The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. Mat THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE. —The extraordinary omission of upwards of sixty . names from the special jury panel, after its revision by the Recorder, is now placed beyond controversy. The proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, on Friday, have made that matter of record which previously rested only on public ru - mour. The:facts, as admitted by the Attorney-General, fully bore out the statements we had previously given. The panel from which the jury by whom the case, " The Queen against Daniel O'Connell and others," will be tried, is a mutilated panel. A blunder on the part of a deputy, to whom the duty of preparing the lists for verification by the Recorder of Dublin, was intrusted, is stated to have occasioned the omission. The account of the extraor dinary accident is given in a letter sent by the Clerk of the Peace to Mr. Mahony, one of the solicitors engaged for the traversers. The omission is ad mitted, and an explanation offered, which exem plifies the grossest carelessness, if the omission be regarded as purely accidental. We confess to an inability to adopt this construction. Mr. Justice Perrin, when expressing his opinion on the application to the Court, on the part of the traversers, to interpose to set aside the panel, under the circumstances, stated " there was matter of grave suspicion in the case—of gross neglect somewhere." The Judges, it will be seen, decided unanimously that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. The ground on which the Court seemed to rest its decision was, that the Crown, in the prosecution of O'Connell, stood in the same position as a private prosecutor; or, indeed, any other suitor. To set aside the panel, and to direct a new revision, would, therefore, be to post pone the business of the Court, to the great incon venience and injury of those who had causes ripe for trial. The soundness of the reasoning employed by the Bench will scarcely command universal con currence. The trials of causes between private in dividuals [might, we apprehend, have been had by consent of parties. To them it might be a matter of indifference that nearly seventy names had been abstracted. But with respect to this great national trial—the proceeedings on which absorb the attention of the empire, and the result of which is anticipated with tremulous anxiety—it is of the highest imaginable consequence that the country should be satisfied that justice, pure and undefiled, is done between the Crown and the tra versers. If unfair advantage has been taken against the parties accused—if the law has not been admi nistered with scrupulous impartiality—the Crown may obtain a verdict ; but that verdict will be the emanation of injustice. The majesty and autho rity of law, instead of being vindicated by the con viction of the accused parties, will be dishonoured and weakened. The punishment of parties so convicted, would be regarded as the infliction of vengeance by a Ministry which has violated the obligations of justice for the attainment of a triumph over political oppo nents. Thus the foundations of order would be shaken, and the ties which bind the governed to the government would be loosened. We ask Sir Robert Peel, on whose decision the question hinges, does he expect to suppress the repeal agitation by the course he is pursuing, by the agency of his law officers in Ireland, against the repeal leaders—tainted as the prosecution is by the strik ing off from the jury list of every Roman Catholic who was drawn to serve upon it ; and now by the astounding discovery that upwards of sixty names were omitted by a blunder, or ab stracted by a fraud, from the lists as revised by the Recorder ? Will a prosecution thus conducted strengthen the hands of Government ? Will the Irish people be convinced that "justice to Ireland" is the intention of the English Government, or the tendency of its policy ? Will not the effect of such a trial be the confirmation of every prejudice already existing in Ireland against the legislative union of the two countries ; and increase the number of Repealers, until every Catholic—not only in Ireland, but in the empire—is a member of the Association, or strongly sympathises with the objects they seek to obtain ? The aggregate meeting of Catholics in Dublin, on Saturday, is a proof of the indignant spirit that has een raised. The practical imputation cast by the Government upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by declaring them -disqualified, because of their creed, for being trusted, under the solemn sanction of an oath, with the functions of jurymen, has called forth the indignant repudiation of the stigma thus sought to be branded upon the religion of the great majority of the nation. This sattempt to revive the penal disabilities, which were :removed by the long-delayed measure of Catholic Emancipation, will combine and array the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom against the Government. In the words of the requisition by which the meeting of Saturday was con vened, the proceeding of the Crown is described as — • Both an insult and a wrong to the emancipated Catholics of Ireland, perpetrated by a government of -which the leading members have repeatedly expressed 'their determination to administer justice without re ference to religious distinction.' The aggregate meet .'ing was convened to petition our beloved Sovereign, 'that she may be graciously pleased to direct her at ttention to the conduct pursued towards her loyal and /devoted Catholic subjects by her Majesty's Govern :ment.' " The Catholics are also preparing to assem ble in the different districts for a similar purpose. 'The Government has thus proved itself a greater cogitator than O'Connell, at any period since the catholic Emancipation Bill became Taw I STANDARD.—The Irish Court of Queen's :Bench on Saturday night disposed of the most recent artifice of delay—it would be rash to say the last -for no one can guess what may be doing in Dublin this morning. The matter set at rest on Saturday -was the motion of the traversers to quash the jury panel, on the ground of the omission of fourteen or ;fifteen named Roman Catholics, and of twelve persons not named, or as it would appear !known, but also Roman Catholic. The affair was ;argued at great length, and the motion unanimously refused by the Court. From the proceeding we have obtained at least an approximation to the actual state, of the case. A paper containing sixty-three names, not of special jurors, but of special and common jurors, of whom we suppose there must be five or six thousand 5n Dublin, was, in fact, mislaid in the office of Mr. Recorder Shaw's register, before the list of special jurors was made out. The mislaid paper presented ai local list (from a particular parish or particular !parishes and of course the names were given in at promiscuously, without attention to alphabetical arrangement, so as to render applicable the test which we applied on Friday. Mr. Justice Perrin intimated pretty broadly a suspicion that the paper 'was dishonestly abstracted. We are wholly at a loss to comprehend the ground of Mr. Perrin's suspicion, in which it is quite plain none of his brother judges _participated. The paper, according to the Dublin Freeman's Journal, must have been 'mislaid so long ago as last November. It was mis laid by a party unconnected with the Crown, and in place to which the officers of the Crown had no ac sess. And what possible effect could be anticipated from the omission of sixty-three names (taken in Vass from one parish), from a list, as we have said, of five or six thousand special and common jurors ? The proportion of special jurors to common jurors in Dublin appears to be but one in eight ; eight, therefore, would be the number of special jurors excluded by the omission. But the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics—special jurors— sipon the list of all the other parishes taken together about three-and-a-half to one—so that the emission has merely caused the exclusion of two Roman Catholics, and it must surely be compen sated by the exclusion of six Protestants. Let us, however, indulge Mr. Justice Perrin, by supposing that all the 63 omitted were special jurors ; we have tilr. Pierce Mahoney's oath that 14 or 15 of them svere Roman Catholics—somebody else, it is true, says that there were 12 other nameless Roman Ca gliolics--but it is nearly certain that these 12 are 12 of the named made to appear again as anonymous. Take, however, the whole number of 27. Here we have 27 Roman Catholics and 36 Protestants excluded together. Mow would the addition of these two numbers have, in the slightest degree , disturbed the proportions twisting upon the list of 717 ? What motive, then, n possibly have prompted the doing of that which Di r. Justice Perrin insinuates ought not to have hen done without a motive ? It would be gr... 11 if judges would remember that their position gives to what they say a weight which the sayings of some of them might not otherwise possess, and that they would, in consideration of ibis, guard their language a little. There has bees a blunder in Mr. Shaw's office—nobody IS slates that—nor do we defend it, further lh an by saying that in every office blunders do 'w and then occur very innocently, and Ot at this has on the face of it all the cha n4.lteristics of a most innocent blunder. Officials St this side of the water may exult in their exemp aim from exposure like that to which the Dublin s e c order's register has been subjected, but they boimmunity hly owe the rather to their good fo kn - e than to their extraordinary skill or vigilance ! sa-we doubt that ever a jury list has ever been made gp for Middlesex, not subject to as many and as Dgrave objections as have been alleged agai ns t th e üblin list; but here pettifogging objections are dis graceful, very few solicitors, no barristers of repute un, would lend themselves to such objections, least a all would a judge condescend to help one of them • t by an insinuation for which he could offer no nfficient ground. !ROM THE MORNING PAPERS 01 , THIS BAT MMES.