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

reessures, it was true that the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, and other measures, had met with disappointment in the pother House of Parliament, but for this the Government would by no means be held answerable. He wished to defend his Noble Friend and himself from any charge of neglect, and to assure their Lordships that he was every way willing at all times to give all the information it was in his power to offer or afford. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE complimented the Noble Duke on his constant attendance and incessant assiduity in that House. He thought, however, the complaint of his Noble Friend was perfectly well founded, and agreed with him in thinking that that House had been by the present Government converted into a mere court of registration. The amount of busi siness passed through this House, or, rather, hurried through it, was enormous. It was impossible to suppose that laws could be perfect, when they were hurried through the Legislature without discussion—they were forced through it, and ripened into sudden maturity, like fruit in the dog days. In the early part of the session, there was a perfect vacuum in the business of that House. He had come from the country on the previous day to oppose a clause in the Railways Bill, which he thought would be injurious and insulting to the lower classes, and the clause was at length proposed and carried in a most incomprehensible form, from its having been so hastily drawn up; and the request of twenty-four hours' delay, that the clause might be printed and circulated, so that it might be properly understood, was refused, because of the late period of the session. Those crude laws so hastily passed would, instead of being useful, disfigure the statute-book. The mode in which the House proceeded in this business reminded him of the story of an eminent individual, whose name probably might be known to their Lordships. He was very wealthy, and made a great number of legacies, and when it was asked how he spent his evenings before he went to bed, it was answered by calling for his will and making legacies. It was asked how he spent his time in the morning, and it was answered, calling for his will and altering the legacies he had made on the previous evening.—(Laughter.) The latter part of the session was employed in making imperfect laws, and the early portion of the following session in amending them. — (Hear, hear, and cheers.) For his (the Marquis of Lansdowne's) part, he was often glad to see the stran ger's gallery so thinly attended at the latter part of the session, that it might be less generally known with what speed the machinery of law-making was propelled in that House. He would not further detain their Lordships. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE defended the Govern ment from the charge of neglect or procrastination. It was said by the Noble Lord opposite that he had never seen a royal speech promise so little as the last. He (the Earl of Wharncliffe) thought that that was rather a merit than a defect. Most of the suggestions in it had been acted upon, and brought to a successful conclusion —the Bank of England Charter, for instance. The Registration of Voters in Ireland Bill, it was true, had been deferred, but that was a measure which required the utmost deliberation, and they had accordingly post poned it. Those were the only subjects mentioned in the Queen's speech. But had they done nothing else? Had they passed no other measures which met with with general approbation? Had they n©t passed the measure of the Three-and. a-Half per Cents., one of the most important financial matters which had ever been brought under the consideration of Par liament? They had also brought in, and succeeded in carrying, an amendment on the Factories Bill; they were also about to pass the Poor•law Amendment Bill, and it could not be said that this had not been a most fruitful session. It was true they had not been able to carry the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, but its own impor tance, and the still greater importance of other measures, prevented a full discussion of it during the present ses sion, but the Government had not by any means lost sight of.it. He asserted that the Charitable Bequests Bill relating to Ireland, had originated with the present Government, and not with Noble Lords opposite. The Government had not done as much as they might wish to have done ; but they had done as much as was performed in the average of sessions. He wished the Bills were sent up to this House a little earlier, and he also desired that they might receive as full a description as possible. It was asked why more measures did not originate in t his House, but ho did not think such Bills were re ceived in the same favourable spirit as in the Lower House when they originated there. He would not oppose the production of the papers for which the Noble had moved. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not think the explanation of the Noble Lord at all satisfactory. The Noble Lord boasted a good deal of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., but he did not think there was any thing very novel or statesmanlike in the idea : he believed it was a good measure, but it was generally anticipated. He approved of the financial policy of the Government gene rally, but he altogether disapproved of the manner in which they had treated that House, which was now the chief subject of discussion. The Irish Registration Bill might not be very pressing ; he felt confident it was better the present law should be allowed to continue than that the Government measure should pass into a law. It was a farce to say the present constituency of Ireland was popular—it was narrow, cramped, and restricted. The Charitable Bequests Bill contained much that was good and useful, but, at the same time, it was a great mistake to say that the measure had originated with the present Government; it had been devised by their pre decessors. The hurly burly way which measures had been passed through that House was in a great measure attributable to the Government. Many Bills had gone through the House without a single word being said upon them. The Grand Jury (Dublin) Presentment Bill, he would venture to say, was not understood by any of their Lordships, and no one had said a word upon it but himself. He thought the motion of his Noble Friend well timed ; and he trusted that he would bring it for ward next session. For his own part, he thought the course that had been pursued was not calculated to in crease the esteem of the people for Parliament. The Earl of WICKLOW was net at all surprised at the course that had been pursued by the Noble Marquis, as these species of discussions had now taken place for several years at this period of the session. He thought many of the complaints that had been made against the Government with respect to the introduction of Bills was totally uncalled for. As to the censure that had been cast upon the Government for the counting out of the House of Commons, he thought it lay with Members on the other side, and not with the Government. The Marquis of NORMANBY, in reply, stated that the manner in which the business of the House had been conducted latterly was greatly detrimental to the coun try. Bills had been hurried through the House in a most unseemly way. In conclusion, he wished to know whether the Metropolitan Buildings Bill had been sub mitted to the Commissioners alluded to by his Noble Friend. He thought some course ought to be adopted to put an end to the legerdemain legislation that had lately taken place. lie thought if the House met at four o'clock instead of five o'clock that might be prevented. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that the Metropoli tan Buildings Bill had not been specifically referred to the Commissioners alluded to. The ',notion was then agreed to. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Poor-law Amend ment Bill. The Bishop of EXETER objected to the motion. He thought it would be useless to attempt to go on with the measure at the present late period of the session ; they lad, in fact, only that night to discuss it, although the House of Commons had taken seven or eight days to do so. There was no pressure for the measure during the present session, and he should therefore move that it be committed that day six months. It became that House to give the subject its greatest attention, and was it to be said that it could be properly discussed in a House consisting of not one twentieth of its Members ? The present law was an experimental law, and the ex periment had answered most marvellously ; that it had been the cause of the incendiarism that had taken place be thought there was very little doubt. These reasons alone appeared to him to press their Lordships to con sider well what provisions should be made with respect to the poor, and to take care that no rash provisions should be adopted. No provision in the present Bill had any relation to the spiritual education of the poor, and he thought such an omission showed that the sub • ject had not been well and duly considered. He thought the Secretary of State was responsible for this, not only to his country, but to his God. Their Lordships could not pass a measure of this kind hastily, if they wished to have the sanction of their country. He felt indignant that men, placed in the situation of Ministers of the Crown, should dare so to trifle with their duty as to en deavoul to thrust forward a measure like the present. If their Lordships passed this miserable expedient, they might depend upon it that they would set at nought the beat interests of the people. The law of Elizabeth said that the poor had a right to subsistence and to be pro tected from want ; but if the present measure passed, that right would be taken away. The Poor-law Bill of 1834 was the product of the Malthusian theory. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had the greatest respect for Mr. Malthus, but he objected to his principles. The biographer of Mr. Malthus said—Mr. Malthus' philosophy and the p oor -l aw must stan d or fall together. Mr. Justice Bla c k stone sa i d the poor were entitled by the canon law to reli e f f rom t h e parsons and parishioners of every parish. The statute of Elizabeth required that there should be work found for the poor in their own parish. It positively enjoined the building lic wereoaf new not tages for them, if their previous dwellingsp suf ficient. Liberty—the liberty of the t Legis lature he large— was recognised in that statute the Magna Cha t ; ventured to call it, of the poor. If the British a had recognised this right in 1834, it would have dealt with the poor as freemen, instead of shutting them up in gaols. Gaol was a strong word, but he would cite an authority to prove that it was not too strong. (The Right Rev. Prelate then read a letter of the Poor law Commissioners, characteristic of the poor-house system, as a system of poor-law restraint). This was all which was necessary to establish the justice of the appellation. He then referred to the state of the pauper schools, and the ignorance of the school masters. Mr. Tufnell had stated that the character of the bulk of the adult population, and the example they set were of the worst description. Was it to be endured that honest persons of good , 2 character should be compelled to associate with persons P - Sc SI ) :1111% 1 Nrho would contaminate them, and that their wives and 1. _---1 - 11 'Wen should be exposed to the same evil? These 1 ' r f'.' • -‘ab iderations were so important, that he defied them to p - • -- -\ gd with the Bill in its present shape. As Christians , ---- eis is - , ---', -- -`thssr; could not, as legislators they would not. Under Vitt d law, and under the Gilbert Acts, man and wife not be separated. In case relief was required, the 4 1 , •-•.;:*i could not be removed to the place where she had , --e-'- '-- -‘ , settlement, even though the husband had no settlement -, ---. 1 14. cl) o rat all. Lord Brougham had denied that the Commis sioners ever orderefs. the separation of man and wife. He had taken pains to bring that to the test. He wished to bring the point to issue, by a trial in a court of law ; but his counsel told him that his diffi culty was this : the orders of the Commissioners were made of the :time illitherity tss au Act of rudiment. ~~.< The only question then was, whether Parliament had the power to separate man and wife, and he was not prepared to say it had not that power. He did not, however, think any parallel to the power given by this Act could be found, except in the Act of Henry VIII., which gave to his proclamations, during his life, the force of law, and another Act of Henry 111., by which his obsequious Parliament gave to the Do Spencers, and other minions of that monarch, the power of making regulations that were to have the force of law. No such power as this was ever given by any other Act. But the separation of man and wife was now the abso lute law in 460 unions—many of them very extensive, some of them covering as much as 300 square miles. In such a union as this, it was impossible for the poor to leave their homes to go so far for relief. The hardship they suffered from this cause was very grievous. They had been told on many occasions, and they had been told last night, of the abuses of the old poor law. But it should be remembered that they were abuses, whereas those evils of which he complained were legal parts of the system—that was the great distinction. And these abuses of the old law were, besides, of comparatively modern introduction ; they were principally these — the system of allowances, of roundsmen, and the pay ment of wages out of the rates. All these practices were, he believed, introduced in the years 1795 and 1796. These were years of singular scarcity and dis tress, when the prices of provisions had risen to an enormous height, in consequence of scarcity aggravated by the war. Then arose the practice of allowances and roundsmen, which was first adopted, he believed, in the county of Berks. But in the county of Durham, where he had long resided, and in the north of England, it had only been adopted to a limited extent, though in the south of England it was so general that it created the impression of its being a universal practice. He thought it was their bounden duty, when they were endeavouring to fix on a right basis an en during system of poor-laws, that they should consider well whether they could not revert to the state of things that existed under the 43d of Elizabeth, with such sult. He had told the Right Rev. Prelate that those chairmen of boards of guardians who had been there last night would not be there to night, and the result had shown that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had been the better prophet as to the success of the ex periment. He should reserve his defence of the general measure to the time when the Right Rev. Prelate should bring forward that motion, to which the Noble Duke had alluded, for its repeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate, however, had not acted quite fairly—he had quoted a letter written by the Poor-law Commis sioners, in 1839, at which time he held the seals of the Home Department, on the appointment of chaplains; but the Right Rev. Prelate had omitted to state that since the date of that letter there had been a decision of a court of law on the subject. The Right Rev. Prelate had not said one word about the first clause of the Bill, and yet that clause amended the existing law as regarded the bastardy clauses in the very sense in which the Right Rev. Prelate had urged their Lordships to amend them for the last ten years. Now, if the Right Rev. Prelate had assumed a tone of triumph on the occasion, he might have been excused. No doubt they must own that the bastardy clauses had not answered the objects which the original proposers of the measure had in view, He agreed with his Noble Friend in opinion that, as far as those clauses were concerned, the experiment had not succeeded. The Right Rev. Prelate also objected to the size of the unions. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had always thought the unions too large, but really it ap• peared to him as if the Right Rev. Prelate had not read the Bill—(Hear, hear)—for the Billeontained provisions to lessen the size of the unions. —(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the schools, the Bill provided for the es tablishment of district schools, which would cure the evil of which the Right Rev. Prelate complained.—(Hear.) The Bill also relaxed the law in relation to the granting of out-door relief, a subject to which the Right Rev. Prelate had also alluded. With regard to the 26th clause, which related to that subject, his Noble Friend , (Earl Fortescue) had proposed an amendment in which he could not concur ; widows generally wore their weeds for twelve months only, but he was not aware that their distresses left them at the same time. The Right Rev. HOME CIRCUIT. Guildford, Tuesday, August 6. CIVIL SIDE. (Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.) THE BLOODSTONE CASE—SECOND DAY. HERBERT V. DAY. William Crook examined—l live at Apperley, about two miles from Walton-hill. In 1848 I went to Mr. Newman's to perform an operation upon a colt belonging to him. I had seen the same colt in the summer of that year. He had a very pretty head, and was rather; thick set and " cobby." This colt had a white stripe down the face, and more white about the keels. After I per formed the operation the colt was taken ill, and I did not see him any more. Cross- examined- - No money has been offered me by Newman. He did not say that he would give me 100/. if I would swear that I operated upon the colt. I did not say it was a bad job, and I would have nothing to do with it. I did say I would have nothing to do with it. because it might expose my profession.—(Laughter.) They did not offer me money to prove that the colt died after the operation. lam not the Mr. Crook of Coal house, Apperley—(the person referred to in yesterday's evidence). He is a relation to me, and is a licensed dealer in horses. I don't know that he has bred a colt within the last ten years. lie may have had three or four brood mares within the last three years. I know a gentleman named Walker very well. There was a per son named Smellcomb, but I did not say, in the. presence of those persons, that I had been offered 1001. to swear that I cut the Beiram colt, and that it died under the operation. And I did not say either, that it was a black job, and I would have nothing to do with it, as it would .. - all come out. Re-examined—l did not wish it to be known that the colt I had operated upon had died, as it might have hurt my business. Mr. John Noble Partridge—l am a coal-merchant at Cheltenham, and in 1841 I lived near Mr. Newman, at Walton, and I remember his chesnut blood-mare having a foal in 1841. It was a very pretty colt, had a small head, white mark on the face, and two white heels behind. I remember the same mare having another foal in 1842. It was in the spring of the year; April or May, I believe. The colt Bloodstone is the same colt, if ever I saw him. Baron PARKE—What do you mean by that ; it is an odd expression. Mr. PLATT—It may be very true, my . Lord. Witness—l swear that Bloodstone is the same colt. ' He had a largish head, a white mark on the forehead, and one white heel behind. By Mr. PLATT—I have seen other colts upon Mr. Newman's farm. I was not present when the second checks as ought to be provided against the repetition o, those gross abuses which led to those evils which were made the plea for enacting the present law. Could such a question as this be decided that night ? He did not think there were as many as twelve Peers present. The House of Commons had taken six months to consider the Bill, while their Lordships certainly would not have as many hours. Was not this a measure of such a com plicated nature as to render more ample time for delibe ration absolutely necessary? lie must say that it was not only a most complicated measure, but that he thought the necessity for passing it at the present time was so inconsiderable—there was so little reason for passing the Bill this year, that to do so with so little consideration would be absolutely trifling with the sacred interests of the poor. He did hope, that what he might have said that night, however weakly, or perhaps with an appearance of greater warmth than he ought to have spoken would not be permitted to injure with their Lordships the cause he was advocating; and he hoped he had brought forward facts enough to induce — their Lordships to support the motion which he