The Sun. — London, England, 1839-08-15 00:00:00

EVENING i4iDIT lON. the unrestrained power of issuing paper money on the i Mr. O'CONNELL explained. In alluding to the part of all Banks, assumed on all occasions that they I Post-office Returns he had designedly omitted any no were the advocates of free trade and the enemies of tice of Dublin, and had confined himself to those towns monopoly, and that an unrestrained power of issue was within the blighting influenc e of the monopoly. He for the benefit of the people. There could not be a did not appear there as the representative of the Na more gratuitous or unfounded assumption. It was tional Bank — wh en they appeared before that House e ssential that the public should feel that their interests or the Cha ncellor of the E e xchequer, th were as corn y were not identical with those of the issues of paper martial individuals ; but he thought it unfair th t the money, and that in many instances their interests were Right Hon. Gentleman should attempt to tarnish the diametrically opposed. This was not a question of character of any Bank. He had tarnished that of every free trade, it was a question of giving permanently to bank in Ireland, especially the National Bank, which unauthorised individuals that power which was an im- he said, but for assistance from the Bank of perial function.—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty of the Ireland must have been received. Such a statement was Government to secure such a medium of exchange as not founded in fact —during that crisis that Bank paid should be free from abuse—(Hear, hear) —and that upwards of 400,000 h in gold, and was assisted with only was a power which no individual or association ought 42,0001. to possess.—(Hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) If he were TheC HANCELL OR of the EX C HEQUE Rhad taken advocating an indefinite ex tension of the charter then very particular care to speak as generally as possible. He he could und ers t an d th a t cheer, but he was doing no- had said that but for the assistance then given by th e B a nk thing of the kind. What was the effect of an over issue ? of Ireland, every Joint Stock Bank must have be en ru ined. He had good means of knowing that such was the fact, —it produced great excitement and a rise of prices, but he had mentioned no sums, e c t the general amount which from their uncertainty were a source of inconve- of 270,0001. which was the amount ountof the whole advances. nience to the comparatively affluent, but which were ab - He would indeed be sorry, if anything which fell from aolute ruin to the poorer class, because it was well-known him, especially holding the situation be did, should tar. that a rise in the necessaries of life was never followed rush or injure any establishment or individual. by a corresponding rise in wages, and when the re-action Mr. O'CONNELL had certainly misunderstood the came it paralyzed the commerce and manufactures of the Right Honourable Gentleman, and was satisfied with the country ; for these reasons he should vete for going explanation. into Committee, and he hoped the House would agree Mr. REDINGTON opposed the Bill;and would sup to the Bill. port the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, Mr. SHAW, who, in conseque nce of the confusion in He was sorry the Government had not enabled the Chan. the House, was very imperfectly heard, was in favour of cellor of the Exchequer to introduce the measure at an going into the Committee. He would take that oppor- earlier period. The Right Hon. Gentleman in endeavour tanity of alluding to a petition presented by the Hon. ing to carry this measure was seeking to continua a system and Learned Gentleman from certain parties complain- the principle of which he himself had acknowledge to be most objectionable. He was decidedly opposed to t h e ing that the Bank of Ir eland had refused to reimburse continuance of a monopoly that would not, in any way, be them for certain notes w hich had been stolen and de- serviceable to Ireland ; and he thought stroyed. The amount of no tes stolen was 500/., p rin. the Bank of Ireland ought at once to be abolished rather cipally in small notes, which it was difficult to than to continue it until, as it was said , the whole trace, The Bank of Ireland h a d, howev er , paid 2801. monetary s ystem of the country would be taken to these parties at one perio d, and 501. at another , and into full consideration. He did not deny that assistance had afforded every facility in their power ; but, after all, had been rendered to many banks in Ireland in 1836, but this was no public ground for petitioning against the then he believed a great part of the means by which that renewal of the charter. No private bank would assistance was rendered came from England. This was have reimbursed them. He agreed with the not a question that for the interests of Ireland ought to be Honourable Member for Carlow, in blaming the settled according to the views which had been expressed Government for bringing forward this measure that evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There might be very good reasons for continuing the monopoly so late in the Session ; but it was hardly fair of him to to the Bank of England, but those reasons did not exist fe reflect on the circumstance of there only being 55 Mem-continuingie a cordial vote v it tothe Banktain favour of Ireland. of h te Ha amendment hers to support the measure, omitting to state that therefore, erefore there were only 17 to oppose it : 58 was not a large of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. e Fnumber certainly, but it was much larger than 17. He Mr. J. ELLIS would also oppose any further proceed- thought at the moment the Hon. Gentleman made that ing with the Bill. The actual details and provisions of observation that the lights above were rather more the Bill had not been known until ten days ago, and eon power-full than the lights below.—(Hear, and a laugh.) sequently there had not been an opportunity of ascertaining (This observation was in allusion to the circumstance the sentiments of the people of Ireland with respect to the B of the illuminating powers of the Bode light being tried Bill. He believed several meetings were about being held at the time Mr. Gisborne was speaking.) on the subject, and at all events the Bill ought to be post - Mr. HUME thought this question should not be p T o h n e ed ßa u a n k til et lhe he r l e a su nd lt of those meeting ex s c wa s ! knowe. disposed of by paltry details of this kind. The argu - leges, and he believed peposselsesedwemreostafraidluoifv eeeptni coming - ment of the.-lon. Member for Carlow was a good one, forward and stating their ep honest opinions for fear inasmuch as it went to show that a question of this im- they would be harshly dealt with by the Bank. He port-ance was discussed in a House of only 72 Members. (Mr. Ellis) knew that a bill had been presented at What was wanted was no exclusion or monopoly, but one of the branch banks, and that it was refused because it tire same privileges for the people of Ireland that the bad been drawn by an active party in resisting the mono people of Scotland possessed. They wanted the same poly of the Bank of Ireland. Indeed he believed the Bank facilities in the negotiation of bills, and to remove the of Ireland had in several instances abused its power. The * gross injustice that at present existed. Why, he would Righ Hon. Gentleman had that night stat ed that the charter was only to continue for three years , but in an in. ask, was Ireland for five years to have inflicted upon terview which a deputation had had with that Right her that which was admitted to be an injustice, and Honourable Gentleman, he stated that if no oppo one that must be remedied at the expiration of that it s f . tio o n r t e w a as .e a offered ts period ? The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets wa,s altogether wrong in his facts with respect to the dering the ) evils of Upon continuing lN the o monopoly 'were so Bank of England, and he was equally so with respect to manifeet, and the arguments of the Chancellor of the the Bank of Ireland. In Scotland,and every country where Exchequer in favour of it were so fallacious -looking there was free and open banking, the variation of the to the admission that had been made by the Chancellor of currency was never equal to that which it had been the Exchequer, that Joint Stock Banks in themselves were under the management of the Bank of England. The good, and that all the evils that had arisen were from mil. principle of banking was now understood by the majo- management, he trusted they would succeed in defeating city of the banks, and they found to their cost that if ) this Bill. Sir WM. SOMERVILLE also opposed the Bill , and they issued more money than commerce required, runs complained of the period at which it had been introduce d, instantly took place upon them, and they were obliged we and which h f b i its bad t o the having honour been t e printed di to find bullion. The Irish people, so far from agreeing with the Hon. Member, wished to have the system o cal, and every other party represent, (Alatgh.) y, Whi g,wereunited Scotch banking established there. It appeared to him in one common band in opposing the Bill. He was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting most to think they should be united in opposition to her Ma improperly in introducing this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) jesty's Government; but he had been called upon by his What were hi s arguments formerly, when he was anxi- constituents either to resign his seat or oppose the Bill. out to establish Joint Stock Banks ? Why, then he He had always given an honest and conscientious, and was for ado tins the s stem of Scotch banking but a disinterested support to the Government, because he felt , they . had introduced measures that were calculated to now he was of a contrary opinion.