—The repealing tactics are apparently not of the most creditable kind to those who have to carry Ilkom out. Bullying, obstruction, intimidation, misre gasentation are, of course, the recognised order of the y. At any sacrifice of personal character, by any means, however dangerous or ridiculous, one object is intionsly pursued—to impede justice. The Freeman's Journal begs for the names and addresses of all persons Voiding near Dublin, " who attended the repeal meet- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENT NG, JANUARY 16, 1844. POST.—It is impossible not to feel some degree of indignation at the slovenliness with which even the most important proceedings appear to be conducted in Dublin. It is now acknowledged that a Mr. Magrath, who acted as registrar to the Recorder of Dublin in the process of classifying the names admitted before the Recorder as qualified to be upon the grand panel, ac cidentally dropped one of the sheets upon which the names were written, and thus the panel was given to the Sheriff without including those names. The mis sing sheet was found among some papers where it had dropped, in the office of the Clerk of the Peace. Such stupid, cumbrous slovenliness in transacting important business is wholly inexcusable, and the persons who have been guilty of this absurd carelessness ought to be punished. But it is a matter with which the Crown prosecutors had no more to do than the persons prosecuted, and every one must see how urgent was the application of the traversers' counsel to have the trial post poned on account of such an error. The Crown officers had done their duty with respect to the panel presented by the Sheriff. A list of twenty-four persons. duly qualified to try the issue, had been regularly and formally prepared. The Crown was not accountable, nor were the accused, for the stupidity of omitting a whole sheet of names from the panel. Nor was there even a popular ground of complaint, for it seems that as to religion and politics the omitted persons were numerically divided in the same proportion as the forty eight from which the twenty-four persons (out of whom the jury must be formed) were selected by the parties on either side. While, therefore, we fully concur in the feeling of displeasure at the repeated blunders, of one kind or another, which have appeared in the course of these Crown prosecuti ens, we must say that as to this last the Crown offic .ra were perfectly blameless, and the sttempt to postpone the trial on account of it was merely vexetious. CHRONlCLE.—Yesterday the Irish law officers were to swear in their packed jury for the trial of Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers. In a country which 'embers its Catholic inhabitants by thousands and its Protestants by hundreds, where the administration of justice depends, more than in any country in the world, not only on its being impartial, but on its appearing so, we can conceive nothing so dangerous, nothing so incon sistent with the spirit not only of the Jury Act, but of the Jury Act in emancipated Ireland, as this most fatal and rash resolve of her Majesty's Ministers to try a political enemy by a jury of their own opinions. It is a virtual admission of their unpopularity. It recognises the isolated position in which they stand in reference to the great majority of the Irish nation. It is a blunder in tactics, and not only a blunder but a crime. We cannot see how Lord Eliot can stoop to such an abandonment of his reputed impartiality ; we cannot understand how Sir Robert Peel can permit his law officers to j )iii issue with his Catholic Relief Bill. It would have been far better for his reputation, and the eventual character of his Government, to have lost a hundred trials than to have negatived in practice his own Emancipation Bill. To exclude the Catholics It is to repeal the union—it is to revive the oldest and the worst of all the tyrannies that ever disgraced the Governments of Great Britain—it is to pull back the car of national advancement, and, for the sake of an Adminis tration, to jeopardise an empire. To exclude the Ca tholics ! Well, then, Fox and Pitt, Edmund Burke and Canning, our Russells, and our Greys, have pleaded the great cause of public liberty, after all, in vain. The abominable and odious system which their genius and their eloquence overthrew is again the order of the day. Better, a thousand times better, have lost a hundred trials. Welcome national reverses—welcome almost national disgrace, rather than to have the apple of old discord thrown again into the arena, and that, .too, by the hand of a Government which audaciously assumes to itself the character of impartiality, and has been trumpeted, in the silver tones of self-esteem, as uninfluenced by any considerations of a party cha racter incompatible with the well-being of the country. The case, however, has come to this—that the idol of the Irish nation, whether innocent or guilty, is to be tried by the twelve men on the jury list most opposed to the public conduct of that gentleman. If a foreigner violates the law, he can place a moiety of foreigners on the inquest by which he is tried. The humane princi ples of English law, and the manly justice of English jurisprudence, have ever been a shield to the oppressed ; but to try speculative opinions by the speculations of an adverse party—to drag a political chief to a tribunal where he sees no faces but those of political opp )nents— to invert the very axioms of fairness, and, from the im proved and softened usages of the times in which we live, to run back with the breathless cowardice of bigotry into the worst practices of the worst times, is a degrada tion and a fall which must be atoned for by the loud and retributive voice of public censure, and the reprobation of every honourable and honest man. The course of Government was clear. Having resolved upon their fatal course, they ought to have given the accused an impartial trial. They should have regulated the challenge of the jurors by the ordinary principles of public prosecution, whenever any personal objections or peculiarly pronounced opinions have existed. Parties who were open to such objections, or had pronounced such opinions,l might have been fairly challenged. But what is true on one side, is true also on the other. If a Repealer is not to try a Repealer, why should anti- Repealers only be unchallenged ? Why should Catho lics who are not Repealer.; be struck off ? Amongst the Catholics struck off by the Crown there are at least four who are not Repealers. Sorely in Dublin, as in an elec tion committee, there might be found a residuum of twelve meR who aro not irreclaimably infected with the rabies and leprosy of party. Before such a tribunal the trial might have been a fair one :—due weight would have been given to legal reasoning ; the expositions of the Bench would have been listened to ; matters would have been conducted with the usual zeal and usual hope of parties deeply interested in the issue; the country would have looked on, if not with favour—for neutrality in such a social state as that of Ireland finds little favour—still with a respectful and decorous interest. If the verdict had gone for the Crown, the great bulk of the nation—ay, even the Irish nation —might have acqttiesced ; if for the traversers, the defect would have been laid to the law itself, and a foundation would have existed for an application to Parliament on the part of those who hold the proceedings of last autumn inconsistent with the safety of the country. The Minister might have been defeated, but his impartiality would not have been impugned. He might have gained nothing in such an exposure to the public of the inhe rent vices of the Tory system, and the melancholy con sequences of Tory government ; but he would have been spared this last ignominy, this last humiliation, of not venturing to meet a tribunal any one member of which was a political opponent. Such would have been the course of a prudent Government. Such, we believed, from the cautious character of the Premier, and the amiable tendencies of Lord Eliot, would have been the course of the Peel Administration ; but they have mounted the fatal car of Irish bigotry, which - has de solated so many an epoch in the history, of the ,sister island, and which recently—we had hoped for ever— had yielded to a nobler policy and a more Christian civilization. NAVAL BENEVOLENT INSTITU- TION. A quarterly meeting of the subscribers and friends of this Institution was held at the Thatched House Tavern, St. James's-street, yesterday, at twelve o'clock, Captain Fead, R.N., in the chair. The Re port was read by the Secretary, from which it ap peared that, from the year 1826 to 1837, the funds of the Society had very much decreased, but since the latter year, up to 1842, they had progressively increased. Notwithstanding the great pecuniary depression which had been felt by similar institutions, the amount at present in the hands of the Treasurer was 767/., out of which the sum of 5001. had to be voted towards the relief of distressed persons connected with the navy. Since the last meeting of the Society the death of Sir Graham Moore, who was one of the Vice-Presidents, had taken place. The Directors had also the painful duty to perform of announcing the death of Admiral Sir Thomas Wil liams' of the Royal Naval Female School at Rich mond. This institution sprang out of the Naval Be nevolent Institution. The Report referred to a state ment which had appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that the funds of the Society were improperly applied. A letter bad appeared in one of the newspapers, con taining statements which were altogether false and unfounded. On the motion of Mr. Rowland and Lieutenant Bedford the thanks of the meeting were unanimously given to Captain Dickson, the Secretary of the Institution. Notice of a motion was givenby Capt tain Marshall, R.N., to the effect that the Society shall endeavour to get the law altered which obliges the widows of naval men to administer for all sums of prize-money or freight due to their deceased husbands, if the amount should he more than 321. Vice-Ad miral Sir Willoughby Lake was then appointed Vice-President of the Society, in the room of Sir Graham Moore. Thanks were voted to Earl Manvers for his liberal donation to the Society; after which the meeting separated. SINGrLAR CONTEST.