Third, that in pursuance of the powers given by that Act, transportation, or what wes tantamount, was passed upon Leonard Watson, and in pursuance of that sentence he is now in the custody of the gaoler of Liverpool, and all that appears upon the face of the return. The only point upon which, at the first blush, any doubt might be entertained on this chain of reasoning, appears to me to be the first, via.: whether or not it was within the compass of the Colonial Legislature to inflict the punishment of transportation, and the doubt which, I confess, first pre sented itself to my mind arose from this, that the competency of the Colonial Legislature is limited to the colony itself, and that to enact punishments, taking them out of the colony, was beyond any power they could possess. Your Lordships could not come to the conclusion that that power was possessed, from the mere fact of its being universally exercised ; but when we find a power analogous to it in the mother country exercised and recognised by the Legislature as a subsisting power, your Lordships will come to the conclusion that it must lawfully exist. My Learned Friend, Mr. Hill, drew your attention to the sth of George IV., the Transportation Act, which now includes all the laws relating to the transportation of offenders, and he grounded his two first objections on the 17th section of that Act, which, he contended, did not authorise the Legisla ture to deal with any cases, except where the pasties were convicts, and made convicts by Courts of competent jurisdic tion. Leonard Watson, he says, has not had a sentence passed upon him by any Court. With great deference, I submit, that my Learned Friend totally misconceives the meaning of this clause. If the section had enacted, that in order to have them transported they should be brought to England, that would have borne out the proposition of my Learned Friend ; but the Legislature previously assumes that they may be brought to England, and then points out the course to be pursued with regard to them. The Learned Gentleman then read the clause referred to in Mr. Hill's address. Your Lordships will bear in mind that no British Act exists by which the punish ment of transportation can be awarded except in the United Kingdom. In former times convicts were sent to America, but after the American war had broken out, by the 24th of Geo. 111., chap. 56, an Act was passed, authorising the transportation to such places as his Majesty, by the advice of his Privy Council, might think fit to direct of persons convicted at Sessions of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery in England and Wales. In the next:year the power was extended to Scotland, and although I have not looked into the Irish Acts, I believe a similar power was extended to that country. But there is no British Statute authorising transportation from the Colonies, and if that be so, what is the meaning of using the term " offenders convicted or liable t i the punishment of transportation" in this provincial " Act?" It must be because Acts have been passed in these colonies authorising such punishments, and it is a legislative recog nition of that power. The clause goes on—" and there may be no means to bring them." Now, the argument of my Learned Friend is, that it should be lawful to bring them to England. This shows that it was the custom to bring them to England. Now in order to show that this Act does not authorise what has been done, this should be shown,_ not th a t t h ese part i es were i n transitu, but that they had been dealt with as convicts, and sent on the board the hulks. The object of this Act was, that when a convict came to England under sentence, it might Lot be necessary to send him on board the hulks, where a particular discipline is going on. All we are considering is the legality of a sentence. I shall now shortly point out to your Lordships the extreme importance of this clause as justifying the course pursued with regard to this prisoner, and my argument is, that the section recognizes the right of the colony to punish by transportation, and as there is no power by and• British Act, it must involve the right of the colonies to punish in that way, and it recognises the right of the Co lonies to send prisoners in transitu to the place to which they are transported. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE — You say that this power is analagous to the power of the Imperial Parliament ? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—NO: I say her Majesty may order a prisoner to be banished to France. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—No, not to France—read the clause. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL— A convict may certainly be banished to Paris, and that may be called transportation, but after he gets to Calais he cannot be dealt with as if he ea , in the British dominions, but undoubtedly she can send him wherever she pleases. Lord DENMAN—That Act does not extend to Ireland. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that banishment was known as a punishment in Scotland. The SOLICITOR-.GENERAL—This sort of punishment exer cised in the Colonies is a mercy there, as well as at home. Such being the case, the second proposition for which I contend is, that the Act set out in the return is an act warranting transportation. I will not attempt to travel one step out of so much of the Act as was set out in the return, but I think it necessary to make a few obser vations upon that which is included in it. That Act enacts that upon the petition of any persons charged with high treason, committed within the province of the Lieu tenant-Governor, it should be lawful for him to grant a pardon in her Majesty's name, on such terms and conditions as should appear to him to be proper. Now, it is said that in the Statute no mention whatever is made of transportation. That may be so, my Lords, or it may not; but I submit that your Lordships are not here to study the acts of the Colonial Legislature, but to decide according to the facts presented before you. Now here the party is charged with the highest crime known to the law, and the law in such case says, that being so charged before arraignment, it shall be lawful, under cer tain circumstances, to grant a pardon under such condi tions as the Governor may think proper. My Learned Friend, Mr. Hill, asked whether by such conditions we meant that be might be mutilated—whether he might be subjected to the rack—as a condition of pardon. I say certainly not, but the provisions of the statute must 'be considered to mean the terms and conditions usual in capital cases. My Learned Friend seems to think that the terms contemplated by the sta tute are imprisonment for life, or that the prisoner should un dergo the antiquated and obsolete notion of losing his right ham'. Such a proposition in my opinion would be extremely absurd. The second proposition, my Lords, which I contend for, is that by the enactment of the Statute it is within the compe tency of the Colonial Legislature to authorise transportation instead of capital punishment. I was somewhat astonished, I must confess, at the complaint of my Learned Friend of the harshness of the present step. He surely could not have re collected when he made that charge, that the party was in dicted for high treason, and that if he did not choose to take the pardon upon the terms offered, it was competent for him to be placed upon his trial. I think, therefore, that the terms harsh and oppressive were totally uncalled for from my Learned Friend. Now I think, my Lords, that there is plenty of reason why this should be dose before arraign. ment. I rather think, under the statute of treason, after the arraignment the party is entitled to have a copy of the indictment. With the policy of that, however, the Court has nothing to do. All that it has to decide is whether the prisoner has been pardoned upon certain condi tions, by a competent tribunal. If your Lordships are satis fied that the Colonial Legislature had the power to make such an Act as the one which has been adverted to, then the question is whether Leonard Watson had brought himself under the provisions of that Act. Now, that he has done so, in my opinion, there can be little or no doubt, because he has presented a petition under it, praying that he might receive pardon under the conditions provided by it. Then, my Lords, comes the question, does it appear on the return that the sentence so imposed has been properly carried into execution. Now with respect to that the return states that Leonard Watson was transported from the province of tipper Canada to that of Lower Canada. Now my Friends say, with respect to that, that the authorities of Lower Canada had no power is hat ever to do as they had done. I think with respect to that, and I trust your Lordships will go along with me in that, that my Learned Friends have misunderstood the Statute, and that it will be found that it has no bearing upon:the subject to which they referred. The return then stated that upon the party being brought to the province of Loner Canada, and there being no mode of conveying Wao on to Van Diemen's Land, in order to e arry out the sentence, without first bringing him to England, that be was put on board a ves sel for that purpose, and landed at Liverpool, in order to go out to Van Diemen's Land. The question was, was that bringing of him to Liverpool lawful or not ? and I humbly contend before your Lordships that the course adopted was perfectly correct. Then, my Lords, it is said that we do not show any warrant from the party in whose custody he Wai on board the vessel to the gaoler in Liverpool. I think, my Luls, that that assertion may be answered by the case to which my Learned Friends have adverted. If it is to be said that every tiling has been conducted lawfully, with the exception of removing the party from the ship to Liverpool, the consequence would have been that Watson must have been tran shipped, and I think that the occurrences which have taken place at Liverpool within the last week have shown the impolicy of adopting such a