—(Hear, hear.) benefit his country. He, however, thought the Bill now What was the cause of that ? Had the Joint Stock proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have honking system failed? Clearly not ; but the Right quite the contrary effect, an 3 therefore he should oppose it, Hon. Gentleman had changed his o inions. _I - le Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the thong the Right Hon. Gentleman was p treating Ire- House divided, when the numbers were— land most shamefully in introducing the measure, and For going into Committee 57 he should therefore support his Hon. and Learned Friend's motion, and every other motion that had for its object the prevention of the Bill passing in its pre sent odious shape. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to say a few words relative to the grounds of the vote he intended to give, and he entreated the Howe to support him in that vote. He did not For the amendment l9 Majority against the amendment —3B The House then went into Committee, Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. On the first question which arose, Mr. O'CONNELL said he meant to take the sense of the leas House on that question, for there had not been the havet reason given ruu why the peopleo conside ring th e should not the f3a e k th 0 f Ir matter. el„tnd support the present arrangement of the Bank of Ire- Nor had he given any reas y on why land because he thought it the best arrangement that should continue to enjoy this monopoly. If the Bill had could be made.—( Hear, hear.) But what he urged been brought in at a proper period, instead of 20 petitions r n Hon. Members was, that if they did not pass this there would have been 509 , with a million of signatures , Bill they would get a worse system of banking. Flit and every Irish Member, under the direction cf his consti wished to state to those who supposed he had hostility tuents would have given his moat determined oppcsition to to Joint Stock Banks in introducing this measure, that the measure. There was no institution so unpopular as the by this Bill their present privileges would be increased Bank of Ireland. Thegallery was then cleared for a division, but none , and others given to them which they did not at present t ook place. On our re-admission we found 1 possess.—( Hear, hear.) But then it was said if such - Mr. HUME on his legs objecting to the trifling amount I was tlee ease why not go further, and to that he would of the discounts of the Bank of Ireland—in 1808 they i assurer that it could not be done with safety. He had amounted to 2,978,0001.; in 1819 they were reduced to been attaaked from all sides with respect to this men- 1 800 000/. ; in 127 they amounted to 2.900,0001. ; in 1 sure—some . had said that he was acting unfairly and 1829' 'the had increased u , 30 6 0 4 , 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 /. 1 ; and in 18 4. 36 ed th f ey unjustly towards the public in bringing it forward— had been ' again reduced t to 3, and others had said that he hed introduced this monopoly on the ground of its giving them )? tl a ie . p ower or it net pported by any of his colleagues. Now, in an- of assisting the commerce of Ireland, and he would . ask the serer to the latter assertion, he would state, without Right Hon. Gentleman how he could make it appear that any reserve, that he did not propose the measure with- this Bank, poss..ssing as it did so large an amount of die. Oat the approval of every Member of Lord Melbourne's p otable capital, and affording such small accommodation in the way of discount, could be said to benefit the coun- Government.—(Hear, hear.) He could assure the tr h y. Again,.tlie Hon. Member for Newry had stated that House most sincerely that the measure had been brought t with men of that part of the country had no forward in good faith. Then it had been stated as an connection eem ier : i t then,. could the Back of angument against the renewal of the charter to the Ireland benefit it. It was . a positive ', lnjUry. Bank of Ireland, that it gave too little accommodation The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was to the public, while the evidence that had been adduced somewhat surprised at what bad fallen from the Hon on the subject proved that it gave too much.— . Gentleman on the question of discount. He was satisfied (Cries of ° Hear,- hear.") With respect to the that every bank would do as much business as it could necessity for taking the present steps, it was only ne- do with safety. The rate of discount at present was 6 per cessary for him to state that from the provisional ar- edit. Now, unless the Directors of the Bank of Ireland rangement, for it was only provisional, he obtained con- were unlike every other men in the world, it was hut likely siderable economy for the public, for by it he took out that the , would he content with investing money at 3 per of the market, for the benefit of the public, no less a cent. when i they could get 6 per cent for it. He believed sum than one million of Exchequer Bills. He had been that it was never necessary to stimulate any banking esta - blihment to increase their discounts ; the necessity was much blamed, and had received many taunts, on ea- quitee,er he other way. way. With regard to this question, how count of the late period of the Sesslen in which the s e - d en b tur t e h_ to assert, that if the accounts of Bill was introduced ; but was that fair ? They were all disco'un e ts w afford Joint tack Banks for the same aware of the manner in which the public business period were examined,. they would not be found greater in was stopped early in the Session, in the expectation proportion than the discounts afforded by the Bank of Ire of a change in the Administration ; and many gentle- land. men were present who were aware that both in that Mr. HUME said the principle propounded by the House and out of it he had pressed his Noble Friend Right Hon. Gentleman would be quite right if there were for an opportunity of bringing in the Bill, but his Noble competition. But by doing away with competition they were placing the Bank in that situation that they might act Friend (Lord J. il -. .usseli) was so pressed on the one side, as they pleased, either politically or otherwise. At the and entreated on the other, that he had found it im- y e e f ry fr ti l m r e d the Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Bank possible to do so. It was said that the people of Ire- eareetini lowering w s e o r i a o. prudently the a m a: a r a e t g e a f r d t e h d e . theirr bullion. - Ia r d were not aware of the Bill. Now, what were the count e s, a the w y a w s facts of the case ? Why, that Newry, Ross, and Wex- By this conduct they induced other bankers to l make over- ford had petitioned against the renewal of the Bank issues, and thus produced that very panic which they now Charter so much as two months ago, which proved tcok credit to themselves for stopping. Why should not that they had plenty of notice of the Bill. What was competition produce the same beneficial effect in Dublin the character of the opposition that had lately been got up. that it did in Belfast. He urged the Right Hon. Gentle- There was a private bank of the most absurd and foolish man to pause, and to take time to consider before he pro nature of any that had ever been started—one person ceeded further. He was surprised to hear that night, for the first time, that notice bad not been given. What had was the founder of it, and his only partner was the person the Chancellor of the Exchequer been about ? He had whom he employed to engrave his notes. One of been neglecting his duty. Wby not have negotiated in them lately bought 101. and the other 35/. of the 1838, and have saved the country 23,6004, which it had lost stock of the Bank of Ireland, for the purpose o f giving , tb h y e this delay of two years ? them the power of voting at the meeting of proprietors , CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said . held lately in Dublin. These were the proposers and r that the whole course of the proceeding showed that he seconders of the resolutions. It had been said that he had not given the notice. et Suppose he had done as the was n enemy to the principle of Joint'Stock Banking. Hon. Gentleman desired , given the notice in February, h On the contrary, he felt great pride in having been one should have been called on to p a y back the mone y . of the first and principal persons who got up the Pro- Mr. HUME said his Hon. Friend, the Member for vin c i a l Bank, and he fully believed it had done much Dublin, had been deceived, as well as himself. They had g"d- He wanted to foster theinciple, but at the both understood that notice had been given. It ought to pr same time he wanted to keep it within bounds, as only have been given then; and the Chancellor of the Exche quer should have borrowed the amount necessary and an h d e . so wouldg distress tislarove beneficial to the country. When the banking repaid the Bank. It was not so easy to do Agricultural all theisted in Ireland, the National, the would admit, but it would have been perfectly easy to now , Joint Stock Banks were saved from raised the money at that time. The public ought to have ruin by the advances te of the Bank of Ireland, which in been left free, and the Government ought to have placed crises were made to extent of 270,0001., yet those the Bank of Ireland in the situation