—A few.days since a woman, named Sharpies, the wife of a boatman, left her hus band at Selby, and eloped in a keel with another boatman, named James. Two days afterwards Shar pies came up with the runaways in the Humber, nearly opposite Barton, and boarded the pirate. A fight ensued on the deck, but the wife finding her husband down, and in a fair way of being pum melled, took part against her husband's vessel. The parties met again at Hull on Tuesday evening, in a public-house at the Southend, and it wait agreed that they should fight for the woman. A battle took place accordingly, on Dock-green, the same evening, when the husband was the victor, and bore •away with him the worthless prize.—Hull Packet. ST. Ivss.—FolmusATE Discovnty.—During last week, a labourer employed on the farm of Mr. Wratten, farmer, of Needingwort , near St. Ives, discovered what he considered to be a piece of paper projecting from one of his master's stacks, when, on a nearer inspection, it was ascertained to be a sort of a large fusee attached to a ball of what is considered to contain combustible mat ter, which was placed about a foot in the stack. The f p r a o p m e r s o o m r f e u s fo e had r e t un b a t e lighted g u ht haded s a m t o t u h l e d e e r n e d d e a x s p h o o s r e t d , b t im u e t and gone out.— Chelmsford Chronicle. Accounts of Nov. 28, from Madras, state that the movements of the troops at Hyderabad were still a mys tery. Detachments had gone to Balapore, there to meet part of the Nizam's army, and the whole would be under the command of Colonel Bagnold, who it was supposed would be w anted at Hyderabad. The overland mail of Oct. 6 had arrived 'Mina Lomion. ITtlettoo . ps were still in movement in the l'unjltub.—Even{nfiklen - SOCIETY FOR THE PROTEC TION OF THE DISTRESSED NEEDLE.: WOMEN IN LONDON. Yesterday a preliminary meeting of the benevo lent friends of the poor needlewomen of London took place at the Mansion-House, for the purpose of adopting measures preparatory to a public meeting to be called in a few days, to assemble in the Egyptian Hall, for the benefit of the hard-working poor creatures with whom the metropolis abounds. Among those present were the Lady Mayoress, Miss Magnay, Miss Jane Manay, Lady Key, Miss Key, Miss Farebrother, Mrs. luckett, &c. The Loup MAYOR took the chair, and expressed a firm hope and belief that the object of the meet ing would be most liberally carried out. He was surrounded by ladies who were anxious to be mem bers of a Committee to assist in so admirable an undertaking. His Lordship then read from a paper a statement of the intentions of the Society. The ob ject was to find work for as many of the unemployed as possible to insure to them a fair remuneration for their labour. The work was to consist of children's clothes and females' under garments, manufactured expressly for distribution to the deserving poor. To be supported by subscriptions, and every subscriber to receive goods to the amount of their subscriptions for their own distribution. E tch aeticle to be marked with the name of the establishment. The amount of each person's earnings nut to exceed 9s. per week. That no middle-women or job-masters be employed, so that the actual 'labour may not ex ceed twelve hours per diem, thus serving two parties at the same time, viz., the needle •women so employed, and the destitute poor, who from the hands of the hu mane receive these comforts, so desirable at this in clement season. The ladies warmly engaged in the business of the day, and became members of the Committee. A large sum of money was subscribed upon the spot, and the Lord Mayor . and Alderman Farebrother announced their intention to receive subscriptions in aid of the great objects of the Society. His Lord ship stated that a public meeting would in a few days be announced, and he confidently relied upon the attendance of all the great patrons of the charities of the City of London. We were given to understand that some of the most eloquent men in the metropolis will speak at the forthcoming meeting upon the subject. The following is one of the letters received by Mr. Rooper, the Honorary Secretary, in answer to his invitation to the writer to attend the preliminary meeting at the Mansion-house : " Mrs. presents her compliments to Mr. Rooper, and is unable to attend the meeting at the Mansion-house, to which she has the honour to be invited. " Mrs. --. is most happy to see the case of the distressed needlewomen attracting public n ,tice, a•t she cherishes the hope that they will not only obtain the temporary relief which their pitiable situation requires, but that the recent disclosures Will have a tendency to insure to them better remuneration for their labours than in time put they have received. Not wishing to be classed with those who say to the poor, Be ye warmed and be ye clothed,' but who withhold the supplies necessary to such relief, Mrs. incloses two sovereigns as her mite, which she would have been happy to have enlarged, were %he not pressed by almost daily applications from the im poverished and distressed. " She most sincerely wishes the proposed Society much success in their humane and laudable efforts to wipe away tears from the eyes of the indigent and sorrowful.—Jan. 15, 1844." NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. A conversazione took place last evening at the Hall of the National Association, and was respectably attended and conducted. Dr. BOWRING, M.P., took the chair, and in opening the proceedings assured the meeting that he felt it a most grateful and acceptable compliment to have been • asked to preside on the occasion, because it was a proof that he was regarded as one who had an intense desire for something wiser, happier, and better than the pre sent system. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to some specimens of. the fabrics of the Egyptian l o o m 3,600 years ago, as well as of manufactures produced at subsequent periods down to the present day, as illustrat ing the improvements which had taken place in mecha nical and scientific arts, and he expressed his astonish ment and regret that our political institutions had not made a corresponding advance. It was wonderful that in a country like this the millions should be excluded from all share in the making of the laws ; but gatherings like the present, to look at the past, the present, and the future, gave a security that great politicel changes could not be far off, although he knee , nut w'ietaer those changes were more likely to be brought about by the wie dom of the friends of the people, or by the folly of their enemies. Referring to what was passim in heland, he expressed his conviction that the exclusion of four-fifths of the people of that country from any participation in the humblest judicial functions was a state of things which the honest mind of England would not tolerate. lie, for one, was prepared to say that if the union of the two countries were one which excluded Catholics from the tribunals of justice, the sooner such a union was disselved the better.—(Cheer.) Irishmen ought to be treaten by us as friends and brother and the English people ought never to be content until the Irish had all that an Englishman had a right to claim. He proposed the sentiment of—" The National Association, and the speedy realisation of its objects ; equal rights, just laws, free institutions for man and woman, and the general diffusion of knowledge a nd morality, so that those blessings may advance Thism.,,ora sentiment was 1 mentel, and physical elevation cor dially assented to by the m eeti ng. The following senti ments were introduced with y the a d energetic speeches, and responded to with acclamation by the meeting Freedom of opinion, the best mode of improving our political and social institutions. May our Irish brethren, now prosecuted for the free expression of their opinions regarding the best means of removing their social grievances, find the justice of this great principle stronger than right -restraining law. " Mr. Sharman Crawford and his honest coadjutors in the House of Commons. May the forthcoming session find them united, and sternly resolved on enforcing the just claim of the people, upon every proposal that m Ay be made for taking mon e y from their pockets without their consent." " May all classes perceive the necessity for cultivat ing the principle of peace, as one of the most effective means of political and social reformation ; as its ten dency is to deprive our oppressors of the instruments of their power, to prevent the brutalizing ravages of war, and, consequently, to promote the civilization, the har mony, and brotherhood of nations.. Several pieces of' vocal music were performed during the evening.. The meeting, whick was conducted with great de corum throughout, broke up at eleven o'clock. TRIAL OF MRS. GILMOUR. This woman was tried on Friday and Saturday last, in the High Court of Justiciary. Edinburgh, for the murder of her husband, by administering arsenic to him, which produced death. The circumstances of the case are no doubt in the recollection of the reader, full details of the charge against the prisoner, having been recently published. The Jury, after an absence of about an hour, re turned with the following verdict —The Jury, after a careful and mature consideration of the evidence brought before them in this case, are unanimously of opinion, that John GilMour died from the effects of arsenic ; but find it Not Proved against the prisoner at the bar, as libelled. This announcement was followed by very decided expressions of approval by those in Court, which %% ere rebuked by the Lord Justice Clerk. The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 15. (Sittings in Banco. ) AMMAN V. COOPER. Sir T. WELDS moved for a ruld to show cause why the verdict found in this case for the p'aintifr, for 8,4001, at' the last sittings at Guildhall, should not be set aside, or a new trial had, or a nonsuit 'entered, on the ground that a question was left to the jury which ought not to have been left. Tho action was for the recovery of a paper purporting to be a scrip receipt for 10,0001. paid on account of shares in the Royal Mail and Steam Packet Company. Messrs. Acraman and Morgan had borrowed 20,0001. from Messrs. Cooper, Thompson, and Co., on the security of certain scrip receipts iit the above-named Company.