should now make—that this House do go into Committee on this Bill on this day six months. The Dike of WELLINGTON said he had listened with great patience to the speech of the Right Rev. Prelate, and in reply, he begged to call their Lordships' attention, in the first place, to the arguments which the Right Rev. Prelate had brought forward to induce their Lordships to postpone the consideration of this measure to a future period. In the first place, the Right Rev. Prelate told their Lordships, an hour and a half ago, that it was too late in the evening to go into the consi deration of this Bill, and he afterwards said there was not a sufficient number of Peers present to discuss it. He begged to remind the House that they had frequently sat till a much later hour than this, and that at the present moment, though their numbers were few, yet they were sufficient, according to the constitution of that House, to con sider any question whatever. They were not at all too few to discuss a measure that had been so long under the consideration of the House of Commons, and one which related to a subject so perfectly well known to all their Lordships, and one which had, in fact, been under the consideration of Parliament during the last three or four sessions. It had been introduced both by the late and present Government at different times, and had only been postponed in consequence of the pressure of public business. At last, this measure had been considered and brought to maturity, in the present session, in the House of Commons, and now came recommended by that House to their Lordships' consideration. And this was the measure,,which was at this period of the session to be put off, night after night, though it had for its object the amendment of many of those evils in the present law of which the Right Rev. Prelate complained.—(Hear, hear.) The real question then was, whether they should enter into the discussion of a Bill having this amendment for its object. The Right Rev. Prelate had alluded to the subject of work house chaplains. He (the Duke of Wellington) la mented that the Bill did not contain all the amendments of the existing law on this point, which he thought it ought to have contained. But the Right Rev. Prelate having entered into that subject very forcibly, then warmed up, and came to what was his real object, which was the repeal of the existing law. That was what the Right Rev. Prelate wanted ; he wished them to return to the system that existed before the present law was enacted. They ought not, he said, to pass this Bill, which was not intended to amend that law, but at once to repeal it. Now, if the Right Rev. Prelate pleased to give notice that, in the course of this or the next week, he would bring in a Bill to repeal the existing law, and bring into operation the 43d of Elizabeth, he might My upon it that notice would brin g down to that House a sufficient number of Peers to discuss that or any other sub ject—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—which deserved their attention. But he entreated the Right Rev. Prelate not to set to work to repeal the existing law, by preventing the passing of a Bill which had for its object the amendment of the evils of which he himself com plained. Now, the abuses of the old law, which had been referred to, grew out of the operation of the Act of Elizabeth, and so great were the evils, that in many parishes of England they consigned to ruin the land of those parishes by causing a total cessation from cultivation and labour. And everywhere the evils were such as to require attention ; and they did receive the attention of some of the greatest men who ever appeared in England—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Each of these endeavoured to introduce and carry through Parliament Bills to amend the 43d of Elizabeth ; but every one of them failed, finding they could not attain their object ; the abuses were so great and so various, varying in almost every parish throughout England, that it was absolutely impossible to remedy then except by the establishment of a central and uniform system of management. That was an epitome of the history of the Poor-law Amend ment Bill; and from that Act, they could not depart without going back to the old system of abuses. With respeCt to the Act of 1834, he had never himself acted as a pear-law guardian. In consequence of his duties, he could not reside long enough in the country to do so. But he was in the habit of residing for portions of the year in two different parts of the country ; and while there, he often visited the workhouses of those districts, and he must say that it was impossible for any places to be better managed than those workhouses were ; and he believed they gave great satisfaction. He spoke of what he knew ; he had frequently stated this in that House in reply to a Noble Earl not now present, who was a strong opponent of the poor-law, and he always should do so whenever he was called' on. The Right Rev. Prelate had complained of many things in the existing unions, sore of which this very Bill was intended to remedy. Now one of the things of which the Right Rev. Prelate had complained, was the separa tion of man andiwife ; and he said that he had never be fore heard of such a thing. Why did the Right Rev. Prelate never hoar of workhouses under the old system of the law of Elizabeth ?—(Hear, hear.) Did the Right Rev. Prelate never heard of hospitals ?—(Hear. hear.) Why the common decencies of life required that where a large number of persons were brought toge ther, the males and females should be separated. It could not be otherwise—the laws of decency required such separation.—(Cheers.) Not only had this always been the case in the hospitals; but it had also been the case in workhouses under the old law of Elizabeth.— (Hear, hear.) Then, with respect to education, it would be much better if the Right Rev. Prelate would suffer the Bill to go into Committee, and propose a clause to ensure that schoolmasters should be properly qualified, instead of declaiming, as he had been doing to-night, about the inferiority of the present schoolmasters.—(Hear.) No ; that was not the object of the Right Rev. Prelate.— (Hear.) The object of the Right Rev. Prelate was not to amend the Bill.—(Cheers.) The object of his motion was not to postpone the Bill to-night, in order to give their Lordships a better opportunity of considering it to morrow or the next day. He did not wish to go into Committee on the Bill at all—he wished to destroy it.— (Hear, hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate were in earnest, let him state his objections, and propose his amendments in Committee, and see if his Noble Friends would adopt his suggestions or not. On the subject of chaplains he knew that, according to the system of legislation esta blished between the two Houses, no amendment could be proposed on that point, but he might propose amendments on other points if he chose. By doing that, he would be rendering a service to the House and to the country, but to pretend to stop this Bill to-night, order to defeat another measure which circumstances had rendered absolutely necessary, was unworthy both of the station and the abilities of the Right Rev. Prelate. He hoped their Lordships would not attend to the Right Rev. Prelate's suggestions, but would go into Committee, and allow the Bill to proceed as far as it could do to-night, and would then proceed with the other business before the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of NORMANBY would not detain their Lordships long. He concurred fully in all that had fallen from the Noble Duke ; but as last night he had given his support to the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate, for adjournment, considering that one o'clock was too late an hour to go into Committee on a Bill of such importance, he wished to say a few words. He could not but express his surprise at the course which had been adopted by the Right Rev. Prelate to-night. He had last night a e c p e o u s r t pmt se one h e e i n et e o n f d a e d f e t w o ho pursueu r s r a l y n d , w h i e t h (theout P s traotlinogsedth Marquis of Normanby) had certainly never anticipated the adoption of such a course on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate, as proposing the rejection of the Bill, almost every clause of which was a relaxation of the old law, on the harshness of which the Right Rev. Prelate had so long descanted.—(Hear, hear.) There was in fact no connection whatever betweeniheargituh ments of the Right Rev. Prelate an d the motion which he had concluded—(Hear, hear)—and he believed w that he could assign the real reason why the Right Rev. Prelate moved the postponement last night. The fact was, the Right Rev. Prelate wished for a fuller audience. The Right Rev. Prelate had last night complained of the smallness of the number of Peers who were present, and he (the Marquis of Normanby) had cautioned the Right Rey. Prelate not to be too 131inguiwo as to the re., Prelate had apologised for his warmth and excitement; now he must say that he had observed no symptoms on the part of the Right Rev. Prelate of anything like warmth or excitement.—(Hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate had spoken as he always spoke—with great ability and great tact, but he had shown no warmth—(Hear)—and, in deed, considering the state of the House, it would have been remarkably odd if he had shown much excitement. There was, however, a great deal in this. The Right Rev. Prelate had not intended that speech specially for their Lordships' ears—(Hear, hear)—and no doubt the Right Rev. Prelate felt that if the speech should have the good fortune to reach those for whom it was really intended, a little confession of warmth would not make it tell the less effectually.—(Hear, hear.) He could not think that any person could be considered as labouring under warmth and excitement, who had availed himself, as the Right Rev. Prelate had done, of a quibble.— (Hear, hear.) The /tight Rev. Prelate had said that the union houses resembled prisons, and had quoted a letter of Mr. Tufnell, in which he stated that the exte rior of those houses resembled prisons ; but in the same letter, Mr. Tufnell stated that the ladies who had visited them had found them so comfortable, that they were afraid persons would be desirous of getting admitted to them. Now, seeing that the poor were more concerned in the comfort of the interior, than in the appearance of the exterior of those houses, he thought the Right Rev. Pre late was not justified in the quibbling use which lie had made of Mr. Tufnell's authority.