course. ( Here one of the prisoners was taken ill, and was allowed to leave the Court for a short time in the custody of one of the gaolers.) The Solicitor-General concluded his argument by submitting, that the return which h . ad been made to the writ of habeas corpus was suf ficient ; and that the course that had been adopted was 'ully justified by the law. Sir F. Poeeoce—My Lords, I appear on the same side with my Learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor- Ge. nerals, and, after the copious manner in which they have argued_ the case, it is not my intention to occupy the Court at any great length. I will not dispute the proposition that where a person is bought before this Court under restraint, it must be shown that that restraint has been placed over him by a competent authority and agreeably to the laws of the land. But I think that where inquiries come before this Court relative to to persons under restraint, it would be a sufficient return to a writ of habeas corpus that the party was in custody under the order of a competent jurisdiction. The question in the present case is, is the party under restraint upon competent authority ? and I think that looking at the transactions which have taken place in a case now before the Court, no reasonable man can doubt, that a proper exercise or authority has been made by a competent authority. Now, supposing that the occurrence had taken place in a colony not owing dleeiance to the Crown of Great Britain—supposing th a t it had occurred in a foreign state in alliance with this country, and supposing that the prisoner had been brought to this country in the lawful custody of an officer of that State, I would ask your Lordships whether it could be said that this Court, upon application being made to it, would instantly order the release of that person. I should certainly say it would not, and that the Court would deem it quite a sufficient return to the writ if the French officer was called upon to say we have kept such person under restraint, upon proper authority. Lord DENMAN—You do not mean, do you, to make our gaols a prison for prisoners convicted by the Inquisition ? Sir F. PoLLocE.—Certainly not, my Lord ; but I say that a person who is convicted in one country cannot be considered as an innocent person if he is thrown upon the shores of another. The only question in this case is, whether the persons who are under restraint ha re, are so by an authority which this Court is bound to respect? Now, what is that authority? These persons are on their way from a colony of this country, under, not a sentence of transportation, but under a pardon, upon condi tion. Now, whether the Crown could grant a pardon upon condition before sentence, where that condition involved trans sportation, is a question for the consideration of the Court. I must confess that I see no reason whatever to doubt the power of the Crown to adopt such a course, because if the Crown can pardon before trial, I see no reason why it cannot annex a condition to a pardon. If it is necessary to have authority upon that subject, we have here the Colonial Act, which expressly says that persons may be pardoned upon condition. It is quite clear, therefore, there can be no possible objection whatever to detaining these persons in prison in the manner in which they have been. In a case in the 2d Hawkins, it is laid down that the King may extend his mercy in any terms that he pleased. This Court, I should submit, does not sit here to reverse the Acts of the Canadian Parliament; al that it requires is, that it should be shown the pri soner is confined under proper authority, and was brought before it upon her Majesty's writ of habeas corpus. My Lords, there is a Statute by which a person may be tried for treason in any county in the kingdom in which the Courts may sit ; .and from the return, which must be taken as true, e not only for the purpose of justifying the detention of the prisoner, but informing the Court as to other matters, so that what is in that return is judicially before the Court. I submit the prisoner is not entitled to his discharge. but that your Lordships ought either to keep him to be tried under the statute of Henry VIII., in the county of Middle sex, for the offence of high treason committed in Canada— or, under the 31st Charles, c. 2, detain him to be sent to Canada to take his trial, as having refused his assent to the condition of the pardon granted. But, my Lords, I have no doubt you will nut be brought to such an alternative ; but that, taking into consideration the st'te of the return, as disclosing the Act of Parliament, and the admission, and in consequence the pardon, and the authority for sending him to Van Diemen's Land—that you will consider that his detention here, as a matter of necessity, comes under the lawful and the Legislative authority, sup ported by the prerogative of the Crown, for granting condi tional pardons, and by the particular condition under which this pardon especially was granted. Mr. WIGHTMAN—My Lords, I will take the liberty of saying