of suitors to them. banks now op that He would advise the Right Hon. Gentleman to lose no their benefactor. He did not, however, lleliev ia etime in giving the notice, and then bring the question on banks, as there was opposition came from the of the from one of them early next . Session. The people of Ireland would be better against the Bill on the tall): and Learned Member from Dublien House. The Hon. satisfied if the subject were treated in this manner, even if it should be eventually determined to continue the' in a state of decay, and in proof of said that city was that he referred to nopoly for four years longer. At present he considered it the returns of the Post-office Revenue. a job . Every thing that went against the public he called that in the period be referred to there Was a bee h n e a aw su ar m e a job. . J. ABEL SMITH protested against the argu . of 26,0 taken from the Dublin Po re ste e ferest . arrangement being come to with the' by a dif- ments made use of by some of the opponents of this men. Department, and another sum of 10,030 E Ordnance sure. He considered that every bank issuing notes to a 4 gages and. towns around Dublio, from which was the vil- large amount, and holding large deposits, ought to be T he W aS no w obliged to hold large quantities of stock, or of other im charged to another account? Customs' a Re- mediately available security, in order to meet any call that venue of Dublin had increased in ratio as that of Belfast, which was well knowgrneatto a t might a b n e made upon them. He considered the t te e th co e n h d i uc h t e o st f be he . B kof Ireland in this respect the most thriving port or town in Ireland ; yet it was wellworthy the ' g ' said Dublin was decaying. He had been taunted, that Praise, and that their example was Lion of every other banking establishment. given to Ireland, except b Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was obvious the more no moral stab was ever Irishmen ; he thought that might have been spared. except by stock ß any bank possessed the more solvent it must be. had been in the House before the Hon. and ve u r t me this bank had first the capital stock invested in Go- Het se s v ecurities, which was erfectly right—but they Learned Gentleman ; he had acted then, and he was received not conscious of ever acting from any other motive, for ":11, and if these from tro p public in the shape of count, surely the public deposits He would agree thatright the benefit of his native country.—( Hear, hear.) They public only receivedsei:aheree millions were locked up and the ought to discuss it as a question of great commercial i t f d o a urmillions in the shape of die- interest, and not in such a manner as that had been from m wereola tti they, n . Themore ca e theFef i ore but that was a bad system . therefore, to let this bank Pl have were monopoly. "pita the bank had locked the more solvent theto expect thl ie greater safe—but c %m u; the first. The whole question must soon come to be discussed, but it would not then be a question of a would it be; monopoly for the Bank of England that of Ireland, nor bank safe at the expense of the the monopoly which made but the t question must then be the establishment of the accommodation. public who stood in need as . eat central bank of issue.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. J. ABEL SMITH considered that every bank was t r w eg o ar i d oi t n o t. e st met b it a i n o h n, he us ' ' ' ~ 'ng of paper money payable on de- I bound to hold an amount in readiness sufficient to meet 1 es already two ts; t e-e -W ei_ i ...:3%-.....-71-' at national calamity to any coun- I its notes and c i e ts re de w p e o r s e its s . il, Ys i n zi n r e ,a. .. He asked the House to affirm understood . h , it . ;:priacir ep -ill, not because it the b was eat, Dublin, which, although tiler did • banks in not issue notes, eis- L 414 ; ,befitUs4 it wttiefib , safest ; above all he asked them , counted largely ; so that in this respect at least there' was t - ' do o for the ' competition. 4 bargt and prosperity of Ireland at the I -- • - i time. ' - 14 , Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the public were 1 entitled to greater accommodation for the money they ad vanced than the Bank of Ireland afforded those who kept an immense amount of their capital lying idle. Mr. SIIA W said the difficulty in Dublin was to get good bills to discount, and not to get bankers to discount them. Two banks had already withdrawn from business, because the amount of their transactions was so small. Mr. HUME would ask why, then, they should be afraid of letting in other bankers, and why they should seek for monopoly ? According to the evidence of Mr. Gunning, the banker, commercial bills were better for bankers to hold than Exchequer bills or Government securities, which were not always available without loss. Therefore the Bank of Ireland acted wrong, and the public were thereby deprived of that accommodation which they ought to have. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would remind the Hon. Gentleman that the capital lent to the Government could not be considered as immediately avail able; it was what bankers called a dead lock-up, and there fore any argument raised on that assumption was a fallacy. Mr. FINCH would ask what would be thought of any banker who should lend three-fourths of his capital to one customer, and bind himself down not to call for repayment without a long notice. He would vote with the Hon. Member for Dublin on every division which he thought it necessary to call for. Mr. ELLIS said, with respect to commercial bills, he i was one of those who thought that unless the Government securities of the country were placed on a better footing, parties would be much more anxious to lay out their money on commercial bills than Government securities. After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. A. SMITH, the Committee divided, when there appeared For the original motion 49 Against it Majority 29 On our admission we found Mr. O'CONNELL on his legs, moving the omission of the words " hereinbefore recited Acts" from the Ist clause, on the ground that the Acts were not specifically mentioned in the clause. The Committee divided, and there appeared—. Ayes 42 Noes lB Majority for the clause —24 Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that the following words be added to the clause, " in the schedule hereunto annexed mentioned." That would give an opportunity of attaching a schedule to the Act, and specifying each of the Acts, as was done in the English Municipal Reform Bill and the Irish Municipal Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob jected to the introduction of the words now, although he would not object to them on the bringing up of the Report. The Committee divided and the numbers were— For the amendment . Against it 39 Majority against the insertion of the words —2l On our re-admission we found— Mr. ELLIS on his legs moving that the Chairman should report progress. Mr. PRYME thought it would be impossible to proceed with any Bill if such a practice was to be persevered in, as it would give an opportunity for a small minority to defeat any measure. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the observation of the Hon. Member would have been justified if the Bill had been introduced in proper time. The Committee then divided, when there appeared, For the motion Against it Majority —23 On our return to the gallery we were again ordered to withdraw, the motion for reporting progress having been again made. The Committee divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it 39 Majority On our re-admission we found the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER on his legs, stating that he thought it was useless to persevere in opposing the motion for reporting progress, but if they did so, he should propose that the House should sit again at 12 o'clock to-morrow. Mr. O'CONNELL said that there was no opposition or delay that the forms of the House would permit that he would not make to the House to sit at that hour. He was now ready to proceed with the Bill till five o'clock in the morning, and if the question was put with respect to sitting at twelve o'clock, he should move that five o'clock be substituted, and would take the sense of the House upon it, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would, under those circumstances, go on with the Bill at five o'clock to-morrow. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at Five o'Clock. The House then resumed. Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the profession of Attorneys and Solicitors in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman also obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the incorporation of the Society called the King's Inns in Dublin. DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH'S PENSION. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt the Parliamentary grant to the heirs of John Duke of Marlborough, from the payment of the duty of one shilling and sixpence in the pound. Mr HUME objected to such a motion being made at so late an hour. Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved, as an amendment, that the House do adjourn. He objected to Bills of that de scription being introduced at so late a period of the Session. Strangers IN cre then ordered to withdraw, and the Houst divided— For the motion . 39 For the adjournment 31; , jority. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA -39 Mr. MARK PHILLIPS moved for copies of the cor respondence which has taken place between the India Board and the Court of Directors of the East India Company since January last on the subject of Steam Communication with India. Sir J. C. 110BHOUSE objected to the publication of the correspondence, as it was confidential. After a short discussion, The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. H. HINDE moved for an Address, praying " that her Majesty will be pleased to give directions that an en gineer or engineers may be appointed to inquire and report upon the relative merits and the preference which ought to be given to the respective already surveyed and projected Railwas between London and Edinburgh, following, namely, via Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Berwick, via New castle-upvn-T yne and Ilexlipm, via Lancaster, Whitehaven and Carlisle, via Lancaster, Penrith, and Carlisle ; the said Inquiry and Report to include the relative merits c! the two lines from London to York by Derby and Re therham, and by Cambridge and Lincoln."—Agreed to. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL moved ror copies of the memo rial of Mr. R. Haig to the Lords of the Treasury, bearing date the 30th day of May, 1822. and of the answer thereto of the Bth day of July, 1822. Copes of all the Treasury minutes made upon the said memorial, and of all proceed ings showing the result of she inquiries directed by their Lordships to be made in regard thereto.—Agreed to. The House adjourned at half-past One o'Clock. BUDE LIGHT. LIGHTING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Last evening basing been fixed for the purpose of test ing the comparative merits of the Bude Light, and of the " short threes," or as Sir F. Trench somewhat quaintly expresses it, of trying " the Philosopher's light" against " the Gentleman's light," considerable curiosity was ex cited in consequence. For the purpose of giving full effect to the Bude Light, fourteen lenses of ground glass of con siderable size were fixed, seven on each side, at equal dis tances, in the skylight which runs along each side of the House. The procesLof illumination commenced at about a quarter after seven, nd was completed in a quarter of an hour. At first the light was rather insufficient, but it gradually increased in intensity until the whole interior of the House was brilliantly illuminated in such a manner as to produce quite a dioramic effect. The light in the gallery was now intensely powerful and dazzling, but it was speedily sub dued,thus proving that the intensity of the light is completely under command and can be varied at pleasure from a mild moonlight to a brilliancy as dazzling as that of the sun. It would be hardly fair to form a decided opinion on a first experiment, but we have no doubt that the Bude Light may be so regulated as to become most efficient. At 9 o'clock the Bude Light was extinguished, and " the short threes" substituted; and we must confess that "the Gentleman's light" was merely " darkness visible" after the " Philosopher's." CHARTIST ADDRESSES TO THE QUEEN. BRISTOL, MONDAY EVENING.—This being the first of the " three days' grace" granted to the working classes "by order . ' of the National Convention, to prepare for the " sacred month," the members of the Bristol Working Men's Association convened a public meeting on Brandon Hill, by means of large posting bills, to consider the present state of affairs and to address her Majesty, requesting the dismissal of the present Ministry, the dissolution of the present Parlia ment, and the convening of one disposed to pass the People's Charter, and to dissolve the union between England and Ireland. The working men also respect fully request her Majesty to discharge all political of fenders, and to pardon Francis Roberts, Joseph Howell, and John Jones, convicted of riot and arson at Bir mingham, and who now lie under sentence of death. The bill announced that the procession would leave the rooms of the Working Men's Association in Temple -street precisely at ten o'clock ; the members did not muster, however, till near twelve. Mr. CLARK took the Chair, and told the meeting that they were slaves to both factions, that the Tories had governed them for fifty years and incurred a debt of 800 millions, and the Whigs had ruled for seven years and increased it 9.0 or 100 fold. Mr. LEWIS then moved an address to the Queen. Several other persons addressed the meeting, and the address to the Queen, praying her Majesty to pardon the three men convicted at the Warwick assizes, was unanimously adopted. TAXING AN ATTORNEY'S BILL.—On Tuesday an action was brought in the Secondaries' Court by an attorney, named Wright, to recover the sum of 201. Bs., being the amount of a bill of costs. It appeared the de fendant, who had lately taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, had applied to a fellow-prisoner, who was a solicitor, to extricate him from his difficulties , and the latter intro duced him to the plaintiff. It was not until three days after the defendant's discharge that the plaintiff sent in his bill for the above amount. The Secondary, on looking over the bill, said the charges were ton high, and as the di-fen‘iaiit i.ai not gut taxed, the jai could gi,e such amount as they thought fair. The jury, in a few minutes, I returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1839 the throwing of the soil and rubbish into the River. It may have been done by the sub-contractor. After some further conversation, the Counsel con ferred together, and at length terms of reference were agreed upon. Lord DENMAN then addressed the jury and said, that according to the arrangement that had been en tered into, they would have to return a verdict of guilty against the defendants. They had undertaken to re move and remedy the nuisance that had ;been already occasioned, and it must be understood by all persons having an interest in such works, that persons employ ing others to execute works of this description, were bound to see that they were not carried on so as to become a nuisance to the public. if the defendants did not abate the nuisance in a satisfactory manner, they would be brought up for judgment, and the Court would take care to inflict such a punishment as would effectually prevent the nuisance in future. The Jury then returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendants entered into recognizances to appear, and receive judgment if called upon to do so NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LANCASTER, Auo. 12. James Lucky, aged 28, and Julia Lucky, his wife, aged 21, were indicted for the wilful murder of Michael Donohue. at Preston, in the month of December lest. The prisoners had been remanded from the last Assizes in consequence of the absence of some witnesses who had been present at the inquest, but who had since kept out of the way. Further evidence, however; having been procured, a bill was found against them at these Assizes, and they were put on their trial. The prose cution was conducted by Mr. Segur ; the prisoners were defended by Dr. Brown. From the testimony of one Anthony Joyce, it ap peared that he wrought under the deceased, who was a gangsman on the Preston Railway. On the evening in question the deceased received at Penwortham the money to pay the men under him, and, accompanied by several of them, went to the house of J. Lacky, where he lodged. On going into the house he sat down, and asked for the account against him in the shop for himself and the men in his employment. Julia Lacky went out, and returned with a docket which she showed to the deceased and his timekeeper, one Ridley. The deceased said he would not pay it unless she brought him a proper bill, and he had day and date for all he had received. She refused to go for such bill, but was finally persuaded by her husband to do so. She came back, however, with out it, and insisted upon being paid the money. While the dispute continued, Michael Lacky, a brother of the prisoner, who had been present at its commencement, but had gone out, returned with thirteen or fourteen men from the works on the North-road. On their en tering the house the front door was locked and the back door was bolted. The prisoner Julia then repeated her demand for the money, Paying if he did not pay it she would hav e hi s lif e . H e st ill refused unless he had a proper bill. She then struck at him, and he rose and pushed her away. The prisoner James then struck him, and was followed by Michael and Patrick Lacky, together with another man, a stranger, who was not identified. He resisted them for some time, but was finally knocked down. He, however, got to his feet again, crying, " Oh, James, mercy, mercy ;" the blood streaming from a wound in his head. He was again k noc k e d down, however, and the witness and a man named Goggan, who had endeavoured to interfere, were thrust up a small lobby leading to the back door. The deceased became insensible from the blows he received while on the ground, and while in this state his pockets were searched by the prisoner James, and a quantity of silver taken from them. The prisoner Julia held the candle while he counted it. She then ex claimed, " He has got a shilling more." This they searched for, and it was found beside the deceased, who was lying on the floor. In the mean time a crowd had been collected round the door, some of whom threw open the window and pushed back the shutters. These corroborated the testimony of Joyce. They further stated that the prisoner Julia was heard to say in the course of the quarrel, " Shake the money out of him," and that after it had been taken from his person Patrick Lacky gave him several kicks on thehead and jumped upon his adomen. On the parties at the window crying out and endeavouring- to force the door, all the parties made their escape by the back door. One of them was