—(Hear.) He himself had recently visited the Bethnal Green work house, and when he compared the condition of the poor in that house with that of the labouring poor in the eastern parts of the metropolis, he could not but be struck with the contrast, and this was more particularly the case as regarded the children.—(Hear, hear.) Having held the office of Secretary for the Home Depart ment for two years, he could bear his testimony to the justice, humanity, and kindness with which the Poor law Commissioners exercised their functions.—(Hear.) Lord WROTTESLEY, as a chairman of a hoard of guardians, and as one of those who had originally col lected evidence on whcih the new poor-law was founded, could not but protest against the first nine clauses of the present Bill, which were calculated to revive all the evils of the old law, as regarded bastardy, and would give a premium to perjury and incontinence, and place the guilty in a better position than the honest and indus trious. He admitted, however, that the Government were placed in a difficult situation, and he thanked the President of the Council for the speecAt with which last night he had introduced the measure 7 Their Lordships dirided / when there appeared—. -_,.- For going into Commitoe—Contents 1 l7 Non Contents ..... .....:.-4 — " .1. , . , 1 Majority against the Bishop of Exet e amendment-16 The House then wen - to Corn I , t 4 •e • on the Bill. f On clause I. being P: used, " Lord WHARNCLI E conten*'-that the present . law was a great improv ent on theild. system. Under that system the poor suffered under* great grievances, and it was to remove those grinees that the new poor-law had been introduced. Coulli the Right Rev. Prelate for one moment entertain the idea of re-establish ing the Act 43d of Elizabeth ? The Right Rev. Prelate knew that it was impossible to do so. The present law he contended, was far more humane than the original law s , and the poor were better off under it. The law of Elizabeth was passed for different times to these in which he now lived, and it was idle to suppose that such a system could be applied now. The Bishop of EXETER took that opportunity of re plying to the arguments which had been used against his amendment. He said that he had brought that amendment forward solely on his own responsibility, and without reference to any party out of doors. It was truo, the law of Elizabeth was passed for other times, and so was Magna Charta; but we still held Magna Charta to be a good foundation for legislation, and he contended that the law of Elizabeth was a good founda tion for legislation on the subject of the maintenance of the poor. He concluded by giving notice that, early in the next session, he should move for a Committee to in quire into the means of spiritual instruction afforded in union workhouses.—The clause was then agreed to. Clause 2 was proposed. Lord WHARNCLIFFE explained its operation. The Bishop of EXETER objected to that part of the clause which provided that, in affiliating a child, there should be some corroborative evidence added to that of the mother. He thought that, the more modest the woman, the less chance was there of corroborative evi dence. He thought it was right to give the magistrate a discretion, but that was an additional reason why cor roborative evidence should not be demanded. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving the amendment. Lord WHARNCLIFFE must oppose the amendment. The Right Rev. Prelate alluded to cases of seduction by the men, but the fact was, the greater number of bas tards were not the fruit of seduction at all. In most cases the woman seduced the man. The Right Rev. Prelate talked of the indecency of an expose in a court of justice, but he did not apprehend that any such would be the case. There would be no indecency whatever in the corroborative evidence. The Marquis of BUTE differed entirely from the Right Rev. Prelate, and would oppose the amendment. He thought the clause went too far. The amendment was negatived without a division. The Bishop of EXETER thought some other mode of receiving the money should be devised than that of the woman's receiving the money from the putative father, which was exposing him to further sin or to further bru tality. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE agreed with the view taken by the Right Rev. Prelate, and would devise a remedy. The Bishop of EXETER said in case of appeal by the woman's father from the decision of the two justices, the woman in most cases would not be able to sustain the ex pense of the appeal at the quarter sessions. The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE said, there undoubt edly might be cases where the woman might not be able to sustain the expense of an appeal ; but it should be re collected that the man was bound in security not only to pay the allowance to the woman, but to pay the costs likewise if the appellant were un successful ; besides, many attorneys would be glad to take up her case for the purpose of pocketing the costs, and gaining a certain degree of notoriety for himself. The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. The fifth clause was likewise agreed to, as were the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, which are the bastardy clauses. Clauses up to 40 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 41 being proposed, The Bishop of EXETER suggested that the chaplain should be appointed by the Commissioners instead of the guardians. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the subject had been fully discussed in the House of Commons. He could not accede to the suggestion made by the Right Rev. Prelate.—The clause was agreed to. The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to morrow. The Merchant Seamen's Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow. The Irish Arms Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. The House adjourned at a Quarter before 1:- ive l ve t ill to-morrow at a Quarter to Four o'clock., in foal was dropped. Robert Shorter—l am an ostler at the Royal Hote Cheltenham, and am acquainted with Mr. Newman. I 1841 I had a half-bred colt at Walton. It died abou Christmas in that year. I remember the thorough-bred mare having a colt in 1841. He had a very neat head, rather small inclined, and cobby. The same mare had a second colt in 1842, and this one was much larger and lengthier, and when it was five months old was inclined to be as big as the other. A colt, very much like him, stopped at my house on the way to Jones's, to be trained, but I did not recognise him as the same colt. I observed that he had capped hocks, and looked at him particu larly, and I am sure the horse Bloodstone is the same. By Mr. PLATT—I cannot swear it is the same colt I saw in the paddock at Mr. Newman's. Re-examined—He was very much like him, but I cannot swear he was the same colt. Edmund Jones—l live at Rockley-house, near Marl borough, and have been a public-trainer of race-horses for many years. I saw Mr. J. Newman at Tewkesbury Races in 1843, and ho spoke to me about a colt he had at Walton, and I went to see him the next day and exa mined him. He was very plain-headed, and had large ears, but had length, and some racing qualities. I saw that he was inclined for curbs, and that his hocks were capped. lie had a small white diamond-shaped mark on his forehead, and one white heel behind. The same horse was brought to me to train, and he remained with me until he went to run at Ascot, but before this I heard Mr. Herbert had bought him, and on the 19th of May he was transferred to Mr. Herbert's account. I saw the colt run at Ascot in the name of Bloodstone for the New Stakes. A filly named Carissima met with an accident during the race, and was thrown out , b ut I do n ot think any of the field had a chance to beat Bloodstone, and he came in several lengths a-head. I did not examine the colt's mouth until after Ascot Races, but I do not pretend to be able to tell the age of a horse by examining his mouth; but he appeared like:all the other two-year-olds that were under my charge, and there was nothing to in duce me to believe that he was other than a two-years old. I saw the mare Romaike, and she was pointed out to me as the mare that had run against a mare of my own named Susannah. She ran for the Guy Stakes. The mare that run against mine was a large chesnut mare similar to the one I saw at Mr. Newman's, but I cannot swear it was the same mare. Cross-examined—Race-horses are generally handled when they are yearlings. Whether a race-horse should be gelded depended a good deal upon the character of the animal. There were some very good geldings. I have bought a good many horses, but I know nothing about their mouths. I don't know when horses lose their sucking teeth, but I can guess to five years. I know the difference between five and six years old. The persons who send horses to me are respectable men, and it is not my business to look at their teeth. When I first saw the colt, I told Mr. Newman that he was a horse of power, and he sent him to me on the 28th August, 1833. I looked in the horse's mouth after the race at Ascot, and, according to the best of my belief, it was not a three years old mouth. I could tell the age of a horse cer tainly better by his mouth than his tail.