—Rule granted. DUNN v. TURNER. Mr. CURRY! applied for a rule to show cause wh y the verdict found for the plaintiff in this case, which was tried before the Under-Sheriff of Staffordshire in No vember last, should not be set aside and entered for the defendant, or a new trial had. The action was for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff sold to the defendant a number of cows, and a portion of the purchase-money was paid. Subsequently the cows were found to be un sound. The defence set up was to this effect. The action was brought for the balance of the amount. Rule granted. SALOMANS V. ISAACS. A verdict for 205 L in favour of the plain tiff was given at the trial. The case arose out of an action for the re covery of an I 0 U, which the defendant alleged to have been paid. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS now moved for a rule' to show cause why the verdict should not be sot aside or a new trial had.—Application refused. A great deal of dissatisfaction has been created this week among the pensioners and women who have been receiving pensions and half-pay st the dock-yard, in consequence of the clerks at the Navy Pay-offic e paying them in many i nstances with gold which is barely of the standard weight, and does not turn the scale. It seems t o b e an esta bli s hed axiom among tradespeople that gold i ssue d in the reigns of George 3.d and 4th is n o t now a l ega l ten der, and 6d. discount is demanded on every 20s. It is certainly trio that the clerks at the Navy Pay-office have refused to exchange above d:scount being d eman d e d. This looks very like a the gold so issued, w h en returned in consequence of the fraud on the public, the money for paying these people being drawn from the branch Bunk of Englat,d, which bank receives the light gold on payment tot an established ailowtince•-•-liantpshire inclepodotts POLICE INTELLIGENCE. CLERKEN WELL. Yesterday Jlmes JP Grath, the noted prizefighter, John i'fcscdonald, and George Hopkins, were placed at the bar before Mr. Greenwood, the former prisoner charged by George Fisk, a respectable-looking young man, residing at 2, Foster-buildings, St. Luke's, with having committed a most violent assault upon him, and the two latter were charged with inciting the mob and M`Grath tol assault and resist the police in the exe cution of their duty, &c. George Fisk stated that on Saturday afternoon last, between three and four o'clock, he saw the prisoner M‘Grath on Saffron-hill, beating a woman in a cruel manner over her knuckles with a stick, and he kicked her repeatedly. Witness remonstrated with him, on which he struck witness with the stick over his nose and knocked him several times on the spine of the back in a violent manner, and had it not been for the arrival and assistance of the police and some private individuals he must have been killed. Mr. GREENWOOD inquired whether the woman was in attendance ?--He was answered in the negative. Robert Foulger, 71, G, stated that between three and four o'clock on Saturday afternoon, he received informs. Lion that there was an outrage on Saffron-hill. On his arrival he saw Nl‘Grath beat and kick last witness bt: - veral times Witness took M‘Grath into custody, when he tripped witness up three or four times, and beat and kicked him so vie's:lay about the legs and head tliet he was disabled and erm!fl not perform his duty. lie Fdso tors his teat to pieee , . Macdonald struck witness and attempted to rescue M‘Grath. IVilliata Hi edins, a City officer, No. 271, was called to the spot, when he saw M`Grath violently ill-using 71 G. Witness intertered, and M'Donalcl swore that he would mark witness. The prisoner Hopkins used threa tening language, and incited the mob, which was great, to attack the officers. George Kelder, City officer 212, corroborated this evi dence. He was also violently assaulted, and received a severe cut on his head from a stone which was flung at him. M`Grath, in his defence, said he knew nothing of what took place. He had been treated with brandy, , which made him quite drunk. M`Donald made a similar defence. Hopkins denied the charge against him. Mr. GREENWOOD sentenced Wiirath to one month's imprisonment in the House of Correction for the assault on the policeman, and for the assault on Fisk he con victed him in the penalty of 5/, or to be imprisoned two calendar months, leaving him liable to be prosecuted by other parties whom he assaulted. lie convicted M`Donald in the penalty of 31., or one month's imprison.. ment ; and Hopkins in the penalty of 205., or ten days' imprisonment. Hopkins paid his fine and was liberated, but the other prisoners were taken to prison. Joseph Kipax, a Yorkshireman, meanly clad, and evi dently destitute, was charged by the parish authorities of St. Andrew, Holborn, with refusing to work. Mr. Wilkes said he took care to have his supper, lodg ing, and breakfast, before he refused. They employed casual paup!rs to work for their lodging, supper, and breakfast, from eight o'clock to twelve in the forenoon. The prisoner said he was a farmer's labourer, he was destitute, and he wished to be passed to his native place. Mr. GREEN WOOD committed him to the House of Cor rectian for. seven days, and suggested that he might apply to the Visiting Magistrates to be passed. John Blakeman was charged by Mr. J. Skinner, land lord of the Red Lion public-house, Warner-street, Cold bath-square, with stealing three brass candlesticks. The prisoner, it appeared, entered the house of the prosecutor on Saturday evening, about six o'clock, aad asked for a light, when he slipped into the kitchen un observed, and tied the property up in an apron. He was leaving the place when the potman stopped him. lie dropped the bundle, and had a desperate struggle with the potman, who was severely maltreated, but the prisoner and the property were secured, and taken to the station-house. The prisoner denied the charge, but he was fully com mitted for trial. Mr. GREENWOOD ordered James Phillips, the potman, to be furnished with a certificate for extra expenses, and complimented him for his courage and good conduct. Patrick illWermot was charged with a violent assault upon Charles Marlon, of Rotherfield-street, Islington. The prosecutor (whose head was dreadfully injured and bound up) stated that on Saturday night last, be• tween ten and eleven o'clock, he was attracted by a noise in a court, in Lower-road, Islington, and on going to wit ness the " row," the prisoner struck him a violent blow on the jaw," and exclaimed, " Give him a crack," on which a man struck him on the head with a quart-put, and another man felled him to the ground by the blow of a ,poker on the forehead, which cut him dreadfully, and rendered him insensible, and he was carried to a surgeon's. A witness corroborated this evidence. Ti l e prisoner denied the charge, and set up an alibi. Mr. GREENWOOD remanded him for the apprehension of the other man, but he afterwards admitted him to bail fur his appearance on a future day. THAY ES POLICE,. Yesterday Captain -ilexandex Montgo.nery, the waster of the barque Saperi .r, lying in the West Dock. appeared b.-fore Mr. I.,ruacrip to aneaer the complaitit of James Macloaatd, a seaman, who claimed a balance of 121. for wage, due to him on a voyage from London to Sierra Leone, Demerara, and back, under articles at 21. ss. per month. Mr. Wells, a solicitor on the part of the seaman, said the gross amount of wages was 141. 10s., and he was willing to give credit fur a month's advance in London and some other payments, but a claim was made for 51., which had been paid on a monthly note purporting to ue signed by the master, and indorsed by the wan. The document was a forgery, -and the man was ready :o swear he never gave authority to any one to issue the note, and knew nothing at all about it. BRODERIP said if the owners had paid the money in their own wrong, they must bear the loss of it. Captain Montgomery said that Si. had been paid by the brokers of the ship on the forged document, in monthly instalments of 11. each, and the person who re ceived the money was a female, who was at the brokers' office two or three days ago. He pronounced the sig nature on the note, " Alexander Mangozury," to be a forgery. Mr. Wells said that his client could neither read nor write, and he made his mark on the articles. The cap tain's name was Alexander Montgomery ; on the note it was " Mangotnry." The advance note given to the sea man was a genuine document, and was directed to " Stowell and Brown, 157, Fenchurch- street." On the tonged instrument, the money was made payable at " Smith, Brown, and Co.'s, 170, Fenehurch-street." He was astonished that the brokers paid a farthing. Mr. BROO,RIP put it very strongly Lo the man whe ther the forged flute had been issued with his privity or consent. Macdonald solemnly declared that he know nothing at all about it. Mr.. BRODERIP said it was a very hard case upon the owners, but there was not the least reason for sup posing the man knew anything about the forged monthly note. He then ordered the wages to be paid, with costs. Captain George Barclay, the master of the ship Sea ' Nymph, was summoned before Mr. Broderip, at the suit of Benjamin Wheelwright, the mate, for 51. 10s., a ba lance of wages. The complainant had been a voyage under articles of 3/. 10s. per month, and joined the vessel in the Clyde on the 17th of January last. From Glasgow the ship pro ceeded to Monte Video, and thence to Buenos Ayres, where, in consequence of some words with the Captain, the mate went ashore and consulted the British Consul, who referred him to the captain of the port, and by him he was transferred to the commander of the Daphne, man-of-war, on the station, who could do nothing fur him. The Consul was once more appealed to, who ad vised him to return to the ship and bring an action when he reached England. When the crew were paid off the sum claimed was deducted by the master for ab sence on shore for thirteen days at Buenos Ayres, two days absence in the Clyde without leave, and the value of some hides, alleged to have been lost by the complainant's negligence. Those facts were elicited from the com plainant, or to use the Magistrate's own words, " Dug out of the man," with considerable difficulty. Captain Barclay said there was a loss of some hides, and he charged the mate with it, and also fifteen days' double pay for absence from the ship. When the com plainant received his wages, amounting in all to 411. 