a few words on the same side. Leonard Watson claims to be discharged, because there is no sufficient cause of detention on the face of the return. That return states that before a Icourt of competent jurisdiction,a bill of indictment was filed for high treason against him ; it appears also that he admitted he was guilty of that crime. My Lords, this further appears upon the face of that return, that an act of grace in favour of the prisoners passed the Colonial Legislature, which begins by reciting, " that whereas there is reason to believe that among the persons confined for joining in the late treasonable insurrec tion in the province, there may be some fit objects for the lenity of the Governor, inasmuch as they had been seduced by the artifices of designing men from their allegiance." My Lords, I mention this because it has been stated as a hardship on the prisoner, whereas it is an act of grace, which it seems that this Watson by his petition was willing to accept. My Lords, it appears that the otatute was passed by a competent authority. My Learned Friends on the other side do not deny that it was. It also appears thet the prisoner was indicted for the crime of high tr. ason, and that he presented a petition to the Lieutenant-Governor, who, with the advice of the Executive Council, was empowered to grant a pardon on such terms as he might deem proper. My Lords, there is a legislative enactment certainly, passed by a competentauthority, which recognises the conditional pardon. Mr. HILL—You have not recited that on the return. Mr. WIGHTMAN—I beg pardon. I thought it was recited. But it does not affect my argument, which I am now address ing to your Lordships. What I am now pressing upon you is this—that a colonial statute passed by compe tent legislative authority recognises the granting of a conditional pardon, on such terms and conditions as the Governor and Council may deem proper. An my Lords, I say that this pardon or condition imposed by the Lieutenant-Governor is such as may be legally made and legally recognised, and if so the condition must be carried into effect. The prisoner must not have the power of accepting the pardon and rejecting the condition annexed to it. Is there any thing in this condition which is at all inconsistent with the English law, or such as the Colonial Legislature might not have enacted in such a case? The condition of pardon is transportation for a certain term to the per al' colony of Van Diemen's Land. Is there any law which prohibits such a condition ? I am not aware of any. Might there not be a Colonial Statute enact ing that for certain offences persons should be transported? Does not all the rest follow ? The Act of the Colonial Legislature in fact, embodiss the conditions of the pardon, provided no thing is illegal in those conditions. I have already drawn your Lordship's attention to English statutes recognising the power of colonial tribunals to inflict the punishment of transportation. Among others the Act of the sth George IV., expressly enjoins that power, and there is nothing in the law or Constitution prohibiting that transportation. Suppose wa bring before your Lordships statutes for which the ordinary punishment of persons convicted should be transported. Here is a Statute passed enacting that, for the crime of high treason, pardon may be granted, on such terms and conditions as the Governor and Council may think fit, and one of those condi tions is the punishment annexed to the lower degree of crime in colonic s, that is transportation. Where is the ob jection to that ? My Lords, I would refer to the c ise cf the King v. Saddis, and you will find it laid down that the Court will not presume there has been any defect in the jurisdiction of the inferior Court. My Lords, another observation is, that if the condition be il legal pardon is discharged with the condition, and if it he to suppose an application made to the Queen's Bench of Upper Canada, upon the subject of a person who, after the acceptance of the conditional pardon, was iernoved to that Province, for the purpose of being transported, the same question would arise, if it is worth anything, and there would be an application for the habeas corpus to discharge him. Now, my Lords, if the sentence be legal, it must be carried into execution. lam sure I need not draw to your Lordships' attention cases to show that if a sentence be legal it must he carried into effect by the most reasonable and the ordinary course : and if it be lawful to transport a person to Van Diemen's Land, he must be conveyed there by the readiest and most reasonable means. Now, my friends say the proceedings are illegal, and that we can do nothing in furtherance of this condition. But my Lords, I think you will find there is nothing illegal or which you would presume illegal in the jurisdiction or the sentence of the Court of Upper Canada, in sending a person convicted or accepting a condi tional pardon to Van Diemen's Land, and it is said there were no means of transporting this person from Lower Canada. The case is the same