—(Laughter.) The colt is now in my keeping. Application was made to me to show the colt, and I refused to do so. Re-examined—The horse was examined on the day of the races, and the day after; he was also examined on the third. I told Mr. Day the horse should be at his disposal whenever he wanted to see him. William Lovesey—l live near Walton, and occasion ally went to Mr. Newman's, and remember seeing a chesnut mare there that was called Romaike in the spring of 1841. At that time she had a chesnut colt, with a remarkably pretty head, but it was too small for a race-horse. The same mare had a second colt in the following year. He had a large head, with a white spot on the forehead, and one white heel, and was much more like a racer than the other. Bloodstone is the second colt that I have referred to, Cross-examined --I am related to the Newmans. Richard Newman is my cousin. I had no bets on the race that Bloodstone won. I have kept race-horses, but I did not run a horse at Hungerford races which was afterwards disqualified after it had run. I have been in the army, and am now living on my property. I have bought several horses, and I generally looked in their mouths to ascertain their age. I know nothing of a horse's age until after ho is four or five years -old, and before that age I could not form any opinion. I do not know when a colt sheds his sucking teeth, but I should say that the permanent teeth present a very different appearance from the milk teeth. William Brunsdon—l am a farmer, and live at a place called Deerhurst, near Walton, and have been acquainted with the Newman family for several years, and frequently was at his place. I knew the blood mare Romaike, and remember her having a colt in 1841. The witness described the Beiram colt in the same terms as the former witness.) He also described the second colt represented tobe the horse Bloodstone, and said that he had that day seen the same colt at Guildford. Cross-examined — I don't know much about horses, but I can tell a horse from a handsaw.—(Laughter.) I have bought and sold horses, and I always look in the horse's mouth when I buy. I can tell a four-year old horse, but I know nothing of their mouths before that age. I have had several colts, but I never looked at their teeth. I know that they do shed their teeth, but I cannot tell at what periods. By the Jury—l don't know what became of the first colt, but I heard that it died from an operation. John White proved that he saw the blood mare and the two colts at Mr. Newman's, and he gave a similar description of them to that of the last witness, Cross-examined—Witness saw several colts at Wal ton, both in 1842 and 1843. The Newmans breed horses occasionally. Witness was positive that the white mark on the forehead of the first colt went down one side of the face, and I am positive it had oils White heel behind, and I believe it -had two, I think the second colt also had a star on its forehead. I was not at all interested in these colts, and had no reason for takitig partiettlar notice of them. I don't know ttletch about horses, but I can tell a horse from a mare.—(Laughter.) Re-examined.—l am sure the hilts„ 1 have seen at Guildford is not the first eolt that was with the mare. Watton, the driver of a fly, deposed that he saw a chesnut mare and a colt at Mr. Hicks's, and he remarked that the mare had a very long tail, Med thitt the colt had a white mark down the face, and two White heels. He saw a second foal with the Mare, in the opening of 1842, and he had seen the same Colt end Mate itt Guild ford. He was sure it was not the first colt t hat that was shown to hi m a t Oath:ford. Crosseexerained—Had been among horses all his life, but eooltl not tell the age of a colt b y its Mouth, Or what te e th:i t h a d w h en it was two years old. My mas eer has b ou ght som e hundreds of horse s, a nd I have looked into the mouths of a good many of them, butt ant no judg e . I k now n o thing about the age from looking, and only did so f ro m Curiosity.—(Laught er.) I cannot tell anything about the age of a horse by looking In its mouth. William Taylor.a farmer and coal - dea ler, tesidin g ht * Walton, gave Similar testimony to thtt former, witnesses relative to the two colts being at Newman's., ferth iii 1841 and 1842. Ile also said that the lid.* at Guildford was marked in the same Way as the second colt, but ht could not svvest positively that it was the same house s although, reccording to the best of his belief' It Was. Margaret Hopkins proved that she weht to work Mt: Newman's, and remenairertid sW.ng thte colt in 18p, end remarked th a t it had atty Pfle'LLY lithe head. She also saw tha second foal in 1842; and she gate a similar description of it to the Other witnesses; and ekpi•essed her opinion that leloodstone was the sanite John H aw ki ns std foal colt in l a B t 43 1 73 Cross-examined—l s sure she did not see the mar e first depose 4 isaeing the mare and th e colts e ant( a ls o s t a t e d t h at h e had frequently heard it remarked of th e fi rst co l t th a t he would make a good one to drink out o f a j ug, as h e h a d su ch a small nose. Ho expressed his opinion that the horse now in Guildford was second he lt that Mr. Newm an ' s. saw in 1842, with its dam, at William Taylor, a butcher in the neighbourhood of Walton, gave similar testimony. and e _ Patience ICitling was called to speak to the same facts, but she st a t e d that she saw nothing of the mare and tilt, co several times sae altered ani mals foa up in 1843. C l' h h r e i t w m i t a n s e . s s The was witness t i a d e e s n a tly w confused,as cross_ and she at length some gth ln e e xp g la th ine ;and shedthatshesa saw the m examined at the dates of the different transactions which she pro fescnel . to speak to, but she persisted in saying that tilt mare and the horse she had been shown at i:T'uildfoi; were the same Animals she had Seen in the paddock. J LLOYD'S ,HIPPING. I`TOTICI. TO MARINERS. SAFETY BEACON ON THE GOODWIN SANDS CARRIED AWAY. " Admiralty, August 6, 1844. " Sir, am commanded, by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to transmit to you herewith, for the information of the Committee for managing the affairs of Lloyd's, a copy of a letter from the clerk in charge of her Majesty's naval yard at Deal, reporting that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands, had run against and carrie4 away the safety beacon erected there some years since, by Captain Bullock. " I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, " SIDNEY HERBERT. " W. Dobson, Esq., Secretary, Lloyd's." (corn.) " Deal Yard, August 6, 1844. "Sir,—l have the honour to acquaint you, for the in formation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands early this morning ran against and carried away the safety beacofterected there somo years since by Captain Bullock. " From subseequent inspection it appears that the vessel struck the top of the beacon on the western side, and carried it away ; that the mast is gone just above the surface of the sand ; and that the whole is a perfect wreck, held by the rigging and chain plates. "I have cleared and brought on shore to-day as much as the state of the tide would allow of, and I shall avail myself of the first opportunity to secure the rest. "I have the honour to be, &c., (Signed) " CHARLES WOOTTON, " Clerk in Ch'arge. 0 The litel S. ilerbert, 151.1)., &c. &c., Admiralty." ' THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNItSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1844, Mr. Joseph Pratt, a coach proprietor, driving upon the road, pasts Mr. Newman's paddock, also spoke to seeing the mare and the two foals, but he could not identify the horse at Guildford, known as Bloodstone, as one of those colts. Mr. Davis deposed that he had seen the mare and the colts, and he expressed his opinion that Bloodstone was the colt brought to Mr. Newman's in 1842. Cross-examined—Witness has bought several mares, and, of course, he always looks in their mouths for fear he should buy an old one for a young one,--(Laughter.) Does not know the appearance of the mouth of a three year old, because be does not buy them. Thinks he could tell when a horse was under three years old ; but over three, he would have a full mouth. By the COURT—A horse has not So many teeth when he is under three years old, as when he is over that age. Cross-examination continued—He did not touch the horse that was shown him at Guildford. Did not look in his mouth, but it was not because Mr. Newman told him not to do so. Mr. W. Coleman—l am a veterinary surgeon, and have been in business for twenty years. I carry on busi ness at Cheam, in Surrey. In my judgment the appear ance of the mouth of a two or three-year old is not an infallible rule to ascertain the age, but I think you can generally tell the age. It is sufficient to decide between an early two year-old and a late three year-old colt. If an early two year-old colt was taken care of, and fed with cow's milk and corn, as well as being suckled by its dam, it would make a considerable difference in its growth and general appearance. There was an appearance of lace ration in the gums where the tushes would be expected. The training, or the manner in which a horse was bitted, would make a great difference in the appearance of the colt's mouth, and keeping the bit in the mouth would be likely to remove the temporary teeth much earlier. In my opinion the horse now in Guildford is thirty months' old, and if I had been called upon to examine him pro fessionally, I should have given a certificate to that effect. Cross-examined—l was at the last Epsom races when Running Rein won the Derby. I don't know whether I gelded a colt by 'Saddler out of Mab, but possibly I might. I am not aware that Running Rein was des cribed as a colt by Saddler out of Mab. It was so des cribed, but I know nothing about it ' • but I know that the horse that did run was an entire horse. I did not give any information to the stewards, because I knew nothing of the matter. I castrated a bay colt for Mr. Goodman, or Mr. Levi Goodman. Mr. PLATT—Or Mr. Goodman Levi, for I believe he goes by all these names. Witness—He may, for what I know. Cross-examination continued—l don't think I knew of a horse named Gladiator, but I may have seen him at Epsom. If I had to give a certificate of the age of Bloodstone, I should say he was thirty months old. Re-examined—l had nothing to do with the races at Epsom, or with the pedigree of the horse described as by the Saddler out of Mab. Mr. Brown, veterinary surgeon at Warwick, confirmed the evidence given by the last witness relative to the effect the biaing a young horse would be likely to have upon the teeth. Ho said that he examined the horse Bloodstone at Rockley, and he considered he was a two year old, and according to racing rule he would be con sidered a two-year old in January last. I have exa mined the mouth of Old England, the second horse ; and, although his teeth are not so forward as those of Bloodstone, I have no doubt they were both two-year olds. Old England is certainly a two-year old. Cross-examined—l don't think there is any certain rule to tell the age of such young horses. If a horse is entered to run as a two-year old, I consider he is a two year old—especially if he belongs to