seen by a boy to have a knife in his hand. The body was found by the constables a few minutes after lying in the middle of the floor. There was a deep cut on the left temple, as if inflicted by a severe stroke from a sharp instrument. Other contusions were per ceptible on the back of the head, and there were marks of finger-nails on the throat. He was quite dead, and on opening the body there was found to be a most exten sive extravasation of blood, which had produzed instant death. The Jury found both the prisoners guilty of man slaughter. His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, said the Jury had taken a most merciful view of their case, and, looking at all the circumstances, he had no hesitation as to the sentence which he should pronounce, and which would be the most severe which the law imposed for that crime of which they had been convicted. Prisoner James Lacky—Oh, mercy, mercy, my Lord. " I cannot forget," said his LORDSHIP, " that when that unfortunate man whom you have hurried into eter nity cried to you, James Lacky, for mercy, he cried in vain. The sentence of the Court is, that you and each of you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural lives." The prisoner James Lacky repeatedly exclaimed, " Oh, my Lord, my Lord, let us go together ; and the female prisoner, who was a very pretty young woman, fell on her knees, shrieking out, " Oh, my children, my poor children, what will become of them ?" She con tinued repeating these exclamations as she was removed from the dock. CHESTER, AUGUST 12. THE CHARTIST TRIALS. The Assizes commenced to-day. Mr. Baron GURNEY, in charging the Grand Jury, .aid—There are nearly twenty persons counted in the calendar for having riotously assembled ; but the depo sitions which have been returned to me carry the cases much further than those of ordinary cases of riot. They disclose the laborious machinations of evil-minded men to infuse discontent into the minds of the mass of the operatives, and, indeed, of the labouring classes in ge neral, by teaching them that the higher and middling classes are their tyrants and oppressors. I have reason to • believe, from the depositions which I have read, that bills of indictment will be preferred to you, charging some with riotously assembling, some with using seditious words, ,and others with an un lawful conspiracy. To constitute a riotous assemblage you must have three persons. The depositions state that these assemblies have taken place at unseasonable hours, and under circumstances which would necessarily produce terror among the peaceable and well-disposed part of the community. The depositions all state the language to be of the most seditious description. For the purpose of making a conspiracy it is not neces sary that they should all have known of it ; but if, by means of these speeches and publications they are in duced to act, though at a distance from each other, in the execution of the same plan, they are still conspira tors : the act of one is the act of all. An act done in this county for the furtherance of the common design is an act for which they are all answerable, even though the parties should never have designed it ; and though they'should reside in another county they may be pro perly charged in one and the same indictment. The arrest and prosecution of these persons in this stage of the proceedings is an act of mercy to them. It is but too apparent that if allowed to go on unchecked they would undoubtedly be involved in a charge of treason ; but to prevent these practices it is necessary that the strongest arm of the law should interfere. The aiders and abettors of such acts will find the law too strong for them, and the most rigorous punishment will be inflicted on those that are found guilty. But in a Court of Jus tice the guilty and the guilty only, will be punished. The Learned Judge's exposition of the law relating to conspiracy is said to have been anything but satisfactory to the assembled Chartists who attended the Court ; and those who have to be tried for that offence enter tain an opinion that they will be found guilty. The good folks of Chester were terribly alarmed at the expected ingress of Chartists, but they have not ar rived in large numbers as yet. The trials, however, of the Chartists are not expected to come on until the lat ter end of the week. The authorities appear to have apprehended a riot, and the Mayor in consequence issued a notice. The city is well protected. Independent of its being a garrison well filled with troops and ammunition, 500 special constables and 200 pensioners have been sworn in. The Mayor also applied to Lord John Russell or the subject of calling out the Cheshire Yeomanry, and the following is the reply to that application : " Whitehall, August 9, 1839 " Sir,—l am directed by Lord John Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th, and its enclosure, and to inform you that he has re quested the Lord-Lieutenant of Cheshire to call out the Yeomanry Cavalry, and post it in the neighbour hood of Chester during the trial of the Chartists next week. Directions have also been ghen for sending 60 cutlasses to the clerk of the peace for the specia constables. " I am, &c., " S. M. PHILLIPPS." The yeomanry are now stationed in the town, but one troop was despatched to Macclesfield at 3 o'clock this morning to protect that town, as an express was sent to Chester, stating that it was anticipated, from the excited state of the people, that a disturbance would take place to day. All is peaceable here, and no further news has been received from Macclesfield. A disturbance took place in Manchester to-day in cele brating the commencement of " the national holiday." Seven fresh arrests are said to have taken place in that town this morning. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE HOME CIRCUIT—CROYDON, AUG. 13. HOLMES V. NEWLANDS. This was an action of trespass of a very extraordinary character. The declaration charged that the defendant, who is a minister of the Scotch church, had broken and entered a certain close, and destroyed the walls and buildings therein. To this the defendant pleaded that one Wm. Hedger had a legal title to the close in question, and that he had acted as his servant. To this plea the plaintiff rejoined that the trespass was made after the passing of a certain Act of Parlia ment, and that the claim of William Hedger did not accrue within twenty years of the passing of that Act. The defendant then pleaded that there had been no adverse possession according to the terms of the Act in question, and upon this issue was joined. Messrs. Thesiger, Platt, Clarkson, and Chambers were for the plaintiff ; Mr. Channell and Mr. Peacock for the defendant. Mr. THESIGER addressed the Jury, and aid that he should have to lay before them, on behalf of the plaintiff, circumstances which were certainly of a most extraor dinary character. The defendant, in the prosecution of some real or pretended claim to property held by the plaintiff, had taken upon himself to commit an act of a most wanton and outrageous description. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to detail the facts of the case, and called the following witnesses :—. Edward Beale deposed that he was groom to the plaintiff. On the 27th June, his master, who resided in West-square, Lambeth, was from home, and he was in structed by his mistress to prepare the phaeton to take her a short distance into the country. He did so accord ingly, and before he went, he locked up and secured, as usual, the stable and coach-house, which were near his master's house at one corner of the square. When he g, he found that the stable h evening, ncompletely pulled down and and d ur t n h e e returned re o m m i e se ign hadthe ebveee destroyed, and were lying in a heap of ruins. Ellen Quish deposed that she was also a servant to the plaintiff. On the day in question she was alone in the house after her mistress had left to go into the country. Soon afterwards she observed seven men go to the house of the defendant, which was at a short dis tance from her master's. They were armed with saws, pickaxes, and shovels. Soon afterwards, in consequence of something which occurred, she went up to her mis tress's bed-room, and looked into the stable-yard, and she then saw several men on the roof of the stable and coach house, who were in the act of pulling down the premises. She then went down, and found that the gates of the stable-yard had been fastened, and she broke them open and went in. By this time a great mob had assembled, and the police had arrived. She then got upon the roof of the stable and found se• veral men at work upon it, cutting the rafters and tearing up the lead. At this time the defendant was in his own garden, and he said to the men, " Go on ; never mind that woman who is on the roof." He also told her she would remember it if she did not mind. At this time one of the men told the defendant that if the men kept on it would endanger their lives, and witness's too ; and the defendant said, " Work below," and wished them to go on. They, however, refused to do so. Soon af terwads Inspector Field arrived, and witness remained till her master came home. Richard Shoobridge said that he was present and saw the men at work. They sawed through the rafters, and then dropped them through the sky-lights. The de fendant was encouraging them all the time, and told them to go on, for that he was determined to have the place down. Ultimately there was not a portion of the chaise house or stable left standing-. Thomas John Jones corroborated the evidence of the preceeding witnesses, and said that upon his asking the defendant how he could adopt such a proceeding in the absence of