as if a prisoner had been en.barked in a vessel bound to Van Diemen's Land, and had been forced to be put in at the Cape of Good Hope. The observations of my friend would apply equally in that case, yet it is not illegal, because it is necessary ; and this is not pushing the doctrine of the necessity to the fullest extent, for we say that it ought to be done in the readiest and most reasonable mode. Now, my Lords, this stands upon the case of King and Saddis, in which, though the case was elaborately argued. nothing was said either by the counsel for the prisoner or by the Court, to show that the mode in which the prisoner got into the custody of the Governor of Ports mouth was cot perfectly regular, and yet that was more loosely stated than in this case, for it was only said that the pri soner, having been sentenced to be sent to England in such custody, tires by the Lieutenant delivered over to the Governor. And what is there more stated in the re turn than that in order to carry this condition into effect it was necessary to land the prisoner at Liverpool, so that he might be transported to Van Diemen's Land ? Mr. HILL—You do not state on the return that it was ne cessary to land him at Liverpool. Mr. WIGHTMAN-We state what comes to the same thing. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS-You don't object to the particular custody —you object to the whole of the proceedings as being irregular. Mr. Wtoirretee—The argument on the other side is, that the condit,on annexed to the pardon is void, and that the moment this person was pardoned, he ought to have been set at liberty by the authorities of Upper Canada. But, my Lords, if he was transported from Canada to Van Diemen's Land, it was necessary, to carry the condition into effect, that he should be landed in England, and if so, I think the question whether he should be landed at Liverpool or some other place is a small matter, upon which your Lord ships will not, in such a momentous case, discharge a prisoner against whom an indictment for high treason had been filed, and who confessed himself guilty of the charge. My Lords, if the condition be void, the pardcn is also void—therefore this prisoner stands here as a party who rejects the conditions upon which he was par doned. My Lord, it is not imperative for your Lordships to discharge the prisoner. You may exercise your discretion. I would refer your Lordships to the case of the King against Platt, who was committed by a Magistrate to Newgate on a charge of high treason committed in North America, and he applied on a habeas corpus to be dis charged, but the CJunsel for the Crown stated that it was by no means imperative up( n tie Court to discharge him. Even if he was at liberty, e l that the pardon was de clared illegal, because of the condition annexed to it, then he must be considered to stand on the floor of the Court as one against whom a bill of indictment for high treason had been found —as one who had confessed to that indict ment—under such circumstances the Court would dis charge him. Would the courts of Upper Canada have dis charged him under such circumstances would the courts in Upper Canada have discharged a confessed traitor? They surely would not, and if they would, the Court of Queen's Bench certainly would not. He wculd not take up the time of the Court any longer, but confideitly relied that their Lordships would send the prisoner to his original destination. Lord DENMAN inquired whether Mr. Hill would reply at that stage of the proceedings, or would he reply when the whole case was before the Court? Mr. HILL thought it would be more convenient for both the Court and himself, if be waived his reply until the whole cases were before their Lordships. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged that their Lordships would allow the whole of the Act of the sth George IV. to he set out in the r, turn. There was only part of it now set out, and he wished that the whole should be before their Lordships. Mr. HILL felt bound to object to the motion of the Attor ney- General. The return ought to have been complete in the first instance, and nothing more ought to be added to it. However, if the Learned Attorney General would consent to put the whole of the citeuments upon the record, upon the part of the whole of the prisoners he would consent to the present app'ication. His Learned Friend had spoken of an indictment—of a pardon—let them set them forth, and, above all, why should not that most important document, the alleged petition of the prisoners, be be fore their Lordships—the assent of the prisoners to the sentence which had been pronounced upon them. All those mat ters should be before their Lordships ; and when he saw a spirit of fairness actuating the opposite party, he would willingly consent to anything ; but so long as they pursued the plan of garbling documents, he trusted that the Court would be very chary in the exercise of its discretion. Mr. ROEBUCK hoped he might be allowed to add a few words to what had fallen from his Learned Friend. He spoke to the Attorney-General as a great law officer of the Crown : he did not consider him in the light of an advocate in such a cause. He wished to have set forth the Ist of Victoria, but would be content to set forth the 7th of William IV. The Court could not come to a fair decision on the whole matter unless they knew the laws of Upper Canada? These laws ought to be laid before the Court, and if so, he for one would not object to the motion of the Attor ney- General. Lord DENMAN—It appears reasonable that the Court should have the fullest information before it that it is possible to have. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was really not aware of any Act which referred to, or was referred to by the Act of the Ist of Victoria. He knew of no Act which at all affected the conditional pardon. Lord DENMAN—The Court thinks that the justice of the case requires that the two Acts mentioned should be put into the hands of the Attorney-General. Mr. ROEBUCK—The Solicitor-General has them in his hand at this moment, my Lords.—( A laugb.) Lord DENMAN Then it is known what acts you refer to. If the Attorney-General thinks proper to recite those two acts along with the one he mentions, let it be done—the amendment may take place, but it must be agreed to on both sides or the Court thinks it cannot agree to either. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL consented, and it was arranged the return should be taken to have the whole of the three Acts recited in it. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned till to• marrow. DUELS IN TIIE COUNTY OF LIMERICK.--A n affair of honour occurred on Saturday morning, near Bal linaguard, county of Limerick, between Mr. Edward Wynne and Captain Sanders. After an exchange of two shots each, the gentlemen withdrew. The former v attended by Mr. Lewis Wynne, the latter by Captain Snow. Immediately after another affair took place between Mr. E. Wynne and Captain Snow —two shots eaeh, with out injury to either party. A tradesman, residing in High -street, Borough, complained to the Magistrates at the Town-hall on Monday, that on Friday evening a large square of plate-glass had been broken in his window by a bullet, evidently fired frcm a pistol or air-gun. It was stated that similar outrages had been committed in the neighbourhood, and that the police are endeavouring to +detect the offenders. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. ~:~ WHITEHALL, JAN. 10, 1839. The Queen has been pleased to grant unto John Hunt, of per; shore, in the county of Worcester, Gent., her Royal license so" authority, that he and his issue may, in compliance with the 1 0C will and testament of his cousin, Jane Bennett, late of Pershore aforesaid, widow, deceased, take and henceforth use the surname 0f Wilson, instead of that of Hunt. And also to command that her Majesty's said Royal concession and declaration be registered in her College of Arms. WHITEHALL, Nov. 21. The Lord Chancellor has appointed George Stephens, of C l ' el.. tenham, in the county or Gloucester, Gent., to be a Master Da traordinary in the High Court of Chancery. nd WHITEHALL, DEC. 18. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Richard White :Beor, of Swansea, in the county of Glamorgan, Gent., to be a Master Ex" traordinary in the High Court of Chancery DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. PETER THOMAS SMITH, - hatter, Liverpool. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. WILLIAM BATES, cotton-spinner, Lees, Lancashire. JAMES HORNER, leather-seller, Newport, Monmouthshire' BANKRUPTS. JOHN SCHOLES, hatter, Leicester, to surrender Jan. 2 9 1 and Feb. 26, a t eleven, at the Court of Ba n k ru pt c y. T u rquan Copthall-buildings, official assignee; Smales, Wa'brook-building s ' JAMES HODGES, victualler, Cirencester, Gloucestershir e, Jan. 29, and Feb. 26, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Ciro' cester. Currie and Woodgate, New-square, Lincoln's Inn, Lon' don ; Lediard, Cirencester. BENJAMIN SOWERBY, cattle-dealer, Messingham, Lim colnshire, Jan. 25, an d F e b . 26, at twelve, at the Lion H o t el ' Glamford•l3riggs. Nicholson and Hett, Glamford Briggs; Dyne' ley, Coverdale, and Lee, Field -court, Gray's Inn, London. WILLIAM EDWARDS, earthenware manufacturer, Blac fordby, Leicestershire, Jan. 25 and Feb. 1, at twelve, at the ICI: Head Inn, Loughb oroug h. Cl owes and Wedlake, King's Berle'. walk, London; Thornwill, Burton- upon- Trent. RICHARD BATES PARR, contractor, Hutton, 'Soiners et ' Jan. 29 and Feb. 26, at two, at the Co mmerc i a l R ooms, Brisq' blower and Vizard, Lincoln' s Inn-fields, London; Gregory; Brist ol, THOMAS WATTIS, drap er , Birmingham, Jan. 22 and Feba 26, at one, at Dee's Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Cl a rke 3 ,n Meiicalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields, Lond on ; Colmore and Bel p. ' Birmingham. JOHN GERARD, soap-boiler, Frome Selwood, Somersetshi l, Feb. 1 and 26, at eleven, at the George Inn, Frome Selwo o ' Frampton, South-square, Gray's Inn, London; Miller, Free Selwood. ANDREW HANNAH, tea-dealer, St. Austle, Cornwall, Ja n ' 23, at twelve, and Feb. '26, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy' Lackington, I ronmonger -l ane, of f ic i al assignee; Stephens, Be df o rd row, London. JOHN THOMAS CANTER, licenced victualler, Rotherhith ei wall, Surrey, Jan. 29, a t t wo , an d F e b . 