a respectable person. That is not the reason why I say that Bloodstone is a two-year old. Bloodstone has got four permanent teeth, but I do not think that is a proof that he is a three-year old horse. Mr. Bradshaw deposed that he was a veterinary sur geon, and carried on business at Stratford-upon-Avon. He saw Bloodstone run the race at Ascot, and he examined him on the 21st or 22d June. He did not consider the mouth of a horse a certain criterion of his age, but in his opinion this horse was a two-year old. The mouth of a race-horse developer itself much sooner than that of another horse, on account of the mode of feeding and sweating them. He had examined Blood stone and Old England at Guildford, and was satisfied they were both two years old, but Bloodstone was six weeks forwarder than Old England. Cross-examined—Bloodstone has not got any of his racing age is calculated from the Januar y preceding, .!0 molar teeth. If a horse is fo aled in A p ril or il fa y his that he should consider Bloodstone to be now two years old and a little more, and he would be considered a two year old until January, 1845. Baron PARKE—The issue is whether he was foaled in 1842. Any part of the year will do. Mr. PLATT—Exactly so, my Lord. Mr. W. W. Bryan, another veterinary surgeon, de. posed that he examined Bloodstone yesterday at Guild ford, and, according to the best of his judgment, he was two years old. He did riot consider the appearance of the mouth a certain proof of the age of a horse, and witness had been mistaken on some occasions with regard to the ages of horses he had examined. Cross-examined—He was of opinion that a horse being well fed would cause his teeth to grow faster. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. PLATT then rose to address the jury, and he observed that, having at length got to the end of the plaintiff's case, it was his duty to lay before them the evidence upon which the defendant relied, to satisfy them that the real facts of the case were very different to those that had been alleged on behalf of the plaintiff. The jury, no doubt, perfectly understood that the ques tion at issue was whether the horse now called Bloodstone was foaled in 1842, and that his dam was Romaike, and his sire Bubastes, and, although many of the plaintiff's witnesses had boldly sworn that he was, the same animal, he had no doubt that he should be able to give them conclusive evidence that in truth he was not so. It would be the duty. of the jury to look at all the cir cumstances of the ease and see on which side the truth really was. He submitted that the plaintiff's evidence was very unconclusive, and he said it was very extra ordinary that veterinary surgeons should have been pro duced from distant parts of the country, when a hundred skilful men, who could have no interest in the matter, might have been found in London, or in this imme diate neighbourhood, who could have proved the horse to be a two year old horse if he really were so. He would now state the history of the transaction. In 1840, the mare Romaike was put to Lord Exeter's Beiram, and in due time produced a foal, and while this foal was at her foot she was sent to Mr. Hicks's to be put to Bubastes, and it would then appear that the fraudulent proceedings commenced, for the next year the same mare, which was a thorough-bred fine mare, was sent in a false name to a gentleman named Gib son, being represented as a half-bred mare, to be put to a horse called Liverpool, and while in the possession of that gentleman, she was delivered of the real Bubastes colt. The jury had seen the conduct of Richard Newman with regard to those letters that had been produced re ferring to this transaction, and he put it to them whe ther they could doubt that he was not perfectly aware that some improper transaction was going on. (Mr. Platt then read an extract from a letter written by Richard Newman in the name of Crook, in which he stated that the mare was in foal by Bubastes, and that, as she was only half-bred, and his object was merely to breed a steeple-chaser or hunter, he should not give more than 101. for putting her to the horse Liverpool) In March, 1842, the mare Romaike was sent to Mr. Gibson's as a half-bred mare, and at this time she had the mange. and was in very bad condition; and it would be important for the jury to remember the evidence given by John Newman that he had had the mange in his stable, which was a catching disorder, in confirmation of the assertion that this was the same mare, although all the witnesses had positively sworn that she never was at Mr. Gibson's. On the 17th of April, 1842, the mare dropped the real Bubastes colt, which was a weakly, small, miserable animal, and to this one no doubt the story told by the wit nesses about the castration affair referred. He should prove those facts beyond the possibility of doubt, and he should also show that Richard Newman applied to Mr. Hicks to give him a receipt as for a mare covered in 1841, when the occurrence really took place in 1840, which evidently showed that he intended to make some animal a year younger than it really Yeas. Mr. Hicks was aware that such a false receipt could only be re quired fat some dishonest purpose, and he therefore re fused to give it. The Beiram colt *as at that time a year old, and if he had succeeded in getting the falsely dated receipt it would have been evidence to show that he was two-years-old instead of three at the period of the races. The whole of the proceedings were very suspicious, and there was strong reason to helleve that Bloodstone was in reality the Beiram three-year old colt. It was not, howeitr, for the defendant to prove that fact, and it was enough forhim to show that Bloodstone was not the Bubastes colt foaled in 1842. The principal witnesses for the plaintiff were all deeply interested in the matter —the horse had been entered for ±tek.le amount ing to between twelve and thirteen thousand pounds, and thep b eaui•se, felt i q strong desire to make out their case, and this Would firobahlY ti.-a'eunnt for the mariner in which they, had given their evidence; and the cOlidtict Tr!tfe*roan .frith ref ard to the letter, which it was quite clear had been written by libth 'the horse having been entered for certain races his name *otild be pladed in the hating Calendar, and it became necessary that some caution should be used with r e g ard tO lei t+' at Ascot, Mr. Newman fe lt that if he won he itfid; ste*Rirdingtri in his first race for the New vt fluid Stake .tit attentiott and inq uir y , and he therefore gave Bell, his jockey, ilitttnetiene to lose the race, in order; no doubt; that he tnig,bt be regularly entered as a n be o i a n c qu kn ir o y vv. trod be,r old told hfiiitig been beaten it was thought but he wouldi j o s' l SC% horse in 4 1. would be as m a ad t e wo ab 3 o . u e t a r Imitiediately after,tlie retie eminent veterinary surge,7-'s were called in, and they it once pfoilotinted thts eolt to be ii three vdar Old, horse, and they Would itaiti to , 40 evasion or doubt, but positively and certainly, as they did at first, The Learned Counsel then went on to state other facts, which will be detailed in the evidence, and con c l u d e d by expressing himself confident that the jury would award the stakes to the defendant, who was the proprietor of Old England, the second horse, and that they would be satisfied Blood stone was not the horse he was represented to be. The following witnesses were then examined. Mr. Henry Hicks, examined by Mr. SHEE—I live at Atherley, near Cheltenham. In the spring of 1841 I had a stallion called Bubastes, which I had hired. In 1841 two mares were sent to Bubastes. One of them was Romaike, and she was covered by Bubastes. Romaike was a chesnut mare ; the other was a brown mare. Ro maike came to me in the name of Mr. John Newman. She had a colt at her foot, which Mr. Newman said was by Beiram. Just before Warwick Races, John N;:aarnan came to me, and requested me to ask Mr. Gibson what he would charge for half-bred mares to be put to Liverpool, a stallion then in the pos session of Mr. Gibson. I asked Mr. Gibson, accordingly, and he told me he would take ten guineas, of which I Mr. Baron PARKE—I have seen, gentlemen, that yots. informed Newman. Soon after this John Newman called wore of that opinion long ago, and I think you could upon me, and told me had received a letter from Mr. come to no other conclusion. Gibson, informing him that his mare Romaike had not Mr. Sergeant CIIA.NNELL then said that after the foaled, and he wished me to tell him when the mare was opinion expressed by his Lordship, and what had fallen covered, and I gave him the date, the 4th of May. I saw from the jury, he should not feel himself justified in John Newman afterwards, and he told me the mare had proceeding any further with the caret; but he claimed foaled, and that she had a very good colt foal. In the the privilege of making a few observions in justitica autumn of 1843 John Newman applied to me for a re- Lion of the plaintiff. He should have made some re ceipt, for his two mares in 1942. I told him I had had no marks with reference to the identity of the animal sent no mares of his in 1842, and I should not give him any to Mr. Gibson's with the mare Romaike, because he must such receipt as he required. I was at Ascot races, awl confess he was not quite so well satisfied with that Mr. Herbert told me it was his horse that had run, and evidence as the jury appeared to be, and if that Were that he had bought it of Mr. Newman, and I understood tity was not proved, the defendant's case had completely that ha had given 3001. for him, and was to give 5001. failed. After the strong opinion expressed by the jury, more if he won the Derby. After the dispute about the however, he would refrain from making any observations horse's age, Mr. Herbert told me that he should send the upon the evidence that had been adduced ; and be horse to Tattersall's, and sell it for what it would fetch, would only observe, in justification of the conduct of Mr. ' and bring an action against Newman for deceiving laim Herbert, that there and hones was nothing whatever toorse, show t hhallat as to the age of the horse. he had not fairlyhonestly bou hit Cross-examined—The charge for the two mares was his engagements, believing him to be a two years old, 71. My charge was Si. 17s. altogether. I have betted ,end that there was no imputation whatever