64., he agreed to the deductions, and signed a receipt in felt ut all demands. Wheelwright dissented from this ; when he received his wages he told the captain he was not satisfied. Mr. BRODERIP said the audacity of some people was remarkable. The matter hail only deltic ed what be was entitled to do under the Act of Parli hnent, and the value of the hides lost. If the captain had not paid hirre it a uuld have been a question whether he was entitled to any wages at all. He dismissed the case. Bruce Janson, a weatherbeaten Scottish seaman, be longing to the Orb, lying in the Hermitage tier, Wapping, complained to Mr. Brodetip that he had been forced ashore by the master before the voyage bad ter minated, and wanted to get back to Galway, in Ireland, where ho shipped. Mr. BRODERIP—Where did you ship, and for what voyage ? Janson—Eh, your Honour, I ken it was at Galway, on a voyage frae Lunnun and back to Galway or Limerick. Ye ken I'm a Scotsman, but my wi e and bairns are a' in Galway. Weel, Sir, on the voyage up there was a piece of beef too fat, and we didna like it, and so there was a dispute, and when I came here the captain ordered me ashore. Mr. BRODERIP—What, do you complain of ship beef being too fat ? We have had many complaints of its being too lean, but I never heard of its being too fat. It would be a hard case for the man to be left here, and he directed Fox, a Thames-police Inspector, to make in quiries, and see the captain on the subject. The master consented to take the man back to CURIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE. R ESITSCITATION. A young lady belonging to a Jewish family in this city died ap parently on Tuesday of a nervous disease, and yesterday her friends started with her remains for interment. According to a Jewish custom, the body is taken to the grave-yard in a square box, in the same covering in which the deceased person has expired, and there, in a house appropriated for that pur pose, the female friends of the family uorobe the body, wash it with cold water, and anoint it for the last resting-place. While performing this ancient custom upon the body of this supposed inanimate corpse, a healthful warmth evaporated from it, and evident signs of life became manifest; the fact was an nounced by the ladies, physicians were sent for, and the sor rowful certainty of death, which overshadowed the counte nance of friends, gave place to a gleam of hope. On the arrival of the physicians the certainty of her being alive was established, and means taken to fan the spark into health, in which we earnestly hope they will succeed. Every person who reads this circumstance will exclaim, " How providential that she was a Jewess I How awful would have been the re verse ! This fact s'-ould caution the public against hasty beria!s The body never lweomes offensive, nor 1. death nor tam until that unerring sign of,a purple tinge on the belly is fully apparent—so says an eminent professor..-St. Louis fig. 1 porter ; Dec. 7. COMMISSION OF LUNACY ON A RUSSIAN PRINCESS. Yesterday, at ten o'clock, a commission of lunacy was held before the Chief Commissioner, Francis Barlow, Esq., and a jury of nineteen gentlemen of the county, at the Canonbury Tavern, Islington, to inquire into the state of mind of the Princess Elizabeth Catherine Louisa Maria Frances Bariatinski, now residing at Ivy Cottage, Highbury-grove, in the parish of St. Mary, Islington. Among the relatives of the Princess present were the Earls of Sherborne, Carnarvon, and Ducie. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Walpole appeared in support of the commission, on behalf of Lady Margaret Dutton, at whose instance it was issued. Mr. Carpenter Rowe appeared as the representative of the Prince Bariatinski, half brother to the subject of the inquiry. The CHIEF COMMISSIONER, on opening the proceed ings, observed thet he would explain to the jury in a few words why *hey were called together. They were as sembled, in obedience to the commission, to inquire into the state of mind of the Princess mentioned in it ; to ascertain if she was Dot sufficient for the government of herself and chattels, and if not, from what time, and how ? They would hear evidence on this point, which was the only one they had to inquire into ; and he wss lola that the lady had had notice of these proceedings. and had expressed no desire to appear before them either soliciter or counsel. It might be necessary to state that the lady, the subject of the inquiry, was the daughter of a Russian Prince by the datt e hter of. an English ..Zolsleniaii, the Earl of Sherborne. She was the only daughter by that marriage, for unfortunately her mother died in childbirth, or soon after. Her father married again, and soon afterwards she was sent to England to be educated, under the care of the relatives. of her noble mother. Since her seclusion and supposed lunacy, some of her Russian relatives had come to Eng land, applied to the Lord Chancellor, and given notice that they should appear by Counsel before the jury. He begged to remind the jury that the questions of property and of the treatment of the Princess was not for them to inquire into, as they would hereafter become the subject matter for inquiry in another Court. Mr. Cockburn opened the case, and told the gentlemen of the jury that he had the honour to appear in support of the Honourable Anne Margaret Dutton, at whose in stance the commission had been issued. He and they had a painful duty to perform, viz., to inquire into the state of mind of a lady of high birth, and the daughter' of a Russian Prince and the Hon. Frances Margaret Dutton, isho was the daughter of the late and sister of the present Earl of fZlierb , rne. The marriage of her noble parents took place in England, in the year 1806. Shortly after they left this country for the Continent, and the Princess, the subject of this inquiry, was born in 1807, at Altona, where unfortunately her mother died in childbirth. In consequence of a promise made by the Prince to his consort on her death-bed, the Princess was brought to England, to be educated by her English relatives, to be placed under the care of Lord Sherborne, and to be brought up under his own eye, with the members of his own family. Her grandfather died in 1820, and she remained with her grandmother until 1823. From that time she came under the care of her aunt, the Hon. Anne M. Dutton. After and during this time she was in the habit of visiting her uncle, the present Lord Sherborne, and as she advanced in years she became a more frequent inmate of the Sherborne family. In 1823, for the purposes of her education, she remained the whole year in his Lordship's house—fellow pupil of his Lordship's daughter, the present Lady Ducie. She alternately lived with her uncle, the Earl of Sherborne, and with her aunt, the Hon. Miss Dutton, at Reading, until 1825, when she was brought to town and presented at Court by the present Lady Carteret. There was nothing remarkable in her mind or manner at this period. In 1827-8 she became more intimate with the Earl of Sherborne's family, and in the former year she visited with them Holkharo, the seat of the Earl of Leicester ; and in the spring of 1828 she was again at Lord Sherborne's, and in the course of that year she was taken to a drawing-room held by George IV., in commemoration of his birthday. lip to this nine things went on without giving any cause of alarm to the It was true that the Princess had never manileSted any great acuteness or strength of intellect, but showed in matters concerning her education a degree of indtnence and want of capacity ; yet still her conduct was such in society that it din nut attract any marked attention. Thus matters stood in 1829, and though the Princess showed some little eccentricities, her conduct did not ex cite any alarm or wish on the pareof her friends to place her in seclusion, and give her protection against herself. In the autumn of 1829, whilst visiting Lord and Lady Ducie, she manifested some extraordinary conduct, which led to remarks that h r haviour was different from that which would be expee:• d from a lady of her age, rank, and coetlition, and the re was something in her manner for a short period ahich showed that her mind was nut as it should be. Subsequent events showed that this was the incipient stage of that malady which had since appeared in a confirmed state, and placed beyond a sha dow of doubt the fact that her mind was in a condition of hopeless insanity ; and when the jury saw her he was sure they would speedily come to the conclusion that not a glimmering of reason was left. In autumn, 1830. the manifestations of her unsound mind were so evident that it became absolutely necesssry to remove her from so ciety, lest, by her conduct, she should compromise herself or others. About this time she was taken to church and to the theatre, were she behaved so indecorously that it was found necessary to place her in exclusion. In the streets she was in the habit of indulging in extraordinary practices—such as raising her clothes, but not exposing her person more than tying her garters, without any re gard to public decency. It was, therefore, necessary to take some decided step, and the Sherborne family ap plied to the Rev. Mr. Smyrnoff, Chaplain to the Russian Einbassy, who hag married her father and mother, and he advised that a medical man should be consulted. Accordingly Sir George Tothill was called in, and visited the Princess, and he declared her then insane, and that it was nee. ssary to place her in restraint. She was not then placed in an asylum, but a house was taken for her in the neighbourhood of Fulham, whither she was sent under the care of Miss Clifton, her former governess. She remained there some time, when she was placed under the care of Mrs. Newman, who had also been her governess in early life, and who resided in the neighbourhood in which they were then assembled. In 1833 she was placed under the care of Miss Chalmers, in Highbury-grove, and had