26, at eleven, at the CA'ur of Bankruptcy. Groom, Abchurch-lane, official assignee ; dercom, Comyn, Cree, Law, and Comyn, Bush-lane, CanO Y street. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. F. Shaw, master mariner, Eltham, Kent, Feb. 5, at twelve,'" W. S. japanner, Clerkenwell-close, Clerk enwe ll, Feb. " at twelve—G. Field, paper maker, Two Waters, Hertfordshi re ; Feb. 7, at eleven—F. Joyce, bookseller, Southampton, Feb. 5 9 a half-past eleven—R. and R. Hutchinson, jun., curriers, Minorie, Feb. 5, at eleven—J. Plaskett, stave merchant, Dockhead, Feb. D' at half-past twelve—C. Jack son , ma tt ress ma k er, Great NovvP°r t ' street, Westminster, Feb. 7, at one. In the Country. no W. Bown, grocer, Southampton, Feb. 8, at twelve, at the Geer. , Inn, Southampton—J. Birks, maltster, Wickersley, Yorkshil Feb. 7, at twelve, at the Guildhall, Doncaster—J. Stephenson an G. Moss, marble masons, N o tti ng h am , F e b . 7 , at twelve, at the George the Fou r th I nn , Nottingham—T. Hava r d, victotdie r Bromyard, Hereford s hi re , F e b . 9, at eleven, at the Falcon DI" Bromyard—J. Garrett, sen. and J. Garrett , jun., bankers, He r e fordshire, Feb. 8, at eleven , at the Greyhond Inn, Herefordm i Daniell, copper smelter, Trelissick, Cornwall, June 28, at elec . ; at Pearce's Hotel, Truro—J. Leigh, grocer, Warrington, Lim c _ s l shire, Feb. 15, at one, at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool - 7, Colbourne, merchant, Sturminster Newton Caste, DorsetslM" Feb. 8, at two, at the Greyhound Inn, filandford. CERTIFICATES, FEB. 5. P. Youle, bookseller, Tottenham, Middlesex—J. Watson, i t saddler, Marton, Li nco l ns hi re —H . D . Truscott, upholsterer, Vtd-' road, Lambeth—T. H er b er t, grocer, Brynmawr, Brecon shire.---"' Bartleet, builder, Bedditch, Worcestershire. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. F. J. Hooker ird J. F. Hooker, chemists, Ipswich, Suffolk-- F .4 Sherlock and H. Bax, general merchants, Liverpool—R. Boyd an E. Elliott, plumbers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne —J. Dodson and 1 . Battye, needlemakers, Meet-street—J. Mann and Co. ' was , ' stuff merchants, Bradf or d, Y or k s hi re ( so far as regards J. sen. )—c. Whitr:ey awl J. Poole, che m i s t s , Shrewsbury, Shr o l; s tire—J. Rundle and C.., of the Devon Tin S me lti ng CornPrY., J. Murton and H. A rno ld, worsted manufacturers, Keighley, shire—E. Mitchell and J. Buckler , silversmiths, Birmingham E. Browne and T. B rowne , lace andfringe makers, Plymout . h---•_,, Smith and Co., Fi e ld D ye h ouse, B radford, Yorkshire—J. Rober,.. ", son and R. Guth r i e , i ron f oun d ers, Tweedmouth—R. Gray and Y Gray, silversmiths, Fleet-street—M. Passmore and L. Barne t, : ship and insu rance agents, Li verpool—D. Wright and H. BO!: Commercial Wharf--W. Barwick and F. J. Morris, re ctifier' Kingston-upon-Th ames , Surrey--H. Nathan and F. B ates , line n' drapers, Shoreditch—E. W. J ac k son and G. A. Cator, Leeds Lansdell and Co., carmen, ilermaid-ceurt, King-street, SouthvOr (so far as concerns T. Lansdell)—C. Buck sen., and Co., bri o. layers, Upp er Clapten Middlesex—L. Potts an Co., merchan ts ' Sheffield, Yorkshir e —T. Y oung and Co. (so far as regar d s . Boot wood)—J. Yeomans and Co., merchants, Sheffield, YorkohT: , (so far as relates to J. Yates)—W. Astell and Co., merchan t , Broad-street—J. M u lli neaux an d C o., cotton manufacturers, Blac„ burn, Lancashire—J. Ch es hi re an d C c., s h eet- i ronwor k ers, Rug ' . ley, Staffordshire (as far as relates to J. Moxon). SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. DANIEL RANKINE, leather merchant, Airdrie, Jan. 21 314 Feb. 4, at twelve, at Nokes's Inn, Airdrie. PETER PILGRIM.—Mr. Bentley has just par fished a new wo r k o f fi ct i on, ca ll e d " Peter Pilgrim," 'li Dr. Bird, autho r o f " Ni c k o f t h e W oo d s. " Its pr i ne i , ll * fea' ores are, an olaborate account of the Mammoth Cav e in Kentucky, a curious anecdotical article on the fascina" tion of reptiles, a story of the descent of the Ohio, and one of a still more terrible descent of the Niagara. Thet with some sket c h es o f A mer i can manners, make up a w hale which, notwithstanding the unconnected nature of the finer dents, takes greater hold upon the mind of the reader, aa s a whole, than almost any romance we can call to min' The reason i s , th at th ere i s an id ent i ty of character through.. out the book. The fascinating serpents, the secrets of th e cave world, the perils of the Ohio, and the frantic despa ir , of the dreamer of Niagara, have all a moral concatenation' and we no sooner ca ll up one spec i es o f terror than the rest follow one by one, like the spectre kings in Macbeth. have not read the previous work by Dr. Bird, s. Nick ° the Woods," but we can say from the present, that b e possesses, in a very remarkable degree, the power of irate" resting, nay, of enchaining the imrgination of his readers. The Era. SECOND-HAND PLATE PURCHASED.