upon Mr. 5001. to 501. upon the result of this action. I made the liebert's character, and he was sure that he never would bet for Mr. Gully in favour of Old England. I believe have .been a party to tee present proceeding if he had Old England is his horse, and, of course, he is interested no t belie ved that those who had given him the inforuiee 'in it. I paid down the money for Mr. Gully, and I have tion upon l ehich he relied were persons of integrity. jury said they were of opinion that no interest whatever in the bet. I should be a winner Ttie forema: of the myself, if Bloodstone were to have the stake's. Mr. Herbert mig,ht have been deceived. By the Com—Bubastes never covere d a mare for Mr. PLATT—W knew e believe thatnohing of the fraud alleged to be the case. It i Crook. very probable that he . John House—l am a labo urer in the employ of the against the other parties. last witness, and recollect a chesnut mare ceming to be Mr. Baron PARKE expre,.sed his opinion that the jury covered by Bubastes in 1841. She had a foal with her could come to no other concha:ion than the one they had —a very good sort of foal, likely to make a good determined upon. The history of the case probably was horse. I remember being at Ascot races, and hearioar that it was the small miserable cob: which died, and the Harmer say, " Here's a devil of a job—the Bubastes colt I other was put in its place. has come in and beat them all ; but they have The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. proved him to be a three year old." I said I hoped not, and that John Newman would have the stakes. Upon which Harmer replied, " It is the Beiram colt which was with her when she went to be covered by Bubastes;" and he added, " that it was no more Bubastes' colt than it was old. Defence's." Defence is a horse that was staying at Mr. Hicks's. Harmer then said that John Newman owed him for two mares, and that if he did not pay him he would toss him over the bridge. I after wards saw John Newman and Harmer talking together at one place, and a boy was sent to listen to what they said, but they moved away to another part of the yard. Cross-examined—l am sure Romaike was the mare that was sent to Bubastes in 1841. I wished John New man might win the race, but it does not matter to me who wins. I was not aware until after the race that Mr. Gully was at all interested in Old England. Robert Pincher—l am in the service of Mr. Hicks. I remember Harmer saying to me, " There's a pretty job, Bubastes foal has won the race." I said, "Is it Bubas tes' foal ?" He replied, "Itis no more Bubastes' colt than it is old Defence's, and if he don't pay me I'll fling him over the bridge." Mr. De Witt—l reside at Stockbridge, am an attor ney's clerk, and I was instructed to take the evidence of Harmer and reduced it to writing. He told me he was present in April, 1841, when Romaike dropped a foal to Beiram. It was a chesnut colt with a star on the forehead, and a near white leg behind. Some time in 1842, he said he saw Romaike in Newman's paddock with Bubastes' foal, and he did not observe any white about him. He also told me that he did say after the race at Ascot that Bloodstone was a three-year- old, and that he might have said that he should not have said anything about it if John Newman had paid him his fee. Cross-examined —The witness Harmer made the statement of his own accord, and I took it down in writ ing. I was introduced to Mr. Gully on last Monday morning. Mr. W. Walker—l know Mr. Hicks, and called at his house in April 1841, and stayed there all the night, and during the night I was disturbed by a noise, and in con sequence of a communication'made to one I called at Mr. Newman's, at Walton, and there I saw a mare which I have since seen at Guildford, and Which I knew to be Romaike. The mare at that time had just foaled, and the mother was very savage to it. I am sure this foal was a ehesnut ; and I am pretty sure that it had a white star on the forehead, and one white heel behind. I have seen the horse Bloodstone, and, to the best of my belief, he is the Beiram colt, but I will not swear positively to it. I saw the colt after wards at Mr. Newman's. Cross-examined —I have been in the hop and seed trade, and also a farmer. I was a bankrupt, and also took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. I was in Worcester gaol before I took the benefit, and I made an attempt to escape from the officer who was taking me to gaol. I sk id one cow to Mr. Hicks shortly before I went to gaol. Ree ,.xamined—l was unfortunate in a hop speculation eighteen y ,- . 4ers ago, and it occasioned me to become bank rupt. I have 1;,?t the slightest interest in the result of this cause. -' .41 I lived close to the Messrs. Joseph Walker—ln 1 e ecollect the chesnut mare Newman, at Walton. I 40, and I was informed c oming to Walton in foal in he foaled in April, Beir am. that she was in foal by B eira. y,.. - ^arlin. After 1841, and I saw the colt w h en it was a would not the mare foaled she wa s ver y vicious, ant:g take to her foal at first. I observed that the .2al,_ nee' had, a star on his forehead , an d that he had or.e white _ behind. I have seen Bloodstone, and I believe he is the' Beiram colt. He is the same colour and has the same marks about him, but I cannot swear he is the same. I know the witness Crook. He told me he had been offered 1001. by an agent wrapped up, in paper, to tell some stories about cutting the Beiram colt, and he said that he bad spurned the offer. Cross-examined —I have twice taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act , . Mr. Gibson—l reside at Castle Bromwich. A chesnut mare was sent to my place in 1842. It is my habit to record the time when every mare is brought in a book (produced). The mare in question came on the 31st of March, 1842. Before the mare was brought, I had received some letters from a Mr. Crook, who represented the mare to be his. (These were the letters represented to be written by Richard Newman.) The mare was to be put to Liverpool, a horse that was then in my possession. (The letters were read. In one of them the mare was described as a half-bred one that had never run.) Examination continued—When the mare came, she was in foal, and very poor. She had been dressed for the riff and mange before she was brought to my house. It is a catching disorder. When I saw the mare I was satisfied :he was nearly throrough-bred. Crook repre sented himself to be the owner of the mare. The mare e 17th April. It was a very small dropped a foal on / . 1t shoulders, and short in the s h a bby foal, with uprii4l !'ite hair about him, except, qua rters, and had not a No. ,:head. I never saw the perhaps, a small spot on the forte made any inquiries man Crook in my life, and he never . to my place, I about the mare. John Newman came . believe, after the mare had foaled, and he w all the foaling mares that we had, and also the horse LivjP °°l. lam certain that I showed him this mare. She vs:" taken away, with her foal, on the Bth August, 1i42. Since I have been in Guildford, I have seen Ro maicke, and lam sure she is the same mare which was sent to me trom Mr. Crook. I have also seen Blood stone, and he is certainly not the foal that was dropped in April, 1842. The circumstance of the mare being sent to me as a half-bred mare excited my suspicion, and I showed her to certain gentlemen, and we were all satisfied that she was thorough bred. Cross-examined —The mare in question was in a very bad and diseased state when she was brought to me. Re-examined—l am quite certain that the mare I have seen in this town is the same mare. I have no doubt of it. Mr. G. Gibson—l am the son of the last witness, and I recollect perfectly well the mare being sent to us, in the name of Crook, on the 31st of March. I made an entry in the book kept for that purpose, and described the mare as half-bred. The witness then read from the book the remark that the mare foaled a chesnut foal, without any white, on the 17th of April. I have seen the mare Romaike, and the horse Bloodstone. Romaike is the mare that was at our place, but Bloodstone is cer tainly not the colt that she dropped in 1842. I never saw anything of Crook. George Swan—l am groom to Mr. R. Gibson, and remember the chesnut mare being brought to his place. She had a foal while she was there. It was a very small colt—a chesnut, and had no white about it. I have seen Bloodstone. He is not the horse foaled in 1842. Romaike is the mare. She had the mange very bad when she just come, but was getting better when she went away. Mr. John Fowler—The mare was shown to me by Mr. Gibson, and I recognised her as a mare that had run at Warwick races for the Guy stakes, and I knew her to be Romaike, and to be a thorough bred mare. I saw the same mare several times at Mr. Gibson's, and I saw the colt, she dropped there. It was a chesnut colt, and I don't think it had any white about it. I have seen the mare in Guildford, and am sure she is the same. The horse Bloodstone is not the colt that was dropped at the time in question, April 1842. I Mr, T. L. Evans—l saw a chesnut mare at Mr. Hicks's in the spring of 1841, and I have no doubt that I afterwards saw the same mare at Mr. Gibson's. The Same mare is now in Guildford. I-fenry Bell—l rode Bloodstone at Ascot. Before the race I saw Air. J . , Newman, and he told me to ride him a quarter of a mile, and then pull him up, for he would not have him win on any account. I told this before the race to Captain Rous and Colonel Wyndham's training groom, and consulted them what to do, and they told me to win.—(A laugh.) I did win. —(Renewed laughter.) I had no difficulty to win. I won in a canter. Cross-examined —I believe the horse fell lame on the day before.' I was riding him a gallop at the time. A mare named Carissima ran with me, but I don't know whether she hurt herself. Mr. PLATT—Did she gallop with you the day before? Witness—Yes. Mr. PLATT—Did she beat you in your gallop the day before ? Witness—Yes, by sufferance.