remained with her ever since. She was placed under that lady's earn by Lord Sherborne and Lady Suffolk, and her malady had ever since increased—becoming worse and worse—until at last she exhibited no remains of intel lect. The commission, however, would not have been ;ssued, but for circumstances which he would briefly mention. Her father, by his second marriage, had a family, the present head of which was his son, Prince Bariatinski, who last year came to England, and learning that his sister had been in seclusion since 1834, he thought he had a right to question the propriety of the proceedings by which she had been removed from so pay. The result of the Prince's inquiry was the issuing o the commission to ascertain the state of his sister's mind, which he would prove by witnesses testifying as to her conduct at several periods, from 1825 up to the pre sent time. In October, 1830, the Princess made a will, bequeathing her property, amounting to nearly 40,0001, . to the Hon. Miss Dutton, but that lady, with a high and honourable feeling, had declined to take advantage of it, because she knew that the Princess was not in a state to render her competent to execute a deed of the kind. He did not know what course hie Learned Friend meant to adopt, but he (Mr. Cockburn) was anxious to fix the period of her insanity in 1830, in order that there should be no question as to the propriety of the Sherborne family placing her in seclusion Mr. Rowe said he felt bound to state, on the part of the Noble Prince whom he represented, that he had in terfered only with a view of securing the proper care and treatment of his untnrtunate sister. The Prince was not actuated by pecuniary motives, and he came to this country because he had reason to believe that his sister was placed in a position which was not conformable to her feelings, and that something might be done to alle viate her present condition—that another mole of treat ment mieht be adopted, which woad be b.n, ficia! to the health of • he unfortunate ittly. The CHIEF CuMMISSIONER told the jury dry had nothing ju.lieially to de with the manner in which the lade had been treated, because that question might and would uiine bethre another tribunal hereafter. Mr. Cuekhurn defended the conduct of Lord Sher borne in a.few foreitne remark:, and then proposed that the jury should, in the first instance, examine the un l'ortunate lady. Atter some discussion, it was arranged to proceed to the residence of the Princes., in llighbury grove. On arriving there, the Commissioner and jury were shown into 0 , apartments occupied by th ,, offi :fled lady. Upon entering, the Princess was dix.v. red °touched against a large wire guard which surrounded the tire. She appeared alarmed at the presence of strangers, and on the Commissioner stating the object of their visit, she uttered only a few incoherent expres sions, having no relation to the inquiries addressed to her. In a few moments sho suddenly left the fireplace and ran across to the window, where the Commissioner followed her, and iu the kindest manner endeavoured to enter into conversation with her. In answer to queries relating to her property,. her relatives, her former asso ciates, &c., she made no Intelligible reply, still murmur ing.indistinct words having no meaning. A sovereign having been handed to her, she betrayed the most com plete ignorance as to its value, and the jury expressing themselves satisfied, thought it unnecessary to ask her any other questions. On the return of the jury the evidence was proceeded with. Miss Maria Chalmers examined by Mr. Cockburn--I was a governess in Lady Suffolk's family for 19 years before 1833. I knew the Princess Bariatinski from the age of 12 years, and saw her from time to time in 1830. I saw her at Lady Dutton's in the autumn of that year, when I first observed a pec u li ar it y o f manner a b out her. It consisted of laughing sillily and vacantly, without any motive. She seldom conversed much, and s h owe d indo lence of intellect. There was a striking difference in her manner from that which I had before observed. She came to London in 1830, from Bibury, Lord Sherborne's seat. It was in the month of November, and she in sisted on wearing only a low muslin dress. I could not persuade her to wear either a cloak or a shawl, and her conduct through the journey was such as to attract the attention of the public when our carriage stopped to change horses. At this period when the Princess took pedestrian exercise she danced rather than walked, and conducted herself very unbecomingly. On one occasion when out with me she rushed into a cutler's shop and tied up her garter before several men. Tho Ladies Howard were with her at that time. At church she would attract the notice of the congregation by laughing and putting out her tongue. The Rev. Mr. Smyrnoff in consequence prohibited her being taken to church. She refused to wash herself, and used to burn her clothes and othei' articles - of t , alue. She took no care of her snhney, and would give a 5/ note where- only 2L was due. She has thrown money into my lap and said it burned her. I took her to the Opera two or three times in 1830, but oho aituifasied lag intgrelt ut tho.Perimancep and would sie - not sit still. I also took her about the same timitra smaller theatre, whece her •conduct was very. disagree able. She turned her face from the stage, and made faces at a gentleman in an o...ljoining box. This was the last occasion of her going into public. Lady Sherborne consulted at this tiLne Sir George Tothill, and in con sequence a private resdence was found for the Princess. The Learned Counsel here read a letter addressed to Lady Sherborne by Sir • George Tuthill, in which be stated that, from what he lend observed of the character of the Princess's mind, he thought she laboured under confirmed imbecility, and was unfit to manage her own affairs. Examination continued--:When t.he Princess was taken to Ivy Lodge, Highbury, she was fir. st placed under the care of Miss Clifton, one of her fox-tner governesses. Miss Clifton died, and was succeeded I.'v a lady na med Bailey, also since dead. In 1833 I too," charge of the establishment in Highbury-grove, and ,`rave resided there up to the present time. During the w. hole of this time the Princess has been wholly incapable. of taking care of herself. Several letters were here handed by the Learn ed Counsel to the witness, who proved them to be' in tu t) banilwri:ing of the Princess. The letters in question erre written. litlore the witness took charge of the PA P '' '. cc;s. The following were read to the jury:— "December 28 (without any other date). " Dear Mr. Newman—Since I have had the plea of seeing you I have thought of a pleasant scheme. I think I should like to go to Wnlmer. I dare say Mrs. Brooks would let me go with you any day, and I should like to have a child very much." The signature was not read. The following is the substance of a letter addressed to Mrs. M`Farlane m rs . alsFerlane—l should like to come and see you. when tie could renew our emptismal vows. Perhaps you would like it, my deur Mrs. M`Farlane, and I should Ike it too." Another letter:— " My does- Aunt—How much I should like you to ge t me married, ned pie use to tell Mrs. Newman to pal al l the-stres. If you let me have the money she will d o so.—Believe me, my dear aunt, your affectionate neice, " ELIZABETH BARIATINSKL" Cross-examined by Mr. Carpenter Rowe—l recolleei: the Princess residing with the Hon. Miss Dutton in 1826. I saw nothing particular in her manner at that time. Ido not recollect her having a brain fever there- From 1826 to 1830, she was chiefly residing with Miss Dutton at her cottage, near Lord Sherborne's seat, Charlton Park, Malmesbury. The Princess has never expressed herself disinclined to my society, nor dissatis faction at being with me. In 1833 I thought her irre claimable, and I have acted on that opinion since, ac cording to the treatment advised by medical gentlemen. Dr. Sutherland recommended that coercion should be used, and the strait-waistcoat had been applied. I think this was in 1838' or 1839. Miss Masters had been re" fused permission to see the Princess before I had charV of her. The Prince Bariatinski had been allowed access'. to her both before and after he obtained a Lord •Chao" . cellor's order ; in fact, it had never been denied to Mins The first time he came to see her he brought Maclaine Davidoff with him. I think it was in 1837 that the Russian relations of the Princess first applied to see her- Re-examined by Mr. Cockburn—,The Princess lived with Miss Dutton subsequent to the death of her grand' mother, Lady Sherborne. Dr. Conquest examined by Mr. Walpole—l attended the Princess Bariatinski in the year 1831, and have don° so for many years past. When I last saw her she was hi, a state of demention. In 1831 she was in that state,ano she gradually grew worse until 1836. Every reseed/ has been tried to restore the Princess's reason, but * ll were unavailable. I have seen her treatment, and con sider it to have been unirornsly kind and proper. Cross-examined by Mr. Carpenter Rowe—Wheal:l saw the Princess she was residing with Miss Newnetere_ in Highbury-grove. I think I was called in by LBO Stiff ilk or Lady Sherborne. Ido not exclusively . pry' lice In this department of m y p ro f ess i on . Th e Princes* was decidedly insane in 1831, and from what I saw must have been so for some time past. Occasionally she could carry on a continued conversation. -I do not recollect hearing her repeat poetry. In 1831, I did not think her recovery hopeless. She did exhibit the appearance of* parson born an i.liot. From 1831 to 1833 I saw her fifty, or sixty times. I have seen hut. frequently since, Sli t ' before the year 1834 I considered her case petfedi)? hopeless. The long endurance of the malady alone makes me consider it a hopeless case. In 1831 the Priv cess was in that state of mind- that I do not think she would have derived uny benefit from cheerful society At that time she could recognise her noble friends when 'hey visited her : but her state of mind on some occa sions was such that I could not recommend such visit sae her last on the 6th of November. I was not aware that the visas of her friends had been altogether distorts tinned then, nor