the master of the premises, he replied that he had taken the opportunity in order to prevent any colli sion from taking place. Mr. Charle:Field, an inspector of police, deposed that he was sent for upon the occasion in question. He found a great crowd assembled, and the men were in the act of demolishing the premises. Observing the defen dant walking in his own garden he went to him, and asked him what was the matter, and he replied that was his business. He then said that the property belonged to him, and he would have the stable down. At this time one of the labourers called out that if they con tinued working, the servant's life would be endangered. The defendant immediately told them to continue their work. Witness then told the defendant that if anything happened he should hold him responsible, and he would take him into custody. He also gave the labourers a similar warning, and they desisted from working. Cross-examined—The woman said that she would defend her master's property. He did not hear the de fendant tell her to go down from the top of the stable. Sidebotham, another inspector of police, proved that the defendant told him that the place in question was a public right of way, and that he was justified in de stroying the buildings, and when he told him that he had better adopt a legal course, he said he was quite justified in what he did, and that he was acting under the advice of counsel. Two surveyors were then called, who estimated the actual amount of damage done to the premises at 128/ A number of witnesses were then called, who proved that the land on which the stable had been built had been used and occupied with the plaintiff's house since 1803, and that there had never been any interruption to that occupation. Mr. CHANNEL addressed the Jury for the defendant, and observed that in his client's presence he must ex press his regret that he had been led to commit the violence proved against him. It was quite unjusti fiable and unnecessary, and had a tendency to distract the minds of the Jury from the real question at issue. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that the plaintiff, by his own plea, admitted that he had no legal title to the property in question, but he took advantage of a recent Act of Parlia ment, the object of which was to protect parties who had been in the undisturbed possession of property a certain number of years, against the claim even of the rightful owner to it, and pleaded that because it had been in his possession a certain tinie, that therefore he was not to be disturbed. The Act of Parliament in question, however, required that the possession should be distinct and exclusive and adverse, in every sense of the word. Although he must admit that the plaintiff had proved an occupation of the place in question, he should be enabled to show that other parties had also used it, and he should be prepared to contend that there was not such an adverse possession as the law required to enable a party to take advantage of this Act of Parliament. Same witnesses were then called, who stated that they had seen rubbish deposited in the place in question upon several occasions. No material evidence was, however, adduced, in any way affecting the plaintiff's case. Lord DENMAN having briefly commented upon the evidence, said he should first call upon the jury to sa , whether they considered, upon the facts, that an ad verse possession of the premises, in bar of the original title to them, had been proved ? The jury almost immediately returned an answer in the affirmative, adding that they found for the plaintiff. Lord DENMAN said that the only question that then remained was the amount of damages. His Lordship then, with some warmth, proceeded to observe that this was not the only case that had come before him during the present assize in which parties bad chosen to assert their assumed rights in the most violent and extraor dinary manner. He did not know what would be the result if persons were to be allowed to endeavour to establish any right they might imagine themselves to possess by knocking down and destroying the property of their neighbours. He was every day in the receipt of letters from poor persons, complaining that they were prevented from enjoying property that belonged to them, and if they were to be told that they had a right by force and destruction to assert their claims, violence would be spread abroad, and the land would be deluged with outrage. He was very glad to hear that. the Counsel, both for the defendant and the plaintiff, con curred in the opinion as to the lawless character of the proceeding the defendant had adopted. It must be understood that no man, be his claim or title what it might, had the right to go with the strong hand and destroy his neighbour's property ; if a party was aggrieved the law afforded a remedy, and such violent proceedings as these could never be permitted. The Jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. —Damages 2001. AUGUST 14. THE QUEEN V. FLOWER. This was an indictment instituted by the Corpora tion of the City of London against the defendants Farnham and Henry Flower for a misdemeanour. cas A e l w r. a L s Aowneawddhircehssetdhethpe Jury, ublic a would nd l s o a o i the with h s t e h n e t greatest interest. The prosecution was instituted by the Corporation of the City of London, or rather by the Lord Mayor as the Conservator of the river Thames. The circumstances out of which the present prosecution arose were these. The Jury were aware that a very considerab:e excavation was going on in the river for the purpose of forming the site of the New Houses of Parliament, and that a large embarkment had been made with a view to the erection of a coffer dam. The defendants were contractors to Messrs. John and Henry Lee, the original c ontractors for the erections of the buildings, and their undertaking was to remove and carry away the soil and rubbish produced by the ex cavation. It would be shown that the defendants had taken upon themselves, from time to time, to have large quantities of this rubbish conveyed to a spot near a public-house, called the Red House, at Battersea, and that by their directions it was there cast into the river. Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, said that there could be no doubt that it was an offence. He would not attempt to deny that fact. Lord DENMAN—May I ask what answer the defen dant, intend to make? Ai to the law, there , n h. no doubt respectin g Mr. THESIGER—We do not intend to divine the law ; but our answer is, that we havo never authorised CENTRAL OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.) George Bailey, aged 23, a brickmaker, was indicted For assaulting, and robbing Hannah Robson, on the Queen's highway. It appeared that the prosecutrix, the wife of Henry Robson, lived at Hackney, where she carried on the business of a laundress. On Mon- day, during the course of the last month, as she was re turning home with a bundle upon her head, the prisoner emerged from a lane, knocked her down and beat her, and endeavoured to get the bundle from her, mak ing use of very abusive language. She gave an alarm and a policeman speedily arriving took the prisoner into custody. The policeman corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and Mr. Justice Williams sentenced him to be trans ported for 15 years. UTTERING FORGED C H EQUES.—Elizabeth Ballard, stated in the calendar to be 38 years of age, but who appeared considerably older, was indicted for uttering a forged cheque for 151. 10s., with intent to defraud Wm. Carruthers. Charles Blake, barman, at the Mason's Arms, Upper Berkeley-street, the landlord of which was Mr. Carru thers, stated that the prisoner came to the Mason s Arms on the 11th of June, and ordered half a dozen of stout to be sent to Mrs. Daniels, No, 5, George-street, Portman-square, and tendered a cheque for 151. 10s. in payment. He gave her the change ; he handed the cheque to his employer the following morning. Cross-examined by Mr. PRENDERGAST—IS sure the cheque produced was the one presented by the prisoner. William Carruthers, the master of the first witness, received the cheque from him, and sent it to his bankers, Claude, Scott, and Co., by whom it was returned. The cheque produced is the one returned by the bankers, but he will not swear it was the one given him by Blake. Blake, on being re-called, swore positively to the cheque. Mrs. Daniels, residing at George-street, Portman square, the lady of J. F. N. Daniells, Esq., deposed that her husband was now on his way to China. He never kept any account at Coutts's, on whom the cheque was drawn. The cheque produced was not in his hand writing. She was not acquainted with the prisoner. A clerk in the house of Coutts and Co., proved that the cheque was not in the hand writing of any person named Daniels, who kept an account with them. Mr. Whitmore, a house-agent, also proved that the cheque was not in the handwriting of Mr. Daniels. Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the Jury for the pri soner, and contended that the identity of the cheque was not clearly proved, neither was there any evidence to prove that the prisoner knew the cheque to be forged. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner—Not Guilty. The prisoner was again indicted for forging and utter ing a checque for 151., purporting to be signed by the Rev. Dr. Penfold. John Bird deposed that he was in the employment of Mr. Hitchings, landlord of the Stags Inn, New Caven dish-street. On the 28th of March last, the prisoner came to his master's and ordered one bottle of rum, two bottles of brandy, and one of gin, for the Rev. Dr. Pen fold, 15, Dorset-square, in payment for which she ten dered a cheque for 151., he gave the cheque to his master. The same evening the goods were sent to Dr. Penfold's house. Thos. Hitchings received the cheque produced from the last witness, but could not identify the prisoner as the person to whom he had paid the money. He took the liquor to Dr. Penfold's house, who told him that the cheque was a forgery. The Rev. Dr. Penfold swore the cheque was a for gery. He never authorized the prisoner to sign it, or to order any spirits of the publican. He kept no ac count with Coutts and Co., on whom the cheque was drawn. A clerk from Coutts's proved that no person named Penfold kept any account at their house. Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the Jury for the de fence. The Judge summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he understood that a great many charges of a like nature could be preferred against the prisoner, and sentenced her to transporta tion for life. William Davies, 28, a waiter at a tavern, convicted of stealing 15 sovereigns, 36 spoons, and a great quantity of other valuable property belonging to Samuel Orchard, his master, was sentenced to 15 years' transportation. Thomas James, aged 18, Michael .May, 18, and Ed ward Rynard, alias Banelt, 17, were indicted for steal ing one-half ton of lead, two cwt. of copper, and one brass-cock, value 191., the property of Henry Dodd. The . property, which had been stripped from several houses belonging to the prosecutor, was traced into the possession of the prisoners. The Jury found the pri soners Guilty. A former conviction baying been put in against May, he was sentenced to 14 years' transpor tation, and James and Bane to 7 years each. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION HOUSE. CONVICTION UNDER THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER Fists SUPPLY Au r.—Yesterday Mr. James Read, an extensive fish salesman at Billingsgate, was summoned before the Lord Mayor by Robert Crawley, a fish hawker, for having sold a greater number of soles in one lot than the Act of 42 Geo. 3, cap. 88, sect. 3, allows. Robert Crawley stated that the poor hawkers, with whom the town abounded, suffered extremely from the system adopted by the salesmen in Billingsgate market, as had been shown a few days ago to his Lordship, who wished to hear clear evidence of the fact in order to check the monopoly. He had gone to the defendant's form on Saturday last, accompanied by his brother, and seen soles in pots and pads exposed for sale. A fishmonger bought one pad for 15s. and two pads for 30s. The regulations in the Act of Parliament directed that of large soles there should not be more than twelve pairs, of small soles not more than twenty-four pairs, in one lot, and in the pre. sent case each pad contained considerably more than twenty-four pairs. Mr. Martin, of the house of Alderman Brown and Martin, solicitors, attended for the defendant, and asked Robert Crawley whether he kept a shop ? Robert Crawley replied that he did not. He formerly kept a shop, but that was knocked down by the monstrous fish monopoly. _ _ _ _ _ Mr. :`,lartin—You are the informer in the case. Do you not know that the informer is entitled to a moiety of the fine, if any be inflicted? Robert Crawley—l am aware of that ; but I do not wish for the informer's share of the pe nalty. My object is to hive justice done to myself, and the numerous other poor hawkers who strive for their bread in the streets, and are prevented by the system from getting it. I have my brother here to give evidence as to the fact. Thomas Crzwiey stated that he was present at the de fendant's form, and saw several lots of soles exposed. There were several persons bidding ; but the defendant, upon seeing him and his brother, did not say anything to the biddings. At last the defendant upon being bid t 53. a pad for the fish said, " Take them away ;" and they were taken away. Witness followed, and saw that each pad, which he was sure would hold 36 pairs, was full. The Loan MAYOR—Can you swear that any pad con tained more than 24 soles? Witness--I can swear that one ped would hold considerably more, and that it was full. The LORD MAYOR—That will do. Have you any fur ther evidence? Robert Crawley said that he and hi, brother were the only persons who witnessed the sale. Mr. Martin—We do not wish to take advantage of the want of proof in this case. We are anxious to :et the matter at rest; and I admit on the part of the defendant that the pad did contain more than 24 pairs of soles—very likely it contained 60 pairs. Robert Crawley—l waive all claim to my part of the pe nalty, and beg to be examined as a witness. I can swear that I saw more than 24 pairs of soles in the pad. The Loan MAYOR then ordered, upon the condition preferred by the informer, that he should be sworn, and he accordingly testified to the effect stated upon being exa- mined. His LORDSHIP then asked what Mr. Martin had to say against a conviction and the infliction of the penalty of 20/. upon Mr. Read for having sold more soles in a lot than the Act permitted ? Mr. Martin said that his client was a salesman in fish, in an extensive way of business, that he frequently had to sell upwards of 18,000 fish from five o'clock in the morn ing till twelve in the day. It was therefore indispensably necessary that he and the other salesmen should sell in lots greater quantities than the regulations according to the Act directed. If such were not the case the public would not have a supply. But at the same time that the sale, under these circumstances, deviated from the speci fied regulations, any person could purchase one fish at the market price, and not the slightest injury was done to any individual. The salesmen were determined to resist the Act. The LORD MAYOR—And I must enforce it. Mr. Martin then contended that the penalty of 20/. did not apply to the limit of the number of fish in each lot, but to the refusal of the salesmen to sell fish in smaller quantities, or by the single fish, at the market price, and that therefore the Lord Mayor had no power to inflict it in this case. The LORD MAYOR—I think I have a power, by the 4th section of the Act, which, in my opinion, refers to the of. fence of selling in lots containing more thanuiateceirmtapinosnsuibmie ber of fish, as well a s to the obligation to sell fish in s mall quantities. Mr. Martin repe ated that it would be q to supply the town if salesmen did not sell in lots con. taining much larger quantities than this, and which the change in circumstances made quite obsolete and imprac• ticable. The LORD MA yox—l f this ca hi s oo : un h w , ce e aas r nni e tdaa o tpe n t e in which I toan appealcxi jeprecf appeal, exercise ma a nn iiiemycaoi decision, choose, h u o r jurisdiction, p h ; l a y t t u o t t h e t a i r s l e e th wa r w o s an r i s i above, lshall convict. cot,ider it hut fair to mention to your Lordship that I hay, ti,ken the opinion of the Attorney. General on this subji et. ui )(anr p Nr r to i Met the pen , lty, ine,tioticd th 4th iee!io-, -end he stat , s it to be his opini o n that the I ,enAly of 201 , p01 , e4 only to the offence created by the 4th section of the Act of Parliament, and does not extend to those enacted by the 3d ; that the sth section authorises the Magistrat e s to sentence to pay a fi ne , or su ff e r im prisonment, p ersons w h o may -o ff en d aga i ns t the 3d .hut a eniivieti"o- adiu „ p• ,, ty t.• n! , • , • • PEACE OFFICERS.—Betwixt two hundred and three hundred of the most respectable inhabitants, rrer ti,'",-i, i t , Per;h. en oiled last week, ,:ti the - uo..va.cfathg." ;Y it Au aoda,ional nuolbec b (,;:c . this week. —Edinburgh Advertiser. agai • nst the Magistrate granting the warrant of distress. C 'CtiOn• ht. ••• ~,t rt knit L COURT teNI4 I ,N IN 4= DIT lON. The LORD MAYOR—You may get any opinion you wish for from a counsel if you draw up your case according to your wishes. I think nothing of a counsel's opinion ex cept I heard the other party in the case. It is in your power to appeal to the Quarter Sessions if you do not think the penalty is properly inflicted. Mr. Martin—lf your Lordship perseveres, it is certainly our intention to seek a remedy by action against your Lordship, and not by appeal. I therefore considered it but fair to state to you the Attorney-General's opinion. The LORD MAYOR—Very well, you shall have an oppor tunity of bringing your action against me. I shall issue the warrant, and I shall defend the action. I consider the Act was made for the protection of poor people. These complainants say that they sustain great injury by the ex isting practice, which is opposed to the Act, and what win I as a Magistrate to do but to convict? Mr. Martin submitted that the opinion of such a legal authority as lie had quoted might be considered to justify a hesitation as to the infliction of the penalty, and sug gested chat his Lordship should consult the City law authorities previously to his decision. The LORD MAYOR thought the better course would be to try the case with him, as the complainants were not able to afford law expenses. His Lordship then convicted Mr. Read in the penalty of 201. Mr. Read refused to pay the penalty, and the Lord Mayor ordered Brand the Marshalman, a very steady and cautious officer, to execute the warrant in as delicate a manner as possible. The salesmen present were evidently annoyed at the conviction ; one of them said that they were now placed in such circumstances, that if they continued to carry on their business, they would be liable to hundreds of informations. The Lotus MAYOR--Is not that a reason that I should convict ? The salesmen declared, most solemnly, that it was to the interest of the parties complaining that fish were