—(Laughter.) Yr. PLATT—Were many persons present when she Witness—Not many. beat . I suppose to take the news home ? PloATT—u l.oi di "tfaQb'foit e =-f was ono races, and was present when Biome land. A complaint was made that Bloom._ than two years old, and the stewards sent for e... the veterinary surgeon, from London, and another K. tleman, nettled. Parry, from Reading. When Mr. Field examined the horse, be immediately pronounced him to be three years old, and gave a certificate to that (fleet. Mr. Parry gave a similar certificate. . Mr. John Field—l am veterinary surgeon, and have been in practice twenty-five years. I examined Blood stone at Ascot. He was a three year-old horse. I have no doubt of that fact. I have seen the horse since, and there is nothing to alter my opinion. The jury here intimated that they were quite satisfied. Mr. Sergeant CHANNTLL intimated his desire to reply. Mr. PLATT—We hay.e plenty more evidence. Another veterinary surgeon was then examined, and he likewise expressed a 1 iositivo opinion that Bloodstone was a three year-old hon.*. The jury again said they were perfectly ag reed open thadieg fer the defendant., POLICE INTELLIGLTICE. (YESTERDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. An Irish gallant, named Michael 0' Grady, was brought before Aldermen Sir John Key and Farebrother, (-target with having refused to contribute towards the supp qrt his wife, who became chargeable to the parish of Aid' gate. It was understood that the defendant intended to plead that he had never been married to the complaina vitt who happened to be considerably the older of the two. The complainant produced an old, disfigured piece paper as her marriage certificate, which appeart d to be' of the date of May, 1827, and showed that the ceremony had taken place in Killarney, in the district of the parish of Aglos, and been performed by the Rev. Doctor M`Naughton, a Roman Catholic clergyman. She said the marriage was legal according to the Roman Catholic creed, the religion they both professed ; and she de clared that her husband had for a series of years treated her with the most heartless neglect and cruelty. She had, however, until lately, never required any assistance from him ; but finding that her strength was failing her, and that her husband was able to support a youthful substitute for her, she thought it but fair that he sho uld save the parish the expense that otherwise must necessa rily fall upon the authorities. Sir JOHN KEY—Do you mean that he has married another woman ? Complainant—She lives with him at any rate, your Lordship. He gave me regular notice' that he intended to leave me. He said, after looking hat in the face for some time o ne day, your Lordship, that I was too old and too ugly for him, and that he must have a handsome young woman, and no other would do for him. Sir JoHN KEY—How long is it since you parted ? Complainant--About eight years, but we often parted befOre that ; we have been always parting.—(A Sir JOHN KEY—When did you last receive assistanc e from Aldgate parish ? Complainant—This day I Was obliged to apply, while he dresses out his lady ur silks and satins. Sir JoHN KEY—Well, defendant, why do )' Oll refuse to relieve this poor woman, who hss a legal claim to all you can do for her Defendant—Please your Lordship, I was never mar ried to her. To be sure, we have lived together, and better, more affectionate, or kinder-hearted husband never breathed the breath of life.—(Laughter.) Alderman FAREBROTHER—And to convince her 0 1 the warmth of your attachment, you turn her off and take another woman into her place ? Defeizdant—Y° er Worship, I really thought she was dead or wansportec• There was no use in my acting kind l y , f or awa y she would tramp from me whene ver she took it into bet head. She has been the death of me fifty times Ili 1 00 ,t; Complainant—Oh', goodness! why, .your LordshiPl:, knocked me up stairs and d own stairs till I was (3.10 y insensible. Defendant —I can call witnesses to my tenderne.s 9 ' your Worship. I was the sweetest tempered man ' (Laughter.) A professional gentleman, who attended for O'Grady' said his client had never been legally married. 11 , # °. begged to be informed by the complainant wh at was tp" name of the chapel in which she had been j o ined in 0 311 trimony to Mr. O'Grady ? — The complainant said th, they were married in a house, and that it was as g oo' ceremony as ever was performed by a priest. Mr. Goodman (the Chief Clerk)—And you are bol l ' Catholics ? Complainant—Certainly we are. Mr. Goodman—Then your testimony is quite suffiej 6 to to the validity of the marriage. koen T h : defendant's solicitor—He was only severte ge when he formed this connection. years et . 1 —And I was so comfortable, sr ' Defenctin: der, to her, your Lordship. and em' t donate, and Mg, r up and down stairs. Alderman FARIZIMOTHER—And by way of Abwing" all this you kicked Defendant—l never tOched her in my life, I'll be 011 my oath.—(Laughter.) Sir JOHN KEY — Well , you will prove the sincerity.! f s your affection by taking her ho,.ue, and sending 1 41 ' Sniffum about her business. Defendant—And if Ido why she must go to ,thne, parish. It's qvite impossible for me to support eip both upon my small means, and Sniffum is of some 01_, me; but Mrs. O'Grady u s e d to take deli g ht in folloral me from situation to situation, and then abscond• yes have not been in her cotivany this eight years till ) 1 ° and I hope this is our very last meeting. For a length of time the defendant resisted the Ai t he cation to allow his wife a farthing, declaring that 1 , should be obliged, if the authorit ies p ersisted in conWe/,r ing him to support her, to go u p on his travels to of of countries. At length, however, upon the assurance,,,, the Alderman that his travels should be bounded hy,tPto walls of a prison, of small dim,?nsions, he entered 1 . 13 1 , las ' sureties to make the allowance den:anded by the patd JOHN KEY said he had received a letter from 'Zoo Strangford, stating that his Lordship, haying obserire_,l; the daily papers, an account of the impoitions Pr 4 tised by a person calling herself " Ellen C.lloughri # and " Margaret Cope," and having recesiYe'4o letter signed " Ellen Willoughby," inclosing a (no do ' re . forged certificate, similar to these described in th e 0 e I) ,:rt ; he had thought it advisable to transm it the s he Mansion-house. His Lordship added that .id w had sent Hythe, the place in which the writer Po, and to which she was desirous t° g o t , she was kn ll, at no such person was known ther.F .o o and ascertained he had also received a letter 11 0 all. h e r men :ioning that a letter had 0 7 rec i another nobleman, sent to his wife: (no doubt nc on the authority of the club-house St. Jag°l, o .4 book), directed to Brookes' C. street and subscribed " Fleming, to the same e f e• , those, , copies of which had appeared in a former Cute sion ; that 11. had been sent to the writer b e firre th e or port had been seen, and that the object in troub .lll3 g , 0 01. John Key was, that the Dublin police might encfeinsissi to get hold of , the parties implicated in the Inge' eV fraud which, if it had not been for the press, would questionably have very extensively succeeded. Sir JoHN KEY stated that he had received a sovere for the relief of John Thompso n Irvine, the unfortoo_lllo merchant who lost all his property at Hamburgh,l`os has been endeavouring for many years to suppa i s e• children, whose mother has bee n s ome time, in o 0; s quence of the pressure of adverse eircumstanceS , lunatic asylum. The note inclosing the money signed J. 5.," and requested that the Alderman °obi acknowledge it in the Times. He likewise stated bet/ he had received for the same poor man the 84:0°°Acibi° of the five-pound note which had been transinie a- f 0 36 benevolent person who had seen the statemenC P distressing case in the newspapers. CLERK.EIV WELL. Mr. George Williams , a middle ag ed man, proPAerY, of a hair-dressing establishment in Warner-street, tior enwell, was charged with violating the person of fo r beth Duckworth, aged 15. The case was remande further evidence. d r the Benjamin Beadle, a cab• driver was charge d un-c following aggravated circumstances: Ja n On the 7th of June an unfortunate girl, nem.- h tie Hughes, was sitting in the Guy Earl of Warwick 1 111 0 .0 1 house between five and six o'clock in the morning, , ,,ser, the prisoner entered, and, after using language °f bee s' l rough and offensive character towards her, asking 000 drink some gin and milk. She refused, w hereu) ° O 4lO prisoner, without receiving further provocation , flu ,c(ta glass at her and broke it to atoms on her forehead' tl unfortunate woman was dreadfully mangled h c f tie; splinters of the glass. She became insensible, 011,104 profusely from the wounds. W hen she fell, he t '' o ,o t pint pot at her head, which fortu natel y did not,. 01115 feet. When the police were conveying hi m to tell o e h oof Bagnigge-wells station, he suddenly threw hinise:;ooo back and kicked Nott, police co nstable 99 G, s° tfee on a delicate part part of his person, that the ooc most fainted from pain, and was for some days ifent, duty. lie was sentenced to a month's BIRTHS. tr• On the 2d' inst. at Homerton Cottage HotnerW , Mrs. William Frith, of a daughter. gotl' • oil' ti ri On the 2d inst., at Clanton, Mrs. Walter Venning%. Oe On the 3d inst., in Portland-place, the lady o' e fit' Tritton, Esq., of a son. bre. , On the 3d inst., in Berkeley-square, Mrs. ilut il P o f John Mildmay, of a daughter. he 05 0 1 On the 26th ult., at Frankfort-on-the -Maine, t - - ,„, 3 t Robert Koch, Esq., her Britanni c Majesty's Vice -v — a daughter. ar A 1 4011 , ae Lady On the Ist inst., in New - street , S p ring-g ... 0 Hoare, of a son.• DIED. he d Ber. jol° On the 31st ult., at Richmon d -hill, Bath, t 0 0, Parsons, of the Island of Barb adoes, Vicar of Blit .. r . , if e e 0 . f f r• .... the 31st ult., at Avranc hes. Mary Frances, ''' 14 , On . vsq., of the Bombay Civil Service. ~,, oibb e Gardiner, • -Rt., at Claph am -commo n, WILLA ° t i l e On',eshire aged 85. .afrriett, Esq., of Hare-hill, t.,— -.4; Acton, MiddleseS, 1 -m — ,of Oa the 4th inst., at /44... A Pe ° wife of Mr. R. L. Evans. T•ionea, eldest —a On the 3d inst., at Hampstead, .i..- William Parton, Esq. . 0 00 r i nn the tthh ee 3 2 4 d d t h i i e n i s an t . : : t 11 ' .a, I tiu r N • rJsoor v s s e p o oa I i s IdW,,, wife i i i t fi s e e s' aged B r ooks' itta 1,4 , 8.03, y.escl.' ofSt.John'A-1.....................e n t's-pi:: _ iis o l o i , pi cosp o I v lo. I al London : Printed and Pu blishe dTrus s (3cetkoti No. 112, Strand, Printer, at tSlitrctro,4 it iythecuPereervcotitovfswithet 75a:11740.Y. in t 339 of the stewards of Ascot 'tone beat Old Eng *one was more 'rr. Field, -an j 3 4 ill., 14 4 Thf Thc A , 'Hat, If 4