did. I know that Miss Masters, a sister or Lady Carteret, had been denied admission to see her by Miss Chalmers, at whose house she now is. I never gave instructions that the Prince Bariatinski or his sister , Madame Davidoff, - should see her. Re examined by Mr. Cockburn—l discontinued lei visits because 'I thought her case hopeless from gratin!! decay . of the mental faculaes. I met Sir George - Tothu' ..lice in consultation upon the Princess's case. In Jul opinion, nothing has been left undone in the way of We' dical or other treatment that could ameliorate her co i n: dition. The disease gradually got worse, an d the ma le sal treatment made no impression on it. By the Commtssiossett—l agree with Sir George Tuthill, that in December, 1230, the Princess was bribe' cile and incapable of taking care of herself. My °pink ° is, that the Princess has bsen of unsound mind sine. August, 1830. The conduct of the Princess was so vi3O • lent that it was found necessary to obtain a nurse to taa e care of her. She remained ten weeks, after which th e conduct of the Princess became less violent, and it was p 0 longer necessary to use the strait waistcoat. By a Juror—The Princess understood music, an d sometimes played from notes and sometimes from WO' Martinee de la Lalle (a female of Russian extraction/ said she attended on the Princess as lady's maid, havief , been engaged by Miss Chalmers, by order of Lord S e ' folk, about the 18th of I)2cember, 1830. Her mantl e„ at that time was most unladylike, in fact, she was a Ter , ' odd woman Mr. Cockburn—Explain that in French. Witness—Elle avait l'air un peu imbecile. Examination resumed—l saw the Princess on one oe" casion throw a gold brooch into the fire. I have gat seen her burn a handkerchief and destroy a value' book of prints by tearing out the leaves and burning them. The conversation of the Princess was nonee n ; sical. Her language was very low, and her nuton er were indecent. About the ordinary calls' of nature the Princess was not very particular. She used to sit bef,er e the fireplace with her feet on the mantle-piece. 0 7 0 would spit at persons in the street, and tie her garter o f the streets before anybody. While under the care, Mrs. Newman, the Princess once took up that Wit. child by the head and legs and then threw it on flew. I left the Princess's service in January, la" • She was then worse than when I first saw her. Mr. Cockburn was about to call other evidence. shed The jury expressed themselves satisfied, and 6 0,,, ' that they had made up their minds. tict Mr. Cockburn said Lord Sherborne was present, 1 would be happy to answer any questions relative to , 0 treatment the Princess had received. to The Foreman thought it would be unneeessari. de examine his Lordship. The question they had to deer was the date of the commencement of the lady's lunacy; ) Mr. Cockburn—Since that is the case I will eau , further evidence. . Mr. Rowe, on the part of his noble client, di s claim ed ha any intention of imputing improper treatment of Yrinetss to her noble English relatives. their The jury then retired for a few m inutes, and. erg return, found that the Princess Bariatinski was unsound mind, and had been so since the 31st of Isse 1980. bUi bis Dr. Munro was present during ,the inquiry, • evidence was not taken. • Tun Wrz ATI] liß.—The weather up to Settatil i r ;01 . t suss inois I, and loggy, wich occasional heavy , r s ' te r 0.1 Saturday thvr& Kati a marked change for the unin in the appearance of the atmosphere. Th e w i n d " rl4- 1 1 . the N.N.E. ; the barometer stood at 30 10, and thrott le . out the dd . ) the air was bright, cold, and season a j oi rt.l.•terday was a sharp, biting, winter's day. The o f it Ind due cast, and, as the barometer went up to a blot height, that in the Exchange news-room standieg;oj nib. t at 30 50, it is prolaable that we shall have a 1 34 ",. of clear, fro.ty weather.—Liverpool Albion of Mond* , tt , We regret to announce the death of Joseph Str u o f Esq., of Derby, who had attained the goodly tag, e ,os nearly 80. lie whs, we believe, the h ea d o f th e oulw manufacturing firm of that name. ings held in Baitinglass, Mullaghmast, Donnybrook Tara, Drogheda, and on the Curragh of Kil 'are, so that they may be classified as witnesses to be examined on the forthcoming trial." Threatening notices, it is said, have been sent to members of the jury, and every effort is made to concentrate popular indignationupon the heads of the jury, who, it seems apprehended, may find accord ing to the evidence. We are not going to remark on this audacious, though not wholly original attempt to overawe the Judges by a monster-meeting of witnesses. Whatever extravagant amount of intimidation and perjury may be intended by this apparatus, it is for the Lord Lieutenant and the jury to provide against. With these recognised instruments of agitation we do not at present meddle, though the time may come when we may be bound to do so. Our yesterday's paper re corded a more discreditable though much less dangerous style of manoeuvre. A Mr. Moore, a kind of dirty work counsel for the traverser:, appears charged, at whatever expense of honesty and common sense, to keep on saying something which shall at least delay the trial, and furnish a cue to those who are anxious to be abusive, but don't know how. Let us hear this gentleman set forth his grievance— " If ever there was a case," ho tells us, "in which it was ne cessary that the administration of justice should be kept as free from suspicion as possible, the present was the case. Their Lordships were aware, he presumed, that many of the traversers were Roman Catholics ; and it appeared that 27 persons professing that religion, whlse qualifications were de cided upon by the Recorder, did :Mt appear upon the jurors' lists. It was in evidence before them that Mr. Kemmis struck 12 names, 11 of whom were Roman Catholics, out of the list of 48." The list of persons eligible to serve on this Dublin jury should, it appears, have consisted of 782 individuals. But a blundering registrar, wholly unconnected with the prosecution, appears to have lost one of the papers from which that list ought to have been compiled, containing the names of—whom ?—of all the Roman Catholics eligible ? of half the Roman Catholics ? of a set of men of whom the Roman Catholics formed the majority ? Nothing of the kind. Of 65 persons, of whom nearly 40 —considerably more than half of the whole number— were Protestant. And, knowing this state of facts—fully aware, not only of the trumpery nature of the blunder, but, also, that for every three Roman Catholics four Protestants had been affected by it, this Mr. Moore has the folly and dishonesty to detain the Court by reite rating his parrot-like insinuations of partiality, at the exclusion of 27 Roman Catholics from the panel ! And now for the Crown solicitor's part of the matter, which bas been honoured by the notice not only of Mr. Moore, but of an aggregate c 0 meeting of the Roman Catholics of Ireland ;" a meeting signalised by more than usual emptiness of declamation. It is not pretended to impeach his legal right of challenge. His misdeed is merely introduced into the court of law to in terpret and aggravate the delinquency of the registrar, on which Mr. Moore's rhetoric and logic are mainly ex pended. But in this or any character this interference with the unquestionable and most necessary right of the prosecutor requires to be promptly denounced. Let it be remembered what the peculiarity of a jury is. A jury-box on such an occasion as the present is no scene of compensation or compromise. The folly, prejudice, or dishonesty of one man cannot be corrected or over borne by the sense or integrity of his eleven colleagues, One single individual of ordinary strength and perseve rance, if only sufficiently regardless of the obligation of an oath, or sufficiently impenetrable to the force of evi dence, suffices to defeat justice. Nothing but that oath prevents any one jurur from triumphing com pletely and irresponsibly over the plainest evidence, and absolving the most undoubted criminal. What sort of protection that oath is we unfortunately know too well. English juries are bad enough, but Irish ones, even under circumstances of ordinary excitement, are intole rable. Above all, would any man of sense, quietly sit ting down by his own fireside to consider the probabili ties of the case, allow himself for a moment to expect that twelve Irishmen, of whom but three were Repealers, would, under any contingency, convict O'Connell? Would not the very nomination of such a jury be at once hailed as an acquittal ? Timid men, and courteous men, and all who like soft words better than truth, may be anxious to gloss over these things—but this is not an oc casion on which it will do to shut our eyes. Beat round the bush as we may, the truth of the matter comes to this - —that the chances are incalculable against a Repealer's proving an honest juryman. None of us dream of such an event. Mr. O'Connell knows that he would himself be the first to scout and denounce such a man as traitor to his coun try. His myrmidons are already preparing to stone such scrupulous politicians. We will venture to say, that if there is a position on which the ultra-Orangeman and the ultra-Democrat of Ireland, if it were but conve nient to speak their minds, are wholly agreed, it is this —that there exists not in the ranks of repeal a man whom any amount of evidence would induce to convict the " Liberator." And Repealers, or something tante,. mount thereto, every one of the Romanists challenged by Mr. Kemmis were understood to be. We wish it could have been otherwise ; and so, we doubt not, do the Government. No more valuable juryman could have been found than a trustworthy Roman Catholic. But none such appeared on the panel ; and this being the case, Mr. Kemmis, or whoever is responsible for the challenges, would have been mad if he had hesitated for a moment to accept the full weight of obloquy which was involved in removing from the list every single person who could be fairly presumed to be under repealing influence. The other party had the same power and they used it in the same way. They did not challenge their own friends ; they struck off Protestants, and as many as they could. We find no fault with them, Mr. Mahony might fairly view a known Orangeman with the same suspicion which attaches in Mr. Kemmis's eyes to a declared Repealer. Let each protect themselves. It is for such a purpose that the right of challenge is given. It is to remove those from the judgment-seat who may fairly be suspected by one or the other party as biassed judges ; and it is only by such means that a fair and unanimous verdict can be, we do not say secured, but even hoped for. Let us, then, hear no more of these drivelling complaints. What has been done is no more than is necessary—absolutely ne cessary, to secure fair play ; and everybody knows it to be so. ADVERTISER.