sold in the manner objected to. The LORD MAYOR—I can see the difficulty in which the salesmen are placed. Perhaps this Act is now obsolete and improper, and requires material alteration ; but I believe it was made for the protection of the trade and the public, and I discharge my duty by convicting under it. I shall, however, save the salesmen from informations, by not granting any summons for the violations of the 3d section, until the trial shall have taken place : but if other sections of the Act be violated, I shall be ready to attend to the complaints. With respect to the observations of Mr. Martin, in the opinion of Counsel I cannot place implicit confidence, in a professional view, taken upon an exparte statement. If a Member of Parliament were present who framed an Act, and said that such or such a construction was not the meaning of Parliament, I would say to him. you are not Parliament, and I will ,not be influenced by your diction. Mr. Martin—Suppose, my Lord, you take the opinion of the law officers of the City on the subject. The LORD MAYOR—My experience tells me that justice is more equitably administered by those who are not lawyers than by those who are. Mr. Martin—After all the question must go to lawyers. The LORD MAYOR—My opinion is that the penalty of 201. applies to the allotting of the fish, as well as to the refusal to sell a small quantity. How are we to expect justice if the construction which lawyers alone put upon Acts of Parliament are considered decisive ? No. The Magistrate ought to put his own construction upon an Act, and leave it to the lawyers upon both sides to fight it out amongst them. I think there is a hardship in this case, and that an alteration consistently with the changes which have taken place should be made, but I consider myself bound to inflict the penalty for which I have already called. Mr. Martin—Your Lordship is not called:upon to enforce every Act of Parliament that is in bsing. The LORD MAYOR—If an offence be proved before use, I consider myself bound to convict until the Act which ren ders it penal is repealed. I shall not allow any other sum mons to issue on this section until the Courts of Law de cide which is in the right so that the salesmen will sustain no inconvenience. Mr. Martin and the salesmen were satisfied with his Lordship's assurance, and then left the justice-room. BOW- STREET. Yesterday two shoemakers, named John Andrews and John Dreton were brought before Mr. TWYFORD and Mr. WITHANI, a county magistrate, charged under the pro visions of 52 Geo. 111., chap. 155, sec. 12, with wilfully and maliciously entering Ebenezer Chapel,Denmarksstreet , St. Giles's, for the purpose of disturbing a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, denominated Baptists, assembled there for the purpose of religious worship. Mr. James Wells, a member of the congregation, stated that on the previous evening the defendants entered the Chapel during divine service, behaving in the most inde cent manner, and after the hymn had been sung, as they continued their annoyance, they were mildly requested by several persons to retire, but they refused in the most ob stinate manner, continuing their improper conduct. Mr. Wiruare expressed surprise that any men could be so insensible to religious feeling as to be guilty of such wanton conduct, particularly as they must have known what the object the persons in the chapel had in assembling together. The complainant assured the Magistrates that every means were adopted to offer insult, for one of the party cried out that they should have in some gin; and it being circulated in the meeting that the Chartists bad entered the chapel with the intention of taking possession and ejecting the congregation, several females rushed out of the house in the greatest consternation. Mr. TWYFORD inquired if the defendants were of any particular denomination to cause them making such a dis- , turbance ?—The complainant said that they did not at tempt to interfere with the tenets of the congregation, although their language and conduct were most disrepectful. Mr. TWYFORD asked how long the defendants remained in the chapel. The complainant replied that they continued there upwards of a quarter of an hour, and although the congregation had met there for the last nine years, the chapel being duly licensed, he was bound to admit that no annoyance ever was offered on any previous occasion. Mr. TWYFORD—Perhaps it would be necessary for the defendants and their companions, who may be ignorant of the law, to be informed what the punishment is for such an offence. The section of the Act runs thus If any person or persons do and shall wilfully and maliciously, or contemptuously, disquiet or disturb any meeting, assembly , or congregation of persons assembled for religious worship , permitted or authorized by this Act, or any former Act of Parliament, or shall in any way disturb, In e ' lest, or misuse any preacher, teacher, or person 0 6 " ciating at such meeting, assembly, or congregation , or any person or persons there assembled, such persons so offending upon proof thereof, before any two Justices of the Peace, by two or more credible witnesses , shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizances in the penal sum of 501., to answer for such offence; and in des fault of such sureties, shall be committed to prison, there to remain till the next General or Quarter Sessions, and upon conviction, shall suffer the pain and penalty of .10!." Two other members of the congregation corroborated the statement of the complainant—adding, that one of the defendants went out, and brought four others into the chapel in their shirt sleeves, who joined with them in brawling and disturbing the congregation. The defendants both denied that they caused any dis turbance, for they thought it was a Teetotal meeting ; and it was an exclamation from one of the meeting on seeing them epter the house that caused the confusion. Mr. TWYFORD inquired how often in the week the con gregation was in the habit of meeting. Mr. Wells said that their principal chapel was in the Borough Road, and this being only a branch chapel, the congregation assembled cnly on Tuesday evenings. In the first instance, when the defendant Dreton made a noise and beca iie conspicuous, he was requested to retire as he must have laboured under a mistake respecting the object of the meeting, and the others, with the exception of Andrews' who refused to stir, went away as they were desired. Mr. TWYFORD said that the defendants had so under stood each others movements, the act of the one appeared to be the act of the other, which subjected eaTch'ef them to similar punishment. The complainant and his friends declared .they had no vindictive feeling to gratify, and their only object in pre ferring the charge was to have the defendants repri manded, so as to prevent them or their 'compeers frog paying a similar visit at any future time. Mr. Tv,' vsotto said that private feeling had nothing to do with the subject, as the offence was one committed against public decency, and the defendants appeared not to express contrition for what they had done. After the Magistrates had conferred together, the de fendants, who still persisted in justifying their conduct, were ordered to put in two sureties in 50/. each, to answer any complaint that might be preferred against them at the Sessions, and as they failed in doing so, they were in the subsequent part of the day conveyed by the vari to prison._ PLATED CORNER DISHES, SEVEN GUINEAS the SET.—A. B. SAVORY and SONS , Manufacturing Silversmiths, No. 14, Cornhill, London (op posite the Bank of England), submit for choice in their Plate Rooms, Silver Handles and Shields, f or E ngrav i ng, from 7 Gui neas 10 Guineas the Set of f our ;b y removing the han dhs from the covers, eight dishes are f ormed when required. i t o with t many patterns of strongly Pl a t e d C orner Di s hes, N.B. A Pamphlet of the P r i ces of Plate may be bad on all"' cation. PATENT LEVER WATCHES' With silver d ou bl e -b ottom cases £6 6 0 v With silver hunting cases This celebrated construction (the roost accurate on which a watch can be made) i s now o ff ere d, with the latest improve' . ments e. the detached escapement, jewelled in four hole s, capped, ha n d t o mar k the seconds, hard enamel dial, and main taining pow er t o con ti nue go i ng w hil e winding up, at the above price, at T. COX SAVORY'S, Watchmaker, Silver and Goldsmith, 47, Cornhill, London► (Seven doors from Gracechurch-street). N.B.—Second-hand Watches purchased in exchange. BIRTHS. On the 12th inst., at Clapham-common, the lady of John Humphery, Esq., M.P., of a son. On the 12th inst., at West-hill, Wandsworth, the lady °f Henry Rucker, Esq., of a daughter. On the 4th inst., at Batheaston-cottage, near Bath, the lady of Carleton Crawford, Esq., of a son. MARRIED -• . On the 13th inst., at Hillingdon Church, the Rev. TheY rc T. Smith, .‘I.A•, Queen's College, Cambridge, to Rebecca, secon d daughter of Thomas William s , Esq., Coixley-g . °`e ' On the 13th inst. , at Trinity Church, Marylebone, Tho mas nea r Uxbridge. . ~ Georg' smith, 1.:,..q., of Montagu -street, ttu,sell-square, t° Aj ar y H arr iett. inkbinson, th, ~c mid daught e r of William ll° . .. binn. ~:sq. , • I Wup ti , .ut li-strett, Portland-place. On the 12th inst., at Brighton aged four y ear s, the Hon. G. Saekville Bateman Banbury, youngest son of Lord Bateman..,_ On the 12th inst., at Salt-hill, Sussex, Mary Ann, the wife of Zadik Levin, Esq., aged 52. On the 12th inst., at 1 - lolybourn, H an t s , M r . John William Sherwood, late cf IN ,,, vg , ve-qieet, aged 7:3. _._- ..:....... i a ~ ~ ie couniy .bittititetn.—'lhursaay, August 15, 1039• I