--- - ' B. SAVORY and SONS, Goldsmiths, No. 14, Corahill, Lon' don (opposite the Bank of England), inform Executors and others' wishing to dispose of Second-hand Plate, that, from having a Ivan sale, they can off er more a d van t ageous pr i ces t h an can usua lly P; given by the Trad e ; paym en t ma y e ith er b e rece i ve d i n cas h, ° the amount allowed in exchange for other silver. SILVER WATCHES TWO GUINEAS EACH' An Assortment of Second-hand Watches, all of them warrante d ' and of various sizes, may b e se l ecte d from, for the above price , a' T: COX SAVORY'S, Working Silversmith, Goldsmith, and Watchmaker, 47, Cornhill? London (Seven Doors from Gracechurch-street). N.B. A pamphlet, containing a detailed list of the prices ° I Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, Clocks, &c., may be had gratis, °r will be forwarded in answer to a post-paid application. BIRTHS. On January the Bth, at Grove Hall, near Ferrybridge, York' shire, the lady of P. C. Maxwell, Esq., of a son. On the Bth inst., the lady of Richard M. Fox, Esq., Fox Hal l ' county of Longford, of a daughter. On the 11 th inst., Mrs. F. Hutchinson, Farringdon-etrsett of a son. On the 12th inst., the lady of John Gardner, Esq , surgeon, ° C Great Portland -street, of a son. On the 12th inst., in Canonbury-square, Islington, Mrs. J. F' Jeaffreson, of a daughter. On the 13th inst., at Braintree, Essex, the lady of S. H. Psl , Esq., of a son. On the 13th inst., the wife of Richard Wallace, surgeon, !lack' ney-road, of a daughtei.. On the 13th inst.. in Baker-street, Portman-square, the lady ° f Alexander Nesbitt Shaw, Esq., of a daughter. On the 13th inst., at Bexley Heath, Kent, the wife of the Rel. John C. Miller, of a son. DIED. On the 2d of January, at Clifton, aged 30, Margaret, wife of Henry A. Palmer, Esq., solicitor, Bristol. On the 12th inst., aged tour years and nine months, William► son of John Trimby, of 92. Drury-lane. At Frankfort, on the 25th ult., Fanny, second daughter of Col. Trafford, aged 16. On the Ist inst., the Rev. Adam John Walker, at his Rectory Of Bishopstone, Herefordshire. At South Mims, Middlesex, on the 2d inst., Mrs. Margare t Kerney, relict of the late Mr. James Kerney. On the 10th inst., Mr. Timme, Royal Military College, Sand' hurst. At his residence, Brampton-vale, on the 11th inst., aged 53, Mr. George Coxhead, of the firm of Lavell and Coxhead, New-street , Covent-garden. At Palmer's-green, Edmonton, Middlesex, on the 12th inst. , James Eykyn, Esq., aged 53. On the 12th inst., aged 82, Mrs. Elizabeth Brooks, of the Kent' road, sister to the late James Cross, Esq , of Southwark. On the 12th inst., at Liverpool-terrace, Dover, aged 67, Cathe rine, wife o f S tep h en Chalk, Esq., surgeon, of that place. On the 13th inst., at Campton Recto r y, age d 77, th e Rev. Edmond Williamson M.A., Recto r o f C amp t on-cum- Sh e ff e rt:lp Bedfordshi re , an d of ' Lolworth, Cambridgeshire. On the 13th inst., at Lime Cottage, Charlton, Kent, Joseph Cooper, Esq., aged 88. On the 13th inst., Anne, the wife of Mr. Wm. Cooper, of Duncan -terrace, Islington, and of Wood-street, Cheapside. On the 13th inst., Elizabeth, the wife of M. P. Cropper, of the East India House. On the 13th inst., in Chapel-place, Vere-street, John Henry Prescott Coape, the second son of the late John Coape, Esq., George-street, Hanover-square. On the 14th inst., Adam Gordon, Esq., of Blackheath Park , youngest son of the late David Gordon, Esq., of Abergeldie , North Britain. On the 13th inst., aged 82, Anthony Calvert, Esq., of Harper' street, Red Lion ; square. On the 14th inst., in Sussex-place, Regent's Park, Henrietta , relict of the late Robert Alexander, Esq., formerly of Seamont , Dublin, aged 7S. London Printed and Published by 11 , IURDO YOUNG •f NIL 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No 112, Strand, ip ►he mull of Middesez.—Wednesday, January 16, 18* The Postm gap. 91 E' CON" Noti the c o TIT EST) CEI V WOjt The 'Statior Viaduc • The Londor The London Th e Londo n Plan, are, no ach th e e ' *EI r of two nalty or ro The -tenders The one o'cl for WO/ person s any ear Office 117/ The 1839, a the EX Th el prentvr( 111 g abo bridges, o , ae„, tn distance ework„ i culverts. , a tiews 1 chai ns' Public ro Theßiver %l field, a d 144 '. val r ( Plans are read Each of tw o rl Perform s natty or the gross Th e teud ers. The is 1°1 : On ( ende, or some to • give Office s 1141i:tee l e s 4 t e a l : I t I. 1 1 : 1 e1 1.0 • .tneeiedit Brandy 1 t ,„ l 's Pate " 111 %eque The "00. 7 , Itot t lo n , f_ BA - It i ns , Wiest i n .. in, c,l) White as - L 'aotory, tatetnaii No. 8, I. Cate. p ", Iso War n' AG] N B -_____: •- bill °io t..the hai es, 041 by 11 A:na 1 13 me corny ag a I+,•, wis 1t thl?e ' 4 4 0 I Loi I DE Ct 111 Cet a i 4 11 1 . - 8 , • 1 . 3 4 5 4,, s 8 * 1 a •11 1 Jan. II H