—The aggregate meeting of Roman Catholics held in Dublin on Saturday, and to which we had only space to make a passing allusion yesterday, is, in many respects, the most important demonstration which has yet taken place since the commencement of the Repeal agitation. The assembled thousands were drawn together by a burning sense of the gross outrage which had been offered to their religion by the exclusion of all Roman Catholics from the jury list. They re garded that exclusion, as we predicted they would, as a virtual repeal of the Emancipation Act, and as, in fact, proclaiming to the world that Roman Catholics were not to be believed on their oath. The result of the fla grant insult thus offered, not only to Catholicism as a system of faith, but to the Roman Catholics personally, has been to enlist in the ranks of Repeal thousands who were formerly opposed to it. Sir Robert Peel will, ere long, discover that in the meeting of Saturday there was something more ominous—something much more calculated to inspire alarm, than in the Clon tarf meeting which the Irish Government put down by proclamation. It is a remarkable circumstance, and one which is pregnant with fearful import, that the leading speakers at the aggregate meeting were chiefly men who had hitherto kept aloof from the Repeal agitation. They will keep aloof from it no longer. Ministers are literally compelling all such persons to identify them selves with that agitation. And not those only . who attended the meeting, but the Roman Catholics in all parts of Ireland, will feel that they must now make common cause with the Repealers. Not only is a stigma cast on their religion, but every individual entertaining the Catholic faith must henceforth feel that the Irish Government regard him as a man who is not to be believed on his oath. Where is the man that could endure this ? Not among the Catholics of Ireland— not, we hope, in the dominions of her Majesty. The Catholics of Dublin have done what all ex pected they would do. Had they remained passive under the gross and gratuitous insult, offered alike to their faith and themselves, they would have incurred the contempt of the civilised world, covered their mea sures in all time coming with obloquy, and compromised the rights of their descendants. They have acted with becoming manliness : they have told the Orange faction whose inspirations are perceptible in every successive stage of these prosecutions : they have told that faction in language not to be mistaken, that seven millions, in a country whose entire population does not exceed eight millions, are not to be thus insulted with impunity. If Sir Robert Peel does not perceive an awful significance in the proceedings of the Dublin meeting, he must be labouring under an infatuation to which there are but few parallels in the history of the world. But the insult offered to the Catholics of Ireland, and to their religion, is not the only light in which the striking off the names of Roman Catho lics from the jury list is to be viewed. The question is one in which the ends of justice are deeply involved. The result of the exclusion of all those professing the Roman faith, is to render the jury, who are to try individuals on a charge affecting their liberties, and indirectly their lives, of an exclusively Orange complexion ; for in, Ireland, there is scarcely such a thing to be met with as an i m p ar ti a l, unpre j u di ce d, Tory Protestant. The traversers, so far as the verdict of the jury is concerned, may already, and we believe do already, consider themselves convicted. Their only hopes of escape rest on the discovery of some fatal flaw in the mode of procedure, or on the chapter of acci dents. Can any man, entertaining any sense of what is right, and just, and proper, contemplate this state of things with any other feelings than those of horror ? Can we wonder when we hear of such transactions that Ireland should be convulsed ? Ought it not, on the contrary, rather to excite our surprise that the Irish people should have so , long and so patiently endured the manifold insults heaped on them, and the acts of flagrant injustice of which they have been made the victims ? In this last and crowning act of outrage and injustice, it will speedily be discovered by Sir Robert Peel that he has allowed his underlings in Dublin Castle to carry their system of insult and oppression a little too far. The exclusion of all the Roman Catholics from the jury-list will be found to have been carrying the experiment of Catholic patience somewhat beyond bearable bounds. That bold and iniquitous measure will rebound against those who resorted to it, and against the Government that sanctioned it. It will light up—it is al- Feads lighting up—a flame throughout Ireland,:which will burn and blaze with an intensity, of which those who kindled it had little anticip a ti on . They will, moreover, id t n o a gr eo extinguishf notexpress this Parliament a s r te at ta ht B a„ ned t 3 t l aha language find that it was a muc h eas i er matter to light up than w o d fn iihetneitca assembles l. Ttm w whb h eol eiumcslhdesewbit be Robert Peel will be told, perilous in us to use, what the Catholics of Ireland think of this new and crowning act of injustice to themselves and insult to their religion. In the meantime that Act will be held as prOving more conclusively than a score of Mr. O'Connell's speeches, the necessity for repeal, and will give the repeal cause a greater impulse than it would hive rewind from tt dozen " monster " meetings. MARRIED. S al On the 4th of November, 1843, at Cawnpore, James 44.- Esq., 54th Regiment Native Infantry, to Margaret, daughter of General Boyd, Bengal Army. ia to On the 16th ult., at Gibraltar, and subsequently ao ord42ott P the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, Ferdinand ' 4 3est Esq., Consul for the free city of Frankfort, to Caroline, • daughter of Pablo Lidos, Esq., of that place, mercbooti rs ocih On the 11th inst., at St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington' es, to j 2 third son of John Bawtree, Esq., of Abberton, Colob e ' .1/' Elizabeth, sixth daughter of the Rev. John Watson , Vicar of Denford-cum-Ringstead. DIED. . m 4o9' On the 29th ult., at New York, in his 33d year, e f neP William, son of Thomas Vyse, of Hem-hill Abbey, Surr ey. 79 , t On the 13th inst., Joseph Strutt, Esq., of Derby, 8 1f teo o3 On the 13th inst., at Lake, in the Isle of Wight, Li eu J. H. Peel, R.N., aged 47. d tiee On the 13th inst., William Scrivens, Esq., banker , 1 ' On the 13th inst., at Deptford, Richard Hughes. E 54 ,' On the 14th inst., Elizabeth, the wif e of George w`g i l ose'" On the 14th inst., at Wargrave-hill, Berks Colonel Raymond White, lat e o f th e E nn i s killen bragtillf r On the 14th inst., at Kingsland, Commander Cha rles pion, R.N., aged 72. f t g . On the 14th inst., J ames F arqu h ars on, eldest Sell° a. James Dodd, of St. J ames ' s - street , age d 13. Mr ' On the 14th inst., Anna, the youngest daughter of Ellis. of Cualm'nkstrect, Pentonville. On the 15th inst., Mary Smith, widow . of the late Smith, newsvender, of Hackney-road job London : Printtl and Published by MURDO YO v No. 112, Strand, at The Sun (Are, 1110.1 12 t.,A.z 5. the Cow: of Midilleach Tuesday, January 14 101' The a centr, Alereh a Jnited Corn The tial - erie s ships sa and boo Then nRE-1 val ut b!, ett h ave tnr C I AL Th e der the 1; Perse - Perg: The I of Ctik, itistituti It h a single in r aUnity Worthy The sl ue no a 'ffe.ted "ard bade, ' 44 3' of ondol l fr urp the N.B. thu~ 1) tv GENI ' al itari o (le bility I to. 'e Puri and a f rie th e , of toropletel : c If thi u " e of it. Fro " To t oevl, *N ies 1 1) ILLs ; War , e 1 iq this n_, '':ll4 e e i i t e e]: )1'1 : e : di:l e o:I : El Meted ' , f "end to began to t' ttith a vit fr om your 4 ' bad strong', 414 taken n. shall aiwa, t O ;re e t a r t, :,:,eiB: V. Thos Iv ' iit:: ia , ,e_es tn, g b .a nd i i . : : ~ " Mr t e S u it e sl ter t: o s nosf p tt iopi, by tr i l tiv,_ Pun ,41.1 g eve: knutsrol , P rom ) N i l I GEvI, `' 'I'Ille„';ttl Q 1 01 tv,,j'al to I, Yea rs bad p head 44 4 ha 1 , 0 In c w 1 h 't 14 4,1 ( ,t, o l: h 4i vice No- and t act d isP , 1 my /14 ' gnat, be f :Eree, t tv t e: P tot rrntnen e d N I th e ben ; atei, zirldg, To r t i ° P•N'rj II,: AIIR, 1 4 be e n 1 4 NT 11 aver Ire a f,d.,vtl c , ch f , in t , t t t ;l l eou g 04 1 by vt24: , 11°three %to lirp . "T o ° We CE NT: 111 1 k4 h '' to i ) Ni;Y 'the: phi b een Di11:1)h e b th ont t hat b oxes no kot 4,c0 breathe t"' bR. al at 11 4 e O tN, ei be 1.1 I beliet l 'ae ? lL 4" Thz, every.„. ic„o the p wit ten 'ett ti t I I t 4 earl y 1 li nt 'are of 1 )4 Aft e tq vi to ICO n g my t paid). 1h C 1 1 11 / 4 1 ;i der L tS e j s ate t t °roi l t ottr ttr: , ro pr k iiv :t, 1.4 r "' 1 11 418) t Qtßdon ahtl by al Z, ) (1. th ea 3 th ai % 1 A G 152 Tj .9e ,roh,i;swe. 'Akltk,4 BIR TA S. ~,„b iel‘ On the 11th inst., at Chae-side, Enfield, Mrs. W. ° " --r 3lartin, of a daugh , er. On the 13th inst ., t h e w if e of Edward S. Stephenson, sq.' of Great Queen—treet, S. J mes's-park, of a son. , of On the 13th i nst., the wife of William Gresham, 4• , 1". Castle -street, ilolb , irn, of a ion. , & rl‘t On the 14th i nst ., at P ar k- vi ll age W est , 'legato r Mrs. William Benett, of a con. rld 1 Mrs. C hs On the 15th inst., in Devons ire-terrace,i Dickens, of a son. On the 14th i ns t., the w if e c f Weatherley Phipson , P (l4 Hampstead-heath, of a daughti r. W. On the 15th inst., at Pain'. r- terrace, Holloway, Mrs. Coote, of a son. __...---- AN) S' CL Fain, and w Ter sons). be adi Monti CL Janna